2023-03-07 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 7 March 2023

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

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 1

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022

Second Reading 1 12:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Today I rise to speak on these three bills before the Senate that relate to the Prostheses List and private health insurance. This is the first step in the legislative process. These are the most comprehensive reforms to the Prostheses List that have ever been undertaken. These reforms come after more than four years of detailed work and collaboration by a number of people in the medical technology community with the former department and the former government. Stakeholders—MTAA, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Private Hospitals Association, Catholic Health Australia and the Consumer Health Forum—have all been engaged in this years-long process to get us where we are today to ensure that this reform package both helps private health insurers remain sustainable and protects patient access and doctor choice to this very important part of our medical sector—that is, the Prostheses List. Getting these reforms right is really important. That's why I make a particular point of thanking all of those people who have been involved in getting this debate to where it is to enable the start of the legislative process. We know that medical devices and medical technology have had a major impact across the health sector. There has been a 30 per cent decline in annual mortality rates in the last 20 years, an overall increase in life expectancy of 4.1 years, and a 56 per cent reduction in the number of hospital days per capita. This is extraordinary. These statistics are not just numbers; they actually relate to fathers, husbands, wives, children, friends and loved ones. It's really important that we pass this legislation as the process has been undertaken in great faith. These bills present the first tranche of the legislative changes required to actually implement a coalition 2021-22 budget measure—modernising and improving the private health insurance Prostheses List. It has been hard-fought. The coalition are absolutely happy to support the process and the progression of these bills because they do do some very important things. In saying that, whilst the importance of this legislation cannot be overstated, there are some real concerns about the fact that so much of the information that is needed to underpin the moving forward of this particular initiative is completely absent and nobody has any line of sight whatsoever. This sector has no line of sight, this Senate has no line of sight, certainly the opposition has no line of sight and, in a funny way, I'm actually quite concerned that those opposite don't have any line of sight because we have no information whatsoever. However, these three bills seek to do some reasonably sensible things. They ensure the ability to better define products that will be eligible to be on the list, they define the register levy and allow it to be implemented, and they better define the cost recovery framework that sits here. The coalition government is really pleased to be able to stand here today and talk about these bills, because I think our track record demonstrates that we have a really, really strong record when it comes to strengthening private health insurance in this country. We believe that it is a fundamental part of Australia's health system. When we left government, private health insurance membership was at an all-time high, with more than 14 million Australians being covered. Our reforms included the 2022 premium charge, which was the lowest increase in premiums in more than 21 years and the eighth successive decline in premium charges since the last year that Labor was in government in 2013. We also increased investment in the patient rebate for private health insurance from $5.4 billion in 2012-13 to $6.9 billion in 2022-23. We also implemented the new easy-to-understand gold, silver, bronze and basics classifications for private health, standard clinical definitions and better access to mental health services which, sadly, we've seen this government start to unwind. We know intrinsically that Labor governments are not great supporters of the private health insurance sector in this country, but I would encourage you to make sure that, when voting on these bills, we actually do support a very strong private health insurance sector because that is what makes our overall health sector so strong in Australia. We are the envy of the world because we've got the right balance between the private sector and the public sector so that we are able to offer that choice and control to Australian consumers when they are patients so that they can access the broadest range of choice in health care of just about anywhere in the world. But, as I mentioned a minute ago, the greatest problem with this legislation is the lack of transparency around the detail that sits behind it. There are certain key elements which aren't enabled by this bill and which we have no information on. Once again, we have a Labor government coming in here and rushing in legislation when they haven't actually done the work that sits behind it. The question has got to be: is this government incompetent or are they trying to hide something from Australian consumers by refusing to provide the information that would set the minds of most of us at rest, if we knew what was sitting behind this? There are a number of key areas of great concern that I particularly want to raise here today and put on the record. First of all, the cost recovery framework regulations and rules haven't even been out for consultation yet, and yet we are seeking to put in place the mechanism for cost recovery with this legislation. Another example is the definition of a medical device. In terms of the guidelines, we need to know what will be included in future on the Prostheses List. We know that this legislation enables the process by which, going forward, many items that are currently on the Prostheses List will be removed, so we need to know what will be included in the future. As an example, an insulin pump would not necessarily be categorised as an implantable device, but obviously it's a very, very important device for those people with diabetes. So we need to know where that particular product will be going to the future. Another area of great concern is that all, in relation to all of the items that have been removed from the Prostheses List by this streamlining—often described as 'non-implantables'—the minister has made a verbal statement that he is going to mandate the requirement for those particular items to be included in general use to enable them to continue to be part of the refunding from the private health insurers. We have a promise of inclusion, but at this stage we still do not know what that is going to look like. IHACPA, the pricing authority, is out consulting as we speak. It hasn't reported yet; it doesn't have to report until after the likely passing of this legislation today. So we don't know how that bundling is going to occur. I think we've got a reasonable idea that the Department of Health and IHACPA have a preferred model for care, for this bundling. It appears they have a preference for bundling by facility type, but we know that the sector knows that it is a much more targeted way to make sure that we have got the correct kind of refunding and cost mechanisms in place for bundling if they are done through a procedure bundling exercise instead of facility type. The minister said he's going to mandate the requirement for the cost inclusion of these items in general use for two years. The question then is: what happens after two years? Is the expectation that we're just going to set everybody against each other while they go and fight it out as to who is going to pay for these particular items that have been removed from the Prostheses List by this particular legislative framework? But one of the greatest concerns before us at the moment is around the time lines of the requirement for this bundling to come into effect. Industry have been categoric in saying they do not believe they will be in a position to implement these changes on 1 July 2023, which is the intention of this government. Once again, we have seen the rushing of a piece of legislation, to tick and flick something they said they were going to do, with no regard to the implications of those time frames on the people required to implement them. Most particularly, I don't think there has been any regard taken for the implications on patients, and the outcomes for patients and our overall health system, of the intention to push forward with this on 1 July. We now know that the minister is intending to speak to the IT vendors, who are the ones who will have to put this in place sometime between now and 1 July. Surely, Minister; surely, government; surely, health department; you should have had these things worked out before you came in here and asked this parliament to vote on something with no detail whatsoever and with huge concerns being raised by the sector that these details need to be known so they can understand whether they can meet the requirements that some of this legislation is intending to mandate. We've seen it before. We saw it with the aged-care bills, and now we're seeing it here with these healthcare bills. As I said, most particularly, we want to make sure that the implementation of this time frame does not have the catastrophic impacts on patients it could potentially have if it's forced through without any regard for what happens on the ground, what happens in the hospital and what happens to the patients. I'll be asking some of these questions because I believe the Greens are intending to take this bill into committee. There are some questions the government needs to answer here. First of all, the government needs to guarantee that, with the mechanisms we don't know about yet, the detail that sits behind this legislation that is only going to be under an instrument that can't even be disallowed—can you guarantee there will be no changes to surgeries that different hospitals are able to afford to deliver to their patients? Can you assure this chamber these changes are not going to have negative impacts on the ability for a hospital to provide a particular process or procedure as it currently is now? I will ask you a specific question—and I'd really like an answer to this, government: can you guarantee, as an example, that bariatric procedures will remain a cost-effective procedure for private hospitals to continue to provide to their patients, following the changes in terms of the implementation and the categorisation of both the cost framework and the bundling procedures? Will we just see many of the procedures that are currently being undertaken in public hospitals and private hospitals shoved into the public system because private hospitals will no longer be able to afford to provide these procedures? These are questions we need to have answered. We should have had these questions answered before we were asked to come in here and vote on this particular bill. Despite the fact that so many people in the sector have put so much time and effort into this reform process, we stand here today with so many unanswered questions that you should have been able to answer. You should have put the work in in relation to these uncertainties that the industry and the wider private health sector continue to raise about this proposed legislation. As I said, the industry have particular concerns that the enabling legislation will proceed without the critical details that they need to know to make sure that this is in the best interests of the patients that they serve. The legislation is currently to be undertaken between March and May. We're standing here at the beginning of March trying to push this through this place. Why are you rushing this legislation through, when you could have waited and allowed it to go through in a timely manner to ensure that no unintended consequences fall out of this rushed process? Why is it that you as a government continue to refuse to give us any oversight of the subordinate legislation that sits underneath this really important legislation? It might be all fine, but how would we know, because, once again, your idea of transparency is not to tell us anything. Your idea of consultation is to tell us what you're going to do. I would say to those opposite: the simplest approach to enable these concerns to be allayed across the broader sector would be to delay any further debate on these bills until May or June, after your consultation process has finished and we have confirmed details around the subordinate legislation. Right now, as we're standing here today, it looks as if we are going to make sure that good governance gets put to the bottom of the list, for legislative expediency. I don't think that's a very good way for us to be managing what is an extraordinarily important part of the Australian culture, something that Australians are so very proud of, our world-class health system. Sure, it's got some challenges at the moment, but those challenges will only be made worse by this government refusing to give any detail around what their intention is around the details of this sort of legislation. It has become a habit of this place, a habit of this government. It was elected on a platform of transparency, and I can say to you that, in my experience as the shadow minister for health and aged care, this government has been anything but transparent since it's been here. I have never seen such an opaque government in my entire life. 12:17 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I want to start by indicating that the Australian Greens will be supporting the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 and the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022. We do so while recognising that private health insurance is out of reach for too many people in Australia, and we acknowledge that the subsidy that this government provides to private health insurance corporations would be better spent and would better achieve health outcomes if we invested that money into the public healthcare system. As stated in the second reading amendment that I will be moving on behalf of the Australian Greens, those in our Australian community who can afford private health insurance, which is increasing in cost again this year, are experiencing a system which is expensive but which ultimately delivers them faster access to health care. The inherent and growing inequality at the centre of this equation is astounding. We are creeping ever closer to an American-style healthcare system, and the Australian value of getting health care for free when you need it is getting further and further out of reach for so many. We've got to ask ourselves a fundamental question in this debate: why? I have learnt, in this space, that, when something seems out of place, out of step, in this political building, in the decision-making processes of this place, when the government—whether it's the Liberal government or the Labor government—is making a decision that is fundamentally out of step with the needs of the community or what is in the community's best interests, there is often corporate money involved. And, lo and behold, the decision to not adequately resource our public hospitals, the decision to support an increase in private health insurance fees and the decision not to take immediate action to expand mental healthcare services to bring them under Medicare could, I believe, be firmly put down to the over $2 million of income the major parties received from private health insurers and pharmaceutical companies in the 2021-22 financial year. In this current cost-of-living crisis, we need to see more from this government—more in relation to the expansion of public healthcare systems. We need to see changes to the way that our public health system works to meet the community expectation and the community need. What I hear from people across WA is that, instead of their private health insurance fees increasing, they want to see mental and dental health under Medicare. Let's take a deep dive for a moment into the reality of the current dental health crisis. Only 42 per cent of people between the ages of 25 and 34 have been able to go to the dentist in the last year. We know that people are delaying addressing ongoing dental issues because, instead, they need to do things like pay their rents as they increase, and they simply cannot afford to go to the dentist to get that urgent dental work done. Of those who can afford to make it to the dentist, nearly a quarter are not able to afford fully treating the problem. In 2019, there were 70,000 hospitalisations from dental conditions that could have been avoided. They could have been avoided. These are people that ended up in hospital when there would have been no reason for them to be there if they had simply been able to receive dental treatment earlier. Nearly 9,000 of those cases were in my state of Western Australia. On average, an Australian will spend $326 in out-of-pocket dental costs per year, nearly seven times what the government pays on average, per capita, in terms of subsidies to dental health care. These stats are a snapshot of why I dearly wish that the parliament was working on a bill to pass dental care into Medicare today. As for mental health care, we have, again, a familiar story. People are unable to get the mental health supports that they need right now. Services are not available locally. There are very long waiting lists, or there are simply closed books. And, if you can get onto somebody's books, if you can get in to see someone, cost is then an additional barrier. What does Labor do in response to this reality, the crisis of mental health care in this country, particularly in the aftermath of one of the worst periods of crisis in this country that we have seen in many years in relation to the healthcare system? It has pushed incredible weight upon people's mental health. The reality is that, for young people in Australia, there is an absolute and total mental health care crisis in this country. It is unparalleled in its history. So what does Labor do in response to this absolute reality? They have stopped the 20 subsidies in the Better Access healthcare scheme, and they have wound them back to 10. Let me say that again. In the face of a mental health care crisis overwhelmingly falling on the shoulders of young people, this Labor government has decided to wind back the 20-session subsidy under the Better Access scheme to 10 sessions. It is absolutely unbelievable. The reason they've given for this disgraceful decision is some mumblings about capacity in the system. They've referenced reports and reviews, even though those reports and reviews do not, in fact, recommend rolling back the 20 sessions; they recommended the augmentation of the system. So, in the face of these reports and realities, and endless submissions from mental-health-care peak groups, this government rolled back those subsidies and blamed it on capacity. And when anyone calls them out on the absolute nonsense of that—the disconnected, illogical nature of looking at massive unmet need in the system and responding by constraining access—this government looks you in the face and says: 'Well, we've got to balance the budget; we've got to make sure the books add up,' while, at the same time, they give a quarter of a trillion dollars to some of the richest people in this country, in the form of the stage 3 tax cuts. It's absolutely disgusting! In no other area of Australian public policy would it be acceptable to respond to an increase in need by constraining access and then claiming that you're doing the right thing by the community that is demonstrating that increased need. Addressing the cost-of-living barriers is exactly what this government should be doing, by expanding the system so that people can get what they need, when they need it, where they are, without that being determined by them having to choose—having the luxury of choosing!—between health care or mental health care and paying their rent. These are basic expectations of the Australian community. Australians should not have to rely on private health insurance to get timely access to health care. It is time to prioritise public health care and to get dental and mental health into Medicare, where they have always belonged. And it is time to get this done now. This is what Australia needs. This is what the Greens will continue to work on, until people are able to access this relief and until these goals are achieved. In closing, I move the second reading amendment standing on the Notice Paper in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) the Australian Government has announced that, on average, private health insurance premiums will increase in April 2023 by 2.9%, (ii) the Australian community is relying on private health insurance policies to avoid delays in the public system, which is underfunded and in crisis, (iii) the major parties received nearly $2 million from private health insurers and pharmaceutical companies in their party annual returns for the 2021-22 financial year, (iv) the community perceives a link between donations to political parties and their policy priorities; and (b) is of the opinion that the Australian community should not have to rely on private health insurance to access health care in a timely manner". 12:27 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Before I deal with some of the details of the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, I would like to counter some of the remarks of Senator Steele-John. I know that, when he comes into this place, he is always sincere, he is always passionate and he believes everything he says in this place—there can be no doubt about that. But let me say this. The best strength of our healthcare system in Australia, and what makes us different from other countries, is the strength of both our private health system and our public health system. Each buttresses the other. If this country were ever to undermine the strength of our private health system, it would be a disaster—an absolute disaster for those who need to access the public health system. Let me give you one example from my home state of Queensland which I think summarises the position extremely well. In 2012, on dental health lists in the public system in Queensland there were 62,513 people. There were more than 62,000 Queenslanders who'd tried to access dental health care in Queensland under the previous Labor government, before the LNP government was elected in 2012. That's 62,513 Queenslanders. Some had been on that waiting list for up to 10 years. In 10 years, they couldn't access the public health system. The LNP government was elected in 2012. Within two years, how many people were on the public health system waiting list for dental health care? Remember: it was over 62,000. Was it 20,000? No; fewer. Was it 10,000? No; fewer. Was it 500? No; fewer. There were none—none. In two years, that waiting list had been taken from 62,513 to zero. How? By leveraging the private health system—by the government giving people vouchers so they could go and see a private-sector dentist and get their teeth fixed. Within two years no-one was on that dental healthcare waiting list—not a single person. That is the power of having a system which mobilises the private health system. Those who can afford it, such as myself, get private health insurance, and if we don't get it we're punished under our tax system. And that's the way it should be, to make sure that our public health system is there and available for those who are most vulnerable. In my home state of Queensland, there are 2,354,000 Queenslanders with private health insurance. I say to each and every one of those Queenslanders it would be a disaster, an absolute disaster, if this country adopted the Greens policy. This was their policy, and I've got it here: the Greens policy from the last federal election was to abolish the private health insurance rebate. That was the Greens policy. It would be a disaster. We would see waiting lists far in excess of that 62,513 if we abolished that healthcare rebate. We all know, and the people in the gallery will know, for friends and family it's nearly their No. 1 priority to make sure they have got their private health insurance coverage. Many pensioners, many people on retirement incomes, scrimp and save to make sure they have got that private health insurance, and they deserve a rebate. They deserve to be rewarded by that insurance rebate, and those of us in higher income brackets deserve to be punished if we don't have private health insurance. That is how we get the best outcomes in our healthcare system—the public system working together with the private system. It will be a disaster for the people of this country if we ever change that system and rely simply on a public healthcare system, which is what the Greens are advocating. That is what they're advocating. It will be a disaster for the most vulnerable of Australians, and I will certainly make sure, up to the next election, that people who voted Green at the last federal election in my home state of Queensland—in the seats of Ryan, Brisbane and Griffith—know that the Greens policy is to abolish the amount you get back for getting private health insurance coverage. I will make sure that every one of those of voters knows that the Greens are coming after their private health insurance rebate. The Greens don't believe in the private health system. They're coming after your private health insurance rebate. I will make sure I remind those Queenslanders every day between now and the next federal election that the Greens are coming after their private health insurance rebate, because I think it would be a disaster for the health system in this country if the Greens were successful in what is clearly, patently, an ideological obsession against private providers of anything. It's an ideological obsession which would be a disaster for the most vulnerable in our community. Having made those introductory comments, I'll move now to some of the particulars of the legislation in this case. The coalition, of course, supports this legislation. It reflects much of the work that was done by the coalition government. This is an example of an orderly transition in our democratic government, with policies which were introduced by a prior government being continued under the next government where they're in the best interests of the Australian people. It is something we should acknowledge. There are concerns, however, with respect to the lack of detail in the legislation. As senators know, I have a particular concern, wherever it applies, when there isn't sufficient detail in the legislation to understand how a system is going to work in practice. On this occasion, there are a number of areas where the legislation is lacking, and we haven't seen all the regulations and delegated legislation which actually put the meat on the bones in terms of a lot of this legislation and how it will operate in practice. There are some significant issues which are going to be dealt with in regulations that we haven't seen yet, and, as we all know, the devil is often in the detail. These are some of the issues: eligibility criteria with respect to the crucial health items that fall within this legislation, listing pathways, specifications for the calculations of cost recovery, regrouping and payments for removal items et cetera. Bear in mind that, with respect to this legislation, those who are providing private health insurance, private health coverage and these sorts of services and items in the Australian community were given less than one week to consider the draft legislation—less than one week. We need to do better than that, surely. The concern I have is that when legislation is introduced in a rush there are always unintended consequences. The devil is always in the detail. There are fundamental concerns about the process with respect to this legislation and how it's made its way into the Senate. The bills provide little detail about the extent or specificity of the powers to be implemented through unsighted subordinate legislative instruments and mechanisms. We just don't know the powers that underlie this legislation. Who's going to exercise those powers? What are going to be the ramifications of those powers? It's also done in regulation, which means this chamber has less opportunity to oversee that legislation and to assert our will and our concerns through disallowance procedures. Our opposition shadow minister, the Hon. Senator Anne Ruston, raised specific concerns and asked a particular question. I'll put that particular question here again today: are there going to be any changes to the ability of private health hospitals, private institutions, to provide particular surgeries and undertake particular procedures? Let me put it this way: will a private hospital undertaking a type of surgery today be able to do it tomorrow, once the regulations come into effect? Now, that's a pretty basic question. What is going to be the impact of the regulations on private hospitals in terms of the surgery they can undertake? Are they going to be prevented, through the operation of the regulations, from doing a procedure tomorrow that they can do today? That's the sort of detail we should have as we're discussing this legislation. But, because so much of the detail—and this happens again and again in this place—is going be buried in regulations, senators from all jurisdictions, all the states and the territories, aren't going to have the ability, transparency and visibility to identify particular concerns for their constituents. The system shouldn't work that way. We should have that visibility and transparency so we can raise legitimate concerns with respect to how this legislation is going to work in practice. But at the moment we just don't have that visibility, and I think the government should reflect on that. It is simply not good enough. It is not good enough for draft legislation to be released by the government of the day—and I don't care of which political persuasion—and for key stakeholders to only have one week to actually give feedback on that draft legislation. If there are unintended consequences, as invariably there are—no-one's perfect—then the only way we can introduce in this place legislation which is effective, which is efficient and which protects the interests of all Australians is to have a genuine consultation process with respect to the draft legislation so that we can get the views of those who know the most about how legislation like this applies in practice. This chamber and the Australian people have been denied this opportunity because this legislation has been so rushed. In this legislation, we can also see one of my key bugbears in this place. We have subordinate legislation which is going to be introduced, potentially, and there are questions over whether or not that subordinate legislation is going to be subject to disallowance. This is, again, unacceptable from my perspective. Any subordinate legislation and any regulations which are going to impact rights, liberties, freedoms and opportunities, which are going to have any negative impact on Australians and their interests, should be subject to disallowance in this place. They should be subject to any of us as senators introducing a vote, saying, 'This isn't good enough,' and prosecuting our arguments on the floor of this chamber and trying to persuade a majority of our colleagues to our view. We should have the opportunity to have that debate with respect to regulations that can have such a serious impact on the lives of Australians. With that, I certainly do support the intent behind this legislation. I do have material concerns with respect to how that intent is going to be translated into the regulations, because those regulations could have a material impact on Australians seeking particular surgery in the private health sphere. We need to have detail with respect to that. In conclusion, the strength of our health system is built on two foundations: the strength of our private health system and the strength of our public health system. We get the best health outcomes for all Australians when we have both a strong private health system and a strong public health system. I say to those Queenslanders who voted Green at the last federal election, 'We will be reminding you, between now and the next election, that the Greens are coming after your private health insurance rebate.' That will be a disaster for many thousands of people. Over two million Queenslanders have private health insurance. In my view it will also be a disaster for our public health system because a successful Australian health system depends on a strong private system and a strong public system. 12:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to offer a brief contribution on these health bills and on the topic of private health insurance more generally. As Senator Scarr has pointed out, we do have a health system that is a mix of public and private health care. Our tax system actively incentivises many Australians to hold private health insurance. In fact, from the most recent statistics that I can see, well over half of us now have private health insurance. That number has been growing since the pandemic. People obviously value their health and they are taking up private health insurance. Given these incentives and the potential extra tax for not having private health insurance, I feel that we as a parliament have a duty to ensure that the system is working efficiently and is delivering the care that Australians need. The system clearly has its challenges. A range of commentators have expressed various views, but it's really important that we remember this is affecting the lives of Australians. People feel the effects when the system, whether it is private or public, doesn't work for them. This is something I hear a lot about from my community here in the ACT. People are frustrated with what they see at times as a lack of value. I'll give you one example. I recently heard from a gentleman living in the south of Canberra. He had been to have a treatment at a prosthodontist. It cost him $1,500. He was reimbursed just $57 by his fund, despite having paid, he estimates, around $47,000 in premiums over the last 15 years. I don't claim to know the specifics of this case and the level of coverage he had, but it's hard to see that this gentleman received value for his investment in this specific interaction. For the last 15 years he has been paying over $3,000 and is out of pocket $1,400 for a procedure. Each year the ACCC delivers to the Senate a report highlighting some of the key trends in private health insurance. I thought I would highlight some of the figures that stood out to me in their 2020-21 report. The average gap expense for hospital treatment increased by 9.5 per cent on the previous year. It has increased by 23 per cent over the last five years. Private health insurance management costs have increased by eight per cent, or about $200 million. That's an extra $200 million in salaries, management costs and bonuses. At the same time, the number of exclusionary policies grew by 150,000 policies or around 4.6 per cent. According to the ACCC, this is part of a long-term trend which has seen the number of policies with exclusions grow from 28.7 per cent in 2012 to 61.3 per cent today, which is likely a function of people cancelling top cover and opting for low-cost, basic policies to avoid the added tax expenses. However, in some good news, the industry appears to be making good on their promise not to profit from the pandemic and has reported returning a total of $2.1 billion to consumers up to 30 June last year. It's also worth noting that premium increases have generally been lower over the past couple of years—certainly lower than inflation. However, the cost of living is really hurting Australians at the moment, and every percentage point matters. From the insights delivered by the ACCC, it's clear that the system is just not working as hard as it can for patients. It can work harder. That brings me to these prostheses benefits that are the topic of the bills before us today. I've spent a number of weeks delving into this legislation and some of the complexities. I can report that it is, indeed, a complex area of policy. It's a system that seems to be quite precariously balancing a number of interests. Last year, the government entered into a four-year agreement with the medical technology industry to drive savings on prostheses benefits. Prostheses benefits will now reduce over the next four years and will be aligned with public sector prices. However, the prices won't be able to fall below a seven per cent floor; they will have to be seven per cent higher than in the public system. It should be noted that the ACCC has raised some concerns with these arrangements in their report: While the ACCC welcomes efforts to reduce the underlying cost of prostheses, the ACCC notes that the MoU's floor on prostheses benefit reductions is likely to have some distortionary impacts on prices for medical devices in private healthcare. I understand this is a complex system and there are many different factors to take into account. In some instances, it's very hard to compare what's happening in the public system with the private system. But, putting that aside, these savings that have been committed to—around $900 million, almost a billion dollars of savings on the table over the next four years from the medical technology industry—should be delivered to consumers. I have drafted an amendment that would mean that there is an update to the longstanding OPD where the ACCC reports into private health. It would simply look at how much of these savings are being realised from this agreement, and how much of them are being passed on to consumers, which is something that I think this parliament has a duty to do. When these sorts of savings are put on the table for consumers, we can put processes in place that actually check on them and make sure that they are flowing. We can't have a system where large deals are agreed to by government and then have no scrutiny. There really is no point in having this generous offer of almost a billion dollars over four years and it not flowing to consumers. People who are paying their premiums every month for themselves, their partner or for their whole family deserve to see a share of that almost $1 billion in savings. I have circulated an amendment. I believe it is a very minor one; it is simply adding a little bit more scrutiny. I would hope that the Senate will support it. I do not see a good reason not to support transparency measures, given this generous deal that we've seen that is going to deliver these savings. I'd also like, just finally, to raise some concerns around the lack of visibility of the delegated legislation. Senator Scarr has also raised this. As a new parliamentarian, I've been pretty shocked, frankly, at how much is done by delegated legislation from ministers. I understand that's how it's done, but there should be scrutiny of that. Ideally we'd have the ability to debate it and potentially amend it here in the Senate, but, if there are bills that simply allow delegated legislation, I really believe that there should be visibility over that delegated legislation so we can have a look at it and have the debate in this context, rather than having to try and use what is the very blunt instrument of disallowance. For me, the first option is certainly preferable. Being on the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I really would echo Senator Scarr's concerns around non-disallowable instruments. Parliamentarians are elected by their electorate, or by their state or territory, to scrutinise legislation, and to have a system where there are a whole range of things that are non-disallowable doesn't make sense to me. To me, it doesn't pass the pub test when it comes to politicians being elected to represent the people that vote for them. I support this legislation. I foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment, which I commend to the Senate. I really believe that it would add a layer of scrutiny without slowing up or affecting what is proposed at all. 12:52 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank the senators for their contributions to the debate on these private health insurance amendment bills. This package of bills supports the implementation of a 2021-22 budget measure, modernising and improving the private health insurance Prostheses List. As other senators have observed, it arises after an extended period of consideration and reform. These bills represent the first tranche of legislative change required to fully implement measures that will support modernising and improving the private health insurance Prostheses List. The first bill is the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022. This bill inserts definitions of medical devices and human tissue products into the legislation, which will better define the kinds of products that, along with additional criteria contained in the legislative instrument, will be considered eligible for set benefits from private health insurers. The bill also provides for the renamed Private Health Insurance (Medical Devices and Human Tissue Products) Rules. This new name is reflective of the modernised and amended scope of the legislation. The bill also updates the cost recovery arrangements to support predictable and sustainable fee-for-service arrangements. The second bill is the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022. This bill provides for levies payable by medical technology sponsors for the listing of medical devices and human tissue products. These levies are essential as they allow the department to administer the listings in a financially sustainable and appropriate manner. The third bill is the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022, which is machinery in nature only and does not change any current requirements or obligations. These bills will modernise and improve administrative processes and cost recovery arrangements. They are long-awaited improvements that will assist in keeping downward pressure on private health insurance premiums by reducing the costs associated with medical devices and human tissue products. I note the report from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, and the government has circulated an amendment for the committee stage which goes to that. We would expect to speak to that in the committee stag I note, too, the second reading amendments that have been moved and foreshadowed during the course of the debate. The government is not supportive of these amendments. I want to particularly speak to second reading amendment 1826. We are aware that some stakeholders report practices between hospitals and sponsors that may constitute anticompetitive behaviour. These are usually investigated by the ACCC, supported by a body of evidence that can support the claims. The ACCC establishes an annual program of work, and any inquiry into the Prostheses List would be subject to the priorities of the ACCC. Given that such an inquiry would take some time to establish and report following a reference from the Treasurer, the government is committed to shorter-term reforms that will make a significant impact. A key component of the Prostheses List reform is the development of a new compliance framework. This will include standard regulatory regime provisions for effective monitoring, investigation, referral and enforcement. Essential to the compliance framework is the ability to gather information from stakeholders and to share information with relevant regulators on matters of noncompliance, and the ACCC and the TGA are key regulators for referring matters of noncompliance. The government is working to introduce legislation in the spring sittings to establish the compliance framework for safeguarding the Prostheses List. In the meantime, a number of existing laws continue to apply to Prostheses List stakeholders. These include: the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, which regulates the supply and advertising of therapeutic goods, including medical devices; the Australian Consumer Law, which deals with misleading or deceptive conduct in trade and commerce; and the Criminal Code, which deals with providing false or misleading information to Commonwealth entities. We consider these mechanisms appropriate while the broader reforms are being rolled out. In relation to the motion circulated and moved by Senator Steele-John: all Australians deserve access to affordable treatment and medical devices to stay healthy and to live full and productive lives. Private health insurance works with our public healthcare system to offer Australians more choice in health services and encourages those Australians who can afford to do so to contribute to the cost of their own health care, taking some of the pressure off public hospital systems and waiting lists. More than half the Australian population—about 14½ million people—have private health insurance. Australians, it seems, want to exercise choice about their health care. Private health insurers must ensure their members are getting value for money. When costs rise, they want to know higher premiums are contributing to system-wide improvements like higher wages for nurses and other health workers. As I indicated, all Australians deserve access to affordable treatment and the devices they need to stay healthy and to live full and productive lives. In closing, I again thank senators for their contributions and for the courteous spirit in which the debate took place. I commend the bill to the Senate. (Quorum formed) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [13:04]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Polley)

13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Antic, A. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. 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. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:07 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add "and that the order of the Senate of 25 March 1999, relating to an order for the production of periodic reports by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on private health insurance, be varied as follows: (1) There be laid on the table as soon as practicable after the end of each period of 12 months ending on or after 30 June 2023, a report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission containing an assessment of any anticompetitive or other practices by health funds or providers which reduce the extent of health cover for consumers and increase their out-of-pocket medical and other expenses. (2) Each report must also include: (a) an assessment of the savings on prostheses that are being achieved through the operation of the Memorandum of Understanding for the policy parameters of the Prostheses List Reforms between the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Medical Technology Association of Australia, signed on 14 March 2022; and (b) an assessment of the extent to which these savings are being passed onto consumers by private health insurers.". The ACTING DEPUT e5x The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [13:09]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Polley)

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. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payne, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

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

