2023-03-09 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 9 March 2023

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BILLS 1 BILLS Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023 1

Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I have to begin my comments regarding the Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023 by reflecting on the huge body of work that's been done by my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price. The work she has done in consulting broadly and deeply within the Northern Territory community is a perfect example of what it is to be a member of this place—to take the responsibilities and actions of being in government. As outlined by Senator Price, she has taken a huge amount of time to consult with a range of different people and with her colleagues, and has been forced to take action on this matter by the lack of action by the Albanese government. When a government's action or inaction results in harm, it is a moral imperative to stop that harm. There is no moral high ground in demonising and then rejecting alcohol restrictions in the Northern Territory. It was the height of misplaced paternalistic inaction. Furthermore, defending this harmful stance in the face of extraordinary and alarming evidence was beyond the pale and had to be rectified. It was in July last year that we had a sunset on the previous legislation. After three months of being in government, with all the incoming ministerial briefs that would have been provided to the incoming government, when that legislation lapsed, somehow this lack of action became the problem of the coalition, yet it was clearly understood by the community that action needed to be taken. This bill would allow for greater federal oversight of bans in the Northern Territory. It would be similar to the powers granted to the Commonwealth by those expired intervention laws. The Northern Territory government, with federal funding, has recently again prohibited takeaway alcohol not only in town camps but, more importantly, across the entire community. This legislation is designed to go across all vulnerable communities, across anyone who is subject to harm from additional alcohol in the community. New restrictions on the sale of alcohol came into effect at the end of January, following a flying visit from the FIFO Prime Minister to the town. Takeaway-alcohol-free days were introduced on Mondays and Tuesdays; bottle shops were restricted to 3 pm, and to 7 pm on other days; and a limit of one transaction per person per day was implemented. This took months to finally be enacted by the Territory government, after complete inaction by the federal government, because there had been a massive spike in home invasions, robberies, domestic violence and assaults. Many people have clearly attributed that to the end of the alcohol restrictions in July. We know that there is a direct correlation because of the new data that came out following the introduction of those new measures from the Territory government. It is reported in the Daily Telegraph that youth disturbances declined by 36.36 per cent in February, compared to January; there were 235 unlawful entries across Alice Springs between 2 January and 30 January, which dropped 45.96 per cent to 127 incidents in the following month; alcohol as a factor in domestic violence was down 27.7 per cent over the month; and in the first week in January, when crime was at a crisis level, alcohol was deemed a factor in 76 per cent of the 167 domestic violence incidents and that had decreased by the week of 20 February when alcohol was deemed a factor in 47 per cent of the 92 domestic violence incidents. There is a clear correlation between the lifting of alcohol restrictions and the reintroduction of those restrictions in January after crime spiralled out of control. What is not reported in that data is the number of other family members affected, such as older children being forced to care for younger siblings and young people being forced out on the streets because of alcohol abuse at home. Care is often at the expense of the young people's own studies or jobs, and the cycle continues. This is repeated right across northern Australia. It destroys lives and futures. Northern Territory lives are the responsibility of all of us, as is the need for kids in particular to go to school and be able to sleep soundly at night, with full tummies and no fear of violence and abuse. We know that Alice Springs businesses had been impacted. People were afraid to go out at night. Children were roaming the streets and the police couldn't keep up. We see similar effects in Katherine and Tennant Creek. Because of flooding in Western Australia, people have been displaced from remote communities and have ended up in town. Unless there are alcohol restrictions in those places, alcohol related crime soars there too. We see the same issues in Mount Isa. Alcohol abuse is the enemy of advancement of vulnerable people. Restricting access is a circuit breaker to multigenerational dysfunction where violence, abuse and hopelessness are all that those people have to see each day. We have had significant research and studies of alcohol management plans, like the study of the Cape York alcohol management plan conducted in 2018. That saw a greater reduction in violence against women in the communities that entered prohibition compared with the communities that did not; a decrease in assault injury presentations, especially those linked with alcohol; a decrease in female victims of a police charge of violence against a person; and a perceived reduction in violence against women reported by community members. There is a moral imperative at play that overrides political philosophy—something that Labor shamefully ignored when allowing these laws to lapse and then taking no action, instead, leaving it to those local communities to demand change. Again, Senator Nampijinpa Price and her colleagues, her Labor colleagues, in the Northern Territory were only too aware of the devastating impacts that the lifting of alcohol restrictions was having in those communities. The Prime Minister promised to be a prime minister of action, and he has been—on lots of planes overseas. He spent four hours in Alice Springs and couldn't get out fast enough. He was carefully shown the clean and tidy streets, but he didn't listen to those community members who were desperate for protection. This must be the most important thing that a government can do—to protect its people and protect the most vulnerable in our communities. I don't know of any other task we have that is more important, whether it be the economy or border protection. In this very clear case, the need for alcohol restrictions to prevent harm to vulnerable people could not have been more urgent, yet we watched as the harm continued in those communities, whether it was crime against individuals, with assaults and domestic violence, or attacks on businesses. But what really keeps me awake at night is the thought of those children and vulnerable women who are left unprotected. I think it was extraordinary that we were left waiting for a private senator's bill like this one to provide the tools to extend a policy that was in place and was working well. Of course, we now have documented evidence of the impact of the lifting of alcohol restrictions on people's lives, on people's property and on their future. I reflect on the many people who were left without protection, and I encourage this federal government to once again turn its mind to supporting this legislation, because these are issues that are seen not just in the Northern Territory. This is a northern Australia issue. Alcohol abuse is something that we struggle with in so many communities. I've touched on Katherine, but, outside of the Northern Territory, in places such as Mount Isa in my own community, we see people coming across the border to places that don't have alcohol restrictions, and we see the subsequent impact that that's having on those communities and, worse, on those people who are vulnerable to alcohol. It is a terrible scourge. We have rules around other prohibited drugs. We have rules around putting safety notices on food depending on its health level. We try to alert people to the impacts on them of imbibing something which is going to be bad, but we don't have those sorts of restrictions and alerts for alcohol. I think that this is a terrible oversight from all levels of government. Having seen it in Alice Springs, having seen the impact of the immediate lifting of restrictions, having seen the damage and the terror of people living in those communities, I think that this was a shocking waste of months of inaction from this government. We saw in December that they were happy to walk into the parliament and introduce legislation for what they saw as an urgent need to intervene in the gas and coal markets. They did that with very little notice: we saw the legislation only hours before we came into this place to debate it. But they have not been willing to take the same sort of urgent intervention when there are children as young as five who are walking around on the streets, unprotected, because they were not safe at home; when we saw a spike in assaults and crimes; when young people who should have been preparing for school the next day are unable to be safe in their own homes; when elderly people were being assaulted. This was and is a national emergency, and yet this government did nothing. And it wasn't because they didn't know. They were alerted to this by Senator Nampijinpa Price. They would have heard the same things from the members of parliament from the Northern Territory, as well as the other senator from the Northern Territory. This is a shocking indictment of the Albanese government. They talk about the requirement for a Voice, and yet they do not listen to voices on the ground in regional Australia. I commend this legislation. I think that it is incredibly brave and well researched and thought through. I think that the ability of individual senators and members to recognise urgent and important issues in their community is something that we must never lose sight of. We are a long way away in Canberra, and, if we do not remember the impact of legislation or the sunsetting of legislation in places like the Northern Territory, then we have failed. We have failed those who rely on us to protect and preserve their way of life. I think that it has been a shocking missed opportunity for this government, which has done absolutely nothing. So I'm very proud of this private senator's bill from Senator Nampijinpa Price. I support it in every way and I hope that the government will consider supporting it to provide them with some tools to continue the protection and oversight of communities where the most vulnerable people have been affected by alcohol violence and by alcohol abuse. I commend this legislation to this place. 19:17 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory What is unfolding in Alice Springs is devastating. I would like to acknowledge Senator Nampijinpa Price for her ongoing work and advocacy in raising issues in Alice Springs and elsewhere in the Northern Territory. I'm new to this place, and what I've seen in the news and read about this issue, over time, is largely from when I was not a politician. It seems to me we have a long history of the federal government intervening in times of crisis. This has been happening for decades now, where the federal government—politicians in this place—are imposing things on communities across the country. As Senator McDonald pointed out, alcohol abuse is a huge issue. This is something that we should be facing up to as a country. As she rightly pointed out, it's not just in Alice Springs; it's also elsewhere in the country that this drug is causing a lot of harm. But we have to remember that alcohol abuse is a complex, multifaceted issue. As experts have pointed out, substance abuse, wherever we see it, is people's way of coping. For those people, this is a solution to their problems. This is their way of coping with things that feel out of control. It takes an understanding of the underlying problems and it takes finding ways to empower people to deal with them over the long term to actually deal with this issue. Yes, bandaids are necessary at times, but we must be looking at the underlying issues. The Central Australia Regional Controller, Dorrelle Anderson, pointed out in her report to the NT and Australian governments that all of these issues are 'closely related to the disproportionate disadvantage that Aboriginal people face at every level in our society and are visible on essentially every social index'. Clearly, what we've been doing for a long time now is not working. Communities affected know about the issues that they are facing. They are living them. With support and the right resources, they will develop solutions better than those developed by anyone in this building. We need communities to be deeply consulted if we are actually going to come up with long-term solutions and move beyond this constant cycle of interventions. This is why I believe it's so important that Australia moves forward and implements a voice to parliament. It is for this reason that I accept the generous offer in the Uluru Statement from the Heart to rethink and change the way that decisions are made that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country—a process in which community voices are heard and Australia's First Peoples are advising on what is best for their communities. When First Nations people are advising what they need in order to improve health and wellbeing, then we can listen and respond. We've seen so many of these interventions by the federal government, responding in crisis, but these crises don't happen overnight. There's often a slow build-up, and we need a structure like the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to allow these issues to be raised before they become a crisis where we have private senators' bills introduced seeking to impose intervention-like legislation on communities. As well as recognition of First Nations people and of the longest continuing cultures in the world—something that we rightly celebrate and should recognise in our Constitution—the Voice could facilitate this level of consultation. To politicians who are criticising the Voice and the level of detail, I say that parliament will design what that looks like, and I hope parliament will improve it over time if it's not working. There is a way to improve it. I really don't think it's a radical proposition to recognise a land's first peoples in the constitution that now governs that land and to set up a formal process that allows consultation and voices from across the country to be heard. I applaud Senator Thorpe, Senator Dodson and many others for pushing the implementation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Only a fraction of the 339 recommendations released in 1991 have been implemented. This is a national disgrace, and there is no excuse for it. Within these recommendations, Nos 188 to 204 speak to the path to self-determination and the call for deeper consultation and to consider constituting a body. Recommendation 188 states: That governments negotiate with appropriate Aboriginal organisations and communities to determine guidelines as to the procedures and processes which should be followed to ensure that the self-determination principle is applied in the design and implementation of any policy or program or the substantial modification of any policy or program which will particularly affect Aboriginal people. The final recommendation, which is on the process of reconciliation, states: That all political leaders and their parties recognise that reconciliation between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities in Australia must be achieved if community division, discord and injustice to Aboriginal people are to be avoided. To this end the Commission recommends that political leaders use their best endeavours to ensure bi-partisan public support for the process of reconciliation and that the urgency and necessity of the process be acknowledged. Despite this from a report that was commissioned before I was born, we're still seeing deaths in custody and we're still seeing calls for interventions. In 2023 we have many Australians concerned and dismayed that an offer to the Australian people, not an offer to politicians, is being obstructed by politicians. We have an opportunity to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—people who live in remote communities across the country, people whom we talk about a lot but know little about—have a voice. We have an opportunity to ensure that these communities have input and can be consulted on legislation that affects them. I have real concerns with this bill when it comes to territory rights. Federal government overriding local laws rather than working with territory governments to solve these complex issues is something that I don't agree with. As someone from the ACT, I really believe that people need to be putting pressure on their local parliament to deal with these issues. I respectfully disagree that the way to avoid having an ad hoc approach is through legislation like this that overrides the territories. It is my understanding that the NT are dealing with this in a similar way through their legislative assembly, and there has been much commentary about whether this has happened fast enough. Clearly it seems to be something that should have been dealt with early, but my understanding is that the legislative assembly is now dealing with it. For me, this clearly points to the need for structural change in the way that we make decisions. We need to embrace a new way of making decisions that affect First Nations people and deal with the root causes of problems in communities. We've seen decades and decades of bandaids. We need to start dealing with root causes. That takes more time. It's not as politically sexy as selling a program that's going to solve something in a few years. This is long, hard work that we all need to be committed to. To return to the Voice, I'd like to finish by quoting two powerful women who have been pushing for this change for many years now. Professor Megan Davis says: You need to suspend your disbelief that the nation can't change. You need to suspend your disbelief that Australia won't understand what you're trying to say. And we need you to imagine that the world can be a better place. Aunty Pat Anderson AO adds: Imagine an Australia without these ugly fights about Aboriginal affairs. Why are we the football in politics, far too often with no result? This is why we need the Voice—to take the politics out of good policy design. Again, whilst I acknowledge Senator Nampijinpa Price's passion for this issue and her continued advocacy, I will not be supporting this bill. 09:28 Sen 245212 Queensland ator CANAVAN () (): We should support the Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023 because it's clear that the removal of alcohol restrictions was a massive, massive error and mistake over the past couple of years, and they should be reintroduced in full as per Senator Price's proposal here. We see today very clear evidence that alcohol restrictions do work and that the removal of them has been a factor leading to the complete breakdown of social order in Alice Springs over the past few months. It's been shocking to watch on our nation's TVs, to see our fellow Australians having to cower in their own homes and businesses and not being able to just go about their day on the streets because of a shocking loss of control of law and order in a major Australian town, the centre of Australia. Alcohol restrictions, or at least some of them, have been reintroduced over the past month, and today the Daily Telegraph reports that data from Northern Territory police shows a substantial reduction in crime in just one month immediately after the reintroduction of the alcohol restrictions. I'll go through that article. There have been massive reductions in crime. There has been a 46 per cent reduction in unlawful entries—so a halving of unlawful entries—following the reintroduction of alcohol restrictions. There's been a 36 per cent reduction in 'youth disturbances' in Alice Springs, apparently, over the month of February, because of the introduction of alcohol restrictions. And—not as big a reduction, but perhaps a more personally touching reduction—there has been a 28 per cent reduction in alcohol contributing to domestic violence in Alice Springs. We should not forget that, when law and order does break down, it's not just those businesses and those people who are directly affected by crime. It's often those in the homes as well—it's the mums and wives and children of unruly criminals—who are subject to increasing amounts of violence, if we do not maintain law and order. We've just got to focus on things that work. That's what we should do. There's a lot of talk about the Voice and the Statement from the Heart. It is heartless not to just simply focus on things that work. You may not like them. They may be a little heavy-handed, or seem heavy-handed, at times, but we have to focus on pragmatic ways of making people's lives better. Clearly, alcohol restrictions in the Northern Territory, in communities and in Alice Springs, are what is needed to make people's lives better in the Northern Territory. It did not have to be this way. It's a failure of this parliament and certainly of the Northern Territory government, and of us all, if you like, because we were deaf to the Aboriginal voices that warned us against the removal of alcohol restrictions and the cashless debit card over the past couple of years. I'm not making a partisan point here. The former coalition government accepted the request of the Northern Territory government at the time to end the stronger futures legislation. Of course, the incoming Labor government removed the cashless debit card in mid last year as well. Those changes were made despite the Aboriginal voices from Alice Springs warning that that shouldn't happen. We like to talk a lot in theory about establishing an Aboriginal voice in this town, but we do very little in practice to listen to the existing Aboriginal voices that are here, elected to this parliament. They're here—they're elected representatives. There are two members of parliament, across our chamber and the other chamber, from Alice Springs. Alice Springs is a town of 30,000 people, and an emblematic town of our nation—somewhere that really is the heart of our country. It's a town of 30,000 people and it has two representatives here in the federal parliament. It's up there with the most represented town in this parliament, of any in the country. It has a representative for each 15,000 individuals in Alice Springs, whereas most federal electorates are roughly 100,000 people and they might have the odd senator here or there. But Alice Springs has a federal member of parliament for every 15,000 people. One of those two members of parliament from Alice Springs is Senator Price here, who is the mover of this bill, and I congratulate her for the work she's done to put this together as a very new senator. She's done excellent work. The other member of parliament from Alice Springs is Ms Marion Scrymgour. One is from the coalition side here, from the Country Liberal Party; the other is from the Labor party. Both of those members of parliament were warning about the removal of alcohol restrictions mid last year. Both of them were saying: 'This will be a tragedy. We should not do it. We need to pause, here. This is going to lead to increased crime, domestic violence and terrible outcomes for people.' Their voices were ignored—completely ignored. They were the Aboriginal voices of Alice Springs, and we didn't listen to them. We didn't listen to them. Instead of rectifying that gross error that's led to terrible consequences, and now supporting this bill—supporting the Aboriginal voice in this parliament from Alice Springs—those on the other side are going to oppose this bill, and then have the temerity to say: 'No, no. We want a Voice to Parliament. We don't need to actually listen. We just want more voices, so we can ignore even more people from around the country.' If we're serious about a Voice, we have to be serious about listening. We have to be serious about actually using our two ears in proportion to our one mouth and listening to those voices. They're already here from Alice Springs. We've got a mini voice from Alice Springs in this parliament, and they want alcohol restrictions reintroduced. So why aren't we supporting this bill? What is the Voice about? Is it just so people can speak and talk? Are we actually going to act on anything being said? We're not right now—well, we are now, I must say. As I said, I'm not being partisan. We've made a mistake by removing the Stronger Futures legislation, and the best thing to do in life when you make a mistake and you realise it is to turn your decisions around. That's what we've done here by listening to Senator Nampijinpa Price, who joined us as part of our team less than a year ago. She has convinced us that we need to have this back in. We're listening to her voice. We're listening to her community and reintroducing—or trying to reintroduce—the things that worked. I do hear from people that we don't need to do this because the Northern Territory government has acted in the past month and reintroduced some alcohol restrictions—and I mentioned those earlier—and they're already having an enormously positive effect. Some say, 'Well, it's already done, so we don't need to do anything.' I disagree with that, because the Northern Territory government obviously hasn't got things right over the past few years. There is a risk that I'm very concerned about. Once the media heat and attention is turned away from this issue—as it will be, particularly if crime does reduce—I have no faith in Chief Minister Fyles. I have no faith at all that she will maintain the things that work. She was clearly a reluctant convert to the need for alcohol restrictions. Her press conference with the Prime Minister a few months ago looked like a hostage video. She clearly didn't want to be there in some dingy little room. They couldn't go out on the streets, of course, to do this press conference at the time. She did not give me any confidence that she has this under control or that she's the kind of strong-willed individual who will restore law and order for so many law-abiding citizens in Alice Springs. As I said, we in this place should focus on what works, and clearly the Stronger Futures legislation, which was in place before it was removed at the request of the Northern Territory government, did work. It worked to keep at least some level of law and order within the Northern Territory communities. It's not the whole solution. There are a whole lot of other issues that need to be tackled, of course, to deal with Indigenous disadvantage. But clearly the removal of the Stronger Futures legislation was a massive error and, as I said before, when you make a mistake you should rectify it. You should realise that you've done it. You should eat some humble pie, put aside your pride, accept you've done the wrong thing and reintroduce it. That is what this legislation sensibly does here. It sensibly puts back in place a framework that did work and gives confidence to Northern Territory residents that they will have a safe place to reside in and a future. Right now it's not so much whether there is a stronger future or a weaker future for Alice Springs and many other towns; it's a question of whether they have a future at all, because of the massive hit that their town has suffered because of this publicity. My fear right now is that, with these declining crime statistics, the attention of the nation will turn away from Alice Springs and that the people there who own homes and businesses and have built their lives in this wonderful town will be left to pick up the pieces with very little help from others. There is a huge issue now for the future of Alice Springs because its reputation has been tarnished. We have to recognise that. It's not the fault of the people of Alice Springs. If we want to hand out culpability, it's certainly the elected officials who must take the lion's share of that. I've had the wonderful opportunity to visit Alice Springs many times as Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, and it is a wonderful place. Its economy—or at least a big part of it—is very much contingent on tourism. It's a wonderful place. When the streets are actually under control, it's a beautiful place to visit. It has a lovely climate, and there are lots of things for people to explore in and around the Alice Springs region. I read last month that Qantas has slashed flights to Alice Springs, almost certainly as a result of this publicity. Clearly, fewer Australians are deciding to go for a holiday to Alice Springs after what they have seen on TV. The reintroduction of alcohol restrictions is not immediately going to turn that knob back on, even with this good news today of declining crime. People's perceptions of Alice Springs and whether they should take a holiday in the Top End will be damaged for some time. It will take time for people to feel like it is safe and right to get back there. One added reason why we need to put this framework back in place is to give people in Alice Springs and Central Australia confidence that there is a future and that there is now going to be the re-establishment of a legislative framework which doesn't allow us to fall back into the errors we clearly made over the past year. As I said, there's no doubt that the left-wing elements of the Northern Territory Labor Party that have seized control of their government, post the Michael Gunner government, don't want these things. They definitely do not want to put alcohol restrictions in, and they will look at any opportunity to not bring them back. If we do not put this framework in place, what confidence can people have in the Northern Territory that they will—in six months, 12 months or 18 months time—still have the kinds of measures in place required to guarantee law and order in their town and their community? We should get behind this legislation to give confidence to the people of Alice Springs. Mistakes have made here in Canberra. I think more blame needs to go to the Labor government in Darwin, but we have a responsibility here too. Because of the culpability, there needs to be a level of reparation paid from this parliament and the Northern Territory parliament to the people of Alice Springs. This bill does part of that. It would be an act of good faith for the people of the Northern Territory to rectify some of our mistakes. But we also need to be there time and time again, over the coming years, to help them to invest in their town and their community and to rebuild that shattered confidence that has been caused by the complete breakdown in law and order. It took the Prime Minister far too long to go to Alice Springs. He only went after he was effectively dragged there, kicking and screaming, by the Leader of the Opposition—away from the tennis in Melbourne. He didn't want to be there, either. He was Johnny Depp to Natasha Fyles's Amber Heard. There was a hostage video. They didn't want to be there. I know they don't want to be there, but they've got to go back. They have to keep turning up in the months ahead to give the people of Alice Springs their due and to give them confidence in their future. We should support this legislation to help in that regard, but this cannot be something we forget. We have to remember that people have been hurt in Central Australia. It's a great place in our country, and they should not be forgotten. I give credit to Senator Nampijinpa Price for making sure they're not through this bill. 09:43 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise to speak in favour of the Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023, which has been introduced by my colleague and my friend Senator Nampijinpa Price. I want to make some preliminary points. The first is that I think Senator Nampijinpa Price has been subjected to some of the most vile personal abuse that I've seen in politics—and I've been involved in politics since the age of 17. Senator Nampijinpa Price should really be congratulated for the courage she has demonstrated throughout her time in this place. Some people have attacked her on a personal basis as opposed to raising legitimate issues, in the context of a civil debate about policy issues, where genuine people acting in good faith can have differences of opinion. Senator Nampijinpa Price has been attacked on a very, very personal basis. That is unacceptable in our Australian democracy. As we progress with a number of debates, including in relation to the Voice, I say to those who are engaging in vile, vitriolic, personal attacks: you are doing your own arguments great harm. It is the refuge of the scoundrel to resort to ad hominem attacks. You are simply demonstrating the weakness of your arguments when you engage in personal, vile attacks. I have been profoundly disappointed in relation to some of the comments made by a number of individuals in that regard, which I think are just beyond the pale. So, in that context, I pay tribute to Senator Nampijinpa Price. I think she is a gift to this place, an ornament to this place. More power to Senator Nampijinpa Price as she stands up, with great courage, to voice her views and articulate her concerns regardless of the disgraceful, vile comments that are directed her way. So I compliment Senator Nampijinpa Price. On that theme: as I was considering what I wanted to say in this debate, I had cause to reflect on one of my great heroes, Senator Neville Bonner, who represented my state of Queensland in this place. He was the first Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander to serve in the Australian parliament and one of my boyhood heroes. In fact, as I've said in this place before, I was one of those who orchestrated a campaign with the Australian Electoral Commission to have a federal seat named after the great Senator Neville Bonner. And we have that seat in Queensland: the seat of Bonner. That is a true reflection of the greatness of Senator Neville Bonner, who I had the honour of meeting a number of times. I wanted to read a quote from Senator Neville Bonner's speech at the Constitutional Convention in 1998, which I think should be seen as an exhortation to all of us, in terms of how we conduct these debates, and any debates, in this respect. He said: From the bottom of my heart, I pray you: stop this senseless division. Let us work together on the real issues. Let us solve those problems which haunt my people—the problems of land, of health, of unemployment, of the despair and hopelessness which leads even to suicide. Let us unite this country, not divide it ever … Those are the words of the great Senator the Hon. Neville Bonner, AO. Just reflect for a moment on a man who was subjected to the most horrendous discrimination as he was growing up, but who, near the end of his life, when he spoke those words and made those comments, was able to be so full of grace and so full of forgiveness, and so passionate about uniting this country and focusing on the real issues of substance as opposed to dividing us. Just reflect on his background. When he was a small boy, growing up in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales, he and his sister had an opportunity to go to school for the first time, and he was so excited. He was a young boy, so excited about the opportunity to go to school for the first time. When he and his sister turned up at that school, by lunchtime of that day every other parent had pulled their children out of that school because an Aboriginal child had turned up at that school. Just imagine the impact that would have on someone. When this man was a boy, his mother bought some oats at the local shop, and they were full of weevils, but they were given these oats and she was determined that her son Neville would have porridge. He went to the farmer who lived near where they lived and asked for some milk. That farmer said: 'Neville, I've got pigs I need to feed. Why would I give milk to a little Aboriginal boy?' That's what he was told. Notwithstanding that, when he was presented with an honorary doctorate at Griffith University he recounted that episode, more than 50 years later. It had stayed within him. He said without an ounce of aggression or anger that, in a way, the farmer was doing it tough. Even after being subjected to that horrendous incident—I can't imagine what it would have been like—he was still being empathetic and trying to put himself in the position of standing in other people's shoes. In that context I'll repeat the words he said at the constitutional convention, near the end of his life. He said: From the bottom of my heart, I pray you: stop this senseless division. Let us work together on the real issues. Let us solve those problems which haunt my people—the problems of land, of health, of unemployment, of the despair and hopelessness which leads even to suicide. Let us unite this country, not divide it ever … A speech that Senator Nampijinpa Price gave in this place on 8 February 2023 has resonances with that speech the great Neville Bonner gave. I could see the connection between the two. In a way, Senator Nampijinpa Price is such a worth successor to Senator Neville Bonner. Senator Nampijinpa Price said: Senators, I plead with you to help me save the lives of those I love and those I'm democratically elected to represent and whose lives we are all responsible for. I seek your bipartisan support to make my hometown community and vulnerable communities throughout the Northern Territory safer. If we can save one woman from becoming the next domestic violence or homicide statistic, we are winning. If we can prevent one child from being sexually abused and left with a venereal disease or internal physical and psychological scarring for life, that is one child. But I know we can do better than this. We should listen very, very carefully to that exhortation from Senator Nampijinpa Price, who has clearly articulated why we should be supporting this bill. Senator Nampijinpa Price said in her speech on the bill's second reading debate: When dealing with addiction, the first step to management and recovery is acknowledging there is a problem. And those that are subject to the effects of addiction in the Northern Territory—the whole community—have been crying out that we have a problem since the cessation of the measures and the lifting of alcohol restrictions in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act. I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Canavan. There were so many warnings given by Aboriginal people living in these communities before the cashless welfare debit card was abolished, before the alcohol restrictions that were in place came to an end. Many of my colleagues in this chamber, from different parties, got up and said, 'We are going to cause a profoundly negative impact on the people in these communities if we lift these restrictions.' Those calls were ignored. Those practical calls were ignored on the basis of ideology. We should all have such a profound disappointment, because we were warned. The Australian government was warned. The Northern Territory government was warned but did not listen to the communities on the ground. There's a profound lesson in that. I note that Senator Nampijinpa Price's bill provides for consultation in relation to alcohol protection measures. It calls for a committee of experts to consider and support the development of each alcohol management plan. It also provides the basis upon which this bill is introduced. These figures are just astonishing. Again, we were warned. This government was warned that this was going to happen. Here are the figures: alcohol related assaults in Alice Springs alone rose by 54.6 per cent from December 2021 to December 2022. That's a statistic, but in that statistic are women and children who had been assaulted but who would not have been assaulted but for the fact that the alcohol restrictions were removed. Those communities warned this government and this government just proceeded to remove those restrictions, despite those warnings from the local community. It is those communities that have to suffer the impact of the removal of these restrictions. I've made this point repeatedly in this place in relation to the removal of the cashless welfare debit card—and we're seeing increased crime and violence in the communities in Western Australia, in Ceduna in South Australia and in the Northern Territory—that the government said it had a mandate to remove the cashless welfare debit card, but those communities are in seats that are not held by the government. In each and every one of those places where the cashless welfare debit card was in place the people did not vote for the election of the Albanese government. So the communities most impacted by the removal of the cashless welfare debit card did not vote for its removal. None of them, not a single one of them—not the communities in Western Australia, South Australia or in my home state of Queensland—voted for its removal. So the government does not have a mandate from the communities most impacted by the removal of the cashless welfare debit card. There may be people in Sydney and Melbourne who voted for the removal of the cashless welfare debit card, but they don't live in the communities that are most impacted. The people in the communities most impacted by the removal of the cashless welfare debit card voted for its retention, voted for it to continue. There is absolutely no mandate with respect to— Senator Hanson BK6 Labor has got no mandate, on 33 per cent of the vote. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 The interjections are unhelpful. Senator SCARR 282997 I'll take that interjection. It is absolutely correct. Labor does not have a mandate to remove it. Even with 33 per cent of the primary vote across the whole of Australia, there is barely any mandate to do anything. In relation to the cashless welfare debit card, not a single one of the communities where it was operating voted for its removal, so there was no mandate to remove the cashless welfare debit card provided by the communities most impacted. I've said repeatedly in this place, including in my first speech in this place when I was talking about project approvals in the mining, oil and gas sector, that the people who should be most deeply listened to and respected are the communities most impacted. So, whether it's the cashless welfare debit card or a coal, oil or gas project, the views of those most impacted and the local communities are the views that should be most listened to, not those in other areas of Australia who aren't affected by the decision. I commend this private senator's bill to the Senate. 09:58 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I too rise to speak on the Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023. I thank Senator Nampijinpa Price for her long advocacy for the women and children of the Territory. Our government is committed to bringing communities and governments together. We know that the challenges in the Territory are real and that families and communities need support from all levels of government. We know that one level of government alone just can't address this. What we need is partnerships, not a top-down approach. That is why I am speaking against this bill today. I was honoured to be in the chamber in the last sitting week for the speech by Senator Malarndirri McCarthy on this bill. I know that she's not here with us this week, because she is doing an incredible job of leading Australia's delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York. As always, she is a fierce advocate for the rights of women and, importantly, the rights of First Nations women. She is taking that to the global stage right now, and I'm so proud to see her there. Senator McCarthy's speech was personal and it was powerful. It addressed the challenges for Aboriginal women head-on and was also full of heart. She told her own family's story and she did it with absolute courage and grace. It's always an honour to sit in this place and hear from Senator McCarthy and all First Nations senators on both sides of the chamber not just about their long-term advocacy for their communities but also how they personally know the challenges all too well. This place is one of the most important places to hear these stories—stories that far too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families have. No-one should ever feel unsafe in their own home, and no-one should ever have to go through what these communities have suffered not just in the last six months but for decades. Senator McCarthy addressed how important it is for us to work together and the importance of consultation. She talked about disempowerment, and that is something in her speech that really stuck with me, because, as Senator McCarthy said, we've got to always keep trying to get it right and to empower people at every level. She said that we need to allow local, state and territory, and federal governments to work together. This bill would make the Commonwealth minister responsible for approving alcohol management plans that the community develop, and that would mean that the ultimate decision-making for alcohol management plans for communities in the Territory would be made right here in Canberra. That, to me, seems to go right to the heart of disempowerment. Senator McCarthy implored the Senate to see that there's a better way than the bill before us, and I support her in that. We know that these are long-term problems. They require not just words but long-term solutions and actions. We need to allow the Northern Territory government to take legislative action themselves, which they have done, but we also need to support them in long-term solutions and work with them in partnership. We are a government that focuses on outcomes. While alcohol restrictions are part of the solution, they are only part of what is needed. We also need to work on the social and economic drivers of community unrest, and that's why we're investing $250 million into a plan for a better, safer future for Central Australia. This funding will go towards addressing the fundamental, underlying structural causes of disadvantage. The plan focuses on improved community safety and cohesion through more youth engagement and diversion programs; job creation, particularly in the communities that surround Alice Springs, including urgent changes as part of replacing the completely failed Community Development Program; better services because, by improving services in surrounding communities, particularly health services, there will be less pressure in Alice Springs as a result; preventing and addressing the issues caused by fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, including better responding through the health and justice systems; investing in families, including by better supporting elders and parents and boosting domestic violence services; and on-country learning, which will improve school attendance and completion through caring for culture and country and provide accessible opportunities for children to get an education. This is in addition to the investment in community safety announced by the government in January this year. This funding is based on recommendations from the Central Australian Regional Controller, Dorrelle Anderson, and it's investment that will be delivered in partnership with the local community because, again, we know that the most effective solutions come from the local community. We know that what is really needed comes back to two things: empowerment and consultation. Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory have been calling for self-determination for a very long time. The stronger futures legislation deliberately denied this, and, as my colleague Senator Pat Dodson put it so well, were legislative means of structurally disempowering remote Aboriginal communities in the NT. Senator Dodson notes, in his words: … these policy regimes … destabilised, disempowered, and disoriented Aboriginal communities … have taken away community power and instead made them dependent on government for survival … The Joint Standing on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, of which Senator Pat Dodson is chair, looked at all of these issues in February. This joint standing committee has membership from Labor, from the coalition and from the crossbench and Independents as well. Its inquiry into community safety, support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory found that top-down approaches like this bill fail. Witnesses to the inquiry emphasised that governments need to invest in and value community led solutions. In discussing community safety and alcohol management, the report from the inquiry notes that through the Stronger Futures legislation there was 'little investment in harm reduction', and witnesses noted that these problems are bigger than just alcohol and that long-term solutions will only come when governments also look at housing, meaningful employment, education and, as the Alice Springs Hospital put it so very well in their submission to the inquiry, hope and despair. The report led by Senator Dodson specifically states: It is clear to the Committee that the NT Government has sufficient legislative means to manage alcohol-related harm within its jurisdiction where there is the will to do so. This has been demonstrated by its recent legislative amendments to the Liquor Act 2019 (NT). It is the view of the Committee that this is the appropriate role of the NT Government (informed by the views of community), rather than the Commonwealth. With all the work of witnesses sharing their stories in this inquiry, it is clear that what we should do is listen to those voices, and those voices are telling us that this work needs to be done in consultation, in partnership and without further disempowering local communities. There really is no place for a top-down approach when what is really needed is partnership and consultation. The problem of family balance that Senator Nampijinpa Price is so genuinely passionate about, along with so many senators in this place, is a national problem. Everywhere in our country, First Nations women are at the greatest risk, including in my home state of Victoria. On Friday, I had the opportunity, along with Senator Stewart, to bring the Minister for Social Services, Minister Rishworth, to Victoria to meet with some of our incredible family violence organisations and hear about the real challenges that they face on the ground and the amazing work that they're doing. This was a roundtable where several First Nations advocates gave up their time to talk with us about what is happening here in Victoria, my home state, and the work that they've done over decades to prevent and respond to family violence. Again I can say that what came through unequivocally and clearly is the importance of ground-up solutions of community empowerment, listening and partnership. Aboriginal controlled family violence services talked about the success of investment in self-determination, allowing Aboriginal communities to partner with government to help and family violence. So, rather than intervention or a top-down approach, a real partnership that is about consultation and working together is what I heard was needed. I had the opportunity to hear from an amazing woman, Daphne Yarram from Gippsland, who has dedicated her entire life to the safety of women and children in her community. For 24 years she's been working to address family violence. Daphne talked about the importance of community led approaches. She talked about how we can only stop family violence at the start by working with community and ensuring that our family violence system is culturally safe and trauma-informed. Antoinette Braybrook from Djirra and Muriel Bamblett from the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency highlighted really effective work that we can draw some lessons from in Victoria, such as the Dhelk Dja Partnership Forum. Muriel spoke about the increased risk that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women face, and they noted that that is, of course, often at the hands of white people. Dhelk Dja is an Aboriginal led agreement to address family violence. It's a partnership with the Victorian government. It reflects the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across Victoria. It requires government to do the two most important things the government can do in this space: listen and act. Darren Lovett from the Dhelk Dja action group was there to share how this works on the ground. I also want to note the personal contribution from Simon Flagg of Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative, who told his story about family violence at the roundtable, again with real grace and real courage. Listening to these voices, hearing their stories and respecting the work that they've done for many years really emphasised to me the importance of a community led approach. These people that I met with are the real experts in their fields. I wouldn't seek to tell them how things should work in their community or how to fix problems that they know about much better than I do. I was there then on Friday, and I'm here today to listen and take the advice of First Nations communities to take— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Sorry to interrupt you. The time for the debate has expired. You'll be able to continue your speech. You'll be in continuation. Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 10

