2023-03-06 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 6 March 2023

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

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:02 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 1

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022

Second Reading 1 10:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm very pleased to stand today to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. The opposition will be supporting this bill for a number of reasons, and we are glad to see the government has chosen the implement the former coalition government's reforms to paid parental leave which we announced as part of our March 2022 budget. The bill will provide increased flexibility, improve choice and ensure the Paid Parental Leave scheme is fit for purpose for modern families. The bill increases the total number of weeks of available paid parental leave from 18 to 20 and removes some of the constraints around the two-week period of dad and partner pay and the 12-week/six-week paid parental leave period breakdowns currently in place. We understand the importance of these changes because we know parents make household decisions around caring arrangements to reflect their own personal circumstances, so increasing the number of weeks from 18 to 20, with enhanced flexibility on how those weeks can be shared, reflects this need for choice and flexibility in modern households. It is also important both parents are able to spend the time they choose to spend with their new child, and the increased flexibility encourages both parents to have a period of leave. The bill removes the notion of primary, secondary and tertiary claimants, taking away some of the rigidity that exists—about who takes the leave, when and how—between the two parents. This bill also expands access to the scheme by introducing a $350,000 income test, which will ensure household income is considered when determining eligibility for PPL, rather than just the individual income of one of the two parents. We strongly support the increased flexibility this bill achieves, which allows parents to use the leave over a two-year period in a way they choose. This allows parents to take leave in one block, in multiple blocks or in whatever way works best for them and their particular family circumstances. This reform goes to the heart of what the former coalition government sought to achieve in enhancing PPL, which is why we're pleased that our announcements from the March 2022 budget are included in this bill. The coalition has a strong record of supporting government funded paid parental leave, and through my former role as minister for social services I was very proud to be part of a government that made important amendments to strengthen paid parental leave during the last term of parliament. Our PPL scheme gave families flexibility in choosing how they accessed their payments, giving either parent the option, depending on individual households' circumstances, with the last six weeks being able to be shared or taken any time. Importantly, we introduced special circumstances, allowing a parent to meet the work test if they'd been impacted by family and domestic violence, by a natural disaster or by a severe medical condition. We allowed JobKeeper and the COVID-19 disaster payments to count towards the work test for PPL to prove a genuine connection to the workplace, and we introduced indexation on the income threshold for the first time since the scheme was introduced. As this legislation implements, in the Women's Budget Statement in March 2022 we again underlined our strong commitment to the social and economic benefits of paid parental leave by announcing enhanced paid parental leave. Our enhanced paid parental leave represented an investment of $346.1 million over five years to expand PPL, giving working families full choice and control over how they used their 20 weeks of taxpayer-funded paid parental leave. So, once again, the coalition will support this bill, given the vast majority of changes reflect the important reforms that we announced as part of our last budget to enhance the scheme and ensure parents are able to make their own caring arrangements based on their individual circumstances. We will support the government in any sensible measures that seek to support Australian families, particularly where those measures reflect the former coalition government's policies. I'm proud the coalition was a real steward of paid parental leave in government, and our enhancements to the scheme saw it become a mainstay in every Australian life. But, where there are enhancements and improvements that can be made, we will absolutely make sure that we stand with those improvements if they are to the benefit of Australian families. At its heart, paid parental leave should make it easier for parents to make decisions that work for their particular families, that give them the opportunity to spend important time with their new child, unencumbered by the pressures of work where they choose to do so. The changes in this bill that provide greater flexibility for families to determine how they use those 20 weeks of leave reflect the changes in modern families, but this legislation also maintains what is a timeless aspect of paid parental leave, and that is the need to give parents time with their child. We absolutely understand the importance of paid parental leave in alleviating some of the additional pressures felt by families with the birth of a child, and we know that those pressures are particularly strongly felt at the moment, with cost-of-living pressures only rising under this government. Of course, we'll support good and sensible reforms to paid parental leave, to ensure families are supported through the scheme to take off some of these significant pressures. We'll happily support this bill, acknowledging that a huge number of the changes and a significant proportion of the increased flexibility that this bill delivers were adopted from the policies of the coalition, who announced these important reforms in 2022. I commend the bill. 10:07 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I rise to speak on this important bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, and I do so as part of a government filled with so many incredible women. In the week of International Women's Day, it's a pleasure to speak on such an important bill for Australian women and for Australian families. I think back to last International Women's Day and, especially, the one before that, and I think how much things have changed for Australian women—not only for women across Australia but also for women in this place. Our government took to the election very real commitments that had positive impacts on Australian women, from improving access to child care and making child care cheaper to closing the gender pay gap. Since the election, we've also made commitments to ensure that we end gendered violence within a decade. I know that some of these reforms are ambitious, but our government is committed to delivering them and to bettering the lives of Australian women. It starts with bills like this one today—bills that level the playing field and make things fairer and more equal for all families. The Albanese-Labor government is getting on with the job of delivering for Australians. The bill is just the start of the largest reform to paid parental leave since Labor introduced it back in 2011. It is really good economic policy to deliver these types of reforms. It will see fairness and equality in the way parents take leave. It will also see more flexibility in how leave is taken and will ease transitioning back to work for parents. I thought I would share a personal point of view for this bill. It's almost exactly a year ago that my wife and I welcomed our first child into the world. We celebrated her first birthday a few days ago. We had a really beautiful christening and family celebration. It's been a really busy year. It is really a time when you look back and think about those first couple of weeks, those first couple of months, and how important that time is together. When you have a new, little baby, it is an incredibly stressful time, and you want to spend all of your time with this new, perfect human. You don't really want to have to worry about going back to work. I'm incredibly lucky, and my family is incredibly lucky, that my wife works in a heavily unionised industry with a very good enterprise agreement which already allowed for flexible parental leave arrangements, meaning that she could take maternity leave while also having days that she could return to work. I think it's that open employer-employee relationship that allowed her to stay connected to her colleagues and her role that really made transitioning back to work easier. This transition option helped ease both my, and my wife's, mind in such a new and vulnerable position. I'm so grateful. Some families don't get that opportunity. People will tell you, time and time again, that babies are only little once and that time spent with these little, tiny humans is so important. It's so important for mums. It's so important for dads. It's so important for every type of family. Most of the time, though, it is mothers who are left without that work connection, deepening the economic gap between men and women in our country. That's why this reform is so important. We have also heard this, time and time again, across the country, particularly at the jobs and skills roundtables I held in Far North Queensland last year. We held forums in Mareeba, Cairns and Townsville. The No. 1 thing that was coming up was women returning to work—how difficult it was to get childcare places but also how difficult it was to manage the transition between paid parental leave and returning to work. I had women tell me that, even though they were the larger income earner, the system worked against them, making them take leave instead of their partner. We heard it again in the successful national Jobs and Skills Summit our government held last year. We listened and we are acting. Right now, the current scheme does not do enough to provide access to all parents, whether they're mothers or whether they're partners. It limits flexibility for families to choose how they take leave and transition back to work. The eligibility rules are unfair to families where the mother is the higher income earner. Our bill fixes these issues. It gives more families access to government payments, it gives parents more flexibility in how they take leave and it encourages parents to share care to improve gender equality. From 1 July 2023, the bill delivers six key changes. It will combine the two existing payments into a single 20-week scheme. It will reserve a portion of the scheme for each parent to support them both to take time off after the birth or adoption. We will make it easier for both parents to access the payment, by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers—which, I have to say, in a same-sex relationship is something that's quite interesting. But it's a really helpful idea that not one parent is the primary carer because we know both parents play an incredibly important role. We're expanding access by introducing a $350,000 family income test, which families can be assessed under if they exceed the individual income test. We are increasing flexibility for parents to choose how they take leave days. We are also allowing eligible fathers and partners to access the payment irrespective of whether the birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements. This bill goes a long way for Australian families. Around 181,000 will benefit from the changes in this bill. That's including more than 4,000 people who are eligible under the scheme. While the former government had an attitude of 'let's make some announcements just before the election', the Albanese Labor government are listening to Australians, and we're delivering this change in our first term of government. We are listening to businesses who are also crying out for these changes to support their employees, including the women in their workplaces. We are fixing and improving our systems that just aren't functioning the best way they can. We want Australians and their families to get ahead and not be left behind. We want parents, especially mums, to have good, secure jobs and families, and not to have to choose between work and taking care of their kids. That's what this bill will achieve. The changes in this bill send a clear message that treating parenting as an equal partnership supports gender equality. Our government value the care that men do as well, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and our communities. When fathers take a greater role from the start, it benefits mums, dads and their kids. We know this and we know that there are so many fathers out there that will really welcome the introduction of this scheme. The government's Paid Parental Leave reform is good for parents, it's good for kids, it's good for employers and it's good for the economy. I couldn't be prouder to be part of an Albanese Labor government, with its ambitious yet practical reforms that will change the lives of Australians for the better. It will particularly change the lives of Australian women for the better. It's always Labor governments that bring the country forward. It was a Labor government that introduced Paid Parental Leave back in 2011, and it's a Labor government that is today delivering a fairer and more flexible scheme. I commend this bill and I thank all senators who will be supporting this bill today. Parents will be better off. Women will be better off. Men will be better off. Employers will be better off. And this is just the beginning of delivering for Australian women. 10:16 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Happy birthday to Senator Green's little one. This bill is a step in the right direction, but they are baby steps, if you'll pardon the pun. One of the strongest messages coming from last year's Jobs and Skills Summit was the economic and social benefits of stronger paid parental leave. It was a theme that was repeated in the landmark work and care inquiry chaired by my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock. That inquiry has been hearing for women, families, businesses and academics around the country about the critical role that paid parental leave plays in keeping women connected to the workforce and in allowing families to juggle work and care responsibilities. A report released today from the Impact Economics and Policy group estimates that, since the introduction of paid parental leave just a little over 10 years ago, there has been an $8.5 billion rise in GDP due to the increased participation of parents, predominantly mothers. That report again confirms the importance of maintaining a link between parents and their workplaces during leave. Economists, families, women's organisations, unions and the business sector all agree that fairer, gender-neutral, flexible paid parental leave will unlock women's workforce participation and help close the gender pay gap, which, sadly, has persisted for decades now. Fairer paid parental leave will break down traditional gender roles and encourage more equitable sharing of care between parents. It will improve maternal and infant health by allowing time to recover from birth and establish breastfeeding where that's possible. It will give kids the best possible start, and it will set up good parenting habits for life. Yet, despite all of that, despite the clear benefits of a strong paid parental leave scheme, Australia's scheme is the second worst in the developed world. At just 18 weeks for birth parents and two weeks for partners—prior to this bill—it falls well behind the international best practice of 52 weeks, with structured 'use it or lose it' provisions for partners and higher rates of pay. After a decade of inaction, Australia is now playing catch up, and we're going too slow. This Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill is a welcome recognition of the need for reform and a recognition that the way we design paid parental leave needs to be stronger. We do support, of course, removing a distinction between primary and secondary carers that has locked mothers into the primary caring role. It's 2023 now; we can have a broader view on that. Combining the existing primary-care and dad and partner leave entitlements into a single entitlement that can be shared between both parents acknowledges that both parents have a critical role and allows families to decide how they want to share that care. We support the increased flexibility in how leave can be taken, and the introduction of a family income threshold to address the inequity of a family missing out because the woman is the higher income earner—a situation which does happen now because it is 2023 but which out laws had not countenanced prior to this bill. But it must be said, and it was said by almost all the submissions to the inquiry into this bill, in which I participated, that much more needs to be done. This bill doesn't increase the amount of leave available to families. It does increase by two weeks for single parents—and, of course, those are predominantly women. The government has committed to a staggered increase in paid parental leave entitlements, but it's not until 2026 that those increased weeks, up 26 weeks, will flow. Parents who have been calling for fairer leave entitlements for a decade are being asked to wait for another three years to get the international minimum standard. There is no reason to delay the implementation of good policy. Australian parents should have immediate access to at least 26 weeks of paid parental leave, and I'll be moving a committee stage amendment to make that so. Further, the government should be providing a pathway to 52 weeks of paid parental leave by 2030, as the ACTU, The Parenthood and many others are calling for. We welcome that this bill sets up the infrastructure for 'use it or lose it' provisions. Co-parents, especially fathers, need encouragement, sadly, to take up more responsibility for the direct care of young children. Currently only one in 20 fathers in Australia takes more than the two weeks of dad leave. The bulk of leave, and the bulk of care, still falls to mothers. The experience in other countries puts beyond doubt that 'use it or lose it' provisions do help increase men's in participation in caring, and they do so by reducing the stigma around shared care and flexible work arrangements. In Scandinavian countries, the number of fathers taking leave increased dramatically with the introduction of 'use it or lose it' provisions. Fairer sharing of care has now been sustained for more than a decade. When Canada introduced paid parental leave on a 'use it or lose it' basis, the percentage of partners taking leave in the first year doubled. We know that it works, we know that it creates a better system for all parents and children, so we support the introduction of the 'use it or lose it' component to paid parental leave under this bill. However, the two weeks 'use it or lose it' allocation in the bill, which effectively just replicates the existing provision for dads and partners, will not be enough to provoke that deep cultural shift towards shared care that we need, so we would like to see a significant expansion of the 'use it or lose it' allocation. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce is, I understand, looking at this issue at the minute, and we very much look forward to seeing its recommendations implemented sooner rather than later. 'Use it or lose it' provisions must be supported by campaigns to educate families about the benefits of shared care, incentives for employers to encourage both parents to take leave, flexible working initiatives to support juggling care responsibilities, and more affordable and accessible early childhood education and care. When I say more affordable and accessible, I mean free early childhood education, no matter where you live. That's the kind of revolution that we need to have equality in the workforce. Critically, Services Australia also needs to ensure that its staff are trauma informed and able to identify and respond to coercive behaviour, where abusive partners attempt to use the increased PPL flexibility as yet another weapon of control. We also support measures in the bill allowing partners to take leave, even where the birth parent does not meet the income or residency tests. This is a welcome extension of eligibility. However, the inflexible work and residency tests remain a barrier. The bar is too high and too rigid, and too many people are missing out. It's important that all families are supported to take leave in the early years of parenthood, regardless of their circumstances. My colleague Senator Faruqi will be moving an amendment to close a gap that prevents postgrad students from accessing PPL. I want to talk briefly about the rate of paid parental leave—sadly, yet another area where Australia has fallen behind other countries. It's currently set at the woefully inadequate minimum wage—a rate which we believe should be raised for everyone, and of which, I might add, women are disproportionately the recipients. It's set at that woefully inadequate minimum wage, and, as no surprise, it is now one of the lowest rates of paid parental leave in the OECD. Parents taking leave to care for kids marks a significant break in their career and their earning capacity. Women who take leave often return at reduced hours, defer promotions and reduce their overall retirement income. Replacement wages ensure that parents are not financially punished for taking time to care for their children. Higher rates of pay would also encourage shared care. Leave paid at well below normal wages forces families to make difficult decisions about how long they can afford to take leave for and who takes it. Without a change in the payment rates, parental leave will continue to be taken by the partner earning the lower wage, and, more often than not, sadly, this is still the woman. The Greens will continue to call for the rate of PPL to be increased to replacement wages, capped up to $100,000 per year, but we also note alternative models proposed by witnesses to the inquiry into this bill, including lifting the rate to the average wage, applying a livable wage or encouraging employers to top up government payments. The Greens urge the government to invite the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce to review the options for a PPL payment rate that will incentivise parents to take their leave entitlements. Finally, we know that periods of parental leave and part-time work on return from leave have been a contributor to the superannuation pay gap. A gap in super earnings for parents taking leave compounds over time and can result in that parent—mostly women—being around $20,000 worse off in retirement. We do have a retirement income gender gap, and this is part of the reason why. It has been a longstanding policy of the Greens, of unions and of women's economic security advocates to pay superannuation on paid parental leave. This has also previously been a policy of the Labor Party. As far as gender equality measures go, it's a no-brainer, yet it's not part of this bill. I will move a second reading amendment calling on the government to urgently reconsider that decision and include superannuation contributions on paid parental leave. I move the Greens amendment on sheet 1827: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) acknowledges: (i) the persistent gender superannuation gap that sees women retire with significantly less in retirement funds than men, and (ii) that superannuation is paid on leave entitlements other than parental leave; and (b) calls on the Government to address this inequity and apply the superannuation guarantee to paid parental leave entitlements". Overall, this bill is a positive step towards fairer paid parental leave, but, as I said, it's a baby step. There are equitable measures which could be taken to align Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme with world' s best practice now, rather than waiting for later. As one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, we should be able to give all working parents and their children the quality care and early childhood education that they need. The families of Australia deserve it. In closing, I'll make this point: Why are we making women wait three more years for 26 weeks when, internationally, many other comparable nations already have 52 weeks? Why are we again making women wait for their slice of the pie when this government has $246 billion in revenue that it is choosing to give to the very wealthy in the form of those stage 3 tax cuts that former Prime Minister Morrison proposed. You can't cry poor and yet dish out $246 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy. If you axe those tax cuts, not only would you have more than enough money to address the housing crisis, the cost-of-living crisis and the climate crisis but you could afford to pay paid parental leave in the amount that women deserve and that parents deserve at a proper rate for a proper amount of time—not off in the never-never, but now. 10:27 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 as a member of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and a member of the coalition. The coalition will be supporting this bill. In fact, the bill reflects the coalition's policy when in government. Large parts of it are taken from the changes we proposed to the Paid Parental Leave scheme when we were last in government, and we acknowledge that Labor, in government, has adopted our policy in large part and is now implementing it. I was lucky enough, when our third child came along, to be self-employed. That gave me the opportunity to take a few weeks out of the workforce at our own expense to spend time with our third child. That was an extraordinarily valuable time and something that I very much cherish. But I understand—and we on this side understand—that it's not always possible for new parents to take that time out due to their own financial circumstances. So we understand that these changes and the flexibility inherent in these changes are so important to families. That is why we proposed these measures when we were in government. I would sound one note of caution. The one area where I think we still need to continue the conversation and where governments need to ensure that adequate supports and resourcing are put in place is assisting small business. Small business does still face a challenge, particularly small and medium-sized businesses with large staffing components. When they lose key staff members for a period of time in a tight labour market, replacements are not always available. So governments need to help and support those small businesses in dealing with those circumstances as well. It's a conversation that obviously needs to be had between business owners and their staff. I very much encourage those conversations to continue, because it is such a vitally important social measure that we take to ensure that new parents can spend time with their newly born babies. The coalition does support these measures. We support the fact that these measures will see economic and social benefits that flow through society. In government, our Paid Parental Leave scheme gave families flexibility to choose how they access their payments and gave either parent the option, depending on individual household circumstances. When in government, the coalition made important amendments to strengthen Paid Parental Leave, including increasing flexibility and introducing special circumstances which allow a person to meet the work test if they've been impacted by family and domestic violence, natural disaster or a severe medical condition. In March 2022, as part of the Women's Budget Statement, the coalition once again underlined its commitment to paid parental leave, by announcing the enhanced Paid Parental Leave system. Enhanced Paid Parental Leave would have seen an investment of $346 million over five years to expand Paid Parental Leave, giving working families full choice and control of how they use 20 weeks of taxpayer funded parental leave. Through the course of the inquiry into this bill, as I said, there remained concerns, particularly among small family owned businesses, about the potential impact of cost changes in this area, particularly in light of tight labour markets. So I emphasise again that it's important that governments provide support to employers, particularly small and family businesses, ensuring that their obligations are made clear, that the administrative burden of these changes is minimal and to give the chance for these businesses to minimise the economic impact that may come in the future. Once again, we do support these changes and we do support paid parental leave. 10:32 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I want to make a short contribution on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, firstly to indicate that, while I think this legislation is an achievement of this government that is worth celebrating, and I trust that it will make its way through the Senate over the course of today, it is not just an achievement of this government; it is an achievement that really rests upon the shoulders of generations of people, particularly in the labour movement. In recent times in the labour movement, union leaders like Sally McManus and Michele O'Neil but also people like our own Linda White, who is now a Senate colleague, Jo-anne Schofield from United Workers Union, Julia Fox from the SDA and others have led this set of arguments. But I will not name all of the people who have been engaged in this. The point that I want to make is that their contribution rests upon the shoulders of, mostly, women in the labour movement who have been arguing the case for expanded paid parental leave for many generations. I recall that, in the short happy period that I served on the executive of the ACTU in the late 1990s, women like Sharan Burrow and Jennie George—and, indeed, leaders like Greg Combet—were making the argument for this set of reforms. It is also important to point out that leaders in Australian business have been making the case for these reforms as well. I point of course to Jennifer Westacott. She and many others have been making the case for this set of reforms. There are also dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of business leaders in large businesses and small ones who not only have made the case for broader policy reform but have made changes in their organisations to set out better parental leave entitlements for women and men, for young parents, not only because they want to make their firms employers of choice in an increasingly competitive labour market but also because those business leaders have listened carefully to the debate from the academic community, to the international debate and to the trade union movement and have decided that leading the community debate is actually the right thing for them to do. This is not the only community debate where the debate has been led by the trade union movement and by Australian business, and sections of this parliament have been left behind. In paid parental leave terms, the consensus across the economy and in the labour movement has certainly led this parliament to where it has got to. It has taken far too long for this set of reforms to come to the parliament. I also want to make a few comments about the difference that this will make to young parents and to young people who are thinking about starting a family. They're thinking about their careers and their capacity as a couple—they need to work through the difficult choices—to support each other and their families and to make sure they have real career options in front of them. This set of reforms will ensure that workers and families are supported by the government when they make these decisions. So it will make a real difference in ordinary families' lives. This reform is not just good for ordinary families; this reform is good for economic participation, productivity, economic growth and when we are dealing with some of the other significant challenges, particularly the different outcomes for women in the workplace and across their working lives. The gender pay gap is persistent. It has gone up and it has gone down, but it has persistently hovered around the midteens for well over a decade. Most of the movements that have occurred in the gender pay gap over the last decade have really been a reflection of changes that have happened in men's wages. I've seen members of the previous government come in here fist pumping when the gender wage gap went down by a few decimal points. The difference to women's wages has always been as a result of diminished growth for men's wages, not as a result of serious policy reform. Some of the decisions that this government took through last year have had some impact. The decision to support minimum wage increases has had some impact. Future decisions that are targeted towards workers in the care sector will have some impact on the gender wage gap. This set of reforms will allow more Australian women to develop careers and ensure their careers and connection with work continue, and that is a very good thing indeed. I'm delighted to have an opportunity to make a small contribution to this debate. I know there are some amendments that are going to be brought forward over the course of today's debate. I just say that, from the government's perspective, this is a very important step forward; it is a very important set of reforms. The government is, of course, constrained in terms of what it can do, given the tight fiscal environment and the challenges in front of the country, in terms of the legacy we have been left by the previous government. I know those amendments will be agitated and developed—that is a welcome debate—but the government is constrained in terms of what it can do. This is a momentous, historic set of reforms that builds upon generations of struggle and advocacy and work. I want to use this small contribution to thank those people who have done that work. 10:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. In doing so, I note the worthy and very welcome aims of this bill in assisting to close the gender pay gap and provide greater freedom to dads and partners taking time out to spend with their newborn children. It is important we get this right as there is a lot at stake, most importantly the wellbeing of the next generation. Research overwhelmingly shows the benefits of parents taking time out of work to spend time with their newborns. It's important for bonding but also for the mental health and wellbeing of parents. Throughout the committee process, I've also seen evidence of the wellbeing benefits for dads. These are the kinds of benefits we have the opportunity to promote through this bill. More broadly, for our economy, we know we need to do more to lift women's economic participation. The National Skills Commission estimated that 1.2 million additional workers will be needed across the economy by 2026. A large majority of these roles will be in traditionally feminised industries such as those in the care economy. We are feeling those impacts even now as we look at the shortages of registered nurses available to enter the aged-care system. Modernising our paid parental leave scheme is one lever we can pull to help close the participation gap and, by extension, the pay gap. Deloitte recently reported more flexible ideas around gender norms could lead to an additional $128 billion each year for Australia's economy and deliver 461,000 additional full-time employees into the economy. When we look across the world, there is ample research to show how tweaking PPL schemes can work to lift women's economic participation and close the gender pay gap. This bill presents a first step on that pathway. There's plenty that's good about this bill. Firstly, the bill allows all paid parental leave days to be taken as flexible days. Allowing flexibility in how new parents manage care and work is a good thing for both parents and businesses. It means that parents and partners can manage a gradual return to work in a way that suits them and their needs. It respects that each parent in every family will have different circumstances, whether that's a grandparent able to help with care or a job with irregular hours. For businesses, a gradual return to work is also optimal. As the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry notes, forcing people to take 12 consecutive weeks off work has always been an unnecessary feature of the current scheme. In reality it's far easier for a business to manage a partial vacancy rather than a full vacancy, and it's likely these changes will help strengthen the contact between employers and employees while a person is using PPL. I also welcome the positive changes for dads and partners. For too long women have shouldered the greatest burden of caring responsibilities for newborns. Currently 80 per cent of all paid parental leave is claimed by women. This is despite the host of evidence showing the benefits of fathers being able to take time to care for newborns in their first years of life, including improved wellbeing for both dads and children. These changes do the right thing, by giving dads and partners greater access to a shared PPL entitlement, which I hope will give them more incentive to take time out of work. While there's plenty to be proud of in this bill, it really should be seen as a first step. There's so much more to do. Given the workforce shortages being felt in various industries, I feel this bill misses an opportunity to accelerate those changes needed to unlock greater workforce participation by women. The bill will not increase the overall PPL entitlement. It joins together the current 18-week scheme with the separate two-week dad and partner pay scheme into a single 20-week entitlement that can be used by both parents. While it is the government's stated ambition to reach 26 weeks leave by 2026, that is not included in this bill. As of right now, the 26-week entitlement remains just an ambition, and, even after we reach 26 weeks, Australia will still lag behind other OECD nations. The OECD average is 51 weeks, which is more than double what is offered in this bill. PPL is also not offered at a replacement wage; rather, it is offered at the minimum wage. So, at full-time equivalent pay, the OECD average for PPL is 36 weeks, while Australia currently offers just 8.6 weeks. We know that more is required to increase the participation of dads and partners in PPL and to stimulate workforce participation by women. We know this because the international research in this area is well advanced. When we look across the world, we can clearly see the policy ingredients that are needed. A big ingredient is the 'use it or lose it' period. That is the period within the whole entitlement that is reserved for just one claimant to use. Under this bill, the 'use it or lose it' periods are set at two weeks for each claimant. This is basically what already happens under the current scheme, and so far there has been very little uptake of PPL by men. Nordic countries that have implemented dedicated parental leave for fathers have seen significant increases in uptake by men. To give one example, when Iceland, in 2002, introduced 13 dedicated weeks for fathers, the proportion of fathers who took leave increased from less than one per cent to 80 per cent. I feel it is a shame that this bill does not contemplate longer 'use it or lose it' periods to greater effect, knowing from international experience that they have been making a huge impact. However, I'm aware that this is a question that the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce is currently considering, and it will form part of another bill on this subject later in the year. A big concern that's been raised with me through consultations on this bill is around the continued administrative burden that PPL is putting on our small businesses, and these small businesses are increasingly being run by women, who are having to shoulder this burden. With this bill, we have an opportunity to change that by giving small business the option to either pay Commonwealth PPL directly or have Services Australia pay this, as they already do for 40 per cent of payments. I believe there's a really strong argument for medium and large businesses to administer the payment and to ensure that there is a connection between them and the employee taking the leave. However, for small, overworked businesses, we need to be doing all we can to reduce the amount of red tape and cost. Even small changes to a payroll can have a big impact on a small business. Small businesses need to liaise with the government, grapple with how to manage the flow of cash between Services Australia and their employee, and recalculate how much tax needs to be withheld. It is a clear pain point, and it's something that has been raised with me by businesses in my community, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Canberra Business Chamber, the Australian hairdressing association and others. And it's not a new concern. It was something that was raised with the parliament when it was first contemplating PPL over a decade ago. It was then raised again in a review of the PPL scheme, which I quote here: … employer and industry groups generally did not support the employer role, particularly in relation to small business. These stakeholders considered the employer role places an unnecessary administrative burden on business, and any benefits to employers in terms of employee retention were not commensurate with the administrative burden imposed. This is feedback that has been reflected in my conversations with small businesses here in the ACT. Kate from The Healthy Eating Clinic told me her small business, employing 11 people, has seen payroll processing time blow out from half an hour to two hours. That lost time is precious, and it adds up. We hear a lot about the workforce shortages. In many small businesses, it's the owners of those businesses who have to step up and work extra hours to fill the gap. This burden on small businesses will likely increase when, hopefully, we start paying super on Commonwealth PPL as well, and that means small business will be logging on to myGov, receiving money from the Commonwealth, withholding tax and sending it back to the ATO, processing super and then sending that on to the super fund—and doing this every pay cycle. None of these transactions involve any interaction between the business and the staff members other than a deposit of money and an emailed payslip, but the greater burden risks being a disincentive to employing women—the last thing we want to see with this legislation. I have been frustrated to hear we shouldn't take action because it has always been a pain point. Clearly, just because something has always been broken doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. It's also frustrating to hear that we need to force small businesses to administer this payment as it will preserve their relationship with their employees. Small businesses are likely to be far closer to their employees than medium and large businesses. Often in small businesses your staff may also be family—if not technically, then in spirit. Some small businesses may want to administer the payment themselves, and that's fine. We should provide them with the option, recognising small businesses are as unique as the people that run them and require some flexibility. It is a small piece of red tape that we can start cutting today, and I hope the Senate will endorse my amendment. I also want to join my colleagues across the chamber in urging the government to prioritise changes to extend super to paid parental leave. PPL is currently one of the only types of paid leave for which the superannuation guarantee does not apply. Paying super on PPL would significantly reduce the super gap between men and women. Currently, women retire with nearly 35 per cent less super than men, which is clearly unacceptable and something we need to address. One last point I wanted to bring to the attention of the Senate is issues with how we are supporting foster and kinship carers. While this bill contemplates adoption, I want to note that adoptions are generally quite rare in comparison to the number of children in foster or kinship care. Foster and kinship carers are not entitled to PPL. It has been raised with me that the exclusion of foster and kinship carers from this type of leave actively discourages those carers from taking opportunities to welcome and settle often very vulnerable children into a new home environment, and we know how important those early years are for children. One of my constituents has seen the impact firsthand. She was able to take time away from work to spend with a child placed in her care, and she noted how it promoted steadiness in their relationship which endures today. She also experienced not being able to take time away with another child and experienced a placement breakdown as a result of this. She's raised this with me: 'To have those extra weeks to focus on the child, setting aside employment pressures, is invaluable to the child or young person to build bonds and attachments crucial to their development.' While foster and kinship care is the domain of the states and territories, no payment is offered to help them take time out of their work. It seems to me that foster and kinship carers are falling between a gap in our federal, state and territory systems, and that more can and should be done to assist them in taking time out of work for the benefit of the child or the children they're looking after. I urge the government to consider this in more detail. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:54 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I also rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, and I am really proud to do so, because paid parental leave is another strong and critical Labor legacy. We first implemented paid parental leave back in 2011, and today we are building on those strong foundations to modernise the scheme, to make it more flexible for two parents to provide care, and to consolidate the current entitlement—of 18 weeks parental leave plus two weeks partner leave—into a single 20-week scheme. It's a legacy that will improve the lives of Australian families. Of course, there's more to come, because this is a first step in the Albanese government's plan to move to expand paid parental leave in Australia. We will bring forward more legislation, starting in July 2024, to phase in an additional six weeks, until we reach 26 weeks in 2026—a full six months of paid parental leave. This is the largest expansion of paid parental leave since we established the scheme more than 10 years ago. These are the types of reforms that make me proud to be a Labor senator. These are reforms that we've laid the foundations for, that we protect, that we build on, that we sustain and that, over time, become entrenched and treasured parts of Australia's social and economic fabric. These are reforms that Labor governments get done—reforms like Medicare; reforms like the NDIS; reforms like quality, affordable education in the early years, and expanded access to TAFE and higher education. These are reforms that Labor governments deliver and that we deliver in a way that is sustainable in the long-term. Paid parental leave is widely supported across the community, and this particular bill is supported by the ACTU and by the BCA and many other groups. And the bill is not controversial. In two-parent families, it provides each parent with two weeks of leave, and the rest can be shared as suits the family, up to 20 weeks. It can be taken by two parents at the same time. It can be taken in flexible blocks. And it can be taken across the first two years of a child's life. Importantly, single parents will be eligible for the full 20 weeks. In two-parent families, the bill resolves outdated assumptions which meant that, in some cases, women were unable to take the larger portion of parental leave because they were the higher earner in the family. Combining what is currently 18 weeks parental leave, mostly targeted at mums, with the two-week partner pay, mostly targeted at dads, just makes good sense. It is now urgent that this bill passes the Senate this month. That is so that parents expecting to give birth or adopt on or after 1 July 2023 have the option of pre-claiming three months in advance so that they can receive their entitlements as soon as they are eligible. So it's urgent that we pass this reform. Expanding paid parental leave is part of our vision for greater gender equality and for a stronger economy, and we know that those two things go hand in hand. We know that families, and women in particular, need support to balance their caring and work responsibilities, and we know that, when parents have the support they need to move in and out of the labour market as their children's needs change, it's good for everyone. It's good for families; it's good for parents; it's good for employers; it's good for productivity; it's good for the economy as a whole. And it's good for dads. This approach that we're bringing in in this bill gives dads and partners more options for sharing in the care, including by making sure that they can be on paid leave, if they're eligible for it through work, while they also receive their take-it-or-leave-it two weeks of the scheme. It's important to note that the government's scheme is not designed to replace employer schemes. Indeed, we encourage employers to keep paving the way and providing greater paid parental leave for their employees. The government's scheme is a foundation for employers to build on, to make sure that they can attract and retain fantastic employees who become parents, and help maintain strong incomes over the life course. We know that, when dads can take a greater caring role from the start, that can often lead to greater involvement in their children's lives in years to come. That, in turn, helps women to balance their own work and care as well, to keep up their own participation in the labour market and improve their own economic security. Paid parental leave is also, of course, fundamentally good for mums, allowing them to spend time in the crucial early days and weeks of their child's life, which we know is good for both maternal and child health. To sum up, this is a bill that meets the needs of the modern Australian family and the modern Australian economy, and there is more to come from the Albanese Labor government. This is a smart, flexible approach to providing care and support for children after birth or adoption. It's an investment in gender equality and in productivity. It's another proud Labor legacy as we build up to six months paid parental leave. I am proud to support this bill. 11:00 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 and to add my support to the widespread support that exists in this chamber, including that of my Greens colleague Senator Waters. The Greens will be supporting this bill, because it represents a step—a modest step, but an important step—in the right direction. But much more needs to be done. Twenty-one years ago, in 2001, I sat at the back of this chamber as a staffer, near the senator who introduced Australia's first private member's bill on paid parental leave, Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja. At that time Australian women were, alongside those in the US, the only women in the OECD not to get a paid rest when they had a baby, 100 years after the ILO said that they should. Anyone who has carried and fed a new baby, been sleep deprived for months and recovered knows how essential that rest is. If Australian men had babies we'd probably lead the world on paid parental leave, just as we led the world on the eight-hour day in 1856 and set a decent minimum wage at Federation. We were international leaders in creating a working man's paradise—a white working man's paradise, it's important to note—but that paradise did not extend to mothers. And we are not yet a working woman's paradise. Sadly, it was not until 10 years after that first private member's bill that this parliament finally enacted paid parental leave, in 2010, with leave of 18 weeks at the minimum wage and an additional two weeks added later for partners on a 'use it or lose it' basis. Eleven years on, we've been overtaken by the rest of the OECD yet again, with the average period of paid parental leave now around 52 weeks in the OECD and close to full-replacement wages in many places. Australia now has one of the poorest paid parental leave schemes in the developed world, and we're now stuck at an inadequate 18 weeks paid leave with two weeks for partners at minimum wage, without superannuation—a pay cut for so many people at a crucial moment in a family's life. While I welcome some parts of this bill, including strengthening the 'use it or lose it' provisions and the government's commitment to incrementally increase paid leave to 26 weeks by 2026, these provisions are too little and too slow to effectively support Australian parents. This is why the Greens are seeking to amend the bill to increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks, now. Australian parents should not be left waiting for the government to increase the entitlement by a miserly two weeks a year until it reaches 26 weeks in 2026, a rate that is still well below the OECD average and below best practice. At the jobs summit and the select committee on work and care, an inquiry that I've had the privilege of chairing over the last eight months, and at the inquiry in relation to this bill, Australians and organisations from across the country—parents, women, unions and employers—were united in a call for paid parental leave and for a greater increase. Indeed, the ACTU, whom Senator Ayres has referenced in his comments, calls for a pathway to 52 weeks. I urge the government to support our amendment to increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks immediately and to create a pathway to 52 weeks paid leave to bring Australia in line with international standards. Women in our labour movement—Sally McManus, Michele O'Neil, many leaders—stand alongside and on the shoulders of this parliament as they push to ask for more, to play catch-up on this important workplace provision. I also call on the government to support the Greens amendment to add superannuation to parental leave. Recent data shows that women retire with much less, nearly a third less, savings in their super than men, and we know that periods of paid parental leave and part-time work on return from leave have been a contributor to this gap. Yet last week Katy Gallagher told Australian women that they need to wait longer until the budget can comfortably accommodate paying women's superannuation on top of parental leave. We have costings that tell us that we could do this tomorrow for the sum of $200 million. It's a small proportion of the budget, and it's something that will make a difference to many, many women in Australia. We don't have to wait. We can afford to do it now. It's time the government took action to reflect on its priorities and recognise that supporting women's economic equity is an overdue investment in the future of Australia. There's powerful evidence that improving paid parental leave in these ways will do many good things. It will increase women's participation in paid work. It will address skill shortages. It will increase GDP. It will improve children's development. It will improve relationships between couples and between kids and their parents. It has a very positive effect on men's health. It will help address gender inequality. I want to finish with a story from the Select Committee on Work and Care inquiry. We heard from many individuals around Australia who look for a decent period of paid rest at the time of birth, with both parents looking for that kind of opportunity. We heard from Suvi, who lives in Sweden and has a 13-month-old daughter. Based on Sweden's parental leave policy, Suvi is planning to take a total of 16 months paid leave, and her partner is taking seven months paid leave. The first 390 days of that leave are generally paid at 80 per cent of a person's income, up to a cap. Suvi said the best thing about this policy is that she won't be financially disadvantaged for caring for her child and can return to work part time. She has appreciated having that time after a very difficult birth; a start with her daughter; the chance to see her daughter grow and reflect on her life and work after a busy period through the pandemic; and to share that leave with her partner. She said that policies like this have created a family-friendly and caring-friendly culture in the workplace for both parents and at all levels of the workplace. This helps explain the much greater sharing of domestic work that we see over the life course in countries with good, lengthy periods of paid parental leave paid close to ordinary earnings and free child care, an arrangement which, together with paid parental leave, gives kids and their families a much better start, and is associated with a much narrower gender pay gap. This is just the tip of the iceberg of benefits in countries like Sweden in terms of what they're paid parental leave policy delivers. At a work and care inquiry hearing, James Fleming, the Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Employment Rights, explained that Sweden's parental leave policy, along with affordable child care, has helped Sweden to achieve much higher rates of women's workforce participation and higher gender equality on many metrics than Australia. The institute calculated that, if Australian female labour force participation increased to match that of Sweden, overall labour force participation would increase by more than four percentage points, increasing GDP by at least six per cent, or as much as $100 million. Suvi's story and the broader equity and economic advantages Sweden's work and care system delivers is possible for countries like Australia. Those supporting increased paid parental leave—and they are many—know we can afford it. We can afford to increase the length of leave, and we can pay superannuation on it. Rather than give a $9,000 tax cut to the very wealthy and each of the 227 politicians in this building through the stage 3 tax cuts, we can direct the $254 billion to the parents and the kids who need it most. We should set aside those tax cuts and instead improve paid parental leave and take other measures that will help Australian families deal with the cost-of-living crisis, including providing free, quality, accessible early childhood education and care. At the Jobs and Skills Summit, and through evidence presented to the work and care inquiry and to this bill, Australians and organisations from around the country, and parents, women, unions and employers, were united in the call for a paid parental leave increase and improvements for Australian parents, especially mothers. No-one opposed it. It's time to act. We can afford it and, for the sake of our kids, parents, women, workplaces and economy, it's time we did it. 11:09 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, and I'm going to make only a short contribution on this bill, as I understand there is some urgency to this. If the bill is passed by the end of this sitting week, it will allow parents expecting to give birth on or after 1 July this year to claim three months in advance. You'll notice the government decided to include the words 'gender equality' in the title of the bill, because gender equality is at the heart of what this bill is about. As a nation we need to ask ourselves why there is a 13 per cent gender pay gap and why women retire with super balances on average 23 per cent lower than men. These gaps are closing but not fast enough, and to address this inequality we need to address a number of underlying causes. One of these underlying causes is that women, more than men, make the sacrifice to put their careers on hold to care for children. We can see the stark figures in the Australian Bureau of Statistics head of household survey, which in May 2021 showed 38 per cent of women spent five hours or more on unpaid caring or supervision of children, compared to only 28 per cent of men. The same survey shows that, on just about any measure, women take on substantially more unpaid household work than men. Under the Paid Parental Leave scheme the notion of primary, secondary and tertiary claimants and the requirement that the primary claimant must be the birth parent meant the system was geared towards an expectation that women would bear most of the responsibility for spending time raising their children. The flexibility this bill provides is for the benefit of both women and men. Many birth mothers would like more opportunity to advance their careers, while many dads and partners would like more opportunity to spend time caring for, playing with and forming bonds with their children. It's about providing the flexibility parents need to come up with the arrangements that work for their individual family circumstances, but this is also critical for children. From my experience as a parent but also as an early childhood educator observing other families I've seen how critical those early months of a child's life are to forming a lasting bond with their parents, regardless of gender. As the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said in their submission to the inquiry into this bill: These changes should deliver significant benefits to the economy by boosting women's workforce participation, improving flexibility in the use of paid parental leave, enhancing gender equity outcomes, and ensuring businesses continue to have access to a diverse, experienced productive labour force. Labor understands that. We understand that the right set of policies, getting the balance right between giving parents the time they need with children while maintaining their connection with work, is boosting labour productivity, promoting gender equality and also improving development outcomes for children. This is also what we sought to achieve with cheaper early childhood education and care for Australian families. It is not, as one senator in this place once described it, the hand of government reaching in and taking away the youth of our children. I note the inquiry into this bill showed broad support for the provisions, including from representatives of employees and employers, such as the ACTU and ACCI. There were also a number of community groups backing the changes. In this bill we're extending the shared paid parental leave entitlement from 18 weeks to 20 weeks, and we will go further in accordance with our election commitments. This is just the first point. This is just the first step. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce is currently examining the best model for the expansion to 26 weeks and will provide advice to the government later this year. This is the type of action Labor take to help improve the lives of working women and men, and we will continue to assist families wherever we can. 11:14 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak about the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 and associate myself with the excellent observations made by my colleagues Senator Waters and Senator Barbara Pocock. This bill aims to improve the Paid Parental Leave scheme by making it more flexible, accessible and gender neutral. Currently, Australia has one of the weakest parental leave schemes in the OECD, in terms of both rates of pay and the length of paid leave. With this bill, things will definitely improve, but we still won't meet international best practice. Increasing the availability of leave from 18 to 26 weeks is an important step forward in ensuring parents are adequately supported in the crucial first few months of parenthood. But why do people have to wait for another three years to get the 26-week entitlement? This should come much sooner, and we should be moving to 52 weeks of paid parental leave quickly, as well. As my colleague Senator Waters has said, there is no reason to delay the implementation of good policy. This bill does introduce measures to increase flexibility in how and when paid parental leave can be taken, which will allow families to juggle their work and care responsibilities a little better. But, to be truly effective, the scheme should really be complemented by other reforms to support flexible work. That means universal and free early childhood education and care. High-quality early childhood education and care can give children the best start in life, and it is a critical component of lifelong learning. It will enable women to pursue career opportunities and ensure they aren't held back because this essential service is too expensive or is not available. Time out of the workforce and taking on more unpaid labour has significantly contributed to the gender pay gap in superannuation as well. By failing to pay super on parental leave, the government is increasing the risk that certain parents, particularly women, will retire into poverty. Women of colour are even further impacted because they tend to have significantly lower rates of workforce participation and are generally overrepresented in low-paid and insecure work. The Greens also support full wage replacement. Paying parental leave at the minimum wage is insufficient and discourages men, who are often higher paid, from taking parental leave. My colleagues Senator Waters and Senator Barbara Pocock will be moving amendments to fix some of these shortcomings of the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. I will turn now to a cohort of people who often fall through the cracks: PhD students. A key shortcoming of this bill is that PhD students are not included in the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Despite often conducting research on a full-time basis, they cannot access the same parental leave entitlements as other working parents. I will be introducing amendments to fix this. Currently, PhD students do not qualify for the scheme, as their activity is counted as study through a scholarship or other award of financial aid and therefore fails the test in the current Paid Parental Leave Act. I can think of no good rationale for excluding PhD students. As a PhD student who, years ago, had a baby while doing research and as a former academic who is passionate about the importance and necessity of research and supporting researchers, this matter is very close to my heart. PhD students are currently eligible for a stipend from their university through the government's Research Training Program. However, the stipend is a measly $29,863, well below the minimum wage. Universities have the option to top this amount up, but data on 189 universities shows that only 42 of them offer above the government's stipend, and none of them meet the minimum wage. In response to a written question on notice asked by Senator Waters during the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill, the Department of Social Services advised: The Paid Parental Leave scheme is intended to support working parents who have demonstrated an attachment to the workforce. The department said: Should a PhD student undertake paid work in addition to their studies, such as tutoring at a university, this could count towards the work test. This is completely unreasonable. It is unfair to expect that every PhD student in Australia have the opportunity to get paid work and the time to commit to this work while they are studying full-time. That is atrocious. PhD students are struggling. They are struggling to make ends meet amidst the cost-of-living crisis and rising rents. In January this year the Guardian reported that PhD students are barely scraping by, often relying on a partner to survive or being forced to eat instant noodles and work extra jobs during the night. We need to lift government support for PhD students. We must ensure that they are not put off pursuing higher education because of the high cost of living and the lack of entitlements. We need to increase the stipend, and here today we have the opportunity to actually include PhD students in the Paid Parental Leave scheme. I urge my Senate colleagues to support the Greens amendments to expand the eligibility of the Paid Parental Leave scheme to PhD students. This amendment does so by including a new entitlement to paid parental leave for someone doing eligible postgraduate work. A person performs eligible postgraduate work if the person is enrolled in a course of study or research for a doctoral degree and performs study or research for the purposes of that course, whether the enrolment is within an institution or the study or research is performed within or outside Australia. These amendments expand the work test in the Paid Parental Leave Act to include eligible postgraduate work. In November last year, the Minister for Social Services told parliament that this bill reflects the government's commitment to deliver better outcomes for families and advance women's economic participation. Minister Rishworth also said that Australians need a paid parental leave scheme that reflects the needs of modern families. If Labor is serious about achieving gender equity for all, and promoting the health and wellbeing of all parents and children in Australia, it must extend this scheme to postgraduate students. Anything less will be a pretty cruel oversight by the government. Changes to improve paid parental leave and make it more equitable have been a long time coming. Women, women's organisations, women's rights activists, unions, families and economists have been pushing for this for ages. Discrimination against women at work in the form of diminished responsibilities and lower wages still continues. Improvements to paid parental leave as presented in this bill will, hopefully, help create more equitable workplaces and less disadvantage for women and improve the sharing of care between parents. It is really time to move beyond incrementalism. That is quite apparent in this bill. It is time to make the changes that we need, in leaps and bounds. Women, parents and families do deserve more. They shouldn't have to wait years more for fairness and equity. We've waited far too long already. 11:22 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise today to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. Once again, this is Labor delivering on its promise to the working families of Australia. We are delivering two weeks of paid family leave now, and we'll gradually increase it up to a total of six months of paid leave shared between two parents by 2026. This measure will have a demonstrable and beneficial effect on parents who want to spend more time with their children, and what could be wrong with that? It also reminds me that, as a mother of three, I didn't get any paid parental leave at all for my first two children. I finally got some for the third. By that stage we thought that it was about time, but it was such a struggle. It's been a long time getting to this point. I know how precious those first few months are with the remarkable gift of a child. Care responsibilities are critically important to the healthy life of a child and a family. I'm proud to be part of a government that acknowledges this and is making real changes. It's really important to think that in so many policy areas, when the Australian people elected the previous government for three terms, there was a huge policy vacuum in this space and a failure to respond to the realities for Australian people. I don't think it's a surprise—having so many women sitting on this side of the chamber, and our colleagues over in the other place, and men who share parenting very, very significantly speaking up in our caucus about that shared parenting—that such a policy was able to be advanced as a commitment during the election by Labor. Now we're getting on with the job of delivering for Australians so they know that they can trust the government. We've said what we're going to do and we're getting on with doing it. Labor created the Paid Parental Leave scheme, and we're expanding it. We're taking a staged and sensible approach to expanding the scheme. We have to do that sensibly because of the fiscal reality in which we find ourselves as a consequence of nine wasted years of debt growth by those opposite. Clearly, we're speaking at a time of global economic headwinds and budgetary pressures. From 1 July 2023, the bill is going to deliver six really significant changes, combining the two existing schemes into a single 20-week scheme and reserving a portion of the scheme for each of the parents to support them both to take some time off work after the birth or adoption. It's going to be the case that some Australian men will be saying, 'How do I do this?' The response will simply be: 'You go to your work and you say that you're taking your leave because you've got childminding responsibilities.' That's going to be a radical departure for some men in particular professions. This is going to support and encourage that, and we know it's good for families and it's great for children. This bill is going to make it easier for both parents to access the payment by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers. The reality for most working families is that you just muck in and get on with it. You don't say: 'I'm the primary carer today,' or 'I'm the secondary carer.' You're both the parents—you do the job—and this recognises that. The bill expands access by introducing a $350,000 family income test under which people can qualify if they do not meet the $156,647 individual-income test. This is dealing with the reality of what's out there in the Australian population and not trying to pit one type of family against another. It's about getting Australia working and making sure that kids get cared for properly. It increases flexibility for parents to choose how they take paid parental leave days and transition back to work, because it's very different from context to context, from family to family and from region to region. The sixth thing it will do is allow eligible fathers and partners to access the payment irrespective of whether the mother or birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements. It's an extremely important bill and it's a very substantial reform. It's one that's been driven by the Albanese government's deep commitment to the maximisation of women's economic equality and the economic benefit for the Australian economy that's derived from proper and equitable social policy. Australians need a paid parental leave scheme that reflects our modern Australian families. The expansion to 26 weeks by 2026 reflects the Albanese government's commitment to deliver better outcomes for families and to advance women's economic participation. In the lead-up to the election, the leader of the Labor Party—now the leader of the country, the Prime Minister—was out there stating this over and over. My colleagues sitting here beside me, men and women, were fighting for this reform and standing up for this reform, which was pooh-poohed by so many people. That's the problem. Other countries have been getting on with this job. We've got nine blank years—nine wasted years—to make up for now we've removed the previous government and established a Labor government. Our changes are not only going to help families better balance work and care but they're going to support the vital participation and productivity over the longer term, providing an immense return on investment for this policy and a huge boost to the Australian economy. It's a policy that addresses the demands of modern life and the realities of modern families. It's a bill that's thorough and successful in achieving what it sets out to do, creating a paid parental leave scheme that truly works for families. And it centres equality and economic growth, not just the principle, and absolutely embeds this in practice. It's going to give more families across Australia access to government support. It's going to provide families with more flexibility and encourage parents to share the care with a view that supports what we know is just the fair and decent thing—and that's gender equality for all the men and women who are being born and all the men and women who are looking after them—together. It gives me immense pride to speak in support of the bill, as part of a government which is delivering on its promises, and it will assist the lives of 180,000 Australian families every year. The bill is good for Australia's economy, it's good for our society and it's absolutely, totally intertwined with our success and our future. It delivers for parents. It benefits children. It's good policy by a Labor government that is inspired to do the best thing for Australian people. And for those reasons, I commend the bill to the house. 11:30 Senator MARIELLE SMI 281603 South Australia TH () (): I also rise today to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill, and I am so proud to stand here as part of a government that has brought this legislation before us. This is the first major change to paid parental leave since the scheme was introduced by a Labor government more than a decade ago. The first tranche of reforms were groundbreaking, and they made a difference to so many families' lives. But in the years since, the need for further reform has been clear because as Australian families have changed, as more and more families are seeking to share in the beauty and challenges of parenting more equally, this legislation has not kept up. It hasn't kept up with those cultural changes happening in Australian families. The changes in this bill are about supporting families, but they're also about supporting gender equity. The changes are about valuing fathers as carers and in some families as primary carers. They're about recognising that men aren't always the breadwinners and that women aren't always doing the majority of the caring, that families make their own decisions about the care arrangements and the work arrangements that will best suit them and their children. This bill modernises the Paid Parental Leave scheme to reflect how Australian families and their needs have changed since its establishment over a decade ago. It does so in a number of ways. The bill combines the two existing payments into a single scheme, it reserves a portion of the scheme for each parent to support them both to take time off after a birth or adoption and it removes the notion of primary and secondary carers, making it easier for both parents to access the payment. While modest, the 'use it or lose it' provisions encourage shared care, and I hope these provisions are something that we see expanded in further iterations of the scheme and as the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce continues its work. The bill also expands access to the scheme for families where women are primary earners by introducing a $350,000 family income test. I know a number of families who have been locked out of taking full advantage of paid parental leave because of this issue, and I welcome the fact that the bill better reflects the circumstances of more families in our community. Most importantly, the bill represents one part of a suite of broader policy reforms that our government has embarked upon that will support the development and wellbeing of our littlest Australians. We know that the first six months of life are absolutely critical to a child's development and future wellbeing. They're critical to a child's sense of attachment to their carers and they're critical to the growth of the child, as well. Enabling families to have the opportunity to spend more time with their babies in these crucial early months is a worthy reform, and I welcome the broader policy intent of our government to bring this scheme to six months of paid leave by 2026. As so many of us in this chamber can appreciate, the first six months with a new baby are an absolutely amazing time, full of joy and delight as each little milestone is met. But—my God!—they can be a bloody tough challenge too, full of sleeplessness and stress on the family and on women who experience birth trauma or other physical challenges like mastitis, difficulties with pelvic floor damage and the impacts of recovering from caesarean wounds—so many things which can happen in a birth as you welcome a baby into the family. The mental health challenges which many families experience, both mums and dads, in these first six months can be really significant and at times really dangerous. A new baby changes family dynamics with other children. It can make more difficult your other caring responsibilities, including for elderly parents. It affects the family dynamic. So while it can be and is a time of miracles and wonder and joy and awe, it can also be really tough. It shouldn't be the case that the only families in our community who are given the time, space and security to deal with all of these things that happen in the first six months of a child's life are those who can afford to do so. Bringing this scheme progressively to six months is a very, very significant reform. It's something that we can be proud of; it's something that I am proud of as a Labor senator to be part of another Labor reforming government. In fact, it's why we joined the Labor Party and why we stand for Labor. We want to be part of governments that do something to deliver for families and that keep reforming. That's what this bill does. I want to acknowledge the work of the many, many activists in our community, the union movement, the formidable men and women of our union movement, who have been calling for these reforms for many, many decades before they've been introduced and continue to lead the fight to greater equality. I also want to acknowledge the businesses in our community who stood up early and came out and said, 'This makes good economic sense as well as good social sense.' To those businesses that are at the forefront of many of these changes, I acknowledge your work, too. As chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which looked into this legislation, I want to take a moment to thank everyone who contributed to our inquiry through submissions or through appearing before us and giving their evidence. We were very happy to support this bill and to commend it to the Senate. I know there is more work to do in these reforms; there's much more work we can do to make life better for Australian families, for mums and dads and, critically, for their children. That's why I'm part of the Labor Party. That's why I'm proud to be part of a Labor government, because we will do that work from these benches. That's why we're here. I commend the bill to the Senate. 11:36 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. This bill expands and improves the paid parental leave scheme legislated by the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments in 2010. This bill makes six key changes to the scheme. It combines the existing paid parental leave and the dads' and partners' pay schemes into a single 20-week scheme, which provides more flexibility for families to divide their leave as best suits them. It reserves a portion of the scheme for each parent, which ensures that fathers and partners take a fair share of leave and tackles the gendered stigma around parental leave. It makes it easier for both parents to access the payments by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers and ensures that both parents are treated as equal partners under the scheme. It expands access to the scheme by introducing a family income test, where families can be assessed if they exceed the individual income test. It increases flexibility for parents to choose how they take their leave days. It enables fathers and partners to access the payments regardless of whether the birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements. This bill delivers a fairer, stronger and more flexible paid parental leave scheme. It delivers a better paid parental leave scheme for 181,000 families around Australia. Like every meaningful workplace right and entitlement in this country, this bill reflects countless hours of work and advocacy by workers and their representatives in the trade union movement. No workplace right in this country was ever handed down freely by the Liberal and National Parties. It has taken the blood, sweat and tears of Australian workers, their families, and unionists. Whether it's the 38-hour week, the weekend, the minimum wage, paid leave, superannuation, job security arrangements—which particularly supports women in the workforce—or turning around and making sure that pay equity is properly administered in equal pay for women in the workplace, with its aspects of workers' compensation and, of course, paid parental leave, these are all examples of changes and importance in workplaces around our country. It also goes to arrangements like penalty rates, particularly for those people in precarious, temporary, part-time or casual work, which is dominated by women in the workforce. In those areas, penalty rates were slashed and burned under the previous government. These are areas that the Labor government has been pushing to make sure are rectified, and of course, if the Liberals get back into government, they'll undermine and attack them again. Just in the last few years, we've seen the Liberals attack penalty rates and superannuation; we saw the Liberals happily stand by while big companies like Amazon exploited workers and undermined basic workplace rights; we saw the Liberals abolish all minimum standards in the road transport industry; and we saw the Liberals intervene in court cases on behalf of labour hire companies to strip paid leave entitlements from casual workers. Just a few months ago, we saw the Liberals in opposition oppose the Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill. What was in that bill? The Liberals opposed making gender equality an objective of the Fair Work Act; the Liberals opposed strengthening the right to request an extension of unpaid parental leave; the Liberals opposed strengthening the right to request flexible work arrangements; the Liberals opposed making it easier for workers in low-paid feminised industries to bargain for pay rises; and the Liberals opposed prohibiting sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act. These are all protections introduced by this government at the end of last year, and the Liberals and their mates in a few recalcitrant employer groups—employer unions—fought them tooth and nail. Every time Liberals get in, workers go backwards, because the Liberals and the Nationals have always been the parties of bad businesses, not of the good businesses that have made many of these changes in conjunction with their workforce, who are often represented by unions. Every time a Labor government is elected we see the Australian middle class grow. Whether it's workers or good employers who want to do the right thing by their workers, Labor is the party for the middle class. Let's take paid parental leave as a case in point. In 1973, it was the Whitlam government that first introduced maternity leave for public sector employees and banned discrimination against employees who became pregnant; in 1979, unions successfully argued for maternity leave in the maternity leave test case, which extended unpaid maternity leave to all permanent employees in the private sector; in 1985, unions won unpaid adoption leave; in 1990, the unions won the parental leave test case; and, in 1993, the Keating government enshrined unpaid parental leave as a workplace entitlement in legislation. But during the long, dark years of the Howard government, while universal paid parental leave became common across the OECD, Australian workers went backwards. Rather than paid parental leave, we got Work Choices. During this time, many unions fought for paid parental leave to be added to enterprise agreements. But, while unions led the charge on parental leave, the Howard government was attacking the rights of workers to join unions and to be able to successfully argue for those changes across companies and across industry sectors. In doing so, Howard attacked the rights of workers to access paid parental leave schemes. I remember that, while I was the New South Wales secretary of the Transport Workers Union, we were winning paid parental leave for truck drivers in agreements in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and we were publicly attacked by people like 2UE's John Laws for going soft. Well, thank goodness going soft is recognised as something we should all be doing as a community, not based on gender and, hopefully, not based on politics. By the time the Rudd and Gillard governments legislated paid parental leave in 2010, Australia was one of only two OECD countries without a universal paid parental leave scheme. That is where the Howard government left Australian families: with one of the two most antifamily workplace relations systems in the developed world. Now, after another decade of Liberal government, another decade of Australian workers going backwards, this Labor government has inherited a parental leave scheme that has slid back to being the second-worst among comparable OECD and EU countries. Again, every time the Liberals and Nationals sneak in, they send workers and families backwards, and, every time a Labor government is elected, we repair the damage done to Australia's middle class. Of course, this bill is just the first step in strengthening our Paid Parental Leave scheme. Later this year the Albanese government will introduce legislation to expand Paid Parental Leave from 20 weeks to 26 weeks—another big step forward for Australian families. We should aspire to continue to improve the scheme. I note the submissions by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association calling for the scheme to gradually be extended to a full year of paid parental leave—52 weeks—with an increased rate of pay. They've also called for the scheme to be expanded to all workers, regardless of the length of service, including those who are on temporary or fixed-term contracts. Just as we've seen for a century, the trade union movement is always at the forefront of driving positive workplace reforms that benefit the entire community. Just as we have seen for a century, the advocacy and campaigning of the union movement is often so successful that even the Liberals are shamed into supporting positive workplace reforms such as we're seeing today. That's why it's so, so hard to destroy unions and to stop workers and their representatives and working families from coming together to have a representation and a voice at work. Unions make workplaces and Australian society fairer. They make our middle class stronger. For the Liberals and Nationals, the party of the employers—the employers who want to rip people off—unions are something that they will never support. But I tell you what: good companies do support them, good employers do, and good politicians make a difference. We'll continue to drag the Liberals and Nationals kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Part of the way of doing this reform and bringing them into the 21st century is making sure there are programs that are actually of benefit, because this is also a productivity opportunity and is of assistance to employers. Regarding the mandatory nature of these benefits, the employer's role can help parents to stay connected to their workplace while on leave, leading to the benefits of business, including increased retention and reduced training and recruitment costs. Crucially, the employer role also supports women's workforce participation. We know that time out of the workforce due to caring responsibility is a key driver of the differences between men's and women's economic outcomes. Keeping women connected to their employer while they are on parental leave is intended to encourage women to return to the workforce and have that productivity boost and opportunity across our community while also reducing employee turnover and, in turn, reduce the lifetime earnings gap between men and women. Of course, part of that program is also to support employers of all sizes. Services Australia will ensure that information available to employers is updated to reflect the changes in this bill. This includes a Services Australia website for all employers, which provides information on what employers need to know about the paid parental leave scheme and detailed information about how to register and manage their role. Other resources available include the Paid Parental Leave scheme Employer Toolkit, a handbook maintained by Services Australia since the scheme's introduction. And of course Services Australia also provides a dedicated phone service for employers who require assistance in registering their business online or to ask for help about their obligation under the scheme. Services Australia staff who operate this phone line will receive training about the changes in this bill. This is a change for all Australians—a change that will boost productivity, participation and fairness in our workplace and provide an opportunity for employers to further advance a good workplace. 11:48 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. Again, it gives me great pleasure to speak on a bill that is delivering on the Albanese Labor government's election commitments and a bill that advances women and gender equality in this country. This bill will make life better for over 180,000 families. It will ease the cost-of-living pressure that are being felt by all Australians, because it's a bill that serves families first—and, again, it's a Labor government that introduces these social changes. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families and more opportunity for women. We on this side of the chamber understand the value of women so much better than those on the opposite benches. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 will support women's workforce participation, while helping more dads and partners take time off work to be with their children. I know the benefits firsthand. My husband and I had to reverse roles—not by choice—and I understand the true benefits of the bonds that dads can have with their children. It sets them in good stead for a fantastic life experience. We said during last year's budget that we would deliver a better cost of living, more affordable housing, cheaper child care and medicines, expand paid parental leave and get wages moving again. These changes take effect from July 2023 and will deliver a single Paid Parental Leave scheme with flexible 20-week entitlements for working parents. I'm delighted about what this will mean for parents in my home state of Tasmania. It will mean greater flexibility and efficiency for parents. It's child friendly and empowers women and girls to be the best versions of themselves. Around 180,000 Australian families take up this benefit each year, and they will now be able to share the entitlement in a way that is best for their families' circumstances. The changes will enable either parent to claim parental leave, pay first and access the entitlements in multiple blocks as small as one day, with periods of work in between. A new family income test of $350,000 per annum will also see nearly 3,000 parents become eligible for the expansion of paid parental leave. Pending passage through this place, the changes come into effect for parents whose children are born or adopted from 1 July 2023. Parents can pre-claim up to three months before the expected date of birth or adoption so there is no delay in receiving payments. Pre-claims under the improved system will open from the end of this month. This legislation is an important first stage of our major reform of the Paid Parental Leave scheme and lays the foundation for expansion to 26 weeks by 2026. Not only will the government's reform help families better balance work and care but also will support participation and productivity over the longer term, providing a dividend for the Australian economy and communities across Australia. In other words, it means that women can step out of the role of parent—they're still going to be parents but having that full responsibility—by going back into the workforce to enable them to continue developing the important skills that will help them build a stronger economic outcome for themselves through their working lives. Crucially, the bill will give more families access to the government payment, provide parents greater flexibility in how they take their leave and encourage them to share that care responsibility. It's great for families right across this country. The bill delivers six key changes: combines the two existing payments into a single 20-week scheme; reserves two weeks of the scheme for each parent, to support them in taking time off work after the birth or adoption of their child; simplifies the claims process by removing the categories of primary and secondary carers, so it's easy for parents to access the payment; expands access by introducing a $350,000 family income test under which people, including single parents, may qualify if they do not meet the $156,647 individual income test; increases flexibility for parents to choose how they take their paid parental leave days and transition back to work; and sixth, allows eligible fathers and partners to access the payment, irrespective of whether the mother or the birth parent meets the income test of residency responsibility. It is fundamental that this bill passes the parliament by the end of March so that parents expecting to give birth or adopt on or after 1 July next year have the option of pre-claiming, to receive their government entitlement as soon as they are eligible. Labor will introduce further legislation to progressively increase the Paid Parental Leave scheme from July 2024 until it reaches 26 weeks—a full six months—in 2026. This is the largest expansion since Labor established the scheme back in 2011. It's something that parents of my generation never had access to. This will be such a good fundamental change for families, for parents and for their children. I echo the words of the Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth: We know what happens when both parents are not supported to take time off paid work to care for their babies—usually Mum works much less, or leaves the workforce altogether to take on caring responsibilities, while Dad remains in full-time work … This pattern persists for years after the child's birth and is a key driver of gender gaps in workforce participation and earnings. I urge everyone in this place to support this bill. This bill will support women. It will help remove that issue that many women face when they become mothers, having to choose between being the parent who is the full-time carer or giving up their opportunity in the workforce. The reality of having both parents being able to share in that caring role is so important. It provides relief around the cost of living. It also strengthens the bond between the parents and provides women the opportunity to return to the workforce, if they want to, earlier than they otherwise may have done so. As I said earlier, the bond that is developed between parents in those first very important months and years cannot be underestimated in setting the foundations for the relationship that children have with both parents. Frankly, if I was being honest in this chamber, I'd say the fact that my husband became the carer and the homemaker meant that our children actually much preferred my husband to cook. In fact, they still do—and I'm being blatantly honest about this. Those relationships are terribly important. The other benefit is what it does for women being able to establish and maintain their skills and their place within the workforce. We know that there are too many women of my generation, and beyond, who don't have enough superannuation to be able to retire. This will help solve that issue. It's not the only thing that we need to do, because we still need to increase superannuation for all Australians, but I see such great benefits for the families in my home state of Tasmania: the relationships are going to be stronger, the bonds are going to be better, productivity and the economy are going to be stronger, and skills in our workplaces will continue to grow because women won't feel that they have to step away from paid employment. Once again, it's a Labor government that steps up to introduce legislation to ensure that both parents get the support to develop the bonds and to share those caring responsibilities. We've have had almost a decade of inaction on behalf of the former Liberal government. And it's sad that you have to wait until there's a Labor government to ensure that these social changes are introduced. So, I urge those on the crossbench and those on the opposite side, in opposition, to actually vote for this important legislation. I commend this bill. 11:59 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I start my contribution to the debate on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill by seeking to submit a correction to the explanatory memorandum. Leave granted. Senator FARRELL I0N I thank all of those who have contributed to this important debate on this bill, including Senator Polley, who gave a very personal account of the importance of this legislation to her family. Improving paid parental leave is critical, nation building reform. The Albanese government knows this, and we know that paid parental leave is vital for the health and the wellbeing of parents and their children. We know that investing in paid parental leave benefits our economy. And we know that, done right, paid parental leave can advance gender equality. We heard these messages loud and clear at our successful Jobs and Skills Summit in September, where gender equality and economic reform went hand in hand. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families and more opportunity for women. That's why paid parental leave reform was a centrepiece of our first budget, with an additional half-a-billion-dollar investment in the scheme. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy, and the Albanese government is building and expanding on that legacy. The number of government and non-government members who have spoken to these reforms over the course of this debate shows how important this issue is to many Australians. We've wasted no time delivering on our budget commitment. The changes in this bill modernise paid parental leave so that it's the right time and right for the future. We know dads and partners want more time at home with their baby. My oldest daughter is expecting our third grandchild in the next week or so, so I can fully understand that dads and their partners do want to spend more time with, particularly, a new baby. We know parents want flexibility in how they choose to take leave and transition back to work. We know the current eligibility rules are unfair to families where the mother is a higher income earner. Our bill fixes those problems. It gives more families access to the payment, provides parents more flexibility in how they take leave and encourages them to share care to support gender equality. From 1 July 2023, this bill will improve paid parental leave by combining the two existing payments into a single 20-week scheme, reserving two weeks of leave for each parent to support them both to take time off work, making it easier for both parents to access the payments by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers, expanding access to around 3,000 more families each year by introducing a new $350,000 family income test, expanding access to around 1,500 more dads and partners each year through a new simpler claiming process and, finally, increasing flexibility for parents to choose how they take government paid leave and transition back to work. It's critical that this bill passes both chambers by 9 March to ensure that parents expecting to give birth or adopt on or after 1 July 2023 have the option of preclaiming their entitlements three months in advance. This bill implements the first part of the government's budget measures. We will separately bring forward legislation to progressively increase the scheme from July 2024 until it reaches 26 weeks in July 2026—a full six months of leave. This is the largest expansion of paid parental leave since Labor established it in 2011. Our half-a-billion-dollar investment reflects our government's commitment to improving the lives of working families, supporting better outcomes for children and advancing women's economic equality. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for its work conducting the inquiry into the bill and preparing such a comprehensive support. Special thanks go to Senator Marielle Smith, from South Australia, for her significant contribution as chair of that committee. The inquiry heard from a diverse range of voices, including employer bodies, unions, family advocates and general equality experts. I would also like to thank the many organisations and individuals who took the time to prepare submissions on the bill and the witnesses who appeared before the committee to provide their evidence. As many of the submissions and witnesses noted, the bill is a crucial step towards a parental leave system that empowers the full and equal participation of women. We were pleased to see that the submissions overwhelmingly supported the measures contained within the bill. We were also pleased to see the committee's finding that the reforms proposed by the bill will deliver better outcomes for parents, children, employers and the economy and that the bill will achieve its overarching objective of creating a more accessible, flexible and gender-neutral paid parental leave scheme for Australian families. The Australian Human Rights Commission and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, amongst others, welcomed the move towards gender neutrality, removing the presumption that women are always primary caregivers. The National Foundation for Australian Women also endorsed the changes, stating that they send 'an appropriate signal about the direct importance of the role of fathers and partners in the lives of newborns'. Other submissions welcomed the expanded eligibility, especially through the family income test, which will ensure families with equivalent incomes are treated the same regardless of which parent is the higher earner. The Diversity Council, Ai Group and the Australian Institute of Family Studies welcomed this change as well as the changes that enable eligible fathers and partners to claim parental leave pay even when the birth mother isn't eligible. I also want to highlight the support for the increased flexibility introduced by this bill. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in particular, noted that these provisions will support parents to manage work and care, support gradual returns to work and help parents maintain an ongoing connection to the workplace. I note that there were additional comments from coalition senators. I acknowledge the points they raised about ensuring businesses are supported to understand the changes to the scheme, and I'd like to assure senators that Services Australia will make sure information and support are available to those employers. In the committee's report, the Greens made additional comments, welcoming the changes and making further recommendations—that the bill be amended to include superannuation on paid parental leave, that the scheme be expanded to 26 weeks from 1 July 2023, and that the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce be asked to investigate rates of payment. In response to these additional comments, I want to make it clear that the Albanese government is firmly committed to increasing the scheme to 26 weeks by 2026. The government committed half a billion dollars in the October budget, and we will legislate it by July 2024. This is the largest investment in the scheme since Labor established it in 2011. Our approach to expansion allows us to make important structural reform in a difficult fiscal situation. We are responsible economic managers; we need to address the inflationary pressures in the economy, and that requires us to be very prudent about any expenditure. We're also committed to getting the settings right to maximise women's economic equality. The government has asked the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce for advice on the optimal model for a 26-week scheme. The task force, made up of independent experts and chaired by Sam Mostyn AO, is currently considering the right mix of 'use it or lose it' weeks and flexible weeks. Following consideration of the task force advice, the government will bring forward legislation to expand the scheme to 26 weeks by 2026. Regarding payment of superannuation on paid parental leave, the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance, and the Minister For Social Services have been very clear: when we can afford it, we would like to do it. Our first priority has been improving how PPL is structured and expanding the number of weeks. That's our priority, but we will continue to work on issues around pay inequality. The key driver of the gender gap in superannuation is gender pay gaps in working life, and the Albanese Labor government is investing in a range of policies that support women's workforce participation and earning potential. Regarding the rate of pay, the Productivity Commission recommended it be based on the national minimum wage rather than the proportion of previous earnings. This approach balances the need to provide support to parents with the cost of the scheme to taxpayers. Payment at national minimum wage also means that every family welcoming a new child receives the same financial support. The government does not have plans to change that. It is worth noting that the changes in this bill mean from 1 July this year eligible parents will be able to claim government paid leave at the same time as any employer paid leave. This will make it easier for families to maintain their income while caring for their newborn. Under the current scheme, this option is already available to mums but not to dads. During the inquiry, we also heard some concerns from the Greens about the current work test rules, including for people with short or inconsistent work histories and full-time students. While there are no changes to the work test as part of this bill, the current rules are designed to be flexible and are accessible to casual workers, temporary workers, and workers on short-term or fixed-term contracts. We've heard some questions from senators about the potential for administrative burden on small business. I'd like to assure senators that, in designing the changes, the government carefully considered impacts on business. This legislation does not change the employer role in any way. Evidence provided to the committee's inquiry demonstrated that the more flexible scheme will actually benefit employers and employees without any additional administrative burdens on businesses. Existing legislation requires employers to administer government funded parental leave pay to eligible long-term employees. Services Australia provides the payment to employers in advance of them passing it on to their employee in accordance with the employer's normal pay cycle. This employer role helps parents stay connected to their workplace while on leave, leading to benefits for business including increased retention and reduced training and recruitment costs. Crucially it also supports women's workforce participation, and we know that time out of the workforce due to caring responsibilities is a key driver of the gap between men and women's economic outcomes. I remind senators that, to reduce administrative burden, employers are not required to administer the payments when employees take the government paid leave days in continuous blocks of less than eight weeks. I'm pleased that our changes have been warmly welcomed by business. In their submission to the committee's inquiry the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said they strongly support these changes: These changes should deliver significant benefits to the economy by boosting women's workforce participation, improving flexibility in the use of paid parental leave, enhancing gender equity outcomes, and ensuring businesses continue to have access to a diverse, experienced productive labour force. Again I thank all senators for their engagement on this important issue, and I commend the bill to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the second reading amendment standing in the names of Senator Waters and Senator Pocock be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:18]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. 31 NOES Antic, A. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Payne, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