 In Committee 11 13:13 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved to the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022. 13:13 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I would like to get a better idea of the time frames that are sitting around the additional information around the time frame in which the new bundling arrangements are to come into place. Could the minister advise when we expect to have an idea of the mechanism of the bundling and the timing of that bundling? 13:14 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm advised that two weeks ago we initiated consultation on these questions. It's expected that that consultation will run for another six weeks. Sometime after that the government will be in a position to make public the relevant information. The bills commence on 1 July. 13:14 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm wondering if the minister could advise whether the substantive minister has had any issues raised by the sector as to the ability for the IT changes that are going to be necessary to enable the change in the bundling application by 1 July. I'm wondering whether you've had any concerns raised by the sector about your ability to meet those time frames. 13:15 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Ruston, thanks again for the question and apologies for taking time to consult officials. I am advised that the bundling issues that you refer to are not in fact contained in this bill but that they are being dealt with through a separate process. 13:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Could you give us an idea about the time frame of the requirements in relation to bundling? Is it 1 July or is it not until September? 13:15 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I am advised that the relevant time period is the second half of this year, of course, after 1 July. 13:16 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia In relation to the changes that are going to take effect as a result of this particular legislation, in relation to the levy and, obviously, the changes to the cost recovery framework—I suppose they're the two main components—what requirements does the government believe that industry will have to put in place by 1 July? 13:16 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I wonder if you could be more specific about the kinds of changes you're contemplating, because— Senator Ruston 243273 I'm not contemplating any changes. Senator McALLISTER 121628 You are seeking information about certain steps that you believe may need to be taken by industry, and I'm wondering if you could elucidate what they are. 13:17 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The industry has expressed concerns to me that they have IT requirements that they will need to put in place by 1 July in order to meet the requirements of this legislation. I'm wondering whether that's correct or not. 13:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The advice I have is that that is not correct. 13:17 Sena 256136 Australian Capital Territory tor DAVID POCOCK () (): I'm seeking an explanation from the government as to why you don't want the ACCC to report on whether these savings are going to be passed onto consumers. There's $900 million on the table from the med-tech industry. My amendment didn't touch this bill at all; all it said was: 'Here's some transparency around what happens to that $900 million.' 13:18 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks for the question, Senator Pocock. I did step through that in my second reading remarks, but I am happy to touch on it in brief terms again. I think, for a number of reasons, we didn't support the Senate making a direction of this kind. The first reason is that, essentially, this power exists with the ACCC. The Treasurer has a capacity to require an inquiry of this kind, but, in the end, the ACCC has a capacity for investigation, and they establish their priorities according to their resources and the issues before them. I think the second one was really about time frames. There is a new compliance framework being developed. It includes the ability to gather information from stakeholders and share information with relevant regulators on matters of noncompliance. There is a framework which is being brought forward. In the meantime, as I indicated in the second reading remarks, there are a number of existing powers which apply to participants in this market. 13:19 Senator DAVID POC 256136 Australian Capital Territory OCK () (): To follow on from that, I understand that there is a longstanding OPD for the ACCC to report to the Senate on a number of things regarding private health insurance. Given there's a new agreement, with $900 million on the table and people keen to ensure they're getting value for money with their premiums, why can't we at least know if that money is being passed on, given the ACCC is looking at this anyway? 13:20 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you for the question, Senator Pocock. I'm advised that the issues that you are raising interact in complicated ways with the health portfolio because, of course, the ACCC is a Treasury agency. The public sector advisers who are here to provide advice today in the Senate are drawn from the health department. However, I think Minister Gallagher would be happy to have a further discussion with you about this, but we would need some time to obtain the necessary advice. 13:21 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia In relation to the decision to take a number of items off the Prostheses List and put them into general-use bundling, the Clinical Implementation Reference Group went through a process to make a decision on these particular items. I'm wondering if there's any brief summary you can give us on the determination of those items. There must have been some sort of clinical definition as to why they were removed, and I'm wondering whether it's possible to get the meeting papers in relation to the removal of those items. 13:21 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks very much, Senator Ruston. If I may, I'll take the question about the papers on notice. We will review them and see what may be appropriately provided. 13:22 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia On that basis, does the CIRG have an ongoing role—either in the short term or in the longer term—in relation to not just what is currently included or not included on the Prostheses List but what happens into the future in terms of exclusions and inclusions? 13:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Ruston. I'm advised that they only have a role for the duration of the reforms, which will end in 2025. 13:22 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia We could take up more time if we keep doing this! I'm wondering if you could provide an update as to where this current situation is in relation to the alternative funding arrangements and mechanisms in relation to these items that are now going to go into general use. 13:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Ruston, I understand from your question that you're referring to the bundling. I refer to my earlier answer, which indicated that there's a consultation process on foot at the moment, which I understand will extend for approximately six weeks. 13:23 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Is there any truth in the view that the department's preferred mechanism for bundling is by facility type? 13:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm advised that the consultation paper makes reference to three options. It indicates a preferred option, and that is the option that you have referred to just now. 13:24 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Could you advise whether your early consultations have provided a result that would indicate that, more broadly, the industry and the sector are seeking for bundling to be done by procedure, not by facility type? 13:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The consultation process, as I've indicated, has just begun. We intend to let that take its course before drawing any conclusions about the preferences of stakeholders. 13:24 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia That's interesting: you have the preference of the department already out there and trying to lead the consultation, yet you haven't sought to find out the preferred mechanism of your stakeholders, the very people who are required to actually implement these changes. So that is disappointing. The minister announced in December that the alternative payment structure, whatever it happens to be, would be mandated. Can you advise how long it will be mandated for? 13:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Ruston, I missed the specific nature of the question. Were you asking how long? The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x Senator Ruston, do you want to clarify that for us? 13:25 Senator 243273 South Australia RUSTON (—) (): Thank you. In December, when questioned in relation to the removing of these particular items into the general use bucket, the minister said, in response to their funding, that the payment of them by the insurers would be mandated. I'm just keen to understand the intended length of time for that mandate. 13:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator, I think we need to take that question on notice, and we'll see what we can find for you. 13:26 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you, Minister. You may need to take this on notice as well: I'm just keen to understand what the legislative or regulatory process would be to implement the mandate that I've asked you to find out about. 13:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you. In similar terms, we'll take that on notice and see what information we can provide you, Senator Ruston. 13:27 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you. I'm wondering whether the department has assessed the impact on specific procedures as a result of these removals. 13:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Ruston. The questions you're asking go to matters that are really beyond the scope of the bill before us. I accept that they are related and associated with the ongoing reform process. In this question, again, we may need to come back to you and assess what may be appropriately provided. 13:28 Se 243273 South Australia nator RUSTON (—) (): Thank you. I accept that you've taken it on notice, but I think what I'm trying to get to is the very nature of the fact that we have before us this bill that actually provides a whole series of enabling capabilities for the government to do things, not the least of which is the removal from the Prostheses List of in excess of 400 items that now have to be dealt with by an alternative funding model. Obviously, this is of significant concern more broadly because it could potentially have very significant impacts on the delivery of services. I accept that you're not the minister—you're a representing minister—and I appreciate you want to take these on notice, but, given that this bill is going to come back a little bit later this afternoon or maybe tomorrow, I'd really appreciate being able to understand whether you've actually assessed the impacts of how you might proceed in dealing with the funding or the payment of these particular items as it impacts on actual procedures. As an example, I asked in my speech in the second reading debate: can you guarantee that bariatric procedures, which use a significant number of the items that will be transferred off the Prostheses List into this new general use area, will remain cost-effective for delivery by private hospitals through this insurance mechanism following the changes? The thing that I think everybody is wanting to find out about what's going on here is whether the procedures that are currently being undertaken are not going to be detrimentally impacted by the changes. That's all we're seeking to understand, so it's concerning that we're standing here today without having that information. We're about to get gonged because we're going to the next stage of procedure in this place, so I look forward to perhaps being a bit more detailed when we come back. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x As it is 1.30 pm, the committee will report to the Senate. Progress reported. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 13 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Swan Valley 13 13:30 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Today I rise to talk about a hidden gem of Western Australia: Swan Valley. I recently had the pleasure of showcasing the Swan Valley to Kevin Hogan, the shadow minister for trade and tourism. The valley, of course, is in the electorate of Hasluck. It was a day of flowers, chocolate and great wine. The Swan Valley is just a short 30-minute drive from Perth's CBD. It was my pleasure to showcase where vines were first planted in Western Australia nearly 200 years ago. Our first stop was the award-winning Swan Valley Visitor Centre, where we received a briefing on the history of the valley and information on the 150-plus wineries, breweries, distilleries and, of course, fine restaurants. I thank the City of Swan very much for your very warm welcome. Our second stop was an amazing small business—actually, not so small anymore—called Wafex. This extraordinary family business, through passion and multiple generations of hard work, now has over 100 staff, and they're distributing Aussie flowers to 25 countries globally. Our next stop was the magical Margaret River Chocolate Company and also Providore, which is well-known to all Western Australians in Margaret River, but not many know that there is also a factory and an outlet in the Swan Valley. Not only did we purchase our Easter goodies; we also got to see how the magic is made and how chocolate Easter eggs and their many other delicacies are made. It's a must for any— Senator Ciccone 281503 Did you bring some back? Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Senator Ciccone, I'll bring some next time for colleagues here in the chamber. It is a must for anyone visiting Perth and the Swan Valley. Our last stop was lunch at the iconic Sandalford Wines, an historic winery, restaurant and major events venue. It's one of the many wineries in the valley and a mainstay of any winery tour of the valley. I cannot endorse it more. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Your time has expired. No chocolate; no proof of being there! Clean Up Australia Day 14 13:32 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland A couple of days ago, on Sunday 5 March, it was Clean Up Australia Day. This is an annual event that sees thousands of Australians get out and about in their communities to clean up, fix up and conserve our environment. It's the good old-fashioned power of people. It's a recreational fishing group removing marine debris. It's school students keeping their neighbourhood clean and tidy. It's tree planting groups removing litter from a local reserve. It's no different in my neck of the woods in Far North Queensland, where we are lucky enough to have both the wet tropics rainforests and the Great Barrier Reef on our doorstep. Just this weekend the Hekili Outrigger Canoe Club, based out of Yorkeys Knob, held their own clean-up event, and it was very well attended. We know the challenge of cleaning up at these events is a positive, practical action that makes a difference to the health of our planet, but that challenge goes far beyond one day. I also know that there are individuals, groups and businesses right across this country that are doing their bit day in, day out to help. As Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, I see this commitment every single day in our communities, with groups like the Tangaroa Blue foundation, who I was fortunate enough to join forces with recently to host a community beach clean, alongside the Dawul Wuru rural rangers and local residents. We removed over 33 kilograms of rubbish from a local beach and waterway that feeds directly into the Great Barrier Reef. I am incredibly proud of these groups and the work that they do. I'm also proud that as a Labor government we've got straight to work to restore our environmental credibility, to recognise the value of our natural environment and to take real action on climate change. We couldn't do it without the community on the ground. We will back their commitment with real action, and we're seeing that already. Just a few months ago, Australia signed a strong determination to end plastic pollution around the world. (Time expired) Asylum Seekers 14 13:34 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Two hours ago I walked out onto the lawns of Parliament House and met with hundreds of my fellow Australians who don't have all the privileges that we in this place usually take for granted. The people on the lawns were angry—they felt powerless, and they felt that no-one cared about or was listening to them. They were people who have sought asylum here in Australia, risking their lives to free themselves from oppressive regimes in places such as Afghanistan, Iran, Syria. Most had been locked up here in Australia or offshore for many years just for exercising their right to seek refuge. Many have had fast-tracked visa applications rejected unfairly, and now they exist on temporary or bridging visas, with children not permitted to attend university, some not able to access Medicare, not able to bring their ageing parents to join them here. Karima from Melbourne said to me that she and her family had been in limbo for the past 11 years and have never felt settled in this country that they wish to call home. They feel betrayed by the government. Some shared photos they'd taken with a smiling Andrew Giles soon after the election. And despite some changes promised by the government, 10 months on thousands of people are continuing to live in so much pain. I promised them that I would continue to speak out on their behalf, for speedy processing of their visas, for their rights to study, to work, to health care and to bring their ageing parents here to be with them. Above all I call on the government to listen to and to treat the families I met this morning with care and humanity as fellow human beings, rather than political problems. To Karima, Hayder, Hussein, Rocyia, Zainab, Ibrahim and everyone I met morning I say: I care, the Greens care, and we will keep fighting for you until justice is achieved for you. Welcome to Country Ceremonies 15 13:36 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Welcome to country ceremonies are now as ubiquitous as they are inescapable. Australians are forced to sit through these rituals everywhere from the commencement of parliament to school assemblies. They're now more common than singing our national anthem, and, far from being an ancient practice, these rituals began to be used by progressive activists in the early 2000s. The practice suggests that Australians whose families have lived here for generations, possibly since settlement, are not welcome. The welcome to country is nothing more than something wealthy city people love to do to make themselves feel good. All Australians have the right to call this country home, but the activists and bureaucratic classes want division as it perpetuates the victimhood mindset that they use to manipulate people. By the way, when is reconciliation actually going to be achieved? What does it look practically? Will it be achieved when we have a treaty, when Australians are paying some sort of rent tax, or perhaps when there is a new Indigenous nation that will further divide Australians? The answer is that activists will never be happy, and we all know it because bitterness and resentment are their bread and butter, so next time you're asked to participate in one of the ceremonies remember that, despite what they say, refusing doesn't make you a racist. Here's my memo to the grievance industry: thanks for the virtue theatre, but, like most Australians, I'm sick and tired of been welcomed to my own country. Trucking Industry 15 13:38 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Hundreds of truck drivers and their families are marching on Aldi stores around Australia today, demanding that Aldi take responsibility for the crisis in their supply chain. Already 45 people have died in truck crashes this year, including 10 truck drivers. Last week we saw the collapse of one of the largest cold chain logistics companies in Australia, Scott's Refrigerated Logistics. Scott's had revenues last year of half a billion dollars, but their margins were so razor thin that they were not able to survive. John Waltis, a driver at Scott's, said: 'Myself and 1,500 others just lost our jobs at Scott's because of the squeeze on transport contracts from the top. One of my mates had just had a baby and now he's lost his job. Retailers like Aldi are responsible for this.' Economic pressure from Audi, Amazon and others like them have squeezed margins and drivers quite literally to their deaths to meet another trucking cost. Many drivers are forced to overwork, speed and delayed maintenance just to make ends meet—45 deaths, 1,500 jobs lost, countless families ripped apart. However, Coles and Woolworths have committed to safe and sustainable supply-chain practices, and I commend them for turning around and taking those steps. But Aldi and Amazon are standing by their deadly practices. The Transport Workers Union has called on Aldi, Amazon and 38 others to join Coles and Woolworths in committing to safe and fair supply chain practices. This government is committed to reform in this space. Blood is on the hands of Aldi, Amazon and other companies at the top of the supply chain operating like them. National Assistance Card 15 13:40 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I'm very excited to inform the Senate of an innovative nationwide project that was started in my state of Tasmania. The National Assistance Card is an initiative of the Brain Injury Association of Tasmania and it has been made possible thanks to the Australian government's Information, Linkages and Capacity Building grants, its ILC grants. The National Assistance Card is a personalised card that explains the cardholder's unique areas of difficulty and how you can assist them. A QR code on the card links to more detailed information and the cardholder can also upload a short video. One situation where the card is particularly useful is when the cardholder's behaviour is misunderstood by others and the cardholder, due to their disability or stress or anxiety, has difficulty explaining their disability and the assistance they need. A great example of this is when Hobart woman Cate Curwood, who has an acquired brain injury, was experiencing sensory overload in a store and inadvertently walked out without paying. With the help of her National Assistance Card she was able to explain her situation to store security. The National Assistance Card is currently available to anyone throughout Australia with an acquired brain injury and is currently being trialled in Tasmania for people with autism. In fact, one of my staff has one for his six-year-old autistic son. While there is a small fee for the card, the cost per cardholder would be unaffordable without government funding for the project. It has the strong support of many agencies, including police services, throughout Australia. I hope that this project can not only continue but expand to cover people with any kind of disability or severe health condition. I congratulate everyone involved in this project, including the Brain Injury Association of Tasmania, Autism Tasmania, Business Software Tasmania and the Department of Social Services. Cost of Living 16 13:42 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise today in March 2023. It's just two short months away from May 2023, when we will the first-year anniversary of this government and we'll see their second budget delivered. They are under pressure now. They have a test, from the Australian people, as to how they handle the cost-of-living crisis that is ravaging Australian families. Small businesses, individuals and families, in particular, are under extraordinary pressure. You do have to wonder, given the answers we've heard in this place and the other place, whether this government has any clue as to what to do to the cost-of-living pressures that families are under. Senator Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, has been asked on numerous occasions—probably more numerous than she'd like to count in this place—what the government is doing to alleviate cost-of-living pressures. The only things she can name are policies that the Labor Party announced prior to the last election, prior to the record rises in interest rates and the rapidity of those rises that we've seen over the past 10 months. In fact, most of those policies that she cites as alleviating cost-of-living pressures were announced in 2021—before we saw rises in interest rates, before we saw the rampant inflation that is present in this country. It was at a time when the Labor Party was still promising people real wage increases, which they haven't delivered. The Australian people are watching the Labor Party in the upcoming budget. Trucking Industry 16 13:44 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I know two minutes isn't long, but I want to carry on from my dear friend and colleague Senator Sheldon's comments. Senator Sheldon talked about the TWU's Principles for Fair and Sustainable Standards, a charter that has been signed by Coles and Woolworths, the two largest retailers. It succinctly said that Amazon and Aldi refused to sign up to it. So I want to share with the world—and the chamber—the standards that Aldi and Amazon have refused to sign up to. They've refused to sign up to safety and fairness when committing: … to being accountable for safe and fair outcomes for transport workers throughout our supply chains, from the top to bottom. They've refused to sign up to transparency: To ensure no worker falls through the cracks we commit to ensuring our transport contracts are transparent about the nature of the work, the working conditions and who performs this work. Aldi and Amazon have refused to sign up to Collective Voice, which will: … empower workers to collectively stand up and speak out on pay and safety in such a dangerous industry. Aldi and Amazon have also refused to sign up to education and consultation. The others have said: We will ensure ongoing systematic worker and management education and training, and supply chain consultation with the TWU to improve safety and sustainability. This pair of corporate insults—I won't say the word that I'm really thinking!—have also refused to sign up to lifting industry standards, which: … commit to working with the TWU to pursue industry initiatives that will improve work practices and seek to eliminate arrangements that provide financial incentives or pressures to engage in unsafe practices— as Senator Sheldon touched on. And listen to this, Australia! Aldi and Amazon have also refused to commit to any disaster planning. And with what this nation has seen, what with flooding and the pandemic, I condemn Aldi and Amazon. Racism 16 13:46 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Today Diversity Council Australia released groundbreaking research on the experiences of culturally and racially marginalised women in leadership, and it contains disturbing findings. Code-switching and white-adjusting to adapt their behaviour closer to whiteness are a sad reality for culturally and racially marginalised women. Eighty-three per cent of women reported experiencing pressure to act, look and sound like existing leaders—who are often white men. Seventy-five per cent of women reported that others assumed they worked in a lower status job and treated them as such. Eighty-five per cent of women felt that they had to work twice as hard to get the same treatment. Sixty-one per cent of women reported experiencing racism at work in the past two years, while 48 per cent experienced sexism at work over the same period. I can relate to many of these intersectional experiences. When racism and sexism intersect it is visceral, and it is damaging. Yet it is denied and ignored, and women of colour keep being marginalised in workplaces. Australia has a blind spot where racism is concerned. The Diversity Council notes that for many in Australia, particularly those experiencing racism, the current language of 'culturally and linguistically diverse' is outdated and problematic. The council found that many women prefer the term CARM—culturally and racially marginalised—over CALD as it is more accurately capturing their experiences. Terms like CALD have had their day. They bunch together people whose experiences are very different under the same label. They might sound nice but can make invisible the people who face racism on a daily basis and the harm that it causes. To have a meaningful conversation about building an antiracist Australia, we have to tell it like it is: race and racism are used to marginalise people, and its impacts on women are compounded. This has to change. Building and Construction Industry 17 13:49 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Many Canberrans have seen the news of another building company facing financial difficulties, and I want to raise the urgent issue of security of payments for subcontractors and their staff. This has been a long-running issue and it is an issue that hasn't been addressed by politicians. That needs to change. We have to look after the tradies who are doing the work to build our towns, our cities and all the infrastructure that we rely on. John Murray produced his report in 2017, but we've seen no action from either side. At best, subbies can write off as losses payments they were meant to have. At worst, we're hearing stories of subbies going bankrupt, going into financial difficulty. In some tragic cases, subcontractors have committed suicide after a number of projects fell over and they didn't get paid for work they had already done. Tradies have the right to be paid for work that they complete on a building site. We have this report. We have ways of making this happen. What we need is the political will. Labor, in its election campaign, committed to implementing the Murray review. I would really like to see this progressed and to see this happen. Tradies cannot continue to be on the end of payments, bearing the brunt of building companies going under. We can't continue to let this happen. We have the solutions; what we need is the political will and the government to get on with implementing the Murray review. FermenTasmania 17 13:50 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I rise to speak today about an exciting project that has been under development in our home state of Tasmania for several years and will soon come to fruition. The Fermentation Hub at Legana, in Tasmania's north, was planned as an innovative centre for excellence for the state's flourishing fermentation industry. FermenTasmania was granted $17.5 million by the coalition government's Building Better Regions Fund in 2021, and the hub is expected to open next year. The 1,800-square-metre facility provides space to test and develop fermented beverages and food; nutraceuticals, which are products derived from foods that have health benefits or medical foods; and green energy on a small scale, with a view to scaling up. With producers and fermentation mentors working together, these new products can be perfected before being launched. This means innovations in wine, cheese, spirits, chocolate, miso, condiments, yoghurt, sourdough and products we haven't even dreamed of yet. These will be researched and developed in Tasmania for a wider market. Aspiring fermented-product developers are now submitting expressions of interest to be part of the hub's starter culture. They include applicants from agribusiness, agritourism, education, the food and beverage sector and hospitality. Entry to the hub's starter-culture cohort includes space, access to equipment and expertise, training opportunities, advice on scaling up for commercial production, diversifying product offerings and more. The Fermentation Hub team will also help producers with commercial focused research, with support from industry experts at the University of Tasmania, TasTAFE and the Institute of Brewing and Distilling. I applaud the work that has gone into FermenTasmania's vision for this project, and I look forward to visiting the hub once it's finished. Albanese Government: Live Animal Exports 17 13:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland With the election of the Albanese government and the backing of the Greens, Labor has relaunched its war on Australia's farmers. Kevin Rudd took away their water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Julia Gillard slapped a kneejerk ban on live cattle exports over a heavily biased ABC report about slaughtering practices in another country, thousands of miles from Canberra. Under Greens-Labor climate policies, farmers, energy, fuel and fertiliser costs have all skyrocketed. It's said you shouldn't bite the hand that—quite literally—feeds you, but Labor is doing it all over again with its clear intention to destroy the live sheep export industry in Western Australia. This industry supports thousands of jobs and hundreds of businesses along the supply chain and is a mainstay of regional economies. Labor does not have a mandate to destroy sheep farming in this country, but Labor, of course, does not care about jobs in the bush or regional communities and the money sheep farming brings into the country. Mark my words: this is just the beginning of a strategic attack on all livestock industries in Australia. Unfairly demonising livestock producers as climate polluters, the ultimate aim of Labor and the Greens is to force us all to become vegetarians. Their first step is to ban live exports. Then they will take away the rest of the water needed to irrigate pastures and water stock—we've already seen them abandon dams in Queensland. After that, they will force crippling emissions reduction targets on producers. By then, meat and fresh milk will be in such short supply that most Australians won't be able to afford them. I mention milk because Labor has done nothing about the labour industry and is continuing to put the nail in the coffin of dairy farmers. We won't be able to afford fresh milk; we'll be importing it from New Zealand as powdered milk. Israel 18 13:54 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The Greens are deeply concerned about the current situation in Israel. While hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens go out on the streets to protest the undemocratic measures being taken by the new government in relation to the judiciary, the blood spilt in recent weeks in Jenin, Jerusalem, Nablus, Jericho and other places in the West Bank, reaching a peak of mass violence in Hadera, remind us all that there can be no democracy while there is also occupation and inequality. A state that denies rights to millions of people and systemically discriminates against a fifth of its citizens cannot be considered a true democracy. The Israeli military is standing idly by while hundreds of settlers go on a rampage, freely killing and injuring Palestinians, burning down their homes and destroying their property. Only six Israeli settlers have been arrested despite the availability of video evidence of their egregious human rights abuses, and now the Israeli government is turning its police on its own citizens. The new changes in Israeli policy must be called out for what they are: the de facto annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory and a subversion of any pretence of Israel's democracy. The Greens always rejected and condemned the promotion of violence, whether perpetrated by a state organisation or individual. While recognising the right of the Palestinian people to resist Israeli occupation in accordance with international law, we also recognise that the rise of far-right extremism in the state of Israel has contributed to an expansion of the occupied territories. The Greens are calling on the Australian government to immediately end all engagement and trade with the Israeli military and be clear in its condemnation of the Israeli— (Time expired) New South Wales: Water 18 13:56 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales We should be getting used to this government failing to live up to its promises, and none more so than on water. In October, following the Ministerial Council meeting of Murray Darling ministers, we were told the government would prepare a water recovery strategy for consultation by Christmas. Now that webpage has disappeared and no such consultation paper was produced. Then, a mere 48 hours before for the next Ministerial Council meeting, the government dropped all pretence of consultation and announced open-tender buybacks, under transparency, in six catchment areas, including my own. And then they said that they would consult on the framework and how those open-tender buybacks would be conducted. Well, consultation! Just 48 hours prior to information sessions being held, a handful—only a handful—of stakeholders in my hometown of Deniliquin, where there would be much interest in understanding how this process is going to take place, received email invitations inviting them to register for the information sessions. But you can't register if you weren't the recipient of that email, so a business owner, who might have other things on in 48 hours time, cannot nominate a delegate to attend on their behalf. The sessions have not been publicly advertised on the departmental website, and there's been zero contact with stakeholders. Where is the transparency? Where is the openness? BIRD, Ms Lorraine 18 13:58 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to speak about the life of Lorraine Bird. Lorraine Bird was a school cleaner and a union member. Her passing, at the age of 69, reminds me of just how much one person who believes in something bigger than herself can achieve when they stand together with people who feel the same. Lorraine was a leader in the campaign for school cleaners to win back good jobs after 4,000 public school cleaners were sacked and then asked to reapply for their jobs, on less money and hours, as contractors. In the years that followed, Victorian schools were awash with wage theft, fly-by-night contractors and dirty classrooms. Lorraine and her husband, Ian, also a school cleaner, stood up and spoke out. In the beginning it was Ian who led the charge, but, when he died, Lorraine told me it was her time to step out and speak out. Lorraine was only small in stature, but I can tell you she had a big heart, a big smile and an even bigger voice. Her determination pushed the Victorian government to finally end decades of insecure contracts in 2018, and her legacy lives on in the working lives of thousands of school cleaners. Lorraine and Ian epitomised what union really means. It means family—a family of people standing together for the betterment of all—and it means dignity and real respect for hard work. Today I'm thinking of Lorraine's grieving son, her stepchildren, her grandchildren, her great-grandchildren, her wonderful friends and her union family, who were there for her in the end, too. After a life of hard work and inspiring work, Lorraine, rest in peace. You deserve it. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Superannuation: Taxation 19 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. During the 2022 election campaign, Mr Albanese said, 'We've said we have no intention of making any super changes'. Given Labor's track record of proposing higher taxes on retirees at the previous two elections, it is inconceivable that Labor wasn't planning its doubling of the super tax, or something very similar, when Mr Albanese made this promise at the last election. Minister, why is it that Mr Albanese deceived the Australian people before asking them to vote for him? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thanks to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for the question. It gives me the opportunity to remind him and those opposite, and all, that, in fact, the changing of these tax arrangements for a very, very small proportion of Australians will not take effect until 2025, after the next election. It may be that those opposite like to forget about this and like to focus on, as always, their pathology of conflict. But the reality is: what we have inherited is a trillion dollars worth of debt. We have inherited the budget in a position that is unsustainable, and we are making sensible decisions about how to deal with that. They include changing the concessional tax treatment of super balances over $3 million. It's important, despite the rhetoric again of those opposite and their talk about doubling, to remind us all and those of us in this chamber who are on above-average incomes that there is still tax concessionality associated with earnings on these balances above $3 million. There's still tax concessionality, which is effectively funded by the sorts of workers on the sorts of incomes that Senator Walsh was describing just before question time. I, for one, don't believe that cleaners and people on the factory line should be subsidising tax concessionality for people with superannuation balances of $3 million. It is a very small proportion of people. It affects fewer than the superannuation changes that you made, possibly when you were finance minister, I can't recall. And I know that those opposite want to run a scare campaign— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment Senator Birmingham. I called order at least four times there and, Senator Cash and Senator McGrath, you continued to interject. I would ask you to listen quietly. Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary? 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The minister just made a passionate defence of her beliefs that people shouldn't be receiving this concessional treatment. Given such strongly held beliefs, Minister, why is it that you and your government and your Prime Minister weren't honest with the Australian people before the last election? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I again make the point that this is a change that affects 0.5 per cent of people and it will not take place until after the next election in 2025. I would also make the point that those opposite, and I will take the interjections— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order! Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm always happy for Senator Gallagher to take questions. She answers them brilliantly. She answers them brilliantly, as she demonstrated yesterday. I would also make the point that those opposite have really demonstrated to Australians whose side they're on. They're not on the side of people doing it tough; they're not on the side of poor people on minimum wages; they're not on the side of households who are finding it hard to make their electricity prices, voting against the packages they wanted; they're not on the side of people who need skills; they're not on the side of manufacturing jobs— (Time expired) The P 10000 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary question? 14:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The government, including Senator Wong, keep referring to their alleged small number of Australians impacted. Indeed, Senator Wong, on social media yesterday, posted about 99.5 per cent of Aussies not facing any changes. Yet Senator Gallagher yesterday made clear in this chamber that 10 per cent—one in 10 Australians—would actually be impacted. When was the government advised of this? Will they set the record straight? And will Minister Wong delete her social media posts? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm not going to call the minister until we have silence on both sides. Minister. 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Does anybody know how many people in 30 years will be affected by the concessional contribution threshold change to superannuation that they made? That is 30 per cent of income earners—30 per cent. That's one in three income earners affected by the changes you made on super. So let's be clear about the long-term effect of non-indexed changes. Senator Gallagher was up-front yesterday about ours. I don't remember you ever saying, 'Oh, by the way, one in three Australians will be affected by Mr Morrison's changes.' The Australian people are onto you, and they know what you are about, and you're not about average income earners. You're not about families who are struggling to make ends meet. You are all about yourselves, and you're all about politics. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong still has 12 seconds on the clock. Senator WONG 00AOU They've finally found some people the Leader of the Opposition will fight for—not women fleeing violence, not Australian manufacturing, not businesses looking for energy security, not those looking for cheaper child care or cheaper medicine, not those looking for energy bill relief but those with $3 million— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Hume and Senator Ruston! I have no senators on their feet on a point of order. I simply have rude, disrespectful interjections across the chamber. Senator Ruston 243273 Withdraw! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! Senator WONG 00AOU I will withdraw. And, by way of explanation, I'll make clear that I was referencing the housing fund that you opposed, which will be accommodation, including for women fleeing violence. So, you wear it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Ruston, I asked you three times to sit down, and I'm going to ask that you sit down. I have no idea what happened—because there was so much interjection in this chamber—except I had a bunch of unruly senators on my left and a bunch of unruly senators on my right. So I really have no idea. If someone has said something objectionable, you stand to make a point of order. You don't scream out—about seven of you—from your seats. It is disorderly and it's clearly disrespectful, and it's taken me a long time to get control of the Senate. This is not appropriate. Senator Ruston 243273 President, I was wondering if I could seek your indulgence to have a look at the transcript, and perhaps Senator Wong might then like to reflect on whether she wishes to unconditionally withdraw her statement. Senator WONG 00AOU I withdraw. Manufacturing Industry 20 14:10 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. What is the Albanese government doing to revitalise Australian manufacturing and address key national challenges? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator White for her question about jobs and manufacturing. We on this side understand that one of the major pressures on our economy is disrupted supply chains. As the Reserve Bank has said, supply chain issues are responsible for up to two-thirds of inflationary pressures in the economy. To relieve this pressure we need to be a country that can make things here and stand on our own two feet. That is what the National Reconstruction Fund is about. It is a fund that represents one of the biggest ever investments in Australian manufacturing capacity, revitalising Australian manufacturing, creating secure Australian jobs, making things here, investing in new industries like critical industries and seizing opportunities for renewable energy. The National Reconstruction Fund is good for jobs, good for manufacturing and good for the economy. I suppose it makes sense that that is why those opposite would oppose it. Because these are the parties that neglected our supply chains and failed Australian workers, but they are very good at saying no, just like they said no last year to providing families and businesses with relief from energy prices. They're more interested in the same old negative politics. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU You don't like the truth, do you? You don't like it. It's really amazing, isn't it? They vote against stuff in here and they don't like to be politically accountable for the things they vote against. I have never seen an opposition actually vote against price relief. Who would have thought? Always negative, always on the attack, even if Australia loses. They said no to the Housing Australia Future Fund. I know those opposite don't like it, but that is additional housing for women and children, including those escaping domestic violence. You are accountable for that decision. You may say no to making super stronger for the future and no to anything climate— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator White, first supplementary? 14:12 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Why is the National Reconstruction Fund important to all Australians? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'll take the interjection from the expert on the other side, Senator Scarr, who talks about debt. Isn't that interesting? He doesn't want debt associated with a fund that's about investment, but he's happy with debt that's associated with a tax break for people with $3 million in super. There you go. Thank you for being very clear about your political priorities. He's entitled to those views. I don't think they're the views that most Australians share. But I return to the question. Thanks to a decade of neglect and failed policies from the Liberals and Nationals, we do not have the manufacturing capacity to do what we need to do and we saw that during the COVID pandemic. We couldn't make enough PPE to protect ourselves. Our fund is about building a more resilient, more diversified economy with more jobs in regional Australia so we don't have to rely so much on other countries for some of our critical supplies and to ensure we have the jobs and skills we need for the future. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator White, second supplementary. 14:13 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria What are the obstacles to revitalising manufacturing and addressing these key challenges? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The biggest obstacle, of course, is those opposite. One wonders why they'd be so opposed to revitalising Australian manufacturing, why they'd be so opposed to securing our economy. Why don't they support Australian manufacturing? Why is it? Why don't they support economic sovereignty? Why don't they support Australian jobs? We see a coalition that simply wants to say no. We have a plan to address the key challenges facing Australians and the Australian economy—relief, repair, restraint, investment in Australian capacity, investment in Australian jobs. Those opposite have no plan. They left us with a trillion dollars in debt, a massive skills shortage and a hollowed out manufacturing sector, and now they're standing in the way of the solutions to the very problems they created. Superannuation: Taxation 21 14:15 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday, Senator Gallagher, you said to the chamber that the purpose of the government's new doubling of super taxes was to make the super system sustainable. But the Retirement income review, published in 2020, said that the evidence indicates that the Australian 'retirement income system is effective, sound and broadly sustainable'. Isn't Labor's doubling of the super tax simply another tax grab to prop up Labor's rampant spending, one that the now Treasurer explicitly promised not to do prior to the election, because he knew Australians would never support it? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (—) (): The answer to that is no, but I welcome the opportunity again to remind those opposite about the mess we inherited from them and the seriousness that we are paying for the first time in a number of years around budget repair. We have a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt that we are managing, that we have to manage. We have pressures coming towards the budget that are increasing, not decreasing, and we can go through them again. Aged care, Medicare, hospitals, defence—they are all areas where pressure is increasing, not decreasing. We have a $50 billion structural deficit that we inherited from you. That is what we need to repair, and that is why there is this very modest change to the concessionality of tax for high-balance accounts over $3 million. It's a sensible change. It assists with budget repair. It means that we can make room for some of those pressures that you ignored but Australians value—things like paying for aged-care workers. How about that? We are making investments in those types of areas against a background of a budget that was riddled with waste and pork-barrelling and a failure to deal with the pressures. Remember the Back in Black mugs? We all remember them. That budget was never going back into balance, because there were a range of pressures heading their way, but they also had this very nifty way of budgeting which was to budget for one year or two years for programs that were ongoing. I mean, the dishonesty in your budget when you were in government is galling, and we are fixing it. We take our responsibility seriously and we will get on with it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a first supplementary? 14:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Retirement income review also stated The home is the most important component of voluntary savings and is an important factor influencing retirement outcomes … Given this is an important part of the retirement system, will you rule out any changes to, including repealing, the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which helps first homebuyers enter the property market? 14:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We've made clear what our position is on the announcement that we made last week. The Prime Minister has made it clear on other aspects that have been raised in the last week. We have been very clear. It is a very small change. It affects a very small number of fortunate people who have managed to save more than $3 million in their super. Good on them. Good luck to them. Their concessionality will be slightly reduced compared to what— Senator Hume 266499 A point of order Madam President: the question was about the First Home Super Saver Scheme and whether the government would repeal it or abolish it. Senator 00AOU On the point of order, the question also started with a reference to the family home. Hence, the minister's answer is entirely relevant. The PRESIDENT 112096 It did have a couple of sentences before then, Senator Hume. I think the minister is being relevant, but I will continue to listen. If the minister isn't being relevant, I will remind her of the question. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. I did answer the question in my first remarks. Senator McGrath 217241 No, you didn't. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, I did. I said we have announced the changes that the government has agreed upon. We have announced them. You have the detail. You're opposed to it. We hear that. We know that you are going to die in a ditch for people with balances over $3 million, regardless of what's happening in other parts of the economy. I have answered the question. We have been clear with what our position is. The change was announced last week. (Time expired) The 10000 Senator Hume, a second supplementary question. 14:19 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, as you referenced yesterday, Treasury modelling predicts that without indexation 10 per cent of Australians will be impacted by your new tax in the next 30 years. Will you table this modelling? 14:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory That is information that I had around the indexation. I'll check if there's further information I can provide. But I will say: in 2016 the changes you brought in affected four per cent of people; in 30 years, they will affect 30 per cent. That's what happens. This is a very modest change. It allows for some budget repair to occur because of the budget that we have inherited. We have spent the last nine months going through the rorts, the waste, the unfunded promises, the legacy funding cliffs, the zombie measures and the billions and billions of dollars buried in that budget that you were not upfront about. We have gone through them. We are making sensible changes to assist with budget repair. Economy 22 14:21 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Last month, the RBA said that as much as three-quarters of the increase in inflation is a result of supply shocks, including corporate profiteering; that their models are not well suited to supply shocks; and that there is very little that monetary policy can do to offset supply shocks. We find ourselves today with the RBA responding to a problem it doesn't understand with a solution that doesn't suit. Minister, do you believe that the RBA smashing renters and mortgage holders with interest rate increases in response to inflation driven by supply-side shocks and corporate profiteering is the best economic policy that this country can muster? 14:22 Senator G ING Australian Capital Territory ALLAGHER (—) (): I thank Senator McKim for the question and for his ongoing interest in the performance of the Reserve Bank. I think the bank has a very difficult job to do, and I think the government has a job to work hand in hand with monetary policy. I await the decision of the bank today, but I think the bank have explained that it's a narrow path they are following. They have a difficult job to do. They are independent of government. We have our review of the RBA. Obviously, it's not linked to the tightening cycle. We had announced that review— Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Duniam can chuckle, but it's looking at the broader issue that's raised about how fit for purpose the bank is and the fact that it hasn't been reviewed for a period of time—for some 30 years, I think. This review is timely, in the sense that we will get the three panellists' views on whether there need to be changes to any settings, the mandate et cetera. The government was aware of that; obviously it was an election commitment before the last campaign. I think that review will give us the best information available to check, or see how to make sure, that the RBA remains fit for purpose for the job that it has to do. Having said that, I am not linking that in any way to the tightening cycle. We do have an inflation problem in this country. The bank has a very clear mandate to ensure that inflation sits within the two to three per cent band and to ensure full employment. They are following their mandate, and they make their decisions independent of government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, a first supplementary question. 14:24 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, real wages declined at the fastest rate on record in December. The Treasury secretary said at Senate estimates that the risk of a wage price spiral remains low. Does your government believe that nine, going on 10, consecutive interest rate increases to avoid a non-existent wage price spiral is to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia? 14:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't think the tightening cycle is being pursued in response to concerns about wages. The bank was clear, when those opposite were in government and the rate was sitting at about two per cent and not growing, that it was concerned at that point about wages. I think the comments they've made since, when wages started to lift, is that they would keep an eye on wages. Those are the general comments from the bank. But, again, I think, in terms of the job that they have to do, the risk of persistent high inflation is devastating. It's devastating on people on lower incomes, who will feel the hit from inflation harder than those, I would argue, who are on higher incomes. So let's not pretend there isn't an issue with inflation in this country. There is. We have to manage it, and we have to make sure— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, your second supplementary question? 14:25 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, banks, supermarkets and fossil fuel corporations are all booking mega profits. You said that the government needs to work with the RBA. So will your government introduce a corporate super profits tax to drive down inflation and fund cost-of-living relief for Australians who are being smashed by inflation, interest rate increases and the cost-of-living crisis? 