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

Second Reading 10 10:11 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 As a result of deferred votes, I'm going to put the question on second reading amendments. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to. Is a division required? Senator Pratt I0T I just want to draw to Senator Babet's attention that if he calls for them he has to vote with that side as well. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [10:16]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

 15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:20 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Babet be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [10:20]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

 2 AYES Babet, R. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:27 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the bill be read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [10:27]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

 35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 3 NOES Babet, R. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 12 10:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet UD159 together: (1) Schedule 10, item 1, page 29 (lines 6 to 8), omit subsection 61(13), substitute: (13) The Secretary is not required to observe any requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to: (a) releasing information under subsection (5C) if: (i) the release of the information is in the interests of public health or safety; or (ii) the information relates to the safety of one or more therapeutic goods; or (b) releasing information under any other provision of this section. (2) Schedule 10, item 1, page 29 (line 11), after "this Act", insert "(including this section)". (3) Schedule 10, item 1, page 29 (after line 11), after subsection 61(14), insert: (15) For the purposes of subparagraph (13)(a)(i), the release of information is not in the interests of public health or safety if the information: (a) relates to the quality or efficacy of therapeutic goods; and (b) does not relate to the safety of the therapeutic goods. I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments moved to this bill. 10:31 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I want to indicate that the opposition will be supporting these amendments by the government, and I want to thank the government for working with us to resolve the concerns that had been expressed by many around the natural justice implications of the original bill with regard to the powers of the secretary to publish information outside of information that has public health and safety implications. I'd like to acknowledge the constructive way that we worked with the government to make sure that we dealt with the concerns, which were significant concerns raised by the sector. 10:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I acknowledge Senator Ruston's contribution, but if I could just speak quickly to the government amendments that are before the chamber. The bill included a measure to clarify that the natural justice hearing rules are not required to be observed in relation to the release of therapeutic goods information. An obligation to observe the natural justice hearing rule prior to releasing information could directly prevent or delay the release of health and safety information to the public or relevant stakeholders—for example, state and territory health departments—which could risk the health and safety of patients, frontline healthcare workers and the public. The government amendments mean this measure will limit the exclusion of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the release of information to the public, under section 61(5C) of the act, to release of information that is in the interests of public health or safety, or where the information relates to the safety of one or more therapeutic good. These amendments balance the provision of natural justice in relation to the release of information with the need to ensure the timely release of health and safety information to the public. If the amendments to this measure were to go further and only exclude the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the release of critical or urgent safety information, this would present a risk to the safety of Australian patients, health professionals and the public. The release of this information is necessary to prevent harm and even potentially death and would not be able to be released if it did not meet this threshold or if its release was delayed through courts. In some instances, TGA safety information would need to be combined with information from other sources—for example, state and territory health departments—in order to recognise that the information concerns health or safety issues. Overall, the release of therapeutic goods information under the act is a critical element of Australia's regulatory framework for therapeutic goods as it underpins community and healthcare industry awareness of the safe use of therapeutic goods compliance and enforcement activities and cooperation with international regulators to bring new treatments to Australia as quickly as possible. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that government amendments moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to. Question agreed to. 10:35 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia by leave—I move amendments (1) to (11) on sheet 1806 revised 2 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "3", substitute "4". (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute: (3) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert: 4 Reform of ICT systems for reporting of medical device incidents (1) The Therapeutic Goods Administration must conduct a reform of the ICT system used by medical practitioners for the purposes of mandatory reporting of medical device incidents to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (known as the "medical device incident reporting and investigation scheme (IRIS)"). (2) The reform must be conducted in consultation with medical practitioners. (3) The reform must be completed by 1 July 2024. (4) The Therapeutic Goods Administration must, as soon as practicable after the reform is completed, prepare a report outlining the outcome of the ICT system reform and give a copy of the report to the Minister. (5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in both Houses of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. (6) In this section: healthcare facility has the same meaning as in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. medical practitioner means a person who is registered, in a State or internal Territory, as a medical practitioner. (4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 26), after "facilities", insert "and medical practitioners". (5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 2), at the end of the heading to Part 4-8A, add "and medical practitioners". (6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 5 and 6), omit "of a healthcare facility is", substitute "of a healthcare facility and a medical practitioner that provides treatment, other than at a healthcare facility, are". (7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 10), after "facility" insert ", or a medical practitioner,". (8) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 18 and 19), omit the heading to section 41JM, substitute: 41JM Requirement to report adverse events involving reportable medical devices — healthcare facility (9) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (after line 17), after section 41JM, insert: 41JN Requirement to report adverse events involving reportable medical devices — medical practitioner Report to be given to the Secretary (1) A medical practitioner must give a report to the Secretary if subsection (2), (3) or (4) applies to the medical practitioner in relation to a reportable medical device and a person. (2) This subsection applies to a medical practitioner if: (a) a reportable medical device is used by the medical practitioner to treat a person, other than in a healthcare facility; and (b) the use of the device has resulted in the death, or a serious deterioration in the health, of the person while the device is used. (3) This subsection applies to a medical practitioner if: (a) a reportable medical device is not used by the medical practitioner to treat a person, other than in a healthcare facility, because of the intervention of the medical practitioner or another person; and (b) the use of the device, if the device were used, would result in, or would be likely to result in, the death, or a serious deterioration in the health, of the person. (4) This subsection applies to a medical practitioner if: (a) the medical practitioner provides treatment to a person, other than in a healthcare facility, for a serious deterioration in the health of the person; and (b) the use of a reportable medical device has resulted in the serious deterioration in the health of the person. Report requirements (5) The report must include the following information about the reportable medical device and the person: (a) the name, or a description, of the reportable medical device; (b) a description of the matters covered in subsection (2), (3) or (4); (c) any other information prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph. Note: For the release of information included in, or relating to, a report, see section 61. (6) The report must be given to the Secretary: (a) within the period prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph or such longer period as the Secretary allows in a particular case; and (b) in the manner prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph. Exceptions (7) Subsection (1) does not apply if the medical practitioner has reported the matters covered by subsection (2), (3) or (4) to: (a) the chief executive officer of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; or (b) the head (however described) of a Department of State of a State or Territory that has responsibility for matters relating to health; or (c) any other person prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph. (8) Subsection (1) does not apply to a general practitioner if the general practitioner has referred a person to another medical practitioner for treatment in relation to the matters covered in subsection (2), (3) or (4). Civil penalty (9) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) the person is required to give a report to the Secretary in accordance with this section; and (b) the person fails to comply with the requirement. Maximum civil penalty: 30 penalty units. (10) In this section: general practitioner means a medical practitioner registered in the specialty of general practice. medical practitioner means a person who is registered, in a State or internal Territory, as a medical practitioner. (10) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (line 19), before "Section", insert "(1)". (11) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (after line 28), at the end of the item, add: (2) Section 41JN of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to: (a) a reportable medical device that is used, on or after 1 July 2024, by a medical practitioner; or (b) a reportable medical device that is not used by a medical practitioner because of the of the intervention, on or after 1 July 2024, of the medical practitioner or another person; or (c) treatment provided, on or after 1 July 2024, by a medical practitioner to a person for a serious deterioration in the health of the person. In moving these amendments today I want to dedicate them to the 150,000 Australian women who received surgically implanted transvaginal mesh. Most commonly, these procedures were undertaken, these devices were sought, in relation to the treatment of pelvic prolapse, stress related urinary incontinence or, additionally, complications resulting from childbirth. These were things that people sought to access, devices that they sought to have implanted in order to treat conditions that were causing them great distress and having a profound impact on their lives. These devices were promoted to women as being safe, and they were not safe. When women spoke up about the reality of what these devices were doing to them—the pain, the blood, the inability to engage in intimate relations with their partners—they were dismissed; they were ignored year after year. And women continued to suffer. This medical scandal resulted in the largest women's based health class action in Australian history—and rightly so, given that this was one of the most profound failures in medical regulation and one of the most dangerous products ever allowed into human bodies since thalidomide. Australian women led the world in holding manufacturers and regulators to account. Australian women, although they had experienced the most horrendous mistreatment at the hands of the manufacturers, at the hands of medical practitioners and at the hands of dismissive regulators, came forward to their parliament in 2018 and trusted their parliament, gave evidence to their parliament, went to their MPs and said, 'I am willing to talk, on the public record, about some of the most personal, some of the most intimate impacts of medical device failure—in the public and in the media—and I do this so that this may never happen again to anybody else.' That's what they did. Four years ago the Senate inquiry handed down its recommendations as a result of that evidence. Finally, a government has coughed up a response to some of those recommendations. Yet what we see here today is the half-baked misimplementation of the very first recommendation of that inquiry. The very first recommendation of that inquiry was to create a mandatory reporting system that covered healthcare practitioners so that, if in the future such a device is in circulation, causing pain and harm, the regulator will have the data to alert the community, yet what the government has put forward is a mandatory reporting framework solely for hospitals, for healthcare facilities, missing the vital role of general practitioners in reporting. The reality is that when a device such as these malfunctions—and it relates particularly to gynaecological issues—people are not going to go straight to their ED; they're going to want to talk with somebody they have a relationship with. Because this is clouded in shame, in a context where women's pain is so often dismissed, people are going to want to talk to a person they have a built trust with, and that is often their GP. The Greens recognise the absolute urgency of listening to women's voices and listening to the experts who gave evidence to the inquiry, putting forward a comprehensive mandatory reporting regime, and that is exactly what this amendment does, in line with the recommendations of the Senate inquiry. We recognise that there is a need to allow for a transition period and so we have crafted an amendment that enables hospitals to mandatorily report from the date of royal assent and, in a year's time, after the completion of the TGA's review of its systems and process, requires GPs to mandatorily report—after the system has been reviewed in consultation with GPs. We have made those allowances in this amendment. We also recognise that, in the rural and regional context, there may be times when the injuries that people are presenting with from the devices they've had implanted sit outside the GP's scope of practice, and so we have made an allowance that in such circumstances the GP is not required to mandatorily report if they refer the patient to a specialist. These are reasonable exemptions and reasonable provisions that should enable a reasonable government that prides itself on centring women's voices to support this amendment to ensure that such medical harms are never again done to women. I urge the chamber to support these changes. In the absence of mandatory reporting, we are left with a voluntary reporting framework, which the inquiry heard over and over again was inadequate. It too often places the onus on the patient that has been harmed to follow up with the regulator or to follow up with the practitioner to ensure that the report has been made. This is not acceptable. Finally, in closing, I urge the chamber—and I make these comments as a cis man sitting in this place—to acknowledge the role that misogyny and sexism have played in the fact that we are four years down the line and still have not implemented these recommendations. I say this with no desire to create mock shock or outrage. If this had been a medical device that had affected men in the same way, if it had affected men's ability to engage in intimacy with their partners, if it had caused such a profound pain to men, this would have been dealt with immediately. It would have been numero uno on the health minister's agenda. Yet, because it related to women's pain, it has for too long been put in the hard basket, and then today we see a bill that doesn't do the job. Please, I urge the government: join with the Greens in accepting this very reasonable amendment. 10:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government won't be supporting the amendment moved by the Greens, and I will take a few moments to say why. Recommendation 1, which Senator Steele-John referred to, noted the vital role of adverse reporting in post-market surveillance. The committee recommends that the Australian government, in consultation with states and territories and the Medical Board of Australia, review the current system of reporting adverse events to the TGA to implement mandatory reporting of adverse events by medical practitioners; provide guidance on what constitutes an adverse event for use by consumers, medical professionals and device sponsors; improve awareness of the reporting system; and examine options to simplify the reporting process. That recommendation has been implemented in the sense that the consultations referred to in the recommendation have been undertaken. The former government accepted that recommendation in principle but did note through that recommendation there may be a number of policy and implementation constraints and the potential for administrative burden on healthcare professionals. I think, at the time, the response was, 'The government is aware of the heavy burden of care in reporting carried by some in the healthcare sector and is mindful to balance any proposed measures appropriately.' I should also say throughout this process it was pointed out the TGA has no legal regulatory authority to mandate the reporting of medical practitioners. The chief medical officer wrote to the AMA, the Medical Board of Australia, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care and respective professional colleges and societies to encourage reporting of adverse events to the TGA. And many healthcare professional bodies have adopted the Australian consensus framework for ethical collaboration, including the AMA, the RACS and the RACGP, which requires their members to demonstrate ethical behaviour, including reporting obligations. In terms of the next step, the former and current governments, so our government and the previous government, have supported the TGA to work closely with healthcare facilities and state and territory health departments to implement rapid sharing about medical device safety and effectiveness. An action plan for medical devices released in 2019 and public consultation papers in 2020 and 2021, seeking feedback on mandatory reporting, focused on reporting by healthcare facilities. The TGA also reviewed its adverse event reporting forms and improved its internal systems. I think it is important that some of the relevant information is around the TGA's role. It does not regulate individual medical practitioners or healthcare professionals themselves. Therefore, compliance of mandatory reporting of individuals would be difficult and potentially outside the legal powers of the TGA. The approach of healthcare facilities reporting aligns with their existing role, that they have to report to health state departments, and the role of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care in being a standards and accreditation body for facilities rather than individual doctors. I have a couple of other points. Medical devices will be proposed to be in scope of the mandatory reporting scheme by a facility and are a device that is used in the facility, has resulted in the death or serious deterioration in health and/or has resulted in treatment for a serious deterioration in health, or would have likely resulted in the death or serious deterioration in health. The government would argue that this is the mandatory process that should be put in place via the facilities themselves, which of course would have contacts with those individual medical practitioners who operate within them. 10:49 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland With the indulgence of the Senate, I would like clarification on a comment that Senator Steele-John made in relation to his amendment. That is, when he made reference to the fact that, if I have this right, if you have a regional doctor that can't report to the reporting body, then the patient must be referred to a specialist. Senator HANSON BK6 That is the case. My concern with that is, if you're in a regional area, if the patient has to be referred to a specialist who will pay for that? People will not be able to travel or go to see a specialist. I have a concern about that. 10:50 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Just briefly, in relation to Senator Hanson's question, the amendment as drafted does not address the question of the patient's funding to travel to the specialist; you're right. The intent of the amendment is particularly around the device that had malfunctioned being inserted or provided to the patient, in some way, by a specialist. The device has malfunctioned and they have presented to their general practitioner. The general practitioner may be of the view that what the patient is experiencing, and its harm to the patient, is beyond their scope of practice. The GP would be freed of their mandatory reporting obligation if they take the step of referring the patient to the specialist that implanted the device. That's an example. I hope that's useful. 10:51 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The opposition has sympathy with the intent of the amendment that Senator Steele-John has moved, in this place, and is before us at the moment. Everybody would agree that patient safety must always be at the forefront of our thinking when we deal with issues in relation to the health and welfare of Australians. We are very mindful of the technical aspects of the implementation of the effects of this particular amendment, many of which have been outlined by the minister. But we also recognise that medical practitioners are under significant pressure due to serious workforce shortages. This is particularly significant for medical practitioners and general practitioners working in rural, regional and remote Australia. We know that's where workforce shortages are hitting the hardest at the moment. Before we seek to make these sorts of changes, we need to make sure, first and foremost, that reporting processes are as easy as possible. The simplification of reporting systems is something that, when in government, we were very keen to continue as a work in progress, and, as indicated by the minister, the government is intent to continue that process as well. We would certainly say to the government, and to the Greens and Senator Steele-John, that we are absolutely committed to working to make sure the simplification of reporting systems is absolutely maximised, but before making any changes at all, in this place, they need to be well consulted and well considered. Any changes need to be fit for purpose and able to be implemented, but they also need to be able to deliver the effect that they're intending to deliver in the first place. The opposition is happy to support an ongoing effort to make sure that the health and safety of all Australians is maximised. There are a number of recommendations that we would like to see continue to be pursued. For example, there is recommendation 22 of the medicines and medical devices review, which called on the establishment of a registry of high-risk implantable devices with a view to facilitating timely identification of emerging safety concerns. While the opposition is opposing this amendment, for the reasons that I have stated, I want to put on the record that patient safety is absolutely first and foremost; however, we must recognise that we need to make sure that the implementation mechanism and method is appropriate and timely and doesn't have any unintended consequences. 10:54 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, the way I've been advised on this bill is that, No. 1, it strips fundamental legal rights and legal principles that have been fundamental for centuries. No. 2, it is sneaky. It's been introduced very sneakily, and I'll ask you questions about that in a minute. No. 3, I have significant problems with the provisions, and I'll ask you questions about that. The pelvic mesh disaster is nothing short of a cruel, inhuman disaster. People have been neglected and they need this help. You've had two other bills on pelvic mesh, which we supported, but this one is a baloney sandwich. While it does have some good material on pelvic mesh and alleviating that crippling problem, it has been sneakily bundled in with big changes in a bill that's supposed to support pelvic mesh but really goes to freeing up and giving complete control with limited accountability to bureaucrats. There's been no committee inquiring into this bill—none at all. The changes are sneaky. They give one bureaucrat unprecedented power to approve medicines that are not tested in Australia and immunity from accountability. I want to read some parts of the report from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Scrutiny digest 1 of 2023, because that's where I'd like to go with my first questions. I'll start with the reversal of evidential burden of proof. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand you are, Minister. I quote item 1.176 in the Scrutiny digest: As the explanatory materials do not address this issue— that is, reversal of evidential burden of proof— the committee requests the minister's advice as to why it is proposed to use a defence of reasonable excuse (which reverses the evidential burden of proof) for proposed subsection 45AC(3). The committee's consideration of the appropriateness of a provision which reverses the burden of proof is assisted if it explicitly addresses relevant principles as set out in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. What is your response to that, Minister? 10:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I'd like to make clear, on the record, that I am not a lawyer. There are plenty in this place, but I am not one of them. Senator Roberts 266524 I withdraw my assertion. Senator Scarr 282997 Your personal reflection! Senator GALLAGHER ING That's right—your adverse reflection on me! In relation to the reversal of evidential burden of proof, section 45AC would create an offence for failing to comply with a notice from the secretary requiring the production of information for documents, and the proposed new subsection 45AC(3) provides a defence of reasonable excuse for the offence of failing to comply with a notice from the secretary requiring the production of information or documents that are relevant to a contravention or possible contravention of the act or regulations. Therefore, the offence does not apply if a person has a reasonable excuse, but the defendant has to prove this. The note to the subsection provides that the defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to this matter. A reasonable excuse defence is appropriate because the matters comprising the offence would generally be known only to the defendant. For example, they did not comply because they were in hospital, they were dealing with an emergency or a natural disaster, or something to that effect. It would be significantly more difficult for the prosecution to prove that. The proposed defence only involves an evidential burden for the defendant to point to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matter comprising the excuse exists, rather than a legal burden of proof. 10:58 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I'd like to go to the next topic: stripping fundamental legal practices and principles. Strict liability: my understanding of that is that it means no trial, no evidence of defence—just strictly liable. Documents are not required under a court order, just a bureaucrat. I read item 1.183 from the Scrutiny digest. I'm not going to take up too much time, because I'm not going to read two pages of this: The committee draws its scrutiny concer ns to the attention of senators, and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of imposing a strict liability offence under proposed subsection 45AD(2), noting that the penalties imposed under that offence are above what is recommended in the Gui de to Framing Commonwealth Offences . Do you have a response to the scrutiny of bills report? 10:59 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I agree. Strict liability offences should only be used in particular circumstances throughout legislation. They are used in circumstances where there is a public interest ensuring that the regulatory schemes are observed and it can be reasonably expected that the person was aware of their duties and obligations. The inclusion of the strict liability offences and the maximum of 100 penalty units is justified in the particular context of the regulatory scheme for therapeutic goods, given the potentially significant consequences for public health and safety in the event of noncompliance. For instance, a failure to provide information or documents could delay the investigation of a contravention of the act with patients suffering harm before the contravention is identified, and the provision of false and misleading information could lead TGA to conclude that a therapeutic good is safe for use by patients when it may not be. It is an exception to the offence if a person has a reasonable excuse, such as being unable to answer for a reason such as being in hospital and unable to reply for not complying. In your second reading address, you raised comments about an automatic fine of $27,000. It's important to note that the penalty of 100 penalty units is a maximum penalty for natural persons and that the amount of any penalty would be for a court to determine in accordance with sentencing principles. 11:01 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Regarding procedural fairness, we have the reversal of evidential burden of proof, strict liability, and now we have procedural fairness. The bureaucrats don't even have to make a case. Let me read 1.190 from the scrutiny of bills report: In light of this, the committee requests the minister's advice as to: • why it is considered necessary to provide a broad exclusion to procedural fairnes s within the bill— A 'broad exclusion', 'sweeping' would be another word— noting the flexibility that is already applied by the courts when considering the extent to which procedural fairness obligations might apply in a particular circumstance; and • whether, at a minimum, the amendment can be narrowed to exclude procedural fairness to circumstances where disclosure is required for urgent public safety reasons. What was the minister's response? 11:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory On the last bit of that question, the Senate just agreed to a government amendment around that section of the bill, so I think that probably has addressed in the second part of your remarks, Senator Roberts. Under the section 61 amendment, the therapeutic goods information is released by the TGA under the act for health, safety and transparency purposes. This measure supports the timely release of therapeutic goods information by the TGA, which is vital for protecting the health and safety of patients, frontline healthcare workers and the public. The amendment to this measure, which we just passed, appropriately balances the provision of natural justice with the need to ensure the timely release of health and safety information. The amendment does so by limiting the circumstances in which the natural justice hearing rule is excluded for releases of information to the public under section 61(5C) of the act. A natural justice hearing rule is not excluded for information released under the provision unless there is a safety related issue, and, in some circumstances, the secretary may still observe the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule. The amendment effectively codifies the TGA's current practice as delaying or preventing the release of information would be contrary to the public interest. 11:04 Senator STEELE-JO 250156 Western Australia HN () (): I want to thank the minister and the shadow minister for their responses. I'll ask a couple of clarifying questions of the minister. Before I do so, I want to place on record a particularly compelling piece of evidence given to the inquiry into this issue four years ago. It's the evidence of a woman in relation to her experience with transvaginal mesh and the current reporting system. They said: … no-one knows about reporting it. I don't understand why it's our responsibility to report it to the TGA when the doctors, who we go back to with our complaints and complications, don't. I found out via the mesh support group online about the TGA and what its purpose is. I contacted my surgeon to ask if he had reported my erosion and issues along with the partial removal of the … sling. I also sent him the TGA link with the alert advising Drs they should be reporting any adverse affects. He had not reported anything. So I did it myself. This is the situation that 150,000 Australian women found themselves in when potentially exposed to this device. They had to follow-up with their surgeons. They had to share the link to the regulator's statements about this and then their surgeons didn't follow it up. The government may well say, 'As we've defined it here, it's medical facilities, it's hospitals.' The problem with that is that if the relevant healthcare practitioner does not work within a facility they don't fall under those requirements, and we go back to the inadequate voluntary system. The minister, in their statement, talked about the 'complexity' and the 'difficulty'. I think they were referring potentially to the system of voluntary reporting, the system of reporting more broadly, and the way in which that has been updated. The TGA have told us on three separate occasions that they are working right now to improve their systems and they expect that work to be completed in reasonably short order. If there's a problem with resourcing the TGA so they can do that, the government can solve that problem. I think that has been addressed comprehensively in relation to the responses from the TGA in the course of negotiations over this bill. The question of burden on medical practitioners is a reality. I do want to talk to this because I have heard, as many of us have heard, from the representative peak bodies of general practitioners and other professions in relation to the stresses and strains that they are under. But I would also caution that we need balance in this conversation. We need to take a clear-eyed look at what the burden may reasonably be expected to be. Now I would hope that there is not, in fact, a great multitude of faulty medical devices circulating in the Australian community. I would really hope that's the case after these scandals. But even if there were, this is a situation that a general practitioner would be reasonably expected to actually experience—a patient presenting to them in those circumstances where there is a serious resulting illness. They would see these kinds of issues once or twice in their practice life. It isn't every day that somebody's going to be coming in with these circumstances saying, 'Oh, my God, I'm in this situation and I've just had this device in.' These will hopefully be very rare situations but, when they occur, they must be reported. We need to balance that potential rare burden with the burden borne by the patient. If they have implanted within them a medical device which is faulty, fails, causes them harm and then that is not reported to the regulator, then we have a situation where thousands of people's lives are adversely affected. Because that's what happened here. It wasn't in the sixties, it wasn't in the seventies; it was in modern, contemporary Australia. Before this became more widely known, before transvaginal mesh and its healthcare impacts became more widely known, the TGA had recorded hundreds—just hundreds—of cases. A couple of hundred here; a couple of hundred there. When Professor Skerritt gave evidence to the inquiry in 2018, if I remember his submission correctly, he said that at one point they'd had 12 reports to the TGA of faults. He specifically stated that one of the challenges with the system was that if the regulator doesn't get the information then they can't issue the red alert. That's why it is so important for that data to be gathered from everywhere it exists, not simply the data that it is easy for the government currently to access. Finally, my question to the minister: they reference a 'potential legal barrier' to this amendment. I would genuinely like to inquire of the minister what they are referring to there. My read of the act is that 29AA gives the TGA the ability to issue penalty notices to individuals who fail to comply. However, if the government is in possession of other understandings, other pieces of legal advice, I'd really welcome the opportunity to hear the minister's perspective on what they exactly mean in relation to 'potential legal barriers'. 11:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Senator Steele-John, your approach through this is that there is no other regulation around the behaviour, conduct and standards of medical practitioners, which is incorrect. The TGA's role is not to regulate the conduct, capability and standards of medical practitioners. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, that's the answer. In relation to the powers of the TGA to issue penalties and things like that, that is in relation to manufacturers, not medical practitioners. So, that is the legal barrier. It's not in the TGA's role. There's the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority, APRA, that does that, in relation to the standards of medical practitioners. I think that's at the heart of your amendment. You obviously disagree with us around a mandatory scheme, as opposed to the TGA being able to have the information available to it through the facilities where women—and others; it's not just women, because it's not just about the mesh devices—present with issues relating to that device, which is likely to be in a health facility. It's not necessarily going to be a GP practice where that device may have been implanted. That is the idea—having the mandatory scheme by the health facilities. And it's not the TGA's role to issue penalties against medical practitioners. It's not the TGA's role, and that is the legal barrier that I referred to earlier in my contribution. 11:13 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1849 together: (1) Schedule 9, item 5, page 27 (lines 30 and 31), omit the item, substitute: 5 Subsection 19A(11) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (11) An approval under subsection (1), (1A), (2), (2A) or (2B) is a legislative instrument. (2) Schedule 9, page 27 (after line 31), after item 5, insert: 5A At the end of section 19A Add: (12) If the Secretary intends to grant an approval under this section, then prior to granting the approval, the Secretary must: (a) give a notice (a ministerial notice) to the Minister in accordance with the requirements in subsection (13); and (b) receive the agreement of the Minister. (13) The ministerial notice must: (a) be in writing; and (b) include: (i) the reasons for granting the approval; and (ii) the conditions (if any) that are to be specified in the notice of approval; and (iii) the period to be specified in the notice of approval; and (c) seek the agreement of the Minister to the approval; and (d) request that the Minister agree to, or object to, the approval before the end of 14 days beginning on the day the ministerial notice is given to the Minister. (14) If the Minister does not agree to, or object to, the approval within 14 days, then at the end of that period the Minister is taken to have agreed to the notice of approval. My intent in proposing these two amendments is as follows. Amendment (1) amends subsection 19A(11) of the TGA Act 1989 to provide that approvals made by the secretary are legislative instruments and will therefore be subject to disallowance under section 42 of the Legislation Act 2003. Quite simply, we're seeking to ensure proper oversight and political accountability for decisions made by the secretary as a result of proposed amendments. I believe that in the bill as it is written right now there appears to be a lack of accountability and too much power placed in one person's hand. Amendment (2) is designed to serve two functions. It will ensure that there is ministerial oversight and that, before giving notice of approval, the secretary must first give notice to the minister and seek their agreement. We have proposed that the minister be asked to provide their agreement or objection within 14 days or otherwise is considered to have been given. Progress reported. NOTICES 20 NOTICES Presentation 20 COMMITTEES 21 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 21 Report 21 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the second report for 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 2 OF 2023 9 March 2023 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 2 OF 2023 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 7.15 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 May 2023 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 be referred immediatelyto the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 June 2023 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 be referred immediatelyto the Community Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023 Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021 National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023 Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021 Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Federal Environment Watchdog Bill 2021 Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023   .Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023    .Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023   .Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023 Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023 National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023 Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021 [No. 2] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022. 5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement: Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 9 March 2023 ————— Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: "Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2023 Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: Consideration of the matters raised by the bill, financial implications, the ethical and appropriate use of public monies, accountability, and practical steps required for implementation Possible submissions or evidence from: Department of Finance Office of Governor General Blue Knot, Bravehearts, Survivors, The Anglican Church, St James Ethics Centre Committee to which bill is to be referred: Finance and Public Administration Committee Possible hearing date(s): 17 or 21 April 1 or 2 May Possible reporting date: l0May (signed) Nick McKim ————— Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Complicated issue Possible submissions or evidence from: Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): March-June Possible reporting date: 19 June 2023 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bills: The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 Reasons for refe rra1/principal issues for consideration: The Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures Bill—a 2022 Labor election policy—will provide an entirely novel approach and functionality to the Migration Act 1958, and how visa applications are allocated in Australia. Possible submissions or evidence from: Migration experts and academics, legal experts and academics, foreign affairs experts and academics, relevant community organisations. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Possible hearing date(s): 4-6 April 2023 Possible reporting date: 19 June (signed) Nick McKim ————— Appendix 3 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill t o a committee Name of bill: Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 (the Bill) delivers on the Australian Government's election commitment to reform Income Management (IM) following the cessation of the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) program. The Bill establishes operational parameters for enhanced Income Management and is the product of meaningful community consultation. The Bill will propose amendments that will commence from a date to be set by proclamation, to give effect to the broader roll out of enhanced IM, and are focused on expanding access to the enhanced IM regime through: providing existing IM participants the choice to access a contemporary card (the SmartCard) through enhanced IM, and directing all new IM entrants to enhanced IM and ensuring no new participants are issued a BasicsCard. Instead they will use the contemporary technology of the SmartCard, delivered by Services Australia. allowing for the Minister to determine, by legislative instrument, that a state or territory department, body or agency is a Recognised State/Territory Authority, in order to accept referrals from states and territories for the purposes of referring a person to enhanced IM. These reforms received Cabinet Authority on 13 September 2022 and the measure Abolish the Cashless Debit Card in the 2022-23 Budget refers. These proposed amendments deal only with what has been already agreed and announced by Government, and do not pre-empt the longer term considerations for Income Management which will be subject to a further comeback to Cabinet, informed by detailed consultation with communities. Possible submissions or evidence from: Department of Social Services Queensland Family Responsibilities Commission Northern Territory Government SNAICC Central Australia Aboriginal Congress APONT Both may not be supportive of IM in general Chapters of St Vinnies, Anglicare etc in the relevant sites. Child and family wellbeing Australia. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): Any week in April Possible reporting date: 1 May 2023 (signed) Anne Urquhart SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 (To be Originated in the House of Representatives on 9 March 2023) Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: Scrutiny of government legislation Understand views of stakeholders Identify human rights implications Possible submissions or evidence from: Accountable Income Management Network Australian Council of Social Services GetUp! Land Councils in the Northern Territory Change the Record Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Possible hearing date(s): TBC by Cttee Possible report ing date: 16 June (signed) Nick McKim SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Complicated issue Possible submissions or evidence from: Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): March-June Possible reporting date: 16 June 2023 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE — PRESENTATION OF 2ND REPORT OF 2023 — AMENDMENTS AGREED TO BY THE SENATE ON 9 MARCH 2023 (1) At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report by 6 June 2023". (2) At the end of the motion, add "but, in respect of the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report by 13 June 2023". (3) At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 May 2023". Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:16 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report by 6 June 2023". 11:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory On the amendment moved by Senator Ruston, the government is aware that there is majority support in this chamber for an inquiry referral to the Social Security Administration Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 to report on 6 June 2023. We believe that this date will put the timely passage of this important legislation at risk. We know from previous inquiries that the BasicsCard is out of date and not sufficient to meet the needs of people in community. Our bill directly responds to the clear message given to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation committee inquiry into the cashless debit card last year—importantly, giving income management participants more choice. The bill provides the choice of a better product with modern technology and it does so at a cheaper cost than the previous cashless debit card. To prolong the date of an inquiry we deny more than 24,400 existing income management participants with a choice to access a contemporary and improved card as soon as practicable, and it will keep them on the BasicsCard technology, which is out of date and limits participants' options on where they can shop. We would prefer an earlier reporting date, but we accept the view of the Senate that the committee report on 6 June 2023. We wanted to record our concern about the delay in the passage of this bill. 11:18 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting the amendment from the opposition and to reject the assertion from the government that this puts at risk any potential legislative time frame. I also indicate to the government that the Greens are prepared to facilitate the Senate's being able to deal with this legislation in the June sitting, which, we would submit, would give plenty of time for the legislative timetable to be met. Question agreed to. 11:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move an amendment to the motion to adopt the Selection of Bills report, which has been circulated in my name on sheet GOV1: At the end of the motion, add "but, in respect of the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report by 13 June 2023". I hope that senators can give consideration for a slightly shorter reporting date for this inquiry. While we accept Senate support for a reporting date one week earlier than was originally discussed, to have this report tabled by 13 June, we believe this date still provides some risk that there will be delays to the passage of this legislation and the honouring of the commitments we've made to Pacific countries, and it could delay opportunities for this visa class to address the worker shortages in Australia. Again, I just want to record that, and I hope that we can get Senate support for a reporting date of 13 June. 11:20 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I will just make a brief contribution, just to indicate that the Greens will support this. We understand the government's legislative time frame on this, which is why we're happy to support a slightly earlier reporting date. Question agreed to. Senator JKM I move the amendment to the motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report that's been circulated in my name: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 May 2023". 11:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I understand again that there's majority support for Senator McKim's amendment. We would prefer not to have another reasonably long inquiry. The industry needs certainty on these matters, and one of the matters has been sitting around since 2016. We don't believe there's a need for a protracted inquiry for what has already been consulted on extensively. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. BUSINESS 27 BUSINESS Rearrangement 27 11:22 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business notice of motion No. 175 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 27 NOTICES Postponement 27 COMMITTEES 27 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 27 Reporting Date 27 11:22 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. Finance and Public Administration References Committee 27 Reference 27 11:23 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 26 September 2023: The management and assurance of integrity by consulting services provided for the Australian Government, with particular reference to: (a) the management of conflicts of interest by consultants; (b) measures to prevent conflicts of interest, breach of contract or any other unethical behaviour by consultants; (c) enforcement measures taken in response to integrity breaches, such as the inadequate management of conflicts of interest, breach of contract or any other unethical behaviour by consultants; (d) the management of risks to public sector integrity arising from the engagement of consultants; (e) the transparency of work undertaken by consultants, and the accountability of consultants for this work; and (f) any other related matters. 11:23 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 One Nation will be supporting Senator Barbara Pocock's motion because we believe that the big consulting companies are basically guns for hire. They're opinions for hire. They give the government what the government wants, at a million dollars a gig. Some of these big firms are multinationals out of Japan. So we will be supporting this. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 28 BUSINESS Rearrangement 28 11:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory At the request of Senator Wong, I move: That the government business order of the day relating to a motion concerning Afghanistan be called on immediately and the motion be determined without amendment or further debate. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 28 MOTIONS Afghanistan 28 11:24 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion be agreed to. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 28 BUSINESS Withdrawal 28 11:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the government business order of the day relating to the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 and related bills be discharged from the Notice Paper. 11:25 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Sen 266524 One Nation will not be supporting this. We will be opposing it because it's simply Stephen Jones protecting the bankers again by removing penalties. We would want to amend it, not support it. I chaired the Senate Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers. We saw firsthand the heinous activities of the banks. We now see that former Labor Queensland premier Anna Bligh is the head of the Australian Banking Association. Please explain. So we have Liberals and Labor running interference for the banks and protecting the banks. We've got rural bank closures accelerating and no provisions for their replacement. We need a postal bank and we have to stop equity theft in this country, because that's what the banks are doing. The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind you that when referring to people in the other place that you use their correct titles. The question is that government business No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Gallagher, be agreed to. Question agreed to. BILLS 29 BILLS Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023 29

Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023

First Reading 29 11:26 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland At the request of Senator Hanson, I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the regulation of products made or that contain cannabis, and for related purposes. Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023. Question agreed to. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 29 11:27 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I am pleased to introduce the Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023. The Bill will substantially improve Australians' access to medicinal cannabis and create an avenue for the listing of cannabis on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The Bill will allow Australians access to a wider range of medicines increasingly supported by doctors and veterinarians for treating a wide variety of conditions in people and their pets. The Pathways system for medicinal cannabis had some success with its initial measures to provide access to these medicines. However issues with cost, availability, access and quality have made it hard for Australians to secure the right medicine for themselves or their pets. This has caused a reduction in uptake in recent months. The Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023, as the name implies, seeks to reverse this decline and ensure Australians and their pets can be prescribed appropriate medicinal cannabis treatments by doctors and veterinarians. The legislation will amend the regulatory framework for medicinal cannabis to improve access by: Firstly, allowing any prescribing medical practitioner to provide prescriptions, the current system is for a small number of "approved prescribers" who are often not located in rural and remote areas. The Bill does not recommend what products are made available. The Pathways system now has 7 pages of approved cannabis products, across a wide range of profiles. Products include dried herb and vaping products. There is no reason why those products will not remain available under the Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023. Secondly, excluding hemp products with a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level of up to 1% from regulation, increasing this limit from 0.1%. This harmonises Commonwealth law with the States, all of whom already allow hemp to contain 1% THC. At this level, THC can't produce a hallucinogenic response. Thirdly, allowing cannabis products with THC below 1% and Cannabidiol (CBD) below 10% to be sold over the counter in a pharmacy or veterinarian to a person aged over 18. This Schedule 3 listing would allow the following forms of cannabis to be sold: oral, oromucosal, topical and sublingual preparations. This would commonly create new ranges of products including oils and tinctures, capsules, creams and topicals, bath bombs, patches, nasal sprays and powders, most likely protein supplements with higher CBD than is allowed for a food product in the supermarket. Existing restrictions on providing medicinal cannabis treatments to children under 18 will be retained—children won't be able to get a cannabis product over the counter. Doctors will of course be able to prescribe a cannabis product for a child if, in their medical opinion, it is the best interests of the patient. Fourthly, the Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023 retains the current limits for THC and CBD in food products, as controlled by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). The Bill does make a small wording change to that listing. Currently food with low THC and low CBD is exempt from classification, however the listing is not for hemp products but hemp oil. Many products currently available in supermarkets use hemp seed and hemp seed flour. The wording change is to add "hemp seed" to the listing for hemp oil, which also covers hemp seed flour. Some current cannabis-based products are moved from Schedule 8 to Schedule 4 by this bill. While the listing is no longer required because it is covered by the new cannabis listing, this bill retains those listings for clarity and an abundance of caution. The bill will not affect cannabis legalisation in the Australian Capital Territory. Many Australians are seeking more natural medical treatments for themselves and their pets. It's only natural for One Nation to put Australians first with this bill. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023 30

Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023

First Reading 30 11:28 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to repeal the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 and to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and for related purposes. Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023. Question agreed to. Senator RICE 155410 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 30 11:29 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That this bill now be read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted Senator RICE 155410 I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated into Hansard. The speech read as follows— The Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023 seeks to end the destructive logging of Australia's incredibly valuable native forests. It repeals the Act which enables logging, and which has provided an exemption from our environmental protections for far too long. The Commonwealth Government has a fundamental responsibility to protect our environment. That's reflected in international commitments that the Australian government has made on the international stage, and that have been enacted through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Despite those requirements in legislation, there is a loophole that entire truckloads of logs are being driven through. That loophole is contained in the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002. For far too long, these regional forest agreements, or RFAs, established between the federal and state governments, have exempted native forest logging from the environmental protections we have in place. These agreements cover significant parts of Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia, and New South Wales. RFAs were allegedly intended to protect complex ecosystems, and ensure threatened species were protected, as well as provide sustainable timber supply, and protect jobs. In their 2020 report, Creating Jobs, Protecting Forests? The Wilderness Society concluded that RFAs have failed on every front. A crucial issue is that forests form part of the traditional lands of First Nations peoples around Australia. They are crucial habitat for their totem species. When governments heedlessly damage native forests through destructive logging, we are threatening generations of First People's heritage. In addition, native forests form a critical habitat for precious wildlife, many of which are threatened or endangered. Sadly, as well as the climate crisis, Australia is facing a biodiversity crisis. More than 1,800 plant and animal species, and ecological communities, are at risk of extinction. No other country has seen more mammals go extinct in the last two hundred years than Australia. The koala, Swift Parrot, and Tasmanian devil are just some of the species at risk because of loss of their forest habitat, including from logging. I want to particularly mention the Greater Glider and Wollert/ Leadbeater's Possum, both of which have been threatened by logging in my home state of Victoria. Every time we clearfell an area of mature intact forest we are destroying the homes of these endangered species. Forests also have incredible benefits for our water supply. In Melbourne, we are lucky enough to have some of the highest quality drinking water in the world. A key reason for this is the beautiful Mountain Ash forests of Victoria's Highlands. It is through these trees' roots, branches, soil and surrounding ecosystems that Melbourne's largest water supply catchment is filtered naturally. Any disturbance to these forests has detrimental impacts on the unmatched quality of the city's water supply. Without this forest, our water would require intensive, man-made filtering. Logging also impacts on the quantity of water available. A young regrowth forest soaks up considerably more water than a mature forest, reducing streamflows and availability of water for human use. Despite how significant Victoria's Mountain Ash forests are, a report by the ABC last December exposed the widespread illegal logging of hundreds of hectares of Mountain Ash forests by the Victorian Government-owned logging agency, VicForests. In their report, the ABC found documents that suggested the Office of the Conservation Regulator, the body tasked with enforcing state logging law and monitoring VicForests, was alerted to the agency's illegal activity but failed to "properly investigate". Even after admission by VicForests in 2019 that they have been illegally logging protected areas, the regulator found the allegations of widespread illegal logging "could not be substantiated." As well as being essential for wildlife, and their benefits for water, our native forests have massive carbon benefits. We know from research by environmental scientists that native forest logging results in increased carbon pollution, at a time when we need to be doing everything we can to combat the climate crisis. Research has found that logging of Tasmania's native forests emits almost five tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, including both short and long term emissions. In NSW that figure is almost four tonnes per year; and in Victoria it is more than three tonnes per year. It is unbelievable that in the midst of a climate crisis, we are subsidising environmental destruction that is worsening the climate crisis. It must end now. Logging and destruction of our forests also increases our fire risk. Despite the hysteria and attempts to deflect from the climate crisis by the Murdoch media, there is clear evidence that logging increases the risks we face. An expert review by Griffith University found that "Logging can make native forests more flammable and lead to greater fire severity for decades, while 'mechanical thinning' can also increase fire risk." That review found that "Native forest logging increases the severity at which forests burn, beginning roughly 10 years after logging and continuing at elevated levels for another 30+ years … The likelihood of "crown burn" (when the forest canopy is burned) is about 10% in old growth forest versus 70% in forest logged 15 years ago." This is a disastrous situation in the context of increasing fire risk to forests due to global heating. We also know that when we preserve and protect our forests, there are benefits across our communities, including through tourism and recreation. A key part of Australia's appeal on the international tourism market is our reputation as a place where visitors can visit and be inspired by unique ecosystems and see incredible wildlife unlike anywhere else in the world. Logging native forests is not only destroying precious forest, but undermining future jobs that could last for lifetimes. Ecotourism is a growing sector, and we know that jobs in tourism can be an important sustainable way to support regional communities, and can help people connect with nature, and understand how precious our forests are. The federal Labor party, since taking government, has comprehensively failed to address this multi-faceted crisis. There are vague statements about the need to protect our precious forests; but there is no action. The federal government has failed to act when the courts found that the Victorian government was failing to uphold its commitments under the Regional Forest Agreements. Government should act, but it has failed to. Native forest logging has had its day. It is destroying our environment. This bill would end the destruction. It would close the RFA loophole, so that the limited environmental protections we have in place would genuinely apply to forests, offering some level of protection that's greater than what we face now. We can act, we can create change and protect our forests. I commend this bill to the Senate. Senator RICE 155410 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023, Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023 31

Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023

Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023

First Reading 31 11:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 32 11:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— AUSTRALIA COUNCIL AMENDMENT (CREATIVE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2023 This Bill is introduced to amend the Australia Council Act 2013 to support the implementation of the Albanese Government's new National Cultural Policy—Revive. The Bill will allow the Australia Council to operate under the name Creative Australia, and expand its functions to support the upcoming establishment of the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces, Music Australia, Writers Australia and the First Nations First body. This Bill delivers on our election commitment to transfer the functions of Creative Partnerships Australia to the Australia Council. Since 1975, the Australia Council has been the principal Commonwealth arts investment and advisory body, with a strong profile in the arts sector. It supports and promotes creative arts practice that is recognised nationally and internationally, and provides research and advocacy on issues affecting the sector. A restored and modernised Australia Council—to be known as Creative Australia—is the centrepiece of the Government's National Cultural Policy. It will strengthen the capacity of the Australia Council, provide for greater strategic oversight and engagement across the sector, and ensure that funding decisions continue to be made on the basis of artistic merit and at arm's length from Government. It will also include the establishment of independent bodies and funds for First Nations arts and culture, contemporary music and for writers, as well as a Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces. The implementation of the Australia Council reforms under the National Cultural Policy will be staged to allow for necessary consultation across the sector, however there are a number of elements that require implementation from 1 July 2023 which are covered in this Bill. The Bill provides for the Australia Council to operate under the name Creative Australia. Additional functions in this Bill will also enable the Australia Council to commence work on the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces and Music Australia from 1 July 2023. A follow-up Bill will be introduced later this year to establish these bodies, which are critical in building partnerships and expertise that will both support artists directly and benefit Australian audiences. Consultation with the sector will continue, and will inform the legislation. It is important that we get the legislation right so we can open up the Government's principal arts funding body to more areas of the creative economy while increasing core funding. The Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces will work with artists, industry workers and employers to raise and maintain standards, remuneration and safety for all art forms and arts organisations, and ensure matters are referred to relevant authorities, as appropriate. The Centre will ensure that companies will need to adhere to these standards as a condition of their government funding. Music Australia will support the Australian music industry to grow, including through strategic initiatives and industry partnerships, research, training and skills development and export promotion. 2 The Bill will also provide authority for Creative Australia to deliver the functions of Creative Partnerships Australia, including to attract and recognise public sector, private sector, philanthropic and commercial support for, and investment in, the arts, and undertake research on the same. The transfer will leverage Creative Australia's expertise and bring together arts philanthropy and arts funding within one entity. It will create synergies between public and private partnerships, as well as government, philanthropic and commercial investment. This increased access to private sector funding for the arts will maximise the impact of public investment and support a sustainable arts sector. The Bill also allows Creative Australia to assume responsibility for the Australian Cultural Fund, from 1 July 2023, including all donations made into the fund prior to the transfer. The Australian Cultural Fund is an important mechanism utilised by Creative Partnerships Australia to deliver its objectives to grow the culture of giving to arts and culture, bringing donors, businesses, artists and arts organisations together. Through this legislation Creative Australia will assume responsibility to assist Australian artists and arts organisations to attract and maintain support from donors and businesses, diversifying their sources of revenue and encourage and celebrate innovation and excellence in giving to, and partnerships with, the arts and cultural sector. This Bill includes transitional elements to support a smooth transfer of functions and ensure continuity of business between Creative Partnerships Australia and Creative Australia. These transitional elements cover the transfer of assets, liabilities, records and staff entitlements and will ensure that at the time of transfer, employees of Creative Partnerships Australia will be taken to be Creative Australia employees and receive equivalent accrued entitlements to benefits. This Government is committed to improving the quality of Commonwealth investment in the arts sector, and to strengthening and streamlining access to support including for artists and arts organisations. A properly resourced Creative Australia is key to delivering on this commitment. The transfer of the functions of, and funding for, Creative Partnership Australia to Creative Australia will align with this objective. As will the expanded functions and new funding of $199 million over four years from 2023-24, announced as part of the National Cultural Policy. Timely passage of this Bill will allow these initiatives to commence from 1 July 2023, for the broader benefit of the artists and arts organisations. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. ROYAL COMMISSIONS AMENDMENT (ENHANCING ENGAGEMENT) BILL 2023 The death by suicide of any Australian is a tragedy. Unfortunately, the rate of suicide among our veteran community is significantly higher than across the broader Australian community. That is why the Government strongly supported calls to establish the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide while in opposition, and why we are acting swiftly in response to the findings and recommendations made by the Royal Commission in its Interim Report. It is critical the Royal Commission hears from the broadest possible range of people who have stories or experiences relating to defence and veteran suicide. Individuals need to have the confidence that they can safely share these with the Royal Commission. It is particularly important that people who have not yet engaged with the Royal Commission due to concerns about protecting their sensitive or personal information are encouraged to do so. This Bill will make important amendments to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to establish greater protections of certain sensitive information. The amendments will ensure people can engage with the Royal Commission knowing that that any information of a sensitive, personal or confidential nature they disclose can be protected during and after the life of the Royal Commission. This in turn will expand the information available to the Royal Commission on which to base its findings and recommendations. The Roya l Commission's Interim Report The Government welcomed the Royal Commission's Interim Report, which was released on 11 August 2022 and is available on the Royal Commission's website. The Interim Report made 13 recommendations requiring urgent and immediate attention. This Bill will implement recommendation 6(1) of the Interim Report. Existing confidentiality protections in the Royal Commissions Act The Royal Commissions Act already contains strong protections which ensure that sensitive information given to the Royal Commission can be kept confidential. People can already share their experiences with the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide through private sessions. These allow information to be shared with the Royal Commission in a trauma-informed and less formal setting than a hearing, and there are significant protections in place regarding the use and disclosure of information given in private sessions, which apply both during a Royal Commission's inquiries and after it has concluded. The Royal Commission is also able to use pseudonyms in public hearings and published material, and it is able to issue non-publication directions, which prevent the publication of sensitive information. These protections are important mechanisms to ensure that information shared with a royal commission on a confidential basis will be treated confidentially. The amendments contained in this Bill extend those protections. New confidentiality protections in the Bill Due to the nature of this Royal Commission's inquiries, information that serving and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force, and their families, wish to share with the Royal Commission is often sensitive and highly personal. The Royal Commission has made extensive use of private sessions as a way for people to share information in a confidential and trauma-informed way, having held over 250 private sessions to date. People have also provided and will continue to provide sensitive information to the Royal Commission outside of private sessions, with an expectation that it will be treated confidentially. For example, individuals may provide confidential written statements or accounts to the Royal Commission, or may share information with a staff member supporting the Royal Commission's work during an interview. It is appropriate and important that information provided in this way is protected in the same way as information given in a private session. New clause 6OQ, which this Bill would insert into the Royal Commissions Act, will provide that certain information provided to the Royal Commission outside of a private session is protected in the same way as it would if it was given in a private session, if the Royal Commission treats that information as confidential at all times. The confidentiality protections in the Bill would mean that: information to which the protections apply will not be admissible in evidence against a natural person in any civil or criminal proceedings in any Commonwealth, State or Territory court it will be a criminal offence to use or disclose the information in an unauthorised manner the information will only be able to be included in a report of the Royal Commission if it is de-identified or if it is separately provided to the Royal Commission in a non-confidential manner the information will be excluded from the open access period under the Archives Act 1983 for 99 years, and the information will be exempt from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The protections established by this Bill would be available to any person who wishes to provide information to the Royal Commission about their experience or the experience of another person. This includes not just serving Australian Defence Force members, but also, for example, ex-serving members or family members. These new protections will give people assurance that if they have sensitive information to provide to the Royal Commission, such as highly personal accounts of their experiences or that of their loved ones, they will be able to do so in the knowledge that it can be kept confidential, even long after the inquiry has ended. New clause 6OQ has been modelled on existing section 6OP, which was enacted in September 2021 and established equivalent protections for the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. The introduction of section 6OP was sought, and subsequently welcomed, by the Disability Royal Commission and its stakeholders. In its Interim Report, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide considered it appropriate and desirable that this same framework be made available to it, and the Government agrees. Consultation with stakeholders In developing this legislation, the Government has been mindful of the importance of consulting the section of the community that will benefit from these amendments. The Government has consulted with: the Royal Commission the Defence and Veterans Legal Service, which is the national service established and funded to provide independent legal advice to support people who wish to engage with the Royal Commission, and key stakeholder bodies who represent the interests of Australian Defence Force members and veterans. There was strong support for the proposed amendments from the Royal Commission and among these stakeholder groups. The Royal Commission and stakeholder groups noted the deeply personal nature of the information that people wish to share with the Royal Commission, and the importance of being able to do so safely and confidentially. The Government is taking swift and comprehensive action in response to other recommendations of the Interim Report. For instance: the Department of Veterans' Affairs has commenced work, including a public consultation process, on reforms to simplify and harmonise the legislative framework governing veterans' rehabilitation, compensation and other entitlements the Government is working with the Department of Veterans' Affairs to address resourcing which will assist with eliminating the claims backlog, enhance data and modelling capabilities, and improve the administration of the claims system The Government has removed the average staffing level cap across all Commonwealth agencies, and the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs have undertaken co-design workshops with serving and ex-serving ADF members, families and representatives, around how these agencies can make it easier for ADF members and their families to access information. In the Federal Budget, the Government committed substantial funding to progressing responses to the recommendations in the Royal Commission's Interim Report, as well as significant funding of other measures devoted to providing long-term benefits for Defence personnel, veterans and families. The Government is committed to providing practical supports to support to Defence personnel, veterans and families to ensure a better future for the veteran community. Conclusion The Government wants people to come forward and share their stories and experience with the Royal Commission. This is crucial to ensuring the Royal Commission is able to obtain as much information as possible to inform its inquiries and support its ultimate findings and recommendations. The Government recognises that in order for that to happen, people need to feel confident that any sensitive information they share, including highly personal accounts or experiences, will be kept confidential if it is communicated on that basis. The Royal Commission recommended introducing similar protections to those legislated for the Disability Royal Commission in 2021. The Government agrees that these protections should be legislated as a matter of priority. This is why the Government has introduced this Bill. The measures in this Bill have been the subject of careful consideration by the Government and consultation with the Royal Commission and key stakeholders who will benefit from the new protections it will introduce. There is strong support for the protections proposed in the Bill to be in place as swiftly as possible. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 35