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

 In Committee 22 12:23 The CHAIR 287062 Honourable senators, with the concurrence of the Senate, the statements of reasons accompanying the requests circulated for this bill will be incorporated in the Hansard immediately after the requests to which they relate. There being no objection, it is so ordered. 12:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Before moving to the Greens committee stage amendments, I would like to ask the representing minister a handful of questions. We just saw the chamber vote against paying superannuation on paid parental leave entitlements. This used to be Labor policy, and the minister even quoted the relevant minister in his contribution, saying, 'When we can afford it, we'd like to do it.' This is a government crying poor, and women are missing out because of that poor judgement call. My first question to the representing minister at the table is: super used to be your policy on PPL. Why did you just vote against it? 12:24 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Waters for her question. I can remember when superannuation was limited to a very small number of people, generally males, generally in white-collar occupations and, more specifically, in managerial roles. It was under the leadership of Paul Keating, particularly with Bill Kelty, as part of the development of the accord to deal with some of the economic problems this country faced in the eighties and nineties, that they developed the concept of universal superannuation. So, to be honest, Senator Waters, I won't be lectured by the Greens about the role the Labor Party has played in creating the current superannuation scheme, in developing that scheme, in protecting that scheme from all of the things the Liberals and Nationals would have done to it in government if they'd had the chance. If we fast forward from the time when Keating and Kelty developed the concept of universal superannuation, it's now a scheme that's the envy of the entire world. There's no country that has a better superannuation scheme than Australia. That's because Labor governments have worked in conjunction with the union movement in this country to develop this world-class superannuation scheme. Why are we here today? We're here today because that terrific minister, Minister Rishworth, has brought forward this bill to expand the availability of paid parental leave. That's what we are doing here today. Unfortunately, when we came to office we discovered what? I want to put this into some perspective. When the Gillard government lost in 2013 we had a national debt of around $300 billion. When Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister nearly 12 months ago— Senator Ciccone 281503 How much? Senator FARRELL I0N You asked the question, Senator Ciccone. We had a debt of $1 trillion. So in the nine years that the conservatives were running this country into the ground we trebled our debt from $300 billion to $1 trillion. That's the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. What has the government done? It took a policy to the last election in respect of paid parental leave. We told the Australian people what we would do in terms of paid parental leave. What was the first thing we did in our first budget to implement that policy? We did exactly what we said we were going to do, and that's what we're asking the Senate to do on this occasion. The bill has passed the House of Representatives, and we're now asking the Senate to say: 'Look, we accept that you went to the last election with this proposal. Here it is for you to vote on—no more and no less than what we said we would do. We're asking all of the people in this place to support what we took to the Australian people last year at the election.' Of course there are a whole lot of things a Labor government would like to do. This proposal by the Greens is just one of the many things that Labor in government would like to do. Can I say, Senator Waters, we intend to be a long-term Labor government—not one term, not two terms, not three terms but four terms. Senator Henderson ZN4 That's arrogant. Senator FARRELL I0N There's no arrogance there, Senator Henderson. We intend to be a long-term Labor government, and that's the way long-term— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N No, no. Senator Scarr 282997 Two more years! Twenty-four months feels like forever! Senator FARRELL I0N No, not two more years. We intend to, over time, build on the terrific work that the Labor government has done in the past— Senator FARRELL I0N How many more years? I can't tell you. I can't forecast just how many years, but I know that under Anthony Albanese we intend to be a long-term Labor government. Senator Henderson ZN4 How many more broken promises, Senator Farrell? Senator FARRELL I0N No broken promises. We took our paid parental leave policy to the people at the last election. They're endorsing it. We've put it into our budget. We've now put it through the House of Representatives. Our job, as senators, is to say, 'We're doing the final step.' If we could do everything we wanted to do—if we had an unlimited amount of money—then there are a whole lot of other things that an Anthony Albanese Labor government would like to do. At this point, we're doing what we said we would do. And, as I said in my summing-up speech, there are other things that we want to do and there will be other things that we will do in the future. But, Senator Waters, we are the government. We were elected by the people to govern this country. We took a set of policies to the people and they endorsed those policies, so what we're here to do is to implement those policies. That's what we'd like this Senate to do, and we'd like you to be part of that. 12:32 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Just sticking with superannuation briefly, before we move to our other detailed amendments, the former government commissioned a retirement income review, which costed paying superannuation on paid parental leave at a mere $200 million. That was for 179,000 recipients. I understand that we're up to about 181,000 recipients now, so it's possible that that $200 million cost might have increased by one or two million. My question, representing minister, given that you say you'd like to do it when you can afford to do it, did you re-cost how much it would cost the budget to pay superannuation on paid parental leave? 12:33 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Waters for her question. We don't have an updated cost. 12:33 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland From that, I can infer that you're relying on the $200 million cost and you're making the active decision that the women of Australia are not worth the $200 million to pay for superannuation on their paid parental leave despite the fact that that was a 2019 election promise by the then Labor opposition. I'm going to move some committee stage amendments now. I seek leave to move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1819 together. Leave granted. Senator WATERS 192970 I, also on behalf of Senator Barbara Pocock, move: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 13), omit "100", substitute "130". (2) Schedule 1, item 38, page 13 (line 6), omit "100", substitute "130". (3) Schedule 1, item 66, page 25 (line 19), omit "90", substitute "120". (4) Schedule 1, item 66, page 25 (line 31), omit "100", substitute "130". (5) Schedule 1, item 66, page 26 (line 12), omit "100", substitute "130". ————— St atement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendments (3), (4) and (5) Amendments (3), (4) and (5) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to increase the maximum number of days for which paid parental leave can be paid in relation to a child from 100 days to 130 days. As this will increase the total amount of paid parental leave that can be paid, the amendments will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. Amendments (1) and (2) Amendments (1) and (2) are consequential to amendments (3), (4) and (5). Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendments (3), (4) and (5) If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests. Amendments (1) and (2) These amendments are consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request. I will make some very brief remarks before asking a handful of questions. Australia is the second-worst country in the OECD for paid parental leave equity. That is an embarrassment. Today is an opportunity to redress that. The international best practice for paid parental leave is 52 weeks. It's not a measly 20 weeks. It's not a three-year wait to get to 26 weeks. It's 52 weeks. Also, it has structured 'use it or lose it' provisions and higher rates of pay. That's international best practice. If this government were to axe the unaffordable and unnecessary stage 3 tax cuts for the very wealthy, it could afford to fund a decent Paid Parental Leave scheme that might put Australia towards the front of the pack of the OECD rather than being the second worst of comparable developed nations. I still don't understand why they're making the decision not to prioritise women. As my colleague said, in another instance, they're robbing Peter to pay Peter, but, in this case, they're just giving yet more money to Peter, and it's Peter who's benefitting because it's men who will mostly be in favour and benefitting from the stage 3 tax cuts. Rather than sticking with that, you could give some money to women and lift the minimum wage; you could pay super on PPL; you could increase the number of weeks that paid parental leave is given to new parents; and, ideally, you could do it at replacement wage or at least look at different models that get it close to replacement wage. None of that is happening, so the amendments I'm moving today on sheet 1819 will bring forward this promise of 26 weeks. In his closing speech, the minister said that they will legislate that next year, 2024, and it will kick in in 2026. Why are you making women wait? This is good policy. It is a step along the way to, I hope, a 52-week paid parental leave policy, which the ACTU and many other women's groups have been pushing for for years and a move that the Greens would support. Why are you making women wait three more years? Are you crying poor again? It's just not plausible to cry poor when you're handing out those stage 3 tax cuts. People see right through that. They know you are making an active decision to make women wait for three more years. They're not going to like that, I can tell you! Our amendments will ensure that new parents and women, in particular, can benefit from that increase to 26 weeks right away, from 1 July this year, not in three years. I commend the amendment to the chamber. 12:37 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Waters for her contribution. I totally reject the proposition that the Labor Party doesn't think women are worth $200 million. In fact, this proposal we're bringing forward is significantly more than that amount of money. The government has committed half a billion dollars in the October 2022-23 budget to expand the Paid Parental Leave scheme to 26 weeks by July 2026. This is the largest investment in the scheme since Labor established it in 2011. Senator Waters, it's all very well to grandstand and accept everything that the Labor Party does and say, 'But that's not enough; you've got to go further.' We took a policy to the last election. I accept that that was different from the policy we took at the previous election, but we all know what happened at the previous election to a range of our policies. We've taken this policy, and you want to grandstand. You want to say, 'Look, I'm going to accept everything that the Labor Party is putting forward here, but to embarrass the Labor Party we're going to say that we need to go further than that.' That's easy for you to do, with respect, Senator Waters, but you aren't responsible for managing the budget, and this government is. This government will be a responsible, long-term Labor government. Through this bill we are making immediate improvements to the current scheme by increasing flexibility and fairness from 1 July 2023. We will legislate a staged expansion, with the scheme increasing by two weeks each year from July 2024, reaching 26 weeks in July 2026. Our approach allows us to make important structural reform in a difficult fiscal situation. I reported earlier the economic mess we were left by the people over that side—they trebled our national debt. But we are making responsible economic decisions, as we always will. Our approach allows us to make important structural reforms in this difficult situation. Expanding the scheme to 26 weeks from 1 July 2023 would obviously have a significant impact on the budget and would cost more than $1 billion over the forward estimates, on top of half a billion dollars we are already investing. We are responsible economic managers, and we need to address the inflationary pressures in the economy that require us to be prudent about any expenditure. The government has asked the Women's Economic Equality Task Force for advice on the optimal model of a 26-week scheme. The task force, made up of independent experts and chaired by Sam Mostyn, is considering the right mix of 'use it or lose it' weeks and flexible weeks to maximise women's economic equality. They will provide advice to the government by midyear. Following consideration of the task force's advice, the government will bring forward legislation to expand the scheme to 26 weeks by 2026. I'd urge all senators, including Greens senators, to focus on the bill in front of them and the benefits to 180,000 families each year. As I said before, it's critical that this bill passes both houses by 9 March to ensure that parents who are expecting to give birth or adopt on or after 1 July 2023 have the option of pre-claiming parental leave three months in advance. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that requests (1) to (5) on sheet 1819 moved together by leave by Senator Waters be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [12:46]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. 27 NOES Antic, A. Ayres, T. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:49 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (11) on sheet 1828 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 10), after "paid workforce", insert "or from eligible postgraduate work". (2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 1), after item 13, insert: 13A Section 6 Insert: eligible postgraduate work: see section 35AA. (3) Schedule 1, item 58, page 23 (line 23), omit "or taken enough paid leave", substitute ", taken enough paid leave or performed enough eligible postgraduate work". (4) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 19), after item 61, insert: 61A After paragraph 31AA(2)(c) Insert: (ca) on that day the person is performing no more than one hour of eligible postgraduate work; and (5) Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 9), after item 75, insert: 75A Section 32 (at the end of paragraph (b) of note 1) Add "or eligible postgraduate work". (6) Schedule 1, item 86, page 28 (lines 19 to 21), omit the item, substitute: 86 Paragraphs 33(2A)(a) and (b) Omit "primary claimant", substitute "PPL claimant or special PPL claimant". 86A Paragraph 33(2A)(b) After "paid work", insert ", or eligible postgraduate work,". 86B Paragraph 33(2A)(c) Omit "primary claimant", substitute "PPL claimant or special PPL claimant". (7) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 2), after item 90, insert: 90A After paragraph 34(1)(a) Insert: (aa) the person performs at least one hour of eligible postgraduate work; (8) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 4), after item 91, insert: 91A After section 35 Insert: 35AA When a person performs eligible postgraduate work A person performs eligible postgraduate work on a day if, on that day: (a) the person is enrolled in a course of study or research for a doctoral degree; and (b) the person performs study or research for the purposes of that course; whether the enrolment is with an institution, or the study or research is performed, within or outside Australia. (9) Schedule 1, page 30 (after line 4), after item 100, insert: 100A Subparagraph 36A(b)(ii) After "paid work", insert "or eligible postgraduate work". (10) Schedule 3, item 3, page 59 (line 28), before "Sections", insert "(1)". (11) Schedule 3, item 3, page 59 (after line 30), at the end of the item, add: (2) However, paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the PPL Act, as inserted by Schedule 1 to this Act, applies in relation to a claim for parental leave pay for a child born on or after 1 July 2023. 1828-EM Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 (Requests for amendments to be moved by Senator Faruqi, on behalf of the Australian Greens, in committee of the whole) Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendments (2) to (11) Amendments (2) to (11) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to expand the class of people who can claim paid parental leave to include certain postgraduate doctoral students. As this will increase the number of people eligible for paid parental leave, the amendments will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. Amendment (1) Amendment (1) is consequential to amendments (2) to (11). Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendments (2) to (11) If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests. Amendment (1) This amendment is consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on amendments framed as requests may also be framed as a request. As I said earlier in my second reading speech, a key shortcoming of this bill is that PhD students are not included in the Paid Parental Leave scheme. They, despite often conducting research on a fulltime basis, cannot access the same parental leave entitlement as other working parents. Currently the PhD students don't qualify for the scheme because their activities are counted as study through a scholarship or other award or financial aid and that blocks them out of this act as it stands currently. There is no good reason for this, and this has to change. The Greens' amendments actually go towards changing this by including a new entitlement to paid parental leave for someone doing eligible postgraduate work. That is, a person who performs postgraduate work and is enrolled in a course of study or research for a doctoral degree and performs study or research for the purposes of that course, whether the enrolment is within an institution or the study or research is performed with or outside Australia. The amendments also expand the work test in the Paid Parental Leave Act to include eligible postgraduate work. If we are actually serious about achieving gender equity and promoting the health and wellbeing of all parents and children in Australia, then the scheme must extend to PhD students because anything less will be a gaping oversight by the government. I commend the amendments. 12:51 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Faruqi for her contribution but indicate that the government continues to oppose this amendment. Can I say this: I don't think there's ever been a government in the history of this country that's so committed to achieving gender equity. I just look at my colleague here, Senator Gallagher, and the wonderful work that she's been doing in every aspect of this government's decision-making process. I start by reiterating my earlier comments. We went to the election with a proposal, that proposal was endorsed by the Australian people, and we're here today to implement that proposal. The work test supports the intent of the scheme and provides financial support to working parents who have an attachment to the workforce. Therefore, PhD students who are not also engaged in paid employment are not eligible. The current work test is flexible enough to encompass workers in both full-time and part-time employment and workers on casual, temporary or fixed-term contracts. To meet the work test, a person must have performed qualifying work for 10 out of the 13 months prior to the birth or the adoption of their child and worked for at least 330 hours in that 10-month period with no more than a 12-week gap between consecutive working days. The hours worked requirement equates to just over one day a week. The person is also considered to be performing qualifying work on a day if they have taken a period of paid leave of at least one hour. Should a PhD student undertake paid work in addition to their studies, such as tutoring at university, this could count towards the work test. Just from my knowledge of this area, I'd say that there are a lot of PhD students who would fit into that category. PhD students who are employed at the university may also be eligible for the university's Paid Parental Leave scheme for employees. Many PhD scholarship programs offer paid parental leave to eligible students who have held their scholarship for at least 12 months. Of Australia's top 20 universities, 16 provide paid parental leave to students on PhD scholarships at an average of 12 weeks. A PhD student who is not eligible for paid parental leave may be eligible to receive the newborn supplement and the newborn upfront payment. The government also provides significant funding and support to students. In the October 2022-23 budget there is costed expenditure on higher education at $44.63 billion over four years, including $485.5 million over four years for 20,000 additional Commonwealth supported places at universities and other higher education providers. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the chair is that requests (1) to (11) on sheet 1828, moved by leave together by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [13:00]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. 29 NOES Antic, A. Ayres, T. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:03 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory At this stage, I will not be moving my amendments, after some discussions with the government. I have raised the concerns around the burden that this is going to place on small businesses. I accept that there is an argument for medium and large businesses to maintain the interaction and the connection between the employer and the employee in administering PPL. In my discussions with small businesses, small tweaks to payroll can result in not insignificant time. Even a half hour, an hour or two extra hours to do payroll adds up if you are a small business. In 2010, this was raised by small business groups and small businesses. In 2014, there was a Senate committee hearing on this, and it was raised again. I don't understand why we can't address this. What I'm proposing to government is 12 months to set up a system where small businesses can opt in or opt out of this requirement, to give them the flexibility. Should they be topping up PPL, as some small businesses are, and they want to administer it then they should be able to do that. They shouldn't be forced into a situation where they have to take on this extra administrative burden, particularly as we begin to increase paid parental leave in Australia, which I'm fully supportive of. The evidence is so clear that this a good thing for children, for parents, for families and for our community. This is something that I really would like dealt with by the government. I would like small businesses to be heard. And I would really like to know from the government and the department, in coming up with these changes, which small businesses and small business peak bodies were consulted. 13:06 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I will just make a brief contribution. I'm pleased to hear that Senator D Pocock will not be moving his amendments. We had some concerns that the effect of those amendments—whilst well-intentioned to try to relieve the administrative burden on small business, which we're conscious of as well—would be to further sever the connection between the work place and a new parent. This is a work place entitlement, and our concern is that we seek to strengthen that relationship. The whole point of having paid parental leave is to make sure that the connection to the work place is maintained and women's economic participation after the birth of a child can continue, and that they are supported and encouraged to go back into the work force when they so choose. So, I'm just placing on record that we would not have supported those amendments, and we're pleased that they're not being moved today. 13:07 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 1832 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 3, heading, page 57 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add "relating to Schedules 1 and 2". (3) Schedule 3, item 2, page 57 (line 19), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to". (4) Schedule 3, item 2, page 57 (line 26), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to". (5) Schedule 3, item 2, page 58 (line 7), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to". (6) Schedule 3, item 2, page 58 (line 14), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to". (7) Schedule 3, item 2, page 59 (line 13), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to". (8) Schedule 3, item 7, page 61 (line 4), after "amendments or repeals made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to". (9) Schedule 3, item 7, page 61 (line 9), before "this Act", insert "Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to". (10) Page 61 (after line 24), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4 — Payment of instalments Pai d Parental Leave Act 2010 1 Section 4 (paragraph beginning "Part 3-5") Repeal the paragraph, substitute: Part 3-5 is about employer determinations. If an employer determination is in force for an employer and a person, the employer must pay instalments to the person, unless the employer employs less than 50 employees. In that case, the employer may elect to pay instalments to the person. The Secretary must be satisfied that certain conditions have been met before the Secretary can make an employer determination. 2 Section 6 (definition of acceptance notice ) Omit "section 103", substitute "paragraphs 103(1)(a) and (2)(a)". 3 Section 6 (definition of employer determination ) Omit "section 101", substitute "subsections 101(1) and (1A)". 4 Section 6 Insert: non-acceptance notice: see paragraph 103(2)(b). 5 Section 100 (paragraph beginning "This Part") Repeal the paragraph, substitute: This Part is about employer determinations. If an employer determination is in force for an employer and a person, the employer must pay instalments to the person, unless the employer employs less than 50 employees. In that case, the employer may elect to pay instalments to the person. 6 Section 100 (paragraph beginning "If the Secretary makes") Repeal the paragraph, substitute: If the Secretary makes an employer determination for a person and the person's employer and the employer employs 50 employees or more, the employer must: (a) give the Secretary certain information to enable the Secretary to pay the employer PPL funding amounts for the person; or (b) apply for review of the employer determination under Part 5-1 or 5-2. If the Secretary makes an employer determination for a person and the person's employer and the employer employs fewer than 50 employees, the employer may elect to pay instalments to the person. If the employer does not make an election, the Secretary must pay instalments to the person. 7 Subsection 101(1) Omit "under this section", substitute "under this subsection". 8 After paragraph 101(1)(a) Insert: (aa) the employer employs 50 or more employees; and 9 After subsection 101(1) Insert: (1A) The Secretary must make a determination under this section (the employer determination) that a person's employer is to pay the person instalments if the Secretary is satisfied, when making the determination, that: (a) either: (i) a payability determination under section 13 or 14 that parental leave pay is payable to the person for a child is in force; or (ii) an initial eligibility determination under section 26A for the person in relation to a child is in force; and (b) the employer employs fewer than 50 employees; and (c) the employer has made an election under section 109 to pay instalments and that election applies to the person; and (d) the person has consented in the claim to the employer paying instalments to the person; and (e) the person has a continuous flexible period for the child and is likely to be an Australian-based employee of the employer during that period; and (f) there are no other flexible PPL days prior to the person's continuous flexible period in respect of which: (i) parental leave pay is payable to the person for the child; or (ii) the person is initially eligible for parental leave pay for the child; and (g) the employer has an ABN. 10 Paragraph 101(3)(a) After "subsection (1)", insert "or (1A)". 11 Paragraph 101(3)(b) After "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or (1A)(a)". 12 Subsection 101(4) Omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)". 13 At the end of section 101 Insert: Calculating number of employees (7) For the purpose of calculating the number of employees employed by an employer at a particular time for the purposes of this section: (a) subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), all employees employed by the employer at that time are to be counted; and (b) seasonal workers and other irregular casual employees are not to be counted. 14 Section 103 Repeal the section, substitute: 103 Employer response to notice of employer determination (1) If an employer is given a notice under section 102 that an employer determination has been made under subsection 101(1), the employer must, within 14 days after the date of the notice, do one of the following: (a) give the Secretary a written notice (the acceptance notice) that complies with section 104; (b) apply for a review of the employer determination under Part 5-1 or 5-2. Note: This subsection is a civil penalty provision (see section 146). (2) If an employer is given a notice under section 102 that an employer determination has been made under subsection 101(1A), the employer may, within the period referred to in subsection (3): (a) give the Secretary a written notice (the acceptance notice) that complies with section 104; or (b) give the Secretary notice (the non-acceptance notice), orally or in writing, declaring that the employer does not accept the employer's obligations to pay instalments to the person. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the period is 14 days, or such longer period allowed by the Secretary, after the date of the notice given under section 102. 15 Paragraph 106(c) After "subsection 101(1)", insert "or (1A)". 16 Subsection 108(1) (after table item 1) Insert: 17 Subsection 108(1) (table item 2, column 1) Omit "section 103", substitute "subsection 103(1)". 18 Subsection 108(1) (after table item 2) Insert: 19 Section 146 (cell at table item 10, column 1) Repeal the cell, substitute: Subsection 103(1) 20 Paragraphs 157(1)(b) and 159(1)(b) Omit "section 103", substitute "subsection 103(1)". 21 Subsections 203(2) and 207(1) Omit "section 101", substitute "subsection 101(1)". 22 Subsection 207(5) Omit "section 103", substitute "subsection 103(1)". 23 Subsection 207(5) (note) Omit "Section 103", substitute "Subsection 103(1)". 24 Application of amendments The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to an employer determination that is made on or after the commencement of this Schedule in relation to a claim for parental leave pay that is made before, on or after that commencement. I thank Senator Pocock for raising this really important issue in relation to the administrative burden on small businesses. This pay clerk function of the PPL scheme is something we have long supported so as to remove the unnecessary red tape that's associated with the administration of this really important initiative that has got the bipartisan, or the multipartisan, support of this place. We certainly believe that small businesses and stakeholders and industry groups generally don't support the employer role in the administration of PPL payments because it adds a burden to what is already a very onerous life as a small business operator in this country. I also commend Senator Pocock for allowing the 12-month period to enable a lead-in, which should provide time for Services Australia to be able to arrange the necessary back-of-house processes necessary to implement this change. The coalition want to put on the record that we will always support anything that reduces compliance burden placed on the engine room of our economy, which is small businesses and, accordingly, we will be supporting this amendment and thank Senator Pocock for moving it. 13:09 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator David Pocock for the constructive discussions that have gone on in the last hour or so, and we will continue those discussions and ensure that the basis of those discussions will be implemented. It is remarkable that Senator Ruston now jumps up to move Senator Pocock's amendments. If this was such an important issue and the opposition were so concerned about small business, why didn't they move these amendments themselves in the first instance? I think that is the $64 question. I think I do have an answer to that. Although Senator Ruston and her colleagues in the coalition talk the talk on small business, they never ever walk the walk. We've only had to see what has happened with the Bellarine Peninsula. What happened to small businesses in the tourism industry during the pandemic? You didn't care an iota. Senator FARRELL I0N You never cared one iota about those small businesses. Suddenly— The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x Senator Henderson, the senator should be heard in silence. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you for that protection, Temporary Chair. I make the point that you can't believe the coalition when they say they are remotely interested in helping small business. There's only one party in this country that's going to help small business, and that is the Australian Labor Party. We're the only party that is interested in helping small business— Senator Henderson ZN4 The Geelong Manufacturing Council says that you are destroying manufacturing businesses. Senator FARRELL I0N I will take this interjection. I talk to businesses every single day, day and night, every weekday and every weekend. The message they're giving me, Senator Henderson, is that they like what they see with the Anthony Albanese Labor government. They like what they see because they know that not only are we a pro-worker government but also we are a pro-business government. You can do both. You can help workers in this country, as we are doing with this legislation; and you can help businesses. Of course, what we've done with this piece of legislation is do exactly that: help workers and help businesses. The role of employers in the Paid Parental Leave scheme is not changing under this bill. Employers play an important role in maintaining a connection to work for parents and, particularly, women time off to care for children. Roughly five million Australians work in small businesses with fewer than 20 employees. In designing the changes, the government carefully considered impacts on business. The government has made sure that with this bill employers don't face any new regulatory burdens when paying paid parental leave. Evidence to the Senate committee inquiry on this bill demonstrated that our changes, particularly the increased flexibility, will benefit employers and employees, without any additional administrative burden on businesses. Did you hear that, Senator Ruston? I'll repeat it for you because I know you weren't listening: evidence to the Senate inquiry on this bill demonstrated that our changes, particularly the increased flexibility, will benefit employers and employees, without any additional administrative burden on business. Throughout the Senate inquiry on the bill no submissions or witnesses raised the mandatory employer role as an area of significant concern, not even the peak body representing small businesses, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. We know that nearly 40 per cent of businesses who administer paid parental leave pay to their employees choose to do so. They opt in even though they were not required to under the legislation. Businesses administer paid parental leave because it's a workforce entitlement not a welfare payment. It was the Productivity Commission that recommended businesses administer PPL payments so that mothers maintain a connection with their employer while on leave. Taking this approach means that women are more likely to return to work and employee turnover falls, which is obviously good for business, particularly small business. Clearly, concern about the employer role is not a unanimous viewpoint. The Minister for Social Services—who is doing a terrific job, I have to say—has offered to work with Senator David Pocock to investigate the issue and see if there is a need to find solutions. Today we've committed to support a reference to a committee and agree that we consult with Senator Pocock on the terms of reference for that reference. We're bringing forward another bill on PPL, prior to July 2024, to implement the expansion of the 26 weeks. This provides an opportunity to consider findings from the consultation process. We are very willing to consider what improvements can be made but we don't agree to a change that may have unintended negative consequences, including for mothers' connection to work. We need a clear understanding of the issue and implications of any change before it's enshrined in legislation, and our reference will do this. The Australian people and prospective parents deserve nothing less. 13:16 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. Could you briefly outline who the department consulted with from the small business community in drafting this bill? 13:16 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Pocock, for this question. Small businesses and, in particular, COSBOA were made aware of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. COSBOA did not— Senator Ruston 243273 Made aware! Senator ZN4 Made aware? There was no consultation. That's the way Don— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senators! Can I remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly. Senator Farrell should be respected and heard in silence. Senator Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, Chair, for that protection. COSBOA did not, but we are happy to understand their concerns and work with Senator David Pocock to understand their issues. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 1832, moved by Senator Ruston, be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [13:21]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