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It isn't the government's policy to introduce a tax as Senator McKim suggests. I give him credit for persistence in asking me that question, but my answer remains the same. However, the point you raised on cost of living is real. I think the challenge for those of us looking at the right way to respond and how we need to work hand in hand with the bank on the monetary policy side is: what meaningful difference can we make in a cost-of-living sense that doesn't have an inflationary impact? They are the decisions we've taken around our investment in skills, the National Reconstruction Fund and making investments in housing, cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. All of those are sensible investments. They do come with spending attached, but they are sensible investments which don't put upward pressure on inflation and assist people with costs of living. Energy cost relief is another area, and we'll continue to do that. Manufacturing Industry 23 14:27 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Farrell. Can the minister please update the Senate about what the government is doing to support Australian manufacturing, including through the National Reconstruction Fund? 14:27 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Polley for that very insightful question and, of course, acknowledge her very longstanding support for Australian manufacturing, particularly in her home state of Tasmania. As we all unfortunately discovered during the pandemic, the goods that Australians assumed would be there when we needed them were not available. Across a range of products, our supermarkets and pharmacies couldn't get what we needed. Who can forget going to supermarkets, with the long lines of empty shelves and the sense of disappointment that we all felt when we couldn't get the products we needed? That was when the seed of the National Reconstruction Fund was planted. After a decade of neglect under the Liberals and the Nationals, it was time to re-invest in our manufacturing capability. Now that the government is seeking to make the NRF, the National Reconstruction Fund, a reality, it's once again the Liberals and the Nationals that are standing in the way. The government plans are to grow from our strengths—places where we already have natural resources or the human capital to compete with the best in the world. The National Reconstruction Fund will attract investment, it will help grow the Australian economy, and, most importantly, it will deliver high-quality, high-paying jobs for Australian workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, your first supplementary question? 14:29 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania As you know, manufacturing is a vital employer in many regions around the great state of Tasmania. What role will the National Reconstruction Fund have in revitalising regional manufacturing after the decade of Liberal neglect? 14:29 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Well, I'd have to disagree with you there slightly, Senator Polley, because it wasn't just Liberal neglect; it was Liberal and National neglect that has brought us to the situation where we need a National Reconstruction Fund. Sadly, it was the former Liberal-National government that did neglect manufacturing right across Australia. I have seen it firsthand with Holden. It was an unforgivable decision to kick that company out of this country. This is despite the fact that one-third of manufacturing jobs are in regional and remote Australia. Manufacturers are based across regional Australia because of the access to natural resources from minerals to agriculture to forestry and to much more. The NRF is determined to continue that focus on our regions. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, your second supplementary? 14:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Minister, what threats are there to the government's plans to deliver more skills and higher wages in manufacturing jobs and higher skills in regional Australia? 14:31 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Polley for another very good question. There they are, right across there. They are the obstacles to the creation of a National Reconstruction Fund. Those opposite are the threats to improving our national self-sufficiency, investing in Australian ideas and turning them into great Australian businesses. Those opposite threaten plans to attract international investment and deliver jobs, many of which will be right in your regional areas. The biggest threat to our plan for a National Reconstruction Fund is those senators sitting across the chamber, the coalition. They say no to investment, they say no to opportunity, they say no to self-sufficiency. The Liberals and the National say no, no, no to Australian jobs in Australian manufacturing. Homelessness 24 14:32 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Farrell. The Productivity Commission's latest report on government services showed that over a third of people seeking homelessness accommodation in the last financial year couldn't find any. One in three people looking for somewhere to sleep can't find somewhere to sleep. Does the government acknowledge the growing demand on homelessness services, and do you have any plans to increase their funding? 14:32 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Pocock for that excellent question, and I appreciate very much that he has a deep interest and a deep concern about the issue of homelessness in this country. Can I say the government generally shares your concern, but in particular the minister who has responsibility for this, Minister Collins, is very focused on dealing with this issue. They are all extremely serious issues. Regrettably, at the last census, there were over 116,000 people experiencing homelessness in this country. Of course that is an issue that we must address. It is unacceptable that so many Australians are now forced to couch surf, sleep rough or live in temporary or overcrowded housing arrangements. I understand, Senator Pocock, that you have had discussions with our minister on a regular basis and that you have the opportunity to raise these issues and try and deal with these issues that require negotiation between the states and the territories. Unlike the previous government, Senator Pocock, we are taking the issue of homelessness seriously, and we have started the process of delivering on all of the things that the previous government failed— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:34 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your concern for the homeless, but I'll take that as no new funding. I understand that the government has written to state and territory governments offering to extend the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement by 12 months while the new national housing plan is developed. Can the minister please confirm if this offer included a 12-month extension of the payment for the equal remuneration order? 14:35 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Pocock for his question. I would have to say in response to that question that I don't think it's fair to say that the government has no new funding in this area. If I can explain some things that— Senator David Pocock 256136 President, I'm sorry to call a point of order. I'm interested in whether the 12-month extension for the equal remuneration order has been offered. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, Senator Pocock, and in the first part of your question you also talked about no new funding. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, Senator Pocock, for that clarification. There are ongoing negotiations, and I don't think at this stage it's fair to draw any conclusions about how those negotiations might end. Senator FARRELL I0N Unlike the former government, we are serious about addressing the issue of homelessness in this country. We are engaged in a serious set of negotiation, and I think— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:36 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I understand that the equal remuneration order hasn't been offered, which is $65 million worth of funding, and Homelessness Australia, whose CEO, Kate Colvin, is in the gallery, has said that without that money some 650 frontline workers will lose their jobs. Given one in three homeless people can't find accommodation, how do we justify that? 14:37 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I don't think I can be any clearer in response to that question and the earlier question. This government is serious about addressing the issue of homelessness in a way that the previous government wasn't even interested in talking about. There are discussions— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, your constant interjections are disrespectful and disorderly. I ask you to remain silent for the remainder of his answer. Minister. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President, for that protection from this unruly rabble on the other side. Government senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, that's right! Senator Pocock, this is a serious issue. This government is serious about addressing the issue of homelessness. There are discussions underway. I'm not going to pre-empt those discussions at the moment, but rest assured that this government is going to take action— (Time expired) Superannuation: Taxation 25 14:38 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Farming families are frequently cash poor, but they make a living off farmland whose value has tripled on paper over recent years, value that will remain unrealised potentially for decades for intergenerational farming operations. Will farmers that hold such land in self-managed super funds be forced to pay tens of thousands more in taxes under Labor's doubling of the super tax due do nothing more than paper fluctuations in commercial property prices? 14:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator McKenzie for the question. As senators in this place would know, under prudential requirements all superannuation funds are required to consider diversification in liquidity when making investments, and, if funds are doing this, they should have some liquid assets to meet any tax liabilities. There are a range of cashflow requirements within an SMSF, not just tax liabilities, which trustees must consider. These include, for example, accounting administration costs, investment fees and the costs associated with maintaining real assets, such as property. For SMSFs with balances in the retirement phase, liquidity is also required for the purpose of meeting pension payments, including on those minimum drawdown requirements. Individuals can also hold their assets in super and elect to pay the tax or any tax liabilities they have by using savings outside of superannuation to avoid paying from their business assets. So, we have been clear on what this change is about. It is for those with high-balance accounts—over $3 million. We know there are accounts with hundreds of millions of dollars in them. Superannuation is primarily about having a dignified retirement and being able to have savings available to you during your retirement years. What we are doing is making a very modest change to the concessional arrangements that remain concessional for those with balances over $3 million. As to individual superannuation advice, I'm not in a position to give it, but I have made clear— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 A point of order on relevance: for the last 10 seconds left in the minister's ability to answer, the question was, due to the change made, will farmers now be subject to tens of thousands of dollars of additional tax as a result of unrealised gains? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKenzie. The minister is being relevant. Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, as I've said, I'm not here to give individual tax advice on arrangements I have no knowledge of. I have set out the government's policy. I have already— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, a first supplementary question? 14:41 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Can the minister advise of the number of registered primary producers that will be impacted through the government's proposed superannuation changes? And—given her first answer—if not, why not? 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There are around 80,000 account holders who will be impacted by this very modest change— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, thank you, Senator Scarr! You are the most patronising of all senators in this place, honestly. Your interjections are pathetic; they're pathetic. You can't help yourself. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 A point of order on relevance: how many primary producers will be impacted by the government's policy? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, you do not need to repeat the question. The minister is being relevant. Please continue, Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, and if there is further information I can provide, Senator McKenzie, I will undertake to do so. But the change affects around 80,000 account holders. A number of them will be in SMSF arrangements, and another subset of them will have farms as part of their assets. So, I will undertake to come back to you, but the whole group that is affected is in the order of 80,000. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary question? 14:43 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The National Farmers' Federation has been critical about the complete lack of consultation from the Labor government on the superannuation changes. Why didn't the government consult before announcing changes that will result in an unfair new tax on the family farm? 14:43 Senator GAL ING Australian Capital Territory LAGHER (—) (): As we made clear in the announcement last week, announcing it ahead of the budget but foreshadowing that it will be in the budget allows for a period of further consultations. That will be happening. Treasury will be undertaking a public consultation process on the implementation details. And we are open to stakeholders' views, whether through the NFF or through others, around any refinements or any unintended consequences of these changes. That is the purpose of the consultation period. I would also say to those who are opposing this change: this is a very modest change to raise a very small amount of revenue. We have a $50 billion structural deficit in the budget, left by you. That's every single year. This raises about $2 billion— (Time expired) Housing Australia Future Fund 26 14:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Farrell. Minister, cost-of-living pressures are hitting Tasmanians hard. The current average rent is 550 bucks a week, and it is getting worse. The costs of groceries, fuel, energy and everyday living expenses are skyrocketing for Tasmanians. Life is basically getting harder. The waiting list for public housing sits at around 4,500, and that's on a good day. This list is growing and growing and growing. My question is in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund. When will the detail of the investment mandate finally be released? 14:45 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for her question. As I indicated in my previous answer to Senator Pocock on the issue of housing and homelessness, the government obviously recognises that this is a significant issue. The former government, in almost 10 years, did nothing in this space, and so, of course, we have to make up for 10 years of neglect. We're doing that, Senator Lambie, and, as we speak, there are discussions underway in respect of the fund that you just mentioned. I'm sure, if you would like, I can organise for you to have some discussions with the minister responsible in this area about these issues to get some update on the latest state of play with these issues. But I give you this assurance, Senator Lambie: this government understands that there are problems here, understands that there have been years and years of neglect and understands that we now have the obligation of dealing with this issue, correcting the problems of the past and making sure that we deal with this issue into the future. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie? Senator Lambie 250026 With respect, Madam President, I was just wondering whether I could have the detail of when the investment mandate will be released. It's a simple detail: what date, what month—simple. I would have thought that was simple. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Lambie. There was also quite a long introduction to that question. I do believe the minister's being relevant, but I'll continue to listen and, if he's not, I'll draw him to the question. Senator FARRELL I0N I thought I had directly answered your question, Senator Lambie, but I'll restate it. The investment mandate is currently being considered. Of course, the legislation hasn't yet passed the parliament, and we understand, of course, that the coalition is opposing it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:48 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Minister, Australia currently has a skills shortage across every sector. It is very hard to find tradies to do any work at the best of times on any home. We know a trade takes three or four years to complete and that TAFEs in Tasmania are still training with Cold War equipment. Can the minister explain how the government will achieve 30,000 homes with no qualified tradies and with Cold War equipment in our TAFEs? 14:49 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for her question. The housing industry is not the only area that has labour shortages, as I'm sure you know. Labour shortages are a relic of the inaction of the previous government, particularly in the pandemic era. They sent home lots and lots of people who might have been here to help build some of these houses. One of the significant policies that we took to the last election—of course, Senator Lambie, as you would know—was the fee-free TAFE courses. Now, I appreciate that that doesn't come in overnight and it doesn't solve the problem overnight— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, before I call you for your second supplementary, you do need to be in your designated seat. Thank you. Senator Lambie, a second supplementary? 14:50 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Thank you, Madam President, for that correction. My last supplementary question is this: Minister, as my colleague Senator Tyrrell has brought to your attention, Tasmania has an entitlement of 1,200 homes, so why is it that we have the housing minister who represents Tasmania and we're only getting 600 of that? Will the government today, right now, guarantee me that Tasmania will get what it is entitled to and get their 1,200 homes over the next five years? 14:51 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for her supplementary question. I have the greatest of faith in Minister Collins. I was recently down in Tasmania with her, going to a range of places, and I'm sure that there's no better person in this government that understands the problems of housing and housing shortages and all of the issues associated with it than Senator Collins. I think you should— An honourable senator: She's not a senator. Senator FARRELL I0N Sorry, Minister Collins. I'd upgraded her to Senate status! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Lambie? Senator Lambie 250026 A point of order on relevance: with all due respect, I just want to know whether we're going to get the 1,200 homes that we actually should be getting, and not the 600, and whether that promise is going to be made right now. I don't want the waffle. Tasmanians just want to know if we're going to get what we're due for—1,200—or are you going to take half of them off us? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Lambie. I will draw the minister to your question. S I0N As I've said, I don't think there's any better person in this government to deal with the issues of housing in Tasmania than Minister Collins, and— (Time expired) Agriculture Industry 27 14:52 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, how will the government's $15 billion investment in the National Reconstruction Fund support the very important agriculture industry's ambition to exceed the $100 billion farmgate output by 2030? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Ciccone, someone who I know has a very deep and longstanding interest in the agriculture industry in our country. Well, today, Senator Ciccone, I have good news for Australian farmers, farm workers and all in the agriculture supply chain. Today's latest release of data from ABARES shows that the agriculture industry is well on its way towards its goal of exceeding $100 billion farmgate output by 2030. In the last financial year, the agriculture industry reached the $90 billion mark—an all-time record—and I congratulate every farmer, every processor, every worker and supply chain member for this achievement. This was done off the back of what were, with some exceptions, great seasonal conditions, which have meant record farm cash incomes for broadacre and dairy farms over the past two years. But, of course, the context to this is that input costs for farm businesses are rising, impacting farm profits. Years of failed energy policies and chronic underinvestment in skills development have come home to roost. As a result of this and global factors, agriculture input costs have risen sharply since mid-2021, particularly the price of fertiliser, which has more than doubled, putting intense strain on farming businesses to balance the books. That's why the National Reconstruction Fund is so important. We need a future made in Australia, and that applies to agriculture just as much as every other industry. We should be value-adding, and we should be making more things here. The ability to make things here is vital to not only reduce input costs but also increase the value of the final product that our agriculture industry rolls out. And that's exactly what the National Reconstruction Fund will do, co-investing with industry, including agriculture, to grow our primary industries and turn raw products into even higher value ones. The Albanese Labor government wants Australia to be a country that makes things again, and we are backing our agricultural manufacturing industry to ensure that that happens. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a first supplementary? 14:55 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I thank the minister for that answer, particularly given the number of farmers in town today given the ABARES conference being held today and tomorrow. Minister, how is the Labor government prioritising the agriculture sector in the National Reconstruction Fund? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Ciccone. I'm very pleased to say that the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund—it even has the word national in it—a key election commitment from the Albanese government, has a $500 million portion sectioned out for investment in local manufacturing to support agriculture. Once established, that money will be available to co-invest in more food processing, in bringing down energy costs and more value-adding. A great example of something that could potentially fit in that category, that we should be making here, is fertiliser. We have the raw materials here in Australia that we export to other countries, so why shouldn't we be making more fertiliser here in Australia and why shouldn't the government support industry to get it started? That's exactly what our National Reconstruction Fund would be available to do: co-invest with industry to boost value-adding. I've been speaking about this with farmers and industry in recent weeks, grain growers, meat processors and many more. It's vital the NRF passes the House and the Senate, and we encourage everyone to get behind it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary? 14:56 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thank you for mentioning communities, particularly those right around regional Australia, Minister. How will the National Reconstruction Fund support those very communities that rely on the ag sector across regional Australia? 14:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Ciccone. More jobs, more exports, more opportunities and a better bottom line for regional Australia—who wouldn't want that? Unfortunately, quite a few of those members opposite, it seems, are anti-manufacturing and anti-jobs. Whether it's Mr Dutton or Mr Littleproud, or the Liberals and the Nationals here in the Senate, the coalition only want to say no to this fund. More manufacturing in our regions? No. More value-adding in agriculture? No. More tax concessions for the top 0.5 per cent? Oh, yes! I am surprised that the Nationals, in particular, are opposing the National Reconstruction Fund. Not only does it contain the word 'national' but in the past they've claimed to support Aussie manufacturing. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that Senator Canavan was saying, 'We've all seen during the coronavirus how important it is to have industries that can produce things in the medical field, to keep our food production and food security going, and after coronavirus we're going to need to have a strong manufacturing industry to recover.' Senator Canavan, have I got a solution for you— (Time expired) Cost of Living 29 14:57 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Prior to the election last year, the now Treasurer said, 'This is a full-blown cost-of-living crisis, a triple whammy of skyrocketing costs of living, falling real wages and rising interest rates.' Yet since the election, inflation has skyrocketed to its highest levels in 30 years, wages aren't keeping up, energy prices continue to rise and rise, and, just now, as we all know, the Reserve Bank has announced their ninth rise under this government. Minister, is it correct that under Labor's full-blown cost-of-living crisis an average family with a $750,000 loan taken out prior to May will now be paying $1,470 more per month or $17,688 a year extra on their mortgage? 14:58 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Cash for the question. The senator is correct that the Reserve Bank, at 2:30 today, increased interest rates by 25 basis points to 3.6 per cent. It's the 10th interest rate increase since they began in May 2022, prior to the election, when we entered the tightening cycle because of what was happening with the inflation challenge. I do not accept the proposition put by Senator Cash that this is something that has occurred since the election. It was started before the election. The issues that have led to the tightening cycle, which have been impacted by some of those global factors—which I think we all accept—started before the last election. The cost of living is the real issue facing households. It's good that we've come to it, because the cost-of-living pressures are real on households. That's why the government has been making some difficult decisions around the cabinet table, because of the difficult decisions people are making around their kitchen table. That is why we have energy power bill relief coming in the budget to deal with it—that you opposed! So don't you dare sit here and cry crocodile tears about the cost-of-living crisis— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. Order! Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING You cry crocodile tears about your concern for a cost-of-living crisis when you oppose and have opposed the sensible measures that we put in place to assist households with some of those increases in power bills. Do you remember that? Well, we won't let you forget it! As those bills come in, we will be reminding people that you voted against any support for cost-of-living relief in households across Australia. The PRE 112096 Senator Cash, a first supplementary? 15:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, won't Labor's $45 billion in extra spending make inflation worse, while your productivity-sapping industrial relations sabotage agenda will make business weaker? Why are your government's policies making a difficult situation worse? 15:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Senator Cash clearly hasn't read the budget papers. There are a couple of things. The funds have been factored into the budget and the forward estimates, and the inflation forecasts are also there. So the answer to that is no. There are no surprises here. Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Cash, there are no surprises here. Why are you putting in place laws that make sure that vulnerable workers can get decent pay rises? That is now the offence of this government--that it's putting in place laws that support affordable, sustainable wage increases for the most vulnerable workers. We know you're opposed to it. We just lived through 10 years of your deliberate design feature of your economic architecture being wage stagnation. Investments in the funds are about driving jobs, investment in supply chains and dealing with the housing crisis, and you're opposed to every single one of those measures. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a second supplementary? 15:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, given that Australians can expect further rate rises in the months ahead, why hasn't the government delivered the cost-of-living relief it promised last year for Australians to help with their energy bills? Why is the Albanese government all talk but no fix when it comes to addressing the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing? 15:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I fear that someone who didn't like you wrote that question, Senator Cash. How could you possibly put that to us when you oppose the billions of dollars we want to flow through the budget to give households energy bill relief? It is staggering those who opposed it in December, and we will make sure that, all the way to the next election, everyone knows that we came to the parliament and said, 'Here's $1 ½ billion we would like to distribute to households and businesses across Australia to assist with some of the increases in energy prices,' and the 'no-alition' said no. It said, 'You know what, no, you don't deserve it; you don't deserve this cost-of-living relief.' Then you have the hide to come in here and ask about what we're doing about cost-of-living relief on energy bills. Well, thank you very much for that dorothy, Senator Cash. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 30 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 30 15:04 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers to all questions asked by Coalition senators. What we saw in question time today was a Labor Party who have fundamentally failed to understand that they've broken their trust with the Australian people. We've seen them break one promise, and we know they're going to break more promises. If they're going to go after people with $3 million in their super account, what's to stop them going after people with $250,000 in their super account? That is what this is all about. It is about the fundamental breach of trust between a political party elected into office and those who voted for them. The Labor Party are forgetting the main principle of super. It's not the Labor Party's money. It's not the government's money. It's not Canberra's money. It's your money. It's money that you've put away. It's money that your employer has put away on your behalf so you can have a safe retirement. Over the last few weeks, the Labor Party, who went to the last election promising one thing, have now swooped in like a bunch of angry magpies, wanting to steal people's money from them. That's what this debate is about. It is about the Labor Party taking your money from you. Before the election, the now Prime Minister specifically ruled out any changes to the super system; that is what the Prime Minister said. Treasurer Chalmers said the same thing: 'There are not going to be any changes to taxes; there will be no tax rises.' But they are doubling the tax on people's super accounts. Treasurer Chalmers has inherited an eccentric economic legacy. He is a child of Paul Keating. Treasurer Chalmers did his PhD on Paul Keating, who most famously broke a promise. Before an election, Keating said that tax cuts would be 'l-a-w law' tax cuts, and then he broke that promise. Treasurer Chalmers then went on to great heights and worked for that other great Labor Treasurer, Wayne Swan. He was his deputy chief of staff and then chief of staff. This is the person who is now in charge of Australia's finances. Treasurer Chalmers is the love child of Paul Keating and Wayne Swan. If that doesn't scare you, then the full realisation that Labor are coming after your super accounts should scare you. What a Labor minister has said in relation to your super accounts is that it's honey—just think about that. I'm a big fan of Winnie-the-Pooh, and Winnie-the-Pooh is a great fan of honey, but that's Winnie-the-Pooh's honey. How dare the Labor Party treat your money—the money that you've worked so hard for—as their money, their honey, to be given away, to be put where they want it? Leave people's money alone. I don't know anyone who has millions of dollars in their super account, but—guess what—good on them! They've worked so hard for it. It's not like they won Gold Lotto and went, 'Yippee, I've got $3 million in my bank account!' These people worked for it. What the Labor government is saying to these Australians is, 'We're taking that money off you.' What should concern you even more—and I'll repeat myself here because certain people in this building are hard of hearing; they've probably come from the shallow end of the gene pool and don't understand basic economics—is that, if they're going to come for super accounts with $3 million, they're going to come for super accounts with $250,000 or $300,000. Once they break a promise, they'll break other promises. The strongest message that has come out of today's question time is that Labor have no shame whatsoever about breaking promises and they have no shame about taking your money—money that you and your family have worked so hard for. But the mob over there, the mob on the Left side of politics, don't understand that, because they've never had a real job. These are the people who've never worked on a farm, have never worked in a business. These people have worked in the Public Service—and by the way, good on people who work in the Public Service, except when you end up on that side, being that bunch of economic vandals who are destroying Australians' retirements. 15:10 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I want to start by thanking Senator David Pocock for advocating for people who actually need government support, and that is people who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of experiencing homelessness— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 A point of order on relevance— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Well, I think the honourable senator hasn't had long enough to make— Senator Stewart 299352 To talk about a different question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, I'm handling it. I don't require assistance from you. I'm handling a point of order. So, just let me finish it, and then I'll give you the call in a moment. Senator Scarr, the senator hasn't had long enough to even attempt to be relevant. Senator Stewart. Senator STEWART 299352 Thank you. I'm getting there; I'm getting there. I was thanking Senator Pocock for advocating for people who really need help from the government—unlike the hill that those opposite are going to die on for 0.5 per cent of the population who have over $3 million in their super balances. It is an absolute disgrace. This is the hill they want to die on—but sure. There are some sensible questions coming from over here, but over there is absolutely ludicrous. We know what side they've chosen, and it is not the side of the Australian people. We know that the tax changes they made to superannuation affect one in three people—four per cent of the population, but it will affect one in three people in 30 years time. But sure: have a crack at us. They don't want to support things that will actually ease cost-of-living pressures for Australians, like cheaper child care, cheaper medicine, skills, housing. They're focused on 0.5 per cent of the population. The people they're advocating for wouldn't necessarily care a whole lot about these things. They don't care about secure jobs. They don't care about Australian manufacturing. They don't care about affordable housing, power bill relief or wage increases for the lowest-paid workers across our economy, or veterans at risk of homelessness, women fleeing family violence or businesses looking for energy security. They don't care about any of these things, but they're advocating so, so hard for 0.5 per cent of the population. It wasn't just Labor who inherited $1 trillion of debt from the absolutely derelict management of the budget. It's the Australian people who inherited that debt. Australian taxpayers are having to pay for the trillion dollars of debt they left them. So, I just want to make sure that we understand the problem that we are facing as a country and that Australian taxpayers are having to pay the bill for. It is an absolute neglect of responsibility on their side. What's been really clear over the past couple of weeks is whose side they are really on. They're on the side of 17 people who have over $100 million of super. That's whose side they're on—not the side of the average Australian person. And they're on the side of the one person who has $400 million of super. But they want to absolutely try to deny a $1-an-hour wage increase for our lowest-paid workers—$1 an hour is all those workers were asking for. Those opposite want to absolutely say that that's off the table, but they want to go in hard and die on a hill for people who have over $3 million in super balances. What an absolute disgrace. They want to be on the side of 0.5 per cent of the population. It's worth saying that Labor built super. We will always protect it. We know that those opposite have a whole lot of things that they want to say no to: secure jobs, Australian manufacturing, affordable housing, power bill relief and wage increases. But what they want to say yes to is borrowing billions of dollars to give 0.5 per cent of Australians a tax break. This measure will give the budget $2 billion in its first year. Those opposite have no solutions, no ideas and no alternatives—just 'no'. Their idea for trying to repair some of the damage done to the budget is to go after some of our most vulnerable Australians. Of course I'm talking about robodebt. Alan Tudge said: We'll find you, we'll track you down, you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison. They try to track down some of our most vulnerable Australians but they advocate hard for those with over $3 million in their superannuation. 15:15 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to make some remarks in relation to Senator Gallagher's answers during question time today. The current government made a number of promises before the election about not wanting to touch super. Several statements were made on the record. Further to that, statements were made about not wanting to touch franking credits. This week we've seen legislation introduced to change franking credits, to destroy the franking system, and a new policy to introduce a new tax on super. All of these ideas may have been developed in the treasury department. The government are facilitating these ideas because they are not wanting to restrain spending, which is what they should be doing. They're spending $45 billion on off-balance-sheet items, which is fuelling inflation. And we've seen another interest rate rise today, thanks to the Labor Party. The government could also be looking to bank their gains from commodity price increases, but rather than do that they've decided to introduce this new tax. So far, the government have had two policies on super. The first policy has been to funnel more money to the unions and the second policy has been to put in place a new tax. If they're not locking it up and taxing it, they're locking it up and shipping it off to the union. Those are the two policies the Labor government has on super. In relation to this particular taxation measure, it introduces a very novel, very strange concept of unrealised gains. If you're a company, you don't pay tax on revenue and you don't pay tax on sales; you pay tax on profit. You deduct your expenses from your revenue and that is your profit, and you pay tax on that profit. The same thing goes for the super funds today. They pay tax on earnings, which recognises that it's very hard to pay a tax if you haven't actually got some money in your hand to pay the taxman. But the government want to pursue this very strange idea of unrealised gains, which will result in superannuants having to sell lumpy assets in their funds in order to pay the taxman. That is a foreign concept in Australian taxation law. It remains to be seen how that will happen. Perhaps the most important point, though, is the judgement call not to index this measure. For the party that say super is their favourite thing, this is the thing that is going to wreck the system, because why would anyone want to put money into a system for 30 or 40 years when they know there's going to be a great big tax at the end of it? If you are 30 years old, you are going to be in the cohort that will have the greatest tax disincentive because of the time value of money. If the measure is not indexed, why on earth would people put money into a super scheme? If I wanted to wreck the system—and I personally think it's a very bad system because it doesn't work very well for workers or for the taxpayer—I would do what the Labor government is doing, which is to not index the scheme. Increasingly, Australians will look at other ways of saving for retirement. One of the great differences between us in this chamber is that we believe in the individual. We believe that Australians are smart enough to make their own judgements. The Labor Party believe in paternalism, and they think people are too stupid to save for themselves, so they have introduced— Government se nators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Order on my right! Senator BRAGG 256063 I can't hear over the interjections, Deputy President. You might need to bail me out. Of course, the Labor government believe in paternalism. They think people are too stupid to save for themselves, so they've introduced this saving scheme which takes away— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator BRAGG 256063 I can't hear over the interjections, sorry. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Order on my right. I can't hear the senator. Senator BRAGG 256063 I can't hear meself think here! They've introduced the system, and it's very paternalistic. Now I think they're going to kill it with this design feature. Of course, this new tax policy works in tandem with Mr Stephen Jones's initiative to introduce an objective for super, which, of course, the government want to introduce to stop people from taking money out when there is an emergency, like a pandemic, or to take money out to pay for a first home deposit, because their only objective here is to keep the money in the fund so that it can be transferred to the union. In the government for vested interests, the only objective is to feather the nest of the rent seekers and the bloodsuckers at the unions and at the super funds. They don't give a rat's about the workers. 15:20 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Senator Bragg, I can't believe you just said that it's wrecking the system. Senator Hume earlier mentioned something about how this is another tax credit to prop up rampant spending. Can we just get to the facts straight here? Those opposite seem to be thinking increasing wages of our lowest paid workers is rampant spending. Are you saying that increasing paid parental leave is rampant spending? Are you saying that cheaper medicine to help all those vulnerable Australians is rampant spending? Are you saying that accessible and affordable housing is rampant spending? And now you walk away. Listen to this: are you serious? Senator Scarr 282997 Point of order— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Payman, I got the point of order. You cannot reflect on the movement of a senator. Senator PAYMAN 300707 I withdraw. Have a great day, Senator Bragg! Getting back to the context of the matter—I am having too much fun, clearly—we will not allow those opposite to lecture us on honesty and transparency. This is a modest and meaningful change that has come before the government, which was elected by the Australians as a responsible government to fix up the mess that we were left with, a trillion dollars in debt. And not only that, there was a decade of delay, denial, destruction—that is, triple-Ds on your report card—but debts in the trillions as well. I don't think your parents would be happy. Stop blaming COVID for your poor policy choices. You had a decade. What did you do? Senator Stewart 299352 Rorts and waste! Senator PAYMAN 300707 Exactly—thank you, Senator Stewart. Those opposite love spreading fear. They don't realise that this change is not going to affect 99.5 per cent of Australians out there—99.5 per cent. These are Australians who are doing it tough out there with the cost of living, the rising pressures that are on their families and— Senator Henderson ZN4 It's 10 per cent. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Henderson, please don't— Senator Wong 00AOU Just ignore the interjections. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Wong! Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It's not a discussion. I am very interested in what Senator Payman is debating in the chamber. Can we please allow her to speak in silence. Senator PAYMAN 300707 It's fewer than 0.5 per cent of Australians with super balances of $3 million who will still enjoy generous tax concessions, but they're not as a generous as they have been—and I do not think that is asking for a lot, when we are talking about what the government has delivered so far for people who are doing it tough out there, including making medicines cheaper, creating 180,000 fee-free TAFE places, delivering on the 20,000 new university places, establishing 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave, making sure that we had the Jobs and Skills Summit to hear from stakeholders, to hear from locals about what issues in those industries we needed to address. We have established the National Anti-Corruption Commission, we have got wages moving again after a decade of stagnation that we have experienced, and we hear from those opposite that all of this has been rampant spending—it's rampant spending to take some sense of responsibility and to actually fix the mess? It's really tough to just sit there and hear all that. Senator Stewart earlier quoted one of your leaders; I don't know if it's appropriate for me to mention their name. But last week we heard the member for Fadden admit to the royal commission that he lied about robodebt because loyalty to his colleagues mattered more than what it did to Australian people. So many Australians suffered under the scheme. For what? What a perfect summary of their entire time in government: loyalty to themselves and not to the Australian people. You sit here thinking that Australians should listen to you, to your scare campaign, to you neglecting them and putting yourself first. It really is a matter not just for shame but for you to really reflect. I would highly advise that those opposite really reflect on the last decade that they've been in government and what they've done with that time. Maybe take a leaf from our book on what we've achieved in the short time we've been in power. 15:25 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'd say to Senator Payman: I've got my own library and I don't need to take a leaf out of anyone else's book. But I did enjoy seeing her having fun making her contribution here today, and I acknowledge her contribution. There are two fundamental issues we have in relation to this issue of the superannuation changes. The first is the legitimate expectation of the Australian people that people who are elected in this place, especially if they're from the governing parties, will say before an election what they plan to do and then actually do it and also will say before an election what they're not going to do and then not do it. That's the first issue we have. Let's go through it chronologically. This is all on the public record. Prime Minister Albanese said on 31 January 2022: We have not planned for any changes on superannuation. Barely one year later, promise broken. Our Treasurer, the Hon. Jim Chalmers, member for Rankin, said: Look, we've said about superannuation that we would maintain the system. Our Treasurer said that on ABC Insiders on 27 March 2022, less than 12 months ago—promise broken. And then our Prime Minister again: We've said we have no intention to make any super changes. That's our now Prime Minister, speaking on 2 May 2022—promise broken. That is the fundamental issue in this debate: broken promises from the now Labor government. They said in opposition that they wouldn't do certain things. They get into government. Less than 12 months later, they do exactly what they promised not to do, and that will quite legitimately shake the Australian people's belief in the integrity of this new government. They have said one thing before an election to get elected and then done the opposite thing after an election. To be frank, it impacts all of us. It impacts all politicians, because we all suffer a bit when someone makes a promise before an election and doesn't carry it through. That's the fundamental problem we have here: the government saying one thing in opposition and doing the opposite when they get elected. The second issue we have here is the notion that you should tax unrealised capital gains. I don't know where this concept came from, but it doesn't make any sense. In superannuation, you want to keep your investments stable over the longer term. You shouldn't be forced to sell them in order to meet a tax liability. It doesn't make any sense. I don't know where the government got this advice from. My colleague Senator McKenzie asked a very legitimate question of the finance minister with respect to the position of farming families who hold the family farm in a self-managed super fund. It's quite reasonable that tax is paid on the rent that's paid by the individuals to the self-managed super fund which owns the farm. No-one's going to quibble with that. We wouldn't cavil with that at all. The problem under the laws as proposed is that, if the price of the farm fluctuates upwards because of high rainfall, good markets et cetera, it could create a tax liability which would require the liquidation of the farm in order to meet the liability. That is the fundamental issue. And it isn't just me saying this; it is the National Farmers Federation. These are not the words of a politician, but the words of the peak body representing farmers. It said: Australia's peak farming body has warned that superannuation changes announced by Treasurer Jim Chalmers could cool investment in agriculture, unless the detail is worked through with farmers. …   …   … "Yesterday's announcement throws up significant uncertainty for family farms—with scant detail on things like grandfathering, treatment of revaluations, or how this might impact lending in a climate of rising costs and interest rates. These are not my words. They are not the words of a politician but those of the peak body representing farmers. The farmers in my home state of Queensland deserve to get answers from the Minster for Finance in relation to those questions. Question agreed to. Economy 34 15:31 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice he asked today relating to interest rates. As I stand here to make this speech, the RBA has just raised interest rates again. This is the first time in Australia's history that there have been 10 consecutive interest rate rises. The RBA itself has found that the current inflation spike is being driven primarily by supply-side shocks and corporate profiteering. The RBA itself has admitted that its models are not well suited for supply shocks and also that there is very little that monetary policy can do to offset supply shocks. The RBA said today that the monthly CPI indicator suggests that inflation has peaked. Yet here we find ourselves, colleagues, with 10 consecutive interest rate rises. The RBA is responding to a problem it admits its models can't understand with a solution that it admits is the wrong tool for the job. This is a form of institutional madness. The central bank is out of control, and it needs to reined in. This is where the government should act. Specifically, Treasurer Jim Chalmers needs to wake up from his slumber and take action to save the renters and mortgage holders of Australia from being smashed by the RBA's relentless and dogmatic interest rate rises. The Treasurer has the power under the RBA Act currently, and he should exercise that power rather than sit idly by while the RBA risks tanking the economy and smashing renters and mortgage holders. Instead of sitting on his hands, he should intervene in the RBA. What he should also do is introduce a corporate superprofits tax. Let's all be clear about where we find ourselves at the moment. Real wages are declining at the fastest rate on record in Australia. Yet corporate profits are going through the roof. We are through the looking glass here, colleagues. This is the dead-end of neoliberal economics. People are starving while the corporations announce mega profits, and the government does nothing about it because it is blinkered by its neoliberal orthodoxy. The opposition is the same. This is where we find ourselves. The Treasury told the Senate estimates committee that the risk of a wage price spiral remains low, but here we are with renters and mortgage holders getting smashed by interest rate rises in a circumstance where the RBA itself has found that the majority of the inflation spike is being driven by supply-side shocks and corporate profiteering. The government seems to believe that 10 consecutive interest rate rises smashing people, renters and mortgage holders, into poverty is the right response to a non-existent wage price spiral. Figures out today show that the volume in retail sales is in decline. People are buying less because they can't afford to buy stuff. The poorest Australians, those who can least afford to be made worse off, are being left behind while the wealthiest Australians continue to make off like bandits. Yet all the government can do is offer some ashen faced commentary while people are being smashed into poverty; and while the banks, the fossil fuel corporations and the supermarkets announce mega profits. We need to tax corporate super profits, tax the wealthy, freeze rents, put dental and mental health into Medicare and raise income supports. We could do it all tomorrow if the government would work with the Greens. Question agreed to. NOTICES 35 NOTICES Presentation 35 MOTIONS 38 MOTIONS Ukraine 38 15:37 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That the general business notice of motion standing in the name of Senators Bilyk and Van, relating to Ukraine, be called on immediately and considered for 60 minutes, after which the question be put. Question agreed to. Senator WONG 00AOU At the request of Senators Bilyk and Van, I move: That the Senate, observing one year since Russia's 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine: (a) deplores the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which continues a pattern of illegal and immoral aggression against Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, which has resulted in a toll of destruction, many thousands of human casualties, and the displacement of over 14 million Ukrainians; (b) condemns: (i) acts by Russia aimed at destroying the national, cultural, religious and democratic institutions of the Ukrainian people and Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and (ii) Russia for violating international law noting the clear evidence of war crimes being committed against the Ukrainian people; (c) notes Australia continues to stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression and has provided Ukraine with military and humanitarian support, as well as refuge for displaced people and will continue to do so; and (d) reaffirms the eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly, which also condemned, deplored and expressed grave concern over attacks on civilian populations and infrastructure and reiterates its demand that Russia withdraw from Ukraine's recognised sovereign territory. It is with sorrow and resolve that I move this motion marking one year since Russia's illegal and immoral full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Sorrow for lives lost, futures disrupted, civilians recklessly targeted by Russian missiles, and the hunger and hardship deliberately inflicted on the vulnerable of the world by a criminal Russian regime through the deliberate damage it has wrought on global markets for grain and energy. But the courageous people of Ukraine can do little with our sorrow, so I also move this notion to demonstrate our government's and our nation's resolve. As Olena Zelenska, Ukraine's first lady, has said, we are not commemorating a year of war. We are celebrating a year of resistance, a year of courage, a year of solidarity, and a year of Australia and our partners doing what we can to support the people of Ukraine. We have imposed travel bans and targeted financial sanctions on more than 1,000 individuals and entities in response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. We've committed more than $500 million in military assistance to Ukraine, including, most recently, $33 million for additional uncrewed aerial systems. In late January I had the privilege of visiting the training grounds where ADF personnel are training members of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as part of a UK-led multinational training program. We do many things in this job which are moving, but that was amongst the most moving of engagements I've had. I was deeply moved by interactions with the new Ukrainian soldiers, who only a year ago were teachers, farmers, professionals and more, now standing ready to fight against Russian aggression. Mr Putin and Russia have underestimated the courage of Ukrainians like these soldiers, and they underestimated the resolve of the global community. As I said in the UN last year, Russia is to be condemned for its illegal and immoral invasion. It should be condemned as an attack on all smaller countries. What it represents, fundamentally, is the assertion that a larger country is entitled to subjugate a smaller neighbour. On 24 February, Australia was one of 141 UN member states that again rejected this assertion—141 countries voted in support of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine; only seven voted against. Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine has prompted many of us to look back at our history, at the horrors in Europe and Asia that led humanity—that led the global community—to establish the Charter of the United Nations. For many living through those times, it must've seemed that power and lies would succeed. In 1942, George Orwell published his reflections on the competing propaganda that swirled around the Spanish civil war. He saw competing propaganda and lies—what we would now call disinformation. He wrote of his fear that the very concept of objective truth was fading out of the world, but we know now that he was wrong. The truth, at great cost, eventually won out. I say this to Russia and to its apologists and cronies: your crimes and your lies will not stand. In fact, you have only strengthened our collective resolve. You see, we have reflected anew on the type of world order we treasure—the lives lived to potential, the dreams and ambitions fulfilled and the common aspiration around this world that our children prosper in peace and live better lives than our own. Russia has reminded us again that these treasures, important to so many people around this world, are born of a system of rules and order respected by all. One year on, let us commit anew to these rules and laws and, in doing so, commit anew, one year on, to stand with the people of Ukraine. 15:42 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Ira Lyubarskaya is a young woman, a university student—a young university student with dreams and hopes—but Ira is from Mariupol. Ira is one of so many human faces with human stories that have been told as part of the bloody war that has struck Ukraine. Ira has buried her friend's parents, helped her disabled father to flee, seen her mother trapped in Russian territory and lived on stinking mattresses in the basement of her former building. In Ira's words: We lived in Building No. 7; there is no building left … I went to the Mariupol State University; there is no university left. There is no city left. …   …   … Putin 'liberated' us from our home, from our studies, our work, our future. We, in Australia, thousands of kilometres away, care about the war in Ukraine because there are important principles at stake. We condemn the barbaric, illegal and immoral actions of Vladimir Putin and the Russian government he leads. To do otherwise would be to imperil us all by tacitly condoning the actions of violent autocrats. But, amidst our important principles and our strong condemnation, we should remember Ira and the countless other stories of unnecessary loss and suffering. UNICEF analysis suggests that 80 per cent of Ukrainian children are now living in poverty. These children are not just facing the obvious physical risks of war from shelling, firing and combat. Such children are not just facing the mental health scars that will stay with them throughout their lives. Their lives and long-term health are imperilled in other ways. The destruction by Russia of more than 800 Ukrainian health facilities means children are missing out on vital vaccines that would otherwise shield them from future disease. Then there are the horrific instances of war crimes committed by Russia. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has identified mass graves, massacres and torture chambers. In one of its reports, the OSCE spoke of the mutilated bodies of murdered men, women and children discovered in a basement. Some had their ears cut off, while others had their teeth pulled out. Amid such horrors and crimes, it would be easy to be despondent. But if there is one thing Ukraine has shown itself to be the antithesis of, it is despondency. Ukraine has come to be defined by defiance, stoicism, bravery, resolve and triumph. Putin expected a quick victory, but Vladimir Putin was as wrong in his military strategy as he is in his moral compass. This war was unprovoked, unjust and unacceptable. Thirty-one years ago, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, proud Ukrainians rose up and seized their national identity to once again recreate their nation. Using their rights under international law, Ukrainians embraced their sovereignty, celebrated their nationality and built their nation. Although imperfect, like all of us, Ukraine has much to be proud of and much to defend. Ukraine and Ukrainians can be especially proud of their defence of their nation. They and much of the world have been inspired by the acts of courage and bravery. Inspirations have come in many forms, most visibly in the leadership of President Zelenskyy. As President Zelenskyy said, Ukrainians made a choice on 24 February last year—not of a white flag but of a blue and yellow flag. He spoken not only in defence of territory or people but of principles—the right to self-determination, to security and to live without being threatened. These principles form the basis of our call to arms, Australia's call to arms, even from the other side of the world. No small or mid-sized nation should tolerate seeing another invaded by or made subservient to a bigger or more powerful regional neighbour. In helping to defend Ukraine, we defend the principles, the norms and the international laws that help to defend Australia. The previous coalition government proudly stepped forward with $225 million of defence military equipment, $65 million in humanitarian assistance, thermal coal to support energy supplies and humanitarian visas for Ukrainians forced to flee. We applied financial sanctions against hundreds of Russian individuals and entities as part of coordinated action with like-minded partners. The Labor government has built upon this foundation with more support and more sanctions, and our bipartisan support for these actions is emphatic. We will continue to encourage and welcome further actions and encourage further humanitarian assistance for people like Ira and others, as well as encouraging the reopening of Australia's embassy in Kiev. If democracies have suffered from self-doubt in recent times, the Ukrainian spirit reminds us to have confidence in ourselves, confidence in the enduring nature of our values, confidence to speak truthfully about threats to freedom and confidence to show resolve in confronting evil wherever it lurks. As we acknowledge this first anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine we say confidently, 'Slava Ukraini. Glory to Ukraine.' 15:47 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania On 24 February this year the Ukrainian community throughout not just Australia but the world joined with supporters to commemorate one year since Russia's illegal and immoral full-scale invasion of Ukraine. I was honoured to be invited to speak at the Hobart rally and vigil. We couldn't bring on this motion that day because parliament was not sitting; however, bringing it on today ties in well with this evening's launch of the Australia-Ukraine parliamentary friendship group, which I understand is now the largest friendship group in the parliament. As chair of the group, I would like to thank those members and senators who have joined and to encourage anyone who hasn't joined to join. I would also like to thank Senator Van for serving as deputy chair. I'm looking forward to the launch tonight and to catching up again with the ambassador of Ukraine, His Excellency Vasyl Myroshnychenko, with whom I have developed a great working relationship. I'd also like to acknowledge two members of the Ukrainian community in the gallery here today. There are other members already in the building, off having meetings with various ministers and other people. I thank you for being in the chamber and thank you for coming to the parliament. Please be assured that you have very, very good friends in this place. It gives me a great sense of pride that Australia is one of the largest non-NATO contributors to Ukraine. We've provided $65 million in emergency humanitarian assistance and over half-a-billion dollars in military assistance, with our most recent support including sending ADF personnel to the United Kingdom to train Ukrainian soldiers and contributing $33 million in drone technology. Our significant assistance to Ukraine is complemented by actions to impose costs on Russia, including sanctions targeted against more than 1,000 organisations and individuals and import and export sanctions against a number of commodities, including Russian oil, refined petroleum products, coal and gas. Our assistance to Ukraine has been maintained through the transition from a coalition to a Labor government, and it has continued to have bipartisan support through both. In fact, I understand it has the unanimous support of the parliament—at least, I haven't heard any dissent. There is no better demonstration of parliament support to Ukraine than when both houses gathered for a group photo with the ambassador, in which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition stood shoulder to shoulder with the ambassador. That was a historic moment. The Australian parliament has never done that before. But parliament doesn't stand alone in its support for Ukraine. Our stance is a reflection of the overwhelming support of the Australian public. Australians understand that even though we are almost on the other side of the world, Australia needs to be in this fight with Ukraine—not just for Ukraine's sake but for our own national interests. Russia's actions threaten the stability of the rules based order that governs international relations. Australians understand that Russia's actions are a threat to every country and the rules based order that maintains global stability. I am certain the assistance given to Ukraine and costs imposed on Russia by Australia and our allies have been instrumental in ensuring that Russia's invasion has been a monumental failure, but international solidarity with Ukraine is not the only thing holding Russia back from achieving its objectives. What is also standing in their way is the patriotism, resilience and fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people. I am in no doubt that Russia underestimated the Ukrainian people and that they expected to be in a much better position than they are now. While 24 February marks one year since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it is the culmination of over 30 years of Russia's attacks on Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Since Ukraine gained its independence in 1991, Russia has interfered in the domestic politics of Ukraine, illegally annexed Crimea and backed separatist militias in the Donbas region—the very militias who were responsible for downing Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, murdering 298 people, including 38 Australians. A lot of people know that my interest in this conflict, like our nation's, is motivated by an aspiration for global stability and security, but my interest is also very personal. My surname is Ukrainian. I have family ties with Ukraine by marriage, and my husband, Robert, who is of Ukrainian descent, still has a strong connection to his Ukrainian heritage. We are both involved in the Ukrainian community in Tasmania and have been for many, many years. So we see and hear how Ukrainians are suffering, and it affects us deeply. So, given that this is personal, I have the following message for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Mr Putin, the blood that has been spilt—Ukrainian and Russian—in this illegal and unprovoked invasion is on your hands. You have failed to appreciate that Ukrainians are a proud people with their own language, their own culture and their own identity, who have embraced democracy and want to determine their own future. For this reason, your invasion will fail. That is inevitable. The important question for you is how much more blood has to be spilt before that happens. I commend the motion. 15:53 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I would like to thank Senator Bilyk for being chair with me on the Parliamentary Friends of Ukraine since I came into this place in 2019. We have worked very well together on this issue, and I do thank her for her hard efforts. While we are celebrating the anniversary of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, 24 February 2022, it can't be lost on any of us that this war has been running since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea. We have learnt lessons from that, as have the Ukrainian army. We are now seeing a complete rout of the Russian troops. They have effectively lost this war. They have certainly lost the war that they set out to fight, and that is to decapitate the Zelenskyy administration in Kyiv, and then go over and take over the country. That is never going to happen. Why isn't it going to happen? Because like-minded nations have stood side by side with Ukraine and given them the arms, material and financial aid that they deserve. They deserve it richly, because, as we've seen, they've fought these fights. We've seen these Russian tactics before, whether in Aleppo in Syria or in Grozny in Chechnya. We've since seen how they fight a war of attrition, in Mariupol and now in Bakhmut. These aren't new tactics for the Russian army, but they are tactics that are bound to fail as long as the West keeps on arming Ukraine and as long as the West keeps on giving Ukraine the weapons they need to fight the war. I've been saying for close to a year that the West needs to supply the main battle tanks and fighter jets. Thankfully, we've seen those main battle tanks promised and some delivered. What we need to do now is convince like-minded countries to send in those fighter jets, which are so desperately needed for air defence and ground strikes, to hit those dug-in trenches where the Russians are hiding away through this winter. As most of you will know, particularly our foreign minister, I visited Ukraine in August last year. It wasn't unauthorised; I was invited by the Ukrainian government. It was an incredibly eye-opening trip. I went for two reasons. The first was to go there—I did a lot of interviews with media there—to tell Ukrainians that we haven't forgotten about them and that even a country as far away as Australia remembers what they're going through and is there to support them. The second was to be able to come home and say to Australians, 'We need to stand with Ukraine.' I've seen the damage that this Russian army has done in Ukraine. It's not pretty. I wouldn't suggest that anyone go there just for sightseeing purposes. I went there and I saw the Bushmasters that we donated, which are being used in this battle incredibly well. I met with the troops that are using them. Sadly, now some of those troops are no longer with us. They've been lost in this war. It reminds me every day that we in Australia, and all our like-minded countries, need to do more. We need to do far more. Yes, we have promised $475 million in military aid. Sadly, not all of that has made its way into the country yet, and I encourage this government to speed up those deliveries. On my first morning in Kyiv, I went for my morning run and I ran past our embassy. We share a building with the Canadian embassy. You can see the Canadian flag flying there. The Australian flag is not there, because our ambassador is not there. The most important thing I learnt while I was there was the resilience of the Ukrainian people. Every person I met was waiting to be called up. Whether they were a taxi driver or a barista making a coffee—anyone you met in the street—everyone was saying: 'I'm up for this fight. I'm up for this fight, and I'm dying to go.' Every person I spoke to—and, I think, every person in that country—will fight to defeat Russia. We need to be doing our bit to support them, and we must. 15:58 Senator STEELE-JO 250156 Western Australia HN () (): War is a most terrible thing. Those so-called leaders who would pursue wars of aggression, to dominate, to subjugate and to profit from their neighbours for political purposes are committing, in that act, one of the highest legal and moral crimes possible in the human community. In their illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin and his regime have joined a dark pantheon of despots, dictators and sometimes democratically elected officials who have committed such vile crimes. In speaking to this motion today, I once again extend the solidarity of the Australian Greens movement to the people of Ukraine in their struggle to retain and reassert their sovereignty and to face down this vicious dictator and his brutal regime. In doing so, I also reiterate the calls of the Australian Greens for all nations that are party to the United Nations Charter to work collectively in accordance with the Uniting for Peace resolution, No. 377 A, to deliver coordinated international support to the people of Ukraine. It is absolutely incumbent upon Australia to work as part of the international community to ensure that the words of solidarity that are so often and so easily spoken in political chambers throughout the world are translated into material action. One of the ways in which those words must be translated into that material action is to now begin organising an international program of debt relief for Ukraine to support them in the urgent work that will need to be done for the rebuilding of their communities. Right now, as we sit here, the Ukrainian army is engaged in a great battle with Russian forces over the city of Bakhmut. Much has been said in relation to the military strategic value of this engagement and this location. But we must not forget that this is a town which before the war hosted 70,000 people. Seventy thousand people called Bakhmut home, and it is now little more than rubble. Should the Ukrainian army and their allies achieve their strategic objectives, should tomorrow the Russian forces be thrown back over the border, should Crimea be liberated, the very next day the residents of Bakhmut will have no more home to return to than they do right now. There is a profound moment of danger for the people of Ukraine in that moment if, in the aftermath of victory on the field, the international community declares 'mission accomplished' and moves on. We cannot let that happen. We must ensure that the Ukrainian government are provided with that plan of debt relief so that they can invest in the rebuilding of their communities and the reknitting together of those communities, to be able to once again have the services and supports that people need to ensure that a state is able to function in a time of peace, and to do more than simply deliver ammunition, materiel and troops to a battlefront. If we fail in that moment—if we turn away and say, 'You've got your battle tanks, but it's a very hard conversation for us to have with the IMF or the ECB or global moneylenders in relation to your national debt'—then in that moment we will condemn Ukraine to struggle to re-establish itself as a sovereign nation and a functioning, peaceful nation. We will continue this work. We will continue to advocate alongside the Ukrainian community for these actions. In closing, I say simply this: Slava Ukraini. Glory to Ukraine. 16:04 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria On behalf of the National Party, I rise to support the motion and honour the bravery and strength of the people of Ukraine, who continue to courageously fight a war not of their making—a war which President Putin expected to last just three days but which has now passed the one-year mark in duration. This illegal, unprovoked and unjust conflict has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians by Russian forces, according the UNHCR, with more than 7,000 civilians killed and 11,000 injured, including 177 girls and 221 young boys. The UNHCR reported in September last year that 12.3 million people had fled the Ukraine, while seven million had been displaced internally. That's 18 million Ukrainians that have left their homes. Many thousands more have been forcibly deported to Russia. Historic cities that have taken hundreds of years to build now lie in ruins. Ukraine estimates that Russia has caused US$1 trillion worth of damage since the start of the full-scale invasion last February, and that it is not even allowing for the costs in Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, which were invaded in 2014. The Ukraine government has estimated that 150,000 residential buildings, 1,500 schools and 20,000 kilometres of roads have been destroyed. And Russia, in its indiscriminate attacks, has targeted hospitals, schools and energy supplies. Russia's blockade of the Black Sea ports is equal to economic blackmail with some of the world's poorest people now paying higher prices for food, energy and the very means to survive. In the areas liberated from Russian forces, Ukrainians have uncovered mass graves as well as evidence of rape and torture on an unimaginable scale. It is President Putin who is responsible for this. He could stop it at once by withdrawing his forces from Ukrainian land, but he continues with his delusions of imperial grandeur and expansion. He blundered into a war that he cannot and will not win. Ukrainians were always going to resist a hostile attack aimed at wiping out their country as Russia was warned that if they instigated the conflict Ukrainians would defend their homeland ferociously, and they have. Today, Ukrainians are more unified, proud and determined than ever, and the overreach of Russia has united the world in the common purpose of peace and to defend the principles of the UN Charter. All Australians remain united and resolute in our support for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Today, to be in the chamber and to hear the Labor government, the Liberal and National parties in coalition, the Greens and the independent senators stand as one, united in our support for Ukraine, is demonstration of what is occurring. This is a microcosm of what's actually occurred, particularly across Western democracies around the world. We, as a nation, are doing our part in helping Ukraine fight this illegal war and abate the global economic impacts Russia has caused. It is the former coalition government that stood with Ukraine 12 months ago, offering substantial humanitarian, economic and social support, and that has been continued by today's Labor government, and we thank them for that. We played a major role in food supply and fuel for Europe and the wider economic community. We've donated 70,000 tons of thermal coal to support Ukraine's energy security. We've banned the import of Russian oil, petroleum, coal and gas, banned the export of alumina, bauxite and luxury goods to Russia, and introduced an additional tariff of 35 per cent on imports from Russia and Belarus. We will continue to provide bipartisan support to the Australian government to ensure we provide more military and humanitarian assistance. Our former coalition government committed $285 million of defence military assistance, including 40 Bushmasters from my home state in Victoria, produced in Bendigo, and $65 million of the humanitarian assistance in Ukraine's fight for freedom. I'm proud to say that Bendigo Bushmasters have played a central role in Australia's military assistance. This is a David and Goliath battle. As a middle power in the global order, Australia stood strong at the start, and I think it was particularly our efforts at the beginning of this war that—I don't think it was an assured assumption that everyone was going to come to the table 12 months ago—we stand as united, as the Western democracies in particular have, against the aggression of this illegal war. So, practically and philosophically, this nation stands with Ukraine. We stand for peace, but it's not peace at any price. The sovereignty of this nation matters, and we won't stop supporting them until they can be sovereign again and Vladimir Putin and the Russian forces are behind their own borders. 16:09 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I thank the Senate for this opportunity and I thank my fellow senators for their contributions. We've watched on for over a year now at the horrors of the war in Ukraine, a country being invaded, a people fighting bravely and against all odds for their families and for their country. The world has rightly grappled with what to do with such an immoral, illegal and unjust invasion. I believe we can learn much from the words of a moral giant, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor who grappled with this question in the face of Hitler and what to do in that situation. He left some wisdom for us: Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act. The global community has made clear the condemnation of Putin's actions. We must call for an end to this war and we must call for peace. We must stand alongside the Ukrainian people. I am really proud to represent so many people here in the ACT who have been protesting, fundraising and looking after Ukrainian refugees. Many of them have put their lives on hold to focus on this. I'd really like to take this opportunity to read out some of the words of a few of them. The first one is Canberran Marusya Jacyshyn. She said: 'My parents were forced to leave their beloved homeland, Ukraine, due to the twin horrors of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. They were never to return to their families. Our family arrived in Australia in July 1949. Australia provided a safe haven and hope to rebuild their shattered lies. My late parents worked tirelessly for Ukraine's freedom, sovereignty and independence. This was passed on to their children and grandchildren. The Ukrainian community in the Canberra region, with their loyal friends and supporters from many countries of origin, have protested for over 12 months, every Saturday, outside the Russian embassy—not just in support of Ukraine's fight for self-determination, freedom and democracy but for that of the free world. I urge the Australian parliament to continue to provide bipartisan support for Ukraine with humanitarian aid, military aid and economic aid. This full-scale war waged on Ukraine by the Russian Federation impacts on all of us. Thank you, Australia. Slava Ukraini.' The next one is from Andrew Liszczynsky. He said: 'We're 12 months into this war, Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, and the Ukrainian community here is still outraged about the invasion. Ukraine is a sovereign nation and is grimly defending that sovereignty. The Ukrainian community here and all over Australia, and the rest of the world, continue to protest this Russian aggression and will continue to do so whilst Russian forces are in Ukraine. Let's make no mistake, Putin is trying to destroy everything Ukrainian—identity, language, culture, religion and cultural icons. But he will not win, because Ukraine, led by President Zelenskyy, is strong in its resolve. Ukraine is determined to defend all things Ukrainian, and the world is showing massive support because this is simply wrong. Putin will lose and Ukraine will prevail.' Lastly, I have a contribution from Dimitri Kun. He said: 'Thank you, Australia, for supporting Ukraine. We must continue the support. Russia's disregard for international norms and laws must be stopped by Ukrainians now or else we may find that other dictators, inspired by Putin, start territorial conflicts and wars. That is not a good prospect. We stand with Ukraine and we call for an end to this war. Slava Ukraini.' Clearly, this is an issue that we need to continue to speak up about. I thank the major parties for their support of Ukraine, at this time, and for the many thousands of Australian people who, in their own way, have protested or shown their support to people in Ukraine. 16:14 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On 24 February 2022, after months of Western intelligence agency warnings and Russian denials, the armed forces of Russia invaded the land of Ukraine. We saw on TV live pictures of helicopter landings in Hostomel Airport, armoured columns advancing on suburbs and cities and the Ukrainian population filling bottles of Molotov cocktails, sending children away from their homes and arming themselves in response. In what was meant to be a three-day easy victory, as we heard, we are now on day 377, and they retain control of a very small portion of Ukrainian sovereign territory. We have seen war crimes, we have seen targeting of civilians, we have seen and been reminded of the horrors of war over and over again, in Bucha, in Mariupol and now in Bakhmut. Even overnight there was a video of a Ukrainian prisoner of war being executed on camera. His last words were, 'Glory to Ukraine.' But we have also seen the best of humanity, people coming together in unity of purpose, helping each other, protecting their country, their way of life, working to survive. Across the globe there has been humanitarian military aid in response to the needs of Ukrainians and their government. Just hours after the invasion, President Zelenskyy was quoted as saying: 'The fight is here. I need ammunition, not a ride.' The world has heard that, and it has answered. The people of Ukraine, inspired by its armed forces and political leadership, turned the tables and drove the invaders completely out of western Ukraine, with the famous tractor corp of Ukraine claiming hundreds of pieces of military equipment that could be repaired and then reused against the invaders. The world is not fuelling Ukraine's ability to fight. Ukraine's ability to fight is fuelling the world's appetite to stand up for what is right and what is wrong. I searched for better words than those of the German foreign minister, but I couldn't find them. She said: 'If Russia stops fighting, the war stops. If Ukraine stops fighting, there is no more Ukraine. It is that simple.' But this is not going to be a defeat of Russia. It is a defeat of decency, it is a defeat of diplomacy and it is a defeat of humanity. We must do better. Russia has a right to its own security and to feel safe within its own borders. It does not, however, have any right to act with such hostility across and within the borders of another sovereign country. That is not the way to achieve this. To Russia I say: tell the world what security you need to pull all of your forces and all of your arms back to the borders of '91. What can the world do to stop sending the sons of the Rodina to their deaths? What can the world do to halt your illegal, immoral and corrupt slaughter of the innocent and the destruction of such beautiful, historical and productive lands? It's not just the future of Ukraine you hold in your hands; it is the future potential of Russia. No-one wants to see a generation of young men taken away from their families, their homes and their jobs. These men that Russia is sending to their slaughter deserve so much better than that. The Stalinist phrase 'quantity has a quality all of its own' should not be measured in body bags. This war must end because no-one will win it. The war must end with guaranteed safety of Ukraine and Russia within their own borders, and in Australia we've done our bit. We have sent our aid, we have sent our arms, we are sending our training and we have sent our love and support to Ukraine. Respected independent open source intelligence like ORIX has observed the loss of six of our Bushmasters and three of our M113 APCs. It is likely that more has been lost, but we have seen these put to action and the crime is that people have died while they were in them. We must continue to seek opportunities to assist the Ukrainians, we must continue to seek opportunities to support peace and when all of this madness ends we must seek opportunities to support reconstruction and reconciliation, for the absence of armed conflict does not in itself represent peace. But the war rages on. People are dying today, they will die tomorrow and the risk is we will all become so used to it that we become desensitised to it, we stop caring and we stop helping. I say to Ukraine: I will not stop caring, Australia will not stop helping. We must do whatever it takes to deliver peace to your country and your people, and please, until that day, stay safe, fight hard, and we salute you. 16:19 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Before making my remarks, I want to pay tribute to my good friend Senator Bilyk and to Senator Van. The way they have come together in order to provide leadership to the friends of Ukraine is just an outstanding example of what this place does at its best. Thank you very much. On 25 February 2023, I attended a rally in King George Square in my home state of Brisbane. In that place, in King George Square in Brisbane, the Ukrainian spirit was there for all to see and feel. It was there in King George Square—the spirit of freedom, democracy, sovereignty—a spirit that has survived the horrors of the Stalinist Soviet Union, which survived World War II and which now, against all odds, is surviving. Also in that square, with our Ukrainian brothers and sisters, were brothers and sisters from Iran, representing the Iranian community. There were representatives from our wonderful Vietnamese community, our African community and our Indian community. The very, very best of Australia was in that square in Brisbane on Saturday 25 February 2023. There were also leaders from all major parties. Graham Perrett MP was there, my local member. I was there, representing the coalition. Cameron Dick was there, representing the state Labor government. David Crisafulli MP, the state opposition leader, was there. The deputy mayor of Brisbane was there. There was a unity of purpose in that square on that day. It was the very, very best of Australia. I say to the Ukrainian people: please know that we are standing with you, shoulder to shoulder, on this journey. In doing so, we are standing shoulder to shoulder with everyone in the world who believes in freedom, who believes in democracy, who believes in a rules based international order. We are there for this journey, for the long term, until it comes to an end and peace and sovereignty reign once more in Ukraine. COMMITTEES 45 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 45 Reference 45 16:22 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts—Cocos (Keeling) Island—West Island—Seawater Reverse Osmosis Plant. Question agreed to. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I table a statement in relation to the works. DOCUMENTS 45 DOCUMENTS Australian Carbon Credit Units 45 Order for the Production of Documents 45 16:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland At the request of Senator Hanson-Young, I move: That— (a) the Senate rejects the Minister for Climate Change and Energy's claim of public interest immunity, outlined in a letter received by the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on 1 March 2023, in relation to documents and modelling that would demonstrate the forecast use of Australian carbon credit units because this information would not in any way disclose the deliberations of Cabinet ministers; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong, by 4 pm on Thursday, 9 March 2023, the documents and modelling relied on for the forecast usage of Australian carbon credit units over the decade to 2030. Question agreed to. Deputy Chair of ASIC 45 Order for the Production of Documents 45 16:24 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 9 March 2023, the report of an investigation conducted by the Treasury into allegations made about the conduct of an Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Deputy Chair, referred to in a letter from Treasury Secretary Dr Steven Kennedy to ASIC Chair Mr Joseph Longo on 1 February 2022. 16:24 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will be opposing this motion. It would be inappropriate for a report into a confidential workplace investigation to be tabled in parliament. Tabling such a report would represent a significant breach of privacy for the subject, complainant and witnesses, and could potentially act as a deterrent for any future complaints. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 160 standing in the name of Senator Bragg be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:29]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 Solicitor-General 46 Order for the Production of Documents 46 16:32 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than midday on Monday, 20 March 2023: (a) advice provided to the Attorney-General's Department by the Solicitor-General in relation to deployment of Australian Defence personnel under section 61 of the Australian Constitution; (b) advice provided to the Attorney-General's Department by the Solicitor-General in relation to the power of general control and administration by the Minister for Defence under section 8 of the Defence Act 1903; and (c) advice provided to the Attorney-General's Department by the Solicitor-General in relation to section 61 of the Australian Constitution or section 8 of the Defence Act 1903 between 2001-03. 16:32 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will not be supporting this motion. It is the longstanding practice of governments not to disclose legal advice. A parliamentary committee is currently reviewing how Australia makes decisions to send service personnel into international armed conflict, with the terms of reference referred by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, the Hon. Richard Marles MP. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade will be soon be reporting on its inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 161, standing in the name of Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:34]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF URGENCY 47 MATTERS OF URGENCY Climate Change 47 16:37 The PRESIDENT 112096 We'll now move to urgency motions. I'm going to deal with the urgency motion put forward by Senator David Pocock, who has submitted a proposal under standing order 75: Pursuant to Standing Order 75, I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the Safeguard Mechanism reform must be effective in bringing Australia into line with holding global warming to 1.5°C. The design must be based on an emissions reduction hierarchy that delivers genuine emissions reductions while also ensuring a future for essential industries." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required b y the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly, and I call Senator Pocock. 16:38 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the Safeguard Mechanism reform must be effective in bringing Australia into line with holding global warming to 1.5°C. The design must be based on an emissions reduction hierarchy that delivers genuine emissions reductions while also ensuring a future for essential industries. Australians elected the 47th Parliament with a mandate for real and ambitious climate action. The government may have their mandate of 43 per cent, but there are many MPs and senators with a mandate for action more in line with the science. Scientists have spent decades telling us that we need to act now to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change—effects that we are already seeing and that communities across the country are experiencing. The costs are mounting. We're seeing natural disaster after natural disaster, but we're not seeing the kind of action from politicians that we need. The safeguard mechanism presents an opportunity for us to show the children who come through here and watch Senate proceedings, children across the country and children who have taken the government to court to say: 'You have a duty of care to look after us.' And we've seen the Australian government challenge that, and say, 'We don't have a duty of care to young people and to future generations.' We have an opportunity, with the safeguard mechanism, to begin to bring our climate action in line with the science. The safeguard mechanism has to work. It has to actually reduce emissions, and this means ensuring that emissions reductions are real and not just on paper. Under the proposed reform, Australia will join Kazakhstan as one of only two countries in the world that allow unfettered access to offsets, and it's obviously no good. There is a huge amount of evidence and agreement on the need for an emissions reduction hierarchy. Companies must first avoid and then reduce their own emissions. Offsets can only be used as a last resort. To quote the former Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb: Offsets can't be a device which big emitters use not to change their behaviour, not to do something about reducing emissions. I have no doubt that coalition senators will stand up and speak about how the safeguard mechanism will put industries at risk and push up prices. What they're missing is the opportunity for industry in a low-carbon economy. What they are missing is the moral obligation to act on the biggest challenge humans have ever faced. We're blessed with an incredible wealth of resources in this country. We hear a lot about resources, and resources will be a big part of our future, but not fossil fuel resources. We need to focus on the resources of the future and stop allowing politicians to conflate the two and present people who want a livable future and a transition away from fossil fuels as people who are against resources. Our major trading partners are decarbonising and starting to give preferential treatment to low-carbon imports. That is a massive opportunity for Australia, with our incredible mineral wealth. From the government, we will likely hear that finally something is being done and put in place for real climate policy. But we don't have time for incremental changes. We can't just say we're heading in the right direction. The fires and floods of the last few years should be a wake-up call for all of us. We owe it to those communities. We owe it to Australians. We owe it to Australians who haven't been born yet to deal with this now, and we have an opportunity with this legislation. We will likely hear that a hierarchy of mitigation is assumed in the legislation, but there is nothing explicit to ensure that we are avoiding emissions, reducing emissions and then, as a last resort, using the land sector to offset. So I commend this to the Senate. This is a really important policy, but we have to get it right and we have to ensure that it reduces emissions in this country. 16:43 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thank Senator Pocock for the opportunity to speak on his urgency motion relating to the safeguard mechanism reform, which of course is a live issue in this parliament and something that there's been much deliberation upon. I note that, in the matter of urgency that Senator Pocock put before the chamber, he references global warming and keeping it to 1.5 degrees and goes on to talk about the design needing to be based on an emissions reduction hierarchy—which we've just heard him speak about—that delivers genuine emissions reductions while also ensuring a future for essential industries. I think it's important to focus on a couple of points in that as I provide a response from the coalition on this issue. The issue of climate change is, as this motion points out, a global one. It's one where there is a global responsibility. So it is right for us to do what we can here in this country. I think it is imperative that a country that can should show responsibility and do what it can to minimise its impact on the environment, including when it comes to carbon emissions. But the problem with the matter we're dealing with, when it comes to the safeguard mechanism that is the subject of consideration here, is that there is a difference of opinion in this place about exactly how best, under what is being proposed, we can achieve what we seek to achieve: minimising human impact on the environment and, in this case, minimising carbon emissions, without having an undue and damaging impact on the economy. It's something I've talked about a couple of times here. For what it's worth, the coalition's view is that the proposal that is referenced in broad terms in the motion is one whose environmental impact we haven't seen properly assessed. We actually don't know what impact it will have on emissions reduction. There are some projections. We've just dealt with a motion around some of the modelling that the government refuses to reveal to us. We don't know what the impact will be—what reliance on carbon credits. Similarly, we don't know what impact such a proposition will have on the economy. It is something we've flagged as needing more serious consideration and more thought put into it. The second part of Senator Pocock's matter of urgency, particularly at the tail end—'delivering genuine emissions reductions while also ensuring a future for essential industries'—is I think absolutely important. Part of the concern the coalition has around what is currently before us is the idea that we will see industries that cannot meet emission reductions mandated under this legislation and under matching regulation and that cannot access carbon credits, either through the safeguard mechanism credits or through ACCUs, faced with this increased cost of doing business in this country. The end result, despite promises that there will be a scheme to protect these trade exposed industries, like cement manufacturing and aluminium production, will be protected through a formula. We're not convinced that that is the case. The proposal doesn't ensure a future for essential industries, and that is as important as making sure we get right what we need to when it comes to reducing emissions. If you don't get both of those things right, then we're failing on both counts, and no-one is better off. Indeed, when you don't protect these trade exposed industries and try to bring them on the journey with you—try to work with them to invest in innovation and technology, to work with academic and educational institutions to provide better technology to minimise the impact on the environment—then those businesses, because of this penalty of $275 per tonne of carbon above the baseline, will either reduce production here, in the best case, or simply shut up shop and go offshore. Then those emissions, which we could otherwise be working with them on to minimise, will be generated offshore, somewhere else. To go back to that original point: it's a global responsibility; it's a global problem. We can't simply offshore our problems and make someone else try to deal with them, because we will still have the issues Senator Pocock talked about before. That's why it is right to expect the information needed to understand the government's proposal and to ensure that we're getting it right in what we're putting in place to reduce emissions but also to minimise the impact on the environment for our future generations. 16:48 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Pocock, for bringing forward this afternoon's urgency debate. Action on safeguards is urgent. That is something we can both agree on. It is exactly why the government has legislation before the parliament right now that alters the safeguard mechanism so that facilities covered by the mechanism must reduce their direct emissions in the future. We can also agree, I think, that reforms to the safeguard mechanism must ensure that Australia's biggest emitters do their fair share when it comes to emissions reduction. On that basis, we're happy to support the motion and have this conversation here in the Senate. But we think it is important to be clear about the safeguard mechanism reforms that we propose and what we are doing, because we don't agree with the whole of the senator's contention in the motion. Our government is unapologetically focused on transforming Australia's domestic economy to a low-carbon economy. It is the most important thing we can do to support the ambitious international action that is necessary to contain global warming to 1½ degrees. It's why one of our first acts in government was to legislate an ambitious but achievable emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030—a floor, not a ceiling—and our safeguard reforms have been carefully designed to support that and to support Australia's biggest emitters to remain competitive in a decarbonising global economy whilst reducing their emissions. A fit-for-purpose safeguard mechanism does provide the policy certainty for businesses to invest in decarbonisation and seize the opportunities from global energy transformation. The mechanism we propose will progressively lower baselines, consistent with our legislated target. We estimate it will deliver 205 million tonnes of abatement by 2030. With respect to Senator Pocock, this is not trivial and this is not, as characterised, incremental. These reforms are significant, and they are designed so that all facilities, whether they are existing or new, reduce their emissions. The proposal creates strong incentives for facilities to reduce those emissions onsite and for the industrial sector to decarbonise. Of course, for facilities who may reduce emissions below their baseline, they will have the opportunity to create and sell safeguard mechanism credits. It is part of arrangements for flexibility that secure both our economic capacity and our emissions reduction. We want to ensure not only that these facilities meet their obligations but also that they can grow. We know that many safeguard facilities are in hard-to-abate sectors, like cement and steel, where technologies have not yet been demonstrated or aren't yet commercially available. The access to flexible options is incredibly important for these sectors. ACCUs are part of this. The land sector is part of this. An ACCU represents a tonne of emissions avoided or sequestered. We are strengthening confidence in that scheme to ensure the continued integrity of that abatement. We've done that through the Chubb recommendations, which found that the scheme is sound. Of course, Professor Chubb made recommendations for reform, and we're committed to implementing those. But let's be real about this. These ACCUs contribute to our legislated targets, and they are not a free pass. Facilities that choose to use ACCUs will have to buy them on the open market, and many businesses will choose to permanently reduce emissions in their own facilities onsite. Of course, as indicated just now and in recent weeks, those opposite have made themselves irrelevant to this process by opposing a policy that they themselves proposed to implement when they were last in government. The former government had grand plans for safeguard crediting. In fact, it was their policy right up to election day, included in their election document 'Our Plan for Resources'. Yet here we are, with coalition senators repeating the same old lines. After a decade of delay, denial and dysfunction, all that there is on offer is half-baked scare campaigns that are made up from the same old talking points. But, for the first time in a decade, we have a parliament comprising members and senators who are willing to deliver what the Australian people have been crying out for for a decade: action on climate. They called for action loudly at the election, and now they have a government that is willing to deliver. But we cannot do this on our own. We require a majority in this place, and, when the legislation comes before senators, it will be a choice of real significance. We can seize or squander the only chance before us to get emissions down from our largest industrial emitters. I thank senators for their constructive engagement with Minister Bowen and with the government, and I look forward to the debate proper when it commences in this place. 