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 35 Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 35

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

In Committee 35 11:35 The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The committee is considering amendments (1) to (11) on sheet 1806 revised 2 moved by Senator Steele-John and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1849 moved by Senator Babet. The question is that Greens amendments (1) to (11) on sheet 1806 revised 2 moved together, by leave, by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [11:40]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

 16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 22 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:42 The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question now is that UAP amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1849 moved together, by leave, by Senator Babet be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [11:44]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

 2 AYES Babet, R. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. 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. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

 Third Reading 36 11:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022 36

Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 36 11:48 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022 is purportedly about safety and health, but what it's truly about is control and enabling injection mandates, vaccine mandates. This sets up the power to be able to do so. I want to read a text message from the parent of a daughter who's been mandated out of work out right now: 'Here is the text I received from my daughter tonight, after a Zoom meeting with the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland on the findings of the Industrial Relations Commission in Queensland. She is gutted and feels she does not deserve further discrimination or punishment from Queensland Health. This government'—the Labor government in Queensland—'may pursue staff even after they resign, causing them untold mental, social and economic stress. It appears Queensland Health believe these staff numbers have not suffered enough due to them refusing to take an experimental gene therapy based injection and wish to punish them some more. This is vindictive in the extreme.' Here is the text from her daughter: 'Hi, Mum, I'm going to aim for bed early. I'm emotionally very tired today, especially after the Zoom meeting today. It was a long meeting. They essentially said that if we didn't apply initially for a special exemption, in the first instance, medical or religious, then they have exhausted all options for the PSAs through the Industrial Relations Commission. We can continue to have them represent us if we wish, as they will likely be appealing the recent decision, but they also said it is now a good time to resign to prevent being terminated and having that appear on a person's record. They also said Queensland Health can continue to pursue disciplinary action against me even after I've resigned. They recommend resigning in the next few days, before they start the termination process. I've sent all questions, after I've re-checked them, into the main information hub also of the union for a response. I tried to ask a few within the meeting but only got one answer and there were many questions coming in the meeting. There are many people affected. People are getting swamped. So I'm considering resigning by the end of the week if not tomorrow. I will hopefully have some more answers after they respond to the questions, especially around the degree of legal, financial or professional impact disciplinary processes we'll have if they go the whole hog on me. I'm tired—I'm tired of having it hang over my head, especially when I feel so undeserving of this treatment and I gave all that I had and more to health and my work.' That's coming from a 20-year-old graduate nurse. That's disgraceful. Safety is the No. 1 priority of any person in any business, not just for moral reasons, which are at the top, but also for commercial reasons. Safety saves money and increases productivity and profits. That is still to be understood in many companies, sadly, around this country and amongst many union bosses. But safety is abused. It's exploited by some employers, it's exploited by some union bosses—calling strikes over safety issues when they can't get their way industrially—and now we see that this government is abusing it. The TGA bill gives sweeping powers to the secretary of the federal health department. COVID was a trial of controls, and what this bill does is give further control to the secretary of the federal health department. What troubles me is what they are trying to do, which is to completely abolish the drug approval process and all of the safety testing that goes along with that. Now we want to coerce employers into vaccine mandates, with these controls, in this bill. After decades of simulations and preparation, which included Ahpra being set up in 2008, we had control of the medical system in enabling vaccine mandates in this country. We have just survived the United Nations World Health Organization's attempt to have international health regulations. And that was defeated—because of a grassroots movement, which we were proudly part of, around the world. It wasn't just us but around the world. We're now looking down the barrel of the United Nations World Health Organization's pandemic treaty. What you're doing with the TGA bill and with this bill is setting them up for foreign entities, like the UN World Health Organization, to come in here and take over. That's part of the eternal human battle of control versus freedom. Always, One Nation is on the side of freedom. So far we've seen the United Nations and World Economic Forum alliance on the side of control, pushing through Greens policies that Labor adopts and the Liberals and Nationals adopt: energy and climate—killing our economy and our country's future; COVID-19—killing our country, killing thousands of people and killing our economy; water—stealing rights to use water and stealing rights to use property; and contradicting the data—what we have here is the enablement of mandates so that employers will be forced to mandate treatments, and they'll face serious fines if they don't. We have two amendments to protect employers and remove vaccine mandates. If they pass, we will support this bill. If they do not, we will vote against it. Let me tell you something. Some people ask whether I'm antivax. I am quite clearly not antivax. I am pro-medicine. We all want safe treatment. We are all pro-medicine. We all want to decide for ourselves what is put into our body. We all want freedom to make our own choice and for that choice to be accepted. We all wholeheartedly support medicines that are fully tested and proven safe, effective, affordable and, preferably, available. But I am completely opposed to making it mandatory to take an untested drug to engage in life and earning a living and—what's worse—stopping our children from eating because the breadwinner is out of work due to a vaccine mandate: 'If you want to eat, then you'll have to take this shot.' We totally oppose coercion. We are totally antimandate. We are pro-choice, freedom of choice, and I'm happy to be the placebo on any of these tests. Labor, Liberal, the Nationals and the Greens have confirmed they're pushing control. We saw the Liberals and Nationals push, enable and drive vaccine mandates in the last parliament. Now we're seeing Labor do it through workplace health and safety. We will continue to work for workers and small and medium-sized enterprise businesses. We will fight for workers' rights and we will fight for families. We will oppose this bill unless our amendments get through. We will continue to support our sovereignty. We will continue to support our economic security. We will continue to support honest governance based on solid data and facts. We will oppose this bill unless the amendments are satisfactory. 11:57 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I rise to support the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022. In 2018, Marie Boland conducted a review of the model work health and safety laws. I acknowledge her considered examination, and I acknowledge the families, having lost loved ones at work, who spoke with or wrote to Ms Boland. Those families have fought tirelessly to improve the system that let them down to ensure other families don't have to face the same tragedy. Marie Boland's report provided 34 important recommendations, and unfortunately not one of those requiring legislative change was implemented by the Commonwealth. The former government let it languish, but this bill changes that. It is a shame that the former coalition government didn't manage to implement the report's recommendations, but it's not surprising. They have never been able to grasp the simple concept that workers deserve a safe workplace. To me and my Labor colleagues, understanding the importance of work health and safety comes easily. We naturally relate to and understand the issues because of our own experiences and the experiences of our loved ones and because we listen to workers and their representatives. However, for those on the other side of the chamber, this issue has not been a priority. Is it because they're out of touch with everyday Australians? Is it because of ideological stubbornness? This week, during question time, the opposition has been ranting and raving and trying to stir up fear in the community, all because of our proposal to make a modest change to the tax concessions on superannuation for those who have more than $3 million in their accounts. Where was this passion when the Boland report was handed down under your government? Why do we see this level of hysteria only now, when it comes to this proposal that would not impact 99.5 per cent of Australians, but never when it concerns improving the work health and safety at workplaces across the country for millions of workers? Those on the other side could have risen to the moment but instead have chosen to stoke fear and division. The only reason that comes to my mind is that they're completely out of touch with everyday Australians. Well, thankfully, the adults are back in charge, and this government is putting the decade of division behind us to focus on improving the lives of all Australians. This bill is just the first step of these important reforms from the Boland review, because the Albanese government is taking work health and safety seriously. The health and safety of workers is something I and every Labor member and senator will always prioritise. Throughout our party's history we have always prioritised workers' safety, and it is central to our existence. Every worker has the right to a safe workplace, free from mistreatment, and to come home to their loved ones. I remember when my father worked tirelessly around the clock to put food on the table for my family and the mistreatment he spoke of at times. He has worked in hospitality, as a kitchen hand, as a security guard, as a taxi driver, as a cleaner—you name it. English was not his first language, yet when he arrived in this country on a boat, with the clothes on his back, he worked hard to establish for us a life that he wasn't able to have. And he wasn't going to let language barriers get in the way of that. A life of peace and security in a country full of opportunities for his young growing family is what he aspired towards. Little did he know that it wasn't going to be as easy as that. He was paid below the minimum wage and was often asked to worked ridiculously long hours, but Dad didn't complain. He was asked to complete dangerous tasks that posed a threat to his health and wellbeing, but Dad didn't complain. The imbalance of power my dad experienced often meant he was tolerating and copping mistreatment and abuse from his employer, but Dad didn't complain. Perhaps he didn't know who to turn to for help. His only focus was putting food on the table and a roof over our heads and paying for our education. Was he asking for too much? Did he deserve that poor treatment? Isn't aspiring for a better future something that every Australian family dreams about and has the right to do? I remember asking him why he didn't quit and find another job, and all Dad would say was, 'I accept this hardship so that you can focus on your studies and get into a profession with job security and so that you don't have to go through what I'm going through.' So, I'll never forget my dad's sacrifices, and I honour his struggles. It wasn't long before I realised that my dad wasn't alone in his struggles. During my time as an organiser for the United Workers Union I saw his experience reflected in the lives of many workers, from cleaners to hospitality workers and everything in between. As an organiser I spent my time fighting for improvements for workers' rights and conditions, including standing with aged-care workers when they went on strike for a pay rise. I heard so many heartbreaking stories from these dedicated workers who have served our nation's most vulnerable and elderly for so long. After 48 years as an aged-care worker, Jude Clarke was tired of the job cuts, hour cuts, increased workloads and high turnover of staff, with fewer care hours and obviously more profits for CEOs. She believed that workers and the elderly who were being taken care of deserved respect, dignity and time. She would say that the residents should never be hurried or told to wait because she was too busy. She said: 'We as workers deserve more time to say our hellos and our last goodbyes. Sometimes we are the only family these residents have. Is that too much to ask for?' After being assaulted by a high-care dementia resident, another worker, Emma Bowers, was left traumatised and could not return to work. Even though the cut had healed, the damage was done. She recalls: 'I was tending to a male patient in the high-care dementia ward at an aged-care facility when I was assaulted, hit on my forehead, and I only realised I was injured when I saw blood flowing down my face. My initial thought of concern was towards the resident—to make sure he is safe and not hurt.' This was due to the understaffing of that facility. She went on to say, 'If we had enough staff we would not be put in situations where our health and safety is at risk.' These are just two examples of workers' struggles out of the thousands who are going through this every day, and they deserve our attention. As a Labor senator I am so proud to be part of the team that delivered a pay rise for those workers and the team committed to fixing aged care under the leadership of Minister Anika Wells. I acknowledge the years of campaigning from United Workers Union members and the dedication of the union members across the country to improving workplace health and safety. This brings me to recall the conversations I had last year in August with workers from the Pfizer manufacturing facility in Western Australia. They were on strike for 24 hours, asking for only a $1.60 an hour pay rise from Pfizer, who paid their Victorian counterparts significantly more. Surely they weren't asking for anything outrageous. Many workers have been working at that facility for over a decade and having to fight against casualisation of the workforce. I spoke to Chipo, Raymond and Tariq, who explained that workers relied on penalty rates and overtime to be able to make ends meet. They have to work long hours, which keeps them away from their families. When they're home they're exhausted, they struggle to sleep and they have no energy to spend time with their children. Exhaustion is not a healthy state to return to work in, and their health is on the line but so is the health of the millions of Australians who rely on these Pfizer workers. My central belief that all workers deserve safe and secure jobs is what drove me to become politically active, and I know that my Labor colleagues share the same belief. Workplaces that allow consultation and cooperation, that have a culture of fairness, that respect diversity and that promote equality are healthy and safe workplaces. So far we have passed the secure jobs, better pay legislation and implemented the recommendations of the Respect@Work report to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace, importantly, placing the positive duty on employers to make sure their workplaces are free from victimisation, bullying and harassment. We are completely on the side of workers, and we know this requires our ongoing attention. Ultimately, we want to ensure that everyone who goes to work can come home safely, and we are dedicated to that mission. This bill will make amendments to align the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act with the recently amended model Work Health and Safety Act published by Safe Work Australia as recommended by the Boland review. It will strengthen and promote a consistent national approach to managing work health and safety and will ensure that Safe Work Australia can receive relevant information to perform its research and policy development roles. It demonstrates that we are committed to ensuring all Australians are protected by consistent work health and safety conditions. This bill expands the most serious offence under the Commonwealth's current work health and safety laws to include negligence as a fault element. This means that employers who expose their workers to serious risks that are both reckless and grossly negligent will face the most serious consequences. This bill will also prevent someone required to pay a penalty under the law from recovering the penalty under insurance, which means that businesses cannot simply build serious work health and safety incidents into the cost of doing business. The wellbeing of every worker should be a priority for employers, and businesses should not be able to build into budgets the cost of an unsafe workplace. This will ensure work health and safety remains at the forefront for employers and is taken seriously. This is an important set of reforms from the Boland review. And, while this bill does not implement an industrial manslaughter offence or increase penalties for work health and safety offences, which were recommended in the Boland review, the Labor Party remains committed to that reform. I want to acknowledge Minister Tony Burke's effort, leadership and work in this area. This government is serious about improving work health and safety in Australia because we know that even one death is too many. The risk of an unsafe workplace is too great to be tolerated, and we know that it can destroy a person's life and the lives of their loved ones. There is more work to do, and this bill is just the start of the reforms that will have a positive impact on the safety of Australian workers and their workplaces. We're getting on with the job, not wasting a single second, because, as a Labor government, we are committed to delivering safe workplaces for all Australians. Every person elected to this place should support this bill, because we should all be able to agree that improving the work health and safety for Australians is a good thing and that every worker should be able to go to work and come home to their loved ones safely. I am very proud to have come from a union background, to have become politically active fighting for workers' rights. I'm also proud to have been elected as part of the Albanese Labor government to be trusted by Western Australians to build a better future for all, and so I am proud to support this bill. 12:11 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I rise to speak regarding the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022. This bill provides a perfect opportunity for our parliament, all of us here, to remedy a great injustice. That injustice is the injustice of vaccine mandates. For much too long in our country hardworking Australians have been discriminated against by employers, by authorities, by everyone really. These employees are dedicated and highly skilled Australians, but you know what's happened? They've been shut out of careers that they love. That's what's happened—just completely shut out from careers they have given long, dedicated years of service to. As an example, nurses, teachers, firefighters and volunteers. I'm sure you've all seen in the past where volunteers weren't able to go and fill sandbags because they weren't vaccinated. Ridiculous! We've created division amongst our people, an unneeded division, which has torn apart family members, friends, colleagues, even strangers. The Australian Human Rights Commission states: The guiding human rights principles for considering measures taken to advance public health are: They must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. They must take into account the potential for discrimination. Mandatory vaccination policies, and the accompanying use of vaccine passports and certificates, have significant implications for freedom of movement and association, access to everyday goods and services, privacy and autonomy, and equity and discrimination. Vaccine passports and certificates are more likely to be consistent with human rights principles when they are used as a tool to ease more burdensome lockdown restrictions and improve public health outcomes. I ask you all in this place to think long and hard about the words that I just quoted directly from our Human Rights Commission. Mandates are an egregious abuse of basic human rights, and this bill provides an opportunity to prohibit mandates once and for all. Why have mandates been put in place? In the name of science, apparently. We were told that mRNA injections through mandates were necessary to stop transmission and to end the pandemic. That's what we were told. We were told that it would save lives and it was the only solution. That's what was said. Now, a study funded by none other than the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and published in The Lancet found that the level of protection from past infection is at least equivalent to if not greater than two doses of mRNA vaccine. I use the term 'vaccine' loosely. These COVID vaccines have potentially dangerous side effects, and I keep harping on about this every chance I get. You've all heard me talk about it before. As Dr Marty Makary, Professor of Surgery and Health Policy at Johns Hopkins University, said in sworn testimony before the United States House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic: 'Myocarditis is six to 28 times more common after the COVID vaccine than after COVID infection among 16- to 24-year-old males.' Debate interrupted. DOCUMENTS 40 DOCUMENTS Budget 40 Order for the Production of Documents 40 12:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the opportunity to explain to the Senate why the government is not able to release the Budget Process Operational Rules at this time. I also I acknowledge that we did release the last BPORs, as they're called, after the October budget as a sign of transparency and accountability. The information was made public, and I have signalled that the government will be in a position to consider doing so again after the May budget is finalised. What the Senate has asked for is something that has never been asked for in this place before and something the opposition when in government never, ever, ever did, which was to provide the budget operational rules together before the budget is finalised. I have said before that I think this is unreasonable, and I maintain that position. I understand why the opposition might form the view that they should be released, despite it never having been done or considered relevant when they were in power. But I would urge others who have supported this order for production of documents, especially the Greens, to consider the fact that we are trying to be more transparent and accountable than the current opposition and former government ever was. We have provided this information once the budget has been finalised and have said that we will look to do so again. But we do believe that it's unreasonable to release this document whilst the budget is being put together at this time. The document directly informs the cabinet and ERC decisions. I think there are very strong reasons why, especially when we have foreshadowed that we will look to release that once the budget is finalised, it's not reasonable or fair and in fact is deeply hypocritical for those opposite to seek that document before the budget is finalised. 12:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation given by the Minister for Finance. How quickly the gloss comes off a Labor government, how quickly the rhetoric of opposition gives way to the political expediency of Labor governments. There was certainly a lot of talk from Minister Gallagher about transparency, about openness—indeed, it was only in October last year that she actually said, 'Transparency is a core part of APS business.' It's a core part of APS business, Minister Gallagher. In this spirit, I have to give credit where it's due. I was encouraged that when the Senate agreed to the order for the production of documents No. 87, which sought the Budget Process Operational Rules, the government provided them to the Senate. They were convincing about those proclamations of a new style of politics and new levels of transparency, and those proclamations were so convincing that for a moment even I almost believed them. But it only lasted a moment. It's very concerning that the moment that those rules were updated, Minister Gallagher changed tack. In fact, instead of providing them, she then told the Senate that the BPORs govern the consideration of policies that are being brought forward in the '23-24 budget process, which has commenced. That's a line that she has repeated just now. She claims that those documents would divulges deliberations of cabinet and then she sought public interest immunity from the order. It is Minister Gallagher's right—don't get me wrong—to make that public interest immunity claim. However, when a public interest immunity claim is made, it is fundamental that it is genuine, it is fundamental that it's consistent—indeed, it is a test of honesty and integrity that it is so. And with that in mind, I note that evidence provided at Senate estimates, from Minister Gallagher's own department, confirming that the documents we have requested are not classified cabinet-in-confidence documents, but rather 'Official: Sensitive'. That is a lower classification, and it is a significantly different classification. Senator Gallagher said herself, at Senate estimates, 'We are putting that budget together. My preference is that we don't release them once we're doing that, with a view—I think I said this in the Senate—that once that process is complete, I would be in a position to release them the Senate.' But this process is entirely inconsistent with the approach that Senator Gallagher took in November last year. She then admitted that the BPOR documents provided to the Senate on 28 November were in fact in operation at the time that they were tabled. They were in operation at that time. So what has changed between November last year and February this year? What has changed? It is entirely inconsistent with the reason that the minister has just provided the Senate. I asked departmental officials at those estimates when the new rules—that is, the rules that were replacing the versions that were tabled on 28 November—were approved. Early December was the evidence that was provided. I asked if there was any vacuum in time when the old rules ceased to operate and the new ones came into effect. Senator Gallagher confirmed that this was not the case. Therefore, we know that the rules tabled in the Senate on 28 November were operating until at least early December. So it is totally laughable to claim that the minister cannot now table the new version of the BPORs as they're currently in use, because she has confirmed that the previous BPORs were being used at the time she tabled them. So what has changed? What has changed? This is a document that was previously handed over with no hesitation at all. But now, all of a sudden, the government has decided that it won't hand it over anymore. Now that change of tack is surely no coincidence. Once again, we've seen that Labor are very happy to say one thing about transparency when it suits them, but another thing about transparency when it doesn't suit them. Just as the government starts to break its promises on no changes to super, on no changes to taxation, on no changes to franking credits, Minister Gallagher has suddenly decided that budget transparency is also no longer important. What a surprise that might be. This is a government that doesn't take managing the budget seriously, and so it's afraid to budget. It's afraid to publish its budget rules because it doesn't want to be publicly held to the standard that it's apparently setting itself. Those opposite have dumped the objective of a balanced budget from their fiscal strategy. It was gone. Nowhere in the last budget did the words say, 'We are going to bring the budget back into balance.' Nowhere. Not once in the budget documents. It's been decades since that phrase, or even an implication of that phrase, was absent from budget documents. It's nowhere to be seen. They have ditched the tax-to-GDP ratio, so there's no handbrake on taxes. Let it rip! Let it rip on taxes! There is no handbrake; there are no rules. It's part of their plan to let bracket creep eat into the wages of Australians to help prop up the budget. They won't rein in spending so that's why the RBA is being forced to do all the heavy lifting on interest rates, which is hitting everyday Australians in the hip pocket. And yet they have the audacity to point to the Governor of the RBA and say it's all his fault. Higher mortgage rates, higher energy bills, higher grocery prices: this is what this government has delivered. And let's not forget higher taxes. Perhaps the reason the government don't want to release their budget rules is because there is no offset rule anymore. That's disappeared from the budget process rules. Or the rule is there, potentially, but maybe it's just so flagrantly ignored that it's meaningless. Perhaps that's the case. Labor announced $23 billion in additional spending, and we expect to see a hell of a lot more. We expect to see an awful lot more where that came from in the May budget. And how will they fund all that spending? Certainly not with making the hard calls about reducing expenditure. It's with taxes. It's with doubling of the super tax, it's with new franking credits taxed via stealth, it's by removing the personal income tax cuts that they tried to oppose at the time. This is a government that does not keep its promises. 'We have said that we have no intention of making any changes to super taxes,' said Anthony Albanese in May 2022. 'We've made it very clear, Kieran, that we don't have any proposals for tax increases,' said Jim Chalmers in April 2022. These promises, clearly, mean nothing to Labor. They don't mean much to Senator Gallagher, clearly, or to the Treasurer or Prime Minister, but they mean an awful lot to Australians who are planning for their retirement. They mean something to the recent retiree who sold a business and is putting the proceeds in their self-managed super fund and now finding they're going to be charged tax twice. They mean something to a farmer who transferred their farm into their super fund and is suddenly looking at how to find cash to pay for unrealised capital gains for the first time. We knew the Labor Party would say anything to be elected and they did. This is the same Jim Chalmers who said he was 'pleased and proud' of the high-taxing agenda that Labor took to the 2019 election. Labor is clearly happy to say one thing and do another. In the case of the BPORs, Labor is happy to set the standard but not abide by it. Australians are sick of the double standards. They are sick of the doublespeak. They are sick of broken promises, of having no intention to do something but then going ahead and doing the exact opposite only months later, of having no proposals to do something but then going ahead and doing the exact opposite less than a year later. Whether it be on transparency or reducing the cost of living, Labor is happy to say one thing and do another. Who suffers for this? It's the ordinary Australians who felt that they were doing the right thing, who trusted the Labor opposition when they said they were going to make no changes to taxes. They trusted the Labor opposition when they said they were going to make no changes to super. They trusted the Labor opposition when they said, 'We have no interest in taking your franking credits away.' They trusted you and you duped them. They have a right to be disappointed. Whether it be on transparency or the cost of living, you may be happy to say one thing and do another. You may do that. But in the coalition we are committed to holding you to account for the commitments that you have made. We will continue to do that every single day until you stick to your promises. 12:27 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to take note of the ministerial response. We have a great deal of accountability hypocrisy from those on the other side. The BPORs, Budget Process Operational Rules, are a pretty arcane document, I think it's fair to say. Not many people listening to this broadcast would know what the BPORs are. There might even be one or two people sitting in this chamber today who don't know what the BPORs are. Sadly, I do know what the BPORs are. I had some encounter with them, in a previous life, as a starter for the finance minister. The easiest way to explain them to the Australian people is to say they are the guide rails, for departments and ministers developing a budget, to stay within. They're the rules for the budget. It's pretty simple if you think about them that way. What we saw when Senator Hume was able to have the government release the BPORs for their first budget was that there were some pretty significant changes in there. They revealed that the Labor government had ditched the requirement to offset new expenditure for election commitments. They removed the coalition government's tax to GDP cap of 23.9 per cent from the physical strategy. They also removed the cap on APS growth in Canberra. So we see, from the information that we got from the first release of the BPORs, that these make a real difference. Now we've got this change of position from the Labor government. Just a few months ago they were willing to release the budget rules, and now they are not. So I think the question the Australian people should be asking of this government is: why? If they have changed the budget guidelines, why won't they tell? If they have changed the rules governing the construction of their next budget, why won't they tell the Australian people how they have changed those rules? That's pretty straightforward. That's honesty. That's transparency. Remember, we've got a Prime Minister who came in on a very clear set of promises regarding transparency. It couldn't be more clear than this. Anthony Albanese said, 'Transparency is always a good idea.' He also said, 'Well, what we need is transparency, and I want politics to be cleaned up.' This is my favourite: The Albanese Government is committed to integrity, honesty and accountability and Ministers in my Government (including Assistant Ministers) will observe standards of probity, governance and behaviour worthy of the Australian people. Are those opposite are holding themselves to that standard? Under pressure from Senator Hume, they released the BPORs just a few short months ago, and they've acknowledged that they've change the rules—they've acknowledged that they've change the guide rails that govern how the budget is put together—but they won't come clean. They won't come clean about how they've changed those guide rails. Sadly, this is now becoming a pattern with this government. You have to wonder, Senator Hume, whether the release last year was actually an accident. Was it because it was a government on training wheels? Was it because it was a government that wanted to try and stay within its promises for a little while anyway? I suspect a little of all of the above. The guide rails that they have now changed secretly and won't release are very important to the Australian people because they are seeing a pattern from this government. They're seeing a pattern. They're seeing a government that talk a lot about transparency and accountability, but the government are accountability hypocrites. They have accountability hypocrisy built into their DNA. We have seen changes to the transparency of super funds, which was one of those actions of this government. Why? Coming into government, why was reducing the amount of transparency within super funds one of the first things they had to do? You have to question what this government's motivations actually are. Instead, we see a government that is attempting to keep quiet, whenever they can, information that will be damaging to them. As they put together what is going to be a very important budget for the Australian people at a time of rising inflation, rising interest rates—this budget is a very important one to craft in the interests of the Australian people. These budget rules are the guide rails for that budget process. It's vital to know that those guide rails are set correctly. We have seen the government expect the RBA to do all the heavy lifting in terms of inflation, and so we have seen the fastest rate of interest rate rises pretty much in the history of Australia. We have seen mortgage interest rates on the average home go up to an extraordinary degree, with the average homeowner paying almost $1,000 more—it might be more than $1,000 now—for their home loan interest every month. It's a situation where the government has done nothing through its levers of power to take pressure off from those interest rate rises and assist the Reserve Bank in controlling inflation. Inflation is a scourge. Anyone who went through the 1970s and 1980s knows the scourge of inflation. Sadly I'm old enough to remember them. Senator Scarr, I think you probably do as well. The scourge of persistent inflation is absolutely devastating. I can remember back the sheer financial pressure that was put on my parents' family farm in the 1970s through a combination of high inflation and relatively high interest rates at the time. The government do have things they can do. They've done absolutely nothing so far, but they do have things they can do, and putting the correct guide rails in place for the upcoming budget would assist them in doing them. Have they done that? We don't know, Senator Scarr. We don't have a clue, because the government are now not releasing their budget rules even though just five months ago they did, when those rules were still active. As Senator Hume has said, those rules were still in place when they were released five months ago. They were released to this parliament, as they should have been, and now Senator Hume has quite rightly asked for the rules at the moment. We know the rules have changed, and we want to know how the rules have changed. What has the government done to the budget rules in the lead-up to what is really a very important budget for this nation? We have the Reserve Bank doing all the heavy lifting on inflation. We have this government doing absolutely nothing to tackle inflation and the cost-of-living crisis faced by families. Instead we have them out there lifting tax on superannuation, something they very clearly promised not to do. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Changes to the franking credits, Senator Scarr. I'll take that interjection, even though it's disorderly. Senator Scarr 282997 It's intelligent, though. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 It's very intelligent—changes to the franking credits. So we see the government without a clue about how to tackle the current pressure that's on the Australian economy. Showing us these guide rails, these budget rules, would help the Australian people understand just how this government is going to tackle those things. I suspect they won't release them, because they don't have a clue. Question agreed to. BILLS 44 BILLS Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022 44

Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 44 12:37 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria When I was speaking before on the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022, I was talking about myocarditis. I've been speaking about this since I first stepped into this place. It is six to 28 times as common after the COVID vaccine as after COVID infection in males between 16 and 24 years of age. It is critical that a system of work health and safety derived from this legislation minimises the potential for harm to workers, of course. What we know, and what every employer in the country should know by now, is that mRNA vaccines can cause injuries, and indeed they do: myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell's palsy and neurological conditions. These are serious adverse events that could result in lost-time injury, attributed to mandated workplace mRNA vaccinations. Every workplace must strive for the protection of its workers. Every single workplace must take into account the inherent risk posed by mandating mRNA vaccines. This bill, as it stands, unfortunately fails to address the biggest elephant in the room in relation to workplace health and safety. Let's not let this opportunity go to waste. Let's get that amendment in there. Let's protect people from mandates—although I suspect that many in this place will not do that. 12:39 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'd like to start by thanking senators for their contributions to the debate on the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022. The bill is a first step towards achieving safer and healthier workplaces in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. There is still a long way to go. The bill before us implements some important recommendations from the Review of the Model Work Health and Safety Laws conducted by Marie Boland in 2018. Safe Work Australia undertook extensive tripartite consultation seeking feedback on implementing key recommendations of the Boland review. In June 2022 the model work health and safety law was amended in line with this process. This bill will bring the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act 2011 into line with these updates. There are two changes in particular that I draw to the attention of the Senate. New fault element for category 1 offences: first the bill amends the fault elements for the most serious work health and safety offences to include gross negligence, or negligence to the criminal standard, in addition to recklessness. The Boland review found there have been very few successful prosecutions, in part due to the difficulties associated with proving recklessness. The government is acting on genuine community concerns that employers who put their workers at risk of danger through grossly negligent conduct can escape punishment because the bar for conviction is set too high. Now both reckless and grossly negligent employers who expose workers to serious risk can face the most serious consequences and penalties. The second one is to prohibit insurance for work health and safety penalties. The bill prohibits a person from taking insurance to recover payments made on penalties imposed under work health and safety laws. Having insurance means that you effectively end up in a situation where the penalty is no longer necessarily a disincentive for the employer. The penalty is removed because it's something that has been insured against anyway. We need to make sure that the penalties that are there have an impact on behaviour. Work health and safety offences must remain serious deterrence, and they cannot become a cost of doing business. Those who owe a work health and safety duty should not be able to insulate themselves from the consequences of breaching their duty by putting the safety of their workers and the public at risk. The government is committed to working closely with the states and territories to deliver safe workplaces for all Australians. This bill takes a first step towards achieving safer and healthier workplaces in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. There is still a lot left to do. Australian workers deserve to be able to go to work and come home safely to their loved ones. I thank all senators who have spoken in support of this legislation and I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 45 12:44 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland We have an amendment on sheet 1839 that's not on the run sheet? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 It hasn't been circulated. 12:45 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I move One Nation amendments (1) and (2) on sheet number 1842 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 25, page 9 (line 23), omit ", without reasonable excuse". (2) Schedule 1, item 25, page 10 (lines 2 and 3), omit subsection 272A(2). 12:45 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'm just indicating that the government will be opposing this amendment. 12:46 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In relation to the coalition's position on the amendment, whilst I understand the intent of the amendment, what it will do is mean there are no exceptions to the banning of insurance or indemnity from work health and safety penalties. The coalition can't support the amendment. The reasons being the main object of the Model Work Health and Safety Act is to provide for a balanced and nationally consistent framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces. The amendment would mean that the Commonwealth is actually departing from the concept of the model work health and safety laws. I note that the Victorian government, in their legislation that passed in 2021, and the New South Wales government, in their legislation that passed in 2020, both have used similar wording to what is presented in this bill. On the basis that what we want to see is that national consistency, it is important for employers and employees that we continue to provide the nationally consistent framework of work health and safety laws and regulations. 12:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I moved this amendment because the bill contains a reversal of burden of proof. We cannot accept that. Without that, we're not going to support the bill. Question negatived. 12:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I move the amendment as circulated in my name on sheet 1848: (1) Page 10 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Prohibiting COVID-19 vaccine discrimination Fair Work Act 2009 1 Section 12 Insert: COVID-19 vaccination status means the status of a person relating to whether, and to what extent, the person has been vaccinated against the coronavirus known as COVID-19 (including any subsequent variants of that virus). 2 Subsection 153(1) After "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,". 3 Subsection 195(1) After "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,". 4 Subsection 351(1) After "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,". 5 Paragraph 351(2)(a) Before "not unlawful", insert "for action taken other than because of a person's COVID-19 vaccination status—". 6 Paragraph 578(c) After "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,". 7 Paragraph 772(1)(f) After "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,". 8 Section 789 HB (at the end of the heading) Add "—breastfeeding, gender identity or intersex status". 9 At the end of Part 6-4E Add: 789HC Extension of anti-discrimination rules — COVID-19 vaccination status State referral laws (1) Subsection (3) applies for the purposes of the operation of the provisions identified in subsection (2) in relation to COVID-19 vaccination status. (2) The provisions are as follows: (a) section 153; (b) section 172A; (c) section 195. (3) In applying sections 30H and 30S in relation to that operation of the provisions identified in subsection (2), assume that: (a) the matter to which that operation of those provisions relates is not an excluded subject matter for the purposes of: (i) the State's referral law mentioned in sections 30H and 30S; and (ii) Divisions 2A and 2B of Part 1-3; and (b) the referral of that matter by that referral law results in the Parliament of the Commonwealth having sufficient legislative power for those provisions (to the extent of that operation) to have effect. P rotection against adverse action (4) The provisions identified in subsection (6), as they operate in relation to COVID-19 vaccination status, apply to action taken in a State. Note: Action taken in a State includes action taken by a State public sector employer in a State. (5) For the purposes of the provisions identified in subsection (6), as they operate in relation to COVID-19 vaccination status: (a) a reference to an employee with its ordinary meaning includes a reference to a law enforcement officer of a State or the Northern Territory; and (b) a reference to an employer with its ordinary meaning includes a reference to the Commissioner (however described) of the police service or police force of a State or the Northern Territory; and (c) the Commissioner (however described) of the police service or police force of a State or the Northern Territory is taken to be an employer of law enforcement officers of the State or the Northern Territory, as the case requires. (6) The provisions are as follows: (a) section 351; (b) any other provision of Part 3-1, to the extent the provision relates to section 351. (7) Subsections (4) to (6) apply despite sections 30G, 30R and 337, and do not limit the operation of sections 338 and 339 (which deal with the application of Part 3-1). 10 In the appropriate position in Schedule 1 Insert: Part 14 — Amendments made by the Work Health and Safety Amendment Act 2022 86 Application of amendments (1) Subject to subclauses (2) and (3), the amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Work Health and Safety Amendment Act 2022 apply on and after the commencement of that Schedule. (2) The amendments of section 195 made by that Schedule apply in relation to enterprise agreements made on and after the commencement of that Schedule. (3) The amendments of section 351 made by that Schedule apply in relation to adverse action taken on and after the commencement of that Schedule. I have been in this place, obviously not as long as many of you here have, and I campaigned very strongly on the issue of vaccine mandates. People out there are hurting. People are injured. Despite the fact that the bureaucracy and the government and even some in the opposition would like to cover it up, it can't be covered up for long. A day of reckoning is coming, and you have a chance to be on the right side of history. Start speaking up. Start standing up for the people out there that have been hurt by big pharma. These guys are corrupt. These guys are dodgy. These guys lie to all of us in this place. Admit that you were misled and that you were wrong, and do the right thing. 12:48 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will be opposing this amendment. We believe the Fair Work Act's existing framework provides sufficient protection from COVID-19 vaccine discrimination and strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the rights of workers who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 and protecting public health and protecting the rights of workers vulnerable to being infected with COVID-19 as well. 12:49 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I would like to talk to this amendment, and I start by noting that just this week former prime minister and the member for Cook, Scott Morrison, said that when he was prime minister the advice was that mandates weren't advised in any setting other than health settings. The question is: why do we have mandates and why are employers imposing mandates that weren't actually the advice of the government medical authorities themselves? That in itself shows that these mandates are completely unnecessary. We have also got evidence from the FDA. They themselves admitted in November 2020 that there is no evidence the actual vaccines stopped transmission. We've subsequently found out that they not only didn't stop transmission but haven't stopped infection. What is the purpose of discriminating against people in the workplace if it doesn't actually stop people from getting sick? If you look at the initial outbreak of COVID and COVID generally, the people who were most at risk were older people who weren't working. In the working-age population, where people are healthy, there is a very low risk of actually getting seriously ill from COVID. Why have we gone out and imposed all these draconian mandates, the lockdowns, the border closures and everything like that happened earlier on? Why are we still here in March 2023, two years after the start of the vaccine rollout, imposing these mandates? They are completely pointless. Not only are they completely pointless; they are cruel and unnecessarily because for the last 18 months, from late October onwards, I have daily received messages from people who have been injured by the vaccine. A lot of these injuries are in people who were healthy and young and would not necessarily have become seriously ill from COVID. There are also people who had pre-existing conditions—and I'm referring to Natalie Boyce who had an antiphospholipid condition and was at risk from taking the vaccine because the vaccine uses phospholipids both in its lipid nanoparticle that encapsulates the spike protein, or the mRNA that coats the spike protein, and yet again, when it crosses the cell membrane, the cell membrane is also made up of phospholipid. We know that when these trials were carried out, they weren't performed on people who had immune conditions, so it is a great risk. We're putting healthy working people at great risk by imposing mandates on them. I might add that a lot of these mandates are out of date because a lot of workplaces are saying you can actually still work for them if you've had two shots. There are people who would have got two shots back in August to November 2021, and even if you look at the initial trial data it was only good for about 35 days, so their immunity from the vaccine is no longer relevant anyway. A lot of these mandates are just in place for the sake of imposing power, command and control, rather than actually doing anything substantial. I note that Senator Chisholm said we have proper protections in place around the COVID vaccine. I want to touch on this nonclinical evaluation report yet again, for the umpteenth time, because it seems to me that people in this chamber don't actually want to read it. If you actually read it, you would see how pointless these vaccine mandates are. The one that I think is really important to start off with is that in their trials it was shown that there is an almost similar microscopic lung inflammation observed in both challenge control and immunised animals after peak of infections at day 7, day 8. In other words, they knew from the get-go that there is no difference between those animals that were vaccinated and those animals that weren't. Let's have a look at the risk we're taking here. We know what the risk from COVID is because we have about three years of data now and we know there is a very low risk of people under 60 in the healthy working-age population actually getting seriously ill from COVID. Here's the risk we are taking, if we go on the initial trial data: there was no distribution or degradation data on the antigen-encoding mRNA. In other words, we have gone and used an entirely new form of vaccine and we've coded the mRNA inside the lipid nanoparticle codes for a spike protein. But they never tested how quickly it degrades in the body or how far it travels throughout the body. And that's very, very important, for a couple of reasons, because the normal vaccine will stay in the shoulder, because it's a much, much larger protein. I mean, I know the word gets thrown around a lot—the lipid nanoparticle—but it actually does mean something. It's one billionth—one to the power of negative nine. That is a very small molecule. What that means is that it can cross the endothelium, get into your bloodstream and then travel throughout your body. We know that because this paper shows, on page 44, increases throughout nearly all the body organs. I'll just concentrate on one of them. In women's ovaries, the concentration doubled from day one to day two, and then they stopped the trial. Women are born with only one set of eggs, oocytes, and they get inherited. They're passed on by generation. So, to recklessly impose this on our children is incredibly risky. Yet again, weigh it up against the risks of COVID to children, whom we know have very few ace receptors on their cell, versus the risk of what this can do. And this is the other thing about this product: this product uses transfection. Unlike most natural organisms or molecules in the body, they can cross the cell membrane only with either the use of an enzyme or the use of an ion channel. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator 283596 No, no, no: this vaccine was designed—and this is where the 30 years of research went in—with the lipid nanoparticle to cross the cell membrane without having to use an enzyme or an ion channel. What that showed in here was that you've now got 60 to 80 per cent of infection of all cells in all organs, okay? So your normal vaccine, your antibodies—you'll get the antigens in your shoulder, and your antibodies will come in and they'll kill the foreign body in your shoulder. In this particular pathway, they are giving you a vaccine that travels throughout your body, can enter any cell, and then it'll take over your cell's ribosomes, which are part of the organelles inside the cell, that will produce the protein, a spike protein. That will induce an autoimmune response. It'll create both B cells and T cells. Now, your B cells are okay; they're helper cells—they create antibodies to fight antigens. But your T cells are known as killer cells. They come in and they kill your own healthy cells. Yet again, we're exposing people to this risk that is completely unnecessary. But not only is it completely unnecessary; it's incredibly dangerous if it goes wrong. Now, it won't happen to everyone, because the fact of the matter is that this product had to be stored at negative 70 degrees. We know how much of the mRNA was degraded by the time it left the TGA: about 40 per cent. If you look at the batch results, about 40 per cent of the mRNA had already been degraded by the time it left the TGA. So, I can assure you that by the time it gets on the back of a truck and goes across the Australian roads, or it's sitting in some esky out at Bunnings, most of it's degraded. So, consider yourself lucky if you got it and you didn't get sick. But if you're one of those people who got a proper shot of it—and when I say 'shot of it', that also is a bit of Russian roulette, because they put five doses in one vial—that, again is how risky? Very risky, because fats don't necessarily emulsify evenly. If you read the instructions, you'll know that you've got to sit there and you've got to tip this little vial up and down 10 times, but you can't shake it, because you'll degrade the mRNA, so you've got to do this slowly. Do you think they were doing this slowly in Bunnings when there was a queue for the football? I would doubt it. But if you're unlucky and, say, they don't turn it upside down 10 times and let it emulsify properly, and you just happen to get the fatty bit on top which has got the actual lipid nanoparticle, you could get the hot shot; you could get all five doses in one. Then again, you could also get another random element to this, which is—if you actually read this document—the size of the lipid nanoparticle was between 45 nanometres and 180 nanometres. In other words, there is a variance within that lipid nanoparticle of 450 per cent. I mean, what sort of quality control is this? So, I would ask that people do support this amendment. People have a right to choose what goes into their body and they shouldn't be the playthings of unaccountable pharmaceuticals and bureaucrats. 12:59 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In light of acting minister Senator Chisholm's comments when he mentioned COVID, I wish to note and draw to the Senate's attention that the bill that was passed this morning, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, combined with this bill, makes it impossible to dodge vaccine mandates. I want to draw the attention of the Senate to two points. The first is an article by the Washington correspondent for the Australian, Adam Creighton. The article is headlined '"US helped fund Covid-19": ex CDC director Robert Redfield'. Dr Robert Redfield is a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States. It's supposedly an authoritative body. The article says: Dr Redfield … said … during a House Select Coronavirus Pandemic Subcommittee hearing on "Investigating the Origins of COVID-19" that the deadly coronavirus "more likely was the result of an accidental lab leak"— Whoops! Those conspiracy theorists were right! The article says: The former head of the US Centers for Disease Control has told Congress the US government likely helped fund the development of Sars-Cov2, which he believed leaked from a Chinese lab in late 2019, ultimately killing more than 6 million people globally. …   …   …    Asked by Republican congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis whether "American tax dollars funded the gain of function research that created this virus", Dr Redfield, who was CDC director between 2018 and 2021, replied "I think it did". This is serious stuff. The article goes on to say: "As a clinical virologist I felt it was not scientifically plausible that this virus went from a bat to humans and became one of the most infectious viruses we have for humans … His testimony came a week after revelations the FBI and the US Department of Energy had assessed the lab leak theory—once dubbed a 'conspiracy theory'— where have I heard that before— to be the most likely explanation for the origin of the pandemic. …   …   … Dr Redfield, who was appointed by the Trump administration … said he had been side-lined early on by Dr Fauci— where have I heard his name before— and NIH head Dr Francis Collins— where have I heard her name before— who, Dr Redfield said, wanted to "create a narrative" the virus emerged naturally. It's rubbish. The article continues: The two hours of testimony and questioning by Democrat and Republican representatives of four expert witnesses on Wednesday … centred around private emails from top US scientists to Dr Fauci in late January, which suggested the new virus 'looked engineered'— Senator Babet— and what may have prompted their subsequent about face. On February 4th, four of those scientists among a group of 11, who had convened on a confidential conference call organised by Dr Fauci, from which Dr Redfield— head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention— was excluded, claimed the lab leak idea was not feasible in a draft academic paper that became the "Proximal Origin of Sars-Cov2", published in March. "I didn't know there was a February 1 conference call until the Freedom of Information came out with the emails and I was quite upset as the CDC director that I was excluded," Dr Redfield said. One of the witnesses, Nicholas Wade, both former editor of Nature and senior New York Times science writer, said the media had been "used" to establish the natural origin theory. Like this government has been used. The article continues: He also pointed out the scientists— remember, this is a Democrat— who seemingly changed their mind over the course of a few days later received a US$9 million grant from Dr Fauci's NIAID in May 2020. This is serious stuff. The article continues: Another witness, Dr Jamie Metzl, said the idea the virus emerged from wet markets was never the most logical explanation. …   …   … "I'm a lifelong Democrat. I consider myself a progressive person, but … I couldn't find the justification for the strong arguments, calling people like me, investigating looking into pandemic origins in good faith, conspiracy theorists". This smells. The TGA bill, combined with this bill, enables injection mandates. Let's have a think about who could be the beneficiaries here. On Tuesday I discussed the fact that, 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 42 per cent of Pfizer's drug revenue and 62 per cent of AstraZeneca's. This patent cliff is set to get worse, with another 15 leading drugs—nine of them among the world's top-20 best-selling drugs—due to expire this decade. Pfizer will lose another $15 billion in annual sales. The only way to replace so much revenue is with a whole new class of drug: mRNA—not tested, thought to be dangerous, killing people in this country and globally. We've now seen that drug on the market, through mandates that the federal government drove. The former Prime Minister drove the injection mandates in this country. He bought the injections. He indemnified the states. He gave them to the states and gave them access to the health data that enabled the states to control the mandates. We are looking at something being set up here that is heinous. 13:06 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I rise to speak in favour of the amendment that is going forward here. There was never any justification for mandating the coronavirus vaccine, and that is for the simple reason that there was never any evidence that the vaccine stopped or prevented transmission in a material way. We know that now—we know it from evidence from Pfizer themselves—but we knew that at the time, too. Despite some people's attempt to rewrite history, there was never any evidence presented—for all of its other issues, which Senator Roberts and others have gone into—that the vaccine helped to stop someone from contracting or transmitting the coronavirus disease, and that can be the only reason to mandate a medical treatment or a vaccine for someone. We have various mandates for vaccines in some workplaces. I was subject to one when I worked in a meatworks—I had to get a Q fever vaccine—but those vaccines have been tested and shown to work in that fashion. This one never had been, and I say that as someone who got the vaccination. I'm not arguing against it being of some benefit to some, although I think that was oversold too, but that's not the question here. The question is: should we force some Australians to get a medical treatment to keep their job? It should be a fundamental right in this free country to work to provide for your family. I would've thought my colleagues on the other side would understand that. It is a basic human right to work and earn a living so you can provide for your family. Through these last couple of years, shamefully, this country has denied thousands of Australians that right to work and provide for their family, because they wouldn't take a vaccine that was invented in record time, just in the last few years, and had questions about its side effects, benefits et cetera. There were certainly questions. On top of that, forcing them to get that vaccine came to no benefit to anybody else who had got the vaccine or made a different decision. There was no benefit to anyone else. There was never any evidence of any benefit, and there was no evidence of that at the time. I remember in mid-2021, when we were starting to roll out vaccines here in Australia, Dr Fauci in the United States admitted that the viral load that was evident in people with the vaccine and coronavirus and those without a vaccine and coronavirus was the same. It was exactly the same viral load. We learnt just the other week in the European parliament, through testimony from Pfizer officials, that they never even tested whether or not the vaccine prevented transmission. They never tested it. Presumably health officials knew this. They certainly should have known it—they should have asked. We rely on our health officials to subject major large pharmaceutical companies to appropriate regulation and oversight. We would have expected our health officials to have asked Pfizer: 'Well, we're considering mandates or some government agencies are mandating this vaccine. Does it prevent transmission?' Hopefully they would have asked them that question, and hopefully Pfizer would have been honest in saying that. Why didn't we have that information? Why didn't we get it? Too many people have had their lives destroyed and upturned by government decisions based on wilful ignorance. It is absolutely negligent that our governments, our agencies and large corporations as well have failed to get adequate information about the effects of their own decisions, which have destroyed people's lives in this country. We still have mandates. Most mandates have gone because it's so clear right now—it is absolutely clear—that they had no impact on transmission. We had the omicron outbreak. We were one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, and omicron spread like breeding rabbits through this country. There was nothing stopping it. Certainly the vaccine did not do that. Most mandates have gone, thankfully, despite their terrible impact over the past year. But they still do exist. We still have large companies imposing them. In a space I'm very familiar with, BHP, one of the largest Australian companies, still has a mandate to work at BHP. I know so many who people lost their jobs because of that completely unnecessary restriction. I'm informed Telstra has one in retail—only in retail shops. The office workers are fine apparently. If you're a minimum-wage-earning retail manager in a Telstra shop in Australia you have to be vaccinated. Firefighters in New South Wales have to have the vaccine. I met some of them the other day—terrible stories, painful stories, hearing about people who have dedicated their lives to protect and serve their nation and to protect our livelihoods through some of the most difficult times in our country, during bushfires, and we don't protect them. We haven't protected them. This amendment is our opportunity to rectify that shameful decision that we have made over the past year, or failed to make, in favour of them. This amendment very simply adds to the list of things you cannot be dismissed for or not employed for in the Fair Work Act. You cannot be dismissed for not receiving just the COVID-19 vaccine—not other vaccines, just the COVID-19 vaccine—for the reasons I outlined. Rightly, you cannot be dismissed in this country from your job because of your sex, because of your gender, because of your religion, and you shouldn't be sacked on this basis either. It should be a basic human right in this nation. Voting in favour of this amendment would allow us to rectify a gross injustice that has fallen on so many Australians over the past couple of years. This bill we are debating, the overall bill, is all about improving and protecting the health and safety of workers in our workplaces—an admirable objective. It's a bill that coalition senators support. We should also ensure that we do not have unnecessary regulations and restrictions on people that do not contribute to or help the health and safety of the workplace. Someone's individual decisions around their diet, around their exercise regime, are completely matters for themselves. They should have nothing to do with your employer. Your boss shouldn't tell you how many cheeseburgers you can eat or how many gym sessions you have to do every week. That has nothing to do with them. And a decision to get the COVID-19 vaccine or not falls into those categories. It is something for you to decide for your individual health. It has no impact on someone else—it has no impact on your boss, it has no impact on your work colleagues—so why do we continue to allow a situation where large companies in this country can deny people employment because of their own inability to admit they were wrong? That's the stage we're at right now. We're at the stage of this where people are too proud to admit that they were wrong. They were clearly wrong. I'm confident that these mandates eventually will go. They'll die of neglect at some point. It's just a matter of how many more people are hurt in the interim. Well, let's swallow our pride now. Let's eat some humble pie. We've all make mistakes in the last few years; these are some of the grossest ones. Let's rectify that and ensure we have proper standards in this country to protect people's rights at work. 13:14 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I will start by picking up on some of the comments of Senator Canavan and congratulate him on moving this amendment. I speak in support of this amendment. I thank Senators Rennick, Babet and Roberts for their support for this. What this represents is a moral lifeboat for this chamber. As Senator Canavan has outlined in his oratory, we are seeing the business end of what we saw over the last two years in this country. I come from a lineage of people from the former Yugoslavia. My grandmother, I believe, would have turned in her grave if she had seen what had become of the country that she came to after leaving communist Yugoslavia in the late 1940s. People from the Eastern Bloc would stop me all the time a year ago or 18 months ago and say: 'We fled our country because of this sort of tyranny. We fled our country because of what was happening.' People may laugh at that. They shouldn't, but they may, and those opposite have spent the better part of the last two years simply dismissing these claims as tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theories. None of us have found our tinfoil hats today. Senator Roberts has lost his. Senator Babet has left his in his office. But what you are seeing is people in this chamber who are very serious, who have picked this up early and who've understood the outrage of what has happened. The fact that there was never any justification, as Senator Canavan quite rightly says, for what we saw over the last two years is 100 per cent true. We knew it at the time. Many of us knew it at the time. There is now an opportunity which has afforded itself for people in this chamber to swallow their pride and understand that what they have been party to has been wrong. There was a time in this country when the left of politics, Labor and the Greens, stood for working people. Some of the stories that I've been hearing over the last two years have been nothing short of heartbreaking. I will take the opportunity to let people stand in the shoes of those who have lost their houses, their businesses and in some cases their life savings simply for the heinous crime of refusing—see if you can make this out—to take an experimental therapy which had never been tested. We can hang on the issue that it was provisionally approved by the TGA. Think about what that means. This really wasn't tested at all. That is a fact. We are now seeing incredible instances—coincidences of the highest order—of excess deaths and problems with pregnancies. People have been proven right. I'm sorry to tell you all—you've all been had. The mainstream media have done a number on you like you've never seen before. You've fallen for it. But here's the beautiful thing about this place—we're all ready to forgive; we're all ready to forget. It's time that we moved on and allowed people to get back to work in this country. Senator Canavan outlined earlier, very correctly, that we are living in a world where you can quite rightly not be discriminated against because of your race, gender or a range of other issues. Yet somehow, the decisions you make about your own medical care do not have that kind of protection. It is quite extraordinary that we are still going down this path, particularly when there was never a case for mandates, as we have seen. The Premier of New South Wales, Dominic Perrottet, made this observation last week: … here is no evidence that vaccines in the current environment have any impact at all on transmission of Covid. You are not protecting grandma if you are taking this experimental therapy. You are not protecting your workmates. There was never a case for it. But the good news is this: we've got an opportunity for everyone to right the ship. Take the moral lifeboat and support this amendment. 13:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'll be very brief. At this stage of the pandemic COVID-19 vaccination mandates are not needed, nor are they required, in the overwhelming majority of Australian workplaces and that is a good thing. The Australian people do not want to return to the restrictions we had at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important, however, that medical advice determines whether a vaccination is needed in a particular workplace, whether it is for COVID-19 or any other disease. COVID-19 vaccinations remain an important tool in certain aspects of health care, including in aged and disability care, where there is direct contact between workers and patients who are highly vulnerable to COVID-19. It is important that these sectors are able to be relied on to make decisions about whether a mandate may be necessary, based on medical advice. As such, whilst we note the overwhelming majority of workplaces do not require a COVID-19 vaccination, and that is a good thing, it is important in sectors like health care that they are able to make decisions on whether there should be mandatory vaccinations for their workers, but based on medical advice. 13:19 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise to speak to the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022. I want to start by— Senator McDONALD 123072 Okay. Senator Cash I0M We will hit a hard marker at 1.30. Senator McDONALD 123072 Thank you. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 Thank you, Senator McDonald. I note that you've resumed your seat. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Babet on sheet 1848 be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [13:24]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Walsh)

5 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Canavan, M. J. (Teller) Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