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

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

 Third Reading 33 13:25 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 33

Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022

Second Reading 33 13:26 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria It is with great pleasure that I speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 today as the shadow minister for education. The coalition supports this bill, which is the reintroduction of measures introduced by us which lapsed at the election. On behalf of the coalition, I thank the government for proceeding with our bill, which supports our world-class researchers, universities and industries to deliver for our nation. My former colleague the Hon. Alan Tudge, as the previous minister for education, undertook a review of the government's significant investment in research to identify ways in which we could drive greater benefits for our economy. This work looked at the research undertaken here in Australia by some of our brightest academic minds and the potential to support these ideas through the commercialisation phase. What we discovered was that, whilst we undertake world-leading research and publish more than 100,000 academic papers, we don't do a lot with those beyond the initial exploration. The ideas generated at universities are incredible, and we are renowned around the globe for inventions like the electronic pacemaker, invented by Dr Mark Lidwill and physicist Edgar Booth in the 1920s; the use of penicillin by Australian scientist Howard Florey in 1939; the black box flight recorder, invented in the 1950s by Dr David Warren, which is now installed on every aircraft; and the cochlear implant, developed by Professor Graeme Clark in the 1970s, which to date has been used on about 750,000 people across the world, absolutely changing lives. The list goes on, but these inventions alone demonstrate how we can assist Australian researchers to translate their amazing ideas into commercial applications to meet Australia's and the world's greatest challenges. This will not only highlight Australia's incredible research on the world stage but also provide a boost to our productivity and create jobs and the industries of our future. This translation element was a key component of the coalition's $2.2 billion University Research Commercialisation Package and is the subject of the bill before us today. Our University Research Commercialisation Package outlined key initiatives to reform Australia's research commercialisation landscape across four key areas: by placing national priorities at the core of Australian government funded research; by using priority driven schemes to ramp up commercialisation activity; by delivering university research funding reform to strengthen incentives for genuine collaboration with industry; and by investing in people who are skilled in university-industry collaboration. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Thank you, Senator Henderson. It is 1.30, so you will be in continuation. We shall now proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 34 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Superannuation: Taxation 34 13:30 Senator McGRA 217241 Queensland TH () (): I rise to provide a two-minute statement about Labor's proposed super changes. My speech will take no longer than two minutes, but somehow it'll still be longer than Labor's so-called conversation about super reform. I've had conversations about the weather that have lasted longer than Labor's so-called conversation about super. The issue with this conversation and the whiplash that Australians are feeling from the announcement of this brain burp from the Labor government is the realisation that this is yet another broken promise by Labor, and not just a normal broken promise but a supersized broken promise. It is a raid on working Australians. It's a bit rich coming from those who don't support young Australians seeking the choice to access super to purchase their own homes. Labor's mindset is obvious. They think that your super—your money—is their money. They think that your super is their money to spend when their pre-existing stash of other people's money runs out. The coalition will never shift the goalposts on Australians like this. Labor promised no new taxes before the last election, and yet what do we get? A tax on your super. Labor will continue to lower the threshold. The Grattan Institute, that well-known right wing conservative think tank, said that within 30 years one in 10 Australians will be hit with this new super tax. This represents 200 times the number of people that Labor is fessing up to slogging with this tax. Labor are like some sort of demented, bewitched, barmy Robin Hood: going around people's bank accounts, robbing from normal Australians and giving it to their crazy ideas and trying to stitch up this government—a government who are robbing Australians. Shame, Labor, shame. International Women's Day 34 13:32 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria On Friday, I joined Ged Kearney at Preston High School and got to speak to a bunch of students, mothers and grandmothers about International Women's Day. We discussed equality and equity in the context of International Women's Day and what it means for First Nations women. It's so fantastic to see the strength of these women and their intelligent considerations of equality, and it was great to be having conversations with a bunch of women about the difference between equality and equity. I travel around Victoria and I get to speak to so many women across our great state, and I'm in awe of the calibre of women that we have. I want to give a shout-out to a couple of women who I've had amazing conversations with recently: Gina Rushton, Isy Oderberg and Karen Pickering, with whom I discussed the complexities of motherhood at a panel on Friday. We talked about the range of considerations that women make before they decide to have a baby and all the challenges that we experience once we do. I want to give a shout-out to Daphne Yarram at Yoowinna Wurnalung Healing Service in East Gippsland, whose service does incredible work with the Aboriginal community out that way, with domestic violence, sexual assault and a whole bunch of things to support the healing of the community out there; to the team at the Bouverie Centre, a campus of La Trobe University, with Aunty Di Kerr, Jenn McIntosh, Banu Moloney, Robyne Latham, Sian McLean and Kerry Proctor; and to the fantastic young women I met on Friday. While I'm so absolutely cup-full talking to these incredible women, we still have a long way to go when it comes to equity in our country. We must continue to work to make sure that First Nations women and women of colour in our country are treated with care and the respect they deserve. Fox News 34 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak about the absolute shame and horror of what is unfolding in the Fox News court case in America right now. We've known for a long time that the Murdoch machine has not been trustworthy in this country. But now we see, through confidential court files, how much power this corporation wields, how much power the Murdoch empire is willing to use against its political opponents. Last week we saw shocking revelations that showed Fox News knew that claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump were plainly false, that they were untrue. Yet, time and time again, Fox News presenters continued to peddle and platform the lie. If that wasn't bad enough, there was also confirmation in court documents that Fox News was acting as part of Trump's campaign when confidential information about the Biden campaign's ads was handed directly to Trump's people. What is going on at Fox News and inside the Murdoch machine is not journalism. It is political propaganda. It is the promotion of lies. It is the promotion of conspiracy theories. And it is all in the pursuit of power. Australians in this country have known for a long time that the collection of Murdoch rags, the rubbish that is spewed out on Fox News and on Sky News, is false. That's why we need a royal commission. Superannuation: Taxation 35 13:36 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia With this government, the devil is always in the detail, and that's what we'll find as we dig into their broken promise on superannuation. Already, once the guidance has come out on how this is going to be applied, we see how the devil in that detail will have a devastating impact on farmers and small-business people. The SMSF Association has warned that the new rules undermine the longstanding principle that capital gains are not taxed until after they are realised. RSM Australia, a leading accounting firm for the bush, has said that the impact on asset-rich, cash-poor businesses, such as farms and small regional businesses, will be particularly hard. We're taxing income that's not yet been earned. Everyone out there should think about that for a moment: we're taxing income that has not yet been earned. For farmers and for small businesses, particularly in outer-metropolitan and regional areas, self-managed super funds are a logical and completely legal place to put property assets. They are a logical and legal place to put assets of their business, such as farming land, the premises a professional might work out of, a retailer's office space or a manufacturing business in the bush. These are often held completely legitimately in super funds, and they are the businesses that are going to be hit by Labor's broken promise. Rare Disease Day 35 13:38 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia February 28 marked Rare Disease Day. Approximately eight per cent of Australians are currently living with a rare disease. That's about two million Australians. There are some 7,000 rare diseases that we know about. According to the Murdoch Children's Research Institute about 75 per cent of these diseases affect children, too. Up to one in 12 babies are born with a rare disease. Anyone with a rare disease, or who cares for or loves someone with a rare disease, knows that late diagnosis or inappropriate treatment are too-frequent consequences of how little is known about many of these diseases. Often a family's doctor will be ill equipped to deal with the specifics of a particular rare disease. Rare diseases are often not well understood by workplaces or by schools, leaving those suffering from them without adequate and necessary supports. Structural issues are also significant, including in getting the right support services from government and the NDIS, and often there are not enough established support networks for those who have received a diagnosis. I want to commend today all those in Australia who are working to support those in our community who are suffering from rare disease, and the people who love them. In particular, I want to acknowledge the incredible advocacy of the Rare Find Foundation, of which I am proud to be patron and which is fighting for children who have Tay-Sachs or Sandhoff diseases, and their families. Those suffering from rare disease in Australia need our support. Too often they feel unseen and overlooked, and this has to change. Gender Equality 35 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Last month we welcomed our first grandchild, a boy, and I thank the Senate for that leave of absence. Observing the world that my grandson has been born into, I know he will need to fight the same battle for female equality that his grandparents fought two generations ago. The world has turned full circle, seeking now to limit and erase the concept of biological women, with the perverse argument that this is gender equality. It is not. In 2021 the Senate passed my motion banning the use of anti-woman hate speech, including 'chest feeder' and 'uterus owner'. The Public Service blatantly ignored the Senate's will and kept using hate speech anyway—no surprise. The ongoing robodebt royal commission shows how bureaucrats are now a Soviet-style nomenklatura—the self-appointed former Soviet-era elites, self-interested, unaccountable and wilfully ignorant of the cruelty they dispense. Last November bioethicist Anna Smajdor of the University of Oslo proposed in the journal Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics to keep women alive who are medically brain dead and use them as baby incubators for women who choose not to carry their own child. Columbian politician Jennifer Pedraza responded: 'Women are not utensils to be thrown away after use. Women have human rights.' Why do we have to remind the Left that biological women have human rights? This is the second time that university academics have raised this idea. Sick minds in academia are now degrading women from 'uterus owner' to 'uterus custodian'. The Australian's list of the top 25 LGBTQ influencers include 12 biological men, six biological men who are now something else, and only seven biological females—18 to seven. Scotland allowed biological men identifying as women to be housed in women's prisons. Biological women identifying as men were not given the same right. Women have fewer rights today than do men identifying as women. One Nation will continue working to stop biological women from being erased. We are one community, one nation of two equal genders. (Time expired) Blood Contamination 36 13:42 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Today I want to raise the plight of thousands of Australians who became severely ill or died after being infected with blood containing hepatitis C or HIV between the 1970s and the early 1990s, before proper screening procedures were introduced. To quote Charles MacKenzie, himself a victim of the scandal and who has led a 30-year fight for justice on behalf of Australian victims: This is the worst public health scandal in Australian history," he said. "People have died, children have died. This was not an accident at all. Charles is sick of burying his mates and watching others suffer. Victims say they are yet to receive targeted financial assistance or an apology from the federal government, despite those measures being recommended by a Senate inquiry in 2004. Many of the victims were infected through contaminated blood transfusions, including a baby from Melbourne who acquired HIV. An estimated 1,750 had haemophilia, a condition that hampers clotting of the blood and treated with contaminated blood products manufactured by CSL before it was privatised by the then Labor federal government. Substantial compensation schemes are operating in a string of countries, including Scotland, Ireland and Canada. The UK infected-blood inquiry began in 2018 and is being led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Langstaff. He is examining thousands of documents, including those that relate to Australia's response to the disaster. I call on the Australian government to apologise to the victims of this scandal and provide proper compensation to them. Koalas 36 13:43 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Koalas were declared endangered in New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT, but our regional communities are working hard, particularly in New South Wales, to deliver change and to deliver assistance. The Mid North Coast is home to some incredibly industrious and important environmental groups, and I was lucky enough to be able to announce support to them during my last trip to Port Macquarie. The federal government proudly provided over half a million dollars in funding to the Jaliigirr Biodiversity Alliance Inc., the Dorrigo Community Nursery Inc. and Nambucca Valley Landcare's coordinating committee—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, Landcare organisations and community environment groups working together to map endangered communities, restore critical koala corridors and plant over 5,000 habitat trees. These projects are run almost entirely by volunteers. It was terrific to spend the morning talking to representatives, including Sally Hunter, Nadia Camatta, Ainslie Ashton and Sue Salvin from those organisations, and it was also wonderful to meet with Sue Ashton and the whole team at the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital, who kindly hosted us. Following the last period of significant infections, habitats being destroyed and the bushfires, koala populations in the eastern states are severely depleted. It is wonderful to see the commitment of those communities to restoring koala habitat. It's pretty hard to imagine—our grandkids and their kids are facing a future without the koala. I'm very pleased that the federal government has been able to put its shoulder to the wheel and get behind this important endeavour. Iraq, Ukraine 36 13:45 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Twenty years ago, in March 2003, I was the most angry I've ever been in my life, when I realised my country was participating in an illegal, immoral war of aggression on another nation. I wasn't alone. Hundreds of thousands of Australians and millions of people around the world marched in some of the biggest protests ever recorded in history to stop the illegal invasion of Iraq by the so-called 'Coalition of the Willing'. The 20th anniversary of that shameful and catastrophic invasion is the weekend after next. I will be speaking at a call-for-peace rally in Melbourne at the State Library at 1 pm on Saturday 15 March and then again on Sunday, the next day, on the Parliament House lawns at 11 am in Hobart, and there will be other rallies around the country. While we rightly condemn the Russian government for its ongoing invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine, let's not forget that only 20 years ago we did exactly the same thing to another nation. The United Nations, at the time, said it was an illegal war, a contravention of the UN Charter. It was by any definition a war of aggression that led to the loss of millions of lives, not just directly from the conflict but also from the rise of ISIS and global terrorism, the Syrian civil war, the flood of refugees and the wave of human misery that washed across Europe as people fled an unstable Middle East. It's time to reflect on that. I wonder what we've learnt. There are a lot of things we need to do to change the way we approach war powers in this country. (Time expired) COVID-19 37 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria For three years, we've been censored, cancelled and ridiculed for simply questioning 'the science'. The truth always comes out, one way or another, and the flood gates have opened. We're now being exposed to so much truth that it makes one wonder: How many lies from authorities were ignorant? How many lies from authorities were ill-advised? How many lies were deliberate? This week, the Murdoch owned news.com.au published a damning article titled '10 myths told by Covid experts — now debunked': Misinformation #1: Natural immunity offers little protection compared to vaccinated immunity Lie. Misinformation #2: Masks prevent Covid transmission Lie. Misinformation #3: School closures reduce Covid transmission Lie. Misinformation #4: Myocarditis from the vaccine is less common than from the infection Lie. Myocarditis is in fact six to 28 times more common after the COVID vaccine than after infection in young males. Misinformation #5: Young people benefit from a vaccine booster Lie. Misinformation #6: Vaccine mandates increased vaccination rates Lie. They're human rights abuses. Misinformation #7: Covid originating from the Wuhan Lab is a conspiracy theory Lie. Misinformation #8: It was important to get the 2nd vaccine dose 3 or 4 weeks after the 1st dose Lie. Misinformation #9: Data on the bivalent vaccine is "crystal clear" Lie. It was tested on eight mice—well, at least it wasn't seven mice, so that's a win, I guess! Misinformation #10: One in five people get long Covid Lie. Now tell me why the Prime Minister has not yet called for a royal commission into our pandemic response. Our authorities have caused damage. They've made errors on a scale that is impossible to comprehend. We must learn from these mistakes; we must not repeat them. Justice must be served. We need a royal commission. The UAP calls for one now. Homelessness 37 13:50 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Everyone here would have slept with a roof over their heads last night. I share with you now, with the permission of this family, a story of a family who didn't. This is a cruel eye-watering example of a family being invisible but living in plain sight in Alice Springs. In Alice Springs, for around two years, a family has endured living on a concrete slab, where temperatures are either 40 degrees in summer or in minus figures in winter—no roof, no toilet, no running water. In those conditions is a young woman with renal failure requiring dialysis three times a week. It's the reason they went to Alice Springs. There are also nine children. The school-age children actually go to school. I watched them get on the school bus. They are visited, too, by a family member with profound disability in a wheelchair. The family does not drink or gamble; they are not a consequence of the grog war in the NT. But, like in the swiss cheese model, they are a casualty of what in this case is a seemingly unaccountable service delivery model. This family's terrible, unsafe, cruel predicament must inform future responses, especially in light of the hundreds of millions of dollars in financial and resource investment intended for Central Australia. There are lessons here for service delivery, accountability, responsibility and transparency in other areas across Australia. It's not always about the money. It's about how that money is managed. They didn't need a Voice; they needed bureaucrats and service providers not to drive on but to take action necessary to end their terrible predicament. Meanwhile, today—yes, today—they remain on that slab. This is not their shame. The shame is that, every single night that passes, they are still on that slab and we, as Australians, haven't seen the necessity to act to ameliorate the situation. (Time expired) Domestic and Family Violence 38 13:52 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Last year, at least 61 women were killed by violence in Australia. That's more than one woman per week. Already, in 2023, at least six women have been killed. We've all heard these figures, but we need to keep saying it out loud. The government does not maintain a real-time record—that work falls to volunteer organisations like Counting Dead Women—but it is work that must be done. Acknowledging these murders is essential to keeping this epidemic of violence at the forefront of the minds of the people in this place, people who have the power to do something about it. We welcomed the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, and we're keen to see those detailed action plans, including a standalone self-determined plan for First Nations women. Those plans must be fully funded if we are to see real change. We need frontline services to support women experiencing violence. We need more prevention programs, more crisis accommodation, more resources for legal advice and counselling services and more recovery programs. We know that frontline services need $1 billion each year to meet demand and help all women who need them. We know this because they keep telling us. Yet the sector remains underfunded, and the violence persists. If this government is genuine about ending gendered violence in a generation, action needs to start now. The upcoming budget is a critical opportunity to invest in women's safety at a scale commensurate with the scale of the problem. This government must fully fund frontline services so no woman is turned away. What better spend could there be? The sector has said time and time again they need $1 billion a year to meet demand. They're not able to help everyone who reaches out for help. That is why these numbers of murders are so stratospherically high. We need to fix this problem. It starts with investment in prevention programs and in education and making sure those frontline services are fully funded. National Radioactive Waste Management Facility 38 13:54 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise in solidarity with the Barngarla traditional owners, who are in the Federal Court today to overturn the decision to construct a nuclear waste dump on their lands at Napandee, near Kimba on South Australia's Eyre Peninsula. The Barngarla have spent years fighting the ministerial declaration from the former coalition government to place the nuclear waste dump on their land. Despite saying that the decision for a radioactive waste dump location will not go against the wishes of the local community, that's exactly what the government is doing—first, the former coalition governments, and now the Labor government. The Barngarla weren't even consulted on the nuclear waste dump on their land. The government only conducted a survey of residents in the Kimba council area, but not all traditional owners live there. Those who have taken care of the lands for thousands of years were not even consulted. Labor say that they're our mates, and they're ignoring traditional owners about what they want and don't want on their country. Shame, shame! The Barngarla were even refused access to their land to undertake a proper heritage survey at Napandee, and the former coalition government tried to remove their right to a judicial review. If this government is serious about First Nations rights, which they say that they are—they say they want a voice—what about the TOs who have tried to tell you that they don't want this dump there? What about their voice? What about their voice, Labor? You're not serious. You need to adhere to the rights of the Barngarla people. (Time expired) Golden Shears 38 13:56 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales We know there's always a healthy competition between Australia and our friends across the ditch in New Zealand, and one such competition is shearing. Shearing is a massive sport in New Zealand, and they are very good at it. In six decades and over 460 individual Golden Shears competitions, only 11 people who were not from New Zealand have won. This year, a teenager from Goodooga in the Brewarrina Shire was the first Australian winner more than 50 years. Tyron Cochrane, good on you, mate. Tyron went to New Zealand with the support of the First Nations development program based out of Dubbo, known as REDI.E, and has been honing his skills over five weeks working with a New Zealand contractor as well as competing. Before going to New Zealand, Tyron had barely ever travelled further than the 450-odd kilometres from Goodooga to Dubbo. REDI.E Deputy Chief Executive Officer Michael Cooper is rightly proud of Tyron and said that for him to qualify for the final was a major achievement, but for him to win was an absolute cherry on top. But Tyron wasn't the only winner from Team REDI.E over in New Zealand. Weilmoringle teenager Jolie Orcher came third in the junior wool handling final, and she is also a gun shearer. These two Indigenous teenagers have done us, their nation, and their communities so proud. Keep beating the Kiwis at their own game. Keep going strong for Team Australia. National Reconstruction Fund 39 13:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The COVID pandemic highlighted Australia's vulnerability at the end of global supply chains and put on display the consequences of a decade of coalition government neglect for Australian manufacturing. This neglect was one of the key things people in Queensland and across Australia raised with me throughout the last couple of years. Australians want to be a country that makes things. In a resource-rich country, Australians want us to be making more things onshore. They want Australian-made ideas and products to be recognised and sought after all over the world. They want Australia to see the economic benefit that comes with supporting our manufacturing sector. That's why Australians turfed out the decade-old coalition government and voted for an Albanese government that was committed to rebuilding our manufacturing sector, starting with the establishment of the National Reconstruction Fund, a significant investment in manufacturing capability in our country. My home state of Queensland has always played a significant role in manufacturing capacity on the back of the resources industry, and this creates good, secure jobs in many parts of the state. The National Reconstruction Fund will see more investment in projects in regional Queensland across areas like critical minerals, transport, agriculture and renewables. It is so disappointing that this opposition have sought to oppose this important legislation. Incapable of vision, incapable of nation building, they have learnt nothing from the last election result. But the Albanese government is committing to a future made in Australia, and we are committed to delivering it, because we know the jobs and economic benefits that come from investment in manufacturing. It is an Albanese Labor government that will deliver. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for this debate has expired. SHADOW MINISTRY 39 SHADOW MINISTRY Presentation 39 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I advise the Senate that following the resignations of the member for Calare and the member for Aston from the frontbench and the parliament respectively the Hon. Darren Chester MP has been appointed shadow minister for regional education, shadow minister for regional development and shadow minister for local government and territories; Senator the Hon. Sarah Henderson has been appointed shadow minister for education; the Hon. David Coleman MP has been appointed shadow minister for communications; and Dr Anne Webster MP has had the role of assistant shadow minister for regional health added to her responsibilities. I table the revised shadow ministry list and representing arrangements, which will be incorporated into Hansard. The document read as follows— QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 42 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Superannuation 42 14:01 Senator H6X South Australia BIRMINGHAM (—) (): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer: will superannuation account holders affected by Labor's new doubling of the super tax be able to withdraw funds that are above the new threshold without penalty? 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the opportunity to talk about Labor's changes to superannuation that we announced last week, making a modest adjustment to superannuation tax breaks for earnings on balances above $3 million, which will not come into effect until after the next election, meaning that for the 0.5 per cent of people who are in the fortunate position of having super balances over $3 million the changes will not come into effect for another three years—depending, obviously, what stage they're up to, whether they are below the age where you can withdraw super; that will depend. But there are three years before this policy comes into effect. If people want to make arrangements of their affairs before that time comes into effect, depending on where they're at in the super cycle, then that's a decision that individual superannuation account holders will make. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I ask the minister, given her answer, will Australians who have not reached preservation age by the time this policy takes effect be able to withdraw excess funds from their superannuation accounts that are above Labor's new threshold without penalty? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory You didn't say that in your first question. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Sorry; if you did, I didn't hear 'prior to preservation age'. There are rules about withdrawing super prior to preservation age, as Senator Birmingham well knows. But this is a very modest change to the superannuation system: 0.5 per cent of people will be affected. They have, on average, account balances in the order of $5.8 million, which is good for them, obviously. But we are in charge of having to repair a budget that is in structural deficit of $50 billion a year. That is what you left us. We are making very modest changes to begin the hard work of budget repair. This is a very modest change. It affects a tiny number of people compared to the changes that you brought in in 2016. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The rules around preservation age the minister refers to limit the ability of Australians to access their own funds. How does the minister justify legally preventing Australians from changing their investment profile when the government is changing the taxes on those investments despite having made promises not to do so immediately before the last election? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (—) (): As I said, it's a very small amount of Australians who are affected by this change. It's a very modest change. They are still concessional arrangements. Let's not forget this: they are still concessional arrangements. Let's remember that the average super balance is in the order of $150,000—that's the average super balance. For those who are fortunate to have super balances over and above that, there are still concessional tax arrangements available even with this change. We are making this very modest change to superannuation to help repair the budget that is in structural deficit because of the mess that you left it in. You didn't fund things properly, you didn't fund things in an ongoing basis and you ignored pressures coming to the budget hoping that someone else would fix it, and that is the work that we are currently doing with this modest change. (Time expired) Budget 43 14:05 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister outline to the Senate the challenges facing the budget following a decade of wasteful spending and economic mismanagement under the former coalition government? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the question. We inherited— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Opposit ion senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING President? The PRESIDENT 112096 Please continue, Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING We inherited a budget stuck in structural deficit. The Liberals and Nationals were the most wasteful governments since Federation. They not only oversaw consecutive budgets riddled with rorts and slush funds they also failed to deal with the policy challenges and the pressures impacting on the budget, which are now increasing, not decreasing. Those opposite delivered more consecutive deficits than any government since the 1920s—and remember those 'Back in black' mugs that were printed just that a little bit too soon? Remember that? We remember Senator Hume flashing her 'Back in black' mug around. They doubled the deficit before the pandemic hit. They left us with a trillion dollars in debt, with very little to show for it, and they also propped up their budget numbers with a whole range of terminating measures, funding cliffs and a long list of zombie measures going back to 2016! In 2016 you had those zombie measures there, trying to make your budget bottom line look better than it was. We had to spend $4.1 billion in October to resolve some of these legacy issues inherited from the previous government, including providing funding certainty for programs that were underfunded or had expiring funding but were ongoing in nature such as environmental approval processes. How do you know they continue on 1 July in a new financial year! Information technology programs such as modernising business registers—again, let's have a look at the total price of that program once it's finalised! And, in this budget, we are continuing to do that. We're continuing to find funding cliffs. The adult public dental services, the myGov platform, the My Health Record, the high-risk terror offender program—they're not funded! Not funded! (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, a first supplementary question? 14:08 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Can the minister provide an update on the work being done to repair the budget after the mess left behind by the former coalition government? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes, indeed, I'll take that interjection from Senator Watt. I am running out of time, because there is a list of things here that we are uncovering and will continue to work on—from October, and now into the May budget. But we are looking at how we can limit the growth in spending, especially when inflation is high; how we support modest revenue increases, for example, to support our budget repair, which was the announcement we made last week; and focusing new spending on investments that grow the capacity of the economy like the National Reconstruction Fund, which the 'no-alision' are opposed to. They're opposed to manufacturing jobs, opposed to jobs in the region, opposed to Australia getting their fair share of support from a government for those important industries that we're going to rely on in years to come. The October budget also included savings, and we will continue to look at sensible savings areas where we can as we commit to the ongoing role of budget repair. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, a second supplementary question? 14:09 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for outlining the repair responses that are underway. Can you please update the Senate on why budget repair is crucial to supporting the Australian economy and individuals and businesses? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We must improve the state of our budget. We need to make those responsible decisions that will ensure the budget is able to withstand and respond to future shocks when they come—and they will come. We have to make room in the budget to repair the mess that we inherited, and we also have to make room for sensible spending in those areas where we're seeing increased pressure: Medicare, hospitals, aged care, the NDIS and other social services, defence and national security—all of these areas where the pressures on the budget are increasing. They're accelerating, not decreasing, and our budget has to be in a position where we are able to deal with that. So we will go through and deal with the legacy of poor budgeting that we saw from the budget vandals opposite. We will fix up those areas where we can, and we will make room for Australians' priorities in those areas I've just outlined. Superannuation: Taxation 44 14:10 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, how will the government's new doubling of the super tax treat unrealised capital gains? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I am surprised that those opposite have decided to oppose this modest increase or reduction in tax concessions—a modest $2 billion. I know you'd like to flag it as something other than what it is, but the 0.5 per cent of Australians who are fortunate enough to have balances over $3 million will pay a still concessional rate of tax, at 30 per cent, on their earnings in a year, and it will raise $2 billion when fully operational in three years time, after we've had another election. Senator GALLAGHER ING On the question—thank you, Senator Scarr, for shouting across the chamber—the simplest and least-cost approach is to apply the tax on the growth of an individual's balance over the year. This approach, recommended by Treasury, includes assessing unrealised capital gains. It applies prospectively. Alternative approaches would be very costly for super funds, which would come at the expense of all members, not just those with high balances. Trustees already calculate the value of their fund each year and submit it to the tax office, which will enable the ATO to determine liability. We believe this approach strikes the right balance between simplicity and ensuring that the tax can be applied across the system to improve the sustainability of this system. This is what's different between when you were in government and now, when we are in government as the responsible economic and fiscal managers of this budget. You went after robodebt. You went after people with nothing. You went after people who didn't even owe you money. That's what you did. That was the approach. You knew it was illegal. You went after them, and they didn't even owe you money. This is a modest change to the 0.5 per cent of Australians who have a high $3 million— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I haven't called you yet, Senator Hume. Interjections are disorderly, and continuing to repeat them and yelling out across the chamber, and from the back of the chamber, is incredibly disorderly. 14:13 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, how will the government's new doubling of the super tax apply to a self-funded retiree in the drawdown phase with a self-managed super fund that owns a commercial property that was valued at $2.5 million in 2024-25 and then valued at $3.1 million in 2025-26 but received a commercial rent of $80,000, also in that year? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I might take the detail of that question on notice. Senator Scarr 282997 Oh! Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, if you're serious about getting an answer on that—I mean, if I'm going to come in here and give individual superannuation advice to individual accounts that are given to me, is that where we're going? It is a modest change. The tax will be paid on earnings in a year. It will be taxed on earnings in a year. The tax office will undertake those assessments, as they currently do, and as Senator Hume knows— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 Can I just clarify that answer please, Madam President? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, why are you on your feet? Do you have a point of order? Senator Hume 266499 Point of order: I'd just like a clarification from the minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's not a point of order. Thank you, Senator Hume. Senator Hume 266499 I don't understand. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, the minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, this is not a— The PRESIDENT 112096 Please resume your seat. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! When senators get to their feet to ask a point of order and I rule it either in order or out of order, that is the end of the matter. It's not an option to continue to argue with me. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. I've taken the substantive question on notice because of the detail of the question. I'm not here to give individual superannuation advice. Senator Hume 266499 Really? Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm not. You've given me a cameo. I've taken that on notice. I will come back to you with an answer on it. There are liquidity requirements for those in SMSFs— (Time expired.) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a second supplementary question. 14:15 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Can the minister point to any other example of unrealised capital gains being used in the Commonwealth tax system or, indeed, in any other jurisdiction? And can you rule out applying taxes to unrealised capital gains elsewhere in the tax system, such as onto the family home, or to any other assets currently subject to capital gains tax? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We've made clear what the change is. We've been upfront with the Australian people about what that change is. It relates to high-income superannuation accounts with more than $3 million in them. That is the government's announcement. Don't try to run your fear campaign, your scare campaign, saying it's everything other than it is. The Prime Minister has made clear what the changes are and the limit to those changes. That was the policy that we announced last year—last week, sorry. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left, and my right. Thank you. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Is this the hill you're going to die on after you pursued thousands of Australians for robodebt? That is how you tried to repair the budget. The hill you're going to die on is this while you are the party of robodebt. Those vulnerable Australians that you harassed— (Time expired.) Climate Change 45 14:17 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Today a report was released by RepuTex, the modellers who modelled the Labor Party's climate policy for the election. Their report forecasts 56 million tonnes of pollution from just 13 new coal and gas projects. That's an 11 per cent increase on Australia's current emissions. Can you guarantee that the safeguard mechanism will see actual pollution from coal and gas go down, not up. 14:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thanks to Senator Waters for her question. The government has put forward a safeguard mechanism, the purpose of which is to provide a predictable and orderly pathway to net zero by 2050 for the 215 biggest emitters in our economy. And I would make the point, and I understand this is an issue of negotiation and discussion, that this is the only chance that the parliament will have to reduce emissions from all big emitters. The safeguard changes are expected to reduce 250 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions to 2030. That is the equivalent of taking two-thirds of Australia's cars off the roads. The proposition in the question seems to suggest, or imply, this is not the way we should go about reducing our emissions. That may be the Greens' view; we don't share it. We see benefit in a predictable pathway to actually deliver the 2030 and 2050 targets. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Waters? Senator Waters 192970 Yes, reluctantly, a point of order on relevance. I specifically asked whether actual pollution from coal and gas would go up or down under the safeguard mechanism. The PRESIDENT 112096 There was also context before that. I do believe that the minister's being relevant, but I will continue to listen carefully. Senator WONG 00AOU I understand that the Greens political party are more interested in particular sectors of the economy and targeting them. We believe that an economy-wide approach based on who the largest emitters are with a predictable pathway to achieving the targets— Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Whish-Wilson, would you like to stand up and give a speech? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, please come to order. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU If he wants to ask and answer his own questions, he's got opportunities to do that, but I'm trying to answer— Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Well, someone's got to answer them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, I've just called you to order, and I have the minister on her feet! Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The point we make is that an economy-wide predictable pathway is the lowest cost way for us to ensure these environmental targets— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, a first supplementary? 14:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland These new coal and gas projects could force industries that can actually adapt and survive in a net zero world, like cement, steel and aluminium, to have to cut more pollution by almost double. Why is your climate policy pushing the costs of new coal and gas onto everyone else? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I don't accept the characterisation. This is a mechanism that is about making sure the largest emitters have a pathway to contribute to net zero by 2050. I know that there are those who would like governments to pick and choose sectors in terms of making a contribution, and I know there are particular political views that the Greens political party have on these issues. We think the best approach is to ensure that the market can see a predictable pathway to achieving these reductions. Because it's all very well to talk about targets, but the most important thing is to have policy mechanisms which actually— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Whish Wilson, I've just called you to order! Minister Wong, I've called you back to continue answering the question if you have anything further to add. Senator WONG 00AOU The point I'm making is that we want a mechanism that actually ensures these targets are delivered, because there's no point in talking about action on climate change if we can't deliver it. And we are determined to deliver it, something that this country has not been able to do because of the attitude of those opposite for too many years. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, a second supplementary? 14:22 Senator 192970 Queensland WATERS (—) (): These 13 new coal and gas projects would see coal and gas pollution rise in the critical decade for climate action, and there are another 100 new proposals for new coal and gas in the pipeline. Why does Labor want to open more coal and gas in the middle of a climate crisis? 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I explained, the safeguard mechanism will target 205 million tonnes of net reductions by 2030 overall through the safeguard. It is correct. We are not looking to pick one sector over another. If you emit in excess of 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, you will be covered. So it's agnostic in the sense of where the emissions occur, other than to say that, if you're a big emitter, you should have a pathway to reducing your emissions. I would have thought that those at the end of the chamber might actually think it's a good thing to get those industries and individual firms who are emitting a very large amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to reduce their emissions so that we can all meet the net zero target that everybody, with some exceptions, and most of this chamber have signed up to. Rare Earths Mining Industry, Lithium-Ion Battery Industry 47 14:23 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Farrell. Can the minister update the Senate on the government's plans to ensure that Australia adds value to our critical minerals like lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and rare earths that we mine in that fantastic part of the nation, WA, and develop a domestic battery manufacturing capability? Minister, what are the opportunities for Australia from developing a domestic industry? 14:24 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sterle for that very insightful question and his support of the mining industry generally in Western Australia, particularly in this area of critical minerals. Cabinet was up your way last week, at Port Hedland. It was the first time cabinet had ever been into that part of beautiful Western Australia. As senators are no doubt aware, Australia is rich in a number of the critical minerals on which the renewable energy economy will be based. We're very good at extracting minerals, but we've not always been good at capturing their true value. That's what this government is trying to change, Senator Sterle. If we look at lithium batteries, the global market for minerals will grow from a current $2 billion to $11 billion by 2035. But if we take one more step up the value chain and refine those minerals, that market grows from $2 billion to $44 billion, some 22 times larger. Then, if we take it all the way to manufacturing the battery cells, that market—listen to this, Senator Sterle—will grow from $31 billion to $387 billion. Senator Watt 245759 How many? Senator FARRELL I0N I repeat that for you, Senator Watt: that market will grow from $31 billion to $387 billion. Battery pack assembly will then grow—remember, this is the mob over here who closed down Holden—from $156 billion to $1.1 trillion. If we mine it here we should make it here. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, first supplementary. 14:26 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I am absolutely in awe, Minister. Other than our access to critical minerals, what other advantage does Australia have when it comes to developing a domestic battery industry? 14:26 Senato I0N South Australia r FARRELL (—) (): I thank Senator Sterle for his extremely insightful question once again. The resources that Australia has been blessed with are human as well as mineral. Across Australia there are scientists, researchers and business leaders who are leading the world when it comes to battery technology. From the Future Battery Industries CRC at Curtin University to the National Battery Testing Centre at QUT, we are at the cutting edge of this technology. Modern batteries are built not just on smart chemistry but on smart technology as well, and this is a vital capacity that we must foster, and your state of Western Australia is leading the way in that regard. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, second supplementary. 14:27 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia What is the government doing to make sure that we can take advantage of these opportunities and provide jobs in our regions and in our suburbs? Senator Scarr 282997 That's an extremely insightful question! 14:27 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I couldn't agree more: that is an extremely insightful question. I have an answer for you, Senator Sterle. The National Battery Strategy is our government's plan to build a battery manufacturing industry. We're not closing down industries, like they did with Holden; we're building it up. This strategy will ensure that we capture the true value of our natural resources and put our international capital to work delivering products that will be in high demand right around the world and support the global transition to net zero. If we mine it here, we should make it here, because that will deliver high-skill, high-wage jobs not only in the cities but particularly in the regions and the suburbs right around Australia. Covid-19: Vaccination 47 14:28 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. In the February Senate estimates hearings Adjunct Professor Skerritt, deputy secretary, health products regulation group, made the following statement: … there is only one regulator in the world—the USFDA … —that actually looks at individual patient data. The rest of the regulators, like us … take statistically validated analyses of patient data. If there are issues with the individual patient data, the FDA … will raise those issues. …we … do not get individual patient data. In estimates hearings on 10 November 2022 Adjunct Professor Skerritt said: We did check the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data from Pfizer … Minister, please confirm that the TGA simply checked what Pfizer and the FDA sent to them without checking that back to the source material, patient records—meaning they took Pfizer's word for it. 14:29 Senator ING Australian Capital Territory GALLAGHER (—) (): I thank Senator Roberts for his questio I was there, I think, at both of those hearings with Professor Skerritt, who has since retired from that role. I'll take this opportunity to acknowledge his contribution, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the role of the TGA. On the substantive part of your question, Senator Roberts, I will go back. Obviously I wasn't in the position I'm in now when those comments were made about what was done with the phase 1 and phase 2 trials and the data that was available. My understanding of the TGA process is that they don't necessarily look at just one set of data; they are looking at a whole range of data as they're making approvals for particular vaccines. I will come back if I have anything further to add on that. I would also say that it's very clear that the rollout of the vaccination program has saved lives and, particularly for those who are vulnerable to COVID-19, it has reduced the chance that they would pass away or have very severe disease from COVID-19. That data is well and truly established and evidence based, and you can see that in the hospitalisation data and other data that's been collected about the impact of the vaccination program. The vaccine program has been very successful, and we're very fortunate to have been in a position to have all been vaccinated against this virus over the last couple of years. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a first supplementary question? 14:31 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, can you assure the Senate that the US FDA did actually check the Pfizer analysis of patient data back to the actual patient data? 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't think I'm in a position, or the government is in a position, to say what the FDA did or didn't do. I can certainly see if there's any further information I can provide to Senator Roberts. I acknowledge his ongoing interest in this area. If there is further advice I can provide to assure you that very strong, thorough and rigorous processes were followed before the TGA approved any of the vaccines that were used to vaccinate against COVID-19, I will. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a second supplementary question? 14:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland If that is the case, Minister, why does that same data, when independent leading virologists examine it properly in a peer reviewed published paper, show that 400,000 patient records prove the vaccine was unsafe and should not have been approved? I ask you again, Minister: did our bureaucrats approve a dangerous product because they trusted Pfizer and in so doing fail to act in Australia's best interests? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (—) (): No. I don't think that's a correct assertion to put. I do have, and I would expect that most senators in this place would have, complete and total faith in the processes used by the TGA when they were going through the approvals for the vaccine against COVID-19. I know there are some in this place who have a different view, and I've certainly sat in estimates listening to the questions that a number of senators have asked who have a different view, but I would say the overwhelming view of senators in this place is that the TGA undertook rigorous examination in a compressed time frame because of the situation we were facing. I think it's easy to forget that we were facing a pandemic where it was predicted that we would see significant loss of life if we were not able to protect citizens. We've been, again, very fortunate to have relied on the science and to have rolled out the vaccine. The data is very clear around the impact the vaccine has had on reducing serious disease and death from COVID-19. (Time expired) Superannuation: Taxation 48 14:33 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Given that Labor's new doubling of the super tax will see earnings in some superannuation accounts paying twice the tax rate that currently applies, will there be any changes to the tax rates applied to those accounts when they are distributed following an account holder's death? 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the opportunity to talk about the government's policy, which— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I will answer the question, so hold your horses. I'm not wasting time here. It's an important question, and I'm making sure that I get the answer exactly correct for you. Senator GALLAGHER ING I do my homework, Senator Scarr. But I welcome the opportunity to talk about this very modest change that we are making to the arrangements for superannuation, for those on higher incomes, $3 million or more, raising a modest $2 billion once fully operational in three years time. I would make the point that those opposite have failed to understand, which is that, at the moment, the budget is in structural deficit. We are borrowing to keep services going. And we are saying that it's not fair to borrow more— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Askew? Senator Askew 281558 I have a point of order on relevance. I did ask specifically about in the case of death. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll direct the minister to the question. Senator ING Thank you. But to finish that point—and I will come to the issue that was raised by Senator Askew—Senator Askew and those opposite, the 'no-alition', are arguing that others with much lower superannuation balances should be paying the interest on the debt that we are borrowing to keep the services of government going, rather than make this modest change for those that are fortunate enough to have $3 million and more in their accounts, an average of $5.8 million. Generally, death benefits are able to be withdrawn from the superannuation system. Members will have this option so they do not face additional tax. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Askew, a first supplementary? 14:36 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Will Labor's new doubling of the super tax mean that a widow or widower would be penalised with a higher tax rate if the retention of their late spouse's superannuation within superannuation saw their savings now exceed Labor's new and unindexed threshold? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The death benefit will not count as earnings in the year that it is received by the surviving spouse. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Askew, a second supplementary? 14:36 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania How is the application on deceased estates of Labor's new doubling of the super tax, which Mr Albanese promised not to do, anything other than a creeping march towards new forms of death duties that penalise Australians at their most vulnerable time? Honourable senators interjecting— The 10000 Order across the chamber! I have the minister on her feet waiting to answer the question. 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory That's a classic example of not being able to amend your final question based on the answers to the first two. I would say, for those that are arguing to maintain these arrangements, these concessional arrangements, which will remain concessional for the 0.5 per cent who are fortunate enough to have more than $3 million in their superannuation account to contribute or to have less concessional arrangements in place that contribute to budget repair, that is your core group now, the 0.5 per cent who are in that. When we have a look—just remember those words of robodebt: 'We will find you. We will track you down and you will have to repay those debts, and you may end up in prison.' That is the approach you took to budget repair. Wages 49 14:38 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. On 21 February the Fair Work Commission said that the 15 per cent increase for aged-care workers should be paid in full from 1 July 2023. Minister, will the Commonwealth commit to funding that 15 per cent increase, in full, from 1 July 2023 and will that include on costs such as funding for leave and superannuation? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government has said that we will fund that aged-care case. I thank you, Senator Rice, for the opportunity to again contrast the approach that we're taking in government as opposed to them when they were in, where they pursued vulnerable low-income Australians and threatened them with prison for an illegal scheme that they knew was illegal. That is the approach. We are making room in our budget to fund priorities like aged-care wages. We had asked for a phased-in approach, just, again, to smooth our budget situation because of the impact. The cost to the budget is a multibillion-dollar cost. We've made some provision for that and we'll have a look at how much we have to adjust that for the budget, going forward. But, yes, we have said we will fully fund it because we value the work of aged-care workers and we understand they are underpaid. Unlike those opposite—for whom a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture was keeping wages suppressed—we do believe that those on low wages, like aged-care workers and other workers, deserve the support of their government. You will see a significant commitment in this budget to fund the costs of that case. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rice, your first supplementary? 14:40 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Thanks, Minister. I just want clarification that when you say you will fully fund it you are talking about fully funding it in that first financial year, not spreading it out over two financial years, as originally proposed. That's good news, so I'm wondering whether you would be willing to go further, because the Health Services Union, of course, has called for a 25 per cent increase in wages, and, as we know, the aged-care workforce is really low paid. Why would the government continue with the stage 3 tax cuts rather than fund the full amount that aged-care workers really need? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Rice for the question. There is a further stage to the Fair Work Commission case. This is the culmination of stages 1 and 2 on the aged-care case that has come up. The initial increase of 15 per cent was a stage 1 decision. Regarding stage 2, the commission has come back saying it thinks it should be paid on 1 July and should include some other workers in that arrangement. Now there's a subsequent process to consider the rest of the case. You can see from the commitments we've made to date and the room that I'm currently trying to find in the budget to fund this, against these crazy attacks from the opposition, who prefer a head-in-the-sand approach to funding aged-care things—that is, don't fund them or argue against them—that we are making difficult decisions to be able to fund aged-care workers appropriately. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rice, your second supplementary? 14:41 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Thanks, Minister. The royal commission estimated that implementing their recommendations in full would cost in the order of $10 billion a year annually, and the latest official figures show that aged-care providers are operating at an average loss of $28 per resident per day. In terms of finding room in the budget, abandoning the stage 3 tax cuts would free up an extra $25 billion per year on average. So will the government find room in the budget by abandoning the Scott Morrison tax cuts? (Time expired) 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In answer to that question, our policy on those tax cuts hasn't changed. We are focused on making sure multinationals can pay their fair share of tax, and of course we'll look to legislate the arrangements for the superannuation changes that we announced last week. They are the areas that we have been focused on. We are also going through the budget line by line. It is my job and the Treasurer's job and the ERC's job to look at ways that we can make room for all of the priorities and for all of the services that the Australian people value. We know they value aged care, we know they value Medicare and we know they value hospital care. That is a difficult job, and it requires, at times, some difficult decisions. But we are responsible. We are fiscally responsible. We are dealing with the decade of budget vandalism that went on from those opposite, and we are making those difficult decisions. (Time expired) Albanese Government 50 14:43 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Albanese government is delivering a better future for all Australians after a decade of failed policies? 14:43 Se 00AOU South Australia nator WONG (—) (): Thank you very much, Senator Grogan, from my own wonderful state, which I haven't got to see in a little while: South Australia. I appreciate the question, and I'm very pleased to talk to the Senate about what this government is seeking to do after a decade of division, denial, waste, rorts, secret ministries and deliberate neglect— Senator Watt 245759 Didn't that go well? Senator WONG 00AOU which went so well—and about what the Albanese government is delivering. This government, since the election, has supported an increase in the minimum wage and secured a pay rise for aged-care workers. I just want to remind everybody, after the many questions that Senator Gallagher answered so well, that those opposite desperately opposed a dollar per hour for the lowest-paid workers in Australia, but they are prepared to go to the wall over the 0.5 per cent of people in Australia who have $3 million in their superannuation accounts. Australians will look at that and they will understand which side of this chamber is actually about families and working people, which side of this chamber is actually about a better future for all Australians—and which side are too busy focusing on scare campaigns, such as some of the pathetic attempts of those opposite. This government has made child care cheaper. We've made medicines cheaper. We've created 180,000 new fee-free TAFE places that we've delivered and 20,000 university places, and we've established 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. The government is expanding paid parental leave. The government is acting to make workplaces safe from sexual harassment with the passage of the Respect@Work bill. We've established Jobs and Skills Australia. We've passed a historic climate change bill and updated our climate targets. We are repairing our international relations and making Australia stronger and more influential in the world. We've expanded the Commonwealth seniors health card and made it easier for pensioners to earn more without losing their pension. We've invested in affordable housing and we've delivered the first home buyers guarantee— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a first supplementary question? 14:46 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you, Minister; that's an impressive list of items that you've run through there, and it's very pleasing to see. I wonder if you could now tell us how these achievements are going to ease the cost of living for Australians? 14:46 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Grogan. This government and the senators on this side understand that it's important that government actually puts in place measures to help address the cost-of-living challenges created under the Liberals and the Nationals. And let's just remember that those opposite presided over increases to out-of-pocket childcare costs of 47 per cent. Let's remember that those opposite wanted to introduce a GP tax, tried to increase the cost of medicines by $5, never increased the number of Paid Parental Leave weeks, said no to social and affordable housing, including for women and children, and, as I said before—most importantly—opposed a $1-an-hour increase to the minimum wage for the lowest-paid in our country. Everyone will remember the way in which those opposite refused to back that wage increase and which leader was prepared to stand up and say, 'I back it.' (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a second supplementary question? 14:47 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I wonder if you could now step out for us how the Albanese government will continue to deliver for Australians this year? 14:47 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Grogan, for the second supplementary. Well, we know we can't fix a decade of neglect, incompetence and bad policies overnight. But we will keep working to deliver on our commitments to provide greater economic security, relief for families, security in energy, and manufacturing jobs and wages. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU As much as those opposite yell, everyone will remember who the party was that voted against energy price relief and who the party was that didn't want to support manufacturing in this country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McGrath! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume! Senator WONG 00AOU The reality is that those opposite have no plan to address cost of living, no plan to address the future. We've seen in this question time already that they have not learned from a decade of division and pathetic scare campaigns. But if they think that is what Australians are after now, I have a message for them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Senator WONG 00AOU We are about building a better future for Australians, and that's what Australians want. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senators, when you are called to order, specifically when I call you by name, I expect you to stop interjecting. Superannuation: Taxation 52 14:48 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. How will the new super tax apply to defined-benefit schemes? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you for that question, from the senator who is so positive about super, who has a lifelong interest in super. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, I will—and we're doing it exactly the same way that you did it when you announced your 2016 changes. There are a couple of areas that we need to consult upon further, which we will do. Because of the nature of defined benefits, they will be included in the scheme, and we announced that when we announced the measure. Our announcement accounted for that. It was clear, in the announcement by the Treasurer, that we would consult with the sector, which is the same process—because I remember it—as when you introduced it in your 2016-17 changes, which of course went much further than the changes that we are talking about today. We expect that the changes will definitely cover defined benefit schemes, and there are a couple of areas that we are going to consult on and that we want some industry advice on. As people know, the defined benefit schemes work differently to accumulation schemes, and they are complex. So there are some further consultations we would like to do, as the Morrison government did back in 2016-17. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, first supplementary? 14:50 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Thanks very much for that, Minister. Can you guarantee that there will be equitable treatment between the ordinary superannuation schemes and the generous defined benefit schemes? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We are including them under the same arrangements, so, yes, they will be treated equitably. As I said, there are two areas that we would like to consult industry on: the valuation of a defined benefit scheme for the purposes of assessing a person's superannuation balance against the $3 million threshold; and the approach to taxing the equivalent of earnings in relation to balances above $3 million. We will consult closely on this with funds that have defined benefit schemes. These are exactly the same arrangements that you put in place when you lowered the $300,000 division 293 threshold to $250,000. Those changes weren't indexed, by the way; I'll just throw that in. When you put those arrangements in place, you also undertook a process around defined benefits schemes. We are doing exactly the same thing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, second supplementary? 14:52 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Did the five cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, who will have access to generous defined benefit schemes declare their personal interests before or during the cabinet deliberation on Labor's new doubling of the super tax? 14:52 Senator G ING Australian Capital Territory ALLAGHER (—) (): The Cabinet Handbook was followed, and I can assure the senator that we are an orderly, adult, responsible government. We take matters of integrity and honesty very seriously. We don't introduce illegal schemes like robodebt, which pursued vulnerable people in the name of budget repair. Remember that? It was going to raise $4 billion and repair the budget. What you didn't say was: 'It's illegal. We're going to hound vulnerable people who don't owe us money. We're going to threaten to send them to jail.' That's what happened over here. We are not that type of government. All arrangements as set out in the Cabinet Handbook, including declarations of relevant conflicts, are followed in accordance with those arrangements. Australia: Floods 52 14:53 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt. Last February, New South Wales and Queensland faced devastating flooding in one of the costliest and most devastating global natural disasters of 2022. As we pass the first anniversary, can the minister please update the Senate on what support has been provided to these very important communities? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sheldon, for your ongoing work as the government's envoy for disaster recovery, supporting me and all flood victims in the ongoing task of recovery. I'd like to acknowledge again that this first anniversary has been a very difficult time for many Australians. The flooding event that we saw in February 2022 devastated communities across the east coast of Australia, and it has been, and will be, a long road towards recovery. As a government, we've been working very hard, along with those affected communities in New South Wales and Queensland, to ensure that they are able to not just recover from those floods back in February last year but build back in a more resilient way. Financial recovery that has now been provided totals in the billions of dollars for a range of programs across a range of floods last year, and those programs assist primary producers, small businesses, homeowners, charities, landlords, councils and many others. In the Northern Rivers of New South Wales alone, more than $1 billion has been provided jointly with the New South Wales government in support payments directly to residents. But we know that there's a long way yet to go. While the Albanese government is focused on recovery, we're also focused on being better prepared for future disasters. That's why we've rolled out resilience and betterment projects in disaster-prone regions; passed legislation and opened applications for our flagship Disaster Ready Fund; unified the two arms of federal emergency management to create a new National Emergency Management Agency; provided pathways out of harm's way for people, through investment in voluntary home buybacks and taking action on future floodplain builds; invested in Disaster Relief Australia to provide recovery and clean-up support after disasters; commissioned an independent review into national disaster funding arrangements to ensure funding is hitting the right areas; and invested in flood research and many other things. The Albanese government knows that the job is not over and will continue to support communities impacted by natural disasters. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, your first supplementary? 14:55 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales In my home state of New South Wales, the Northern Rivers was particularly hard hit. What is the Albanese government doing to ensure the Northern Rivers is prepared for future flooding? 14:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The 2022 February floods were the worst floods the Northern Rivers has ever seen. I know Senator McAllister has also spent a significant amount of time there, hailing from the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. Last week, I was back in Lismore with local state member, Janelle Saffin, Mayor Steve Krieg, Senator Sheldon, Senator McKenzie and the federal member, Mr Hogan, to commemorate the one-year anniversary and reflect on the past 12 months. I was honoured to meet and thank locals in the tinnie army as they were presented with medals for their courageous efforts helping to rescue strangers trapped by floodwaters. Recently, I announced $50 million of flood resilience projects to be delivered under tranche 1 of the Northern Rivers Recovery and Resilience Grants Program, fully funded by the Albanese government. This includes things like road raising, flood pumps, drains and community resilience projects. The remaining $100 million of projects will be announced within the next six months, but we know that more support will be needed. We're also cost sharing to major resilience programs including the Resilient Homes Program and the Regional Roads and Transport Recovery Package. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, your second supplementary? 14:57 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Right now, communities in the Northern Territory are facing flooding. Can the minister please provide an update on what support has been provided to assist these important communities? 14:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Albanese government has acted swiftly to support the Northern Territory through multiple dangerous weather events already this year. We were there after Tropical Cyclone Ellie and we're there again now. On Wednesday evening last week, I approved a request for Australian Defence Force support from the Northern Territory government, and that support includes three aircraft to assist with the evacuation of residents from remote Indigenous communities. I'd like to thank the personnel involved for their proactive and fast action. I understand that around 570 people are currently residing in Howard Springs, having been evacuated from those communities. We know there's heavy rainfall forecast in these communities for next week and so it may be some time before impact assessments can be undertaken and people can return to their communities. A liaison officer from the National Emergency Management Agency is on the ground, and we remain in close contact with the Northern Territory government. That's in addition to Services Australia personnel being based out of Howard Springs. We'll continue to work with the Northern Territory government to ensure people get— (Time expired) Superannuation: Taxation 54 14:58 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Will an increasing number of Australians be subjected to Labor's new doubling of the super tax due to the government's refusal to index its new threshold? 14:58 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the question on the government's modest change to the superannuation arrangements that we announced last week. Thank you very much for the opportunity. It is important that we explain it. The $3 million threshold strikes the right balance between incentives to save for retirement and strengthening the super system by making it more sustainable over time. The evidence is from the superannuation sector itself. ASFA estimates that, for a comfortable retirement at 67, you need $545,000 if you're a single person and $640,000 if you are a couple. A $3 million balance will be more than sufficient for an adequate retirement for most people for many years to come. Many parts of the tax system aren't indexed—for example, personal income tax levels. And, as I said, the former government lowered the contribution tax threshold, division 293, without indexation— Senator Canavan 245212 A point of order on relevance: it was a very simple question about indexing the threshold. The minister hasn't got anywhere near that topic after a minute. Senator Wong 00AOU As the Senator got to his feet to raise the point of order, the minister was in fact talking about precisely that. I think there is no point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 The senator has gone to the issue of your question, Senator Canavan. I will continue to listen carefully. Senator GALLAGHER ING In 30 years, Treasury projects that roughly only the top 10 per cent of earners will retire with superannuation balances of around $3 million or more. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING In 30 years time. That is the estimation of Treasury. I would say that this is a modest change to the 0.5 per cent of people that are coming in. Of the 80,000 affected, the average balance is $5.8 million. I would say again: this is a modest change we are making in response to having to deal with the budget repair that is required from the economic vandalism of your decade in government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, first supplementary. 15:01 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Given the government obviously has done modelling, why didn't you tell the Australian people last week that, in fact, 10 per cent of Australians could be affected by your change, not the modest half a per cent you're telling lies about today? 15:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In 30 years time, Senator Canavan. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ayres. When I call order, that's what I expect. The PRESIDENT 112096 The same on my left, Senator McKenzie. Senator GALLAGHER ING As I answered earlier: many parts of the taxation system aren't indexed. The income tax thresholds aren't indexed. The division 293 threshold, which you set, which affected a lot more people, isn't indexed. We are being very up-front about the policy that we took that we announced last week. We are being very clear about it. It affects a very small number of people in this country. Eighteen million people are unaffected. Listen to it. It raises a very modest amount by tightening a concession, that remains concessional, for those who are fortunate enough to have $3 million. I would say this to you: the average Australian has $150,000 in their superannuation, so how about you think about them— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, a second supplementary. 15:03 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Given the government has revealed their secret modelling today, how much extra tax on average will those 10 per cent of Australians pay over their lifetime because of your doubling of the super tax? 15:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It's a concessional rate of tax, let's not forget this, for those fortunate to have $3 million or more in their superannuation account—mindful of the fact that the estimates are you need in the order of $500,000 to $600,000 for a decent retirement, and mindful of the fact that average Australians have $150,000 in their super. How about you have the same level of concern for them? How about you have the same level of concern for them as you are feigning at this point in time? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. The 10000 I've got Senator Canavan on his feet. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. I need to hear the senator first. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order on my left. I have Senator Birmingham on his feet. Senator Birmingham H6X President, on a point of order and in defence of your position of President: Senator Wong is the first in this chamber to ask for respect to be shown to you as chair. You said, while Senator Wong was attempting to make her statement, that you had to give the call to Senator Canavan because he was on his feet with a point of order first, yet Senator Wong chose to ignore what you had said and move ahead with her motion. I ask you to call the point of order please, President. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I'm in your hands. I thought you were calling me because of the precedence issue. I understood that Senator Gallagher had finished. Senator Canavan is not entitled to take a point of order after the minister has finished. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, I'm not sure whether the minister had finished, but I did see Senator Canavan on his feet. I did go to him, and then you stood. I will seek advice on where we're up to. Senator Canavan, I am going to go to your point of order. Senator Canavan 245212 The point of order was on relevance. The question only went to the average extra tax paid for by the secret modelling that Labor has done. In the 36 seconds that the minister was speaking, there was not even an attempt to answer that question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Canavan. The minister has been expansive in her answers, and I believe she was being relevant. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, I was finished. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 55 15:07 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given to questions by all coalition senators today. Another day, another broken promise—after both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer consistently assured Australians during the election campaign last year that they would not make changes to superannuation, last week we saw the government confirm that it will increase taxes on the savings of an ever increasing number of Australians. It has deliberately chosen to do this in a way that means more and more Australians will be hit by these tax increases in the years and decades ahead. The mixed messages the government is pushing with this change are extraordinary, as were the responses provided to questions asked by the opposition in question time today. The point of superannuation is supposed to be to ensure that people can be self-sufficient in their retirement, making sure that they aren't reliant on the age pension. Now the government is saying to people that when they have worked for 50 years and had 11 per cent of their wage taken away every year and put into superannuation they are rich. So the Labor government is going to take a bigger handful of that money to prop up its own budget line. Does the Labor Party want people to fund their own retirement or punish them for doing so? As the years go on, more and more people—small-business owners, teachers and public servants—will be captured by this tax grab. Why would people trust the superannuation system in the future when they can see that this government will be using it as a big pot of money just waiting to be raided? We are not even 12 months into this government and Labor's broken promises are starting to pile up. We have seen a backtrack on a number of major policy announcements since the election, most notably their pledge to save Australians an average of $275 on their power bills. Labor were adamant they were going to pass this saving on to households, but only a few months on from their guarantee, they were forced to admit that the only thing they could guarantee Australians in relation to electricity prices was that households could expect to see power bills go up. After promising that Labor would cut the cost of living, the cost of living is instead going through the roof. Hardworking Australian families are having to spend more and more of their income on groceries, energy bills, mortgage payments and rent. It is clear to anyone paying attention that Labor told Australians what it thought they wanted to hear to win an election and now it is desperately trying to find excuses to break the promises it made. You can guarantee that Labor's broken promise on superannuation will be followed by many more broken promises, and more tactics to get their hands on the incomes of Australian workers through higher taxes. We saw the Treasurer just last week desperately trying to keep his options open on other ways to hike taxes and plug his budget holes. He didn't even want to rule out capital gains tax on the family home. And yet, less than an hour after that interview, we had the Prime Minister appearing on radio clearing up the Treasurer's mess, attempting to clarify exactly what was meant. We can see how desperate the government is to plug the holes in its budget by the way it wants to break its promise and legislate these tax increases straightaway. If there is one thing we've learned over the years, it is that Labor cannot be trusted with money. It will always try to get its hands on more of the money that hardworking Australians earn, and that is certainly what they are seeking to do with this most recent policy announcement. As I said: another day in this place, another broken promise from the Labor government. Australians deserve more. Australians deserve a government that sticks to the commitments that it made at the election last year. I recognise that during election campaigns parties will always put commitments to the public and will always seek to put their cases to the public in order to gain election. That's part of the contest of ideas, that's part of what having an election is all about—to enable people to look at the ideas that are on offer from both political parties and to make an informed decision. The Australian people made an informed decision based on the information that this government put on the record in May last year, and yet everything we have seen since, whether it's out in the community, whether it's in this place here, demonstrates time and time again that this government was willing to say whatever it liked to get access to the government benches over here. It said whatever it liked and since then all we have seen is broken promise after broken promise after broken promise. Australians, quite frankly, deserve more. 15:12 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I honestly believe I'm in a parallel universe. I don't like to go down the path of history lessons, but it's important for some of us that have been around in the workforce for a little while—I was a recipient of the Hawke-Keating push to have workers get superannuation. I remember the accords. I remember being in wage negotiations in the eighties and nineties when we traded off our pay rises so that we could get an increase in super. I was a young union official at that little transport company called TNT when we received superannuation—may I say it was not 11 per cent of our wages; it was $1.87 per week—and I remember saying to my union organiser and my fellow workers on the site, 'What are we going to do with $1.87?' I was told, 'Stick it in your superannuation account.' I had a think about it and, lo and behold, the whole idea was that we the workers—and when I say 'workers' I mean all workers; I'm not talking class warfare here—would not be a burden upon the taxpayers when we retire. I also remember being privileged to be with an employer that gave me an opportunity in later life, at the Transport Workers Union, where I could increase my superannuation through the benefits that were available through—I can't remember what they used to call it, but you could offset your taxation and put it into your super. Fiona and I made the decision in the nineties that we wanted to up our super because we didn't want to be a burden on the taxpayer. We believed we were privileged enough to have good-paying union jobs and so we could afford to put a bit aside for super while, at the same time, putting our kids through school and building a house. I have tried all my working life to look after my superannuation, and I'm proud to say that I'm quite happy with how it has been going. But I have to say it ain't nowhere near $3 million. And I also have to say, much to my hurting heart, it ain't going to be anywhere near $3 million unless I win lotto and happen to chuck a big chunk in. It just baffles me. People out on the streets are thinking: 'What is that mob over there going on about? Why are they so concerned about people who have $3-plus million in their super?' Can I say to all those who have more, and even that one person who has $544 million, I'm jealous! I wish I had $544 million, because I'd be able to pay an accountant a lot of money to tell me how to get around it and do other things and start buying the kids luxury yachts and holiday homes, in places like Toorak or wherever these people live. But, for crying out loud, they are still going to get access to 15 per cent tax on their super up to $3 million. Think about that. Think of all those people out there on Struggle Street. Think of all those people out there who have had to contend with rising inflation, which we all know in this building has meant there has been a huge impost and cost to them on their housing payments. Think about the squeeze on our supply chains. Think about this: the price of diesel going through the roof. Guess who's paying for it? Not all the trucking companies. Some of the smaller ones are. It's coming back through the supermarket lines. Think about that. The coalition don't stand up and fight and argue about the cost of living. They don't stand up and fight because of the mess they left the Albanese government, the debts they left us. Yet for some strange, weird, 'out there' reason, they want to protect—are they all donors, everyone who's got $3 million plus in their super? What could be the logical argument? I really would like to get into the heads of some of those on the opposition benches, because I honestly think that they must be totally baffled or absolutely embarrassed or just gobsmacked that their leader's going to charge them back into government by standing up for people who have more than $3 million. When I say standing up for people with more than $3 million, they'll pay that extra 15 per cent tax on money above $3 million. If you listened to that side over there, you would think that we are putting our hands into the pockets of people who have $3 million or more and taking it all off them in some massive tax grab. For crying out loud, Senator Van, I'm looking forward to your contribution! I really am. I'm trying to give you an out, because you're not all dodos over that side. Notice I said not all of you. Some of you are pretty intelligent people. Some of you have built a good life because you've got out and done the hard yards, like a lot of us over this side have done. But, seriously, do you think this is great economics? Do you think this is great politics, while people are struggling with rising inflation, rising housing costs, rising supply chain costs, rising food costs and rising fuel costs? Do you think you're on the side of the angels? I can't wait for the blue. 15:17 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I thank my good friend Senator Sterle for reminding us of the Hawke-Keating years. That Labor government took interest rates to 18 per cent. Their Treasurer, Paul Keating, said we went into a recession that we had to have. So when will we hear Dr Chalmers say we're having another recession that we had to have? We're seeing history repeat itself with this government, although it looks more like the Whitlam government than the Hawke-Keating government. I also thank the Treasurer for reminding Australians that Labor will always go after their money. How can the Australian people trust anything this government says after seeing yet another broken promise? They said before the election—many, many times—that they wouldn't make any changes to super. It didn't take them long to change that, did it? It's clear now that the Labor government do not see superannuation as a vehicle for Australians to support themselves in their retirement. It's a piggy bank to bankroll their election campaigns. This $3 million—Senator Sterle said he put money aside, he super sacrificed. I almost guarantee you that most of those people with $3 million made decisions to sacrifice some of their salary and put it into superannuation because there was always a pact, with the Australian people and the Australian government, that the rules for super would stay as they are and they could have some faith in how they invested. Then the Assistant Treasurer grotesquely referred to people's super as 'honey from a hive'. It's truly a sick joke. People go to work their entire lives. They work hard, sacrifice some of their salary and save money. The Labor government doesn't say, 'Good on you, mate, well done. Go and enjoy your retirement.' Stephen Jones looks at it and says, 'How much of that can I get my hands on?' This is not the first time Assistant Minister Jones has been caught out trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Australians over super changes. Let's not forget that, within weeks of coming to government, one of Assistant Minister Jones's first acts was to direct the Treasury to look at how it could support industry super funds to get away with poor performance and mismanagement, trying to underdo the important transparency mechanisms that we put in place in government under the Your Future, Your Super legislation. Despite going to the election promising lower taxes and no change to super, this government has decided to make changes to super by doubling the tax on those higher thresholds. This is a long list of election promises and lies that this government has made. Let's not forget that the Prime Minister promised 97 times that he would reduce Australian people's power bills by $275. Instead, he's delivered the most expensive average wholesale electricity on record. They promised cheaper mortgages, and almost every Australian homeowner knows that Labor outright lied on that one, with mortgages going through the roof after the ninth consecutive rate rise. That is since May 2022, when the election was. This government even promised to lower inflation. In January, we saw inflation at 7.8 per cent for December, which is the highest it's been since 1990. They also promised higher wages, but we've just seen the biggest drop in real wages in recorded history. We know that this government will not deliver on its promises. We know that this government will change its mind on things. Every Australian out there listening to this must remember that, when they say that it's only 0.5 per cent of people who hold super funds, and it's only a modest increase—modest, my backside; a 50 per cent increase is not modest in anyone's books—when they say they're not going to change this, you cannot believe them. You cannot believe a word that comes out of their mouths. They will lower that threshold. They're telling you now that they won't, but, mark my words, they will. They'll increase that concessional rate such that Australians who've worked hard and saved hard are going to be paying more and more and more under this government. They lie. Do not trust them. 15:22 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia It's fascinating listening to this debate that has raged through question time. I'm left scratching my head somewhat at the deep and abiding concern for a modest change in the amount of tax that people pay if they have more than $3 million in their account. Senator Grogan 296331 Yeah, come on! Let's just be clear: what is this about? We are putting forward a very modest change to ensure that the superannuation system does what it is supposed to do. That is not about having a tax offset for people with deep wealth to use for whatever inheritance or further opportunities they might use it for. This is about changing it. There are many other financial vehicles they can use. But $3 million in your super account, that's where the tax breaks reduce—not stop, but reduce. Let's be clear: the highest tax threshold is 47 per cent, and it's still 30 per cent if you're over $3 million. So all of this hoo-ha and beat up is just completely ridiculous, particularly when we look at the kind of legacy that's been left by this government—a legacy of rorts, waste, a trillion dollars in debt, not to mention the laundry list of terminating measures hidden in the budget, out into the future, that the people of this country know nothing about. Yet, you want to protect the millionaires. Well done! Good call. Excellent! You opposed a $1 pay rise for the lowest-paid workers, but you go in and fight for the millionaires and ignore the people who are struggling. You've got this ridiculous narrative about how much you care about the cost of living, yet you did nothing when you were in government, the coalition, to look after those people who are now feeling the cost-of-living pressures the most. It's laughable to hear you out there protecting the millionaires, on one hand. 'Oh no! Our friends with $3 million can't possibly cope!' I don't think so. This is a sensible change. Superannuation was built in this country to enable people to have a dignified retirement. It's not the investment vehicle for your next purchase. It's not the investment vehicle for your deep inheritance. Go and find another investment vehicle. This is a small number of people with a large amount of money, and good on them. Don't begrudge them a penny of it. If they've worked hard for that, well done, but they should not get a tax break from the Australian people to allow them to keep more than $3 million in their superannuation account without paying a more reasonable amount of tax on it. If we can be clear, because I've heard some ridiculous conversations roll out through this period, it is 15 per cent tax for every penny under $3 million and it is 30 per cent tax for the pennies over $3 million. Let's be really clear about that. No-one's robbing anyone. The beat-up and the scare campaign—obviously, you're very excited about that on the opposition benches over there, but it is completely ridiculous. Yes, the cost of living is a critical issue in this country at the moment. It is the thing that we over on this side, the Albanese Labor government, are deeply concerned about. We are working very hard for solutions. That's alright. You over there, the coalition, keep fighting for the millionaires while on the other hand just chatting about the cost of living. It's easy now you're in opposition, because you did absolutely nothing when you were in government. You should be ashamed of yourselves for your behaviour over this last couple of hours. It's been ridiculous to listen to—totally ridiculous. 15:27 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland This question time showed quite clearly that the government has not been upfront with the Australian people over the past week. Obviously, the talking points went out this morning that they wanted to use the word 'modest' an immodest number of times during question time. It was 'modest this', 'modest that', 'modest everything', until the finance minister was a little too immodest and revealed that, in fact, the amount of people that are going to be hit by Labor's doubling of the super tax is 20 times what they've been telling Australians over the past week. Over the past week, this government has been trying to tell fibs to the Australian people: that only half a per cent of you are going to be impacted by their tax grab that is directly against what they promised only a year ago at the election. Only half a per cent. Don't worry about it. Less than a per cent of people. You don't have to worry about that. Actually, it was revealed today that, because of inflation, 10 per cent of Australians will pay this tax over their lifetime. This tax is a lifetime tax. It's about taxing you for saving for your own retirement. It's not really about how many people have more than $3 million today. That doesn't raise a lot of money, because there are not a lot of them. This is actually about taxing you in the future, taxing your future self, the self that you're trying to work hard for and save for so you can have a dignified retirement. The government's refusal to index that $3 million shows that there is a hidden secret agenda here. The hidden agenda is to tax you more so that they can spend more, waste more, on the various things that the Labor Party, with their friends in the Greens, love to waste your money on. Ten per cent of people is a lot of Australians. It might be you. You don't know how your life is going to turn out. You might work hard and do well for yourself. Look around. One in 10 of you are going to be hit by this tax. This is the decimation of the Roman legion. One in 10 will be hit by this tax, thanks to the revelation of this secret modelling. Not only has the government been keeping this secret from the Australian people; they have actual modelling, we know now, that they told no-one about. In fact, I've been messaging some journalists just now. The journalists have been asking the government for these figures over the last few days. They've been asking for them, but—surprise, surprise—no-one has given them to them. Well, now we know that there is a bunch of secret modelling there. I would have thought that in this place, in this chamber, we should be holding the government to account and getting the full details of that secret modelling from the government. We need all those details, not just the figure of 10 per cent; we know that 10 per cent are going to be hit. But then, after being a little immodest, the finance minister went back to being modest again—okay: there is modelling—and she wouldn't tell us how much extra tax, over their lifetime, those10 per cent of Australians will have to pay. That's surely in their modelling. It's not that hard to work out. So, where is that figure? We should, as a Senate, demand that figure before signing off on these changes. All this modelling should be revealed. It isn't too hard to do some sums. If you do some rough sums, you'll see that a 30-year-old who today has $200,000 in super and is earning only $100,000 a year—which is just over the average full-time wage now—and makes their normal mandated contributions and their salary goes up with inflation and they make average returns on super will be over the $3 million threshold by the time of their retirement. That's someone on an average wage. They will be over the $3 million threshold if they start off with a bit of money. That's the power of compound interest. And if they do end up in this category, they will end up, over their lifetime, if they live to just over 80 years of age—which is the average age, once you retire—then they will pay an extra $700,000 in tax in their lifetime thanks to this change, because this tax hits you every year. Clearly it hurts the growth of your fund. It's a tax on saving, a tax on capital accumulation. It's the worst kind of tax, because it hurts our overall economic strength. If the government is going to be fair dinkum with Australians it should now do two things. They already broke a promise to the Australian people. But, to be fair dinkum, they should release this modelling so that people know how much extra tax they're due to pay thanks to this broken promise from this government. And the government should commit to indexing this threshold, because it they really want to hit only half a per cent of Australians, then just index the threshold, and that argument will be taken away from me. The fact that they're not doing that shows that they are not being fair dinkum about this change. Question agreed to. Wages 59 15:33 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked by Senator Rice today relating to wages for aged-care workers. It was very good to hear that the government has committed to funding the increase in wages for aged-care workers by 15 per cent, as the Fair Work Commission told them they needed to, in full, in the coming financial year. This 15 per cent increase in the coming financial year is the least the government needed to commit to. We were outraged at their attempts to spread it out over two years. I'm glad they have come to their senses and have committed to funding it over one year. Aged-care workers are some of the most poorly paid workers in the country. They are generally women, and they are generally struggling incredibly with the cost of living. That 15 per cent increase is going to make it slightly more possible that they'll be able to pay the rent, to put food on the table and to pay for their own bills, whilst working incredibly hard caring for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Increasing the wages and conditions of aged-care workers is fundamental to increasing the quality of care for older Australians, whether they are in residential care or whether they are receiving home care. We know that when aged-care workers are paid better, when they've got better conditions and when they are not being rushed off their feet older Australians get better care. And that's what all Australians want to see. They want to know that older people who are in residential care and who are being cared for in home care are actually getting the care that they deserve, having worked so hard all of their lives and now being reliant on other people to help care for them. It's the least that we can do. We also know that we're in a situation, now got this commitment for that 15 per cent increase, where aged-care providers are losing, on average, $28 per resident per day. And we know that the Health Services Union called for not just a 15 per cent increase but a 25 per cent increase to bring the wages of aged-care workers up to a reasonable level. Bringing them up to that level means more people will feel that they can afford to work in aged care. There are so many people. I know from the home-care workers who help care for my mum that there's a churn of workers. For a lot of them it's not because they don't like the work but because the wages they have been paid are so low that they can't afford to keep working in that work. They will keep their eyes open for anything that will pay them more money, and then they will go. With the churn of workers, people don't have the continuity of care and they don't get the care that they need, because there's a new worker coming in every month. I heard Senator Gallagher say that the government needed to be fiscally responsible and that she was working very hard to try and find room in the budget so that we could pay the money that was needed to improve the conditions in aged care. The royal commission was very clear that in order to fund all of its recommendations—now two years ago—there was about an extra $10 billion per year needed. We heard Senator Gallagher wringing her hands and saying, 'We're doing our best to try and find where we can find money in the budget.' There's an easy answer for the government. Here they are trying to find out how they can wring a little bit more out of the budget to try and support some of the lowest paid workers in the country to support older Australians. We know $10 billion per year is needed. There's an easy answer. The stage 3 tax cuts—the Morrison government's stage 3 tax cuts—are going to cost the budget bottom line $254 billion over the next 10 years. That's a quarter of a trillion dollars—on average, $25 billion per year. It's actually quite easy to find that extra $10 billion, and have change left over for all sorts of other things such as for investment in affordable housing and for increasing income support. Abandon the stage 3 tax cuts. It's the obvious thing to do. Yes, the other side will scream and carry on like they have been doing about the minuscule changes that you're currently making to super tax concessions. But we know that the average Australian will thank you for it. Abandon the stage 3 tax cuts, under which billions of dollars will go to the ultrawealthy—to billionaires, to millionaires, to people who have already got so much—and instead invest that money where it's needed, which is in improving wages and conditions for low-paid workers and increasing— (Time expired.) Question agreed to. COVID-19: Vaccination 60 15:38 The DEPUTY PRESIDE 287062 NT (): Senator Roberts, there's 30 seconds remaining that hasn't been used. Would you like to move a motion to take note? 15:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Yes, I would, Chair. I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator Roberts today relating to COVID-19 vaccinations. The Labor Party thinks it's easy to just fob off this debate about broken political promises. This is about something far bigger. This is about the future of our country and this very parliament. We have got people dying in their thousands from the injections, and it has not been approved by United States authorities and it has bypassed by the Department of Defence. What we want is a proper, fair royal commission into the COVID injections and the whole treatment of COVID. Question agreed to. NOTICES 60 NOTICES Presentation 60 15:40 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That: (1) the Senate rejects the Minister's claim of public interest immunity over documents and modelling that would demonstrate the forecast use of Australian Carbon Credit Units. This information would not in any way disclose the deliberations of Cabinet Ministers; and (2) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong, by 4pm, Thursday 9 March, the documents and modelling relied on for the forecast usage of Australian Carbon Credit Units over the decade to 2030. Presentation 60 Withdrawal 61 15:41 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Pursuant to notice of intention given on 9 February 2023, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for today proposing a disallowance. BUSINESS 61 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 61 15:41 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Brown from 6 to 9 March 2023, for personal reasons; (b) Senator Dodson for 9 March 2023, on account of parliamentary business; (c) Senator Farrell for 8 and 9 March 2023, on account of ministerial business; and ( (d) Senator McCarthy from 6 to 9 March 2023, on account of ministerial business. Question agreed to. 15:42 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Chandler for 9 March 2023, for personal reasons; (b) Senator McLachlan for 8 and 9 March 2023, for a parliamentary delegation; (c) Senator Dean Smith from 6 to 9 March 2023, for personal reasons; and (d) Senator O'Sullivan for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. 15:42 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons: (a) Senator Cox for 6 and 7 March 2023; and (b) Senator Faruqi for 8 March 2023. Question agreed to. NOTICES 62 NOTICES Postponement 62 COMMITTEES 62 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 62 15:44 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. MOTIONS 62 MOTIONS Parliament: Sittings 62 15:44 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 124 before asking that it be taken as a formal motion. The amendment changes the return date from 9 February to 9 March. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I move the motion as amended: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 5 pm on 9 March 2023, the total cost in relation to the recalling of Parliament for the unscheduled sitting on 15 December 2022, including a breakdown of the costs in relation to the following categories: (a) parliamentarian travel allowance; (b) parliamentarian airfares; (c) parliamentarian Commonwealth car, cabcharge and rideshare expenses; (d) staff travel allowance; (e) staff airfares; (f) staff cabcharge and rideshare expenses; (g) any additional staffing requirements (including, but not limited to, security services, attendants, restaurants and catering staff); and (h) any other costs in relation to the recalling of Parliament. 15:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator 39801 The government will be opposing this motion. The costs described in Senator Roberts's motion will be disclosed in the normal process through public expenditure reporting when PEMS functionality resumes. As Senator Roberts would know, during routine public expenditure reporting, parliamentarians and their officers have an opportunity to examine their expenditure to ensure all costs are true and correct. Officers have not yet had a chance to properly examine this expenditure. Accurate reporting of parliamentary expenses is a key pillar of our transparent democratic system and is essential to ensure the proper use of Commonwealth funds. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the chamber is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts, No. 124, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:49]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 37 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. 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. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 15 NOES Chisholm, A. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. Payman, F. Polley, H. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Department of the Treasury 63 Order for the Production of Documents 63 15:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on 9 February 2023, all modelling by the Department of the Treasury in relation to: (a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022; (b) the draft Competition and Consumer Amendment (Gas Market) Bill 2022; and (c) the impact of the war in Ukraine on the price of coal and gas. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts, No. 125, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:57]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Van, D. A. 28 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 64 BILLS Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2023 64

Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2023

First Reading 64 15:58 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Governor-General Act 1974, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 64 16:00 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— If someone is struggling to get by on $282 a week in JobSeeker payments and they miss a job interview they get a warning, if they do it twice they can have their payments halted. If a former Governor-General goes to jail, or is proven to engage in the most serious misconduct, they keep on receiving up to $600,000 a year in entitlements, that's about $11,500 a week, no questions asked. It's one rule for the elite and another for the rest of the country. How is that fair, how is that decent, how is that reasonable? It is a usual principle in public law that where an allowance or honorarium is provided after service, that this can be withdrawn where it is no longer appropriate or in the public interest for it to be awarded. This simple provision was not included in the Governor-General Act 1974 through what can only be assumed to be an unintentional omission. This bill seeks to remedy this by creating a power to stop paying allowances to former Governors-General, or their spouses, where a former Governor-General has engaged in serious misconduct. That power can be exercised either through the Minister making a declaration, or through a House of Parliament, most likely the Senate, passing a resolution that a former Governor-General has engaged in serious misconduct, disentitling them or their spouse to the extremely generous post office entitlements of a Governor-General. The bill mirrors the one proposed by former Greens Senator Rachel Siewert and I pay tribute to the work she did in bringing the original proposal to this place. The proposed new section 4AGA defines a cessation event as occurring when either House of Parliament makes a declaration under the new section 4AGC, or when the Minister makes a declaration under section 4AGB. In order for a declaration to be made, the Minister or a House of Parliament must be satisfied that a former Governor-General has engaged in serious misconduct which includes inappropriate, improper, wrong or unlawful conduct. Examples of serious misconduct could include serious corruption or fraud, covering up child sexual abuse, and other serious criminal offending. This is a high but appropriate bar to ensure the scheme accords with public expectations of when an allowance should no longer be provided. The Governor-General has a unique role in the Australian political system, but that does not mean this office is above universally agreed checks and balances. It must have accountability. The entitlement this bill relates to is the post-office retirement allowance after a Governor-General leaves office in which they are entitled to 60% of the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court for life. At current rates, this is $364,890 per year that every former living Governor-General is entitled to. After a current or retired Governor-General passes away, their spouse is entitled to a lifelong allowance of five-eighths of the rate of a former Governor-General. Benefits also include office facilities, transport and administrative support. All together this means former Governors-General can, and do, receive more than $600,000 a year. Where those people have engaged in serious misconduct including covering up or failing to take action on child sexual abuse, the ongoing receipt of this payment looks to victims and survivors like the state is supporting the perpetrator and continuing to ignore their needs and interests. It feels like the worst of the history of institutional child abuse repeating. This is about accountability. This is an extraordinarily generous pension and set of entitlements and that must come with some serious accountability. When it is no longer in the public interest for it to be paid, there needs to be a capacity for the Minister or a House of Parliament to step in. No one, whatever their current or former role, is entitled to a blank cheque payable each year by the public regardless of their conduct. This bill provides much needed accountability and transparency in the issuing of these pensions. In 2018, survivors' advocates including Bravehearts, the Blue Knot Foundation, Care Leavers Australasia Network, End Rape on Campus, Beyond Abuse and the Queensland Child Sexual Abuse Legislative Reform Council, wrote to the then Prime Minister asking him to make this change. Many victims and survivors of abuse have asked me to make this move, and I'm grateful to them for their continuing advocacy for justice, and their continuing belief that the political system will respond to their calls. Supporting this bill will show survivors that this place listens and understands, and will no longer allow laws that shield abusers from consequences. This is not an academic issue, this is a real life issue playing out right now. Former Governor-General Peter Hollingworth is currently facing an Anglican church inquiry into serious allegations of his mishandling of child sexual abuse claims. While I deliver these words, former Governor-General Hollingworth continues to take and take from the public. In just the five years from 2016 to 2021, the former Governor-General took over $3 million in payments and entitlements—all for an 18-month-long job that he resigned from in disgrace. That doesn't pass the pub test. So now it's time for this bill to pass the test of politics and become law. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse showed just how important it was for survivors for the law to reflect the harm done to them, and for laws that shielded those that failed them from accountability to be removed. I ask for your support for this bill so that we can take this modest but meaningful step towards justice for survivors of sexual abuse. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MATTERS OF URGENCY 66 MATTERS OF URGENCY Cost Of Living 66 (16:01): The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 6 March, from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Given the RBA's admission that between half and three-quarters of the increase in inflation is a result of supply shocks and that monetary policy can do very little to offset supply shocks, the RBA should not raise interest rates and the government must act to address inflation and the cost of living crisis, including by introducing a national freeze on rents". Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:01 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania We are witnessing something extraordinary and devastating unfolding in this country: the lives of the poorest Australians, those who can least afford to be made worse off, are being degraded in the relentless and dogmatic pursuit of a self-defeating economic goal. Renters and mortgage holders are being smashed by a Reserve Bank stuck in the past and in denial of reality. Tomorrow will just be the latest chapter of this unfolding ruination of the poorest Australians when the RBA does what it shouldn't do and lifts interest rates for the 10th consecutive time. Meanwhile, the government is more interested in ashen-faced commentary rather than doing what it was elected to do, which is to actually help people. We find ourselves today, and we will find ourselves tomorrow, at the dead end of neoliberal economics. And at that dead end lies the inherent flaw in one of the hallmarks of this corrupt ideology: so-called independent central banking. Independent central banking is fundamentally undemocratic. The justification for one of the most important economic tools not being in the hands of elected government is that monetary policy is too important to be left to politics. We are told that interest rate decisions are best left to those who really understand the economy, and that inflation is always and everywhere a function of excessive demand that the RBA alone should be left to get under control. It's on this reductive logic that the RBA's nine consecutive rate rises have been based and have gone unchallenged by the government. And it's on this reductive logic that tomorrow's 10th interest rate rise will again be based. But the logic is flawed. How do we know it's flawed? Well, because the RBA have told us so. Last month, the RBA said that between half and three-quarters of the increase in inflation is a result of supply shocks. And the chair of the board of the RBA, Mr Lowe, said, 'There is very little that monetary policy can do to offset supply shocks.' He said, 'Our models are not well suited for supply shocks.' So, there it is: our glorious, technocratic, wise-above-all-others, independent central bank, responding to a problem it can't understand with a solution that doesn't suit. That's the great travesty happening before our eyes. We know that interest rates are not the right tool to deal with the current inflation spike, but we are stuck in this bizarre Pavlovian state where the RBA raises interest rates to squash a non-existent price-wage spiral and the government goes through its 'nothing we can do about it' routine, and the poorest Australians—the renters and the mortgage holders of this country, who did nothing to create the problem of spiking inflation—are paying the price. And we're supposed to believe that this is the best we can do, while the wealthiest in this country continue to make off like bandits. Well, it's not good enough. I say to Labor: people's lives are being destroyed, so wake up and do something about it. Tax corporate super profits, tax the wealthy, freeze rents, make child care free, put dental and mental health into Medicare, and raise income supports. These are meaningful actions that Labor could do if they would just take their heads out of their centrist fundaments and look to the light on the hill. Please, do something. Don't just sit there and pretend you can't. 16:06 Se 283596 Queensland nator RENNICK () (): It must be a blue moon tonight, because it's not often that I agree with Senator McKim. I agree on most of his motion; I'm not too keen on the national freeze on rents, even though I accept that there's a genuine problem in regard to rents. But much, much more needs to be done than just allowing an unelected, unaccountable RBA to run riot and destroy the economy through this blunt instrument known as qualitative easing. For too long, Western governments have relied on these central bankers, who are unaccountable and who all report to the Bank for International Settlements. We had that confirmed by Michele Bullock during the last set of estimates, where she admitted that she wouldn't release the minutes of those meetings with the Bank for International Settlements because they wouldn't be allowed back at the table. That's not what I call accountability. But I will address that issue another day, because I want to go back to the crux of this, which of course is the cost of living and the crisis that is going to be caused by the RBA's reckless behaviour. The problem with the RBA is that they are all lifers. The last four RBA governors all started work at the RBA. They've all had careers in the RBA and have no idea of what goes on in the real world. They base everything on theory and very, very little on practice. I think we need to look—and I know Senator McKim is touching on this; I didn't quite pick up all of it, but I think I'm on the same path as him—at the fact that they deal only with the demand side. I've asked the RBA this myself. They deal only with the demand side. What we've got here in Australia at the moment is that we've had supply shocks. People often think inflation is caused only by too much demand, but that's not the case. If trying to make ends meet is too much demand, well, I'm sorry, but that's not too much demand; that's a lack of productivity in our own economy because we don't build enough nation-building infrastructure to provide essential services at affordable rates. What we really need to do in this country is stop being afraid of building infrastructure—in particular, what I call the sovereign seven, which are dams, rail, road, power stations, telecommunications, airports and ports. We need to supply more of these things, through quantitative easing. It took me 30 years to unbrainwash myself, because I had this rubbish forced down my throat at university, but there is nothing wrong with doing this. There is nothing wrong—companies do it all the time. They issue shares. They issue equity. They issue new equity to build a new mine. As a country we can issue new equity to build infrastructure. It's debit, asset; credit, equity. You can create an infrastructure bank here at the federal government level. They can lend to the state governments, and the state governments pay interest back to the national infrastructure bank. The national infrastructure bank can pay dividends back through to the federal government, which will basically be a form of raising revenue, adding more infrastructure and more supply to the economy. This will push down the prices of essential services. That's not just good for the cost of living; it will make it more competitive—for our businesses to compete with other businesses in the world. Look at China, for example. They didn't go out and buy trillions of US dollars. They did all that infrastructure building in China, on the back of their own central bank. We have a history here in Australia of doing the same thing. One of Australia's first governors, and he was the first governor to issue our own currency, was Lachlan Macquarie. He built the Sydney hospital, the Sydney barracks, with our own currency, the holey dollar. That was Australia's first currency. Unfortunately, today that holey dollar is used as a logo for Macquarie Bank, who happened to act on—because of superannuation. This is what people don't want to admit about superannuation, the fact that this facilitated privatisation of our infrastructure assets. So now they're in the hands of unelected superannuation board members. There are other things we can do to ease demand on inflation. We should look at lowering the immigration rate. Two-thirds of our immigration rate is driven by foreign students. Universities don't have to pay tax on income derived from foreign students. So if you want to talk about a super profits tax, let's make universities pay tax on the profits they derive from foreign students. That will reduce the demand caused by over immigration. 16:11 Senat 252157 Victoria or WALSH () (): I too rise to speak on the urgency motion moved by Senator McKim. The Albanese government is talking to Australians every day, and we know that Australians are facing cost-of-living challenges. We know that families are doing it tough. We hear it every day. After a decade of waste and rorts and stagnant low wages, a pandemic and a war in Ukraine inflation is quite appropriately the top issue on our agenda. The Reserve Bank makes its decisions independently in its response to addressing inflation, and it should stay independent. Today's debate shows exactly how important it is that the RBA sets rates, not the politicians in this chamber. Our role as the government is to deliver a responsible economic plan and to deliver relief to those who need it most. It is a responsible plan that will help drive down inflation. Because of a decade of the former coalition government's wasted opportunities and questionable priorities, we have a lot of work to do. We're dealing with a trillion dollars of debt with absolutely nothing to show for it. Our response to inflation is a three-point plan, which is about relief, repair and, importantly, restraint. We're providing cost-of-living relief that doesn't add to inflation. This year, we've successfully argued for a minimum wage increase, and we're proud of that increase. We've delivered cheaper medicines, which has seen Australians save more than $36 million in the past two months. We know energy bills are a stress point for households, so we're working with the states and territories to provide energy bill relief. This will be a key policy in the May budget. Last December we introduced emergency caps on gas prices. It's been confirmed in Senate estimates that this will push down future prices significantly. According to Dr Kennedy, over the year to June 2024 our price caps will continue to reduce inflation by half a per cent. This is also a point acknowledged by Mr Lowe, who cited in estimates our energy policy as having a key downward force on inflation. We know people need relief, right now, from the rising cost of living today as well. So we're delivering cheaper child care; we're delivering free TAFE; we're expanding paid parental leave; we're building more homes. At the same time, we're repairing our economy. Senator McKim does raise an important point: it is supply shocks that have contributed to inflation. The coalition did nothing in government to strengthen our supply chains. That has only made things worse for Australian families. We have plans to repair our broken supply chains. We're doing that by investing in the long run of our economy. Our $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund will diversify our economy. It will bring manufacturing back to our shores. It will create secure, well-paid jobs. We're investing in the renewables that will bring down energy prices and help us reach our emission targets too. So what is important right now is that, as a government, we make quality investments that strengthen and diversify our economy, secure our energy and our supply chains and create new jobs across the economy. Notably, our plans don't add to inflation, and that's because we're being responsible and restraining our spending. We're returning 99 per cent of revenue upgrades to the budget over the next two years. The average of the last government was just 40 per cent. The last thing that we want to be doing is contributing to inflation pressures. The plan is working, and we need to stick to it. We know that Australians are doing it tough, and we're taking responsibility for addressing inflation. It is the defining challenge that we face right now this year. But we're prepared to face it with sensible plans. We're working every day to make Australians' lives better, by delivering secure jobs, cheaper child care and cheaper medicines and investing in the long run of our nation, with more housing and cleaner energy, and bringing back manufacturing. This is what we were elected to do, and we're getting on with the job. 16:17 Se 266524 Queensland nator ROBERTS () (): As a servant to the many different people making our amazing Queensland community, I know rental prices are a savage problem. Interest rate rises are increasing mortgage repayments and forcing more investment property owners to dip into their own pockets to pay their mortgage. If owners do not have that extra money, then negative gearing is not going to help. Inflation of 7.8 per cent means that council rates, water rates, maintenance costs and insurance are making it harder and harder to hang on to investment properties. Now the Greens propose a rent freeze, which is really a 7.8 per cent rent reduction each year that it goes on. The only effect of a rental freeze will be to drive investment property owners out of the market. Australia needs investment property owners to provide a home to people who are renting. Driving them out of the market will hurt the 400,000 new Australians who arrived last year and the one million likely to arrive during the course of this government. Rising rentals are a product of too many people chasing too few rentals. We know 10 per cent of Australian homes are owned by investors who are not renting them out. Their investment strategy is to buy a new home and keep it locked up while it appreciates in value. Having a tenant in there is a complication they don't want and lowers the resale value because the home is no longer new. Most of these properties are foreign-owned. One Nation would give these owners 12 months to sell those properties to Australians. Bringing that number of homes onto the market would do more to bring prices down than a price cap. And One Nation would reduce immigration to net zero, meaning there would be only enough arrivals each year to replace those that leave. This will allow time for the housing construction industry to catch up with demand. It is about supply and demand. These sensible, honest policies are One Nation's solutions to high rents, which will protect real estate values from the chaos a rental cap will introduce. 16:19 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise today to speak to the urgency motion put forward by Senator McKim. Once again, we have to contend with the Greens political party's range of fantasies about the way in which the economy operates. Labor believes in real solutions for all Australians, not dramatic and impractical action. We need to use an evidence base, and evidence shows that rental freezes simply don't work. Yet that is one of the profferings from Senator McKim for consideration by the Senate, and it should be rejected. To Australians I say: the Reserve Bank is independent, and it's at arm's length from government. There's a reason it was constructed that way, and it remains so. But that doesn't mean that, as a government, we don't understand what's happening for real Australians. We understand that both renters and mortgage holders are feeling the pain right now. They're feeling it, absolutely. That's why we'll focus on real solutions—not fantasies in another world that doesn't exist but real solutions to address the real concerns of Australia in a fiscally responsible way. Regulation of residential tenancies is, frankly, not a matter for federal governments. It's a matter for state and territory governments, and the Commonwealth can't actually require those governments to freeze rents. So the motion falls over completely on its face just with that one point. In contrast, Labor is absolutely focusing on increasing the supply of new houses in the market. We are helping to increase supply through our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which will deliver 30,000 new homes in the first five years alone. The future fund is only one part of our very ambitious and much-needed reform agenda to make up for nine lost years under the Liberal and National parties. We're striking a new National Housing Accord between all levels of government, investors and industry to build affordable homes our country really, really needs. We need to boost the supply of new houses. We're widening the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, with up to $575 million available to invest in more social and affordable homes right across the country, with many projects already announced. The Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee was brought forward by three months. More than 2,000 places have already been taken up, with hundreds of Australian families now in their new home. These are practical outcomes. That's what people need, not pie in the sky that you make up as you go so you can get a headline on the way through. Help to Buy, a new program brought forward by the Albanese government, is here to help Australians get their own homes sooner. We are establishing a permanent National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. It is hard to believe that there wasn't one, but there wasn't. For nine long years, this whole space has been profoundly neglected. The interim council that we established, as a Labor government coming in under Prime Minister Albanese, has been operating since 1 January, providing independent expert advice to government. We're also developing a National Housing and Homelessness Plan, because everybody knows that that is at crisis point in our country. The gentrified Greens over there in the corner so often appear to be nimbys. They have never seen an affordable or social housing project that they haven't opposed. In my own home state of New South Wales, the outgoing Greens member for Balmain, when a candidate, campaigned against a plan for a mere six apartments. There were six apartments, and the Greens opposed it. Three of them were designated as affordable housing. The site is 180 Darling Street in Balmain. To the Greens, one new affordable housing apartment being built is like a disaster. One new home for a middle- or working-class family is one entirely too many. They come in here with ideas that are absolutely implausible and impractical. They're out of touch. The Greens political party need to understand that increased supply will drive down prices. If that political party actually cared about reducing rents and prices, their councillors and candidates across Australia would stop opposing reasonable new property developments. They have to be reasonable. There's got to be new stock built. You can't just stop everything. You just can't do it. Inflation is a worldwide problem caused by Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Supply chains are strained by war and global pandemics. We've got to get inflation under control, and we're helping with cost of living, child care, medicines, direct energy bill relief, minimum wage rises and fee-free TAFE. That's real. That's practical. That's Labor. That's Australia's government. 16:24 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Every single day that goes by without subsidising skyrocketing energy bills, raising wages, effectively dealing with the housing crisis and stabilising interest rates, this government from the Labor political party is choosing poverty for millions of people across the country. Poverty is a political choice, and it's a choice that this government, the Labor political party, is making each day. While corporate profits hit record numbers, there are more than half a million people languishing on the social housing waiting list across the country. And, while there are 5½ million people relying on Centrelink payments below the poverty line, this government is deciding to give $240-odd billion in tax breaks to the super wealthy and is even standing up while people in this place are about to pocket an extra $9,000 a year in tax cuts. And they accept that wages for ordinary people and ordinary people's living standards are going backwards. Tomorrow, when the RBA raises interest rates again, the Labor political party will cry crocodile tears and say there's nothing they can do. That is a surrender of political leadership, and it's entrenching intergenerational disadvantage. In my home town of Sydney, we've seen property and rental prices at historic highs. Young people in particular are suffering, and we've seen the Labor Party get into bed with property developers every time they're in government and never address affordable housing. There's never been a property developer that the New South Wales Labor party hasn't loved, and it's never ever succeeded in providing housing for the people who need it. The data shows that in Sydney, from Palm Beach to Cronulla and across to Baulkham Hills, you actually need to earn $100,000 a year just to avoid housing stress. It's obscenely common for people to be getting a $100 or $200 or $300 a week rental increase. No-one is getting a pay rise of that magnitude. But of course some uber-rich people are going to be offered tax breaks even greater than that by the Labor political party. We should step in and support much needed rent freezes. It's a simple, achievable and meaningful step to hit pause on the cost-of-living crisis—just press pause on it. I've been out at Addi Road Food Pantry in Marrickville in the heart of Sydney and seen just how many people are coming in asking for help with putting food on the table right now. It's going to get worse tomorrow. Those people know that they can rely on their community to pitch in, and they should expect their government to do the same. I've joined with Turbans 4 Australia, out in Clyde, at their warehouse where they provide food for those who need it because of the policy failures of federal and state governments. They are taking the time to understand the real cost-of-living crisis. And, if you say you care about supporting those who are doing it tough, then you need to step up on delivering that, and this Labor political party needs to deliver policies that help the people most in need. 16:27 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Australians continue to suffer in a cost-of-living crisis caused by corporate profits, yet the RBA, aided and abetted by the Labor political party, continue to kick the teeth of workers by jacking up interest rates. We now have fresh evidence that inflation above the target rate is being driven largely by corporate profiteering. The RBA knows this, and the government knows this too, and, yet again, working Australians are being pummelled by the blunt tool of monetary policy, being forced to suffer for the inflation that they are not causing. The government is delighted to be able to keep the RBA's interest rate rises at arm's length, but the government is also to blame for the cost-of-living crisis Australians have found themselves in through no fault of their own. Time and time again, we've seen a government unwilling to take meaningful action on cost-of-living relief. What we don't need are useless platitudes. What we need is a government brave enough to actually make policy decisions. We need to reverse the atrocious quarter of a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts for the super rich, we need an immediate rent freeze and we need public education that is truly free. If Labor scrapped their stage 3 tax cuts, we could fund real cost-of-living relief. We could have a two-year freeze on rents. Then we could cap rent hikes at two per cent for 24 months. It's been done in Victoria, British Colombia, New York and Germany. Let's do that here too and give real, meaningful cost-of-living relief to Australians. We could make public education truly free. We've seen the exorbitant costs that even parents of students in public schools are having to pay for their child's education, and we're hearing how university students are getting smashed by student debt and people who are trying to pay off HECS bills are having that eat into their income. Of the $243½ billion of Labor's stage 3 tax cuts, $188 billion, or 77 per cent, of the benefit will go to the wealthiest 20 per cent of the population. Even worse, you are giving the richest one per cent as much as the bottom 65 per cent. Australians deserve a government that is serious about cost of living and that abolishes tax cuts for the rich. 16:30 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia We are in the midst of the cost-of-living crisis in this country. We hear day after day after day of the struggles of everyday people to afford rent, to afford the hike in their mortgage repayments, to put food on the table and to buy uniforms for their kids at the beginning of the year. Yet here in Canberra the government is overseeing two of the government's biggest government owned corporations, Australia Post and NBN Co, whose executives, this year alone, have each banked over half a million dollars in bonuses. The CEO of Australia Post has a $2 million salary and over half a million dollars in bonuses. We know that the CEO of NBN Co, Stephen Rue, was paid nearly $700,000 in bonuses, which pushed his salary up to nearly $3 million. I ask the everyday Australians out there: 'How is your NBN going? Good? Is it worth nearly $3 million for the guy who was running the gig?' I don't think so. While everyday people are struggling, these fat cat executives on the public payroll in government owned corporations are raking it in. We have seen the polite letters written by the shareholder ministers to both Australia Post and NBN Co, but I say this: put the pen down and take some actual action. We actually need caps on these bonuses and salaries and to start installing public expectations of the wages, salaries and bonuses— (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:36]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Antic, A. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Dodson, P. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Superannuation: Taxation 71 16:39 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Hume: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for Prime Minister Albanese to not break his promise to Australians when he said on 2 May 2022, "we've said we have no intention on making any super changes", by committing to not hitting Australians with more taxes on their super, and to rule out any new taxes on the family home, negatively geared assets, trusts and retirees' incomes." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:39 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland At the request of Senator Hume, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for Prime Minister Albanese to not break his promise to Australians when he said on 2 May 2022, "we've said we have no intention on making any super changes", by committing to not hitting Australians with more taxes on their super, and to rule out any new taxes on the family home, negatively geared assets, trusts and retirees' incomes. In the last two weeks, we have seen this Labor government break faith with the Australian people with unprecedented candour and shamelessness. Prime Minister Albanese doesn't take his past promises to the Australian people as rules. He doesn't even take them as guidelines. How else can you characterise a prime minister who looked Australians in the eye and said, 'We've said we have no intention of making any super changes', then skipped, strode, wombled into the Prime Minister's courtyard and announced that super taxes will be doubled. It's not just the Prime Minister who thinks commitments to the Australian people are simply campaign tactics to be discarded once you make it onto the blue carpet and into the ministerial limo. Labor's Treasurer had the gall to say to the Australian people in April 2022, 'We've made it very clear that we don't have any proposals for tax increases.' There's a pretty obvious reason Labor wasn't upfront about this before the election: because they knew Australians would not vote for it. The more Australians learn about this super tax, the more we can see how shifty this Labor government has been. First of all, they said it would impact about 80,000 Australians. Now we know—we learnt in question time today—that 10 per cent of Australians are going to be impacted by this super tax, and, unlike the super transfer balance cap, Labor ruled out indexing the $3 million cap. Here, Labor are making a massive mistake. A lot of people I know don't have $3 million in their super account. Actually, I don't know anyone that has $3 million in their super account, but I know lots of people who do want to have $3 million in their super account. I spent last week driving from Cairns down to Townsville, going along talking to people. People are pretty angry about this. No-one I spoke to has $3 million in their super account, and they probably never will, but they say to the people who do: 'Good on you. You worked hard for it. Good on you, mate. Get out there. I'm pretty happy for you.' Labor are saying to people out there who've worked hard, 'We're going to tax you.' But the people out there are also concerned that Labor have broken this promise. What other promises are they going to break? They know that Labor will decrease the threshold. If the threshold is set at $3 million, at the next budget it will be $2½ million. Then it will be $2 million and suddenly all of your super accounts will fall into Labor's trap. This comes to the central tenet of why we are so upset at Labor's breaking of this election promise: because we're on the side of Australians and their money. It is their money. Labor think that people's super accounts are money that Labor can go and raid. Labor can be like one of those little bugs that gets into electronic systems and goes in there and empties our people's super accounts. I say: shame on Labor for what you are going to do to the confidence in Australia's financial services system. There are so many questions that need to be answered about this proposal. How will it deal with unrealised capital gains? How will real assets be valued? How exactly does this impact defined-benefit schemes? The Prime Minister is on one. How will valuation increases be calculated? Labor is quite happy to mislead the Australian people, willingly break election promises and make false statements prior to the election in pursuit of electoral success and then doesn't even have the decency to be transparent with the Australian people. We should have expected this from the Treasurer. We know that Dr Chalmers did his PhD on Paul Keating, the guy who said: 'Australia, we have to have a recession. Come on. This is the recession we had to have.' We can see where this government's going, can't we, ladies and gentlemen? We can see where this government is heading. Now Dr Chalmers's new super tax hike is alongside his idol Paul Keating's l-a-w law tax hikes in the pantheon of historic broken promises by Labor treasurers. I'm sure the Treasurer's proud of being in such distinguished company as Paul Keating, who sent so many people bankrupt. So much hardship was caused by him and what he did to the Australian economy, and now we see Labor with their secret taxes that they didn't want to tell the Australian people about before the election. They are coming out and going after people's super accounts. Shame on Labor. (Time expired) 16:45 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I take a great deal of delight in getting up and speaking on this. In the last few weeks we've heard Dutton—sorry, the opposition leader—saying that he's the campaigner for the middle class and the working class, but actually what he's a campaigner for is the billionaires. We've seen the Liberal Party change. We saw Howard's battlers. Now we have Dutton's battlers, the billionaires. Dutton's billionaires need to be looked after. Those billionaires who have squirrelled away $543 million in superannuation, with concessions, have to be looked after. So Dutton's billionaires can be looked after. The reason we're in the position where we need to make fair and equitable changes to the concessions that are paid—and there will still be concessions for those billionaires, those millionaires and those people in the community with $100,000 or $50,000, and we'll still have proper incentives to make sure that superannuation continues in this economy—is that what's quite clearly happened is that we have a situation where we have a trillion dollars worth of debt and we have to work out how to balance the books, and the people who can assist in that balancing of the books are the ones who also receive benefit. This is about a progressive approach to tax and properly protecting those people in superannuation, which was set up to make sure that there's a proper amount of money for people to retire on. It's also about making sure that those concessions are for those people that superannuation was initially geared up for. What we've seen from the Liberal Party is that this isn't just about Dutton's billionaires. This is about an attack on super, because we all know they hate superannuation. They actually hate the whole concept of superannuation. They hate poorer people receiving super. The ones complaining about the billionaires and those people with more than $3 million in their super still getting a tax concession but paying a fairer level of tax are the same people who deferred increases to the superannuation guarantee for struggling working-class and middle-class people in this country. They're the ones who, over the 10 years of the previous government, stood by and saw young people missing out on the multiplier of that minimum increase in superannuation. They're the same people who have made sure that the amount of money that people can take home at the end of the day is not the same amount of money they need to take home to meet the foreshadowed increases as a matter of intergenerational change for both working-class and middle-class people in this country. We clearly have to make a decision. If we are going to fix the trillion dollars worth of debt and have the money and resources to put into aged care and those areas of our society where we need price relief, including energy, we need to make the right decisions in the right policy areas. We have Dutton's billionaires on one side. Howard's battlers are now deserted, if those opposite were ever actually on their side. We know the reality of that. Those opposite were never really on their side. They were never Howard's battlers. They were people being used, like the Trump battlers. Those opposite were trying to use and abuse people by giving mixed policy directions. But at least Howard pretended he was representing a broad cross-section of the community. At least he had the capacity to pretend he was representing the vast majority of Australians, unlike Dutton, the opposition leader, with the sort of approach he's taken on this question about superannuation. But what's really striking is the number of economists, academics, and—my goodness: I never thought I'd be agreeing on this aspect—even the CEO of the NAB saying it's a fair thing. But don't worry—person after person after person from the opposite side gets up and says: 'Our billionaires need to be protected! Let's all stand together! Let's make sure those billionaires get the sort of protection they deserve!' (Time expired) 16:50 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Won't someone please think of the multimillionaire superannuants! Who is going to go in to bat for these battlers, who are going to go from one high-class grade of champagne down to the next level, from one brand of luxury car down to the next brand of luxury car? Who in this place is going to think of these multimillionaire battlers? That's right: the Liberal-National party. It is emblematic of the malaise in Australian politics that this extremely modest proposal—an extreme fiddling of the margins by the Labor Party—is getting this level of attention from the Liberal-National party. I'll tell you what, Australians are sick and tired of a political system that caters to the interests of the wealthy elite in this country while too many people are struggling to put food on the table. Even under Labor's minimalistic plan, multimillionaires will be able to pay a lower marginal tax rate on their superannuation earnings than someone who is on the average wage. That just goes to show you how far the Labor Party has fallen from its origins. That's why the Australian Greens have put forward a proposal to tax more people twice as hard as Labor and for it to cut in earlier than Labor's proposal. That will ensure that the wealthiest Australians pay closer to their fair share of tax and help the government fund measures that will genuinely help with the cost-of-living crisis and genuinely help lift people out of poverty. Our plan would raise about $55 billion over the next decade, which could be used to help lift people out of poverty by increasing social security payments or doubling rent assistance. Labor is proposing to fiddle at the margins on superannuation tax concessions while proceeding with the stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthy. That is just a money-go-round scheme for the rich, and it is robbing Peter to pay Peter. People with $1.9 million or more in their superannuation funds do not need assistance from the taxpaying public. It's time for the government to prioritise the needs of all Australians and invest in measures that will actually benefit the many, not just the few. I urge the Labor Party to accept the Greens's constructive suggestion to remove all tax concessions from super funds that have balances of more than $1.9 million from 1 July this year. That would make Australia a fairer place. (Time expired) 16:53 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Nine months—nine short months in power for this Labor government—is all it took them to start raiding the retirement funds of hardworking Australians. Their official position has seamlessly moved from 'no changes to super' to 'a conversation around super' and now a doubling of your tax rate. Don't worry: it's going to impact only a small percentage of Australians. But for how long? How long is that going to last? Probably not very long. It is typical Labor class warfare—another broken promise. But are you surprised? I can just imagine retirees grinding their teeth at the very concept of super Jim's proposal. Treasurer Jim Chalmers clearly sees himself as a modern-day Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the—not the poor, no; giving to himself, giving to the federal government. Our nation is trapped in a cycle of debt and deficit for which both sides of government are responsible. It appears to be politically inconvenient for any government to attempt to balance the budget or repay our debt. Do you know what? They are as bad as each other. I guess everyone here loves their political career just a bit too much. Whatever happened to courage? What happened to the greater good? The Australian people are hurting. Their budgets are being smashed by unchecked inflation, and they're cutting costs wherever they can. Forget eating out, forget family holidays; a mortgage comes first. Our Treasurer must emulate the actions of the Australian people: tighten your fiscal belt and produce a lean budget that is suitable for tough times. Raiding superannuation like a thief in the night is not the answer. It is not. 16:55 Senato 282997 Queensland r SCARR (—) (): At the heart of the motion that we're discussing this afternoon is a broken promise. Those on the other side of the chamber can get up in this place and accuse those of us sitting on the other side of various nefarious things, but it was their Prime Minister who gave a guarantee to the Australian people before the election that there would be no changes to the superannuation system. That's what we're debating here—a broken promise. When we reflect on how the public perceives us, as politicians, as representatives in this place, all of us, collectively, got a little bit hurt when the Prime Minister broke an ironclad promise. This is what our Prime Minister said on 2 May 2022, less than 12 months ago: We've said we have no intention to make any super changes. That's not qualified. It's not, 'We'll consider it; we'll look at the budget position.' Everyone knew what the budget position was before the last federal election; in fact, it has improved through the forecasts. The Prime Minister made an ironclad guarantee—'We've said we have no intention to make any super changes'—and he's broken his promise. The Australian people have a legitimate right to expect that, when we say before an election that we're going to do something—whichever party we're from—we'll do it, and that if we say we're not going to do something we won't go ahead and do it anyway. That is the fundamental issue that we're debating here today, and the people of Australia will reflect upon it. They will reflect upon the fact that an ironclad guarantee was given less than 12 months ago and now a promise has been broken. They will also reflect upon how this has been done. Questions were asked today of the finance minister, and I note she took a number of them on notice, as she's entitled to do. I read the Treasury's five-page 'Better targeted superannuation concessions' paper. From the way I read it, it's quite clear that unrealised capital gains will be treated and taxed as if they're earnings. This is a problem in terms of people's superannuation funds. Let me tell you why. Say, for example, you had a share in BHP—and there would be many, many superannuation funds with shares in BHP. On 30 June 2008, the share price of BHP was $43.76. On 30 June 2012, it was $31.45. The next year it was $35.90. We're talking about year on year capital increases; according to Treasury's guidance, any increase in the value of those shares, even if you haven't disposed of them, will be taxed. That is clearly inappropriate for superannuation funds, where you want to maintain the assets and stability over a cycle. It is clearly inappropriate. It baffles me how the Treasury could come up with this. The reason they give is that they think it's going to be easier for superannuation funds to administer, but I don't understand how anyone who has any working knowledge of what long-term investment strategies mean in practice could promote an idea where people are going to be liquidating their assets in the short term to fund tax liabilities. It doesn't make any sense. I call upon the finance minister to liaise with the Treasurer and the Treasury department and consult with them on this, because it does not make sense. It particularly doesn't make sense for our farming communities, where many farming families put the family property into a self-managed super fund. At times of drought, the value of the farm goes through the floor. When we have good seasons, beef prices are high, wheat prices are high, and the value of the fund goes up. But if that value is unrealised, it should not be taxed. That is a simple proposition. I call upon those opposite to reflect deeply on that, because it would be a travesty if that system were introduced. 17:00 Senator e5x Tasmania POLLEY () (): While this motion from Senator Hume is so predictable, it's extraordinary to see that the Liberal Party of Australia, that gave the Australian people $1 trillion of national debt, wants to borrow even more money to subsidise people with more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts. But that's the Liberal Party of Australia today, a political party with all the wrong priorities. As a government we have to make tough decisions, and we have to make decisions to help pay down the almost trillion dollars of debt left by the Morrison Liberal government. This is a practical change that will improve the budget bottom line by $2 billion a year. Let's not forget that the average Australian worker will have $120,000, on average, in their superannuation account, but they're the people those opposite don't care about. They want them to continue with their superannuation at that low level, and they're worried about that percentage of people who have over $3 million. Even above that $3 million, they will get a taxation that is still lower than they would pay normally. So it is still a concessional rate of taxation that they're going to be asked to pay. If those opposite want to come in here and fight for a person that has $400 million in their superannuation, then let's have the fight at the next election, because these changes will not come into effect until after the next election. But I really think that somebody who has $400 million in their superannuation account can pay more tax—and should be paying more tax—than someone who has $120,000 in their superannuation account. These changes will only affect about 80,000 people or 0.5 per cent of Australians. This is new policy, which does not take effect until after the next federal election. The increase, the tax on superannuation earnings, to 30 per cent for superannuation balances over $3 million means that for the 99.5 per cent of Australians who have a superannuation balance under $3 million there will be no change in their circumstances. No matter how desperate those opposite are to run a scare campaign, the reality is that Australians can see through those on the opposition benches, because they saw through them at the last election. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that the superannuation system is protected but sustainable. This change would ensure that the system is fairer for all Australians. So, I put to those opposite, if you don't agree with this change you'll need to nominate where the money will come from instead. The last time those opposite were in government they came after Medicare and sent debt letters to pensioners. They rorted grants and schemes here. Senator Hughes 273828 That was a lie, an absolute lie. Lie, lie, lie! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Order! Senator Polley, could you resume your seat. I am willing to put up with a little bit of banter across the chamber, but when it descends into yelling, no matter how passionately you might feel about the views you're putting, Senator Hughes, it's not appropriate. It would be best for the chamber if Senator Polley was allowed to continue her remarks with people listening, in agreement or in disagreement, it doesn't matter, just listening. Senator Polley, you have the call. Senator POLLEY e5x The last time they were in government, they came after Medicare. We know they sent debt into overdrive. We also know they sent out debt letters to pensioners and other people who owed nothing to the government—absolutely nothing! Do we want to go on about the rorts of the other schemes they were involved in? Do we want to try and whitewash what robodebt was really all about? The ministers giving evidence to the royal commission can't seem to recall very much, but the Australian people recall. The Australian people recall that the Morrison government was known and will go down in history as the most rorting government we have seen since Federation. Mr Stuart Robert gave evidence last week and said that cabinet solidarity trumps the ministerial standards. What a joke he is! And those people come into this place bleating about a change in superannuation that will affect 0.5 per cent of the Australian population. You are an absolute joke! You want to try and rewrite history— (Time expired) 17:06 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I really want to talk about Labor's broken promise around superannuation. But I feel like we need to correct a few things on the record with regard to Medicare and who has actually taken the knife to it. We know that it's those opposite who decided to remove mental health access for Australians, particularly as we continue to recover from COVID. So, while we know they break promises, we know they can't tell the truth either. This is a series of lies to the Australian people that started before the election with the now Prime Minister saying there would be no changes to superannuation. Then, of course, Dr Chalmers, as he pumped out his essay over the summer, decided that there wouldn't be any major changes to superannuation, that it's something we might consider or have a conversation about. As the kite flew higher again, Prime Minister Albanese was out there denying there would be changes to superannuation. But, at this stage of the game, they realised all too late that the kite flying hadn't worked. They quickly raced through a cabinet decision that we've learnt today isn't going to impact the 0.5 per cent of Australians that was bleated so loudly from those opposite, but that, in effect, it is actually 10 per cent of Australians who are going to see their superannuation impacted. Not that we're ever shown any modelling. In fact, you'll go back through the safeguard mechanism inquiry and learn that we don't actually do modelling under this government anymore. But there is no indexation to this $3 million. We know what houses cost 20 years ago versus what they cost today. We know what inflation is as of this very moment. We know what's happening with the CPI. We know that $3 million today will not be the same as $3 million in 20 or 30 years time. For every Australian out there embarking on their career, starting their working life now, by the time they get to retirement age in 40 or 50 years, they very well may have $3 million plus in superannuation. As this will not be indexed, we know that Labor will continue to come for their money. We need to remember that this is the Australian people's money. It's not the great ABBA fan Stephen Jones's money. 'Honey honey, nearly kills me'—that's how he refers to your money. He can't wait to dip his fingers in your honey and spend all that wonderful superannuation that everyday Australians work so hard for and put away for retirement. We also learned today that questions couldn't be answered on whether or not those Australians who will be impacted, who have invested in their superannuation under long-term rules that have been in place encouraging Australians to put more away for their retirement, can make alternate arrangements without penalty. Those opposite don't have the details of their own policy. We don't know. We could also see introduced into this country, potentially for the first time anywhere—I think I heard a rumour of an African country that wasn't going too well when they tried it—a tax on unrealised profits. That means if you invest in commercial property or other sorts of properties or into shares or into anything that you may invest in for your self-managed super fund—the purpose of investment is for that to increase in value—you will now be slugged with twice the rate of tax for an unrealised asset. That will mean you may have to sell the very property or investment that you had invested in, that you had put money into and worked hard to achieve. You may have to liquidate that to pay a tax bill. How is that ensuring Australians are able to retire in a way that they work so hard to do so? It's absolutely outrageous and, quite frankly, it's un-Australian. We've just heard from a number of those opposite that it's going to happen after the election. They're not taking it to the election; it's just being implemented after the election. If you're being honest and if you're being upfront with the Australian people, take it to an election. Take it to an election with details. Tell them how much money you want to take. Tell them when negative gearing is next. Tell them when they will be paying tax on their family home. Take it to an election and be honest with the Australian people. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the urgency motion be agreed to.    

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

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

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 76 DOCUMENTS Bunbury Outer Ring Road 76 17:20 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to speak to document 8 listed today, an OPD relating to the Bunbury Outer Ring Road project in Western Australia. This project has been a disaster for our environment. The documents detail terrible management, which has resulted in the death of at least four adult and two joey western ringtail possums, which are, of course, critically endangered species in that area. This species simply cannot afford any more deaths. We know we have to be doing everything we can to protect our critically endangered wildlife, and this road project is killing them. The clearing of the Gelorup corridor recommenced last Wednesday, despite the fact that a revised plan on how to protect these species is still missing. How is this possibly allowed? How can they continue a project that is killing critically endangered species without making a plan to make sure this doesn't happen again? Under this approval—an approval, I might point out, that was given by the current Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, and her department in June 2022—the proponent is required to provide an environmental offset plan. Yet, despite clearing having commenced in August this year and recommenced last week, this plan to protect these critically endangered animals is still not available to the public. I might add: this plan also hasn't been provided in response to this order for the production of documents. It's not good enough. The Federal Court challenge in relation to this project found that the minister's delegate deemed that the plan that did exist, that was put forward, was inappropriate. So where is the new plan, and why on earth has the minister allowed clearing to commence again without having that plan on the table? Without this document we will not even know whether the damage done through land clearing would be sufficiently offset before it's all gone. How can the minister say she wants to halt extinction by 2030 while signing off and allowing these types of devastating animal-killing projects to go ahead? This project has also been a disaster in terms of cost-benefit for the taxpayer and the economy. The costs have already blown out to at least $1.25 billion despite cuts to the scope of the project. This is a disaster economically and environmentally, and it is becoming a political and environmental disaster for this government. I would like to note that, despite a request for the final independent cost assessment for this project, the associated minister, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, has yet to provide this detail, despite the deadline having passed. I put the government and the minister on notice today: unless we get this documentation, we will be taking action in this chamber when the time comes. You can't keep approving these types of projects that are devastating the environment, putting our native species at risk and killing our endangered species and not cough up the sheer information that exists. It is not good enough. It is the environment minister's job in this place to protect the environment and to save our wildlife. On this account, she is failing. It's the environment minister's job, and yet, rather than looking after the environment, the environment minister and the infrastructure minister are looking after the road corporation and the big developers—that is who—not the environment and certainly not the poor old western ringtail possum. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 77 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS National Apology to the Stolen Generations: 15th Anniversary 77 17:26 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia On behalf of the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, I table a ministerial statement on the anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations together with documents relating to the Closing the Gap Implementation Plan. I move: That the documents be listed on the Notice Paper for consideration and be taken together with the Closing the Gap report, which will be debated on Wednesday 8 March 2023. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 77 DOCUMENTS Goods and Services Tax, Interest Rates 77 Order for the Production of Documents 77 17:27 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the GST and home loan interest rates. COMMITTEES 77 COMMITTEES Implementation of the National Redress Scheme: Joint Committee 77 Membership 77 17:28 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee. 17:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia by leave—I move: That Senator Rice be discharged from and Senator Shoebridge be appointed to the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme and Senator Rice be appointed as a participating member. Question agreed to. BILLS 77 BILLS Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 77

Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023

National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023

First Reading 77 17:29 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia 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 77 17:29 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bills and move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— HOUSING AUSTRALIA FUTURE FUND BILL 2023 Today marks a turning point. With the Bills I introduce today, this Government is turning the page on a wasted decade of national housing policy in Australia. A decade of dithering; A decade of delay; A decade of failing to address Australia's housing affordability challenges. The consequences of the previous Government's failure to act seriously on housing has led to significant challenges across the country. We know this because we see and hear it every day— Rising rents; Increasing homelessness; And home ownership out of reach for ordinary Australians. Housing problems now widespread and visible for us all to see. And across our country's cities and towns, the dream of a secure home has become so much harder. Harder for the 116,000 Australians experiencing homelessness. Harder for workers forced to move further and further away from their place of employment. Harder for businesses that want to hire but are finding there just isn't somewhere affordable for new workers to live. And harder for the hundreds of thousands of Australians on social housing waiting lists with no certainty and no place to call home. Behind these housing statistics are the devastating stories of people—Australians who don't have a place to call home. The growing number of older women who, through no fault of their own, can't afford to put a roof over their head. Vulnerable women and children who are escaping family violence but are being turned away from emergency accommodation. And some are our nation's veterans, who have bravely served our nation abroad, but can't find somewhere affordable to call home in Australia. For too long these terrible stories have been ignored by the Australian Government. But today is a turning point because instead of another wasted decade, this Government won't waste a day working to meet these challenges. At the centre of our new Government's housing agenda, and enshrined in this Bill, is the creation of the Housing Australia Future Fund. The structure of the Fund will protect it from the whims of future Governments. The Fund will generate returns over the long term, which will allow it to provide annual disbursements to deliver a secure pipeline of funding for social and affordable housing in Australia. This will provide critical certainty to Australia's community housing providers and the scale of the investment will invite new contributions to social and affordable housing from institutional investors. The Fund will be the end of the housing one-offs from the Australian Government. It will be the end of Australian Government housing programs that make problems worse instead of better. Instead, the Housing Australia Future Fund will be the start of an enduring promise from the Australian Government—that more Australians should have a safe and affordable place to call home. Those of us on this side of the House came to Government with another promise, and one to the Australian people which we intend to keep:a better future. The introduction of today's Bills keeps faith with this promise. I will now outline the functions of this Bill. The Housing Australia Future Fund is one aspect of the Government's commitment to improving housing supply and affordability. Central to this is the aim of increasing the supply of social and affordable homes and investing more in acute housing needs. As announced in the October 2022-23 Budget, disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund will be used to fund social and affordable homes and other acute housing needs. In the first five years of operation, the Government intends to use disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund to help build: 20,000 homes to provide social housing- 4,000 of which will be allocated to women and children leaving domestic and family violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness; and 10,000 affordable homes for frontline workers like police, nurses and cleaners who kept us safe during the pandemic. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which will be renamed as Housing Australia, will be responsible for administering the majority of disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund to help build the 30,000 social and affordable homes in the Fund's first five years. Over the same time period, the Fund will also provide: $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvements of housing in remote Indigenous communities; $100 million for crisis and transitional housing options for women and children leaving domestic and family violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness; and $30 million to build housing and fund specialist services for veterans experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. The Bill establishes the Housing Australia Future Fund and provides an initial credit of $10 billion. Disbursements from the Fund will be made available for the purposes of funding social and affordable homes and other acute housing needs. Under this Bill, annual disbursements will be capped at $500 million per year to protect the balance of the Fund and ensure a sustainable source of funding into the future. The legislation will require five-yearly reviews of the operation of the Act, which will assess the extent to which the Fund is meeting the social, affordable and acute housing needs of Australians. The Housing Australia Future Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, which has a proven track record of managing investment funds on behalf of the people of Australia and maximising returns over the long term. The Bill requires the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance to issue directions setting out the Government's expectations as to how the Fund will be managed and invested by the Board, including setting a benchmark rate of return for the Fund. Any disbursements from the Fund will require formal Government approval. As part of the annual budget process the Housing Minister, in consultation with the Treasurer and the Finance Minister, will be responsible for bringing forward proposals for the Government's consideration of the allocation of disbursements to deliver on the Government's targets for social and affordable homes and acute housing needs. The bulk of annual disbursements from the Fund will be allocated to Housing Australia to deliver on the Government's social and affordable housing commitments. Allocations to Housing Australia will recognise that a minimum annual amount over the long term is likely to be required to deliver on those commitments. In relation to the acute housing needs, the Housing Minister will also consult the other designated Ministers—the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Housing Minister will also consider advice from the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council before bringing forward spending proposals. The Government established the interim Council by administrative arrangements from 1 January 2023. The Council will be established in primary legislation as part of this housing package. The Council will be an independent and expert advisory body to the Government, to inform spending from the Housing Australia Future Fund and provide policy advice on housing supply and affordability. It has already begun building a strong evidence base to support the Commonwealth in developing housing policy and position the Government to provide an important leadership role in increasing housing supply and improving housing affordability in close collaboration with the states and territories. The Bill will also establish the Housing Australia Future Fund Payments Special Account to make grants in relation to acute housing needs. Following a decision of Government to allocate disbursements from the Fund, the designated Ministers will request that the agreed amounts be debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account and credited to the Housing Australia Future Fund Payments Special Account for the purpose of making grants. The designated Ministers and the Housing Minister will also be able to request that a grant to a state or territory be channelled through the COAG Reform Fund. Payments to Housing Australia will be transferred to the Housing Australia Special Account for the purposes of making grants and loans for social and affordable homes and acute housing needs. All funding decisions will comply with the Commonwealth's established rules and guidelines for grants. Detailed information on grants under the Housing Australia Future Fund will be published online. Too many Australians struggle to secure safe and affordable housing, which is why we are committed to establishing the Housing Australia Future Fund along with other significant housing reforms such as the new National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, a National Housing and Homelessness Plan, and the new Help to Buy scheme. The introduction of this legislation builds on the work we have already begun to address Australia's housing challenges: Our action to immediately unlock up to $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility for social and affordable housing; Our decision to bring forward the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee by three months, which has already helped more than 1700 Australians into home ownership; The formation of the interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, which has already begun its work to deliver independent advice to Government; and National Cabinet's decision to re-establish the Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council and the three meetings the Minister for Housing and Homelessness has already held with her state and territory colleagues. Delivering on the establishment of the Housing Australia Future Fund along with the other housing reforms will mean more Australians will have a safe and affordable place to call home. Full details of the Bill are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Home is the foundation from which we build our lives. Without a stable home, people—no matter their age—struggle to live in health, stay in training or education, or find and keep jobs. That's not good for them, for their families, for their communities or for our country. The Minister for Housing and Homelessness knows this, because she has lived it. The Prime Minister knows this, because he has lived it. It's why this Government is serious about making sure more Australians have a safe, affordable place to call home. This is about working together. It's about partnerships. Yes, it is ambitious. Because it has to be. It's the only way we'll tackle the challenges we face as a nation. The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 (Bill) establishes the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council (Council) as an independent statutory advisory body. The Council will inform the Commonwealth's approach to housing policy by delivering independent advice to the Government on housing supply and affordability. Establishment of the Council was announced as part of the Safer and More Affordable Housing measure in the October 2022-23 Budget. The Bill forms part of the Housing Legislative Package, which delivers on key components of the Government's ambitious election commitments on housing. Public consultation on the draft legislation attracted feedback from a broad range of stakeholders, including community housing providers, industry bodies, advocacy groups, research bodies, and state and territory organisations. The Council will help the Commonwealth play a leadership role in improving housing supply and affordability. In addition to providing independent expert advice to Government, the Council will research and report on matters relating to housing supply and affordability. Both advice and reporting may be requested by the Minister and the Council will also have discretion to initiate its own research and reporting to the Minister. As well as its reporting and general advisory role, the Council will provide advice to the Minister on the allocation of disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund. This advice will inform Government consideration of disbursements as part of the annual budget process. To ensure the important work of the Council could commence quickly, the Government established an interim Council from 1 January 2023. The interim Council has 6 appointed members and 1 ex officio member, and operates as a non--statutory advisory body. Following passage of this Bill and from 1 July 2023, the interim Council will cease, and the Council will commence operating as an independent statutory advisory body. The permanent Council will consist of a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 9 appointed members with skills and experience in a range of fields relating to housing supply and affordability. Increasing the potential number of appointed Council members (compared with the interim Council) responds to stakeholder feedback to ensure there is the right range of skills and experience on the Council. The Council will also include an ex officio member from the Commonwealth Treasury. The Bill enshrines the independence of the Council, ensuring it can provide full and frank advice and reporting on issues Council members consider important across the housing spectrum. The requirements as to skills and expertise will support the production of high quality and targeted advice to the Commonwealth government. An important function of the Council will be to work collaboratively with other Commonwealth bodies, state, territory and local governments, and other stakeholders, to support the collection and publication of nationally consistent data on housing supply and affordability. And this collaborative role will enable the Council to provide important input into the development of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan, which will establish a clear national strategy to address the significant challenges we face to ensure that Australians have access to safer and more affordable housing. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. NATIONAL HOUSING SUPPLY AND AFFORDABILITY COUNCIL BILL 2023 The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 (Bill) establishes the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council (Council) as an independent statutory advisory body. The Council will inform the Commonwealth's approach to housing policy by delivering independent advice to the Government on housing supply and affordability. Establishment of the Council was announced as part of the Safer and More Affordable Housing measure in the October 2022-23 Budget. The Bill forms part of the Housing Legislative Package, which delivers on key components of the Government's ambitious election commitments on housing. Public consultation on the draft legislation attracted feedback from a broad range of stakeholders, including community housing providers, industry bodies, advocacy groups, research bodies, and state and territory organisations. The Council will help the Commonwealth play a leadership role in improving housing supply and affordability. In addition to providing independent expert advice to Government, the Council will research and report on matters relating to housing supply and affordability. Both advice and reporting may be requested by the Minister and the Council will also have discretion to initiate its own research and reporting to the Minister. As well as its reporting and general advisory role, the Council will provide advice to the Minister on the allocation of disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund. This advice will inform Government consideration of disbursements as part of the annual budget process. To ensure the important work of the Council could commence quickly, the Government established an interim Council from 1 January 2023. The interim Council has 6 appointed members and 1 ex officio member, and operates as a non--statutory advisory body. Following passage of this Bill and from 1 July 2023, the interim Council will cease, and the Council will commence operating as an independent statutory advisory body. The permanent Council will consist of a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 9 appointed members with skills and experience in a range of fields relating to housing supply and affordability. Increasing the potential number of appointed Council members (compared with the interim Council) responds to stakeholder feedback to ensure there is the right range of skills and experience on the Council. The Council will also include an ex officio member from the Commonwealth Treasury. The Bill enshrines the independence of the Council, ensuring it can provide full and frank advice and reporting on issues Council members consider important across the housing spectrum. The requirements as to skills and expertise will support the production of high quality and targeted advice to the Commonwealth government. An important function of the Council will be to work collaboratively with other Commonwealth bodies, state, territory and local governments, and other stakeholders, to support the collection and publication of nationally consistent data on housing supply and affordability. And this collaborative role will enable the Council to provide important input into the development of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan, which will establish a clear national strategy to address the significant challenges we face to ensure that Australians have access to safer and more affordable housing. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (HOUSING MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2023 The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 forms part of the Housing Legislative Package, which delivers on the Government's ambitious housing election commitments announced as part of the Safer and More Affordable Housing measure in the October 2022-23 Budget. The Government publicly consulted on the Package from 19 December 2022 to 11 January 2023. 46 written submissions were received, and three consultation sessions held (two with state and territory officials, and one with Community Housing Providers). This Bill amends the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018 ('NHFIC Act') to rename NHFIC to 'Housing Australia'. The NHFIC Act established NHFIC to improve housing outcomes for Australians and commenced operation on 30 June 2018. NHFIC's responsibilities include the operation of the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, capacity building for Community Housing Providers, administering the Government's Home Guarantee Schemes and the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility. The National Housing Infrastructure Facility was expanded in November 2022 to allow financing in support of social or affordable housing projects in addition to financing for underlying critical infrastructure projects. Housing Australia will continue to operate as a Corporate Commonwealth Entity governed by an independent board, reporting to the Minister for Housing. It will be directed in the performance of its functions by an Investment Mandate Direction, issued by the Minister for Housing. In addition to the new responsibilities set out in the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill, Housing Australia will continue to administer the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and the Home Guarantee Schemes. This will allow Housing Australia to build upon the NHFIC's successes whilst supporting the Government to deliver on new key housing commitments. The Bill also makes consequential amendments to reflect the change of the NHFIC to Housing Australia and ensure consistency across Commonwealth legislation. This Bill also streamlines the functions of Housing Australia and establishes an annual review mechanism for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. This will allow the Government to regularly review the Facility's performance against the objective of increasing and accelerating the supply of new social and affordable housing. The Bill also extends the legislated Commonwealth guarantee, which underpins the NHFIC bonds that enable low-cost finance for community housing providers, until 30 June 2028. Extending the guarantee provides certainty to the community housing sector and investors in debt securities issued by the Bond Aggregator. Finally, the Bill makes a number of further consequential amendments to legislation in the Finance and Treasury portfolios to enable the effective operation of the Housing Australia Future Fund. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 22 March 2023. Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 82

Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022

First Reading 82 17:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 82 17:31 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Albanese Government is committed to restoring trust and integrity to government—and an effective public sector whistleblowing framework is essential to achieving this, including to support disclosures of corrupt conduct to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill will implement key recommendations of the 2016 Review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act by Mr Philip Moss AM (Moss Review) and parliamentary committee reports to deliver immediate improvements to our public sector whistleblowing scheme. These reforms are long overdue. The Bill will implement: 21 of the 33 recommendations of the Moss Review recommendations 10 and 11 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report on the inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press, and recommendations 6.1 and 6.3 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report on the inquiry into whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors. Improving whistleblower protections The Bill will strengthen whistleblower protections for both disclosers and witnesses in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. It will expand reprisal protections to those who 'could make' a disclosure. This will protect people who may have reprisal action taken against them merely for becoming aware of information that would meet the definition of 'disclosable conduct'. The Bill will also expand the definition of detriment in relation to reprisal action to align it with the definition used in the private sector whistleblowing scheme in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The expanded definition will include, among other matters, harassment and intimidation, psychological harm, damage to a person's reputation and any other damage to a person. The Bill will also provide witnesses with the same immunities under the Public Interest Disclosure Act as disclosers. This means immunity from civil, criminal and administrative liability will be available to any person who provides assistance in relation to a disclosure, including those who do so voluntarily. Together, these amendments will ensure more people are protected against a broader range of detriment when bringing wrongdoing and corruption to light. Providing a strong focus on significant integrity wrongdoing The Bill will remove personal work-related conduct from the scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. This implements a recommendation of the Moss Review to focus the Act on integrity wrongdoing, such as fraud and corruption. This approach is not to suggest that agencies should ignore other forms of wrongdoing or workplace conflict. It recognises that other existing frameworks such as performance management or disciplinary conduct procedures are better adapted to deal with complaints of personal work-related conduct. However, there will be instances where it remains appropriate for disclosure of personal-work related conduct to be dealt with under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The Bill provides that such conduct can continue to be disclosed under the Public Interest Disclosure Act where it amounts to a reprisal action. Reprisal action often takes the form of personal work-related conduct such as bullying and harassment. It is important that whistleblowers continue to receive protections when they bring to light such conduct that is experienced as a consequence of their initial disclosure. The Bill also provides that disclosures of personal work-related conduct will be protected and investigated under the Public Interest Disclosure Act where the conduct is of such a nature that it would undermine public confidence in an agency, or have other significant implications for an agency. This ensures that a whistleblower can disclose personal work-related conduct where it is symptomatic of a larger, systemic concern within an agency, and is appropriate to report under the PID Act as a framework that is designed to address serious public sector wrongdoing and corruption. Making the Public Interest Disclosure Act easier for agencies to administer The Bill will provide greater flexibility to agencies in how they handle disclosures, including to ensure the matter can be more easily referred for investigation under another law or power where appropriate. Officers exercising functions under the Public Interest Disclosure Act will be provided with a discretion not to allocate or investigate a disclosure if it would be more appropriately investigated under another law or power. This could include an investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Public interest disclosure officers would be required to notify the discloser and the relevant oversight agency of their decision, and take reasonable steps to refer the disclosure for investigation under the other law or power where appropriate. The Bill will also repeal the general secrecy offence in the    .Public Interest Disclosure Act to support better information sharing between agencies in relation to a disclosure. The Moss Review noted that the secrecy offence unnecessarily limits agencies' ability to respond to alleged wrongdoing and disclosures, and has impeded the ability of senior management to access information about the performance of their agency. Repealing the general secrecy offence will ensure agencies can share information appropriately to effectively manage disclosures and carry out ordinary business actions. Cl arifying the coverage of the legislation The Bill will clarify who is a public official for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Consistent with a recommendation of the Moss Review, the Bill will expressly exclude staff employed or engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Cth) from the scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, reflecting the original intention of the legislation. While the Government is implementing this recommendation to clarify the scope of the Act, it is important to note that the Government supports the provision of appropriate whistleblower protections for parliamentary staff and has taken the first step towards delivering this outcome through protections provided in the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation for disclosures of corrupt conduct. Parliamentary staff who report a corruption issue to the National Anti-Corruption Commission will have robust protections against reprisal or detriment. This will go a long way to addressing a gap in the current Commonwealth integrity framework. Further, the Government will also consider whether other protections are appropriate for parliamentary staff who report misconduct in the context of implementing relevant recommendations in the Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review of Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, in particular the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. Enhancing oversight of the scheme Effective oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) is critical to ensuring confidence in the integrity of the public interest disclosure scheme. Agency heads under the Act will be required to provide the Ombudsman or the IGIS, as appropriate, with a copy of all investigation reports into disclosures within a reasonable period of time. To further strengthen scrutiny of scheme, the Ombudsman and the IGIS will be able to make recommendations to agencies following any review of an investigation report. Recommendations can be made in relation to any aspect of the handling of a disclosure and about any public official in an agency. An agency will be required to respond with details of any action taken in response to a recommendation, or if no action is being taken, the reasons for this. The Bill will also implement recommendations 10 and 11 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report into press freedom to require: notification of urgent disclosures in intelligence agencies to the IGIS as soon as possible, and bi-annual reporting of statistics on all public interest disclosures to the Parliament. Interaction with the National Anti-Corruption Commission The Bill will amend the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation to reflect amendments to whistleblower protections in the Public Interest Disclosure Act to ensure both regimes provide strong protections for whistleblowers. These improvements are intended to be in place before the National Anti-Corruption Commission commences in mid-2023. Comprehensive reforms to the public sector whistleblowing scheme The Bill is only first stage reform to restore the Public Interest Disclosure Act to a best practice whistleblowing framework. Following passage of this Bill, the Government will commence a second stage of reform, which will include public consultation on: further reforms to address the underlying complexity of the scheme and provide effective and accessible protections to public sector whistleblowers, and a discussion paper on whether there is a need to establish a Whistleblower Protection Authority or Commissioner. Consultation on these further reforms will ensure they are shaped not only by users of the Public Interest Disclosure Act across government, but also informed by expert stakeholders and the general public to ensure Australia has a best practice scheme. This staged approach will allow the Government to deliver immediate improvements to the scheme, including to whistleblower protections, ahead of the establishment of the NACC. Conclusion With this Bill, the Albanese Government is taking an important first step in improving Australia's whistleblowing framework for the public sector. The legislation will strengthen protections for public sector whistleblowers, and in doing so, will support our broader efforts to restore integrity in government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 14 March 2023. Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 84

Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022

First Reading 84 17:31 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 84 17:32 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This Bill will amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to expand the Consumer Data Right to enable action initiation, a functionality which will empower consumers to authorise, manage and facilitate actions securely in the digital economy. The Consumer Data Right (or CDR) is a pioneering economic reform that gives consumers the ability to safely share the data Australian businesses hold about them for their own benefit. Because Australia's CDR will be rolled out across the economy—with banking almost complete, energy being rolled out now and others to follow—it is the first and most ambitious of its kind in the world. The CDR places consumers at the centre of a data-sharing framework that protects their privacy and gives them the ability to opt in and determine when and how they share their data with other businesses and professionals of their choosing. Consumers can use their data for things like switching service providers, taking out a loan, applying for a new mortgage or using budgeting apps to help manage finances. Consumers can better manage cost-of-living pressures, saving time and effort in a safe, regulated environment. Importantly, data security and privacy are at the very core of the CDR, with strict protocols, rules and other requirements to protect consumers and their data. Privacy and security considerations are key to ensuring that information within the CDR framework is held, used and disclosed securely, allowing confidence in the framework to grow. In time, as the CDR is introduced to other datasets and sectors across the economy, consumers will gain even more capacity to extract value from their data. This Bill delivers the power of action initiation to the CDR. That means consumers and small businesses will be able to securely instruct third parties (accredited action initiators) to carry out everyday tasks on their behalf. When combined with data sharing, actions like opening and closing accounts, making payments and applying for services will be made easier and more personalised. The Government anticipates that these changes will support a range of innovative business models, driving the development of new CDR-powered products and services. This will offer entirely new ways of doing things, boost competition and reduce the time pressures, cost and complexity experienced by consumers and small businesses when carrying out everyday tasks. The Bill gives effect to the key recommendation of the 'Inquiry into the Future Directions for the Consumer Data Right' to move ahead to enable action initiation. This Bill gives the Minister the ability to declare actions that could be initiated using the CDR, just as the Minister can already designate new sectors for data-sharing. Before making such a declaration, public consultation and analysis would need to occur and the Minister would need to have regard to a range of matters including consumer interests, market efficiency, competition, innovation and the public interest. This process would enable the Minister to require existing data holders (such as banks) to become action service providers in the CDR, meaning they would have to perform actions in accordance with valid instructions received from third party accredited action initiators as if they came directly from the consumer. There would also be flexibility for other organisations to apply so they can participate voluntarily in CDR action initiation with appropriate safeguards. Accredited action initiators would need to meet strict accreditation requirements set by the rules. They would also be required to act efficiently, honestly and fairly when initiating actions. Consumers will continue to be squarely in control. That is, an accredited action initiator could only initiate an action on the consumer's behalf with the consent of that consumer. The Bill will also extend the existing privacy safeguards so that the privacy of CDR consumers continues to be appropriately protected. The Bill will primarily regulate the 'instruction layer', that is, the communication channel between the accredited action initiator and the action service provider. It does not seek to regulate the performance of the action itself. Existing sectoral laws, like those in the banking sector, would continue to govern how an action, such as opening a bank account, must be performed. While the Bill does not seek to reach into the 'action layer', or the performance of the action itself, it would prevent action service providers from discriminating against a valid action request that came through the CDR. Importantly, it will not prevent an action service provider from applying security or other checks, or refusing to perform an action, provided this is consistent with existing practices. Enabling action initiation in the CDR is part of the Government's commitment to expand the CDR across the economy and grow the opportunities for consumers to safely make use of their own data for their benefit. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 23 March 2023. Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023 85

Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023

Returned from the House of Representatives 85 Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 85

Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Returned from the House of Representatives 85 COMMITTEES 85 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee, Trade and Investment Growth Joint Committee, Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee, National Anti-Corruption Commission 85 Membership 85 BILLS 86 BILLS Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022, Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 86

Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023

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

Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Assent 86 COMMITTEES 86 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 86 Report 86 17:34 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, together with accompanying documents. BILLS 86 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 86

Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022

Second Reading 86 17:34 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria As I was saying earlier on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia’s Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022, we outlined the mechanisms to drive these reforms through five key strategic and targeted investments, including our $243 million Trailblazer Universities program to boost research and development, and drive commercialisation outcomes of industry partners; a $150 million capital injection to expand the CSIRO Main Sequence Ventures program, which backs startup companies and helps create commercial opportunities; $296 million for 1,800 industry PhDs and over 800 in new fellowships; the creation of a new IP framework for universities to support greater university-industry collaboration and the uptake of research outputs; and, of course, $1.6 billion over 10 years for Australia's Economic Accelerator, a new stage-gated competitive funding program to help university projects bridge the so-called 'valley of death' on the road to commercialisation—the subject of this bill. In relation to the first element of the package, the Trailblazer Program, this research component was aligned with delivering research that would support our national manufacturing priorities. These priority areas were those we had identified as areas where Australia has significant comparative advantage and a strategic national interest. The areas at the time were medical products, food and beverage, recycling and clean energy, resources technology and critical minerals processing, defence industry and space. We ran an expression of interest to determine what potential projects were out there, to identify where there could be partnerships with industry and where these ideas could be supported through to commercial application. This process garnered significant interest from researchers, and the types of projects proposed were impressive. The proposals were reviewed by a panel comprised of leaders in the research field as well as industry and business leaders. We announced the successful trailblazer universities in early 2022. They included Curtin University for the resources technology for critical minerals trailblazer, to establish our competitive advantage in the critical mineral sector and to look at ways to shield Australia supply-chain disruptions; the University of Southern Queensland for a space project dubbed 'iLAuNCH' that will look at automation, novel materials, communications and hypersonics; the University of Queensland for a food and beverage project that would support doubling the value of Australia's food and beverage sector by 2030; the University of New South Wales to lead a recycling and clean energy initiative to innovate our technologies from the lab to industry, from communities and homes; the University of Adelaide for a defence trailblazer aptly named 'concept to sovereign capability', which is focused on developing new technologies and defence projects; and to Deakin University—in my hometown of Geelong—for a recycling and clean energy commercialisation hub, also known as 'REACH', which will spearhead our recycling and clean energy advanced manufacturing ecosystem in Australia. The REACH project at Deakin, on its own, is expected to generate more than $1.4 billion in revenue and create around 2½ thousand direct jobs over the next decade. With further investment and partnerships, Deakin estimates it could create as many as 7,000 additional jobs—all driven by the coalition's trailblazer program. Deakin will partner with other universities and education institutes including Federation University, RMIT, Swinburne and the University of Southern Queensland. Deakin also has vocational education partners, which are essential for enhancing the skills and knowledge of the workforce. These partners include the Gordon in Geelong, Bendigo Kangan Institute, South West TAFE, Holmesglen Institute of TAFE, Wodonga TAFE and Swinburne TAFE. There is a long list of industry partners for this project. I'll just raise and mention a few, including Scale Facilitation and Recharge Industries—which are headquartered in Geelong—BMNT Technology, Calix Limited, Oztron Energy, Gen 2 Carbon, Carbon Revolution—another great advanced manufacturer based in Geelong—White Graphene, Quickstep, Viva Energy, JET Technology and HighQ. As I say, the list goes on and on. These six projects alone, supported by close to $250 million in coalition funding, will create hundreds of partnerships across the higher education sector and, most importantly, with industry. They will inject billions of dollars into the economy and create thousands of jobs right across our nation. It is certainly a very exciting time for research in Australia. The key element of our University Research Commercialisation Package, as I mentioned, is our $1.6 billion investment in Australia's Economic Accelerator, the subject of the bill before the Senate today. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to make the appropriate provisions in schedule 1 to deliver this program and provide increased support to our universities to commercialise their world-leading research. This component of our package provides a 10-year investment for a competitive grant funding program. Again, our investment was to be aligned to areas that we identified as national priorities outlined in our Modern Manufacturing Strategy, a strategy which was focused on expanding and modernising Australia's sovereign manufacturing capability, securing the supply chains and investing in the skills and world-class research needed by our manufacturing businesses. The Albanese government has since scrapped this strategy and is attempting to replace it with its National Reconstruction Fund, which is really just a big bucket to fund their election commitments. Labor keep saying this will rebuild Australia's industrial capability and that they want Australia to be a country that makes things again, but they simply aren't listening to the sector. These businesses are essential to our economy and yet they are being crippled by skyrocketing energy prices and are struggling to get the workers they need to keep their doors open. And of course they are facing great concerns with Labor's IR changes, including its introduction of multiemployer bargaining. Economic mismanagement and skyrocketing inflation will only mean businesses will pay more under this Albanese government. I can tell you that these concerns are ricocheting through many businesses across this country. I was at the Geelong Manufacturing Council's 25th anniversary dinner last week, and there was deep concern about Labor's mismanagement of energy policy as well as its IR changes, including multiemployer bargaining. So there is deep concern across our country about what Labor is doing to small businesses and medium businesses and large businesses, including in manufacturing. I do want to say that we designed our competitive grant for Australia's Economic Accelerator program around three stage gates. The first is the initial proof of concept, the idea and the testing stage, to establish if the project is viable. The second is to support the idea through what, in research terms, is known as the valley of death. This is typically the development phase where significant investment is required and where the greatest risk of projects not proceeding lies. The final stage is supporting the project through to commercial realisation. This is all about getting the product through the development process where it is ready to be sold in the marketplace. At each stage of the process, projects will be evaluated for their probability of success, with larger funding for each stage and greater industry contribution. This will ensure we are supporting projects with the greatest likelihood of success. The commercialisation component, effectively stage 3, or the final stage, would be further supported through the $150 million commitment to CSIRO's main sequence venture. The program will work to attract projects with high-commercialisation potential at the proof-of-concept or proof-of-scale level of commercial readiness. To support this new grant opportunity and ensure its success, the bill also establishes a governance framework, including a new advisory board. The board will have up to eight expert representatives from government, industry, business and the research sectors. The advisory board will oversee the program, drawing upon their collective experience, to drive the translation and commercialisation of research. The next and final element of the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to allow for grants to be made under part 2 and part 3 of the act to support the new industry-led study and postgraduate research grants. This will enable the creation of industry-led programs that pave the way for clear and structured career pathways. It will also imbed researchers in industry settings, build research careers within industry and, more importantly, create cohesion between academia and industry. Industry will benefit from the opportunities to host PhD students, which will open pathways for them to recruit high-calibre graduates. This is a very exciting bill. It has attracted enormous support. I am pleased to see that the government has carried this through and is attracting support of the government. Let me reiterate the support from the Group of Eight universities, who said in February: The commercialisation of Australia's world class university research is key to the nation's growth and prosperity, meeting the challenges ahead and enhancing the lives of future generations. The Business Council of Australia said: The government's $2.2 billion package will significantly improve Australia's ability to commercialise our best ideas and innovations, scaling them up to create exciting new industries, new exports and new highly skilled jobs for Australians. This bill to support Australia's Economic Accelerator program and all of the supporting elements of the coalition's university research commercialisation package ensures that government investment into research is targeted and supports areas of national priority. Our investment supports the economy, industries, businesses and our local communities by creating the jobs for our future generations. I commend this bill to the Senate. 17:46 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to allow the education minister to make grants to support arrangements to increase industry-led postgraduate research and assist higher education providers to undertake research in sectors aligned with the areas of national security. The bill also provides legislative authority to establish a national industry PhD program, aimed at enabling PhD students to better translate university research into commercialisation outcomes. The Greens are supporting this bill because we will not stand in the way of more funding for research. But I do want to emphasise that the bill represents a worrying continuation of the Morrison government's agenda of commercialising research and increasing industry influence while neglecting fundamental research. In fact, this bill is a reheated version of a February 2022 Morrison-era bill. Translational research is of course important, but pure curiosity-driven research is just as important, if not more so, often forming the foundation for applied research. Research borne of curiosity holds infinite possibilities. The invention of wi-fi is one famous local example of astroparticle physics research. This research that created the technology behind wi-fi has changed our lives. It is therefore short-sighted to solely focus on translational research. As Professor Brian Schmidt, Vice Chancellor, ANU, states: This short-term thinking fails to understand that the innovations we need actually come from the giant pool of ideas generated by curiosity … I'm pleased that Minister Clare was quick to initiate a review into the Australian Research Council Act. Such a review was long overdue, with the past few years being particularly troubled for the ARC. Increasing political interference has damaged its integrity and independence. Trust of the ARC amongst the research community has diminished due to acts of political interference, such as the vetoing of grants and the introduction of the national interest test as well as the rejection of grant applications due to their citation of pre-print publications. The review must address all these issues and must also enshrine the importance of fundamental research. The government needs to make sure that researchers are supported and well paid, and I haven't been shy of raising that issue over and over. PhD students are increasingly struggling to make ends meet, with stipends falling well below the minimum wage and universities being relied on to top up these stipends. PhD students are also locked out of the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme, making it extremely difficult for them to have a family should they wish. It is really disappointing that this morning the Labor government voted down the Greens amendment, which was very reasonable, to extend the Paid Parental Leave scheme to PhD students. Not only is it fair that researchers be paid a decent wage and have good conditions, but if we don't, there is a significant risk that Australia will lose out on talented researchers. The UK, Germany and Italy all offer stipends to PhD students that are closer to the average wage, whereas in Australia they are well below the average wage. Australia's public investment in tertiary institutions is also amongst the lowest in the OECD, ranked 31 out of 37 according to Universities Australia. The solution to improving research in this country is not more commercialisation. We need to significantly invest in pure research. That's why I move the following second reading amendment: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that this bill: (i) provides a significant amount of funding for research translation and commercialisation, and (ii) provides absolutely no funding for pure research; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) recognise that pure research is a public good with immense value, (ii) recognise that pure research is as important and worthy of funding, (iii) commit to substantially increasing funding for pure research, which has fallen significantly over the past three decades, and (iv) commit to a substantial increase in stipends, given PhD candidates are increasingly struggling to make ends meet with stipends falling well below the minimum wage". I will also be moving amendments in the committee stage to ensure the Economic Accelerator Advisory Board's research commercialisation strategy cannot be inconsistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. This will ensure that this significant new funding program cannot be used to fund research that could put our emissions reduction targets at risk and make sure that the research commercialisation strategy is consistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. While this amendment does not go as far as I would have liked to get support for in expressly preventing the accelerator program being used to fund research which could contribute to the development of new coal and gas projects, I am nonetheless very pleased to work with the Labor government to embed a commitment to climate action within this bill. The reality is that new coal and gas is simply incompatible with the survival of people and the planet. Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuel. It doesn't matter where coal and gas is burned; emissions drive global warming and climate change everywhere. Conveniently, pollution that is released overseas, called scope 3 emissions, is not counted as our emissions. We wash our hands of the problem, but that is a dangerous approach which ignores Australia's true global contribution to climate change. Australian coal and gas are fuelling climate disasters everywhere, from the floods in Lismore to those in Pakistan, from the bushfires in the Bega Valley to the drought in the Horn of Africa. Research should contribute to progress and will be key to mitigating and surviving the climate crisis. At the end of the day, though, we must stop opening new coal and gas mines. 17:53 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia It isn't that long ago that I graduated, starting with anthropology and sociology as my primary major and then moving to pharmacy, so I have a well-rounded understanding of the social sciences and pharmacy. Higher education has played a significant role in my life, and thus far, there is so much potential that I see in Australia's youth—students and researchers in our universities. We don't want to see Australia left behind. In the 2020-22 World Intellectual Property Organization's global innovation index, Australia was ranked fifth in the world for our human capital and research. Yet, despite leading on research, we are ranked 37th for knowledge and technology output. We need to support our students and researchers to make their work and their ideas come to reality, which will make our country more resilient and self-sufficient. These grants will turn great ideas into commercial opportunities and increase collaboration between universities and industry. These are part of the Albanese Labor government's work to diversify our economy and strengthen our manufacturing ability. I hear brilliant ideas from students when I go and visit them at schools, all the way from primary school students up to students who are undertaking their postgraduate degrees at universities. Imagine if all these Australians could leverage their potential. Think about where we could be in a decade. I know priority consideration will be given to projects addressing the four priority areas of: renewables and low-emissions technologies, such as hydrogen, microgrids and lithium or rare earth elements processing; medical science, such as synthetic biology, mRNA vaccines and remote medicine; value-add in resources, such as provenance of rare earth minerals, advanced minerals extraction, data driven mining, and mining automation and robotics; and, finally, value add in the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sectors. These are priority areas for a reason. This government wants to do right by our constituents. We want to see Australian innovations in clean energy and in medical science. We want to improve our productivity in mining, resources, agriculture, forestry and fisheries. When I think of Australian innovation I think of inventions that changed the world. I think of Professor Fiona Wood's spray-on skin technique for burn victims. Fiona and her team saved 28 lives during the 2002 Bali bombings. Then there is the pacemaker. An Australian doctor developed the first artificial pacemaker in the 1920s, and now more than three million people around the world have pacemakers that support their hearts. Cochlear implants, or bionic ears: Professor Graeme Clark invented this at Melbourne university in the 1970s. It's now given hearing to more than 180,000 deaf people worldwide. The electric drill: it was originally designed for drilling rock and digging for coal. Now there's a portable hand drill in almost every household. There are so many more: the refrigerator, the black box flight recorder, the ultrasound scanner, the inflatable escape slide on planes—which you've all heard of, especially flying to Canberra, I'm sure! These started as good ideas and went on to become part of life as we know it. I know there will be many more of these world-changing innovations, and I know that this bill and Australia's Economic Accelerator program will be part of this. Last week I met Professor Peter Leedman from the Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research in WA. I heard about some of the amazing work they're doing, and I'm honoured to have been invited back to tour the institute again soon. This bill will help them and other researchers to progress the development of their technologies to commercial-investor readiness. For Australia to fully capitalise on our talent and opportunities we need a research ecosystem where our world-class research can be translated into real-world innovations and productivity gains. Allow me to reiterate that investment in research translation and commercialisation will help build a stronger, smarter and more diverse economy as well as ensuring that Australia becomes more economically resilient. We want our universities to play a bigger role, to not just produce brilliant research but to also work more closely with businesses and government to translate this research into breakthrough products, new businesses and ideas to grow our economy and strengthen our society. Feedback from the university research and business sectors shows that there is an identified need for new innovative funding mechanisms that de-risk projects for commercial partners and incentivise fast-fail research, driving cultural change in universities and creating real partnerships with industry. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia’s Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 will create the legislative authority to establish the new research funding program and a new industry led study and postgraduate program. The program will accelerate reform in the higher education sector for translation and commercialisation. It is aligned with the National Reconstruction Fund when it comes to the key priority objectives that it focuses on. The new industry led study and postgraduate research program will create a clear and structured research career pathway in innovation and commercialisation focused research. Furthermore, the program will ensure that it has been tested and endorsed by an expert panel. These new programs were also recommended by many of the submissions received in response to the university research commercialisation consultation paper released in February of 2021. This is part of a series of initiatives which aim to boost Australia's university research commercialisation capacity, ensuring that these initiatives respond to the concerns that the sector has consistently been raising, calling for additional support to increase the translation and commercialisation of university research and encouraging workforce mobility across university and industry sectors. As we heard from my colleagues earlier, the purpose of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 is to amend the Higher Education Support Act, which essentially allows the minister to make grants to support arrangements to increase industry led study and postgraduate research and to assist higher education providers to undertake programs of research in areas of national priority that progress the development of technologies and services to a state of commercial investor readiness. This amendment creates the legislative authority, as discussed earlier, to establish these grants. To support the operation of the program, the bill will also establish a new governance framework which includes the program's advisory board and priority managers. The board will essentially be responsible for advising the minister in relation to the program, including providing advice on the objectives, conditions of eligibility and conditions of grants. The advisory board will also provide oversight of the priority managers and will be responsible for advising the minister on the commercialisation of research through a research commercialisation strategy which is to be developed every five years from 2022-23. The bill proposes that the advisory board will consist of up to eight members who will possess experience and knowledge in research and its commercialisation, representing the government, industry, business and research sectors. This governance structure will ensure the program will operate in appropriate alignment with the policy's intent. Finally, we are fortunate in this country to have world-leading researchers in our higher education sector. This bill supports our higher education providers and our researchers in realising the great potential of Australian ingenuity and innovation. It will help make it easier for universities and businesses to work together to commercialise research, building our sovereign capabilities and boosting our economy. It's great to see the support that we have heard from our fellow senators. I commend the bill to the Senate. 18:03 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia’s Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 is the reintroduction of measures introduced by the former coalition government, which lapsed at the election and has now been taken up by Labor, so we do support this bill. A substantial piece of work led to a review of the government's significant investment in research because, although we do some of the finest research, it does not necessarily follow through to commercialisation to drive greater benefits for our economy. This will result in $296 million invested in 1,800 industry PhDs and over 800 fellows over a period of 10 years. For those researchers, this fuels their ideas, supporting Australia's cleverest research minds, and more broadly boosting productivity and creating jobs and new industries. A key component of the coalition's $2.2 billion University Research Commercialisation Package was translation of research to application through reform across four key areas: placing national manufacturing priorities at the core of Australian government funded research; using priority driven schemes to ramp up commercialisation activity; delivering university research funding reform to strengthen incentives for genuine collaboration with industry; and investing in people who are skilled in university and industry collaboration. Strategic and targeted investments included $243 million over five years for the Trailblazer Universities Program to boost prioritised R&D and drive commercialisation outcomes with industry partners with this research component aligned with our national manufacturing priorities in areas where Australia has significant comparative advantage and a strategic national interest. The areas at the time were medical products, food and beverage, recycling and clean energy, resources technology and critical minerals processing, defence industry and space. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act of 2003 to make the appropriate provisions to deliver this program and provide increased support to our universities to commercialise their world-leading research. As an undergraduate and postgraduate student and a lecturer at one of those universities, and having been on the council—the governing bodies—of two universities, I understand the importance of supporting the commercialisation of research in universities. This component of our package provides a 10-year investment for a competitive grant funding program to give the best chance of commercial realisation but with evaluation to support projects with the greatest likelihood of success. Its design was to get research through the known gates, the initial proof of concept, through to the valley of death, where there is the greatest risk of projects not proceeding, and through to commercial realisation. The commercialisation component, which is effectively the final stage, would be further supported through a $150 million commitment to CSIRO's main sequence venture. The Australian Economic Accelerator program will work to attract projects with high commercialisation potential at the proof-of-concept or proof-of-scale level of commercial readiness. It establishes an innovative governance framework, including the new Australia's Economic Accelerator Advisory Board. It creates a new suite of Australian Research Council industry fellowships that will recognise and reward our academics who collaborate with industry. In development, there was extensive consultation and wider sector support. The group of eight universities supported it, Science and Technology Australia supported it, Universities Australia supported it, and the Business Council of Australia supported it. In my own state of South Australia, associated with Flinders University—which has nearly 26,000 students and 998 higher degree research students—is the Factory of the Future, which is an industrial collaboration already underway with BAE Systems Maritime Australia, which is focused on innovation and industry technologies and research and training to advance manufacturing. Additionally, South Australian Scientist of the Year, Professor Colin Raston, and the vortex fluidic device is transforming green chemistry. The high-tech yet simple device can be used in medical and pharmaceutical research, rapid COVID diagnostics, cancer treatments, food processing, materials processing, and much more across a myriad of industries, all with a focus on cleaner, greener and cheaper production. It is being commercialised right now. The Chalker lab has developed novel polymers made from waste products, which can clean oil spills, PFAS and arsenic contamination in gold mining and is now proceeding to commercialise the new material for global markets. At the University of Adelaide, with almost 24,000 students, 1,670 of those are postgraduate researchers. Bygen Pty Ltd is the world's first producer of sustainable and tailored activated carbon. The global activated carbon market is currently valued at around $10 billion and is growing at almost 10 per cent per year. The uses for activated carbon are diverse and growing in number. Some of the most common markets include, but are not limited to, water purification, gold recovery, soil remediation, decaffeination, drink processing, PFAS removal, mercury removal and energy storage. Bygen recently announced that they have received planning approval for an activated carbon production facility in Swan Reach, on the Murray River, in South Australia. The concept to support our valued researchers underwent appropriate consultation with sectors. It will be good for university students, good for our researchers and inventors, good for our university sector and good for Australian industry. 18:10 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I have concerns about the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022. We can hear the cheers of joy from the research rent-seekers. This bill includes a huge $400 million grant program, over four years, adding to the nearly $4 billion a year the government already spends on research. Research is important; I know that myself. In the past Australia has led the world on innovation. Yet I'm not convinced the government deserves the credit for our country men and women's inventions. Research is not just about money. I'm not convinced that a huge, centralised, bloated federal government splashing huge amounts of cash is going to supercharge our economy. Science grants have already been responsible across science sectors for corrupting science. We see that in climate. We see that in COVID. We see that in water management and many other areas. Money for advocacy on behalf of government ideology—that is what has plagued the CSIRO and turned it into a siphon for taxpayer funds. In return, the CSIRO is now corrupting science and being an advocate. Don't take my word for it. I'm talking about senior research scientists who have retired from CSIRO saying exactly what I just said. CSIRO is now an advocacy group for government ideology and policy—not just the Labor Party but the general policies that have been pushed by governments. Australia's Economic Accelerator has a focus on translating research to commercial outcomes. Sounds good! Has it occurred to anyone that the reason some of that research has not been translated into a commercial outcome might be that businesses have looked at the research and decided it's a terrible business idea? What if we're spending nearly half a billion dollars here to flog dead horses or giving taxpayer money to companies which would have commercialised the research anyway, without grants, because it's a good business idea? That's the point: in a free society, not corrupted by massive bloated government, merit determines what succeeds. These handouts for projects that businesses would have undertaken anyway are corporate welfare, or maybe they're corporate bribes. Only the big companies will get access to this corporate welfare. Small business misses out yet again. Only the huge corporates can hire the grand consultants, navigate the forests and weeds of more than 200 grant scheme programs through which the government provides research funding, and make the applications. The Department of Education confesses that most submissions to the University Research Commercialisation Action Plan: … agreed that there is no 'silver bullet' solution to improving research commercialisation outcomes, and that new reforms need to be integrated across the whole research commercialisation ecosystem. Anyone reading between the lines on those bureaucratic super buzzwords will realise that no-one really knows if the economic accelerator will do much to achieve its supposed purpose. We know that the biggest brake—b-r-a-k-e—on our country, and particularly our country's innovation, is big, bloated government pushing on the brake and the accelerator at the same time. There's a big assumption underpinning this bill and research funding in Australia. It assumes that a big, bloated federal government, with bureaucrats sitting in Canberra enforcing grant guidelines, will lead to innovation and commercial activity. That's a big assumption. If we want true innovation—I think we all do—and a boost in commercial activity, government grants are a terrible way to do it. Government is the one standing in the way. It's not just the Labor-Greens government; it's also the former Liberal-National government. The government is the one standing in the way of innovation and commercial outcomes. Instead of grants, how about this: get government policy focused on getting back to basics, firstly making electricity as cheap as humanly possible, after government has spent decades blowing up the price of electricity with artificial subsidies that are destroying our electricity sector. That ripples right through the economy; every sector uses electricity. Once it has been made expensive, there goes the competitive advantage that used to apply. Aluminium smelters are now shutting down, rather than coming on, because they can't afford the electricity. Secondly, simplify industrial relations. Instead of protecting the industrial relations club members—large foreign and domestic corporates, unaccountable union bosses, lawyers, consultants and bureaucrats—exploiting workers, as I've discussed so many times, and suppressing small and medium-sized businesses, we need an industrial relations system that protects workers and enables small and medium-sized enterprise to get on with the job of employing people. Thirdly, fix the taxation system's hideous complexity and the counterproductive behaviours that it drives. Fix the taxation system with comprehensive reform so that multinationals pay their fair share of tax and relieve the burden on families and on Australian companies struggling under a high tax burden in times of severe inflation—yet another highly regressive government financial burden. Do these three things, Minister, and watch the commercialisation of research take off. The government will never have to make another grant. One Nation will not oppose this bill. Without proper reform of the important parts of our economy, though, research grants are just flogging a dead horse. I will be returning to the topic of research grants lacking accountability, which is such a widespread problem in our country. 18:16 Senator 39801 Queensland CHISHOLM (—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (): I thank senators for their informative and constructive contributions to this debate. The Australia's Economic Accelerator program will support our universities to work in partnership with industry to turn Australia's world-class research into the innovative products that will inform and drive Australian businesses of the future. The AEA will bridge a gap in the current research landscape by funding projects which have higher translational and commercial potential. The measures in this bill will support our higher education providers and industry to leverage the great potential of Australian ingenuity and innovation. Once again, I thank senators for their contributions to the debate, and I commend the bill to the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 The question is that the Greens amendment on sheet 1812 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [18:22]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Reynolds)

 14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Antic, A. Ayres, T. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

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

 In Committee 93 18:26 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1838 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 10), after subsection 42-1(1), insert: (1A) The strategy must not be inconsistent with *Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. (2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 15 (after line 15), after the definition of Australia's Economic Accelerator program information, insert: Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets means: (a) if: (i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution was communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement in June 2022; and (ii) that nationally determined contribution has not been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement; the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set out in paragraphs 10(1)(a) and (b) of the Climate Change Act 2022; or (b) in any other case—the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets included in: (i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement; or (ii) if that nationally determined contribution has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement—that nationally determined contribution, as adjusted and in force from time to time. Paris Agreement means the Paris Agreement, done at Paris on 12 December 2015, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time. Note: The Agreement is in Australian Treaty Series 2016 No. 24 ([2016] ATS 24) and could in 2023 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). As I flagged in my second reading speech, these amendments are to ensure that the accelerator advisory board's research commercialisation strategy cannot be inconsistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. These are important to ensure that this significant new funding program cannot be used to fund research that could put our emissions reduction targets at risk, and to make sure that the strategy remains consistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions targets. I commend the amendments to the Senate. 18:27 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I want to indicate that the government is committed to its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. We believe the proposed amendment is sensible and highlights that commitment from the government, so we will be supporting it. 18:28 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria The coalition will not be supporting it. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1838 moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.    