16:53 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland To have any chance of getting the climate crisis under control and meeting even this government's weak emissions target, there can be no new coal and gas projects—not one. The inquiry into Labor's safeguard mechanism heard from expert scientists and economists. The conclusion was clear: under the safeguard mechanism, as it is currently proposed, actual pollution from coal and gas goes up. We're not talking about incremental progress that the Greens just don't think goes far enough; we are talking about a flawed scheme that will actually make the climate crisis worse. Surely, the measure of a good climate policy is whether it makes pollution go down. On that measure alone, the safeguard mechanism fails to deliver. Throughout the inquiry, the government was asked repeatedly to show evidence that the safeguard mechanism would bring down pollution from coal and gas. They made no such commitment. The department offered no evidence. Their own projections confirm that emissions from gas will increase. The emissions from the first five years of the Scarborough gas project alone will wipe out the entire claimed benefit of the safeguard mechanism. It is difficult to have any confidence that the scheme will do anything to curb business-as-usual behaviour from coal and gas companies. It's no wonder that it has the support of Woodside, of Shell, of Rio Tinto and of Origin. The safeguard mechanism targets only scope 1 emissions, and only 4.9 per cent of coal and gas entities covered by the scheme will face a price signal. Any cost impacts imposed on this fraction of a fraction of overall emissions can be completely offset, with facilities able to buy their way out of the scheme at a very low price for a very long time. Already contracted ACCUs—Australian carbon credit units—account for nearly 70 per cent of the total abatement goal. So, not only can coal and gas pollution continue to rise as long as enough offsets are bought but also more than two-thirds of the modest ambitions of this scheme will have been achieved without a single dollar of new investment. Lax exit arrangement for government contracts will see 84 million land based offsets from the Mr Angus Taylor era flooding the private market, to be scooped up by coal and gas companies that are planning new projects. This could push out exposed industries that actually need assistance to abate their emissions. The Greens want genuine Australian industry and manufacturing to thrive. Aluminium, steel, bricks, fertilisers, glass and cement all have a future in the clean economy, but coal and gas don't. We should be supporting genuine Australian industry to transition, not asking them to make room in a finite carbon budget for more coal and gas. We must limit the use of offsets and ensure that offsets have integrity. The scheme allows entities to keep going on, as long as they buy enough dodgy offsets. It's a clever accounting trick, but it won't fool the planet. The Greens have made an offer to support the safeguard bill if the government commits to no new coal and gas. But we've also said that we're open to other ways of achieving that end, including through a climate trigger. This nation has squandered the last critical decade for climate action under a climate-denying government. We need this government to design a scheme that makes pollution from coal and gas go down, not up. 16:57 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will be supporting this urgency motion today. However, we do not support all of the substance of Senator Pocock's motion. Let me be clear. The Albanese government does agree that action on safeguards is urgent. We agree with Senator Pocock on that point. That urgency is exactly why the government has legislation before the parliament right now that will alter the safeguard mechanism to ensure that Australia's biggest emitters do their fair share when it comes to emissions reduction. I was with the energy minister, Chris Bowen, in Gladstone at the start of the year when he announced this policy and set out the details of the consultation process that we will go through. We have proposed a fit-for-purpose safeguard mechanism that will provide policy certainty for businesses and the regional communities they support and will deliver genuine emission reductions. The safeguard legislation will be a test for senators in this place. For the first time in a decade we have a parliament of senators and members who are willing to deliver what the Australian people have been crying out for: real action on climate. At the last election, Australians voted for an end to the division, the climate wars that have plagued government policy for a decade. Now they have an Albanese government that is ready to deliver and wants to deliver. We're getting on with the job and taking action on climate, just as Australians expect us to do. But we cannot do that on our own. We require majority support in this Senate. So I ask Senator Pocock and other senators: what will you do when the safeguard legislation comes before the Senate? There is going to be a clear choice that will need to be made. Senator Pocock can join with the government and take decisive action to get emissions down, to take 205 million tonnes of emissions out of the system to 2030—the equivalent of taking two-thirds of Australian cars off the road. Or it can choose to join the obstructors. And let's be clear. They have been obstructing action on climate change in this chamber for decades, both in government and in opposition. That is their record. He can sit alongside the climate wreckers and climate deniers on the opposition benches and block action on climate. That is the choice senators will be facing. We know what happened when the Greens faced that same choice in 2009 and 2010. Instead of voting for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, they sat with the Liberals and Nationals of Tony Abbott and blocked climate action. The reality is that their choice derailed climate action for a decade. I say to Senator Pocock and other senators thinking of standing in the way of safeguards: do not let history repeat. There are good-faith discussions happening between the government, the Greens and other senators, including Senator Pocock. I thank these senators for their engagement, which stands in stark contrast to those opposite, who, under the Leader of the Opposition, are determined to oppose everything and take no responsibility for cleaning up the mess that they created. The Albanese government will continue to work constructively with those who are willing to be constructive and important partners on this task as we look to reduce emissions. But this is an opportunity too important and too urgent to miss. That's why we agree that this is a matter of urgency today, and we will be acting on this issue as a matter of urgency in coming weeks. But if Senator Pocock really believes this is a matter of urgency and wants to keep faith with the people of the Australian Capital Territory, who have been national leaders when it comes to climate action, he will back our legislation when it comes to the Senate later this month. As I mentioned, I was with Minister Bowen in Gladstone when he announced our proposals around the safeguard mechanism. The important point about that is that we want to work with industry to ensure that they can lower their emissions, because a lot of these industries are very important not only to our national supply chains but to the task that we face in rebuilding manufacturing in this country. Unlike the Greens, who operate in a silo on these issues, we know how important it is to work constructively with industry, who want to bring down their emissions, and we want to provide the government leadership to enable that to happen. That's what we want to do through the safeguard mechanisms. That's what Minister Bowen announced when we were in Gladstone in January. That's what the government intends on delivering on over the coming weeks in this chamber. I call on all senators to engage in constructive discussion to ensure that we can pass this safeguard mechanism, because it is of vital importance for Australia's future. It also of vital importance for Australia's industries that they can continue to operate and deliver the employment that so many regional families rely on. That's what we want to deliver. 17:02 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The northern jarrah forests of my home state of Western Australia are some of the most beautiful, diverse and vulnerable forests on planet Earth. The preservation of these forests and their continued contribution to action on climate change is paramount. They have indeed been identified as an ecosystem of particular risk due to the increasingly drying climate, which is a reality of climate change. It is places like this that I want to see protected. It is places like this and the contribution that they make to our planet and our community that call on us, among so many other things, to pass climate laws which take on corporations and actually tackle the climate crisis. Corporations such as Alcoa have gotten away with far too much for far too long. Not only have they been clearing our forests; just last month it was revealed that they have built a pipeline carrying toxic waste across Western Australia, right over the top of a key water supply dam. Toxic waste is flying over the top of a drinking water reserve! This toxic waste contains forever chemicals, known to cause serious adverse health issues, including cancer and impacts on reproductive health. This wasn't an unforeseen accident. This wasn't an unfortunate whoopsie. Alcoa made an application to build this pipeline. The application was under assessment, and Alcoa went ahead and built the thing anyway. You'd rightfully assume that such wilful disregard for human health and the law would result in harsh penalties. Significant fines and criminal charges strike me as appropriate. So what happened? Alcoa was forced to purge the pipeline and—nothing. That's it. That's all they were required to do. This is, again, not something that went unforeseen. Alcoa knew that this was exactly how it would play out, just as Rio Tinto knew when they misplaced a radioactive capsule somewhere in the Pilbara, and the worst they faced was a $1,000 fine. In WA, mining companies know that it is better for business to ask forgiveness rather than permission. These corporations must be held to account, via climate laws, for their impact on the climate crisis. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Senator Steele-John. Senator Whish-Wilson. 17:05 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania It was good to hear Labor senators today acknowledge that millions of Australians—after more than a decade of climate inaction in this place—voted to get climate action in this parliament. Isn't it ironic that the first piece of legislation we have before us in this parliament is an ex-Tony Abbott piece of legislation? Soon we are going to debate whether you can polish a turd. But let me tell you, right here and now, the only thing this legislation will safeguard is the profits of big polluting companies. The only thing this legislation will safeguard is the cosy relationship between the Labor political party and the Liberal political party and their big fossil fuel donors. It won't safeguard the children who are here in the chamber today, watching this debate, and their futures. It won't safeguard our climate or our environment or our communities that are suffering, that have been in parliament this week urging us not to pass this safeguard mechanism as it is. You can't fix a problem by making it worse. We are not going to let this opportunity pass for the 1.8 million Australians who voted for the Greens, to give us the balance of power in this place, to make sure we get climate action in this parliament, because it has been too long. Some of us have been in this chamber day in, day out for over a decade, trying to get climate action. I thank Senator David Pocock for bringing this debate here today. Senator Ayres 16913 What happened in 2009? Senator 195565 We will not be locking in failure, Senator Ayres. I'm happy to take your objection. I don't know why you keep writing Julia Gillard out of the history books, because she was able to come in here and, with the Greens, negotiate what was the gold standard around the world for climate action. We were very proud of that. I'm not sure why you and the Labor political party keep writing her out of the history books, going back to 2009. The world's changed since 2009. In case you haven't noticed, the physical world is changing! The Barrier Reef is bleaching. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 You can laugh at the Barrier Reef bleaching, which you always do, Senator Canavan. I hope the cameras, once again, come in close on your smiling face while we're talking about the death of our natural world—our forests burning, the loss of biodiversity, the shifts we're seeing in nature. You might think that's funny but we're in here to get climate action. That's what Australians put us in this place for, and we will not let them down. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the urgency motion standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [17:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Dodson, P. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 27 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 53 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Albanese Government 53 17:17 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 A letter has been received from Senator Canavan: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The Albanese Labor Government's litany of broken promises; from cheaper power prices, to cheaper mortgages to no changes to super and no new taxes which demonstrate a betrayal of the Australian public's trust. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 17:17 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland While some might say the government is still in its honeymoon period, it has broken more promises than any newlywed in history. It's been only 10 months since the election, and I have a list of 10 broken promises from this government, one for each month in government. They're not little promises, either; they're not small ones, but they were all sweet nothings that the Labor Party whispered to the Australian people over a year ago, during the election campaign, to reassure them that it would deliver for them. Instead, the Australian people have been completely dudded and these promises have been completely broken. At the top of the list is the oft-repeated promise to cut people's power bills by $275 a year. In fact, the now Prime Minister made that promise 97 times before the election. Ninety-seven times Anthony Albanese said to the Australian people that he would cut power bills by $275. Guess how many times he's repeated that promise since the election: zero, nada, zilch. He doesn't mention it anymore. It was a sweet nothing said before the Australian people walked down the aisle with the Australian Labor Party. Once the vows were said and the ring was on the finger, he completely forgot about it, as if he'd never said it before. Anyone who's opened up a power bill in recent months knows that they certainly haven't gone down by $275. My power bill hasn't. It's skyrocketed up, in the opposite direction, and now the Labor Party won't even give an inch of support to the fact that they made this promise. The Labor Party also said there will be no changes to superannuation. The Prime Minister said that on radio many times. He said he had no plans. He said on 31 January last year, 'We have not planned for changes on superannuation.' In the last two weeks we've seen a doubling of superannuation tax rates for—we now know, thanks only to the Senate yesterday—10 per cent of Australians. The now Prime Minister also said that he would increase real wages for the Australian people. In fact, a couple of weeks ago it was confirmed that we've had the biggest reduction in real wages in recorded history—another broken promise from this Prime Minister. We had a promise that there would be no increase in the tax burden. As I said, that has already been breached by the superannuation promise. We've also had the Treasurer out there in the last couple of weeks saying that he might tax the family home, too. He hasn't ruled that out of contention. Senator CANAVAN 245212 Who knows! Who could trust what you say here today, when you're definitely not keeping up with what you said last year. The Australian Labor Party also promised that people's franking credits wouldn't be touched. Remember that? They wouldn't be touched. We learnt this week that they're back on the agenda to be taxed. When the Australian people elected the Labor Party last year, they thought they were getting Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister. They're actually getting Bill Shorten. All of these policies are what Bill Shorten took to the 2019 election. The Labor Party tried to drop and hide for the 2022 election, but Bill Shorten is back. He is back with his agenda of taxing superannuation and taxing franking credits, and, we expect, probably taxing the family home and investment properties in the future as well, like the Labor Party wanted to do in 2019, which was rejected. The Labor Party also said there would be no return to industry-wide bargaining. That was removed late last year—another promise broken just before Christmas. They promised wage rises for aged-care workers. Like the rest of us, they're seeing their real wages go down. Mr Albanese promised that he would deliver cheaper mortgages for the Australian people. He promised cheaper mortgages, and then today, just in the last couple of hours, we saw the tenth increase in interest rates—nine on this government's watch. We've seen nine interest rate increases in the space of 10 months from this government, after promises of cheaper mortgages. Finally, he promised that Australian families would be better off. Clearly, with rising interest rates, rising power prices and increasing taxes, Australian families are not better off under this government. No-one could make that claim. My opponents here will get up and say: 'There were all these problems. We've had the Ukraine war and all these things.' Guess when Ukraine was invaded: February last year, three months before the election. It happened then. Guess when inflation started peaking: about 18 months ago. He should have known that then. The Labor Party knew they were telling fibs to the Australian people a year ago. They tried to hide it. It's been exposed. Now they have a litany of broken promises that are going to be held around their necks until the next election, in two years, when the Australian people have their say on how they think broken promises should be treated. 17:22 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania What a desperately written MPI from an opposition that couldn't even navigate their way back to port in calm waters, let alone when there's been a storm. Public trust in government has been at an all-time low after a decade of the Liberal coalition government. I will put up Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister against Scott Morrison any day. The Australian people finally saw through the Liberal coalition under Scott Morrison for their rorts, dishonesty and lies. They made their judgement based on what they had experienced for over a decade. The Liberal coalition were caught out, time and time again, for the lies, the corruption and the rorts of grants. That is what this opposition will be remembered for, for some time to come. It's very unfortunate that those opposite have the audacity to come in here and make these claims in relation to broken promises when, in fact, the Australian people still see us as the government of hope, the government that will put their interests first and the government where they know the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister, not a prime minister who tries to take on other ministers' portfolios. Senator Hughes 273828 I have a point of order on relevance. It's not addressing the question that was put by Senator Canavan at all. Could you bring Senator Polley back to what the actual urgency motion is? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 It is a wideranging debate and I'm sure that Senator Polley has addressed the issue and will continue to address the issue. Senator POLLEY e5x Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for your protection from that. You always know that you're hitting a nerve when they take frivolous points of order that have no relevance whatsoever. This gives me the opportunity to continue to talk about the trillion-dollar debt that those opposite left the Australian government of today. It's not just a problem of the Australian government. It's actually Australian people's debt that we have inherited from a lacklustre, dishonest, rorting government. They're the facts, so it doesn't matter how many times those opposite come into the chamber and want to rewrite history. They want to make everyone feel that they haven't been looked after or the promises that we made at election time have not been fulfilled. They know that they have cheaper medicines. They know that they have affordable child care. They know that we will be addressing climate change. They also know that there are 180,000 fee-free TAFE places. When those opposite were in government they were very proud of the fact that they were running down TAFEs, with their state colleagues in Tasmania, and did nothing about building Australia's skills. They did nothing to protect manufacturing in this country—not a thing. Under the former government we saw manufacturer after manufacturer leaving this country and going overseas. Why? Because they were never on the job. Now they come in here and bleat about 0.5 per cent of the population who have $3 million in their superannuation funds. They're crying crocodile tears for those people, but they don't give a damn about the average Australian who has $120,000 or less in superannuation. You never hear those opposite come in and defend Australian workers. We saw them do nothing to address the concerns about the crisis in aged care, where we can't get people to work. We didn't see them doing anything about legislating to bring more nurses back into aged care. We heard absolutely nothing. We heard nothing from them when it came to instilling the support of their government to skill up Australians. They did nothing for low-paid workers, and they come in here now and try to rewrite history. The Australian people saw through them and they are still seeing them for what they were. I will guarantee one thing: history will actually hold Anthony Albanese, the Labor Prime Minister of this country, in much better esteem than history will ever show Scott Morrison and his government, with their rorting and dishonesty—and the fact that Scott Morrison had so much faith in his ministerial colleagues he took over responsibility for their portfolios! I mean, come on: give me a break. It is just ludicrous for those people to come in here and try and defend their record—the record of rorters, cheats and people who are dishonest with the Australian people. (Time expired.) 17:28 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people across Queensland who make up our amazing Queensland community, I'm speaking to Senator Canavan's matter of public importance motion. This MPI quite fairly criticises the Albanese Labor government for their record of broken promises already, including a promise not to raise taxation and a promise not to change superannuation. The Prime Minister is now raising tax on unrealised earnings of large superannuation funds. Way to go! Labor are running a two-for-one sale on broken promises, just in time for the New South Wales state election, where 5½ million voters are going to ask themselves: 'Do I trust Labor with government? Will they keep their promises?' To be fair, the Albanese government has not resorted to dividing promises into core and non-core promises—yet. But wait; it's early days. Their promise to bring down the cost of living is already broken. Today, Brisbane's Courier Mail newspaper reported that an average household in Queensland now has to spend an additional $1,150 a month to pay their bills and keep a roof over their head. That is a hell of a lot of money for everyday Australians to find every month. The Labor government is wrongly trying to blame international pressures for gas price rises. Gas was already increasing rapidly before the Ukraine conflict. The gas price rise has nothing to do with war between countries and everything to do with the war on coal. As the government closes down energy-intensive coal power and introduces more weather dependent solar and wind power, the grid needs more and more gas to firm the supply and maintain reliable power. Household gas is costing more as large electricity generators bid in the market for the gas they need to keep the electricity grid functioning. Increasing gas prices are demand inflation. Housing price rises are demand inflation. Four hundred thousand new Australians arrived in the last 12 months—400,000—all needing houses in which to live. Of course the price was going to rise. No wonder the Albanese government changed their election promise from 'cheaper power' to 'power going up less quickly'. Every coolroom in every farm and dairy, and every Coles store and every other supermarket is now more expensive to run. Every bakery, restaurant, butcher, store and shopping centre is passing on huge increases in power prices. Mortgage repayments are rising because the previous government's money printing caused increasing interest rates. Labor went right along with those measures and is equally to blame for the inflation that that's now caused. Last week, Treasurer Jim Chalmers recklessly, wrongly, uncaringly, claimed the worst of inflation is over. Really? On what basis? New South Wales voters should not believe that for a moment. Inflation is a direct result of this government's core energy and spending policies. And this government is not going away until 2025. 17:31 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I might begin by saying, of course, we have to discount a motion coming from the Liberal-National coalition around broken promises. It's a party that seems to think it's okay to lie to the Australian people to maintain cabinet-in-confidence, which we've just found out about in recent days. I want to say to the Labor Party: if the safeguard mechanism that you are bringing to parliament is your plan for climate action, that will be a broken promise to the millions of Australians who gave you and the Greens and the crossbench a mandate for change in this parliament, at this really important and absolutely critical time in history. If the best we're going to get is an ex-Tony Abbott scheme, adopted from the Liberal Party and from Angus Taylor, Australians are going to be bitterly disappointed. They will see this as a broken promise when you campaigned on climate action. That's okay, because the Greens are here to help. It might feel like a thin green line, some days, but we are here to hold that line for the millions of Australians who voted for climate action and make sure that we put our communities, our country and nature first, and make sure that we get an outcome on reducing emissions. The legislation that you are bringing to parliament and that we've had a good look at now does nothing to reduce emissions. It does nothing to act on our planet emergency. You can't fix a problem by making it worse. This is the greatest challenge of our time. Guess who said that? Yes, a former Labor prime minister. This is a chance to fix it. We're happy to work with you to make sure we have no new fossil fuel projects in this country. (Time expired) 17:33 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales There are so many broken promises here to choose from but so little time to speak. It is very regrettable that there isn't more time. For the enjoyment of the chamber I'll focus on a couple that are known to me in some level of detail. In the 2019 election there was a policy statement by the Labor Party that it would turn off refundable offsets and thereby, effectively, destroy franking credits for many retirees. This was an agenda put forward by Mr Bowen, now Minister Bowen. He said, famously, in a radio interview in Sydney that if people didn't like that policy they should vote for the coalition. That's what people did in 2019. This time, they've come back and tried to attack franking again. Franking is a policy that the Treasury probably doesn't like. I'm sure Treasury's advice to the government is that they should try to damage franking, much to the chagrin of former prime minister Paul Keating. But rather than being upfront with the Australian people and saying, 'We want to stuff franking,' the Labor Party said they wouldn't touch franking. The quotes are really quite good. On 4 March 2022 Mr Albanese said in Perth that they were not touching them, when referring to franking credits. Just two weeks later he said, 'Labor won't have any changes to the franking credits regime.' The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, told Queenslanders, when it came to tax: 'We won't be doing franking credits. We won't be doing them. I couldn't be clearer than that.' He's certainly doing them. He's doing them over. What we're seeing now is a very sneaky and underhanded way of taking on franking credits. Rather than remove the ability of the funds to receive them, they're trying to turn them off from the corporate end and are thereby trapping $86 billion in credits that are on balance sheets today. The explanatory memorandum is very interesting. It says that if any entity has never previously made a distribution, then the entity will not have a practice of making distributions. That is the key test in this bill, that it will effectively stuff franking by removing the ability of a company to pay a franked dividend when it has raised capital—at any point in the past, possibly. The link between a company raising equity and then paying a distribution is going to be there in the bill. Therefore, the whole franking system is, frankly, at risk. This will have very serious consequences for Australia as a competitive jurisdiction. People will be less likely to invest in Australian companies. It will be harder for Australian companies to raise equity, and Australian companies will be more reliant on debt as a result of this change. The political point here is that the government should have been upfront and said, 'We are going to change franking.' Instead, they wrapped themselves in these promises. It's very disappointing. The other, broader promise they made was not to touch super. Hilariously, there's a gentleman in the House named Mr Stephen Jones. He's the Assistant Treasurer. He gave an address to the SMSF Association. He said: Anthony Albanese wanted me to deliver a particular message to everyone in the sector today. And it's about stability and certainty. …   …   … We want you to have peace of mind in your retirement. We want to make the case that your nest egg, your retirement savings are always going to be safer under Labor … There you go. You couldn't make it up. That's a good quote, isn't it? All the government has done since the election is move the goal posts. Clearly, there has been an agenda to try and feather the nests of their favourite rent-seekers, but this substantial tax change is really going to be a significant change to the system over the long term, because over the long term it's going to be younger Australians who will pay a much higher level of tax. Yesterday we heard in this chamber that 10 per cent of people will be hit by the tax over the long term, and that in the short term it will be about 100,000 people. The point is that if you've gone to an election saying you won't change the tax settings on super and your promises last less than a year, it shows breaking promises is part of your DNA. Whether it's in this policy area or on climate or on a range of other things across the board, the government has shown itself to be very unreliable when it comes to making promises and keeping them. 17:38 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It's unbelievably galling to be lectured to by those opposite on broken promises. The ridiculousness of it is that they actually made an art form of breaking promise after promise. Tony Abbott on election eve in 2013: 'No cuts to education; no cuts to health; no cuts to the ABC or SBS'— Senator Bragg 256063 That was 10 years ago. Senator O'NEILL 140651 I'll take that interjection from Senator Bragg as he leaves the chamber. Yes, it was 10 years ago, and then you just got better at lying over the 10 years. It got worse and worse. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Hughes on a point of order? Senator Hughes 273828 That was disparaging of a colleague. Can we ask that to be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator O'Neill, I remind you that it is disorderly to cast aspersions on reasons why senators might be leaving the chamber during your remarks. I remind you of that in making your contribution. Senator O'NEILL 140651 I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator O'Neill. Senator O'NEILL 140651 I didn't know that was the bit that was offensive. I thought you were taking umbrage at me calling the former Prime Minister a liar, but, if this is just about Senator Bragg leaving the chamber, it's okay. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator O'Neill, I would also remind you that it is best to be careful when using that particular word in reference to other members of the parliament. Please continue your remarks. Senator O'NEILL 140651 In 10 years, they made an art form of it. Four point seven billion dollars in funding to universities was cut, hundreds of jobs at the ABC and SBS were lost, and the former government scrapped the last two years of the Gonski reforms, and those were just the warm-ups. It just got worse and worse and worse. There were billions and billions in entrenched cuts that devastated the services that everyday Australians rely on, including the tearing up of $56 billion in funding under the National Health Partnership Agreement. Ask any Australian how hard it now is to get in to a doctor. Those were the kinds of broken promises that we saw day after day, year after year, during nine wasted years in Australia's history when we could have been really advancing on so many fronts. Mr Morrison was the PM with so many portfolios that he failed to do his day job and failed to fulfil his promises. He promised a religious discrimination bill, but his own party revolted against it. He promised a national integrity commission. He didn't even get up to bringing it into the parliament. He didn't even introduce it in the House. I don't have enough time to list the litany of pretences from the former government. So I'm absolutely not going to take any notice of the crocodile tears from those opposite when they come in here and talk about broken promises. It's a joke to see the coalition going in to bat for the richest superannuation holders in Australia at the very same time that the scandalous robodebt program that they instituted is unfolding before the eyes of Australians in the royal commission. Minister after minister, day after day, has been admitting to covering up systemic theft, with debts being illegally raised against their own people. And they dare to come in here and have a go at a government that's actually making a positive difference in the lives of Australians. Let me tell you: when I'm out there, people are saying to me, 'I'm so relieved to wake up in the morning and not feel as if there's a disaster landing on my head.' That was the characteristic of the former government. People know that the former government were happy to send illegal debt notices out to hundreds of thousands of Australians, hound them with debt collectors and then systematically lie and bully their way out of accountability for this tragedy. It was supposedly to improve the budget bottom line, yet they've left Australian taxpayers with a trillion dollars in debt. That's their record in economic realities. Labor, instead, is undertaking a responsible, orderly, predictable cabinet style government such as has not been seen in generations. We are making sure that we bring Australians along with us in facing the challenges that we face. The world changes, and our world needs a careful response from a government that pays attention to the detail. We know that fair and sensible measures need to be undertaken to restore our nation's finances. Those opposite think it's just fine for those people with millions and millions of dollars in super to actually pay a smaller marginal tax rate than a pay-as-you-go earner on a $44,000-a-year salary, and they think it's fine to borrow billions of dollars to keep in place those tax arrangements in super for people who have balances over $3 million. Now, I love the endeavour of people to get into business, create jobs and get the benefits of business. If you've got $3 million in super, good on you. But, if you've got more than $3 million in super, I don't think you should be getting more of a tax break than is being applied with this option, at 30c in the dollar. I think there are people in your committee who probably need to be able to see a doctor. I think people need services from this government. People need services a lot more than somebody with $3 million needs the protection of those opposite, who are standing up for 0.5 per cent of Australians who are clearly not doing it that tough. We're going to continue on with our plan to support workers, families and small businesses with cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, wage growth and more paid parental leave—game-changing reforms that are real and will make a difference to the bottom line of families across Australia. (Time expired) 17:44 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was elected to government in no small part because he insisted that his government would be one of integrity. In February 2021 Mr Albanese told the nation it was time to bring integrity back into politics. Well, it has been almost a year now and we're still waiting. Where is the integrity? Should we expect integrity anytime soon? Will Mr Albanese bring it back this year or perhaps next year? Perhaps in 2024 is when we will see the integrity. Now, don't tell us that the war in Ukraine means that the government can't do integrity anymore because we have used that as an excuse in this place for absolutely everything else. Or is integrity something that he needs the crossbench to support to deliver? Well, good luck getting the teals to agree to that one. Do you know what's funny? The only thing that Mr Albanese talked about more than integrity pre-election was $275 off your power bill. Almost a year in we are still waiting to see a sign of integrity, and the cuts to power bills are nowhere to be seen. Perhaps when the PM promised integrity what he actually meant was dishonesty, like when he promised the $275 cut to power bills. He made that promise, might I remind everyone here, 97 times. Maybe he actually meant rises in power bills, not cuts—kind of like when he promised no changes to super. That's what he promised, but maybe what he meant was changes to super. Much like when he promised that Labor had a plan—a clear plan—for cheaper mortgages. Maybe he meant that the Labor Party would preside over 10 consecutive interest rate rises to now. Less than 12 months into the Albanese government we are actually seeing quite a clear pattern: the government promises one thing, and the government goes and does something else. How is that for integrity? They say this, but they go and do that. The Prime Minister says you can absolutely, most definitely rule out changes to capital gains tax on the family home, just like he said you can rule out changes to superannuation, and then he goes and announces changes to superannuation and he doubles the tax rate. Why would you believe a word that this government says? Meanwhile, the Deputy Prime Minister was so confused by the constant changes to super policy—a policy that, of course, we were assured before the election wouldn't happen—that he couldn't answer basic questions when he was on Sky News recently with Peter Stefanovic. No wonder the Deputy PM was confused: he has no more faith in his government and their policies than the rest of us do. It takes a special kind of dishonesty to promise integrity and then break so many promises to the people that believe the claims of integrity. Mr Albanese can sure walk across the harbour bridge in a pride march, but do you know what he can't do? He can't walk in a straight line; that's what he can't do. The Treasurer, 'super' Jim Chalmers, can write 6,000 words on remaking capitalism—that's what he did—but he'd be hard pressed to write 60 words on what it means to operate with integrity. It's time that we bring integrity back to politics, Mr Albanese—it's time. We're all waiting for it. We're waiting for integrity from your government, just as Mr Chris Bowen is patiently waiting for his taxpayer funded Tesla—that's what he's waiting for. We're waiting for integrity from this government in the exact same way that Tanya Plibersek is patiently waiting for her chance to assume the top job. Actually, the way this government is going there is far more chance of seeing that than of seeing any integrity. Mr Albanese started with so much promise. What a pity he has not kept any of his promises. Does Mr Albanese not understand that democratic nations run on trust? The citizenry grant permission to government to exercise authority in exchange for a government's commitment to act honestly and to act fairly. That's the deal, and Mr Albanese has trashed that deal in less than 12 months. The litany of broken promises shows all of us that. Next election, vote differently. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The time for consideration of the matter of public importance has expired. DOCUMENTS 58 DOCUMENTS Asylum Seekers 58 17:50 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I table a document, which is in the form of an open letter, signed by 502 medical professionals expressing their concern about the harmful effects of Australia's offshore detention system, and calling on the parliament to bring all consenting refugees and asylum seekers currently held on Nauru and Papua New Guinea immediately to Australia. Consideration 59 COMMITTEES 59 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Legislation Committee 59 Additional Information 59 17:51 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator Sheldon, I present additional information received by the committee as listed at item 16 on today's order of business. Electoral Matters Joint Committee 59 Report 59 17:51 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the report of the committee on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Public Works Joint Committee 59 Report 59 17:52 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's first report of 2023. Privileges Committee 59 Report 59 17:52 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I present the 183rd report of the Committee of Privileges regarding a possible obstruction of the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. I move: That recommendation 2 of the report be adopted. The report relates to the committee's inquiry into whether Senator Thorpe's—and I acknowledge Senator Thorpe's presence in the chamber—failure to declare a relationship with Mr Dean Martin to the joint committee amounted to an improper interference with the committee's work. More specifically, the Senate required the Privileges Committee to consider: … whether Senator Thorpe's failure to declare the relationship: (a) obstructed the work of the Joint Committee … ; (b) if so, whether this amounted to an improper interference with the work of the committee; and (c) whether any contempt was committed in this regard. The media reports which prompted this inquiry suggested Mr Martin is a former member of an outlaw motorcycle gang and that the joint committee was conducting an inquiry or held briefings which examined matters relating to such gangs. In considering whether Senator Thorpe's failure to declare the relationship obstructed the work of the joint committee, the Privileges Committee examined not just the specific impact of her failure to declare the personal relationship, but also whether there was a wider impact on the operation of the joint committee. The committee sought and considered submissions from Senator Thorpe and the joint committee. This matter relates to alleged conduct which, if proven, could only be addressed by the Senate exercising its power to determine and punish contempts. Media coverage of this matter was clearly intended to suggest that Senator Thorpe had utilised her membership of the joint committee to further the interests of an outlaw motorcycle gang. A senator using his or her position on a committee to access sensitive information from law enforcement agencies in order to further the interests of a criminal organisation would, of course, be amongst the most serious possible contempts. To the extent that it was conduct forming part of the proceedings of parliament, it could only be sanctioned by the Senate. However, the evidence to the Privileges Committee demonstrates that the media coverage of this matter was inaccurate in some important respects. In particular, the implication that Senator Thorpe used her position inappropriately or even had access to information of the type speculated about in the media coverage is not borne out. The joint committee advised that it had no evidence that Senator Thorpe had declared a possible conflict of interest in relation to a personal relationship. Senator Thorpe accepted in her submission that she should have declared this possible conflict. The committee agrees that Senator Thorpe should have declared her relationship as a potential conflict of interest with her work on the joint committee. It was possible that she would receive sensitive material of interest to outlaw motorcycle gangs through her work on the committee; however, on the basis of evidence it has received, the committee is satisfied that no disclosure of such material has occurred and that the operations of the joint committee have not been impeded. The committee therefore concludes that a contempt should not be found in relation to the matters referred to. The committee also wishes to make some recommendations concerning the strengthening of the process for declaring conflicts of interest. The committee urges all senators to exercise caution in relation to possible conflicts of interest as well as the perception that their personal relationships may conflict with their official duties. All senators should take a scrupulous approach to such matters. Where there is any doubt, they should seek the advice of colleagues or of the Clerk. Senators must be aware of their responsibilities to perform their roles in the public interest, to declare any possible conflicts, and to comply with the standing orders by not sitting on a committee where they have a conflict of interest. Transparency in relation to such matters serves to resolve most issues and is critical to maintaining the confidence of submitters and witnesses in the integrity of committee proceedings. To support a more consistent approach on these matters, the committee has recommended that declarations of any conflict of interest should be a standard agenda item at all private meetings of all committees. I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their considered approach to this matter. I commend the report to the Senate, and I do wish to say that the manner in which the Privileges Committee has dealt with this has been very much in the interests of the Senate as a whole. It is not just a bipartisan committee; it is actually a nonpartisan committee. Certainly Senator O'Neill as the deputy chair—I know she has made this reflection on a previous chair, Senator Abetz—has said that the operation of this committee for a long time has been nonpartisan. I certainly hope, and it is my intention as chair, that it will stay that way. Once again, I commend the report to the Senate. 17:58 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Thank you, Senator Brockman, for reading out the findings of the Privileges Committee. Over months and months, my family and my children have had to wait with bated breath about the process, the outcome and the transparency in this whole situation. I was basically mauled by the media in that time. I had no relationship with that person. I was given legal advice by the Greens lawyer that I had to say that I dated this person. I got a call from that person, who said, 'Did we date?' We kissed once at a rally. We kissed once at a rally on 26 January. I had no idea who this person was, or his background. My legal advice was to say I dated this person. I got mauled by all of you. I got mauled by the media. Senator whatever-your-name-is, down the front with the big smile on your face—Holly Hughes—you were one of them. I am sick of being torn down by— Senator Hughes 273828 My disabled son didn't appreciate your comment, either. Senator THORPE 280304 I have a disabled child in my family, too. Senator Hughes 273828 Maybe you shouldn't have said those comments then. Senator THORPE 280304 Excuse me. This is not about disability. This is about respect and shutting your mouth when I am speaking. Senator Hughes 273828 It's always about you! Senator THORPE 280304 I am sick of the racism. Senator Hughes 273828 I ask her to withdraw the disparaging comments she just directed towards me. She's not to repeat it in the withdrawal. You should have enough practice withdrawing things by now. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 I'm going to rule on the point of order. Senator Thorpe, please withdraw the remarks and avoid repeating them. Senator THORPE 280304 I got mauled by the media. I got mauled by all of you in here for something I did not do. You all had fun. All the cartoons of me riding Harleys, all the disgusting comments I got on my social media and the comments I got from the media—you all demonised me, and today I have been cleared of any wrongdoing. I didn't come to this place to do wrong by the committees I sit on. I take that job very, very seriously. I respect all of those members of any committee that I sit on in this place. To think, all you people thought that I had been running off with some bikie gang, telling secrets about what goes on in this place. What kind of person do you think I am? I think I deserve an apology from the leader of the Greens, for one, because I lost my position as well. For what? For a kiss on invasion day with some black man at a rally who happened to be an ex-biker. I didn't ask for his resume! I'm glad. Thank you to the privileges committee for looking hard into this situation. For the record: I put myself up to the privileges committee. I wanted them to investigate me because I knew I had done nothing wrong, but my family and my community were hurting from the racism that I copped. Social media. Media. Thank you very much. I'll end my comments there. The ACTING DEPUTY PRES IDENT: I remind senators to direct their comments through the chair. Question agreed to. Report 61 18:04 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I present the 184th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Persons referred to in the Senate: Mr Jason Riley. I move: That the report be adopted. This report forms part of a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Senate, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified. On 15 December 2022, the President received a submission from Mr Jason Riley relating to a speech made by Senator McMahon in the Senate on 30 March 2022. The President referred the submission to the committee under privilege resolution 5. The committee has considered the submission and recommends that Mr Riley's response be incorporated into Hansard. The committee reminds the Senate that in matters of this nature it does not judge the truth or otherwise of the statements made by senators or the persons referred to. Rather, it ensures that these persons' submissions, and ultimately the responses it recommends, accord with the criteria set out in privilege resolution 5. I commend the motion to the Senate. Question agreed to. Response as recommended by the committee incorporated accordingly— Appendix 1 Mr. Jason Riley Pursuant to Resolution 5(7)(b) of the Senate of 25 February 1988 Reply to comments by Senator Sam McMahon (30 March 2022) 1. In the lead up to the Federal election of 2022 I became aware of statements Sam McMahon made in her valedictorian speech to Parliament, in which she identified me by name in connection to a number of issues she said she experienced during her time as a Parliamentarian. 2. The first comment made by Sam McMahon reflected upon her decision to resign from her Party, as extracted from the relevant Hansard, "My reason to resign was driven entirely by my former staff member, Jason Riley—who did abuse and terrorise my office, including myself" Any and all suggestions I did "abuse and terrorise" former Senator Sam McMahon's office, or Sam McMahon, herself, are completely false, defamatory and without foundation. Available to her throughout the period I was employed by her, and since, were numerous avenues to address issues of staff exhibiting such conduct, including immediate dismissal. Sam McMahon did not avail herself of those remediations. 