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

 Third Reading 52 13:30 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 53 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Craig, Dr Theresa, Wray, Ms Dalene 53 13:30 Senator 123072 Queensland McDONALD () (): Australian agriculture needs champions, and I'm very proud to acknowledge two such champions here today: Dr Theresa Craig and Dalene Wray. Both were named members in the general division of the Order of Australia this year, a fitting tribute to two women I greatly admire for their work promoting a product we should all get behind: Australian beef. Dr Craig was recognised for significant services to politics and the agricultural industry. She has a PhD in nutrition across all species and specialises in cattle and sheep. She was a member and vice chair of the Queensland Schools Animal Ethics Committee for seven years as well as an author of several publications. Dr Craig is also an adjunct professor with the University of the Sunshine Coast and has filled with distinction multiple executive roles in the Liberal National Party of Queensland. She has also been a key lecturer for the University of New England CRC feedlot course and is a past president of the Agribusiness Association of Australia. For the past 14 years she has owned and operated her own animal nutrition consulting firm. Dalene Wray is a leader in the Australian organic food production movement and has been recognised for her significant service to the organic beef industry as managing director of OBE Organic and chair of Organic Industries of Australia. She is a fierce advocate for food safety and for food security. Dalene grew up on the family's properties in the heart of Queensland's Channel Country and uses a lifetime of experience to promote and sell Australian organic beef to the world. She has managed the company's quickly expanding businesses in South-East Asia and the Middle East, and she's done all of this while also learning to speak Mandarin, French and Spanish and understand Afrikaans. I congratulate both of these outstanding women and encourage them in their efforts to protect and promote our highly valuable meat industry. International Relations: India 53 13:32 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Last week I had the pleasure of meeting with the Indian consul general to Victoria and Tasmania in Melbourne, Dr Sushil Kumar. We had a good discussion, and I learnt more about the important strategic, economic and cultural factors which underpin the vibrant friendship of our two nations. Dr Kumar has only been in the job for about six months, but it was clear to me that he understands Australia and that he appreciates how deeply the Albanese government values the contribution the Indian diaspora make to Australia and Victoria. I was glad to learn that 40 per cent of Australia's Indian diaspora call Victoria home. This is a growing population of some 200,000 people, particularly in growth corridors of the western and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Victorian universities also educate 42,000 Indian university students, which is over one-third of all Indian students in Australia. I suppose this is to be expected from the education state, but I was heartened that young members of the diaspora come to Australia and Melbourne. As a product of a Victorian university, I can understand why. The consul general and I also discussed the federal government's commitment to India under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Minister Wong and Minister Farrell. The India-Australia free trade agreement, championed by Minister Farrell, is a huge step in strengthening our economic bonds. Over 85 per cent of all Australian exports to India are now tariff free, as well as 96 per cent of Indian imports to Australia. The Prime Minister is in India today to reaffirm our commitment to projects like the free trade agreement and the Quad leaders agreement. Our cultural connection to India is about combining the skills, knowledge and expertise of India, Victoria and Australia to achieve outcomes that are enduring and mutually beneficial. That is something I am proud of, and I'm proud that Victoria is leading the way. Workplace Relations 53 13:34 Senator B BFQ South Australia ARBARA POCOCK () (): As Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Care, one issue that has come up repeatedly in our recent hearings around Australia is the way our workplace relations laws are failing those in our community who care for others. We heard a great deal of evidence about the disastrous impact unpredictable hours of work are having on the lives of parents and carers. We also heard personal stories of carers struggling to manage impossible schedules, caught between their boss and their care for children or others. Let me give you one example. Julie is a single mother who works as a casual cleaner. She had consistent shifts through the first two years she worked for her employer. It was a regular work schedule that allowed her to pick up and drop off her young daughter at child care. Her predictable working hours gave her the certainty that she needed to balance her work with being a sole parent. Without warning, her employer dramatically altered her roster, moved her to a different site and placed her on shifts that meant she could no longer rely on her childcare arrangements. Afraid that she might lose her job, she felt unable to challenge the scheduling changes. When she attempted to use a flexible work arrangement to allow her to care for her daughter, her employer rejected it as in conflict with their business interests. For decades, flexibility has been spoken of as a silver bullet in our workplaces, a cure-all for working parents and those looking after others. The reality is in many cases flexible rostering has been centred on the needs of the employer rather than those of the worker juggling work and care. As part of the next tranche of industrial relations reform, the government must restore roster justice for workers ensuring that they have predictable, stable rosters with advance notice and consultation on roster changes. Workers like Julie, caring alone for their kids, should not be forced at short notice to make the impossible choice between caring for their child and putting food on the table. LYONS, Dame Enid AD GBE, TANGNEY, Dame Dorothy Margaret 54 13:36 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Yesterday was International Women's Day, and so many wonderfully diverse events were held here in Canberra. The first one I attended was a very special event at Old Parliament House yesterday morning. That was the long overdue unveiling of two statues of our first female parliamentarians, Dame Dorothy Tangney and Dame Enid Lyons. A huge shout out to my friend and colleague in the other place Nola Marino for her passion, commitment and dedication to realising both of these statutes in the parliamentary triangle—the first statues in the parliamentary triangle of Australian women. I hope the Labor Party will be equally passionate about ensuring there is one of our first female prime minister located there as well. The artist, Ms Johnson, has done a remarkable job of capturing both ladies as they walked into the Old Parliament House together, side-by-side. It was especially lovely to meet the families, the next generation of both families, who are so incredibly and rightly proud of both women. Dorothy was a much loved teacher, and Enid was the mother of 12 children and the wife of a prime minister. They both have very different stories, but what they have in common is their resilience, strength, passion and commitment to make a difference in the lives of other Australians. One of the biggest takeouts for me is the fact that, while both were from different sides of the ideological divide, they walked into Parliament House together and, throughout their careers, they worked very closely and collegially together and they were friends. They worked on all sorts of causes for Australian women and children, and it's an important reminder for all of us here: we are diverse, but together we can do so much. Australian Reading Hour 54 13:38 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise today to speak about Australian Reading Hour and the importance of licorice—literacy—in our daily lives. Literacy is so important to our development, and this begins with our children still in the womb. It helps with our understanding of the spoken word, the written word and the interactions of people and the world around us. Reading helps us to learn about new ideas, escape from reality and look beyond our own experiences. We are so fortunate here in Australia to have such inspiring authors. Last night, at the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Books and Writers event, I had the opportunity to speak to some of those working in this sector. Our publishers spoke about how important it is to support Australian authors, our local publishing houses and our bricks-and-mortar bookstores. I also had the opportunity to meet Rick Morton, who is not only an award-winning Australian journalist but also an author of three non-fiction books. I look forward to sitting down and reading his work that I received last night. We saw firsthand over the last three years how important the arts are in our mental health and to create balance in our lives. The Albanese Labor government is committed to arts in Australia—and not just arts but licorice as well, I might add! This year we announced our Revive cultural policy and the establishment of Creative Australia, which includes Writers Australia. Writers Australia will support the literary sector in Australia, which is so important to allow Australian stories to be told. I encourage everyone today to pick up a book for an hour in celebration of Australian Reading Hour, share our favourite books with our children or enjoy some quiet time with a new read for ourselves. Literacy is the fount of all knowledge. South32 Rottnest Channel Swim 54 13:40 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I love licorice! I want to talk about the South32 Rottnest Channel Swim. It's a 19.7-kilometre open-water swim from Cottesloe Beach in WA to Rottnest Island, held this year on 24 February. I have to tell you, before I get carried away, that it is highly regarded worldwide and one of Western Australia's iconic events. The Rottnest Channel Swim is a 19.7-kilometre open-water swim, as I said. I have participated in the Rottnest Island channel crossing on a number of occasions. I have skippered twice and I have paddled solo three times for my daughter, who has done team events and, I think, about four solo crossings. I have to say that there were no fewer than 2,600 swimmers and, I think, about 1,000-odd boats in the water between Cottesloe and Rotto that day, and I believe there were about 600 people all-up who were involved in volunteering and helping out. I want to take the opportunity to sincerely recognise and thank the Rottnest Channel Swim Association president, Dr Kirsty Bellombra. I couldn't be there this year, because I was home at my place on that beautiful day, 24 February, helping Dr Bellombra's husband babysit my grandchildren. Love you, Kirsty—great effort. Fantastic. There were many records broken. I had the pleasure of going over on the Sunday with the grandkids to see Rottnest still alive, with people walking around Rotto with their numbers still on and with sunburnt noses. There were a few hangovers and all that sort of stuff, but it was a truly amazing weekend. I've said to Kirsty, 'Look, I am retired now, and the odd shark sighting has put me off; I'll put it down to getting a little bit too old,' in response to which she told me I got a reprieve for about seven years while she was having children. She said she's going back next year. I think I'll be one of the volunteers helping on the island. Well done to Kirsty and to all in the Rottnest Channel Swim. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Thank you, Senator Sterle, for your effort. Taxation 55 13:43 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland It's always a pleasure to follow Senator Glenn Sterle, at least in the speaking order as opposed to the ideology. What is it about the Labor Party and franking credits? They are obsessed. They are monomaniacal about franking credits. They're like Captain Ahab chasing the great white whale, Moby Dick. That's what they're like with franking credits. It didn't end well for Captain Ahab. It's not going to end well for the Australian Labor Party. This week we've had disclosed, from the Department of the Treasury, key budget measures on corporate taxation. The cat is out of the bag, and what a mangy, feral little beastie it is. This is what Treasury—not me but Treasury—said in relation to the attack on franking credits in off-market share buybacks: Shareholders who benefit most from the franking credits attached to an OMSBB may argue the policy is effectively a tax increase or a winding back of dividend imputation. Shareholders can argue that, because it is effectively a tax increase or a winding back of dividend imputation. In the context of off-market share buybacks, many Australians rely upon those franking credits. In relation to the franked distributions raised by capital raising, Treasury says, 'There were significant concerns raised by the public.' Rightly so because, again, this is a vague policy. It's uncertain, it's retrospective, it will hobble Australian companies' capital raising measures and it's ill informed. The government should abandon this policy, which will hurt millions of Australians. Local Content Broadcasting 55 13:45 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania It's always a pleasure to follow Senator Scarr, who always enjoys the pleasure of following Senator Sterle, but can I say that I am not as theatrical as Senator Scarr. Australia's new national cultural policy, Revive, commits the Australian government to regulating content on video-on-demand streaming platforms. We have local content rules for broadcast and cable TV, but Australians are increasingly turning to video-on-demand services for their entertainment, where no such rules apply. Local content rules are important for jobs in our local screen production industry, particularly when it is competing against industries and countries that protect their own local content, but local content rules are about so much more than that. They are also about telling Australian stories to Australian audiences so we can celebrate and preserve our cultural and national identity. I'm a big fan of shows like Mystery Road and, wait for it, Bluey and I want to see more content that reflects the culture and society I live in. Having local content rules for streaming services will bring Australia into line with the EU, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal and Poland. The new local content rules will start on 1 July next year. We need to make decisions on questions such as the design of the scheme, what defines a video-on-demand streaming service and what types of investment are acceptable in meeting Australian content obligations. To inform these decisions, we are consulting with the streaming industry and other stakeholders. Submissions on this consultation close on 24 April, and the details are on the website of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. I encourage anyone with an interest in the scheme to get involved. I'm proud to be part of a government that is moving forward with ensuring that we maintain a strong local screen production industry, and that Australian stories can continue to be told to Australian audiences. Defence 55 13:47 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Right now, the most powerful forces in the media—the weapons industry and the political class—are baying for war, and we should all be alarmed. Twenty years ago the world went to war on a lie. This followed a concerted campaign from these very same groups to send the US and its allies, including Australia, into a devastating and ultimately failed war with Iraq, from which the Middle East and much of the world has never recovered. We are approaching the 20th anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq, and we should learn from what happened. Nine Entertainment's newspapers have put together a hand-picked panel of academics and defence industry insiders, many with ties to the defence industry, who this week have launched an extraordinary campaign for war with China within three years. There's not one voice of moderation, not one critic of the pro-war agenda—not one. This is a real failure to represent the views and perspectives of the great majority of Australians and the array of academics and strategists who do not want war. It raises the question: so who does? Nine's campaign is timed ahead of the Defence Strategic Review and a major announcement on nuclear submarines, and appears to be a concerted campaign to change public opinion in favour of a march to war and a dramatic escalation in defence spending. The panel has said that Australia's defence spending as a proportion of GDP should double from two per cent to four per cent. Our annual defence budget is already $48.6 billion, and we're not in a war. That's 97 times the amount this government is planning on spending on new homes in a housing crisis. Australia has so much to lose from a war with a major nuclear power in our region. We have far more to lose than the US, but there are arms manufacturers and defence insiders out there who want to make an even bigger killing. War is not inevitable, and we need to resist it now more than ever. The New York Times ultimately apologised for its warmongering in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. Twenty years on, we need an urgent reminder of that lesson. We don't want another apology. We need to stop another war. Assange, Mr Julian Paul 56 13:49 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My colleague Senator Shoebridge and I and the other parliamentary friends of Assange group met today with Julian Assange's father, John Shipton, and his lawyer, Stephen Kenny. We also heard from his partner, Stella, who talked to us about her despair about the lack of action from the Australian government to release Julian Assange. We've learned today that our Prime Minister will meet with both the UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, and, for the first time, with President Biden next week. Prime Minister, will you finally raise this issue directly with our allies and counterparts? Will you raise the release of Julian Assange? You have come out and said you think enough is enough and you believe that he should be freed. The test will be whether you raise this directly with President Biden next week. I ask the Prime Minister to make a statement following that meeting on whether you did raise this issue, and I urge the Australian media to hold our Prime Minister to account. We've heard from this government since the election nearly nine months ago that quiet diplomacy was necessary for the release of Julian Assange. We've let this run. It's nine months down the track, we've heard nothing and his family are despairing. Enough is enough, as you said, Prime Minister. Now is the time to raise this directly with President Biden and make sure this Australian citizen, who is a hero to so many, is finally freed. After four years of incarceration in a maximum security prison and after nearly 14 years in confinement, he's yet to be found guilty of any crime. There's no crime in telling the truth. There is a crime in keeping Mr Assange behind bars. St Marys Camel Farm, Tasmania 56 13:51 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Sometimes words like 'passion' and 'entrepreneurship' can be overused, but I can't think of any better words to describe Ros and Jeff Wallace. The pair are the brains behind the St Marys Camel Farm, a labour of love that oozes from every corner of every timber-clad shed on their property at Fairview. The St Marys Camel Farm—and I bet you didn't know there were camels in Tasmania—was born from the couple's twin interests in accessibility and camels. When you listen to Ros talking about camels you can hear the passion in her voice and her love for the largely misunderstood creatures. While you might think that Tasmania and camels are an extremely odd couple, let me tell you: it works. The St Mary's Camel Farm was born as an accessible tourism venture that the Wallaces ran adjacent to their work in disability support—along the lines of equine therapy or riding for the disabled, but camel style. Clients would come in for therapy time with the animals, which are surprisingly gentle and friendly despite their size. However, as so many tourism- and people-focused operations were required to do, they were faced with needing to pivot quickly when the pandemic struck. With lockdowns looming and an increase in fear in the immunocompromised, it looked like they would immediately lose their client base. So the pair got to work, and in December 2021 the St Mary's Camel Farm opened to the public. The St Mary's Camel Farm has six animals and they recently welcomed a gorgeous baby calf, Damper, to their caravan or herd of camels. And while camels are most often associated with the deserts of Egypt, the camels at St Marys have adapted quite well. Their favourite treat is the Australian breakfast staple Weet-Bix. Not only that, but the St Marys Camel Farm has cultivated its own community and has become an important place of connection for the town, with the farm hosting an annual Christmas party for the community, along with other events. Their mateship, fellowship and ingenuity deserves recognition. World Health Organization 57 13:53 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Last year the Albanese government continued the Morrison government's campaign to sign away Australian sovereignty to the United Nations World Health Organization, the WHO. Despite the attempt failing, WHO's power grab is ongoing. The WHO is not independent. Their owners are corporate donors who contribute most of the WHO budget. WHO's current sugar daddy is Bill Gates, who has made billions out of his investment in the same vaccines that WHO promotes. Gates bought the WHO and they now recommend his products. It is that simple. The head of the WHO is Tedros Ghebreyesus, who was previously the health minister of a terrorist organisation called the Tigray People's Liberation Front and used international aid to buy power and punish his enemies. The regions of Ethiopia that Tedros starved of medical supplies suffered disastrous cholera epidemics in 2006, 2009 and 2011. Independent investigators found Tedros was 'fully complicit in the terrible suffering and dying that continues to spread in East Africa.' He's a killer. WHO is rotting from the head. Last week, Associated Press reported on the WHO sex crimes scandal, where WHO staffers sexually exploited girls and women during the Congo's recent Ebola outbreak—inhuman. At least 83 WHO staff engaged in abuse, including rape and forced abortions, with victims as young as 13. WHO refused to fire the perpetrators, using the absurd argument that their actions didn't violate WHO's sexual exploitation practice policies because the victims were not receiving WHO aid; the raping part is okay with Tedros. This the person who heads an organisation that many in government and academia want to elevate above the Australian parliament. One Nation rejects the UN-WHO power grab and will defend Australia's sovereignty. So should you all. National Reconstruction Fund 57 13:55 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Today we celebrate a huge win for manufacturing, for the regions and for the climate. The Greens have ensured that the National Reconstruction Fund will not be used to fund coal and gas or native forest logging. The guardrails that we have put in place mean that no public money will flow to coal and gas corporations. The amendments that The Greens have secured will ensure that the National Reconstruction Fund will be focused on creating high-quality jobs across a diverse economy, particularly in regional Queensland. The coalition tried to use public money to fund coal and gas through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, but they were unable to do so because of the guardrails that the Greens and Labor put in place. Now we have the same assurance that the NRF won't be used to fund the climate crisis. Last year the Greens took a policy to the federal election, championing a manufacturing fund that genuinely rebuilds Australian industry. As a unionist, I will continue to champion a future for manufacturing with well-paid and secure jobs. Under the coalition, we have watched as manufacturing in this country as been kneecapped into a pure 'dig it up and ship it out' economy. Australia deserves a better deal, and the regions deserve a better deal too. Coming from Gladstone, I know all too well who really loses out when a government doesn't plan for the future. When industry collapses it can take out services, jobs and, with it, the connective tissue from which community grows. This is why I have introduced a bill for a national energy transition authority so that communities have a say as they transition away from coal and gas. This is what The Greens are in parliament to do. As a senator from regional Queensland, I am here to ensure our communities are put first, not the coal and gas corporations. Wagin Woolorama 57 13:57 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise today to speak about the 50th anniversary of the Wagin Woolorama. Agricultural shows are the lifeblood of small regional communities, and I think—I might be a little bit biased—the Wagin Woolorama is one of the best, if not the best going around. The people in Dowerin might have a go at me for that, but the Wagin Woolorama is a special show. Wagin itself is the heart of the Western Australian sheep industry. The Wagin Woolorama is such an important two days for that small community, and the fact that we have finally reached, with a slight delay, the 50th anniversary of celebrating the Wagin Woolorama is a great testament to that local community. Regional shows, country shows, are community driven. They are extraordinary centres of economic progress for communities. They bring communities to life. They bring new people into communities. They bring exhibitors from the city and from other country areas. They allow the community itself to come together and to celebrate what makes those communities great. What makes the Wagin Woolorama so great is the sheep industry. The sheep industry is centred in that region. Kojonup, Katanning, Nyabing, Wagin—so many small country towns in regional Western Australia are built on the sheep's back, just as Australia was in the 1960s. We've got a dark cloud hanging over that industry at the moment, but at the Wagin Woolorama we're going to see that that community is ready for a fight, ready to stand up for Western Australian sheep farmers, ready to do whatever they can to keep the sheep industry alive. Queensland: Storms 58 13:59 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland While parliament has been sitting this week, the top end of my home state, Queensland, has been experiencing heavy rain, showers and storms as a monsoon trough lingers over the tropics. Yesterday and overnight, the severe weather has been concentrated in the north-west Gulf Country, northern goldfields, Upper Flinders and Central West districts of the state. Today, as the trough moves further south, heavy rainfall will continue to impact Queensland. I want to thank the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Murray Watt, who assures me that the government continues to monitor the situation closely. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Green. The time for two-minute statements has expired. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 58 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Kitching, Senator Kimberley Jane Elizabeth 58 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the column written by former Labor state secretary and former Labor chief of staff Cameron Milner in the Australian today marking the anniversary of the tragic death of our former colleague Kimberley Kitching. Is Mr Milner correct that there still has not been an investigation into allegations of workplace bullying? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm going to ask for order and I expect there to be order. 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This week is the anniversary of Senator Kitching's passing. I would express again that our thoughts are with her loved ones as that anniversary approaches. It is as I said in the condolence speech. I think I and many others in this place understand what it is to lose someone you love and how anniversaries are difficult. Senator Kitching was someone who was deeply interested in Australia's place in the world, and I believe she would be very proud of what this Labor government is doing. She's greatly missed by many, including many of her colleagues, and by her family. I have responded to these matters at length previously, including the question you raised, and I'd refer you to those answers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:01 Senator BIR H6X South Australia MINGHAM (—) (): Will the Prime Minister act on Mr Milner's call for an open and independent investigation into the bullying claims? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I said in my earlier answer I've responded, as has the Prime Minister, prior to the election, to these matters and I'd refer you to those answers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? 14:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Can the minister please put on the record: why has the Prime Minister refused to undertake an open and independent investigation? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia These matters were traversed in great detail prior to the election, including publicly, and I would refer you to the many answers which were given. Medicare 58 14:02 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on how the government is delivering on its commitment to establish 50 Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia to improve access to health care for all Australians? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Payman, and thank you very much for the question and the opportunity to talk about something that Australians are deeply interested in, which is the strength of the Australian healthcare system and, in particular, the Medicare system. Australians expect and deserve access to quality and affordable health care. That is what our government and those on this side are seeking to deliver because we are the party of Medicare. We have always supported Medicare, unlike those opposite who we know historically opposed Medicare and have had to, grudgingly, over the years, start to tell people that they actually support it, because they knew it was politically unsustainable for them to continue to oppose it. Four decades on, the party that created Medicare is strengthening it. We promised at the election that we would deliver 50 Medicare urgent care clinics and we are delivering. Expressions of interest have opened. The first of the clinics will be treating patients this year. They will offer bulk-billed services and open for extended hours. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU You hate this, don't you? You really hate Australians getting access to better health care. The fact that people actually believe that a public health system is a good thing—it's anathema to the Liberal Party, isn't it? They don't want to know how this government is strengthening it. And let's remember that this is the party that was led by a man who cut $50 billion from hospitals. Peter Dutton, as health minister, cut $50 billion from hospitals, tried to introduce a $7 GP tax and secretly launched— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Cash and Senator Ruston! Senator WONG 00AOU Our 50 urgent-care clinics will help take the burden off public hospitals. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a first supplementary question? 14:05 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Can the minister update the Senate on how the Albanese government is working with states and territories to strengthen access to primary care? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Payman, for the question. We on this side understand that the pandemic made clear that governments need to work together to deliver the care Australians deserve. That's why our government committed $100 million to co-develop and pilot innovative ways to improve care with states and territories. In Queensland the government is using the funding to expand its Care Collective initiative. This will improve coordination in the health system, specifically for people living with chronic and complex healthcare needs. In Western Australia the nurse practitioner and team based care pilot will fund 20 nurse practitioners over two years, who will work with other— Senator WONG 00AOU I'll take the interjection from the other side. I would have thought you'd be interested in what's happening in Western Australia and Queensland, but clearly not. These practitioners will work with other health professionals to diagnose and treat a wide range of health conditions, and their services will be free. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a second supplementary question? 14:06 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Can the minister update the Senate on how else the government is delivering on its commitment to strengthen Medicare after 10 years of neglect and mismanagement by the Liberals and Nationals? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator. The government is strengthening Medicare, which is required after nine years of cuts and neglect, and we've set up the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce to help better support patients who have ongoing and chronic illness. We have already committed $750 million to deliver the highest-priority investments in primary care in line with the recommendations of the task force. But, after a decade of failure, there is a lot of work to do, because those opposite left Australians with $1 trillion of debt and nothing to show for it: hospitals left under strain, medical staff exhausted, the bulk-billing system on the verge of collapse and out-of-pocket costs skyrocketing. Well, I suppose we should expect nothing better from a man who was described as 'Australia's worst health minister', Mr Dutton—Australia's worst health minister. This is the man who now leads Mr Morrison's Liberal leftovers—that's the opposition of today— (Time expired) Superannuation: Taxation 59 14:08 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday the Assistant Treasurer could not rule out that if a family farm is an asset in a self-managed super fund the owners could be forced to pay tax on that farm if it increased in value during a particular financial year. Minister, can you confirm that your government is proposing to tax super fund assets such as the family farm where there has only been an increase in its value on paper? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Brockman for the question. I've answered this a number of times this week. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, I have. You have asked the same question a number of times. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt! I've just sat the minister down because there are too many interjections. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. Yes, I have been asked this. I've been asked it in various ways. Senator Ruston 243273 We've asked but you haven't answered. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, I have. Superannuation is based on individual accounts. If your account has more than $3 million in it, of which we know is a very small part of the overall numbers of superannuation accounts, then we are increasing or decreasing the concessional arrangements on those high balance accounts, right? So if you have an asset in your super account, you are still required, under the prudential arrangements, to have a diversified portfolio, and you earn income that tips you over the $3 million threshold, then you will pay a concessional rate of 30 per cent instead of 15 per cent on the earnings over $3 million. This would cover people who have a farm as part of their asset or it might include other property that they might have in their super funds. That is the answer I give. That is the answer I've given all week. And that is the position we've taken through these super changes. But I would note, again, that the average super balance in this country is $150,000. To have a dignified retirement is in the order of $565,000. That is what superannuation is for, to allow for a dignified retirement. This is making a modest change— (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm going to wait for quiet. I have the senator on his feet. Senator Brockman, first supplementary. 14:11 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia () (): Thank you, Minister, for that one minute and 30-second yes. The Assistant Treasurer recently likened the $3 trillion in superannuation funds in Australia as honey, which he wants to spread around for the good of the hive. Do you believe that accounts are the property of the individual account holder or do you agree with the Assistant Treasurer that they are a honeypot for the government— (Time expired) 14:12 Senator GALLAG ING Australian Capital Territory HER (—) (): I think I got the gist of it. Superannuation— Senator Cash I0M It's not the gist, it's people's money! Senator McKenzie 207825 Honestly, if you had been able to choose— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. I'm going to wait until the interjections have stopped, from both sides of the chamber. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. Superannuation accounts are individual accounts owned by individual members, which are subject to taxation as they currently are. Superannuation currently has tax arrangements that apply to it. The change that we are making is for a very small amount of people who are fortunate enough to have more than $3 million in their accounts that they pay a concessional rate of 30 per cent on earnings over $3 million. It's a very modest change to the arrangements that have been put in place. As people in this place know, superannuation is based on individual accounts. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, on a point of order? Senator H6X The minister spent 95 per cent of her answer responding to, really, the primary question still and the general thesis around the government's superannuation changes. On relevance: the supplementary question went specifically to the words of the Assistant Treasurer, which she should reject, that it is not a honeypot to be spread around the nation. The PRESIDENT 112096 As I understand the question, it did have the honey definition in it. The senator was also asked directly if superannuation accounts were individual, so I believe she's being relevant, but I will continue to listen. Minister? You've finished. Senator Brockman, a second supplementary? 14:14 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Minister, yesterday in question time, when asked to categorically rule out any further changes to the superannuation taxation system in this parliament, you said, 'The government has made it clear this is the only change to superannuation taxation during this term.' Considering during the 2022 election campaign Mr Albanese said, 'We've said we have no intention of making any changes to super,' how can the Australian people trust the commitment you gave yesterday? 14:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My answer yesterday was correct, and I stand by that answer. I would say that the Australian people realise that they have a government that's making responsible and difficult decisions after we inherited a budget mess from those opposite—that is what the Australian people think. They want a government that shows up, that deals with the challenges, that explains the decisions we take and why we take them. We're taking them because we've got a $50 billion structural budget problem in this country. We have $1 trillion in debt that was the debt that was doubled before the pandemic hit. We've got increasing pressures on our budget, including in national security and defence, in health and in hospitals and in aged care. In all of those areas we have increasing pressures. Unlike you, we don't think the budget is this magic pudding that you can use for yourselves without explaining it. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Workplace Relations: Silicosis 61 14:16 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is for Minister Watt, representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The federal government and Safe Work have been on notice about the deadly health impacts posed by manufactured stone since at least 2019, when the matter was canvassed extensively in a New South Wales parliamentary inquiry and by the press. We know too many workers are dying slow, painful deaths from silicosis. Recognising that it took us too long to act on James Hardie, why does Safe Work still say that high-silica manufactured stone can be used safely and still refuse to support a ban on this deadly product? 14:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. I know this is an issue you've had a longstanding interest in, as have many of us who've been concerned about worker safety, particularly in the construction industry where this applies most. I agree with you, Senator Shoebridge, that this is something that should have been dealt with a long, long time ago. A lot of people have been on notice that this is a problem and is a very serious health risk. I've heard it referred to as the asbestosis of this generation, and that is certainly what it looks like. And that's exactly why our government is taking action to finally fix this once and for all. As you would probably be aware, Senator Shoebridge, in late February—28 February this year—Minister Burke, as the responsible minister, met with work health and safety ministers to consider Safe Work Australia's decision regulation impact statement to better manage the risks of silica dust within the workplace. At that meeting, ministers unanimously agreed to a national approach to dealing with the spike in silicosis and silica related diseases in workers from harmful exposure of respirable crystalline silica. Ministers agreed to a range of reforms as a priority, based on recommendations from Safe Work Australia. These recommendation included the delivery of national awareness and behaviour-change initiatives, stronger regulation of high-risk crystalline silica processes for all materials across all industries and further analysis and consultation by Safe Work on a prohibition on the use of engineered stone under the model workplace health and safety laws, including consideration of a licensing scheme for legacy and nonprohibited projects to be completed within six months. Ministers also noted the Commonwealth's intent to explore an importation ban on engineered stone and its effects. Minister Burke's department is now working with states and territories and other stakeholders as part of the scoping work. We recognise the need to act quickly, and ministers will meet again to discuss silicosis as soon as practicable after Safe Work completes its work. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary? 14:18 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, the main provider of manufactured stone in Australia, Caesarstone, is a foreign corporation with no significant assets in the country and since September 2020 has been unable to get insurance coverage for silicosis related claims in Australia, while it's also facing dozens and dozens of claims from sick and dying Australian workers. What guarantee do you give to workers who become sick after working with this product that they will not be left high and dry if Caesarstone exits the market? 14:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said, a range of issues concerning silicosis and the threat that it poses to workers in the construction industry, including those who have unfortunately contracted silicosis, are exactly the issues that Minister Burke is dealing with at the moment. I understand that you're seeking an assurance or some information about what will happen to workers who become sick, if Caesarstone were to exit the market. I'm not briefed on that precise matter but I'm happy to provide you with some information about that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Mr Shoebridge, your second supplementary? 14:19 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I note the statements about taking action and to some extent that's positive. But the best estimates we're hearing from the minister is this could be six to 12 months before a ban is put in place. What do you say to the families of those workers who are getting sick now, waiting for a ban to finally happen and being told, again, we're going to the beat of safe work, it's too hard to do it now and that industry controls are sufficient? (Time expired) 14:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't think that anyone, or certainly no-one within our government, is saying that the current controls are sufficient. That's exactly why Minister Burke is leading this work nationally involving all state and territory ministers. It is not just unfortunate but a grave dereliction of duty from the former government to have been in power for nearly 10 years, while this information was publicly available, and done nothing about it. Within the first 12 months of our government we are actually taking action. What I say to the families of those workers who are getting sick now is that they do now have a government in the Albanese Labor government who takes these issues seriously and is actually taking action. Senator Henderson ZN4 That is a disgraceful thing to say! Senator WATT 245759 Senator Henderson, it would have been good if you'd spoken up at some point—at any point—while you were in government to ensure that this was done. Now that we are in government we are taking action on it and the sooner that that can happen the better. International Students 62 14:21 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Watt. Can the minister outline why international education is important to our economy and to building relationships with other countries? 14:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Bilyk. I know you're a very strong supporter of the international education industry in your home state of Tasmania and right around the country. A strong international education sector is an important contributor to the Australian economy. It's in fact the biggest export that we don't dig out of the ground. But of course this industry was absolutely smashed by COVID. In 2019 international education contributed over $40 billion to the Australian economy and supported over 250,000 jobs. The pandemic saw that fall to $20.8 billion in 2021-22, so it nearly halved. International education has recently returned to being Australia's fourth biggest export industry, now worth $25.5 billion, but obviously there's still a very large gap to where we were before COVID-19 came along. International education also plays a role in filling Australia's skill needs, with high-quality graduates trained to Australian standards. Our government's work to reduce the visa backlog—another mess we inherited from the former government—and increase post-study work rights will help attract the best and brightest to Australian shores. International students are starting to come back and that's a very good thing, but there is a lot more work to be done here. That's why the work that the Minister for Education Jason Clare has done, and the Prime Minister is doing in India right now, is so important. International education directly progresses Australia's interests in a stable and prosperous future for our region. The deep and enduring connections that result from international students studying and living in Australia brings more than revenue; it builds us friends in the region and beyond. International students help to strengthen Australia's international relationships. They are an invaluable part of Australian communities, bringing new perspectives, ideas and skills to enrich the cultural fabric of our society. Education plays a key role in building cultural diversity and people-to-people links around the world. It also ensures regional stability. They're some of the many reasons why our government is supporting it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, your first supplementary? 