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

 35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 25 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

 Third Reading 95 18:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH 95 GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 95 18:36 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to respond to the address of the Governor-General at the opening of this historic formation of the first term of the Albanese government. I hope it might be the first term of several terms of Labor led government under Mr Albanese. I think it's a fact that few could really have imagined the events of the three years that preceded the change of government—the turmoil, the anguish and the uncertainty that was just part of people's lives. In the time since the election, I've met with many Australians who say to me that they're so glad to wake up without the sense of fear and dread of what new disaster might be landing on them at the hands of their Prime Minister. That was what people were living with under Mr Morrison. In addition to the failure of the government to do its job as a government, instead permanently creating panic and devastation, we had the reality of so many external events that impacted us all. We had floods, devastating bushfires, inflation, pandemics, lockdowns and all the hurt that these elements inflicted on our nation, and they've irrevocably changed us. But out of every crisis there is an opportunity to review the way we do things, and this Albanese government is keen to make the very best of the learnings from those challenges that Australians faced. The long boom ended and our first recession in three years came, in the face of a global downturn. Despite lower unemployment, workers are now doing it tougher than ever. Change, in the unlikeliest of circumstances, begat change, and last year Australians voted for change of many kinds. We had a change of government for only the third time this century. Record First Nations representation was achieved in this parliament, and I include in that my good friend Dr Gordon Reid, who lives in the seat of Robertson, which I was proud to represent in the other chamber between 2010 and 2013. What a wonderful addition he is to the complement of members in the lower house. I couldn't be prouder of my new seatmate, Senator Jana Stewart, and, although she's just left the chamber, the first hijab-wearing senator, Senator Payman. We've also seen the delivery of a female majority in the Senate, and Mr Sam Lim, our first dolphin trainer, elected to the lower house. What a joy it was to hear his first speech and to look up, in this multicultural and multifaith nation, and see the very well-known saffron coloured robes of Buddhist monks in the chamber—the reality of our multifaith nation on display there. For Labor, we've always understood that representation matters. Our diverse houses now look much more like the wonderful multicultural, multifaith, pluralist democracy that we are and the nation that we seek to serve. It's also important, I believe, that this parliament will seek to enact the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. As I make this contribution, nine months into the government's response to the Governor-General's remarks, that discussion about whether we will indicate in our Constitution the simple fact that First Nations people were here is at its core. We have the opportunity to do the right thing. I'm usually very proud of Australians for doing the right thing. I have taught many Australian schoolchildren. When we get around to talking about First Nations' spirituality, particularly in religion classes, and the history of First Nations people, they are unbelievably shocked that prior to 1967 Australia's First Nations people were counted as flora and fauna. That is a shocking thing for Australians to know, that this is our history. But Australians rose to the challenge of acknowledging the fact—it's hard to say this sentence—that Aboriginal people were worthy of counting in the census, that they're people and need to be counted. Australians have hit this historical moment that it's no longer contested that Aboriginal people were here. Terra nullius has been nullified. People know the fact, and it's time that we wrote it into our hard story that's contained in that very small but very powerful document that I'm very proud to call our Constitution. The debate that's happening about the Voice, right now, is a debate that we're past time having. It's already been five years—five years that the statement sat on the last government's desk, waiting for enactment. At least, that was the public voice, the public statement. They were waiting to get the job done. But they didn't do the job. The reality is they just paid lip-service to a very important and generous offer from the First Nations people of this country. It matters not just in a symbolic way. I can say to you, colleagues, that I have had the privilege of getting out right across the beautiful state of New South Wales. Last year I visited Wilcannia and spoke to people there. That whole community was ravaged by COVID-19, and failure to address that crisis echoed the persistent failure to get that community off its knees. The average life span for a man in Wilcannia is 38 years of age. It is unbelievably shocking. Of two young men born into the same town in Australia 38 years ago, one of them, a First Nations man, is likely to die at that age—not the other 38-year-old man who is not First Nations. For women, it's not much better. The average life span for women in Wilcannia is 41 years. It's no coincidence, these appalling statistics in a community that is overwhelmingly Indigenous. It has become, sadly, part of the documented reality of our time, and it cannot be allowed to continue. It's a result of centuries of dispossession and discrimination and an outright campaign, from the state, to rid our First Nations people of their way of life. Labor understands that when you're in government you need to lead. You need to lift the sights, the vision, the hopes, the capacity, the economy and the community to build hopes and dreams and help to deliver the best outcomes for Australia. That's why we've been rolling out the roadmap of implementation of the First Nations' generous offer to Australians that came through the Uluru Statement from the Heart and is now part of the public discussion, discussed in shorthand terms as 'the Voice'. I know that Minister Linda Burney has been putting her hand very much to the task of delivering a great outcome there. And I want to acknowledge the wise and remarkable leadership of my colleague in this chamber, Senator Pat Dodson, who, I think, just in the last 24 hours, has revealed the heartbrokenness and the tears of a nation that weeps for the loss of opportunities being taken up to redress the imbalance of life outcomes and opportunity between First Nations people and the rest of us who call this great country our home. I hope and pray that we will find a way to move forward together in a unifying way—no more division. It's time to lift our sights. This process and its momentous consequences will change our nation for the better. It's one part of righting the historic wrongs by empowering Indigenous Australians and giving them a clear voice in our national debate. It will establish a Makarrata, which is a truth-telling commission, and that will bring together the disparate strands of our history and tell it like it really is, or was—the bad and the good; the truth. I want to acknowledge the incredible integrity and academic leadership shown by a good friend of mine Professor Lyndall Ryan, formally of Newcastle University, for her profound contribution to our national understanding with her recording and publication of the sites of so many massacres that were part of this country. These are hard words for me to speak, and they are tragic things to recall, but we need to put them on the record and know that that is part of our history, alongside all the great stuff. Three key words: voice, treaty, truth. We will deliver all three with the help of the consultation that we're undertaking with our First Nations brothers and sisters and that incredible generosity and desire for truth telling that I think is fundamental to what's best about Australia and Australians. Very importantly, the Albanese government will also be the parliament, provide the parliament, that passes an anti-religious discrimination bill, the bill that we will enact in accordance with our promises. Unlike the five years and two different governments under the Liberal National Party, who failed to deliver anything for the protection of freedom of Australians from religious discrimination, Labor will be the party that unites in support of people of all faiths to be free in our multicultural pluralistic democracy to practice their faith, alongside people who have no faith and their freedoms. It will be a bill that celebrates and protects our religious diversity. And it will not be the kind of bill that has exhausted advocates for the right to practise their religion under the former government, which was designed like so much of the legislation of the previous government as a tool to pit one Australian against another. Either/or, choose a team, goodies and baddies, lifters and leaners—we heard all that language of division. Well, that ends with the arrival of an Albanese government, and I'm very proud to be a senator in this Labor government that will lead in a way that unites our nation. I've spoken of the healing soul of our nation, but we have a great task ahead of us, which is the healing of the world itself. Australians everywhere I go talk to me of the raging bushfires, floods, droughts, minor earthquakes and record temperatures that are happening in Australia and across the world. The evidence is there for all of us to see. Our planet is warming, and further warming will be catastrophic for all life on this planet. I certainly don't want that for my children and my grandchildren, and I don't think I know an Australian who wants that for anyone. Labor will end the climate wars. Other people may want to continue them, but we've got to lift up and move on. We will get real action on climate change, and we will do it in a responsible way that manages a transition that doesn't deprive people of jobs and that isn't so purist that it can't deal with the reality of the need for a transition through gas. We will absolutely ensure that Australia benefits from a transition to clean renewable energy, and we have in our grasp the opportunity to become a major green superpower, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Our commitment will pass through this parliament—a commitment to reduce net emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels—and we've got on with the job of doing that. There are opportunities for us to reach out into the regions around us. The former government were too short-sighted, too divided and unable to develop a cogent, forward-thinking climate change plan. And they continue to oppose ours, despite having no agenda of their own. But, despite that, an Albanese led Labor government will do what Australians need. (Time expired) 18:51 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I'm speaking today to acknowledge the address by Governor-General David Hurley AC DSC to the 47th Parliament. His Excellency addressed this chamber in July 2022 to mark the beginning of a new parliament and to outline the Albanese Labor government's plans. It's been eight months since the Albanese government took power, but what do we have to show for that eight months? The cost of living is biting more than ever, and inflation is the highest it has been in 33 years. It's a struggle to do the weekly shop, to pay for school uniforms and fees as the school year begins and to put petrol in our cars. Reducing the cost of living for Australians is well and truly overdue. Each day households and small businesses are forced to suffer further. That is a day too long. Another anticipated interest rate on Tuesday—tomorrow—is likely to be the 10th rate rise in 12 months, with still more to come, so we're told. When questioned about how a typical Australian home mortgage has risen by $1,400 a month, the Prime Minister didn't address the issue at hand, instead once again looking to lay blame elsewhere. The 800,000 people who are facing mortgage cost hikes when their fixed rates switch to a higher variable rate this year want action to ensure that they can keep their homes. But Anthony Albanese was more interested in talking about prescription drugs, TAFE, child care and his May budget. Hundreds of thousands of Australians are wondering whether they will have a roof over their heads in May, but the cost-of-living predicament that our nation faces right now is the last thing on Labor's mind. The Senate Select Committee on Cost of Living, which was established in September and is being chaired by Liberal Senator Jane Hume, has already heard that higher grocery prices and rising mortgages are leaving families struggling to put food on the table. Uniting Vic.Tas chief executive officer Bronwyn Pike wrote about how the organisation's consumers were experiencing increasing levels of poverty, homelessness, food insecurity and violence due to the devastating impact of the rising cost of living. Uniting Vic.Tas's research report Can't afford to live showed that 92 per cent of respondents were cutting back on food and groceries because of rising costs. Half of respondents cut back on heating during winter last year. And parents, carers and people living with disability have been skipping meals, all the while preparing food for others. As Senator Hume has said, Labor don't have an economic plan. They've abandoned finding solutions to this crisis and instead are breaking promises to families and breaking promises to businesses. Cost of living is the top issue facing Australians right now. The government should be developing practical solutions that will make a difference to the lives of ordinary Australians who are struggling. The frequently promised $275 cut to energy bills is sorely needed but hasn't eventuated. Instead, parliament was recalled in a rush and at a busy time, right before Christmas, to address urgent energy legislation. Instead of spending time in our electorates participating in end-of-year school events and boosting and supporting small businesses in the lead-up to Christmas, hundreds of politicians and staff had to return to Canberra for a hastily reconvened sitting to discuss energy measures. And to what end? That legislation we all rushed back to Canberra for in December has had no impact to date. Right now, we need a federal government that we can trust to look after all of us when times are tough, but that is not what we have. We have a government that promised reforms that would actually make a difference to health care and Medicare, but that commitment has failed as well. With bulk-billing rates so low, Australians are now out of pocket, on average, by $60 when they visit their GP—and that's if they can get into see one! This Labor government was elected on a platform of strengthening Medicare, but all we've seen is the Medicare system weakened: mental health rebates have been slashed in half, 70 telehealth services have been cut out of Medicare coverage, ambulance ramping at our hospitals is getting worse and elective surgery is being deferred at concerning levels. And what about those urgent care clinics we were all promised? Where are they? It's time for tangible action to improve our ailing healthcare system, Labor. You promised to deliver 50 urgent care clinics across the country, including three in my home state of Tasmania, within the first 12 months of government. Given we are now more than two-thirds through that first 12 months, shouldn't we have seen more progress by now? Instead of being well on the way to establishing these clinics, all that has happened is that expressions of interest for about three have been requested. I and my coalition colleagues intend to hold the Albanese government to account when it comes to delivering on the commitments it made during and since the election campaign. When he launched Labor's election campaign, Mr Albanese promised to tackle the spiralling cost of living that is making life tough for too many Australians. There were commitments to raise real wages; to make health care, child care and housing more affordable while growing the economy; to strengthen Medicare; to create more jobs and invest in fee-free TAFE and universities places as well as invest in manufacturing and renewable energy. This all sounded great at the time, Prime Minister, but, as we've already seen, this government has already reneged on many of its promises. In the two years before the 2022 election, power prices fell by eight per cent for households and up to 12 per cent for businesses. The ACCC said prices were the lowest they had been for eight years. Mr Albanese flagged energy price cuts of up to $275 a year for families and businesses by 2025, but in fact our energy bills are rising, and look set to continue escalating. Even Labor's much hyped submission to the Fair Work Commission to lift the minimum wage was swallowed up by inflation. In this submission, the Albanese government explained it did not want to see Australian workers go backwards, in particular those workers on low rates of pay who are experiencing the worst impacts of inflation and have the least capacity to draw on savings. However, inflation has continued to rise over the past eight months with no relief in sight and real wages have actually decreased. The economic growth Australia was experiencing under the coalition has come to an end, and that is hurting hardworking Australians. To add salt to the wound, the government stifled growth in some of our key industries by freezing hard-earned grants. Modern Manufacturing Initiative grants that were awarded before the election were held up. Important industries that we rely on every day—such as defence, space, medical, food security and heavy manufacturing—were all impacted by that decision. The coalition know the value of primary industries in Australia. Our government invested in trade and exports, biosecurity stewardship, supply chains, water and infrastructure, innovation and research, and human capital to support the important agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries. But Minister Watt delayed taking action to ensure Australia's $81 billion agricultural industry was protected and not unduly impacted by foot-and-mouth disease. It really has not been a good start for this government. Mr Albanese said he wanted his government to be one that was more inclusive and delivered more solutions. He campaigned on the idea of a future where no-one is held back, and no-one is left behind. But, as we can already see, those words are tarnished. The coalition's focus is to support good policy that is in the best interests of Australia, and we will hold the government to account when it breaches its commitments. We will oppose actions that take our economy backwards and force inflation rates even higher. The coalition will ensure we're backing families and small businesses doing it tough under Labor's cost-of-living crisis. We had a strong record in government of lower prices, lower interest rates, lower unemployment, lower taxes and stronger borders, and we're proud of this. The Albanese government is nearly one year into its three-year term and has very little to show for it apart from broken promises, an increased cost of living, increased interest rates and increased inflation. 19:00 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales In response to the Governor-General's address on the commencement of the 47th Parliament, but also in response to some very poignant words that Senator O'Neill said just earlier regarding the Uluru Statement from the Heart and in response to the genuineness of Senator Pat Dodson—I certainly wholeheartedly support her comments and the genuineness of Senator Pat Dodson. The Governor-General spoke at length about how the Albanese Labor government will tackle the cost-of-living and wages crises left to us by the previous government. We've moved quickly, with cheaper child care legislated for 1.2 million families. We have made medicines cheaper. We have secured a meaningful increase in the minimum wage and introduced workplace reforms that are the first steps to ending the lost decade on wages. Those workplace reforms are critical. Already, major employers like Coles and ANZ have come back to the bargaining table as a direct outcome of the laws passed late last year. The hysteria from the opposition and some in the employer lobby about those reforms was, frankly, embarrassing. They said the country would grind to a halt as soon as those laws were passed. And yet here we are, and the sky hasn't fallen in. But that scare campaign was part of a broader issue that this government must address. That issue is the way that some employers, supported by the Liberals and Nationals, suppress wages by suppressing workers' voices and unions. In many parts of the world, government, business and unions work together productively to achieve better outcomes for workers. In Germany and most of northern and western Europe, business collaborates with organised labour rather than attempting to destroy it. And their economies are both fairer and more productive. I know there are many businesses here in Australia who desperately want this more-collaborative approach, but they struggle to compete with the businesses that undercut them by suppressing wages, workers' voices and unions. This is a serious workplace issue, it is a serious issue for the Australian economy and it is a serious human rights issue. The most fundamental tenet of human rights law—the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights—states explicitly in article 23: Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of their interests. That right should be unimpeachable. Instead, we see from the Leader of the Opposition a flagrant disregard for human rights. I'll refer to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, published on 1 April 2006, entitled 'Sign on the dotted line'. It tells the story of how the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, when he was Assistant Treasurer, treated his employees at the Australian Valuation Office. The article says that the opposition leader refused to negotiate a union agreement with staff 'even though 91 of the 105 in question had voted for one'. Instead they were offered a non-union workplace agreement, or AWA, that would see some lose $17,000. So the opposition leader's employees at the Australian Valuation Office, when he was the minister, voted by a whopping 86 per cent majority for a union agreement. And he responded by depriving them of what is a fundamental human right, and in the process he robbed them of $17,000 each. This is the same opposition leader who claimed some weeks ago that he represents the Australian working class—a bloke who stopped his own workers having a union agreement even after they voted to do so. What message does that send to Australian businesses? It tells them that they, too, can rob their workers of their voice, in order to make an extra buck. Let's take BHP, the biggest and richest company in Australia. Surely a company that made a $32 billion profit last year doesn't need to suppress wages and its workers' voices. A number of weeks ago, the Federal Court found that BHP unlawfully sacked Daryl, a labour hire worker at a BHP coal mine near Moranbah. Justice Collier found that BHP sacked Daryl because 'he insisted on exercising workplace rights at the mine'. What was the workplace right that BHP fired him for exercising? He was fired for speaking up about unsafe work practices. He was fired because he said it was unsafe for workers to continue working during a lightning storm and because he refused to take an out-of-service tag off a truck with an oil leak. But that's not all. Justice Collier also found that BHP senior management was particularly interested in Daryl for another reason. To paraphrase Justice Collier, the other reason is that Daryl's brother is a union health and safety representative at another BHP mine. Unfortunately, Daryl is not the only person that has been illegally sacked by a large Australian employer due to their connection to a union. Take Theo, for instance. Theo worked as a Qantas cabin cleaner for almost seven years before the COVID-19 pandemic began. He was also a trained and experienced union health and safety representative. I will quote Theo directly on what happened next. He said: 'At the start of the pandemic, we were directed to clean planes with just water, no sanitiser for the trays or anything. PPE was not mandated, despite managers wearing hazmat suits. We were not even provided with masks or disinfectant. I made numerous approaches to management to ask for further PPE or for the risk assessment they had done. After everything was declined, I directed a group of workers to cease unsafe work, which is one of the health and safety representative's powers. That day, I was stood down, and it was my last day at Qantas.' Qantas is being prosecuted by WorkSafe. Three years later and this case is still ongoing. Of course, Theo is not alone in being discriminated against for exercising a workplace right at Qantas. Qantas is currently in the High Court over their illegal sacking of close to 2,000 workers. The Federal Court has found that, on two separate occasions, they were sacked because Qantas did not want them to bargain together with the Transport Workers Union for their next employment contract. Worse still, even though the Federal Court ruled that Qantas was guilty twice, they didn't have to give the workers their jobs back because Qantas said that they would just sack them again anyway. That is the hallmark of a broken system. Sure, they might pay a penalty, but Alan Joyce has already got what he wanted. He sent a message to every single Qantas worker that, if you dare to work together to make your workplace safer or fairer, you'll be dealt with. It is an absolutely totalitarian way to approach a workplace. The Leader of Opposition, Peter Dutton, and Alan Joyce are not the only people refusing to let their workers choose to bargain through their union. There's Woodside, which makes tens of billions of dollars a year flogging our national resources while paying as little tax as possible. Back in June of last year, eight months ago, Woodside's offshore gas workers filed a majority support determination at the Fair Work Commission. That means a majority of them have decided that they want to be represented by their unions, the AWU and the MUA, and negotiate a new agreement with Woodside. That is their legal right. It happens in workplaces around Australia every day. In the eight months since then, Woodside has launched nine legal challenges, each one more ridiculous than the last, and every single one has failed. As we know, the 10th legal challenge has also recently failed. Woodside has dragged those workers through the courts for almost a year. Woodside has no case to argue. In one case, Woodside claimed, without any evidence, that some of the signatures on the petition were fake. Then, after this fraudulent argument had delayed bargaining by eight months, Woodside argued the petition was now outdated. But get this: they also refused to hold a new ballot. The entire Woodside case was fraudulent. It was only designed to waste the time and resources of its workforce, the AWU and MUA. As the Offshore Alliance's coordinator, Zach Duncalfe, said: Woodside is filing application after application trying to discourage its workers and their union from seeking to enforce their right to bargain. …   …   … every one of the applications was "without merit" … …   …   … It's underhanded and entirely cynical. Just the other morning, Woodside announced that it had launched a 10th legal challenge, which it has now failed on. This behaviour from the opposition leader and from BHP, Qantas and Woodside needs to be called out for what it is. It's about suppressing wages and workplace voice. It's about silencing and intimidating workers. These are flagrant beaches of the intent of articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and when they get caught, they drag the workers and their unions through the courts for years at a time. If they have to pay a small fine at the end, they'll make it and more back through suppressed wages. They'll happily pay a fine or legal cost, provided it sends a message to their workforce. That message is that, if you try and organise with your mates to have a strong voice in the workplace, we will attack you. It is corporate thuggery at its worst and its absolute ugliest. Of course, the only reason so many big businesses feel emboldened to flagrantly suppress wages, unions and a workers' voice is that they have explicit support from the Liberal and National parties. Whether it's the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, refusing to negotiate with his workers, even after 86 per cent of them voted to do so; former Prime Minister Morrison refusing to say every worker should be paid the minimum wage, which happened only last year; former workplace relations minister Christian Porter saying, 'It's too hard to regulate minimum conditions for gig workers;' or the former Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Senator Stoker, saying to the nearly 2,000 illegally sacked Qantas workers that it was their own fault, we have a fundamental crisis in this country. The Leader of the Opposition and the renegade employers that dominate some of the biggest boardrooms in this country think they can silence their workers democratic voice to save a buck. Conservatives and employers have fostered a culture of fear amongst Australian workers when it comes to unions. They have created an inherent fear among workers that if they try to organise they will be persecuted and punished by their employer. The reality is that millions of Australians want to join a union. They just haven't had access to the opportunity to do so. In 2010, the Australian workplace representative survey found that 34 per cent of non-union employees would join a union if one formed at their workplace. That is over 3½ million Australians who have been deprived of their right to join a union and whose families have been left financially worse off as a result, and there's the rub. We don't have a decline in new membership in Australia. We have a decline in access to the opportunity to join a union. The people who ultimately pay for that are all Australians. Union members earn an average of 32 per cent more than nonmembers. That's a difference of $350 per week. In some industries, like construction, the gap is 44 per cent. That explains why those opposite have such feral, thuggish attitudes towards the CFMMEU. Employers know this, and that is why they and their stooges in the coalition fight tooth and nail to crush unions. That is why they have imported US-style union-busting 101 tactics. Every Australian worker deserves to have access to the superior pay and conditions that come with union membership. If we are going to reverse the economy-wide decline in wages, job security and conditions, we need to reverse the decades of attacks on unions. We need to ensure that those millions of Australian workers who would join a union if they could have the ability to do so. That is the only way that we're going to ensure the middle-class jobs once again have middle class pay and conditions. 19:14 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I appreciate the opportunity given to me a few minutes ago to make reflections on the Governor-General's address. I want to make a few reflections on His Excellency's address to the parliament. First of all, in the traditional fashion, the speech set out the government's agenda for this term. It's a newly elected Labor government. In the election campaign, we had as our mantra that we're going to be a government that did what we said we were going to do. So that does mean, in the Governor-General's address, some of the commitments that he unfolded—making child care cheaper, putting downward pressure on energy prices, bringing down the cost of prescription medicine, introducing fee-free TAFE, introducing the National Reconstruction Fund legislation and this parliament resolving new targets around emissions, fundamentally settling, in my view, a final position around climate change—have already been implemented. These initiatives, which the Governor-General set out, have already been implemented, apart from the National Reconstruction Fund, and I'll come to that in a moment. This government is setting about very carefully doing what it is that we said that we would do. That is, I have to say, because, as a government, we did opposition a bit differently over the course of the last term. I think previously Mr Abbott had set the template for what political opposition looked like in Australia, just wrecking and saying no and being destructive. The Labor Party, led by Albanese throughout the course—it felt pretty long—of our three years in opposition, actually took a thoughtful approach to learning the lessons of why it was that we weren't successful at the 2019 election, internalising those lessons, doing the careful policy development work and not being noisy and shouty when it came to how we dealt with the agenda of what passed for the Morrison government. We actually did opposition in a way that Australians expected us to. That bore real fruit in the national interest during the course of the COVID pandemic, because it would have been open to the opposition to take a hyper partisan approach during the COVID period. It would have been open to us to oppose everything that the government proposed, but, in fact, what the opposition—now the government—did was carefully deal with all of those issues in the national interest and meet the government halfway on some of the questions that mattered. We did opposition differently. It meant that when we came to making our commitments in the lead up to the last election, voters took those commitments seriously. What I'd observe, in giving out a little bit of free advice to those opposite, is that none of that self-reflection has occurred in the Liberal and National parties. There has been none of that reflection about what it was that was so corrosively bad about the government that they were all a part of. This was a terrible government, the Morrison government. This was a government that sat on the shoulders of two pretty ordinary governments before it. But it was, in itself, the worst government since Federation in Australia. It was a government that would have made Billy McMahon feel sick. It was such a poor government because it lacked ambition for the country; they only had ambition for themselves. Senator Scarr 282997 What about Gough? Senator AYRES 16913 I know that Senator Scarr's made a partisan comment about the Whitlam government, but the Whitlam government had ambition for the country. I understand we may differ about what that ambition meant and where it led, but at least it had ambition for the country and—what are we?—45 years later the changes that the Whitlam government made are still remembered. Nobody in 45 years will remember the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, I can assure you of that. It's impossible to look at the Governor-General's speech and the achievements and the commitments that we have made as a new government without understanding what historically framed it—the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government was characterised by complacency. It was a government that was characterised by policy laziness; a government that was characterised by a deep sense of entitlement. The objective of that government was simply to hold government itself and for the preferment and the privilege of those closest to them. It was a government that allowed senior members of the government and backbenchers to retreat into a nasty, far-right, US-Trump-style extremism. You can see some of those people are still here, amongst those opposite. The kind of politics espoused by Senator Rennick, Senator Antic and others is a retreat into nativist, Trump-style, derivative—I have to say pretty boring—extremist politics, in an attempt to scoop up potential branch members. Senator Scarr knows what I'm talking about because they were recruiting them in Queensland today. The slogan was 'Keep the cookers out' a few weeks ago. The problem is, in the Queensland Liberal National Party, it's too late. The stable door is open. The horse has bolted. The cookers are in charge of significant parts of the Queensland Liberal National Party. That's the legacy of that government. Rather than do what Howard did, what former senator Boswell did or what conservatives of courage, commitment and principle did, which was to say, 'We're going to close the door to extremism,' the Morrison government fanned the flames of extremism. That's what they did in order to bolster a few right-wing voters here and a few branch members there. They made a craven attempt to promote far-right extremism, as the former prime minister did—it has been very well documented—in his preferring the candidacy of Ms Deves in Warringah. The problem with doing that is, if you do it when you're in government and you don't reflect on it properly and learn the lessons, it shapes what you're like in opposition, not just this term but next term, the term after that and the term after that, until you actually internalise and learn the lessons and make the hard choices. I'm happy to dish out this advice because, terrified as I am that they might actually take the advice, I know that they're not capable of following through. What it meant for ordinary Australians is that we had a decade of low wage growth. We had a decade of low capital investment. We had a decade where we diminished our position in the world in a way that undercut and undermined our national interest. None of those things mattered to the people opposite because they weren't faintly concerned with the national interest. We had a decade where the fiscal position of the Commonwealth continued to deteriorate until after the COVID crisis. We were a trillion dollars in debt with nothing to show for it, with a structural deficit as far as the eye can see and with terminating measures in the budget that meant that commitments that the government made to the Australian people were only funded for one year, two years or three years, further undermining the position of the budget. We had nothing to show for it in terms of infrastructure, in terms of social progress, in terms of productivity measures and in terms of the things that would make life better for ordinary Australian families. We saw Medicare undermined, the health system in disrepair and energy policy failure. The government has had to set about working its way through dealing with these challenges. In terms of our strategic position, the damage that this government did to our position amongst Pacific islands leaders is utterly shameful. It was characterised, by Mr Dutton and Mr Abbott, by making jokes at the expense of Pacific island people, about climate change, when they were caught out by the famous boom mike. The problem with that moment was not that it was a mistake, a sort of joke, a sort of an aside that didn't really characterise what they thought. The problem was it characterised what they thought, and Pacific island leaders and Pacific island people saw that. So we're engaged in this massive effort in the region, the Pacific and the Indo-Pacific, in terms of our strategic position, in terms of our global position, of catch-up and patch-up, an enormous effort, in governance terms. All I can say, really, is that Australians are entitled to expect much more from their government, not a government that rorts public funds in its own partisan interest. Their recent criticisms of some of the funded commitments that the government made in opposition, that were specific commitments, they thought were very clever, because they said isn't the government doing what the last government did—utterly betraying their lack of understanding of the government's principles themselves. There is a deep difference. You need to understand it. Wander down to the Auditor-General's office and I'm sure he will explain to you. There's a deep difference between what it is that a political party commits to, in its election program, and what are decisions of government. The problem for Mr Dutton and all of his friends is that this was a government that utterly perverted the processes of government in its own partisan interest. The list goes on and on, but nothing more symbolises the incapacity of the Liberal and National parties to understand the position that they put the country in than the choice they made after the election, the choice to elect Mr Dutton as the leader. Nobody—unless, I suppose, they'd actually gone and elected Mr Tudge as the opposition leader—symbolises more the failures and the problems, and the lack of moral capacity and the lack of a sense of the national interest, amongst the current cohort of Liberal and National Party MPs than does Mr Dutton. And that is the problem. People on the other side may well want to defend the previous government, but nothing symbolises more what Mr Tudge said in 2016 than when he—I was quite struck by listening to this in question time. I'd forgotten about it. In 2016, when he was talking about their patently illegal robodebt scheme, he said: We'll find you, we'll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison. They were administering an illegal scheme to some of the most vulnerable people in Australia, who didn't owe the government a dollar. He created the impression in their minds that he would hunt them down and that they may well end up in prison. You can't imagine a crueller, more cavalier approach to the most vulnerable Australians. There are choices in front of people. The opposition can choose this week and over the next few weeks to reject the government's National Reconstruction Fund, the mandate forum, the chance in this country to rebuild our manufacturing sector. But this opposition are currently saying no. Again, it's about the national security interest, rebuilding our manufacturing capability for democratic cohesion, for all sorts of reasons—for economic reasons and for social ones. We've got a chance to do this and these guys over here say, no, they will not be able to go back into regional electorates and defend that position. While the track record of governments isn't very strong in by-elections, over our history, the people of Aston have a choice too. It's a vote for or against Mr Dutton that we'll see in Aston. (Time expired) Question agreed to. ADJOURNMENT 102 ADJOURNMENT Greyhound Racing 102 19:30 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales 2023 got off to a bad start for greyhounds. It's only March, and there have already been 25 track deaths and 1,963 injuries this year. Over the last weekend of January alone, four dogs were killed racing. The reality is all greyhound racing is cruel and it is unsafe. On average, three dogs die every week on Australian racetracks and a staggering 28 more are injured every single day. As the Coalition for the Protection for Greyhounds has said, this is an industry built on the broken bodies of gentle and beautiful dogs. There is cruelty inflicted on greys every step of the way. Surgical artificial insemination, SAI, is used in about 80 per cent of breeding for greyhounds. SAI involves anaesthetising the dog, making an incision, and taking the uterus out to put sperm in it before replacing it and sewing the hole back up. It's as horrific and unethical as it sounds. SAI has been widely criticised by veterinary associations and the RSPCA. It is in fact illegal in the UK, Norway, Sweden and Holland. Disappointingly, the Perrottet government backflipped on a proposal to ban SAI following pressure from the racing lobby—yet another reason I look forward to voting the Liberals out in New South Wales on 25 March. Over 70 per cent of greyhounds are discarded annually. Many of them are never rehomed. The national rate of greyhound breeding in 2020-21 was about six times the industry's capacity than to rehome them. Breeding numbers are way too high to ever rehome all racing greyhounds. This leaves volunteers and volunteer organisations to do the lion's share of rehoming despite the industry being more than financially capable of doing so. The greyhound industry's national turnover was $9.4 billion in 2020-21, and every single dollar of that is despicable blood money. Disturbingly, there have also been recent reports of greyhounds being exported to countries where they end up being used for breeding against Greyhounds Australasia's rules. There is absolutely no way to ensure the welfare of these dogs. That's why last year I introduced a bill to ban the import and export of greyhounds for racing, breeding and other commercial purposes, and I will keep pushing for such a ban. I urge the minister to take action where the previous government demonstrated a callous indifference. Anyone who has opened their homes to greyhounds knows how gentle and intelligent they are. Senator Scarr 282997 Hear, hear! Senator FARUQI 250362 I was one of those lucky people, and I know my colleague across the chamber is also one of those people. There are more and more of us every single day. Public sentiment on greyhound racing continues to shift in the right direction. A survey from January commissioned by GREY2K USA Worldwide and the Coalition for the Protection for Greyhounds found that a clear majority of people in Australia, 57 per cent, think that greyhound racing should be banned or phased out. An even larger majority, 69 per cent, opposed government subsidising the greyhound industry. These numbers are supported by polling commissioned by my own office, which found that 58 per cent of people want greyhound racing banned, and this number is significantly higher among young people and women. So, politicians across the country are failing to listen to the community, and there's an overarching reason for this: money. As with all industries on rapidly dwindling social licence—like the fossil fuel industry now and the tobacco industry many decades ago—the gambling industry throws cash at politicians on both sides. It was recently revealed that Sportsbet paid $19,000 to the campaign of communications minister Michelle Rowland. Tabcorp has disclosed donations totalling over $3 million since 1998 to Labor, the Liberals and the other parties. I'm so proud that the Greens have never taken—and will never take—gambling and racing money. In return, state governments inflate prize money, pay breeding incentives, prop up financially failing clubs, build racetracks and maintain weak welfare oversight of the industry. The cycle of legalised corruption repeats, and greyhounds continue to die and to get injured. The world is moving away from greyhound racing, with just a tiny number of countries left perpetrating this unfathomable cruelty. Greyhound racing must be banned. And, mark my words: on the back of people power, it will be banned. Senate adjourned at 19:36