3. Sam McMahon went on to say, "…and the party's decision to place him into a position on their central council…" At the time Sam McMahon alleges this decision was taken, she herself was a member of both the CLP Management Committee and Central Council, however, the Country Liberal Party made no such decision. Furthermore, I neither sought, nor was appointed, any position on the Central Council. In its entirety, the abovementioned statement by Sam McMahon is a prevarication. 4. The final part of the comment Sam McMahon made was, "To have to sit in meetings with such a person was a very stressful experience…". The only meeting I participated in with Sam McMahon at that point was the Country Liberal Party Central Council meeting, attended by approximately 70 people. I did not participate in any meetings with her subsequent to that event. Prior to that event, I had not participated in a meeting with Sam McMahon for more than two and a half years. In the context of the paragraph from which this comment is extracted, Sam McMahon's words are once again a mix of mistruths and fabrications. 5. Sam McMahon's false statements in her speech have had a direct impact on my wellbeing and future employment opportunities, a condition that continues to today. 6. Immediately following Sam McMahon making these comments about me, she embarked on a media campaign, spanning multiple radio and television stations, to discuss her comments made under Parliamentary privilege, with particular focus on the comments she made about me. That practice was detrimental to my character and reputation. Again, I will draw your attention to the fact Sam McMahon had access to a wide range of remediation options and services to deal with the issues she alleges, over an extended period of time, yet she failed to employ any, preferring instead to make her statements under Parliamentary privilege. 7. I formally request my remarks contained herein are entered into Hansard to form a response to the false and misleading statements Sam McMahon made about me. While employed by Sam McMahon I did not, in any way or at any time, conduct myself in a manner that could be characterized to "abuse and terrorise" either her or other staff. I am in no way responsible for Sam McMahon's demise with her Party, nor her decision to resign from her Party. Should the members of the Privileges Committee require, I stand ready to provide details of witnesses who have agreed to speak on the matters raised by Sam McMahon in her speech to Parliament and to verify my statements made here-in. In each instance, those people can offer first hand, direct evidence. Regards, Jason Riley 10 January 2022 Electoral Matters Joint Committee 62 Report 62 18:05 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I rise to take note of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill, which has already been tabled by the government whip. I wish to make some comments in relation to that report. The coalition strongly believes that any discussion or consideration of constitutional change should be—in itself—considered, measured and balanced. The changes proposed in this bill will set a precedent for future referenda and should not be considered as temporary or be adopted lightly. The government's decision to rush this inquiry over the Christmas and summer holiday period is disappointing because it has limited the ability of JSCEM members to effectively scrutinise witnesses and the proposed legislation. While there are a number of sensible and constructive changes included in the bill, it is clear that the government has put forward other changes that are not in the interest of an informed and robust process for conducting a referendum. We are pleased to note that the government has agreed to our recommendation that there should be the publication and communication of an official pamphlet. However, coalition members are very disappointed that there will not be a designation of official campaign entities in addition to the adequate and equal funding of 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. In particular, we believe that our recommendations negate recommendation 2 of the chair's report, and we are concerned that the government's report puts at risk a successful referendum process with integrity and appropriate protections against misinformation. The coalition, along with numerous stakeholders and submitters, remain greatly dissatisfied at the government's decision not to create and fund official 'yes' and 'no' organisations. We believe, regardless of your view on the Voice, that the cases for and against should be dealt with in an appropriate and adult manner across the community and that the referendum should be managed in a manner that is most similar to how a federal election has been run, considering that a referendum has not been conducted in this country for over 20 years. It is for that reason that the coalition do not support the passing of the bill. Further comments will be made when the bill comes before the Senate chamber later this week. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 62 Government Response to Report 62 18:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I present the government's response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on its inquiry into national security risks affecting the Australian higher education and research sector. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report: National security risks affecting the Australian higher education and research sector FEBRUARY 2023 Introduction On 28 October 2020, the then Minister for Home Affairs, referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the PJCIS) a general inquiry to report on national security risks affecting the higher education and research sector (the sector). On 25 March 2022, the Committee delivered its final report, 'National security risks affecting the Australian higher education and research sector' (the Report) which made 27 recommendations. The Report considered the broad national security risks present in the sector, with a particular focus on the prevalence, characteristics and significance of foreign interference, undisclosed foreign interference, data theft and espionage and associated risks to Australia's national security in the sector. The Government welcomes and broadly supports the majority of the recommendations. It also welcomes the acknowledgement throughout the report of the substantial work undertaken or underway by the sector and the Commonwealth agencies through the University Foreign Interference Taskforce (UFIT) and other key lines of effort in order to raise awareness and increase resilience to foreign interference. The Government will continue to support and collaborate with universities in policy development, capability building, guidelines implementation, information sharing and an overall positive partnership to deepen universities ' resilience against foreign interference Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends the Australian higher education and research sector, via the University Foreign Interference Taskforce, undertake a campaign of active transparency in relation to the national security risks. The Committee recommends that the University Foreign Interference Taskforce have oversight of this campaign and report to the Australian Government on progress. Response: Supported The University Foreign Interference Taskforce will continue its efforts to build the sector's understanding of the risk and context of foreign interference and appropriate responses. The University Foreign Interference Taskforce will continue to update Ministers on the sector' s progress in implementing the UFIT Guidelines. Reco mmendation 2: The Committee welcomes the revised UFIT Guidelines and further recommends adherence to those guidelines be reported annually to the PJCIS in writing, accompanied by a classified briefing. This briefing should include an explanation of the cap abilities developed to monitor and evaluate compliance with the guidelines. The Government should further consider the UFIT terms of reference and update relevant guidance material to ensure the body remains fit for purpose. Response: Supported in Principle The Government is working with the sector to define reporting arrangements on the implementation of the revised UFIT Guidelines and will share with the PJCIS the findings of any report. Agencies will be available to provide a classified briefing to the PJCIS. The University Foreign Interference Taskforce will keep its terms of reference under review and update, on a regular basis, guidance material as appropriate. Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends University Foreign Interference Taskforce assist universities to introduce, maintain and develop relevant training on national security issues for staff and students. Universities should employ an accountable authority who is responsible for managing foreign interference risks at their institution. This position should be based upon the framework set out in part 1.2 of the updated UFIT Guidelines. Response: Supported The University Foreign Interference Taskforce has established a Training Working Group to complement the sector's existing work in order to ensure the availability of appropriate training materials for staff and students to counter foreign interference. Officials from Home Affairs and ASIO will continue a program of outreach activities with the sector to support implementation of the UFIT Guidelines. The UFIT Guidelines encourage universities to have accountable authorities responsible for managing foreign interference risk. Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends the University Foreign Interference Taskforce establish a working group to address the issue of on-campus intimidation, reporting on fellow students or staff to foreign embassies, and intimidati on on campuses related to the national security risks and make recommendations to the Australian Government and the sector. This group, as a matter of urgency, should provide clear guidance to universities on implementing penalties for foreign interference activities on campus, including reporting on fellow students to foreign governments. These should be clearly defined in university codes of conduct and communicated to students. Response: Supported The UFIT Guidelines encourage universities to have communication plans and education programs that raise awareness and support mitigation of their foreign interference risks, including instances of intimidation and harassment (UFIT Guideline 2.1). The University Foreign Interference Taskforce Training Working Group will consider behavioural issues on campus as part of its remit. Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends the Department of Education, Skills and Training should, in concert with the University Foreign Interference Taskforce, annually publish a repor t that documents incidents of harassment, intimidation and censorship that occur as a result of foreign interference activities on Australian university campuses. This report should include the steps and responses, if any, taken by the university. Response : Noted If clandestine, it can be difficult to establish foreign interference as the motivating factor for harassment, intimidation and censorship. The Government is working with the sector to define reporting arrangements on the implementation of the revised UFIT Guidelines. Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends the Department of Education, Skills and Training and the Department of Home Affairs work to develop a secure mechanism that allows individual students to anonymously report incidents of intimi dation, retaliation, harassment, or censorship on campus where a student believes those behaviours are associated with foreign interference. Response: Supported Individual students are able to anonymously report instances of foreign interference on campus through the National Security Hotline. Through ongoing outreach efforts, Home Affairs and ASIO will continue to promote the National Security Hotline and NITRO (Notifiable Incidents, Threats and Reportable Observations) as reporting mechanisms for suspected instances of foreign interference. Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that Universities who elect to host a Confucius Institute should disclose and make public details of those agreements and funding arrangements, and that at a minimum, Universities have a final say about the appointment of staff, curriculum content and that robust academic freedom and free speech clauses be included in any agreement. The Committee supports the Foreign Minister using her existing veto powers under the For eign Relations Act to make determinations in the national interest, including in relation to Confucius Institutes. Response: Noted In accordance with the UFIT Guidelines, universities will continue to apply a comprehensive approach to their due diligence in assessing foreign interference risks and reflect that in the terms of any agreement to host a Confucius Institute. Arrangements between Australian public universities and Chinese government entities and/or universities relating to Confucius Institutes are required to be notified to the Minister for Foreign Affairs under the Australia 's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 (the Act). Fifty-six such arrangements have been notified and confirmed to be subject to the Act to date. Under the Act, details of these arrangements are published on the Public Register    .(www.foreignarrangements.gov.au) unless subject to requests for exclusion from publication. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) reviews Confucius Institute arrangements notified under the Act in consultation with Government agencies and provides advice to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister may exercise powers with respect to individual foreign arrangements within scope of the Act where the arrangement is, or is likely to be, inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy or adverse to Australia's foreign relations. Separate from their powers under the Act, the Minister may also direct DFAT to pursue mitigations to manage foreign policy risks, where identified. DFAT, in consultation with other agencies, has assessed all Confucius Institute arrangements notified and within scope of the Act. The Government's resilience measures, including UFIT and the Foreign Arrangements Scheme (as established by the Act), are an effective mechanism for engaging with the university sector to ensure universities are informed about and are managing risk associated with foreign engagement, including with respect to Confucius Institutes. DFAT will keep these arrangements under review. DFAT is actively engaging with universities directly and through UFIT to convey the Government's expectations, and advice on negotiating arrangements that protect Australia' s interests and mitigate risks. Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends the Foreign Minister exercise her power under the Foreign Relations Act to make a determination in the national interest relating to the agreement between Monash University and COMAC. Response: Noted The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Home Affairs are engaging closely with Monash University about its relationship with COMAC. Monash University has advised that all currently active research projects between Monash and COMAC will conclude in the first half of 2023, and no further activity is planned. Government agencies will maintain regular contact with Monash University and keep this cooperation under review. Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends the higher education sector take note of the "Blueprint for Critical Technolo gies" released by the Critical Technologies Policy Coordination Office within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet on 17 November 2021 as a reference for areas of research sensitive to the national interest and exercise greater caution with interna tional research partnerships, PhD students and cyber-security. However, the Committee urges the sector not to consider this list exhaustive and to also use their own judgement about technologies which might subsequently emerge. In these sensitive research cases, universities should be required to provide additional security assurances regarding research personnel to Commonwealth funding agencies. Response: Supported The University Foreign Interference Taskforce has established a Critical Technology Working Group to identify critical technologies that require heightened due diligence when considering international research partnerships, PhD students and cyber-security. Commonwealth funding agencies such as the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council reference the UFIT Guidelines in the consideration of grant applications. Recommendation 10: The Committee recommends ASIO, in their annual report to parliament, provide information on threats to the Australian higher education and research sector as a routine part of their broader threat assessment. Response: Not supported ASIO does not consider it appropriate to highlight a single sector in its Annual Report when multiple sectors are being targeted by our adversaries. It could be misleading and, in some circumstances, give Australia's adversaries actionable information about ASIO investigations. It is also important to note that ASIO uses multiple mechanisms for providing threat information. Apart from the Annual Report, the Director-General delivers an Annual Threat Assessment and appears before Senate Committees. ASIO regularly briefs the higher education sector on the security environment, and also prepares and disseminates outreach reports on threats to specific sectors, including higher education. It would be preferable for ASIO to have maximum flexibility in how it delivers information about threats to higher education, tailored to the specific circumstances at the time. Recommendation 11: The Committee recommends the University Foreign Interference Taskforce establish clear policies on what constitutes acceptable dual appointments of foreign diplomats at Australian tertiary institutions. Universities should also make their own judgements about whether a ppointments are consistent with the values they seek to uphold. Additionally, the Committee recommends the Attorney-General's Department and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade consider whether appointments of foreign diplomats to Australian tertiary i nstitutions are adequately addressed via existing legislative frameworks. Response: Noted Risks associated with the appointment of foreign diplomats to Australian tertiary institutions are addressed via existing legislative and policy frameworks. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, foreign diplomats are prevented from undertaking professional or commercial activity for personal gain; however this does not prevent a foreign diplomat from accepting an unpaid honorary position at a university. In accordance with the UFIT Guidelines, universities will continue to apply a comprehensive approach to their due diligence in assessing foreign interference risks. Recommendation 12: The Committee recommends the University Foreign Interference Taskf orce provide guidance to support universities allowing for anonymous assignment submission. Response: Supported The University Foreign Interference Taskforce Training Working Group will consider anonymous assignment submission as part of its remit. Recomme ndation 13: The Committee recommends the Attorney-General's Department should clearly communicate Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme requirements to foreign student associations operating at Australian universities and investigate possible cases of non- compliance. Response: Supported The Attorney-General's Department (AGD) will engage with the university sector, through the University Foreign Interference Taskforce, about how to most effectively communicate the requirements of the scheme and investigation processes to student associations. Recommendation 14: The Committee recommends the Australian Government provide deeper and timelier security advice to assist the sector in their risk identification and management processes. Response: Supported ASIO, Home Affairs and the Australian Cyber Security Centre work closely with the higher education and research sector, and will continue to provide regular briefings on the threat of espionage and foreign interference. Recommendation 15: The Committee recommends t he Department of Defence deny Defence Industry Security Program accreditation to institutions with exposure to talent recruitment programs that is assessed to be a security issue. Response: Supported in Principle The Government will adjust the Defence Industry Security Program (DISP) membership application and assurance processes to require a declaration from institutions in regards to their exposure to talent recruitment programs. The declaration will inform risk assessments and ratings. Recommendation 16: The Committee recommends more timely and relevant advice be provided by the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in support of the defence export control and autonomous sanctions schemes. Response: Supported in Principle Australian export control legislation requires each export application to be assessed against twelve legislative criteria broadly addressing foreign policy, human rights, national security, regional security and international obligations. The Department of Defence continues to monitor processing times and implement process improvements to reduce those processing times as far as possible. Certain export applications require specialist advice from other government departments and agencies, which can extend processing times. The Department of Defence provides outreach to the Australian university and research sector to support awareness of, and compliance with, Australian export controls legislation. DFAT provides detailed information about Australian sanctions laws at www.dfat.gov.au/sanctions. This provides access to the Consolidated List of all persons and entities listed for targeted financial sanctions and travel bans under Australian sanctions laws and access to Pax, the online sanctions portal, which can be used to contact the Australian Sanctions Office (ASO) in DFAT with specific queries. It is also possible to use the website to subscribe to updates from the ASO, which are provided by e-mail whenever there is a change to Australian sanctions laws, including changes to the Consolidated List. DFAT also conducts regular seminars on Australian sanctions laws for the community, including universities. Universities can use Pax to request a seminar. Recommendation 17: The Committee recommends employees of government departments and agencies be prohibited from participation in talent-recruitment programs. Response: Supported in Principle Under the APS Code of Conduct, legislated under the Public Service Act 1999, an APS employee must take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest in connection with their APS employment and disclose details of any material personal interest in connection with their APS employment. Under the Protective Security Policy Framework, security clearance holders are required to report, amongst other things, suspicious, persistent, unusual or ongoing contact with foreign nationals, involvement or association with any group, society or organisation, visits to foreign countries and financial circumstances. The national security risks that may arise from participation in talent-recruitment programs can be assessed through these processes. Recommendation 18: The Committee recommends the Attorney-General's Department and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade assess whether existing legislative tools are sufficient for addressing membership in talent programs that are against the national interest. Response: Supported in Principle The Guidelines to Counter Foreign Interference in the Australian University Sector provides guidance to universities on the conduct of due diligence on partners and personnel to inform decision-makers of foreign interference risks. The Criminal Code includes offences for espionage and foreign interference. Agencies keep this legislation under active review. The Foreign Arrangements Scheme may consider some arrangements involving talent programs where arrangements involve an Australian university and a foreign government. Recommendation 19: The Committee recommends the Department of Education, Skills and Employment commission a risk-based audit which samples Australian Research Council grants over the past decade to determine exposure associ ated with participation in talent recruitment programs noting the thousand talents program is one amongst many. The audit should investigate whether grant rules have been adhered to regarding intellectual property. The Committee also recommends the Governm ent investigate the adequacy of existing penalties for research institutions who are failing to detect or respond to any breaches to ARC grant rules identified in the audit. Response: Supported in Principle The Department of Education will engage with the Australian Research Council (ARC) to review active/current ARC grants in the context of consideration of foreign interference risks since the launch of the original UFIT Guidelines. The Government considers existing penalties appropriate for breaches of ARC grant rules. ARC compliance arrangements include penalties such as the termination of grants, full recovery of funds, and banning of applicants from applying in future grant rounds. Recommendation 20: The Committee recommends the University Foreign Inter ference Taskforce work with universities to develop best practice audit requirements regarding senior research staff members' foreign interests, including participation in talent programs. These foreign interests should then be provided to UFIT and univers ity-specific but individually anonymised information on foreign interests made publicly available via UFIT's website. This should include transparency on measures taken to address incidences of security concern and conflicts. Response: Supported in Principle The UFIT Guidelines encourage universities to have approval, audit and continuous evaluation of due diligence processes (Guideline 3.4). The Government is working with the sector to define reporting arrangements on the implementation of the revised UFIT Guidelines. Reporting on implementation of the revised UFIT Guidelines will provide an opportunity for universities to identify in an aggregated form their implementation of due diligence processes. Recommendation 21: The Committee recommends the Departme nts of Education, Skills and Employment and Foreign Affairs and Trade assist the sector in diversifying international student populations. Response: Supported Steps have been taken to assist the sector to diversify the international student cohort to improve sector resilience and enhance student experience. The Australian Strategy for International Education 2021-2030 led by the Department of Education identifies diversification of Australia's international education sector as one of four priority areas for the next decade. The Department of Education will work with relevant stakeholders, including Austrade and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in implementation of the strategy. Recommendation 22: The Committee recommends the Government direct the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to initiate a regular audit of national security issues and responses in the sector by establishing a National Research Integrity Office within the Agency. The findings of this audit should be publicly repor ted. Response: Noted Government agencies will continue to update Ministers on the sector's progress in implementation of the UFIT Guidelines. TEQSA's establishing framework does not extend to the required legislative remit, capacity or expertise to deliver on addressing this recommendation. However, the Government acknowledges that work in considering national security issues and sector responses is being pursued under existing consultation and reporting approaches. The Government has some concern with publicly reporting this information due to the possibility of unintended and undue reputational impacts. Recommendation 23: The Committee recommends representation from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade be included in the University Foreign Interfere nce Taskforce Response: Supported The University Foreign Interference Taskforce has extended its membership to include the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Recommendation 24: The Committee recommends University Foreign Interference Taskforce assist universities to introduce, maintain and develop relevant training on national security issues for staff and students. Response: Supported See response to PJCIS recommendation 3. Recommendation 25: The Committee recommends the University Foreign Interference Taskforce develop a national security legislation implementation working group to assist universities in actioning national security legislation and related policies. This working group should develop understanding within the sector as to the relationship between various pieces of national security legislation. Response: Supported in Principle Relevant Government agencies will consult with the University Foreign Interference Taskforce to ensure that guidance material on the application of national security legislation and policies is made available to the sector. Recommendation 26: The Committee recommends the Australian Research Council clearly communicate to the sector via the University Foreign Interference Taskforce the serious consequences of grant fraud to increase awareness of disclosure requirements. All Commonwealth funding organisations should consider the adequacy of existing compliance and accountability policies with regard to the provision of grant funding. In addition the Committee recommends the Australian Research Council toughen penalties against grant fraud and inadequate or incomplete disclosure and prioritise investigation and enforcement of them. Tenders issued by all government agencies providing grants to research instituti ons should include a standard clause requiring compliance with existing countering foreign interference policies. Response: Supported in Principle The ARC will continue to work with the Department of Education, the University Foreign Interference Taskforce and other stakeholders to continue to raise awareness of disclosure requirements and the serious consequences of grant fraud. Recommendation 27: T he Committee recommends a review of the ARC's performance in assessing foreign interference and national security risks in the context of grant decisions. A copy of the review should be made available to the PJCIS. Response: Supported The Government has commenced a review of the ARC's performance in assessing foreign interference and national security risks in the context of grant decisions, with a report of review findings to the Minister for Education, with a copy made available to the PJCIS. 18:09 Senator ASKE 281558 Tasmania W (—) (): I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee 68 Report 68 18:09 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I wish to take note of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on its inquiry into community safety support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory. As chair of the committee, I tabled the report out of session last week. I want to first thank those who engaged in this inquiry, specifically the community members, Aboriginal organisations and frontline service providers who gave evidence. Unfortunately, it was not possible to get across all communities in the Northern Territory, due to the time frames. However, we did visit Darwin and Alice Springs, and we had a delegation of Maningrida community members come to Canberra to put their concerns to us. We held virtual hearings with community members, peak organisations, Commonwealth and Northern Territory government departments, the alcohol industry and leading researchers. We also receive submissions and private briefings as part of the inquiry. It was important to hear from all of these witnesses because they brought a breadth of perspective forward. There was not one witness who denied the social or economic difficulties being experienced by Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. However, almost all the witnesses came with practical, holistic and strength based solutions. I'm so grateful for their time, patience and generosity. We were asked by this chamber to undertake an inquiry with particular reference to the preparation of the sunsetting of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act, community safety and alcohol management, job opportunities and community development program reform, justice reinvestment community services and any related matters. This was important because these policy areas are all so interconnected. We heard consistent themes about the need for locally led initiatives, for more data sharing and for outcome focused efforts and investment. We heard that the status quo has not worked and change is required. As a committee, we made findings across each of these areas and made nine consensus recommendations to the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments. Many of these are about the importance of local, place based initiatives. They recognise that past attempts by governments through the Northern Territory National Emergency Response and the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act were ineffective. We commented that, in fact, the intervention and the stronger futures legislative packages: … systemically disempowered communities—in their delivery, implementation and transition—causing immense trauma that now requires concerted effort by all levels of government to enable and invest in the re-empowerment of these communities. In relation to alcohol management, under these past regimes, the Commonwealth government overrides the Northern Territory by exercising powers to legislate alcohol restrictions. The committee considers it is the appropriate role of the Northern Territory, rather than the Commonwealth, to make such legislative decisions. We also heard extensively about the ineffectiveness of focusing solely on reducing supply of alcohol and not properly supporting people at risk. Witnesses such as the Alice Springs Hospital personnel told us that, instead of focusing only on alcohol: We really need to go back to looking at the social determinants of health. We really need to start looking at housing, meaningful employment, education, hope and despair. That is why it's so important that the Commonwealth is supporting the Northern Territory government, by committing to a $250 million package under the title 'A Better, Safer Future for Central Australia', which intends to address service, community and infrastructure needs. We also heard far too regularly about the failures and, in many cases, the entire lack of service accessibility in remote communities. Where you live should not determine the services or basic amenities you receive. And yet it does for people living in remote communities. As a committee, we all agreed that investment in services and support programs in remote communities is fundamental. We also considered that there needs to be a greater focus on the following: working with communities to determine that service investment; opportunities to enhance place based models of funding and support collaboration amongst local organisations; embedding holistic health approaches to service provision that focus on social, emotional and cultural wellbeing; and sharing real-time data with local communities as necessary. We know that governments need to transfer both power and resources to communities to improve the outcomes. In terms of economic development, we heard a breadth of advice about the potential of a reformed CDP. We know that currently the CDP does not adequately consider what real job opportunities there are in remote communities. We also heard about the innovation in some organisations as part of a trial underway to give greater flexibility in the CDP. The report also makes recommendations to the government to consider how to stimulate economic activity outside of CDP. In relation to justice reinvestment, we've heard about the benefits of justice reinvestment models and alternatives to custody initiatives. Many witnesses talked about their experiences and their hopes for this. The committee recommended that both Alice Springs and Katherine be sites as part of the Commonwealth government's landmark $81 million commitment to community led justice reinvestment programs. It is clear that the Intervention and the Stronger Futures legislation failed to improve conditions for Aboriginal people living in remote Aboriginal communities. These acts did not work. In fact they did the opposite. Children born in 2007 and 2008, at the height of the Intervention, are the children at risk of causing harm today. I'm grateful to those young people who spoke with us in private briefings, because it is critical that their voices are central to this discussion. Too often they are talked about instead of engaged with in the solutions. Overall, Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory are incredibly resilient, but they have been let down enormously by governments of all stripes. Yet they continue to show up with solutions and preparedness to work with governments in good faith. This is despite their right to self-determination being entirely denied. In response to that resilience, this report makes recommendations that seek to address the disempowering legacy from the top-down approaches of the past 15 years. There are additional comments to this report added by Senator Thorpe and Senator Liddle. I commend this report to the Senate. 18:17 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I too would like to comment on the Inquiry into Community Safety, Support Services and Job Opportunities in the Northern Territory. During this inquiry we heard from First Nations people across the Territory—families, communities, young people and some services, including community leaders—about the devastating impacts of the Northern Territory Intervention and, later, the Stronger Futures legislation on communities. The Intervention represents one of the darkest eras of First Nations policy this country has seen. Implemented by John Howard and then continued by subsequent Liberal and Labor governments, the Intervention was racist and paternalistic and undermined First Nations' rights to self-determination. The Intervention is evidence of the violent colonisation in this country and its oppressive regime. Our people have never ceded sovereignty over these lands, waters and skies, which we have cared for since time immemorial. As the oldest living culture on this planet, we know very well how to care for one another, how to look after our old people, how to teach and look after our young people and how to care for country, because that's what we've always done. This knowledge, passed down through generations, remains as strong as our culture and our sovereignty that always was and always will be ours. The Stronger Futures legislation packages disempowered our communities and added to the trauma caused by colonisation that has impacted our people across generations. Alcohol consumption is a symptom of the impact that trauma has on our communities—trauma that is complex and is only compounded by racist policies that lack proper consultation and certainly lack consent. They undermine our right to self-determination, as we saw with the intervention and Stronger Futures. This shows the importance of finally ensuring our laws comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, being enacted in this country. While Australia officially adopted the UNDRIP in 2009, this country has no regard for human rights let alone the rights of First Nations people. The principle of free, prior and informed consent of First Nations people, one of the core principles of the UNDRIP, is of particular importance to ensure First Nations self-determination as well as best outcomes for First Nations people, culture and country. This government refuses to acknowledge that First Nations people are sovereign nations and refuses to go out into communities and sit down and talk with our elders and leaders who know what is best for their people. Consultation is not consent. I welcome the committee's acknowledgement of the ways in which these policies disempowered First Nations communities and the inadequate consultation and planning for the sunsetting of Stronger Futures. Despite knowing that this legislation would be ending years in advance, the government failed to properly consult with communities about what should come next. I fully support the committee's acknowledgement of the importance of local community led solutions and initiatives. As a country, we have a long way to go to make this a reality. Our people, especially our elders, hold the solutions to the challenges we face. This is why we need a treaty with First Nations people. Treaty is a long-overdue end to the war that was declared on First Nations people at the invasion of these lands. It would acknowledge that First Nations sovereignty was never ceded and would provide a pathway for us to move forward. A treaty would enable us to address the underlying oppression and injustices our society was built on. Treaty can create true systemic change to allow much needed healing. Treaty is what First Nations people in this country have been calling for ever since invasion. It will be negotiated sovereign to sovereign and allow clans and nations to determine their own destiny. And it is the way to create jointly a brighter future in this country. I will continue advocating for a treaty, for the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommendations to be implemented and for the Bringing them home report because these are what my people across the country have been calling for, and they would actually have a real impact on people's lives. Bringing those messages into parliament is an act of sovereignty. I look forward to bringing all peoples across this country along the journey of this movement towards justice and towards peace. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 70 DOCUMENTS Returns to Order 70 Order for the Production of Documents 70 BILLS 70 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 70

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 70 COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 70 Membership 70 BILLS 70 BILLS Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023 70

Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023

Report from Committee 70 18:25 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Green, I present the report of the committee on the Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023, together with accompanying documents. Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 70

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022

In Committee 70 18:26 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I just have a few more questions, if the minister would so oblige, following on from some questions I was asking this morning. I was wondering, Minister: when will the removal of the 400-plus items from the Prostheses List take place from? 18:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This is the list of items that was decided under your government. My advice is on 1 July. 18:27 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia This morning in questioning I asked the representing minister if there were going to be any IT requirements to enable hospital vendors to be ready, or anybody who is impacted by the changes to this to be ready. The minister said that there were none. I'm wondering whether that's still your opinion. 18:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My understanding is the changes to the Prostheses List were announced a couple of years ago, and therefore I presume many of the hospitals would have made adjustments based on that. There is nothing further I can add. It's not about the bill; it's about the administration of the list by the hospitals. 18:28 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Which part of this package of bills seeks to set up, the framework in terms of the operation going forward. I'm just wondering: has the government received any concerns from the hospital sector in relation to their ability to implement the bundling of these new items that will now be considered outside of the Prostheses List under general use items? Has the government received any correspondence or any representations raising concerns from private hospitals about their ability to undertake the changes that will need to occur on 1 July for these 400-plus items to no longer be included under that mechanism of funding but under a new mechanism of funding? 18:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My advice is that, yes, concerns or issues have been raised, and that's why the Department of Health and Aged Care is working through these issues with the vendors. 18:29 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Is the minister intending to meet with the IT vendors in relation to this particular issue? 18:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think these are normally matters that are dealt with at departmental level. I'm not sure, but I will check to see whether the minister's had an approach for his diary and whether he's meeting with people. I know he meets with stakeholders extensively, as there are so many in the health sector. But I think the process is normally administratively done through the department. 18:30 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you, Minister, and I think that goes to the very point that I was trying to make, that so little detail has been provided—and here we are, in March—in relation to so many of the issues that we should have had more information on that we don't. But we're trying to seek that information. Just for the record, you have corrected the advice that I received this morning from the minister in relation to there being no issues in relation to IT. Clearly that was not necessarily accurate. 18:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't believe I said specifically—'have any concerns been raised': that was your question to me. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, but you didn't say 'have any concerns been raised about the ICT'— Senator GALLAGHER ING Sorry; I misheard you. I think there's a general discussion going on, but I don't think you can take that my evidence is different to Senator McAllister's. 18:31 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Okay. So, can I ask whether any concerns have been raised either with the minister or with the department in relation to the capacity of the IT changes that are going to be necessary in order for the changes to take place on 1 July? Have concerns been raised, or not? 18:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I wasn't here for Senator McAllister's session this morning. My understanding is that there has been a range of implementation issues raised by vendors. If I can get more information for you, I will. 18:31 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you, Minister. This bill provides for the imposition of a cost-recovery levy on each kind of medical device and human tissue product on the list, and the amount of the levy will be set by regulations. Is that correct? 18:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes. 18:32 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Looking at this bill and the explanatory memorandum, there appears to be a significant lack of detail and any other subsequent advice that seems to be out there in the wider community, which makes it impossible to determine whether the proposed arrangements are going to be consistent with the charging framework. So, first of all, can you guarantee that they will be consistent with the charging framework? 18:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes. 18:32 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia On that basis, when will the government be providing the necessary details on those arrangements? 18:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm advised that the consultation paper will be going out in two weeks. 18:33 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia When will that consultation paper be returning its consultation? 18:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The consultation will be for six weeks. 18:33 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Okay. So, when will these cost-recovery arrangements come into play? 18:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory On 1 July. 18:33 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia So, they will be returned in the middle of May. How long after the advice, or the consultation information, is returned will we see the detail of those cost-recovery arrangements? 18:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My advice is in June. 18:34 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia In what way is the government intending to ensure or protect to make sure that this framework and the way it's applied or administered or developed doesn't add additional barriers to patients accessing innovative life-saving or life-changing technologies? What is the mechanism of protection to ensure that patient priority is maximised? 18:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My advice is there is no impact from these changes on patients. 18:35 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you very much. To confirm, have you just advised the Senate that there will be no impact on patients for the changes only in the cost-recovery framework or that there'll be no impact on patients of these changes? 18:35 Senator GAL ING Australian Capital Territory LAGHER (—) (): Of the changes. 18:35 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My understanding is that there are some quite significant increases to the cost-recovery fees in the next financial year through the TGA. Is that correct? 18:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Perhaps if you go on to your next area and we'll see what further information we can provide you. 18:36 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you very much. While you're looking for that information, I'd be keen to understand if, in these additional costs and the change to the cost-recovery framework—my understanding is that the potential changes in that cost recovery are quite significant. Senator Gallagher ING In this bill? Senator RUSTON 243273 No, in terms of the cost-recovery framework that you are seeking to put in place as part of this package of reforms. If there are additional costs to industry, what modelling has been done in relation to understanding the potential impact on innovation and time to market of devices and tissue products? 18:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm trying to understand. You're going to changes by the TGA, which are not part of these bills. It's not clear to me what you're after in relation to these bills. What's the question that's around the charging framework? 18:38 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia These bills, as part of a package of reforms, seek to change the levies and cost-recovery framework around prostheses and the Prostheses List. I put the TGA in there as an example. The TGA changes have a significant impact on the costs to the implementation of the private health sector, in terms of costs. I'm seeking, more broadly, in terms of the increases to the sector, of changes as they relate to the changes of this package of bills and the overall reform package that's here, if any concerns have been raised. Has the department raised any concerns around increasing costs that may be associated with the limitation of innovation and time to market of products that sit within implantable devices? 18:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In terms of your question around concerns, we'll see if we can come back to you with anything useful on that. I am aware that before the new fees and levies are permitted, stakeholders will be able to contribute through the consultation mechanism, through the usual cost-recovery implementation statement process, so there is a process around it as well. I'll see if there's anything further we can provide. 18:39 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you, Minister. I really appreciate that because, to be fair, all I have heard in the last few months leading to this package of legislation, which was listed a few weeks ago and now has been re-listed, is that there has been a lack of consultation and a lack of information. There has been a propensity to say, 'Don't worry about what you've got here'—the outline—'we'll give you the details later.' We're standing here today at the start of March. We have started consultation on one part of it that is ongoing. We haven't even started the consultation on another part of the really important detail in regulations and requirements that sit behind the overall operation of the changes that are due to come in on 1 July. Then you tell me that people will have the opportunity for consultation. I have to say that my feedback so far has been quite significantly that people feel like they haven't been consulted. People feel like they have been railroaded. An example that I used this morning is that the mechanism by which the bundling funding is likely to be delivered appears to have been predetermined by the consultation paper that's gone out, which has three possible scenarios through which the new funding model for the bundling might occur. Clearly, the department has drawn a line underneath it and decided that it wants to do it by facility, despite the fact that the sector has been really clear that it believes that it should be done by procedure. To that end, if the department is so hellbent on the bundling funding model to be decided by facility, has the department done any work to understand how that is likely to affect rural, regional and remote Australia? Medical health facilities in those communities are often challenged by circumstances that are quite different from larger city hospitals. We know that a lot of private health is delivered in rural and regional areas by necessity. You have said that this consultation process is going to enable the sector to have significant input into the cost recovery framework. Is the department open to consideration of a model that would be based on the procedure that is being undertaken instead of the facility in which it is being undertaken, or has the department already mind up its mind about that? Maybe the department can answer through you, Minister. It does strike me that the department's going out with a preferred recommendation doesn't sound very much to me as though the department is prepared to listen to the sector about what they believe, as the people closest to the coalface, is going to be in the best interest of their ability to deliver for their patients. 18:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory From my advice there is quite extensive consultation, but, I would say, it isn't unusual for this to be a contested space when changes come in. I would also say that this is framework legislation and that it's clear from the legislation that it will require legislative instruments, which will obviously come through this process as well. Senator GALLAGHER ING What are you shaking your head over? Senator Ruston 243273 Not all of them have to. Senator GALLAGHER ING It's not unusual to have different arrangements via legislation. My understanding is that there has been extensive consultation. There will be further consultation as we finalise some of the further detail, but this is framework legislation. Senator Ruston, if you have a whole range of stakeholders that are coming to you with concerns, I would refer them to the Department of Health so that their concerns can be addressed. 18:44 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Well, thank you very much, Minister! I can ensure you that these stakeholders have been seeking to speak to the department of health and the minister. I have to tell you that many of them are extremely disappointed at the lack of access that they have been able to have to both of those agencies, both the minister's office and the department, so I'm surprised that you would stand there and say that when clearly these people would love to have the opportunity to be able to get access to the department and access to the minister. It's something that is just not happening. I also would say this isn't a contested space. This is not a contested space. The opposition, when in government, was very clear. There was a lot of work that went into getting this reform package together. It was not easy. There were a lot of stakeholders with different requirements, and to try and get this to where it is is a credit to the good faith with which the sector has negotiated with the previous government. It is a situation that obviously was inherited by the new government, who has been in the position to bring this legislation forward. I am merely saying that we have framework legislation that has got no substance to it at all. This is something that has been a complete track record of this government, coming in here and expecting the Senate to vote on something when they don't know the details. It's a bit like: 'Nothing to see here. Trust us. It will all be okay on the day.' You refer to legislative instruments. There are many legislative instruments that, from what I can gather in my discussions, do not even have to come back into this place in relation to regulations that sit under many of the subordinate pieces of activity that sit under this legislation. I think, if you'd bothered to wait for a little bit longer and had actually done the work around the cost recovery arrangements and around the funding model for those items that were no longer going to be on the list and are going to be contained in general use, if you had bothered to go and do all this consultation and then brought this piece of legislation back into this place, knowing that the sector had had the opportunity to speak, had had the opportunity to provide information more broadly to other members of this chamber, because I know there are many other members of the Senate who would have been very keen to understand what the stakeholders—the private hospitals, the suppliers, the private health insurers, the patients and the clinicians—think of the details that sit underneath these changes, it would have given us a great deal more confidence that we actually had got this right. We have got no idea whatsoever whether what sits under this is going to be acceptable to the broader sector and, most particularly, we do not know, because we have no detail, whether it is going to be something that is of overall benefit to patients and whether it's going to be something that is more broadly accepted. As an example, I ask you: can you guarantee to us, without any information here around what is included and how the funding model is going to work and the like, that there will be no changes to surgeries in hospitals because they are no longer able to afford to deliver a particular type of surgery because the funding mechanism for the bundling means that the hospital decides that they're no longer going to undertake that procedure? Can you give us the guarantee? 18:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm going to start repeating myself, because, as Senator Ruston knows, this is a framework bill, so the detail can't be finalised until the framework bill passes because that's what sets up the legislative framework for the instruments that will then be finalised, following consultation, which are all disallowable. And, in terms of whether or not surgeries can change or won't change or whatever, private hospitals make those decisions all the time around a range of factors, so I don't think any person in this place could ever say that no surgeries would change at a private hospital, because they change all the time based on a whole range of factors. 18:49 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Whilst I absolutely agree with you that you need the framework legislation in place before the legislative instruments can be put in place, that doesn't stop you having to find the details of those particular instruments. It doesn't stop you from having undertaken the consultation so the clarity of what will be contained in those instruments and the detail about what will actually happen on the ground is known before the framework is put in place. So, whilst I appreciate the lecture on how legislation works, I don't think I was suggesting for a minute that we put legislative instruments into this place before we had the enacting framework in terms of legislation. I was simply saying that it would have been an entirely respectful thing to do to finish your consultation with the sector on the details of what is going to be some very significant implications around changes that have been four years in the making. For four years the sector has been working together to try and come up with this particular reform package to make sure that Australians are getting cheaper access to implantable devices, to make sure that the Prostheses List is streamlined and fit for purpose and to make sure that we continue to be able to provide, through the private health system, access to these lifesaving, life-changing procedures. It would have been a respectful thing to do to finish the consultation. In some instances, this government hasn't even started the consultation for something that is going to have to be in place by 1 July. It seems like it is rushed. I'm sure you're going to move your amendment in a minute. Once again, it seems like we've rushed the legislation in an attempt to tick and flick and say: 'We've got this legislation done and out of the way. Don't worry about providing any detail; we can fix it all up later.' I really do hope that your categorical commitment that this is not going to have any impact holds true in due course. Before you move your amendment, as I assume you're going to do, can I move on to the prescribed list guide. Where are we at in terms of the development of the prescribed list guide used for administering private medical device listing processes from 1 July? 18:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The guide will be going out for consultation in the next month. 18:51 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia How long will it be out? 18:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The usual time of four to six weeks. 18:52 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The consultation will start in a month, so that's early April, and it will be out until the middle of May. How long will it take, after you've received the consultation, to finalise the guide and publish it? 18:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It has to be in place, as you know, by 1 July. I think it will be finalised as soon as possible following the feedback from the consultation. 18:52 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Will the guide specify details about eligibility for listings under part A, part B, part C—I'm not sure if that's the correct terminology, but the different categories or listing levels? 18:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The eligibility criteria will be moved into another legislative instrument, which will also be consulted on. 18:53 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Can I get a bit of an idea of the time frame? The consultation will come back sometime in the middle of May, and that will be turned into an instrument. Will that instrument list the categories of what's eligible? 18:54 Senator GALLAGHE ING Australian Capital Territory R (—) (): My understanding is that the eligibility will be in a separate instrument and that will be consulted on as well, I presume, as part of the whole package. 18:54 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Will that be concurrent consultation or subsequent consultation? 18:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Concurrent. 18:54 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Will there be a guide published in addition, or is it just the legislative instrument that will outline it? 18:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes. 18:54 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Can I just get some clarity about items that are not implanted as part of a medical procedure? Will they automatically be eligible for reimbursement by an insurer if prescribed by a clinician? 18:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Sorry, was it implantable? Senator Ruston 243273 No. Senator G ING Non-implantable? Senator Ruston 243273 Yes. So is it correct that— The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 Sorry, Senator Ruston. I think the minister's still on her feet to give you an answer. She might be clarifying. I'll just check so you don't miss anything. Senator GALLAGHER ING My understanding is that that has always been subject to a ministerial decision, and there are no plans to change that. It will go to section C of the instrument. 18:56 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia So you're saying that the conditions under which a non-implantable item will or will not be eligible for payment are exactly the same as they are at the moment? Okay. I think I'm okay on the general part. You can probably move your amendment. 18:56 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move amendment (1) on sheet UL102 circulated by the government: (1) Schedule 2, item 4, page 12 (after line 12), after section 72-25, insert: 72-27 Matters to have regard to before exercising certain powers In deciding whether to exercise a power under section 72-20 or 72-25, the Minister must have regard to the following: (a) whether the exercise of the power would be detrimental to the interests ofinsured persons; (b) whether the exercise of the power would significantly limit medical practitioners' professional freedom, within the scope of accepted clinical practice, to identify and provide appropriate treatments. 18:57 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The reason I want to speak to this particular amendment, which relates to the exercising of the powers by the minister, is that I think it once again speaks absolutely to the fact that we have a piece of legislation that clearly has been rushed in being put together. It hasn't been well thought through. It hasn't been broadly consulted on. So what we find ourselves with here—and this is out of your own explanatory memorandum—is an amendment seeking to require the minister to have regard to matters when proposing to remove a listing from the rules or proposing not to carry out activities in relation to a debtor if there are unpaid fees and levies—because one of the bills that are sitting here actually provides the capacity for somebody who hasn't been paying their levies to have their devices or instruments removed from being eligible for reimbursement. It was very much a blanket requirement in this bill for that to be the case. Nobody had actually sat down and thought about what the implications may well be for the patients. So what we've seen here is that today, at the eleventh hour, this amendment is being rushed in here. It was rushed in 20 minutes before it might well have been voted on had it not been that there were so many issues that I wanted to seek clarification on. This amendment now requires the minister, in exercising his powers to make a determination where somebody is going to be removed because they have not paid their fees or levies, to have regard to whether the exercise of that power by the minister 'would be detrimental to the interests of insured persons'—that is, the patient. So we have this piece of legislation that would allow the minister, without any regard whatsoever for the potential implication on a patient, to remove a particular supplier because of unpaid fees or levies. We know that, in many instances with implantable devices, there are often ongoing requirements for the supplier to continue to provide support et cetera. So here we are. We have a situation where no-one actually bothered to think about the impact on the patient. It also requires the minister to determine whether the exercise of these powers will significantly limit the professional freedom of medical practitioners to identify and provide appropriate treatments. So we have not bothered to worry about what the doctors might have thought. So here we are, with this piece of legislation being put through here, with no notice. I'd also point out that there was no discussion with us either, clearly with the understanding that we have quite a strong interest in this particular suite of bills. Nobody bothered to tell us. It just arrived here 20 minutes before it could have been voted on, which significantly points out that this legislation completely and utterly disregarded, in one of these bills, the impact it potentially could have on patients and potentially could have on doctors. There's a lack of detail. It's policy on the run. It's a bit akin to building a plane while you're trying to fly it. It doesn't always end up terribly well. This government should consider attending to the detail in the first place and making sure that its legislation has been thoroughly consulted, taking into account all of the implications, not just the implications of the top-line stakeholders but looking at who is the most important stakeholder in our health sector, and that is the patient. The government clearly forgot to bother about that here. As we've seen in the discussion I've been having with the minister, we have no detail whatsoever. It is expected that we are just going to wave this through. I said earlier that the opposition would be supporting this suite of bills because we believe that it has been a long time coming. We must say, though, we are hugely disappointed, on behalf of the sector, on behalf of patients, on behalf of clinicians and doctors, on behalf of hospitals, on behalf of private health insurers, on behalf of device manufacturers, that we have got so little detail here. Once again, we have created a massive level of uncertainty that we have also seen in the aged-care sector. Right now, we have aged-care facilities out there that don't know whether they're going to be closed down because of their inability to meet the mandated requirements of the legislation that has been pushed through this place that was impossible to deliver. Everybody knew at the time the legislation went through here that it would not be possible to deliver the mandated requirements because of the workforce shortages. Once again, we have a situation where we don't want to stand in the way of policy reform. We absolutely don't, and we won't. I have to say, putting the government on notice, I'm getting sick and tired of coming in here and being expected to ask my team—and I'm sure many of the other frontbenchers on this side are sick to death of coming in here—to come in here and say, 'We want you to vote for a piece of legislation.' Then they ask you a question about that legislation, because one of their constituents has raised a particular issue, and we have our hand on heart and say, 'I don't know what the government's going to do because they're not going to tell us what they're going to do; they're just expecting us to take this in good faith.' As I said, we will be supporting this amendment because the amendment is a good amendment. I'm really pleased that the government has actually seen that this is a good amendment. But I just really, really hope that this wasn't the only mistake that was made in the legislation. If there are more mistakes in this legislative package like this one, then we will be in a world of pain. The consequences won't be felt by the government, the opposition or the Greens, or anybody else in this place; the consequences will be felt by the patients of Australia who need medical procedures. Unfortunately, we have a situation with the requirement of the government to push through its legislation and get it off its legislative agenda. Sadly, we are in a situation where the needs and the wants—and, I think, the obligation—that we have in this place, to pass fully informed, good legislation that is in the best interests of the Australian public, has been denied to us because of the lack of clarity and the lack of consultation that has been provided. I say to the minister: please guarantee that this is the only muck up in the legislation that is being fixed by this, because, of course, we're more than happy to support you in your rectification. 19:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory For a start, if you'd paid attention you'd know it's not a rectification; it's in response to a scrutiny report. This power has existed as is since 2009 and has never been used, so if it's an issue for us it was an issue for you, for 10 years, that you didn't rectify. I think you should do your homework before you come in here and start raising a whole range of rubbish that is, frankly, just wrong. This is in response to the scrutiny report, which recommended some additional protections which have not existed with this power since 2009—a power that's never been used. It's not an error. It's actually responding, as government should, to a scrutiny report. It's not rectification—that's the beginning. I would say: the lecture about failure to consult is a bit rich coming from a member of the former government, which announced some of these changes two years ago but—surprise, surprise—didn't see them through, negotiated behind closed doors without consultation and signed an MOU with the industry without consulting anybody else. Coming here and lecturing us about actually going through a proper process, proper consultation, is not right either. Maybe it's the end of a long day, but, Senator Ruston, I think you know the record on this, which was a secret agreement between you and the industry. You signed an MOU, didn't consult with anyone, went out two years ago and didn't implement it. Now we're finishing the work and we're putting in place appropriate consultation mechanisms through this bill. 19:07 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia For the benefit of the Senate, I want to briefly read out the relevant passage of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report in relation to this amendment: The committee is … concerned about the breadth of each discretion, particularly given that the exercise of the power … appear to have the potential to affect an individual's rights or interests. I take the point that the finance minister has shared with the Senate this evening that the amendment is in response to the recommendation of the committee. Governments should respond to scrutiny of delegated legislation committee reports. I would say, though, that that functions in this place as a fail-safe, a last bastion of defence against the unintended consequence of badly drafted legislation. It can't be relied upon, by either side of this place when they're in government, to pick this stuff up let alone to ensure that it is actually done. There is a reason, I would hope, that each side of politics strives to get into government. One reason, surely, is to have the resources of governmental departments at its disposal. You would think those departments would be able to pick this stuff up before a parliamentary scrutiny committee would be able to pick it up. While it is true that the government is responding to a report, as it should, the very fact that we've come to this space is quite concerning to the Australian Greens. I would join, with the minister, in their criticism of the former government's seemingly systemic inability to effectively consult with relevant affected communities. Being in the disability space, I've experienced a lot of that. However, that's a very low standard against which to judge yourself. I should hope we can raise it just a little bit higher and we can do just a little bit better. In relation to health policy more broadly, we will have the opportunity, either this evening or tomorrow, to really have the rubber hit the road in relation to consultation. We all know that coming up tomorrow is a bill in relation to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. We all know that right now this place is in the middle of negotiations over the implementation of a long fought for recommendation resulting from the Senate inquiry that considered, among other things, the impact of the transvaginal mesh scandal upon women. The No. 1 recommendation of that report was to have a mandatory framework for reporting of faulty medical devices by medical practitioners. It was supported at the time by the AMA, the RACGP and the Consumer Health Alliance. We will have an opportunity tomorrow to consider an amendment by the Greens to put that recommendation into effect as a product of consultation with the affected community. We will have an opportunity in that moment to see just where the government's—and indeed the opposition's—priorities lie. Do they lie with ensuring that Australians are never again subjected to the humiliation, the pain of a faulty medical device inserted into them, used upon them, and yet never reported to the relevant authorities? Or will we see this government say: 'That sounds like it'll be a bit too much to ask of medical professionals. Even with a one-year lead-in, I think that'll be a bit too much. I think we might just have to wait, even though it has been however many years since that inquiry reported.' I am well aware that there are individuals in the AMA who are lobbying this evening against the proposed Greens amendment in this space. I say to them: shame on you. You submitted in support of such a proposal when the inquiry took evidence. To the others in other parts of the health sector who are holding the line tonight: thank you. To those in this chamber keeping an open mind to this amendment: thank you. We keep alive tonight the possibility that this place might put in the work. It might require government departments to do their job and to not just reflectively accept the moaning of peak bodies who don't like having something sprung on them even though this has been waiting in the wings for years. I agree with the minister. The coalition government was absolutely abysmal when it comes to consulting with community, particularly in health. This is your opportunity to do a bit better. We will see, come tomorrow, whether you take it up. Question agreed to. Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, as amended, agreed to; Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 agreed to; Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 agreed to. Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 reported with amendments; Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 reported without amendments; Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 78 19:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 79

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Second Reading 79 19:16 Senator RU 243273 South Australia STON (—) (): I'm pleased to be able to stand today to make a contribution in relation to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to implement a number of measures that seek to ensure continued access to critical prescription medicines. We will be supporting this bill in recognition that it continues the work of the coalition and our very strong commitment to ensuring affordable medicines for all Australians and strengthening our world-class health system, of which Australians are rightly very, very proud. This bill will also support the safe use of therapeutic goods by strengthening post-market monitoring and compliance. The need to safeguard patient safety and ensure the early detection of adverse events related to medical devices was emphasised as long ago as during the 2017 Senate inquiry. It is absolutely imperative that, whenever we put legislation through this place, first and foremost, we put the safety of patients at the forefront of all of our decision-making. In 2017, the Senate inquiry followed an investigation of medical devices that were developed in the late 1990s which had later reported widespread complications with patients. We heard Senator Steele-John before refer to a particular incident and inquiry in relation to the adverse impacts of a particular device that had absolutely devastating and quite widespread consequences for the women who were implanted with that device. But, from that inquiry, recommendation 1 noted that adverse event reporting plays a vital role in a post-market surveillance and proposed a mandatory reporting scheme by health practitioners to prioritise health safety. It is obviously very important that we continue that work. Consequently, this bill introduces a framework for mandatory reporting requirements of adverse event information by hospitals, supporting improved monitoring, early detection and timely action to safeguard patients from harm. There were a number of other recommendations that were included in that report, many of which I hope over time that the government will have a look at implementing. As I said, we're very happy to support this important piece of reform legislation, which is absolutely putting patient safety at the centre of its intention. The bill will also make a number of amendments to improve requirements, codify current practices and remove certain provisions from the legislation. The bill will also introduce a dedicated marketing approval pathway for 'export only' biologicals to support the important export market for Australians. I don't know that many Australians actually realise how huge the export market is or the kind of respect that Australian biologicals have in the international marketplace. This bill will ensure that we have a system that allows our fantastic Australian based manufacturers to be able to get easy access to a world market so that they can continue to provide world's best practice when it comes to these particular products. It will also enable the Department of Health and Aged Care to approve the importation of overseas prescription medicines that are substitutes for medicines which have previously been approved in Australia, assisting to relieve supply shortages. Sadly, at the moment, we have significant supply shortages, particularly for medicines, so this seeks to remedy against that. The coalition absolutely supports the intention of this bill to ensure continued access to potentially life-saving and life-changing and life-improving medicines for Australian patients. However, more can and must be done to safeguard accessibility to critical health care for Australian households currently facing significant cost-of-living pressures. Recently, it was reported that the out-of-pocket costs for general practice consultations have risen to $60 for some practices, and the cost to fill a prescription has also risen quite significantly, at the same time, as we've seen increases in things like energy bills and mortgage payments, and everybody knows that when you go to the supermarket the bill at the checkout is significantly higher than it was. Action to ensure continued access to critical health care must include a plan to relieve these significant cost pressures of living, which are only continuing to rise as we stand here today. This is why the coalition has been so concerned by recent notification of the government's decision that has resulted in a life-changing medicine, FiAsp, which is currently on the pharmaceutical benefits list—this particular drug is an insulin product. It's a new and innovative product that was listed in 2019, I believe. Over 15,000 Australians who have access to this particular product rely on it to manage their diabetes and their symptoms and alleviate the conditions and consequences of this. The former coalition government listed this particular product on the PBS in 2019. That ensured affordable access to this fast-acting insulin for diabetic patients. But now it appears as if access to this particular product will no longer be available in Australia. That means those 15,000 plus people who have been relying on this innovative product will no longer be able to get access to these scripts. This puts extraordinary cost-of-living pressure on them because, if they are no longer able to meet those requirements or get access to it, the cost options of other products are significantly higher. It's not only important that we look at ways in which the government can continue to supply critical medicines for Australians that rely on them. They must also make sure that those medicines are affordable and Australians can continue to have access to them, because the reliance on those medicines in this healthcare system is so important. As the previous coalition government, we were really pleased to have listed over 2,900 new or amended medicines on the PBS during the time that we were in government. This came on top of a 2012 admission by the previous Labor government that they'd had to stop listing medicines because they couldn't afford to list them. I hope the decision in relation to FiAsp is not one that will signal the return to new medicines not being listed and existing medicines coming off the PBS because they can't continue to afford to list them. I absolutely want to reiterate that the coalition supports the necessary intention of this bill, and that is to strengthen the safe use of therapeutic goods and to support continued access to critical medicines. We do have concerns with some elements involved with this legislation, and we are particularly concerned by the way schedule 10 of this bill removes the natural justice hearing rule regarding publication of certain products, product information by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Product sponsors currently have access to natural justice prior to the proposed publication of information by the TGA, providing them with an important opportunity to respond to potentially damaging allegations made by the TGA in relation to their products. By removing this provision, it would deprive product sponsors of access to that natural justice before the product information is published, which could have potentially serious implications for these providers. It is also absolutely an underlying principle of this nation that natural justice is something that should be afforded to everybody. For this bill to seek to deny that natural justice to an organisation without the appropriate recourse that should rightly be afforded to them is a significant oversight. Obviously, we are particularly concerned about that, and we are hopeful that the government intend to rectify that. So, by removing this provision we deprive the product sponsors of access to natural justice. And so while we support the need for the TGA to be able to urgently publish information relating to critical safety issues that significantly affect public health, this bill, in its current form, also allows the TGA to publish efficacy and quality related information where there is no corresponding urgency. For these reasons we are keen for the government to amend this particular bill and to make changes to schedule 10 to only relate to the release of information on issues that relate to safety. On behalf of the coalition, I am more than happy to say that we will be happy to support this bill, although obviously we're very keen to make sure that the amendment to schedule 10 is moved. 19:26 Senator 250156 Western Australia STEELE-JOHN () (): The Greens are broadly supportive of this bill; however, I flag here that we will be moving a number of amendments as circulated to the Senate. The Greens particularly welcome that the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 has come from recommendations as a result of many people across the country sharing their really horrific experiences with the Senate community affairs inquiry into transvaginal mesh implants and related matters. Before I get to the end of my allocated time tonight and get cut off, I want to acknowledge the energy that it takes to share your lived experience with a Senate committee. And I want to thank the committee—including the then chair, former Greens Senator Rachel Siewert—for their work in developing the recommendations that have led us to this point. The impact of transvaginal mesh for women was devastating—absolutely devastating. As quoted in the inquiry's final report: [W]e believe this is a catastrophic failure of the health system to protect women and ensure they have access to safe health care. We feel that women have been let down by their doctors, by the manufacturers of mesh and by the TGA as the regulator. Those are the keywords I want to keep in people's minds—a 'catastrophic failure of the health system to protect women' and 'we feel that women have been let down by their doctors, by the manufacturers and by the TGA'. Now, the decision that will come before this Senate tomorrow will be whether we answer those calls with action—actually implementing the recommendations of the inquiry. So many gave their time and energy to generate those recommendations for a full mandatory reporting framework, not the half-baked half measure the government is putting forward this evening in the form of its definition of what healthcare facilities should or should not have to report. Let me state this clearly: the report really did not mince its words. All medical practitioners, as defined in the act, 'should report'. They should report to keep people safe. The Greens will be putting forward an amendment tomorrow to give effect to that recommendation. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 81 ADJOURNMENT Age of Consent 81 19:30 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia In 1977 a group of French leftist intellectuals signed a petition for children to be able to legally give sexual consent. Now, there are some sections of society that have wanted to lower the age of consent for decades, seeking to characterise it as legitimate sexual orientation. Today, these same people argue for the use of the term 'minor-attracted person' to replace the term 'paedophile'. Why? Because the term 'paedophile', they say, carries with it too much stigma. We cannot allow this movement to gather steam. We have to close the loop on this now, and on those who seek to normalise this behaviour. But unfortunately the filthy underbelly of leftist academia has other ideas, with one academic from Columbia University writing: If paedophiles are no longer forced to live underground and to be secretive about their relationships, but instead their desires are recognized as legitimate, and they are guided towards a responsible expression of their desires, we might prevent some cases of genuine sexual abuse. This recognition is cloaked under the pretence of preventing abuse. But anyone with common sense knows that the real-world impact of recognising these desires as legitimate will actually be the opposite. It's a Trojan Horse. Many dismiss the concept of the slippery slope, yet it gets proven true time and time again. We've seen it with euthanasia, COVID restrictions, climate alarmism and so on. The pattern's predictable. People like me express concern and get ridiculed—and a short period of time later, those predictions come true. A recent SBS article described a drag-queen story-time event in Sydney that was protested. Counter-protesters chanted, 'Love is love.' Now, what does 'love is love' have to do with grown men dressed in women's clothes reading to children? Why the focus on a children's event? Can anyone explain that? Can anyone explain why a Mardi Gras mural in Sydney featured a man in a BDSM outfit wearing a teddy bear mask? How about the Balenciaga photographs featuring children with stuffed animals in bondage? Rest assured, something is deeply wrong with our culture. In the United States, babies and toddlers are being exposed to grown men dancing in G-strings in stripshow-style performances, and it won't be long before that behaviour makes it to our shores and we will be told it's 'just a colourful bit of fun for the kids'. I expect that sooner or later we'll be having discussions in this place and in state parliaments all around the country about lowering the age of consent, and those who oppose it will be called all sorts of colourful names—'prudes', 'bigots', 'reactionaries'. We'll be mocked for being discriminatory to minor-attracted persons and not sensitive to their feelings. Then, again, we'll be saying, 'I told you so,' while the Left celebrates their so-called progress. We live in a society that's attacking the innocence of children and the sanctity of the family, which is the foundation of our society. Without strong families with a loving mother and father, society falls apart. Today children are bombarded with sexual concepts from all sides, and parents are often ill-equipped to deal with it. Our children deserve to be protected. Yet the political class and the passive apologists of this nation are failing them. Australia be warned: you are witnessing the precursor attacks designed to lower the age of consent and normalise the sexualisation of children. I, for one, will fight it with every fibre of my body, and I suspect that millions of Australians feel the same away. To those who are listening out there, I say: rejecting this behaviour is the right thing to do. It doesn't make you a transphobe; it doesn't make you a homophobe. If men want to dress in women's clothing, that's their business. But stop trying to sexualise the children. Leave the kids alone. Tasmania: Hillwood Berries 81 19:34 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak about a recent visit to Hillwood Berries farms, at Hillwood in northern Tasmania. Hillwood Berries is a national supplier of strawberries, raspberries, blackberries and blueberries. You will often see these wonderful Tasmanian-grown products in Coles and Woolworths across the country. The Dornauf family are proud Tasmanian farmers who have built a strong business that plays an essential role in agriculture and farming across Tasmania. I visited their farm gate with the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the Hon. Pat Conroy, to announce reforms to make skills training more accessible, flexible and affordable for Pacific Labour Mobility—PALM—scheme workers and their Australian employers. Hillwood Berries employs over 550 workers from the Asia-Pacific, mostly Tonga and Samoa, as part of this scheme, and they continue to return to Tasmania annually, strengthening ties between our nation and the region, improving their family's opportunities and social mobility at home. Hillwood Berries is a great employer. It has a 70 per cent return rate of workers. Once they work at Hillwood Berries, so many islander workers return again and again. The efficiency and success of this workforce is also building full-time equivalent positions within the business. Consequently, Hillwood Berries is going from strength to strength, with their Bundaberg operation growing to the point where they can now supply berries nationwide all year round. I spoke to many of the workers at Hillwood, and they all have inspiring stories. Rufina represents just one of those special stories. When she picks berries, she counts the number of punnets she picks to know how many bricks she will be able to purchase that day to build her house back home in Timor-Leste. Every two hours of work at Hillwood translates into one stone to build her family's new house. Such stories are a great example of what this scheme is all about. Labour mobility is a powerful way of supporting economic development in the Pacific. One-third of Pacific islanders live on less than $1,000 per year. In contrast, the government estimates that the average PALM scheme worker in Australia sends home between $1,000 and $1,300 every month they're working here in Australia. We have 4,200 PALM scheme workers in my home state of Tasmania right now, making a valuable contribution to their home economies and filling critical work shortages in Tasmania. Across Australia there are more than 35,000 PALM scheme workers filling workforce shortages in regional Australia and sending valuable earnings to the Pacific and Timor-Leste. In a region where more than one-third of people live on less than $1,000 per year, long-term PALM workers send home on average $15,000 each, boosting Pacific economies and lifting families out of poverty. I note the comments of Hillwood Berries General Manager Simon Dornauf: PALM scheme workers are critical for businesses such as ours but they are also a long way from home and it's vital that we support their development and look after them as best we can. Workers are making such a valuable contribution both here and at home and they bring so much to this business and community in our part of Tasmania. We regularly receive photos of houses the workers are building at home and the improvements they are making to their lives. Pacific workers are making such a valuable contribution both here and back in their own communities at home. They're putting food on the table of Australian families and they are the backbone of agriculture in Tasmania right now. They should be celebrated. We thank them for their work. We thank them for enriching our communities. And we thank them for what they're able to contribute back in their home communities to help raise the living standard of their community members. This is a great scheme. It's one that has been improved by the Albanese Labor government. I want to again place on the record my appreciation for Minister Conroy making that visit and allowing me to join and have the opportunity to not only meet many of these workers but hear them sing and dance for us. It was very moving. I want to thank the Dornauf family for what they're doing in helping to build relationships between the Pacific islands and Australia, as this Labor government is doing. Iraq War 82 19:39 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The Australian Senate spent an hour today debating a motion around the one-year anniversary of the war of aggression by the Russian government on the sovereign state of Ukraine, an illegal, unethical and immoral invasion of a sovereign nation. I wondered how many senators today in this chamber were also aware that in just two weeks time, 20 March, we have the 20th anniversary of another illegal, immoral and unethical invasion of another country, which our nation shamefully participated in: the invasion of Iraq. I said this in my first speech to the Senate: one way or another, that event was a major part of my journey to being in the Senate here tonight. I'd never been so angry about anything in my life as I was when our nation participated in that war of aggression. And I wasn't alone. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in Australia. Millions took to the streets around the world. It was the biggest protest seen in Rome at the time and, indeed, in London. There were half-a-million people in Hyde Park in Sydney, where Simon Crean, the Labor minister at the time, the Labor leader, spoke out against this war. But, nevertheless, even though there was this groundswell of foreboding and fear and anxiety that we were going to get dragged into a war that didn't need to happen, it happened. The people were ignored. And we were right. We were right about our fears and our concerns, because this conflict is still being felt today, nearly 20 years after it was initiated by the so-called coalition of the willing. Hundreds of thousands of people were directly killed, many of them innocents, in this war of aggression. There was instability across the entire region for over a decade, including the Syrian civil war. The invasion of Iraq and the insurgency gave direct rise to Islamic state and more global terrorism and, ultimately, to a wave of millions of refugees, a wave of human misery, across Europe following this conflict. And what did we achieve from it? More importantly, what have we learned from it? On Saturday 18 March and on Sunday 19 March, there will be two rallies for peace in this country—a big one in Melbourne on Saturday 18, which I will be attending, at the State Library at 1pm, and one on Hobart Parliament Lawns on Sunday 19—because I know there were many Australians that participated in protesting this war who must feel very strongly about this. I also know there are a lot of young Australians who don't remember the Iraq War or the lead-up to the Iraq War, but one of the reasons we have to remember is that the media played a really big role in taking us to that war. And I do want to say I was horrified at the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald and theAge this morning, 'Australia must prepare for the threat of a China war'. And it clearly just wasn't me who was horrified, former Prime Minister Paul Keating said today that this article represents: the most egregious and provocative news presentation of any newspaper I have witnessed in over 50 years of active public life.    …   …   … the extent of the bias and news abuse is, I believe, unparalleled in modern Australian journalism. He goes to explain why this is so dangerous, that our media are either complicit or actively beating the drums for war. Recently the UN Secretary-General said we are 'not sleepwalking' into another global conflict, given what's happening around Ukraine and with NATO and the threats and tensions in our region involving China, we are 'eyes wide open' walking into another global conflict. This is the last thing we need. What we need to do is remember that while the media may have failed us, and largely failed us, one media outlet didn't, and that was WikiLeaks. The only truth teller of the Iraq War, Julian Assange, is sitting in a maximum security prison. No-one else has been brought to justice because of this illegal war, and it's time we came together on the 20th anniversary, in two weeks time, to remember and remember why this must never happen again. (Time expired) Tasmania: Callington Mill 83 19:44 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania If you were to assign a symbol that would recognise human ingenuity and encapsulate the technological advancement of our society, what would it be? A plane or a car? Perhaps a computer, or something that might appeal to our younger generation? A smart phone? I want to make the case tonight for something a little bit humbler, a bit more traditional but, nonetheless, remarkable, the windmill. Whether it's for milling grain, pumping water, milling timber or generating power for our cars, computers and smart phones, windmills have many uses. When you think about windmills, you would be forgiven for thinking that they're better known as an icon of Holland, but hear me out. My home state of Tasmania also has a strong connection to windmills, and one in particular. When you travel around Tasmania there are many landmarks you can see. If you are travelling to Hobart on one of our major highways, there's one landmark that might just stand out a tiny bit more than the rest: Callington Mill at Oatlands. This mill is the oldest operating Georgian mill in the southern hemisphere. It was built in 1837 and has been an integral part of the village's history. Callington Mill has had a turbulent past. Its ups and downs have be inextricably tied to the ups and downs of the Oatlands economy itself. Five years ago it was reported that Oatlands was not riding the wave of success that other regional towns across Tasmania were. Despite the mill having undergone a refurbishment of over $2 million, tourists were not stopping. The supermarket, shops and other tourism businesses were at a standstill. They were losing money, and some had even closed their doors. But, in the fashion that has become exemplary of Tasmanians, Oatlands has been quietly undergoing a transformation thanks to the dedication of its community leaders. This transformation is in no small part thanks to the revitalisation of Callington Mill. A nod to the village's history, the mill has become a thriving tourist hotspot, complete with distillery, restaurant and playground. The site also offers heritage tours to ensure history will never be forgotten. A site that had been lost to the relentless march of time, what owner John Ibrahim and his team have done is create a new vision and future for the mill without erasing its historical significance. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate them on this remarkable achievement. However, while what has been achieved at Callington Mill is incredible, it's only one small part of the village's transformation. Along with the Callington Mill development, Oatlands has also recently opened a $10 million aquatic centre, and the Southern Midlands Council is also working on a project to establish an $18 million boutique hotel. The proposal, from THN Hospitality, which currently operates the Old Woolstore Apartment Hotel in Hobart and Hadley's Orient Hotel in Hobart, would result in a 43-bedroom hotel and associated retail infrastructure. This rebirth has been driven, in part, thanks to the ingenuity of businessmen and entrepreneurs and also by the Southern Midlands Council, who have reinvented the town for tourists and for its residents. That laser focus on the future has paid off in dividends for Oatlands. The village was recently announced as the Keep Australia Beautiful Tidy Towns state winner for 2022. Oatlands will compete against all the other state winners at the national awards to be held on King Island—another Tasmanian success story—later this year. Keep Australia Beautiful state judge Lona Turvey noted the number of initiatives to improving the financial and social wellbeing of the community and noted not only the financial developments but the enormous impact of the town's volunteering community. One example of that is the highly successful Heritage and Bullock Festival, which injects about $280,000 dollars back into the community. Ms Turvey also recognised the Callington Mill destination playground as a perfect example of how the council valued the opinions and needs of the community to help it grow. The playground was developed with the input of Oatlands District High School students and has opened to great fanfare and much pleasure from young people. The Callington Mill is the symbol of Oatlands. It's used in the town's wayfinding sign and branding, and its rebirth has heralded in a new future for that quaint village to ensure any visitors who are travelling past will stop. This town's evolution deserves an accolade, and I want to take this opportunity to wish Oatlands well in the national Tidy Towns awards later this year. Congratulations to the Oatlands community. All of Tasmania is behind you when you represent our state on the national stage. Homelessness 84 19:48 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Hear, hear for Oatlands! I love me a bit of Oatlands. What kind of words are there to describe what it's like to be homeless? Is it possible to really communicate what it feels like to someone who's never been through it? I've spent the past few weeks talking to people up and down the chain of homelessness: people who are in the middle of it; people who've been there and come through the other side; people who run support services; and people who build crisis accommodation. Homelessness can happen to anyone. It could be you or me—people with a job; a family. If something happens—maybe they've split up with a long-term partner and there's no family home anymore—they can't afford rent on their own. They think it's just for one night, but that night turns into another and another. Where are they supposed to go? One night you're sleeping in your bed, the next you're out on your own—no bed, no shower, no food, no water, and no idea where you'll sleep tonight—no idea where you'll sleep tomorrow night either. Just last week, I was speaking to someone who's been there. She told me that you hear all the stories about homelessness and you think it will never happen to you until one day you're out in the cold. You sleep in your car with nothing but the clothes on your back. She told me that, until you've been there, you don't know what it's like, so I tried it. Now I can't know exactly what it feels like, but I slept for one night in a park, and it was bloody awful. I'm lucky, I had somewhere safe, sound and secure to go to the morning after. People in Tassie sleeping rough don't have that. It was 11 degrees the night I slept in my car, and that's pretty warm for Tassie. But my car is a Jeep. It doesn't have an insulated roof, and that makes it seem a lot colder than it is. I can't even imagine how brutal sleeping in your car in a Tassie winter would be. And what if you don't have a car? Temperatures in Tassie get really cold, and I'm a bit of a softy when it comes to it—cold is cold. I made sure to park in an area with a lot of light so I could see who was coming and going in every direction. But that didn't stop me from jumping at noises. I tried sleeping in all the seats—front seats, back seats. Front seat was definitely better, I can tell you. I picked a car park where I thought there was an open bathroom. Turns out they're locked from 5 pm to 5 am. There is only one 24/7 public toilet in Launceston. The experience reaffirmed what I already knew: nobody chooses to do this, nobody wants to be in this position. People do this because they don't have any other option. I spent the last 20 years of my life talking to people at different stages of homelessness: my employment services clients who couldn't afford to rent on their welfare payments and people who came to Jacqui's office desperate and crying because they had nowhere else to go and they felt the system had let them down. A lot of the time I felt that I had let them down. I'd call Housing Tas for them, I could tell them where to get food vouchers and groceries and I could give them the numbers for some crisis accommodation. But I couldn't put a stable roof over their heads. That's why I'm standing here asking the government to guarantee a minimum 1,200 homes for Tasmania from the Housing Australia Future Fund. But 1,200 is not enough. Twelve hundred homes will barely scrape the sides. There are 4½ thousand people on the housing waiting list in Tasmania at the moment. We're putting a bandaid over a gaping wound that need stitches. But it's a start, and without this guarantee we'll only get about 600 homes. That means we'll be going backwards. The Housing Australia Future Fund will build 30,000 homes. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2022 housing assistance report says Tassie has four per cent of the country's population with the greatest need for housing. We have four per cent of the need and we are asking for four per cent of the homes. I'll say this: if the fund doesn't build houses where they're needed, what's the point of the fund? If the minister will not guarantee that the fund will build homes where homes are most needed, what the hell are we doing here? The housing minister is a Tasmanian. Julie Collins is in the other place because the people of Tasmania elected her to represent them. She knows just how bad things are in Tasmania right now. She's seen it firsthand. Is she really going to stand up and say Tasmania shouldn't have these homes? Twelve hundred homes of 30,000 homes is a pretty reasonable ask. It's our fair share based on the government's own statistics, and the ball's in the government's court right now. It's up to them to decide if they'll help staunch the bleeding or rip the wound open, so that's my message to the government. If you need my vote—if you need our vote—Tasmania needs homes. Northern Territory: Housing 85 19:54 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I want to talk today about priorities. There are few matters more fundamental to government than the safety of its citizens. Providing the conditions for safety and prosperity should be No. 1, but we know that's not the case for this Labor government. It's been nearly two weeks since a senator from South Australia, my colleague Alice Springs born Kerrynne Liddle, highlighted the plight of an Aboriginal family living on a concrete slab in town. The family left the Utopia community, north-west of Alice Springs, and made the 300-kilometre journey to Alice Springs, seeking health care and support for a 30-year-old woman with third-stage kidney failure. These are good people. They're not drinkers. They're not gamblers. They don't cause problems. They send their kids to school. They try to set a good example and they try to do the right thing, but they're still living on an open concrete slab with nothing but a tarp for protection in the harsh Alice Springs weather. It got up to 38 degrees over the weekend and down to just 14 degrees at night, but in winter it can get below zero at night. They've had nothing but a tarp. It should be considered a national shame that in this country we have families left to live unsheltered on a concrete slab, but, as far as this government is concerned, out of sight equals out of mind. Two weeks they have known about this and nothing has been done to help the family. I ask: why aren't they a priority for the Labor government? Why aren't they a priority for the member for Lingiari? Why? It's because the member for Lingiari is more focused on Labor's Voice. That's Labor's priority, but I assure you it's not a priority for the members of the family or anyone like them in the Northern Territory. Ignoring the voices of her own constituents crying out for help, the member for Lingiari and her Labor colleagues claim to want to correct a system that she believes discriminates against Aboriginal Australians. What's more discriminatory than neglecting the urgent needs of Australians right now so you can use their plight for political gain while campaigning for your own self-interest? What's more discriminatory than ignoring Indigenous Australians while telling the rest of the country that they have no voice? Where are the government funded service providers? They're there to help people in need, but they don't seem to notice the problems. How sad is it that when service providers like Congress and Purple House drop patients off at a concrete slab it seems completely normal? How sad is it that they don't advocate for better housing for these patients? When Tangentyere Council were asked about the situation, they didn't even know who they were talking about. Why are they taking millions of dollars of taxpayer money if they don't even understand the make-up of town camps? Referring to them as rough sleepers is outright dismissive and disrespectful. This is a family living together, doing the right thing, sending their children to school. Australia doesn't need a voice. We just need people to do their jobs. We need the local members to do their jobs. We need the bureaucrats to do their jobs. We need the taxpayer funded service providers to do their jobs. Two hundred and fifty million dollars was promised by this Labor government to Central Australia, to Alice Springs. They can make a promise of funding, throwing cash about, but they can't address the immediate issues, the crisis right now on their doorstep. Do we know where this $250 million is going to go? Do we know how it's going to be spent? The Territory government have demonstrated for some time that they do not spend wisely. They spend everything in Darwin. They spend where they want to support their supporters, not on vulnerable people like this. We need the government, democratically elected, to stop looking the other way, to stop passing the buck and to actually get on with the job. New South Wales Government 85 19:59 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Sometimes the happenings of New South Wales politics are so deeply dystopian it seems like it couldn't really be that bad. Surely, you'd think, no serious adults could behave like that, but then the curse of Macquarie Street strikes and everybody in New South Wales says: 'Please, not again; let it stop!' A classic case of the Macquarie Street curse is the Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy. This started as a good news story, announced by then planning minister Rob Stokes in December 2021. It was that super rare New South Wales case of a proposed planning law done well, one that recognised the importance of climate resilience for new homes. It wasn't revolutionary, but it proposed a few environmentally sustainable reforms that would have done supersensible things, like preventing black-tiled heat-soaking roofs on new developments in Western Sydney, requiring new builds to be more energy efficient to reduce energy costs, and putting a few eves on buildings so that houses are kept cooler in summer. It's simple, positive stuff that's good for the planet and good for anyone moving into a new house. Then along comes the curse. In 2021, Premier Perrottet put the notoriously anti-environment Anthony Roberts in as the new planning minister. The rest, as they say, is history. A few days after the fateful appointment, billionaire developer Harry Triguboff, the owner of Meriton Group, wrote to the New South Wales government complaining about the design and place SEPP. The developers' lobby, who cemented themselves together as the Urban Taskforce, was also unhappy. They said it might be good for new homeowners and the planet, but it would impact their profits. Coincidentally, their property industry and Meriton are big donors to the Liberal and National parties. In 2022, the Liberal and National parties took $3.2 million in donations from developers. In New South Wales, Meriton gave the Liberal and National parties at least 200 grand in political donations in 2021 alone. They all just love democracy, it seems. When developers pay and come knocking on government doors, meetings are made available and policy change is on the table. Roberts met with the Urban Taskforce on 15 February and the Property Council on 2 March. It turns out that he had another critical meeting in April. The Greens used the powers of the New South Wales parliament to force the release of documents about what happened to the CEP, and the findings were grim. The property industry undermined the government architect, undermined good policy and pushed the right buttons. Then, on 5 April 2022, this one bit of decent law reform was scrapped by Minister Roberts. Here's the kicker: it turns out that on that exact same day, the planning minister, Minister Roberts, met with Meriton Group to discuss planning matters, according to his now public ministerial diary. So who's the real planning minister in New South Wales? It's not Anthony Roberts. He's the tool of the developer industry. Let's acknowledge that the one calling the shots is Harry Triguboff, not his mortgaged puppets sitting in Macquarie Street. Of course, this isn't the only threat to good planning that Mr Triguboff poses. He now has his sights set on beautiful Little Bay in Randwick City Council, planning to override the master plan for that community using the Liberal's appalling Rezoning Pathways program. If his Lane Cove puppet is still planning minister after 25 March, then heaven help Little Bay. Good governments are not afraid to give people information. Good governments should not be afraid of FOI, because they know that transparency fosters democracy and public engagement and drives good decision-making. It's not a surprise that the former coalition government systematically eroded the FOI scheme, creating a damaging culture of secrecy and cover-up. It certainly wasn't a good government. They did this through systematically starving the agencies, whose job it was to make FOI work, including the Information Commissioner, of the funds they needed. The Abbott government was particularly blatant about this, when, in its first budget, it abolished both the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Freedom of Information Commissioner--a position that was vacant for seven years. Roll forward to 2023, and well into the first year of the new Albanese government, and the FOI Commissioner has quit just one year into a five-year term. The resignation comes as a result of years of whittling away at information access schemes and his office being starved of the funding needed to do its job. This was a statement of exhaustion and frustration delivered to the new Labor government, and it should trouble anyone who cares about open government. It's a public indictment of the current system, highlighting the urgent need for an immediate funding injection to deal with the problems allowed to build up under the former coalition government. This is a test for the Albanese government--fund FOI, support transparency, support good government. Cashless Debit Card 86 20:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Last week, I did something that the Prime Minister of Australia still hasn't bothered to do. I visited the Western Australian northern Goldfields towns of Laverton and Leonora. The people of these towns are crying out for our help. They are crying out for their voices to be listened to. There are many contrasts on display in these places. In Laverton, I could hear the unmistakable joy emanating from the community swimming pool as kids played after school in the cooling water. It's without a doubt a sound that warms your heart and brings an instant smile to your face as you're walking past. Sadly, that joy stands in stark contrast to the very different screams locals told me they hear as night begins to fall. It is a more confronting chorus that greets them time and time again. 'You can hear the screaming and the wailing, and you know what's going on. It's horrible,' one local, new to the town, told me. I heard a series of devastating stories about life in Laverton and Leonora. There is clear evidence in both towns that the Albanese government's abolition of the cashless debit card has been a disastrous policy failure. In Laverton the present situation of a dramatic increase in alcohol consumption, assaults, domestic violence and general antisocial behaviour was described to me by one Indigenous leader as being 'like a speeding car going backwards'. The locals can pinpoint the descent as having started in November of last year, directly after the cashless debit card was abolished in October. The local shopkeeper has the evidence in his sales figures. The sales of meat and vegetables has dropped significantly, and his biggest selling items are now noodles and coke. The kids are no longer being fed properly, if at all. People who were previously on the cashless debit card now withdraw up to $2,000 directly from the ATM in one hit to spend mostly on booze. Laverton shire president, Patrick Hill, told me how, as well as cartons of beer, locals are now buying bottles or even cartons of spirits and drinking it like coke. He showed me a picture of a woman who had been brutally bashed and kicked by her partner on the street for over an hour outside the shire chamber. It was sickening. The night before I was in town another woman was stabbed by her partner, and the police were running an operation to locate the alleged offender. Emergency respondents say they are continually seeing women who have been bashed because of alcohol fuelled violence. Police in both towns do a brilliant job but are run ragged dealing with the violence and antisocial behaviour. Well over 90 per cent of all their work can be directly attributed to the abuse of alcohol. They are dealing with people addicted to alcohol on just about every job they attend. A worker at the Leonora Community Resource Centre listed a catalogue of issues that have arisen since the cashless debit card was abolished, including people presenting as drunk or stoned and saying that they're hungry and adult children hacking into their parents' accounts, draining the cash and leaving them destitute. With all funds now available as cash, they now spend it quickly with nothing left for food and other necessities later on. Designated carers and single mothers whose payments used to go into the cashless debit card are now spending most of their money on drinking and then looking for food handouts. The clear message from both towns is that the cashless debit card was not perfect and didn't solve all the problems but it made a big difference. Now that it has been abolished things have gone back to how they were before it was introduced. One Laverton local said to me: 'Anyone who thinks it didn't work has rocks in their heads.' Leonora shire president Peter Craig said: 'As well as quarantining 80 per cent of their money that could not be spent on alcohol, the card also helped teach those on it a better understanding of money, how to budget and how to pay bills. Some of that knowledge was being passed on from the women to the young people in the community. Much of those gains have now been lost as family members use cash to buy booze, and it's all gone before the bills can be paid.' Many of the kids, who are dealing yet again with the consequences of drunken adults and unsafe environments at home, are no longer going to school or are attending much less frequently than in the past. There is a fear in both towns that suicide will again become an issue in the district, as it was before the cashless debit card was introduced. Indigenous leaders that I met with in Laverton are very clear that alcohol is the scourge of their community and they need help in dealing with it. They all agree that alcohol is not culture. They have strong views about the sale of alcohol and the controls that could be put in place but reluctantly accept it is a legal product being sold by legitimate businesses. Their biggest concern is for their people, who they say are dying at an alarming rate. They all know others who are on dialysis because of the damage done by their alcohol addiction. It is well known that the publican in Laverton has, at the request of police, imposed his own restrictions on sales when things have gotten dangerously out of hand, which they have on a number of occasions. Minister Rishworth yesterday in the other place blamed an increase in the issues in these towns on an increase in the number of people travelling to these towns from the NG Lands and spending mining-royalty money. I can say to the minister: if you go and visit there, the locals will tell you that this is only part of the problem—and part of the problem that has always been an issue. The biggest change, however, has been the Albanese government's ending of the cashless debit card. The presidents of both shires have written to the Prime Minister setting out a way forward and pleading for his assistance. They want the assistance to enhance the welfare of Indigenous people in both towns and also the transient population coming into their communities from the NG Lands, an area that makes up about three per cent of mainland Australia. The plan they set out in their letter covers improved community safety and cohesion by expanding youth engagement and diversion programs, job creation, better services, addressing of the issues caused by alcohol, investment in families, and on-country learning and education. They have specific ideas under each of these six categories and have worked on costing each idea. They are requesting a total investment across both towns of $81 million over five years, which could be split between the federal government and the Western Australian state government. So far their letter, written on 20 February, has not even been acknowledged by Prime Minister Albanese. Most of all, when I was there, their message was that they just want the Albanese government to listen to them and to hear their voices. They think the Prime Minister should visit their towns and see firsthand what is going on, what they are going through. That's what the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, did. That's what local federal member Rick Wilson did. And that's what I did. The Albanese government should immediately restore the cashless debit card in these towns. That's what these towns themselves—the voices on the ground, the people who can directly see the impact of the withdrawal of the card—are pleading for the Albanese government to do. Just because it was an election promise to get rid of the card doesn't mean the government should persist with a policy that, on any analysis, is a complete failure. Further to that, the Albanese government and the McGowan state government need to listen to the voices of the people in these towns. These are the people who know, every day, as the afternoon sets in, that that's when the trouble starts. These are the people who, every day, just before the bottle shop opens, see the queues in the streets. Look at what these people are asking for. They've written it. They've put it in black and white to you, Prime Minister. Do something to stop what is without a doubt a catastrophe playing out in these remote towns. I know, just as the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, knows and just as the local member there, the member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson, knows, that we want to be able to return to Laverton. We want to be able to return to Leonora in years to come, and hear the joy of kids playing in the streets, seeing the kids being properly fed, not wandering the streets and wondering where their next meal will come from because their parents have withdrawn the cash, as they can now do, and have literally spent it on booze and consumed it. My fear, though, is that the Albanese government is just not listening and that there won't be many left, and all the joy in future years will be gone. Victoria: Heavy Vehicles, Pensions and Benefits, Tibetan Uprising Day 88 20:14 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria In 2015 the residents of Footscray, in the western suburbs of Melbourne, secured a curfew on heavy trucks from the Andrews Labor government. Footscray is my home, so I know what a huge win this was for the local community. It was a triumph for grassroots and community campaigns. Massive trucks powering down our residential streets have caused massive problems of diesel pollution and noise through their sheer bulk dominating the streets. And they endanger people's lives. Yet, eight years later, the Andrews government has failed to adequately enforce and monitor the curfew, and Footscray residents continue to be appallingly impacted by the continuous presence of heavy trucks and road trains. The massive problems of these massive trucks continue. About 25 road trains use Footscray's Moore Street every day to deliver material to the West Gate Tunnel project, as well as around 2,000 other trucks. Despite a statement in 2018 by the Premier that material for this project would be delivered by rail freight, Footscray's streets have become a major thoroughfare for road trains and other heavy vehicles delivering material to the West Gate Tunnel project. Disappointingly, a growing number of these trucks have exemptions from the government to access residential streets in the area. These trucks have a huge negative impact on the wellbeing and health of this community. Constantly breathing in diesel pollution from dirty vehicles is bad for people's health. A recent study by the University of Melbourne found that air and traffic pollution likely claims more than 11,000 Australian lives every year. And I have heard countless stories from residents who have been woken in the night by the loud noise of trucks turning or accelerating through their streets. Many people have told me how difficult it's been to get the children to sleep through the night, and others have shared how they've begun to experience ongoing sleep deprivation. Even more alarmingly, not only are these heavy vehicles disturbing the sleep and hearing of residents of Footscray but they are endangering the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. Just a month ago, a 22-year-old cyclist, Angus Collins, was tragically killed by a truck on Footscray Road at an intersection that was made incredibly dangerous by the construction of the West Gate Tunnel. My heart goes out to his family and friends. I recently heard from Elizabeth, a local resident, who was nearly run over by a truck while walking to school with her son. She told me that, while turning left from Moore Street in Footscray, the truck mounted the kerb and came so close to her and her son that she could have touched it with her hands. Elizabeth told me that the experience left her feeling angry and disempowered—angry that her son can't walk to school safely and disempowered by the broken promises of the Andrews government to the Footscray community. I am also angry. I was elected to the Maribyrnong City Council 20 years ago this month, and a big part of my council election platform was campaigning about trucks. The community has seen little to no change regarding heavy vehicles in the decades since. It is so wrong that cyclists are still being killed by trucks and that Elizabeth is worried about the safety of her kids walking to school on the very same intersection on which I was worried about my kids walking to school 20 years ago. The community have been stonewalled and stymied, with minimal action being taken by the state government in that time. The Footscray community fought hard for the truck curfew in 2015, and it should be upheld. I call upon the Andrews government to adequately enforce the truck curfew, to immediately end all exemptions given to heavy trucks and road trains during the curfew hours in Footscray and to fulfil their commitment to transport material for the West Gate Tunnel project by rail. I also call upon the federal government to pressure their Labor colleagues to take these actions, to introduce tough new federal pollution standards for heavy vehicles and to put in place measures to rapidly shift freight transport to rail and to hydrogen and electric trucks to help my fellow residents of the inner west of Melbourne and, indeed, people across the country to live safe and healthy lives. As I've done many times in this place, I would like to talk about the crucial need to raise income support, particularly after hearing evidence from our latest poverty inquiry hearing. Being forced to live in your car or in a tent while your government delivers tax cuts to those on over $200,000 a year is not okay, but this is the reality for those hit hardest by the Lismore floods. I recently visited Lismore to chair the fifth hearing of the yearlong Senate inquiry into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia. Over 3,000 homes in the Lismore area were impacted by the 2022 floods, and more than one year on our inquiry heard harrowing reports of locals still camping in tents in their backyards, couch surfing, or living in cars or in pod villages. We heard about the kindness and the care of strangers and community organisations who selflessly uplift those in need in the absence of government support. The resounding issue that has been raised in these inquiry hearings is meagre income support payments. The inquiry heard from Nimbin resident Chibo, who shared his experience over the last few years: I must say, I've never felt so mentally tortured as when I was unemployed, starting with Centrelink treating you like you're the last dirt from the street. Just coming into the whole situation … really impacts on your lifestyle, on your nutrition level, on anything. As soon as something goes 'pop' which wasn't being calculated for, like if you have a car and you have one tyre problem or something, that's $50 to $150 … That just throws you out while you were maybe saving up for getting the fridge repaired or something. It is such a stressful state. On Centrelink payments he added: We are really making people sick—that's my opinion—by having them on such a small amount of money. Sadly, we heard the same thing in Lismore as we've being hearing at every poverty inquiry hearing to date. People are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and they need help to make it through this cost-of-living crisis. To those who are still doing it tough, please know that we hear you and we'll continue to fight for you inside and outside the parliament. Between low wages, having no affordable housing, and starvation payments of around $47 a day for people on JobSeeker, communities across the country are facing dire financial circumstances. That is why the Greens are pushing Labor to invest $5 billion a year in public and affordable housing and to raise the rate of all income support payments to $88 a day in the May budget. We need action, not words. Poverty is a political choice—a choice that continues to be made by this Labor government. These people in our community have been punished by 10 years of a callous coalition government. As we saw in the budget last year, they will continue to be chastised by a Labor government who profess to speak for the people. I am calling on Minister Rishworth, Treasurer Chalmers and the Labor government to financially support people who have been forced into poverty—forced into something that is out of their control. The government has the power and the ability to lift the rate of income support above the poverty line. Finally, I want to note, in the time remaining, that Friday marks Tibetan Uprising Day, which commemorates the 1959 Tibetan uprising that ultimately resulted in a violent crackdown on Tibetan independence movements and in the flight of the Dalai Lama into exile. The Chinese government has continued their attacks on Tibetan people and culture to this day. Peaceful protests in Tibet have resulted in people being arrested, including monks. We have a broader pattern by the Chinese government of oppressive actions against Tibetan organisations and people. I've consistently noted my concerns about the disappearance of the Panchen Lama. I will continue to push, here in the Australian context, that we recognise only a Dalai Lama appointed by Tibetan Buddhist traditions and practices, without interference by the Chinese government. To the people of Tibet and to Tibetans around the world: we are in solidarity with you and with everyone facing injustice and human rights violations. We urgently urge the Chinese government to immediately cease its violations of human rights in Tibet, and we call upon the Australian government to advocate at the highest level for human rights in Tibet and around the world. Freedom of Religion 89 20:23 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak this evening in relation to the Labor government's review of religious educational institutions and anti-discrimination laws, which, to be frank, has become an absolute car smash—an absolute train wreck. The evidence that was presented before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee during estimates was absolutely gobsmacking. Before I provide some particular comments in relation to the state the Labor government has gotten itself into with respect to this review, I first want to talk about the importance of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is one of the key individual freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion. It's a freedom that isn't just exercised by an individual. It's a freedom that is exercised in community, and it is well and truly accepted as a matter of international human rights law that people have a right, in community, to practise their religious faith freely. That includes religious schools. In the last parliament, I participated in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's review of the proposed legislation from the Morrison government. During that process, my door was open and will always remain open to everyone who has views with respect to this issue. That committee conducted itself, in my opinion, in a very balanced and reasonable way, in terms of obtaining the viewpoints of all stakeholders, as it should. Hence, it is extraordinarily disappointing to see the feedback that has been provided from people of faith in relation to the consultation paper issued by the Australian Law Reform Commission entitled Religious educationalinstitutions and anti-discrimination laws released in January 2023. I first want to refer to a media release issued by the National Catholic Education Commission. It should be noted that the National Catholic Education Commission's executive director, Jacinta Collins, served in this place for some 21 years. Whilst Jacinta Collins served on the other side of the aisle, I deeply respect her contribution to this place. One would reasonably expect that a person with that experience, when they go to print on matters like this, would do so having carefully considered the issues. The media release of 31 January 2023 is entitled: 'Proposed reforms to discrimination legislation would make it impossible for Catholic schools to be Catholic'. That's a media release from one of the largest providers of religious faith based schools in Australia. To quote further: At the National Catholic Education Commission meeting today, our educational leaders across Australia were very concerned by the narrow approach taken in the ALRC paper. The proposed reforms fail to provide real protections for religious schools to effectively operate and teach according to their religious beliefs and ethos … Ms Collins said the review has been limited to exemptions in the Sex Discrimination, Fair Work and other Acts and does not address the need for protections for religious rights in Australia. Changes to anti-discrimination laws must must go hand-in-hand with proactive legislation to protect religious freedom. International law recognises protections to establish religious educational institutions and the right of parents to choose a school for their children that is in line with their religious values and beliefs. In a pluralist society, Catholic schools should be free to be Catholic. I agree wholeheartedly with that proposition, that Catholic schools should be free to be Catholic, just as Anglican schools should be free to be Anglican, Muslim schools should be free to be Muslim and Jewish schools should be free to be Jewish. That should be a fundamental, important basis for a pluralist society, bearing in mind that many people of many different faiths have come to this country. They've come to this country from lands where they couldn't practise their religious faith, whether individually or in communion. I again quote from the media release of the National Catholic Education Commission: This is an important tipping point for faith-based schools in Australia … We need to find a fair and reasonable balance to ensure staff and students are not discriminated against on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy, while enabling faith-based educational institutions to continue to express their faith identity, ethos and values. That is a very measured and balanced view with respect to this topic, the right of Catholic schools to be Catholic. Subsequently, another letter was received. This letter was sent to the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, our Attorney-General, from a range of faith leaders—again, with respect to the consultation paper. It was sent by the Right Revd Dr Michael Stead, Anglican Bishop of South Sydney. It was co-signed by leaders of many faiths—the Catholic faith, the Anglican faith, the Greek Orthodox Church, Muslim schools, Presbyterians, Adventists, Australian Christian Churches. There were pages of signatories. This is what they say: The Paper proposes that the right of religious schools to preference people of their faith in the selection of staff be strictly limited only to those teaching roles where the "teaching, observance, or practice of the religion is a genuine requirement of the role, having regard to the nature and ethos of the institution". That's what the ALRC consultation paper proposes. They then say: For every other teaching role, it would be become unlawful for the school to give preference to employing teachers who share or are willing to commit to supporting the religious beliefs of the school. And they go on: Faith-based schools in Australia have long been free to give preference to employing staff who share or who are willing to support the faith and beliefs according to which the school is conducted. They do not seek the right to discriminate on the basis of a protected attribute, but simply to be able to employ staff who share or are willing to uphold the religious beliefs of the school. What's unreasonable about that? That's balance, from my perspective. What has brought these are faith leaders, education leaders, to write in these terms? It's the fact that they consider the Australian Law Reform Commission paper, which was released in January 2023, is not a balanced document. It's not a balanced document, and it stands, in my view, in stark contrast to the religious freedom review that was the report of a panel of five experts—not one expert, five experts—including the current president of the Human Rights Commission. During Senate estimates I was told: 'Senator Scarr, it's a consultation paper. We're getting feedback on the consultation. Isn't that how it's meant to work?' The problem is, when you start from this point, the religious faith leaders, important stakeholders in our community, now have absolutely no confidence in the process. It has become a train wreck. They have no confidence in the process. This is the starting point. It appears like a fait accompli, and so they've lost faith in the process. In the letter from the religious faith leaders dated 13 February 2023 to the Hon. Mark Dreyfus MP: Having carefully considered the proposals in the Consultation Paper we are doubtful that the— Australian Law Reform Commission— process can reach any balanced outcomes, as contemplated by the terms of reference, by starting with these proposals. We agree with the comments from the National Catholic Education Commission that the proposed reforms fail to provide real protections for religious schools to effectively operate and teach according to their religious beliefs and ethos, and that if the proposed reforms were adopted it would be a major blow to authentic faith-based education in Australia. That's the situation we're now in because the Labor Party embarked on a consultation process which was a farce. They started with a fait accompli and the consultation—I call it 'consultation'; it has been very direct consultation—process has failed. This will be an albatross around the neck of the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus. Therapeutic Goods Administration 91 20:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In my capacity serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that during the last Senate estimate hearings, Adjunct Professor John Skerritt, Deputy Secretary, Health Products Regulation Group within the TGA, commented with clarity previously lacking in three years of health officials' testimony. Finally the truth. The Therapeutic Goods Administration, our TGA, did not check patient-level clinical trial data for the mRNA vaccines. Instead, it used documents that Pfizer supplied and modified after the United States Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, requested it. It's now very relevant to ask how diligent was America's Food and Drug Administration, the FDA—that's America's equivalent of our TGA—in overseeing drug approvals? On 2 November 2021 the British Medical Journal, BMJ, published an article titled 'Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial'. I'll quote from this article about whistleblower Brook Jackson reporting on the Texas trial sites: A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer's pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration. Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. These were provided to substantiate her allegations. Brook Jackson used FDA whistleblower provisions—and a lot of good that did her because the FDA dobbed her in to Pfizer anyway. She was fired, and her complaint was ignored—start of cover-up. Minister, on 16 November 2022 the British Medical Journal published an article titled 'FDA oversight of clinical trials is "grossly inadequate", say experts'. In recent months a court ordered release of documents surrounding the FDA's approval of Pfizer's vaccine confirmed Pfizer's malfeasance. Known as the 'Pfizer papers' the FDA contested the release to the public. It wanted this information kept secret for 75 years. The Pfizer papers show the FDA knew or reasonably should have known at the time of approval that the clinical trials were incapable of supporting an approval. Let me say that again: the Pfizer papers show the FDA knew or reasonably should have known at the time of approval that the clinical trials were incapable of supporting an approval. Pfizer then did this: their USA and European trial sites were getting so many adverse reactions that Pfizer had to cheat and at the last moment added 26 new trial sites in Argentina, recruiting 467 doctors almost overnight to create 44,000 new glowing patient records, overwhelming the legitimate bad data. In Argentina some sites and many patients do not appear to exist. Adverse events were hidden, and patients who were harmed or killed were removed from the data. That's what the United States Food and Drug Administration rubberstamped, and that's exactly what the TGA rubberstamped. And now every day Australians are dying. I know people are tired of this whole thing. One Nation is as well, yet there is a far larger issue that has gone without comment, that is too monstrous to simply let go. It relates to why the TGA refused to have anything to do with an Australian developed conventional attenuated virus vaccine that would have been safe to use. Queensland university discontinued their conventional vaccines on spurious grounds with real conflicts of interest. This opened the door for an entirely new class of drugs and supposed vaccines, mRNA, medicine by gene editing. This was not about Australian patient health; it was about patents. Over the last 15 years 47 market-leading drugs have aged out of patent, costing pharmaceutical companies $30 billion a year in lost sales, including drugs that made up to 42 per cent of Pfizer's drug revenue and 62 per cent of AstraZeneca's drug revenue. This patent cliff is set to get worse, with another 15 drugs—nine of the world's 20 top-selling drugs—due to expire this decade. Pfizer will face losing another $15 billion in annual sales. The only way to replace so much revenue is with a whole new class of drug: mRNA. Four hundred mRNA drugs are currently in development. The manufacturing plants in Australia are already under construction, before the drugs have been tested. The problem for big pharma was how to get these radical gene-editing drugs accepted. Coincidentally, along came COVID—a miraculous opportunity to use the new, untested mRNA gene editing. The heavens aligned to wave mRNA technology through for humans and animals, untested, with no debate or scrutiny. We now have an explosion of patient death reports and patient harm reports on the database of adverse events notifications, including 940 deaths before doctors gave into Ahpra's blackmail and stopped reporting vaccine or injection deaths. The actual deaths from COVID-19 injections are known to be grossly underreported due to Ahpra's threats to doctors and nurses. In 2022 there were 22,000 more Australian deaths than usual, and our health bureaucrats can't tell us why. Half are unexplained, and the other half are supposedly people for whom the mRNA vaccines did nothing—but led to their death. Yet the pharmaceutical industry's future is now secure for a generation. That, Minister, is a crime this government refuses to investigate. Health bureaucrats' lies and government deceit directly and indirectly killed thousands of people. Thousands of Australians are dead. Bureaucrats' lies destroyed millions of lives and livelihoods. Unless the Albanese government takes prompt action it will be complicit with the Morrison government's crime. One Nation calls on the government to immediately enact a Senate select inquiry to identify the scope and terms of reference for a royal commission into state and federal governments' gross mismanagement of COVID. COVID-19: Vaccination 92 20:42 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland If there's one thing I've learnt in my 3½ years of being a senator it's that, if anyone thinks that this country is being run by the people in this chamber or in the other place, they are kidding themselves. It is run by the bureaucrats. Let's be honest: that's much too nice a term; they're really autocrats. These people are accountable to no-one. We've been fooled with this Orwellian language that they're an independent statutory authority and, because they're independent, they're going to be pure as driven snow. I don't think I've been to a set of estimates yet in the last 3½ years where I've ever had a bureaucrat actually come out and give me a straight answer. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of it, so tonight's all about the last set of estimates and the number of lies that were told by Dr John Skerritt. I'm going to go through those lies bit by bit, right now. The first one is a real doozey. When asked by Senator Roberts whether or not he would apologise to the people who died from the vaccine, Dr Skerritt said that since the beginning of the COVID pandemic more than 10 times as many people had died from paracetamol or Panadol as from adverse events due to COVID vaccines. We checked that out— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Sorry to interrupt you, but Senator Ayres is standing, I believe, with a point of order. Senator Ayres 16913 I think it's pretty unusual for senators in this place to describe public servants, senior or otherwise, as liars, and I'd ask you, Acting Deputy President Pratt, to direct Senator Rennick to withdraw that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Rennick, will you withdraw that statement? Senator RENNICK 283596 No, because I'm going to explain the reasons why right now, and, if Senator Ayres would take the time to listen to what I have to say, he would know— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Rennick, you'll need to take your seat again. I also have Senator Roberts on his feet, but I'll go to you first, Senator Ayres. Senator Ayres 16913 Acting Deputy President, that is not a basis for not withdrawing that assertion. There are plenty of other forms of language that could be used by Senator Rennick to describe a disagreement that he has. Describing somebody, particularly somebody who's given evidence in Senate proceedings, using the terminology that Senator Rennick has is not acceptable. I'd ask you again to request that he withdraw it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Roberts, before I let you take the call, which I'm assuming is on a point of order, I will advise Senator Rennick that, in this place and under our standing orders, in the exercise of our freedom of speech we have a need to exercise our valuable right of freedom of speech in a responsible manner, that damage may be done in this place by allegations made in parliament and that such persons have limited opportunities to respond to such allegations. Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts 266524 As a witness to what happened, I can testify that Senator Rennick is telling the truth. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Roberts, that is not a point of order. Senator Rennick, would you like to continue with your speech? Given your comment wasn't against a member of this place I won't insist that you withdraw it, but I do ask you to exercise your responsibility in this place and your right to freedom of speech in a responsible manner. Senator RENNICK 283596 I will continue. As I've just quoted, Professor Skerritt said there were 10 times more deaths from paracetamol and Panadol than there were from the COVID vaccines. So, upon returning to my electorate office, I thought I'd check this particular quote out. It turns out there were only 52 deaths on the DAEN, the Database of Adverse Event Notifications, website since 1 January 2021, which is the same period that the COVID vaccines have been available. Twenty-four of those vaccine deaths were as a result of self-harm and nearly all of the remaining vaccines were in concurrence with other drugs. Given that there's been 975 reported deaths—and that varies between 975 and 978—according to Professor Skerritt there should have been 9,000 or so reported deaths from paracetamol. I note that Professor Skerritt is more than happy to take every reported death from paracetamol as an alleged death but not do the same for COVID vaccines, so he's also applying double standards. Whichever way you look at it it's an egregious statement. The second thing I wanted to pick him up on is a statement that I dispute or on a figure that was misleading was, when I asked why he made a statement at a press conference that Moderna would provide 100 per cent protection from death, he insisted that he was quoting a study. I've gone back and I've looked at the Hansard again when he gave that press conference and this is exactly with what he said—he was referring to the release of the Moderna vaccine: It's highly efficacious. And of course, we can build on widespread global experience. So in the US alone, there has been over 140 million doses of Moderna used. The other really encouraging thing about Moderna is even after six months, it's proving to be 93 per cent efficacious against any infection, 98 per cent against severe disease and 100 per cent against death. And that's really exciting. He's quoted from 140 million doses administered in the US. He was not quoting from a trial. So, again, I will say that he was definitely misleading. I would consider that, given I've raised this with him in questions on notice, he knew exactly what he was saying, and he shouldn't have said what he said. The other thing that was particularly disturbing was that, when I asked why he didn't put a warning label on the vaccines to warn people who had antiphospholipid syndrome and advise them that the vaccines hadn't been tested for people with autoimmune diseases, he quoted a study from Rheumatology magazine that effectively said that vaccines were safe for people with antiphospholipid syndrome. So I went and looked up that study in the Rheumatology magazine, and it turns out that that study was conducted on the Sinopharm vaccine—a Chinese vaccine—which is a protein vaccine. So that's completely different. Protein vaccines are completely different to mRNA vaccines. An important distinction is the fact that the mRNA vaccines are encased in a lipid nanoparticle, in which there are four lipids—an ionizable lipid, PEG, cholesterol and a phospholipid. Given that there are phospholipids in the vaccine and because the lipids actually cross the cell membrane—biochemistry students will know from Biochemistry 101 that the cell is a membrane made up of a lipid layer of phospholipids—the phospholipids around your cells are also impacted by this vaccine, because of the pathway it uses. So why he was quoting a study that relied on the Sinopharm protein vaccine and not the mRNA vaccine is again very misleading. Another question that was posed to him earlier in the afternoon was about whether or not cardiac arrests were a side effect of the vaccine. That was a question because Professor Skerritt admitted that you could have myocarditis from the vaccine, and it turns out that, in some cases, myocarditis can lead to cardiac arrests. It can cause a lot of lifetime pain. I was on the phone yesterday to a doctor for 40 minutes who was saying it's actually a subclinical condition. I had never heard that term before. What he said was it's like an iceberg. He said a lot of people don't experience any pain with myocarditis and then they'll suddenly pass away if they're not aware of the condition that they've got. That is unlike pericarditis, which is a heart muscle issue, but that actually has external pain, so you can feel it, and that's often the reason why people are going to the hospital—because they can feel that pain. Myocarditis can actually be subclinical, and you can't always feel it. To put a long story short, yet again, he has tried to downplay the risks of the vaccine by not acknowledging that cardiac arrests are a side effect of the vaccine; you can't say that myocarditis is but cardiac arrests aren't. The other one I'd like to refer to is a statement that he made about 12 months ago, but I think it's worth raising again. He said that the lipids in the vaccine are like the lipids that you eat in the sausages that you have for breakfast. It turns out that, in December last year, a very diligent and persistent lady managed to get an unredacted copy of the Pfizer non-clinical report, and we were fortunate enough to get pages 17, 18 and 19 unredacted. There's some interesting stuff in here. You've really got to ask yourself why it was redacted in the first place, given that it was particularly pertinent to the risks that this new vaccine had. What is interesting is that, at the bottom of page 17 of the unredacted statement—and you won't see this on the website at TGA FOI 2389-6, because the unredacted version hasn't been put up yet, even though it should be—the Pfizer Nonclinical evaluation report actually says that novel excipients are used in the vaccine. 'Novel' means new. So for Professor Skerritt to claim that the lipids used in the vaccine are the same as the sausages that you eat for breakfast is completely misleading, again. As his own document, submitted by Pfizer to the TGA, said, two lipids out of the four lipids in the vaccine—this is quite a complex biochemistry chemical arrangement here—are brand new. So, yet again, why has he misled us about this? There was another statement that I asked about as well. This wasn't just Professor Skerritt; a number of people have said this. They said that the vaccine stays in the tops of your arms. If you go to page 44 of this particular document again, the Pfizer Nonclinical evaluation report, you will see that the concentration of lipids in just about all body organs was still increasing after day 2, before they stopped the trials. It doubled in the ovaries. The concentration of lipids in the ovaries doubled from day 1 to day 2. That in itself should have been a red flag, because women are born with one set of ovaries and they have one set of eggs in there. They're called oocytes. They stay with women throughout their lifetime. So, if it gets into the oocytes, that's going to cause problems down the track, I can assure you. Professor Skerritt replied that the concentration of lipids decreased in the body. But that wasn't the question that I asked. I asked why the concentration of lipids increased in various body organs. Yet again, he has deliberately misled. This matters because it comes back to the whole point about the 978 reported deaths, of which the TGA claim only 14 have been a result of the vaccine. Professor Skerritt is trying to override these reported deaths, of which approximately 70 per cent come from medical professionals and 50 per cent come from state governments. Given that Professor Skerritt and the TGA haven't examined the patients—haven't examined the body—and that in many cases autopsies haven't been done, why is he overriding the expert opinion of people who have actually examined the patient or the body before they passed away? If he can't tell the truth about all these other things, how do we know he's telling the truth about reported deaths to the TGA? Senate adjourned at 20: 55