14:23 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Can you provide an update on what the Albanese government is doing to strengthen higher education ties with India? 14:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, I can, Senator Bilyk. As you would be aware, our government takes the relationship between Australia and India very seriously and that is a strong and important relationship for our future. I know that's certainly the case in my own portfolio of agriculture. The recently signed free trade agreement with India opens lots of new markets for agricultural producers in India, but I think that education is also a big part of the reason why this relationship is continuing to grow. The Prime Minister's announcement overnight that Deakin University will be the first overseas university approved to build a campus in India is proof of the strength of our relationship, and I'm sure all Victorian senators, in particular, are very proud of that. Senator Ciccone 281503 Hear, hear! Senator WATT 245759 Thank you, Senate Ciccone. The Minister for Education's visit last week to sign the new mutual recognition agreement is further proof of that. It delivers an immediate benefit to the hundreds of thousands of Indians with Australian qualifications and to anyone with Australian and Indian qualifications that wants to continue their higher education. This agreement was the broadest that India has signed with another country. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, your second supplementary? 14:25 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Minister, what are the benefits to Australia of the work the Prime Minister is doing on higher education in India? 14:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you Senator Bilyk. I will just clear my throat as Senator Farrell is wont to do. Our relationship with India presents massive opportunities for Australia, both for our economy and for the people with the links it generates. The Indian government has a plan to increase its higher education enrolments to 50 per cent of young people by 2035. The quality of our universities and the strength of our relationship has led India to ask for our help in getting this huge undertaking done. Following recent visits, we will see more Australian education providers established in India. The University of Wollongong and Deakin University have committed to establishing campuses in Gujarat and will be education partners for the many companies operating in Gift City and surrounds. RMIT University and the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, signed an agreement, and there are 11 memoranda of understanding signed between Australia universities and Indian counterparts. We're going to do a lot more in this space. It's really important. (Time expired) National Reconstruction Fund 63 14:26 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science. I believe it's Senator Watt. The Albanese government has earmarked up to $3 billion from the National Reconstruction Fund for investment in renewables and low-emissions technologies. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation's investment mandate for its $10 billion is to invest in 'renewable energy, low-emissions and energy efficiency projects and technologies'. My question is: what can the National Reconstruction Fund's $3 billion for renewables invest in that the CEFC can't already invest in? 14:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. As I understand it, you are yet to finalise your position in relation to the National Reconstruction Fund, so I hope that the information I provide you can convince you that this is something worth getting behind. From the little I know about you—we haven't spent a lot of time together—I know that you're a big supporter of manufacturing, particularly in your home state of Tasmania, and the National Reconstruction Fund will be a key way to take manufacturing in that great state forward. I know Senator Urquhart has a lot of history in Tasmanian manufacturing. I'm sure, Senator Tyrrell, you will support that as well when we come down to it. The short answer to your question, Senator Tyrrell, is that the National Reconstruction Fund is going to be very focused on manufacturing. A good example of that in the renewable space might be a smelter, whether it be in Bell Bay or anywhere else in Tasmania, or another manufacturing facility that might wish to change its energy sources to become more reliant on renewable energy as a way of reducing their energy costs. That is the type of thing for which we would expect a company would be able to apply to the National Reconstruction Fund for co-investment. If the right rate of return is available, then the NRF would be able to support that. It's a bit different to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, I guess, because that is much more focused on funding new innovation in the renewable energy space. It's around the production of renewable energy and how we can do that through new and innovative means. The National Reconstruction Fund is much more focused on manufacturing facilities, how to upgrade them, how to bring more value adding and how to reduce their energy costs; whereas the CEFC is more about how we can develop more renewable energy which could then be used to supply manufacturing facilities. As I say, Senator Tyrrell, we think it will make a massive difference to manufacturing in our country and in your state of Tasmania, so I do hope that when it comes time for the vote you will support us. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, your first supplementary? 14:29 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The Medical Research Endowment Account is investing $3.5 billion in health and medical research. The $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund invests in commercialising those new medical technologies. Can the minister give an example of the National Reconstruction Fund's $1.5 billion for medical science can invest in that the government's other investment vehicles can't already invest in? 14:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Tyrrell. My understanding, bearing in mind I'm the representing minister, is that the answer is essentially the same. If what I'm about to say is not entirely correct, I'm obviously happy to give you the precise information later. My understanding is that, just as with clean energy, the National Reconstruction Fund will be focussed on medical manufacturing—whether that be the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, of medical devices, of vaccines or the actual manufacturing process and how that can be done more efficiently, generating more jobs and more profits in states like yours—whereas the medical research fund that you were talking about is more focused on funding the research for discovery of new vaccines, of new medicines and things like that rather than actually manufacturing them. I guess the National Reconstruction Fund can take those discoveries one step further and, rather than having a great medical discovery here in Australia that then get manufactured overseas, we can make more things here in Australia, which we agree with. Unfortunately, there are a few people over there who don't. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:30 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The Albanese government has earmarked a further $1 billion from the NRF towards advanced manufacturing, and a separate $1 billion for critical technologies. But your critical technologies list includes advanced manufacturing as a category of critical technology—it's the first category. You've decided to set up separate buckets of money for different things, but a dollar spent in the first counts as a dollar spent in the second. Do you see how that may be confusing? 14:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. Again, I might need to get a little bit more information to fully answer your question, but my understanding is that the critical technologies list is under review. It hasn't been finalised. There is obviously a consultation process that it's been going through in the creation of this fund. The settling of guidelines as to the types of things that it can be used to invest in. I'm sure that if there is any lack of clarity there, that will be tidied up through the review process. While I am on my feet though, I do want to point out that this is going to be a really important vote for our country when we come to vote on this legislation. I'm pleased to see that the Greens have now announced that they will be supporting that legislation. I think the crossbench are still working out their position, and we'd be happy to work with you on that. There are actually two groups, the Liberals and the Nationals, who are completely opposed to this. And for all the time they run around dressing in high-vis pretending to care about manufacturing and smearing a bit of grease on their face, when it comes to the crunch, they vote against it. That's a disgrace, and they should hang their heads in shame. (Time expired.) Superannuation: Taxation 64 14:32 Senator O 283585 Western Australia ' SULLIVAN (—) (): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. On Monday this week, in response to a question from Senator Bragg, you said: Because of the nature of defined benefits, they will be included in the scheme, and we announced that when we announced the measure. … We expect that the changes will definitely cover defined benefit schemes, and there are a couple of areas that we are going to consult on and that we want some industry advice on. Can the minister confirm that veterans who are eligible to access a defined benefit scheme will be caught up in Labor's new super tax? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Because I've been dealing with these questions all week, I would point out to the chamber that the coalition closed the defined benefit superannuation scheme for the military in 2015, but we have been clear that defined benefit schemes will be part of this change. We said that when we announced it, and we will consult with the sector on implementation. I welcome the opportunity to go through it, and I might start with the member for Hume's comments which relate to high-balance accounts back in 2016. He said: Well, it's very simple … We need a fairer superannuation system which has integrity, and this means that those of us who can afford to pay, should be paying our fair share. He said the situation we had was: Some people were contributing millions of dollars into super and it's totally inappropriate that someone who's contributed millions and millions of dollars continues to get— fifteen per cent concessions. An honourable senator: Who said that? Senator GALLAGHER ING That was the member for Hume in 2016, and now we've got a sensible, modest, responsible change that deals with fairness and equity in the superannuation system. Those opposite, the party of the member for Hume, all of a sudden are going to die on a hill for a less concessional arrangement for the 0.5 per cent of people who are fortunate enough to have more than $3 million in their super accounts. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume! Senator GALLAGHER ING That is the state of the Liberal Party: as we work towards some sensible budget repair, some modest changes, the 'no-alition' are making themselves irrelevant, saying no. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Hume, your constant interjections are disorderly, and I called you to order a number of times. I expect you to come to order. Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary? 14:35 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Minister, given your answer, will you rule out applying the tax to veterans who accessed the defined benefit scheme prior to 2015? 14:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The policy that we've announced and that will be reflected in the budget applies to the 0.5 per cent of people who have more than $3 million in their superannuation account. Now, we are looking at how we apply it to defined benefit schemes. H onourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING We are looking at how we do it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong and others! Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING As I said earlier this week and as I've just repeated, we've been clear that we want this to apply to defined benefit schemes as well. If you are fortunate enough to have $3 million in your super account, we think that applying a less concessional arrangement—still highly concessional but just less than is currently available, so 30 per cent instead of 15—to raise a very modest $2 billion when it's fully operational, to contribute to budget repair— (Time expired) The PRESIDE 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, second supplementary? 14:36 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Thank you for that very revealing answer. Why is Labor, therefore, going after veterans and attempting to tax them on earnings that they won't receive until they retire? The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm waiting for order before I call the minister, Senator Wong. 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The average super balance in this country is $150,000. That is the average super balance in this country. For women it is less than that: the average superannuation balance is $140,000. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong! Senator ING We are not going after anyone. We are implementing a sensible change. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I wish you got so exercised about all the other issues facing the country. The state of the budget that we inherited, for example, might be one of them—helping fund some of those pressures that we've inherited, with all of those zombie measures that you left there for years propping up your budget, your terminating measures. What about energy bill relief? Why didn't you care about that? You voted no. We were here— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Order! Order! Order! Minister Gallagher, this is the second time this week that this chamber has been so disorderly you have not heard me say, 'Order!' a number of times. It's question time. It is disorderly and disrespectful to continue to call out and to call out so loudly that my saying, 'Order!' is drowned out. It's question time. I expect senators to respect that. COVID-19: Vaccination 66 14:39 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Minister Gallagher. We meet again, Minister Gallagher. Last time we conversed in this chamber, you said in relation to COVID-19 vaccines: It's not just an individual decision. This is the thing. It's not just about an individual's decision and keeping yourself safe; it's keeping other people safe from this virus—people who aren't able to be as protected as some of us. It's actually a community responsibility to be vaccinated. You also repeated this during Senate estimates. Minister, can you please advise what evidence you have relied upon to justify your statements regarding mRNA vaccinations and their effectiveness against transmission of the currently circulating COVID strain? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank the senator for the question and also for the earlier advice that he was going to ask a question about COVID-19. By getting vaccinated and staying up to date with booster doses, people are helping to protect their communities. They do this by reducing their own risk of serious and severe disease and they are reducing the potential burden on their local health service and maintaining their ability to work and provide care for others. At the initial stage of the pandemic there was also the push through the vaccination program to ensure essentially a herd immunity to the virus, which is similar to the approach that we take with the other vaccination programs, and my comments relate to that. Anyone who undertakes a vaccination for a particular illness or disease is doing it as a member of a community, because quite often those diseases won't necessarily give us severe illness but those who are vulnerable, those who are immunocompromised, could be affected. So, I do see vaccination as a community responsibility. And there is no doubt that having the vaccines is preventing serious disease from occurring to people and preventing deaths and has been instrumental in allowing society to open both socially and economically. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll remind senators once again that conversations across the chamber are disorderly. This is Senator Babet's opportunity to ask questions and for the minister to respond. Senator Babet, a first supplementary question? 14:41 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria So, we've now had over 11 million COVID cases been reported in Australia, and most Australians by now have some level of natural immunity or they've been vaccinated. Even New South Wales Premier Mr Dominic Perrottet recently said there's no evidence that vaccines impact transmission. Potentially, I think you may have misled the Senate. Now, let's go back to the very start, specifically Pfizer. Did Pfizer test whether the COVID-19 vaccine prevented transmission before rolling it out? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, I've called you to order a number of times during question time. I'm asking you to respect when I call you to order and not continue to call out. 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory On the issue of Pfizer and whether the vaccine was tested on its ability to prevent community transmission, I will have to take that on notice. I'm happy to come back to you. But I think we do have to understand that the approval processes for these vaccines were done very quickly, in the eye of a pandemic. They followed the safety procedures as required, and the TGA had a rigorous assessment process for approval of those vaccines. There is no doubt that the vaccines have helped prevent serious illness and death in thousands and thousands of Australians. I think you're very fortunate if you've had COVID and you haven't had serious disease and it hasn't required hospitalisation or caused your death. But failing to vaccinate people would have resulted in a lot more deaths. It would have. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, a second supplementary question? 14:43 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Obviously you failed to answer my question there, but I believe that your government continues to fail many Australians by not outlawing vaccine mandates. Now, you've got an opportunity here to make up for the previous government's failure—the previous Liberal government's mistakes. So, I'll ask you one more time. Do you believe that you've misled the Senate around your comments regarding community responsibility and the vaccines? Are you willing to retract those comments? 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't believe I have misled the Senate, and I take the remarks I make in this place around that really seriously. I do believe that vaccination is a community responsibility; I do believe it. If we all went around unvaccinated, there would be a whole range of diseases and illnesses in this country. Whilst it might not affect many of us in this chamber, although it would affect some of us, if you are immunocompromised then the fact that people aren't vaccinated could have a significant and serious effect on your health. That is the reality. That's the approach we take with the childhood vaccination program. It's the approach we've taken with the pandemic. There is no doubt—despite Senator Rennick's interjections—that there is evidence, because the mortality rate from COVID is significantly reduced now that we have a highly vaccinated population. The evidence is in on that. Senator Rennick 283596 The evidence is not in. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, I've called you to order a number of times. There's ample opportunity during the week for you to put your opinion about a whole variety of matters. Question time is not one of those. Climate Change 67 14:45 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the government is ensuring Australia's biggest emitters contribute their fair share towards emission reductions? 14:46 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Pratt for her question and for her advocacy over many years, like many on this side, for action on climate. The government's safeguard mechanism reforms are, really, the first chance in over a decade for us to implement climate action that gets us towards net zero. That's the important thing: how do we get to the targets that have been set, which I thought the opposition supported? I'll say more about them shortly. Australian businesses are pleading for it because they know that reducing emissions is essential to their long-term competitiveness in a global net-zero economy. We want to deliver sensible pro-climate reforms that the Australian people voted for and that businesses need so they can reduce emissions. Senator WONG 00AOU But those opposite—I think Senator Canavan is demonstrating it now—oppose reforms, because there is a pathology of political conflict over there. You're not interested in solutions. You're not actually interested in reducing emissions. You're not interested in having a mechanism which enables the market to have certainty so we can deliver net zero, which, supposedly, you support in principle. You're not interested in that, but you are interested in having conflict—the same old fights, reheated for 2023. Of course, you have to ask the opposition who they are actually fighting for. Who are you fighting for? You're not fighting for businesses, because we know the business community supported this. You're not fighting for working Australians. You opposed both new jobs and secure jobs, whether it's the minimum— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Please continue, Senator Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU You're not fighting for working Australians. You opposed new jobs in your opposition to the National Reconstruction Fund, and you opposed a boost to the minimum wage. You're not fighting for families, because you voted no to energy price relief just weeks before Christmas. The question to you is: whose side are you on? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm going to wait until there is silence before I call Senator Pratt. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, it seems to be a habit of yours that the minute I call order you continue to call out. Senator Pratt, a first supplementary question? 14:48 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can the minister highlight the opportunities presented by the Albanese government's plans and what the potential costs of squandering those opportunities would be? 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Pratt. You're right: these are plans where there is a great deal of cost to all of us, across the economy, across the community, if those opportunities are squandered. I remind the chamber that the proposed reforms to the safeguard mechanism have been carefully designed following nearly six months of consultation and have broad support across the community. If I can go back to my first answer—what are you fighting for? You know you're fighting against business, you're fighting against working families and you're fighting against those on the minimum wage, but you're actually even fighting yourselves. You're fighting yourselves, because these are reforms that were first proposed by Mr Taylor. These are the same reforms that your party room signed off on. You're so determined to pick a fight that you're actually fighting against your own policy. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt and Senator Rennick! Senator Pratt, a second supplementary? 14:49 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can the minister please outline the impact the Albanese government's proposed reforms will have on certainty of investment and what threats there may be to that certainty? 14:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Pratt. We on this side of the chamber understand that without certainty the market doesn't move. If you want a demonstration of that, you can see the 22 failed policies of those opposite and the way that smashed investment in the generation sector, and businesses know that. I'll refer to recent media this week. There was a headline in the AFR, 'Coalition blocking the "best shot" at net zero success', and it was reported: Big business has urged the federal opposition to back the government's safeguard mechanism requiring big polluters to bring down emissions, warning a lack of bipartisan support could jeopardise the enormous private investment— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I have a senator on his feet. Senator Watt? Senator Watt 245759 Point of order: President, I'd draw your attention to the fact that Senator Rennick continues to try to disrupt the procedures despite your repeated requests not to. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt, that is not a point of order. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I can't remember where I was! What we have is business themselves saying that your lack of bipartisan support could jeopardise 'the enormous private investment needed for the clean energy transition'. You are seeking again to just be wreckers. You're wreckers. (Time expired) Cybersecurity 68 14:52 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security, Senator Watt. The European Union, Canada, the United States and other jurisdictions have banned TikTok on government devices because they regard the risk posed by the app as unacceptable. Overnight the director of the FBI reaffirmed the serious threat of backdoor espionage and interference from TikTok. Of 53 Australian government departments and agencies who responded, only 25—less than half—confirmed an outright ban. Why has the Albanese government not followed our like-minded partners and banned the app on government devices? 14:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Paterson. I recognise that Senator Paterson is someone here who does take issues of cybersecurity and national security seriously, but I can't help noticing that he and all of his colleagues have taken a lot more interest in these issues since they entered opposition than they ever did when they were in power and had the opportunity to do so. I also observe that poor old Senator Rennick up the back there never seems to get a question. Maybe one day he'll get the opportunity to ask questions as well. The fact is that since our government, the Albanese government, has been in power we have absolutely lifted the game of the Australian government when it comes to cybersecurity, moving beyond the derelict system that was left behind by the former government. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring all Australians are aware of the challenges of protecting themselves online. As I say, all the people who now have all the questions in world had ample opportunity to do something about this issue themselves as members of a nearly 10-year-old government that ended only a few months ago. It wasn't that long ago that Senator Paterson was asking me questions about the cameras that are in departmental buildings—again, something that the former government not only could have done something about but maybe could have stopped happening in the first place. I welcome this newfound interest in these issues from members of the opposition, including Senator Paterson, and I would welcome the support of the opposition for the reforms that this government is putting in place— Senator Paterson 144138 Point of order on relevance, Madam President: my question was on TikTok. We're one minute and 30 seconds into the minister's answer, and the word 'TikTok' has not passed his lips. The PRESIDENT 112096 I am going to direct the minister to the question, but I'll go to Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU If you've made the order, there's no point. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, Senator Paterson asked specific questions about government departments in relation to TikTok, and I need you to be relevant to that question. Senator WATT 245759 As I think Senator Paterson is aware, the Minister for Home Affairs is conducting a review of all social media platforms, and the government will consider the recommendations of that review—a review, I might say, that never occurred under the former government. The concerns regarding TikTok are not new, and they've been public for some time. Again, something could have been done about this by the former government if they'd thought it was actually a concern. But, as I said, the minister is conducting this review. The Attorney-General has also requested advice on whether a government-wide ban is required to address projected security risks. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:55 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria In July last year TikTok Australia first admitted in a letter to me that Australian TikTok user data could be accessed in China. In December the company admitted to using the app to spy on journalists. Why has the Albanese government failed to act for eight months on this important cybersecurity matter? 14:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Seriously, why have we not acted within eight months when you were part of a government that was in power for nearly 10 years? Why were you asleep at the wheel on these issues, amongst everything else, for nearly eight years? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Order! Senator Paterson is entitled to have his question answered, and I would ask you on my left, in particular, to respect that and be quiet. Senator WATT 245759 Unlike the succession of failed former coalition governments, the Albanese Labor government is taking a considered, deliberate approach to better regulating how digital platforms access and store consumer information. The Minister for Home Affairs has asked her department to consider all options to address data access and usage concerns as they relate to TikTok and other social media companies. I don't recall the former government ever doing that, but this minister in this government has done so. The concerns about the security of Australians' data on social media are well known, and they are not limited to TikTok. Current policy on legislative settings do not give Australians the information or the confidence that their personal data is being protected and stored securely, and we're doing something about it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, final supplementary? 14:57 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Will the minister commit to a time frame to ban TikTok from government devices? 14:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said, the minister is undertaking that review, but I can guarantee that this government will do something about this well within the nearly 10-year time line that your government sat on its hands and did nothing about these things. Senator Colbeck 00AOL You're now misleading the Senate! Senator WATT 245759 I truly hope that we are in power for that sort of length of time, but, however long it takes, we will get this done. We've already started work on it within our first 12 months in office, as opposed to the former government which did absolutely nothing for nearly 10 years and all of a sudden has become wise after the fact. If only they'd had this insight when they were in government—if only. But 10 years went by, nothing was done, and now, yet again, it's a mess that we have to clean up. I have every confidence that this minister in this government will take action as quickly as possible to address these issues. The reviews are underway. The Attorney-General is seeking advice. These are things that never occurred under the former government. We take national security seriously, we take cybersecurity seriously, and that's why we're acting on it. Natural Disasters 70 14:58 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt. Last year nearly 70 per cent of Australians lived in a natural disaster zone. Can the minister outline what steps the Albanese government is taking to make sure that Australians are better prepared and better protected for natural disasters? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sheldon, for another question on an issue that I know you are very interested in and work very hard on. Before I directly answer the question, I note that yet again in northern Australia we are facing serious rainfall over coming days, particularly in the Northern Territory and northwest Queensland, an area that I know Senator McDonald is very familiar with. Senator Green had spoken about this issue as well, and I know that all our best wishes go to people in those areas to stay safe. Please remain aware of emergency warnings in coming days and that famous slogan that too many people ignore: if it's flooded, forget it. Let's all take care over the coming days. Senator Sheldon, as you know, the Albanese government knows that as Australia faces more intense and more frequent natural disasters due to climate change we need to be better prepared. That's why we've established the Disaster Ready Fund, our flagship disaster resilience and mitigation fund. The Disaster Ready Fund will invest up to $200 million in federal funding every year in disaster mitigation and resilience measures, and, where possible, that funding will be matched by states, territories and local governments where they are partners in these projects. These measures that this fund will provide funding for could be used for everything from seawalls to evacuation centres and drainage improvements; for things like community preparedness plans and training programs. I'm pleased to say that applications for the first round of our new Disaster Ready Fund closed on Monday this week, and they are now being assessed by an independent panel. That funding won't become available until 1 July this year, but we've deliberately got moving quickly early this year so that we're ready to go once that time frame arrives. We also know that we need targeted support for communities still recovering from the devastating 2022 February-March floods, along with all of the other floods that we saw last year. As I mentioned earlier this week, we recently announced the first phase of funding for the Northern Rivers, and there's going to be a lot more to come because mitigation matters. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary. 15:00 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Can the minister outline how the Albanese government's approach to disaster preparedness compares to previous Commonwealth government approaches? 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can. One minute will absolutely be enough time to outline the Albanese government's approach and how that compares to what we saw from the former government. In fact, I could really just mention the former government's approach very quickly because the answer is 'not much'. Who could forget the former government's infamous nearly $5 billion Emergency Response Fund. Established in 2019, in three years the coalition's emergency response fund didn't release a single cent in recovery funding and didn't complete a single mitigation project. What it did do was raise nearly $1 billion in interest for the former government while actually doing nothing to assist Australians with disaster mitigation or disaster recovery. Who knows what kind of damage could have been avoided or what kind of loss could have been avoided if the former government had used that fund in the way it was constructed to provide for mitigation. Unlike the former government, the Albanese government believes in planning for future events, not waiting for them to happen. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary. 15:02 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Can the minister outline any threats to the Albanese government's commitment to ensuring Australians are better prepared and better protected from natural disasters before they become humanitarian disasters? 15:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We have known for years that the federal government has needed to significantly increase its investment in protecting communities from natural disasters. All the way back in 2015, the Productivity Commission recommended that the federal government should invest $200 million every year in disaster mitigation and resilience across Australia, but what did the former coalition government do? Absolutely nothing, as we saw in so many other areas of policy. For years they ignored the advice of the Productivity Commission before eventually setting up the Emergency Response Fund, which failed to release a single cent in recovery funding and didn't complete a single mitigation project. In fact, when the legislation had been passed to create the then Emergency Response Fund, the only reason it even provided for mitigation funding was that Labor insisted on it as an amendment when we were still in opposition. So it's no wonder that we have such a big backlog of mitigation projects right around the country. We're starting to work through that backlog with the Disaster Ready Fund, and I look forward to working with states and territories to implement it. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 71 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Superannuation: Taxation 71 15:04 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked today. I rise to take note of answers by the government to opposition questions Nos 2 and 3. What we see in question time day after day is rhetoric as opposed to reality. Before the election, the rhetoric of the government was about no changes to superannuation. But after the election—it's not just comments from the opposition. If you look at some financial services media on 28 February this year, they said: Labor's super tax reform 'moves the goalposts' again What the industry sector is saying is that this is a broken promise and the goalposts have been moved again. I note that, when it comes to goalposts, Labor has form on this. In the area of national security and defence, the former Defence secretary, in a speech here in Canberra, highlighted that the then Labor government made such a number of changes to strategic guidance and funding for defence that, in his words, 'The goalposts weren't just moved; they were cut down and used for firewood.' So, when Labor come into this place and talk about 10 years of wasted time, of the worst government ever, and try and refer to things like defence, you have to compare the reality of what the former secretary highlighted about their poor governance, broken promises and inadequate funding with the record of the coalition, which actually increased funding from a record low since World War II up to in excess of two per cent and brought about things like the Integrated Investment Program to make sure that we had not only the headline capabilities but also all the enabling things, like the infrastructure that we need to have a capable Defence Force. In estimates this year the defence department confirmed that that was the first time a measure like that had taken place, which was actually some of the best governance they had seen in the area of defence. This rhetoric we see from those opposite about poor government—which also goes to manufacturing. They talk about the fact that manufacturing was downplayed, but what we saw in reality under the coalition government was that things like the Modern Manufacturing Initiative actually led to a huge amount of investment and more apprentices in training than at any other time in Australia's history. The reality under Labor now is that one of the most promising sectors in Australia's industrial sector, the space sector—which the coalition invested in heavily and, in fact, established Australia's first space agency to give a focal point for investment that this government, in its industrial funding and its plan, has omitted. The space industry is alarmed at the lack of continuity and support from the government in this area. The other rhetoric we saw before the election, like super, was around power prices. We heard time and again '$275' from the government—that their policies would drive down prices. But what we see in reality is that prices are going up. They went up 18 per cent last year. Today in the paper there were indications that there will be more pain, with the standing offer plan to go up by nearly 20 per cent because of this government's policies, which are run largely on ideology and rhetoric. To compare it with other nations, let's take the Biden administration in the US. Their Inflation Reduction Act, which was passed last year, looks to reduce the cost of living and particularly one of the energy measures. Unlike the government here that says, 'Variable renewables will get us to net zero and will drive down prices,' the Biden administration has taken the engineering and the science of people like the International Energy Agency, the OECD and a Princeton University report and has said, 'The science tells us that the cheapest way to get clean and reliable energy that will drive down emissions is to increase nuclear power in your economy.' So they have brought in tax measures to incentivise their industry to increase the nuclear power in the States from 92 gigawatts to nearly double that by 2050. That is policy that is based on evidence and science, not on rhetoric. Whether we're talking about superannuation, about national security, about manufacturing, about the cost of living or about having clean, reliable and affordable power, don't listen to the rhetoric of those opposite. Look at what they've done and compare it with the successful outcomes from people who base policy on engineering and science. 15:09 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria The reality is that we've been up-front about the challenges we've inherited. We've been left with a trillion dollars of debt, with little to show for it. We've seen aged care in crisis and a decade of neglect in Medicare. So, we've got to make tough decisions. People in Australia are making tough decisions around their kitchen table, so we, as a responsible government, have to make tough and responsible decisions around the cabinet table. Back in 2016 the member for Hume talked about tough decisions when he said: Well, it's very simple. We need a fairer superannuation system which has integrity, and this means that those of us who can afford to pay, should be paying our fair share. The situation we had was that some people were contributing millions of dollars into super, and it's totally inappropriate that someone who has contributed millions and millions of dollars continues to get a 15 per cent concession. Who said that? That was the member for Hume, in 2016—the current member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer We are not just talking about it; we are looking at curbing tax breaks for those with over $3 million in super, a very small, modest change—30 per cent on earnings over $3 million instead of 15 per cent. It is still a tax break, but it is not the 15 per cent; it is 30 per cent. And it affects a very small number of people and doesn't take effect until 2025. It will affect fewer than 0.5 per cent of Australians, those who have super balances of over $3 million; 99.5 per cent of people in Australia will see no changes to their super. In contrast, those opposite froze the SGC three times: in 2014, in 2020 and in 2021. And millions of Australians lost millions of dollars in super and will be poorer in retirement as a result of it. It wasn't 0.5 per cent who were affected by the SGC freeze; it was millions of Australians. I have seen myself, personally, many, many members of my former union who are going to live in poverty in retirement because those opposite froze the SGC. It was modest amounts of money but big money for those people who were affected. That is what you did to those in retirement. What we are proposing is a modest change. It is responsible. It's modest. And it's to keep super strong and fair. Super was designed to make sure working people have security and dignity in retirement. Your freeze of the SGC didn't deliver that in any way, shape or form. It is condemning people to poverty in retirement, because you froze it three times: 2014, 2020 and 2021. Women were badly affected by this, and it is on your shoulders. So, to hear what I've heard in the last few days about this very modest proposal that is going to affect those who have $3 million balances in super is incredibly hard to take. But then, what else would we expect from the people who bought us robodebt? Again, watching that royal commission and seeing what has happened to the poorest people in our society—Alan Tudge saying, 'We will find you, we'll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.' That is your legacy. That is what you did. We are proposing a very modest change that is going to affect only a small number of people. And let's be clear: there were more people at the Ed Sheeran concert in Melbourne last weekend than are affected by these changes! That's the thing you should think about. Yet you froze the SGC three times. Millions of Australians lost money, and they're going to be in poverty in retirement because of what you did. We forget about that—absolutely forget about that. Again, we've heard the member for Fadden admit to the royal commission that he lied about robodebt because loyalty to his colleagues mattered more, not loyalty to the people of Australia. What a perfect summary of this entire time in government that you had loyalty to yourselves and not to the Australian people! 15:14 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia The late great Margaret Thatcher once made the observation that the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money, and that is what the Australian people are in the early stages of understanding as we speak right now. The Labor Party, however, do not understand that this is not their money. We're dealing with the money of the Australian people, the workers of Australia. Superannuation is not your money. It's not your money; you didn't work for it. And, despite the Assistant Treasurer's views that we heard this afternoon repeated, that this was simply honey which could be taken from the hive, this is not the manner in which hard-working Australian people view their own savings. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have basically gone back on their promise. These are changes that they said they would not make at the election, and we are seeing history repeating itself here with the same old Labor Party. This is what I imagine the voters of Australia—the 31 or 32 per cent of them, or whatever it was, that voted Labor—must have at least thought, that they were going to get something different out of the other end of the pipe. This is a bit like what I imagine it must be like to be a North Melbourne supporter at the start of a football season, just thinking that the new season is going to bring something different and, yet, come about round 4—about where we're up to—all we're seeing is clangers and kicks out of bounds on the full. This is what we're seeing. And, let's be honest, despite all of that, it doesn't matter how many colourful parades the Prime Minister goes off and marches in, it doesn't matter how many all-expenses paid trips he takes to go and visit the global glitterati, the little fellow from Ukraine, whatever his name is in the green T-shirt—whatever his name is. Who cares? It doesn't matter; nothing matters. It does not matter because, ultimately— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator ANTIC 269375 Well, I can't remember what his name is. He's just on the screen all the time. But, anyway, it doesn't matter, because, ultimately, what happens here is we get the same recycled product over and over and over again. They're making it up as they go along. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Senator Antic, take your seat. Senator ANTIC 269375 Here we go. This is good! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Senator Ayres? Senator Ayres 16913 On a point of order: Acting Deputy President, that was an extraordinary reflection on the leader of Ukraine, who, I thought that for everybody in this place, has been a symbol of a very important struggle for democracy and freedom, and you would ask him to withdraw that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 I will take some advice from the Clerk because Senator Shoebridge had my attention at the time. Thank you, Clerk. There is no point of order on reflections on leaders of other countries, but I will invite the senator to withdraw or contain his remarks, if he will. Senator ANTIC 269375 I withdraw any improper implications. I was just making an observation as to his appearance. In any event, I will move on. Senator O'Neill 140651 Give respect to democracy. Senator ANTIC 269375 I've got respect for democracy. Senator O'Neill 140651 It's a shameful reflection. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Order, Senator O'Neill! Senator ANTIC 269375 Thank you for the interjections! Thank you, Acting Deputy President. What I was saying is that Labor are making this up as they go along. Let's go through what the Prime Minister had done in the past two weeks. The Prime Minister has refused to rule out further changes to superannuation; the Treasurer has refused to rule out changes to negative gearing; and the Treasurer has also refused to rule out changes to capital gains tax, including the imposition on the family home. Then, the Prime Minister rushed out and said, 'No, we won't touch your house,' and the Treasurer said, 'Oh, well, I guess that's right.' So we know where this is headed. We know it. This is a slippery slope. This begins and ends with CGT, with franking credits, with further shifting of the goalposts. That is what we are seeing here. As Peter Dutton points out, ahead of the election Labor promised solemnly they weren't going to change the goalposts on super. The Prime Minister was unambiguous on that, and now, less than a year into government—we're talking about 10 months into government—the goalposts have been shifted. It's clear that Mr Albanese and Dr Chalmers are coming after more of your money. We know that now. We've seen it. The Australian people have seen it, and it's too late for them as Labor simply won't slow down on this. They can't control their own spending and they won't stop coming after our money. To believe them when they say that out of $150 billion they're going to be satisfied with $2 billion out of revenue is just an absurdity. It's just simply not going to happen. Bill Shorten was talking about this when he was the Labor leader, but at least in that instance—and we all remember that fateful campaign—Bill Shorten had the decency to be honest with the Australian people, about his plans, before the 2019 election. Unfortunately, this current Prime Minister can't do that. Labor's claim is plainly wrong. Their claim that the superannuation policy change will only affect 80,000 people is wrong. Over the time, the number of Australians taxed will increase dramatically because of the reasons I've already outlined. We know they're coming after more. Labor's being tricky, and you cannot take their trust on tax. The Grattan Institute has estimated that within 30 years about one in 10 workers will begin to retire with super balances of around $3 million— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Senator O'Neill, I've called you a few times now. Please. Senator ANTIC 269375 Thank you, Acting Deputy President. That's 200 times more people than the government is claiming. Young people will lose out under this policy. An independent analysis has shown that a 25-year-old retiring in 40 years will see the tax on their super double at the equivalent of a million dollars today. (Time expired) 15:20 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I want to start by saying what an absolute disgrace that last contribution was to our parliament, an absolute disgrace on what I thought was bipartisan support of the efforts in Ukraine and its leader, President Zelenskyy. You might not seriously care about our international relationships and the responsibility with which we carry that, but we certainly take it seriously. We stood in the House of Representatives chamber all together, with all leaders of this place, in solidarity with Ukraine. It was mere lip-service, given what this senator has just said, and I won't repeat the disrespectful comments. That is all this opposition is worth: absolute lip-service. It's like we saw when the Leader of the Opposition talked about— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Senator Stewart, can I bring you back to the question. Senator STEWART 299352 He raised it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 No, that's not what take note is for. I'm sorry, I have— Senator STEWART 299352 He talked about the Prime Minister travelling. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Please take your seat, Senator Stewart. I have had advice from the Clerk that you need to be relevant to the question. I would ask you to go back to the motion put by Senator Fawcett. Please resume. Senator STEWART 299352 Thank you. I was making comments given that he raised it in his contributions to this parliament and I felt it deserved a response, to restate how seriously we take our relationships. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 There are many opportunities to make contributions but they are different to this. You must be responding to the question put by Senator Fawcett. Senator STEWART 299352 Thank you. Back to the topic of superannuation—once I calm myself after that disgraceful display. We have made our priorities clear as a government about who we stand for: the Australian working people. Those opposite have made it clear who they stand for: the 17 people with over $100 million as their superannuation balance and one person with over $400 million as their superannuation balance. That's who they stand for. It's 0.5 per cent of the Australian population, some of the wealthiest people in our country, and good on them. But they should be asking taxpayers—who work on the factory line and our nurses and teachers—to be paying the $2 billion in taxes that we will get from these changes in the first year. These are very modest—I know people love the word modest in this chamber—and sensible changes. We've already heard some quotes today from those opposite who agreed, back in 2016, about having to make some changes to the superannuation in this country. We are the government for the Australian working people. They are the opposition for the half a per cent. It was great to hear Peter Dutton make his first election promise for 2025: reinstating tax breaks for those 17 people with over $100 million in their superannuation and that one lucky person with over $400 million—Peter Dutton is on your side—in their superannuation. We have finally found something the Leader of the Opposition will stand up for and show some spine for. It's certainly not veterans at risk of homelessness. It's not women fleeing family violence. It's not Australian manufacturing. It's not businesses looking for energy security. It's not families seeking cheaper child care. It's not people needing cheaper medicine. It's not households seeking energy bill relief. He says no to any of those things, but, if you're one of those lucky 18, he's got your back. When it comes to the wealthiest half of one per cent, those opposite have your back. Last week we heard the federal member for Fadden admit at the royal commission that he lied about robodebt because loyalty to his colleagues mattered more than loyalty to the Australian people. What a perfect summary of their entire time in government—loyalty to themselves and not to the Australian people. I think it's a bit rich for those opposite to sit over there and talk to us about trust. I'm pretty sure that a former prime minister just appointing himself to a couple of portfolios might be considered a bit of a broken promise to the Australian people. I don't know. Not being there when the country's on fire or going underwater might be considered breaking a promise to the Australian people to have their backs. It is an absolute indictment. There were more people at the Ed Sheeran concert last weekend—thank you to Senator White for pointing this out—than there will be affected by these changes. It is an absolute disgrace. We know who those opposite are on the side of. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Senator Ayres? Senator Ayres 16913 If I may, just on a point of order and seeking some further clarification: I'm happy, Mr Acting Deputy President, if you come back to the chamber later. I didn't want to interrupt the flow of the contribution before, but you directed Senator Stewart to return to the motion moved by Senator Fawcett and indicated to her that she should not continue to reflect on the comments that Senator Antic made and—I won't go into them—his extraordinary reflection on the President of Ukraine. I accept that Senator Stewart said that all of us were there for that photo, in solidarity with Ukraine. It's not the case that Senator Antic was there, but I would appreciate— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Senator Ayres, what is your request? Senator Ayres 16913 I would appreciate some clarification of whether or not senators are entitled to reflect on the comments of the senators before them in the ordinary debate on taking note of answers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Thank you, Senator Ayres. As I said before, I was distracted by Senator Shoebridge when the remark was made, so I did not hear it. The Clerk gave me advice that the senator wasn't being relevant to the motion that had been put, and that was the basis of my ruling, if you accept that. Otherwise, I'm happy to go away and review it with the clerks and come back. 15:28 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Well, 'modest' seems to be the word of this week, and let me tell you: I certainly agree that Labor have much to be modest about—in fact, embarrassed about—in relation to their broken promises. They might not think that modest changes matter, but on this side we absolutely know they do. There is nothing modest about their broken promises, particularly in relation to superannuation. It was modest because it only relates to a small percentage of hardworking Australians. What did they say? Zero point five per cent? But guess what: it was actually 10 per cent, and I wouldn't be surprised if it actually turns out to be much more than 10 per cent of hardworking Australians. Who are these hardworking Australians? They are the people who have worked hard all their lives to earn their money and to put money into superannuation. They are farmers, veterans on defined benefit schemes and many other Australians. There is nothing modest about what you are proposing to do to them. Anyway, even if it were modest and not a broken promise, why are you doing this? Why are you taking people's money away from them and from their retirement if it is so modest? It does not make sense. Let's call a spade a spade: this 'modest' proposal is actually a broken promise. No matter how much they try to say 'modest, modest, modest', every time the Australian people hear the Labor Party say that it means 'broken promise' and it means they are raiding their superannuation. Australians are very smart and wise people. They know their super is their money. It is not the government's money. It is not the unions' money. It is not super fund money. It is their own money the government are taking from them, despite promising before the election they would not. Let's have a look at what Labor actually promised every hardworking Australian in this nation. Before the election, Jim Chalmers, now the Treasurer, promised there were going to be no new tax increases; he said those exact words. Labor has broken that promise. Labor has said it will now double taxes on super. You really have to ask what will be next. Once you've broken one promise, many others will come. They are clearly being so duplicitous, and, frankly, are lying to the Australian people when they come here and say: 'Oh, we just had this little idea here. It's modest, it's reasonable. We said we wouldn't do this before the election, but, hey, it's modest. Let's just do it anyway, and take people's money away from them.' In the last three weeks alone, not only has the Prime Minister refused to rule out further changes to superannuation—again, they said they would make none; the Treasurer has refused to rule out changes to negative gearing. The Treasurer also refused to rule out changes to capital gains tax, including imposition on the family home. Then the Prime Minister rushed out and said: 'Oh, the Treasurer shouldn't have said that. No, we won't touch your house.' But that is still not saying you won't make changes to capital gains tax. Then the Treasurer said, 'Whoops, sorry, I guess the Prime Minister is right.' Clearly, the Prime Minister of this nation and the Treasurer of this nation cannot be trusted, whatever they say, particularly in regard to what they said before the last election. Those of us who are old enough to remember previous Labor governments will know this is socialism 101. It is the politics of envy. It is the politics of division. They start taking from people who have worked hard and have bigger bank balances, bigger incomes and bigger superannuation, and then they keep widening and widening and widening so that so many working Australians who have worked hard for their money do not have it anymore. What else have this government done? Since this government came into power less than a year ago, they have had nine consecutive interest rate rises, which is putting profound stress on all Australians who have a mortgage. It's looking pretty grim out there, and everywhere I go people are saying how much this Labor government has negatively impacted on their cost of living. Sadly, there will be more cost-of-living pressures brought on by this Labor government. Question agreed to. Workplace Relations: Silicosis 75 15:33 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to silicosis. I was particularly troubled by the lack of any coherent response from the government regarding the insurance crisis in the industry and the impact that will have almost certainly on any worker who comes down with silicosis from this day forward and, indeed, going back to September 2020. It's a fact that the major supplier of dangerous manufactured stone in Australia is Caesarstone, and it's facing a global insurance crisis, leaving workers, fabricators and home renovators who contract silicosis from their product without any protection. I would have thought the government would be on top of that issue. Caesarstone is a company that's been allowed to recklessly travel down the same path as James Hardie did with asbestos, leaving thousands of injured fabricators and home renovators with a deadly disease and no insurance coverage to pay their claims. In many ways, the risks are even greater with manufactured stone than with James Hardie. Manufactured stone producers have no production facilities or other assets in Australia to meet claims in the absence of insurance. James Hardie at least had assets in the jurisdiction. That means whenever Caesarstone thinks it's no longer profitable to be involved in the Australian market, they can cease operating, and given the lack of insurance there will be zero assets from which fabricators, home renovators or workers with silicosis can recover damages. They will be left with a deadly disease and no remedy at all. This is why the Greens have been calling for a ban since 2020. This is why we have supported the CFMMEU's call for a ban. This is a deadly product in an industry that has been allowed to run like cowboys. Because of the known risk of silicosis litigation, Caesarstone has been unable to obtain any insurance coverage for silicosis related claims in Australia since September 2020. Most of the company's global insurance products actually have specific exclusions for damages related to exposure to hazardous dust, because the insurance industry has known for years about the deadliness of this dust. We know this not because of Safe Work's work in the space. Safe Work has been saying, 'Oh, they can continue having the product, provided everyone wears a mask and they do wet cutting and they have additional filtering.' Safe Work has been complicit in allowing manufactured stone to continue to be used across the country. It has been complicit in thousands and thousands of workers being exposed to toxic levels of silica dust, leading to them contracting silicosis. Safe Work is part of the problem. We know about Caesarstone's lack of insurance not because of Safe Work's activity in the space but because it's in the financial disclosures that Caesarstone gives to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. That makes it clear there is a complete absence of insurance. I'll read part of that disclosure from Caesarstone to the US securities exchange: We currently have limited product liability insurance policies, which apply to us and our subsidiaries and cover claims related to bodily injuries though in most cases these policies exclude damages caused by exposure to hazardous dust. That's what Caesarstone is telling the US authorities. For example, as of September 2020 our Australian product liability insurance ceased coverage of newly diagnosed silicosis related claims. Such events might have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. They've said it in black and white. And what has the Australian government done? Nothing to stop the product. What has Safe Work done? Nothing. It is deeply offensive that when you read Caesarstone's reports the only thing they're concerned about is the cost of business. They don't once mention in their reports the likelihood—in fact, the certainty—of thousands and thousands of workers contracting silicosis because of this. Caesarstone also said this: Since 2008, we have been named, either directly or as a third party defendant, in numerous lawsuits alleging damages allegedly caused by exposure to RCS related to our products filed by individuals (including fabricators and their employees, and our former employees), their successors, employers and the State of Israel, and in subrogation claims by the NII, WorkerCover of several states in Australia, and others. As of December 31, 2021, we were subject to pending lawsuits with respect to 154 injured persons globally (of which 114 were in Israel, 38 in Australia and 2 in the United States) and had received pre-litigation demand letters with respect to additional 18 persons, in each case relating mainly to silicosis claims. Since 2008 and through December 31, 2021— (Time expired) Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 77 COMMITTEES Economics Legislation Committee 77 Government Response to Report 77 15:39 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I present the government's response to the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on its examination of annual reports tabled by 30 April 2010 and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government response to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report: Annual Reports No. 2 of 2010 March 2023 Response to the Committee's Recommendation Recommendation 1 1.35 The committee recommends that the government, in consultation with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, amend the annual reporting requirements for government entities to provide for more systematic reporting in relation to external scrutiny, including for parliamentary committee inquiries and reports, in line with sections B.2 and B.3 of the ACT Chief Minister's 2007-2010 Annual Report Directions. The Australian Government supports and has implemented this recommendation. The recommendation has been implemented through the introduction of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 (PGPA Rule), which saw the inclusion of all annual report requirements captured within the same legislation. The PGPA Act (sections 46 and 97) introduced enhanced requirements for external scrutiny of entity activities. These sections, along with the PGPA Rule, provide an integrated and consistent set of annual report requirements for all Commonwealth entities. Section 17AG of the PGPA Rule goes to the external scrutiny of annual reports for non-corporate Commonwealth entities. Sections 17BE(r) and 28E(n) deal with scrutiny requirements for corporate Commonwealth entities and Commonwealth companies. The PGPA Act sets out obligations relating to the planning for resource use and mandates the reporting on how effectively those resources have been applied. The Act standardises the reporting deadline. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (the Committee) has an active general oversight role regarding the PGPA Act and Rule and has played an ongoing role since its inception. The Committee reviews the rules under the PGPA Act where matters are significant and has a specific role in approving any changes to the annual report rule for Commonwealth entities under Section 46 of the Act. BUDGET 77 BUDGET Consideration By Estimates Committees 77 15:39 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the respective chairs, I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates: Budget estimates 2021-22— Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information. Budget estimates 2021-22 (Supplementary)— Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information. Additional estimates 2021-22— Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information. Budget estimates 2022-23— Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information—Education, Skills and Employment portfolio. Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information— Department of Health cross-portfolio. Finance portfolio. Parliamentary departments. Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Budget estimates 2022-23 (October and November)— Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information— Education portfolio. Employment and Workplace Relations. Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information— Department of Health cross-portfolio. Finance portfolio. Parliamentary departments. Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. COMMITTEES 78 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 78 Report 78 15:39 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report 2 of 2023. Education and Employment Legislation Committee 78 Additional Information 78 15:39 Senator 231199 Tasmania URQUHART (—) (): On behalf of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator Sheldon, I present additional information received by the committee in relation to its inquiry into the provisions of the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 and a related bill. Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee 78 Report 78 15:39 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Senator Pratt, I present the report of the committee on its examination of annual reports tabled by 31 October 2022. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. 15:40 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I want to make a few short observations in relation to the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on its examination of annual reports, tabled on behalf of Senator Pratt. In the previous parliament, I served on that committee, and there is an important point in relation to annual reports which are prepared by government agencies and government departments. First, they should be prepared within time. There were three reports that were prepared only after the expiration of the quite reasonable amount of time which is given to government agencies to report. To be frank, that is not good enough. There should be close examination of the agencies that failed to produce their public annual reports within the time which is provided for them and an examination as to the reasons why. The second point is that those annual reports should be released and made available in good time before budget estimates. If we, as senators in this place, are to do our job as we should be doing it, in terms of holding the executive to account, those annual reports are invaluable information so we know what questions to ask. We should have time to read the annual reports and absorb the information, as opposed to getting them perhaps one day before estimates starts or even after estimates. It is not good enough for annual reports to be prepared either out of time or to not be released in good time before the estimates process. It's certainly something which I will be focusing on over this term of parliament and beyond, if I have the opportunity, because I don't think it's good enough. I come from the private sector. You release your annual report before the shareholders' meeting, not after, so that shareholders can ask questions. The same thing should apply—even more so!—in the public sector so that we, as senators, have the opportunity to ask questions that need to be asked and, indeed, the questions which we have a duty to ask on behalf of the many stakeholders in the Australian community. Question agreed to. Work and Care Select Committee 79 Report 79 15:43 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia It is my pleasure to present the final report of the Select Committee on Work and Care, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and accompanying documents presented to the committee. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Over the past eight months, I've chaired this committee working with my colleagues, Deputy Chair Senator O'Neill and Senators White, Stewart, Askew, Bragg, and Ruston. Together, we have looked at how Australians put together their jobs with the care of others. We've been ably assisted by the Senate's committee secretariat led by Jane Thomson. You all serve the Australian Senate and public so well. Thank you for your work. I give particular thanks to the 125 organisations and individuals who wrote submissions and appeared at our 11 days of public hearings. It has been a fascinating privilege to hear directly from employers, workers, unions, community organisations and carers around the country what is happening out there in the land of the working carer. We offer the Senate a majority report. The great deal of agreement around the evidence of this inquiry reflects the power of what we have heard. It was consistent. It was convincing. I believe the level of agreement also reflects the fact we committee members live the realities affecting so many other Australians. We've done this work around the birth of Senator Stewart's baby, Ari; with grandchildren at our knees; with our kids in the next room; and amidst the usual raft of family crises—in short, normal, juggling, working life. In this way we're part of a changed parliament that shares the changing work and care circumstances of other Australians. It's very different from the parliament of a century ago that set the terms of work for working carers last century. Things like the eight-hour day—the norm of full-time work. At that time this parliament was entirely made up of men. That affected the shape of the labour laws that they wrote. The slow entry of women to this place explains why we did not get any Commonwealth child care until 1973 and did not give working women a paid break after they had a baby until 2011, a hundred years after the ILO said it was a reasonable proposition. Today, around 6.5 million women hold jobs and half our workforce is female. Many of them are also carers. Women now make up 57 per cent of the Senate. This is a changed parliament in a changed world, and it's time for our working arrangements to reflect this. The powerful evidence we've heard explains our committee's agreement that we need to create better work and care arrangements that deliver greater fairness and equality. It's time for a new, comprehensive and integrated approach to our work and care challenges. Enough with the piecemeal. It's time for a coordinated national effort and for all levels of government to work together to deliver it. On any day of the week now, four in 10 Australian workers have caring responsibilities while they are at work. Most of us, over the course of our lives, will care for somebody. We're living a 21st-century juggle. but we're awaiting a 21st-century support system as we deal with this new reality. Too many experience time poverty, unpredictable hours and inflexible work. They feel the costs of this juggle in their household budgets, especially as inflation and the costs of care rise. We urgently need a new work and care regime appropriate to the 21st century, one that does not rely on the individual adaptations of hyperflexible, often overloaded workers who are also parents and carers; one that ensures secure, predictable hours and pay; one that makes the most of new technologies whilst allowing workers to knock off when their hours are done; and one that supports parents of babies to take adequate leave at birth, at the international standard of 52 weeks, and to access the quality, affordable early childhood education and care so essential to our kids and appropriate to a rich OECD nation—care that should be free, in the view of the Greens. We need a regime that does not run the labour market on the stress and sweat of a juggling worker or make the price of being both a worker and a carer a lifetime of low pay, insecurity, part-time work and poverty in retirement. Our report calls for more recognition of the work of carers at home. The unpaid care by Australians looking after older parents or friends or for disabled people amounts to $77 billion a year. Unpaid work, including that of parents, if you value it, adds up to half the value of Australia's GDP, yet many of these carers are living well below the poverty line. The effects of a work-life collision do not fall evenly. While they specially affect women, they also fall on so many young people caring for family members as they try to get to school or to a job; immigrant workers who cannot get access to decent work or afford care and make up a large proportion of our low-paid care workforce; First Nations communities who need culturally appropriate child care but can't find it; low-income households who struggle to pay for care; disabled people and their families who would like to see a transition away from low-paying disability enterprises into open employment; and the growing number of workers who are caring for an ageing parent but cannot find respite to take the pressure off. And it's time for a pay rise for care workers in child care, aged care and disability care. Their work is undervalued, and it doesn't reward their experience and their qualifications. We're seeing the very direct consequences of that today, with news reports of shortfalls of thousands of aged-care workers in a care workforce crisis. It's plain that we need to increase job security for many workers in our labour market. The most common strategy adopted by Australian working carers, part-time work, has left many women facing insecure jobs, insecure hours and pay, poor career paths, lack of access to training and, ironically, loss of key conditions for working carers, like access to paid sick leave and paid holidays, long service leave, decent superannuation. At the other end of the hours spectrum, a sizeable proportion of men—one-quarter—work long hours. So at one end, women on short hours; at the other end, men on long hours. These arrangements cast long shadows. Too many senior jobs in areas like management have hours that are hostile to care and therefore off limits to so many women. This also means that domestic work is off limits to those men, which loads up their partners. And all of this feeds into the gender pay gap. Amongst the biggest surprises to the committee, in my view, was evidence of widespread unpredictable rosters and working hours. These conditions mean workers are too often at their employers' beck and call. Alongside this, new technologies that have brought welcome flexibility have also stretched the working day out alongside paid work, making it too hard for people to disconnect from their technologies at the end of the day. Our phones compete with our kids, and then get in the way of our rest and recuperation, so it's time that workers had a right to disconnect from work. We know that without the care provided by workers and unpaid carers at home we are all impoverished. Without it, there is no future labour supply and simply no economy. We heard powerful evidence about the importance of doing things better. If we can lift the employment participation of carers—mostly women—to reach the rates in countries that offer better paid parental leave and child care, for example, we could increase our workforce participation rate, on average, by four per cent. And we heard evidence that it would boost our GDP by $100 billion. Now, some will point to the cost of doing these things, but they ignore that return on investment, and underinvestment in care means labour shortages, gender inequality and more stress for workers, especially women. We in the Greens believe this is a crisis that needs an urgent response. Our workforce and our community deserve it, and as a rich OECD country we can afford it. We blow billions a year on super tax breaks that deliver very little for carers or workers in our care industries. The government is looking at giving one-quarter of $1 trillion in stage 3 tax cuts to the very wealthy. This could fund all that we recommend in this report and leave plenty of change. These are political choices. It does not have to be like this. What we do right now matters. Other countries do things differently and we can too. The work arrangements of last century gave Australians a right to work. In the 21st century, it's time for a right to both work and care. I commend this report to the Senate. I hope it will create momentum for the change that so many Australians are looking for. I thank my fellow senators for their hard work and their collegiality. Thank you. 15:53 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I, too, rise to take note of the Select Committee on Work and Care's Final report. Firstly, I would like to thank the work and care committee secretariat, which has worked tirelessly over the past seven months to help the committee examine the impact that combining work and care responsibility has on the wellbeing of workers, carers and those they care for. We looked into the changing nature of work and how this aligned, or didn't, with caring commitments and the support systems and the policies Australia has in place, as well as overseas models. It has been a pleasure to work together with other members of this committee, particularly our deputy chair, Senator O'Neill, and chair, Senator Barbara Pocock. And I notice committee member Senator White is here as well. It has been a really collegiate team working together across the seven months. The inquiry received more than 120 submissions from a variety of organisations and individuals. Committee members attended 11 hearings across the country—from Albany in Western Australia to Melbourne in Victoria and many places in between—to ensure that we had as full a picture as possible to assess the impact of concurrent working and caring. We appreciated the honest accounts expressed by witnesses in submissions, and particularly during our hearings. Recommendations outlined in the work and care Final report are aspirational and extensive. And unfortunately, in some cases, they do not take into account the significant implications such measures would have in the areas of education, social services and health, and workplace relations. The Australian labour market is diverse, which reflects the diversity within our population. We support all forms of work—full time, part time, casual, gig or a mix—because it means Australian jobseekers can find positions, arrangements and levels of work that fit around their needs. However, many recommendations in the report, often reflecting the Labor government's policies, demonise certain forms of work and limit the flexibility many employees seek when working in those industries. Forcing such changes and trying to create a one-size-fits-all approach would be detrimental and have unintended consequences for some employer-employee arrangements. The gig economy sustains thousands of independent contractors who make individual choices about where and when they sell their services. Consider the potential unintended consequences of overregulation of the gig economy on your local plumber, electrician or preferred Uber driver. They could lose their freedom to work for more than one platform at the same time. The former coalition government introduced the first statutory definition of 'casual employee', which benefited both employees and employers because it gave a clear determination of the nature of the employment arrangement at the outset. We also introduced the right for casual employees to convert to permanent employment after 12 months, should they wish to. Changes within our workplace relations system take time. Productivity, choice and options must all be considered to ensure conditions are improving for Australians, not being made more difficult. Changes to leave entitlements, awards, rights and obligations should follow previous systems of workplace relations reform, which is appropriately done through the Fair Work Commission. For example, when the coalition government introduced paid family and domestic violence leave, the Fair Work Commission deliberated on how this would impact Australian employers and employees. Coalition committee members don't agree with moves to establish superannuation as a national employment standard. The Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Luke Yeaman, confirmed that 80 per cent of the wages growth in the federal budget is consumed by the mandatory superannuation increases, in response to a question by Senator Bragg in the November 2022 budget estimates hearings. We believe the Australian government should be making workplaces more flexible, not less. Our social security system provides a strong safety net that is available to any Australian for as long as they need it, where they meet eligibility criteria. This system is funded by taxpayers and needs to be managed responsibly—a responsibility that extends to future generations. Coalition committee members continue to support the principle of mutual obligation within our welfare system. These critical requirements ensure jobseekers are actively looking for work and participating in activities that will help them into employment. For example, the highly successful ParentsNext program, which has helped thousands of parents return to the workforce through improving their work readiness, also includes mutual obligation requirements. We believe in a flexible workplace relations system that mutually benefits both employers and employees, and we oppose a move to a one-size-fits-all approach. Coalition senators also support a strong employment services system, underpinned by the principle of mutual obligation, and will oppose moves to abandon or water down these requirements. The stable workplace relations framework and strong employment services system that were in place during the term of the coalition government were one of the reasons that unemployment was at a 50-year low when the coalition left office in May 2022. Multiple recommendations within the final report relate to early childhood education and care. While coalition members support recommendations to address childcare deserts, we do not believe the Australian government should be involved in creating the centres themselves. Instead, the government should work with communities to increase access to early childhood education through funding for community groups and councils to establish centres in areas of greatest need. Family is the building block of society, and we want Australian families to continue to have choice and access to quality care that works for them. While we support regular reviews of early childhood education and care systems and the development of a framework for a flexible system, the ACCC Childcare inquiry, the Productivity Commission's Early Childhood Education and Care inquiry and the Australian government's Early Years Strategy inquiry are already looking at this, so recommendations from these inquiries should be considered before any action is taken. Victorian and New South Wales governments have extended the existing Preschool Reform Agreement to three-year-old children through their own budgets. We recommend the Australian government incentivise and support other state and territory governments to roll out programs to extend the current agreements for four-year-old children past 2025. And mental health support is important for all Australians, particularly for both paid and unpaid carers, as they deal with the pressures of their caring role and the support they provide to those relying on their care. The former coalition government led reform of the mental health system by committing almost $3 billion to our mental health and suicide prevention plan. This plan expanded Australia's headspace network to 164 locations and established a national network of adult Head to Health centres and child mental health hubs to provide free multidisciplinary mental health care. Additionally, the coalition government introduced a telehealth model of care during the COVID-19 pandemic which included mental health care through GPs, psychologists and psychiatrists. Initiatives to establish a dedicated mental health service for healthcare workers, including those in the aged-care sector, and online mental health training for health practitioners and health workers were also introduced. The coalition recommends urgent reinstatement of the full 20 Medicare subsidised mental health sessions to support vulnerable Australians. In closing, I reiterate that the coalition members of the committee support proven and fiscally sensible measures to support those who combine work and care responsibilities. 16:01 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It is with considerable pride that I rise to speak to the tabling of the final report of the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care. This report is comprehensive, thorough and unwavering in its account of the current state of work and care in Australia. Both the formal and informal care economies in their present form present unreasonable challenges and cause unacceptable harm to far too many Australians. This report documents that reality, and it offers a range of policy options for governments of all persuasions in undertaking the modernisation and reform of this sector. It is a sector that has been so long neglected. There is no quick redress of the great challenge that lies there before us. It's going to require fiscally as well as socially responsible change—incremental change—to ensure that Australia's formal and informal work and care industries are fit for purpose and fit for the 21st century. I would like to begin by thanking my Labor colleagues on the committee, Senator White and Senator Stewart, for their diligent work throughout the course of the inquiry. I'd also very much like to thank Senator Barbara Pocock—her first term here, as a new Greens senator, and her first inquiry. I want to acknowledge—something that is so often unacknowledged in the media—the collegial nature and collaborative way in which this committee has proceeded to hear the real voice of Australia and to document it in a way that will help us name the current reality and actually shape the wicked policy problem that confronts us. Senator Pocock led the committee in a way that enabled us to do that in the writing and the review of the final report. I'd also like to thank members of the opposition—in particular, Senator Askew, who's just made a contribution to this debate, as well as Senator Ruston and also Senator Bragg, who filled out the team. Again, that collaboration and spirit of goodwill throughout the course of the inquiry is important. I want to note that this committee report lands with additional comments from all groups—from Labor senators, from the Greens senator who chaired the committee and also from Liberal senators—but they are not dissenting reports; they are additional comments. We will necessarily have very different ways of thinking about what should happen next and the manner in which the timing might be undertaken. And of course I want to acknowledge how important fiscal responsibility is in the current climate to make this task achievable at the same time as ensuring the wealth and benefit to the nation of managing our economy with care and rigor. One of the most consistent pieces of evidence heard throughout the course of the inquiry related to the gendered and uneven burden of care responsibilities and the way in which women in both formal and informal care economies are disadvantaged by current systems and practices. The report also explores the ways in which the socioeconomic devaluation of care work—in particular, care work that is predominantly still undertaken by women—has entrenched gender and other inequalities in our workplaces. Arising from the evidence received by the committee, the report considers the impact of these inequalities throughout people's lives, revealing a lifelong pattern whereby the cost of care is disproportionately borne by women on lower wages, in insecure employment and with low retirement incomes. Given the almost categorical disadvantage inherent to the experience of women within the work and care sector, it was particularly poignant that the committee itself comprised almost entirely women, with the exception of Senator Bragg. I note that Senator Bragg was balancing his own childcare responsibilities while participating in this inquiry. That reflects the changing nature of Australia and care and the way in which we need to respond to that reality. Whilst each of the groups occupy different points on the political spectrum, the drive to ensure that the report accurately reflected the state of work and care in Australia was one by which we stood very firmly. The outworking of the set of recommendations that we've delivered today will have real capacity, over time, to address the disadvantages of women in this sector, and there was universal agreement about that. I'd like to thank the secretariat—another team composed almost entirely of women—for their diligent work throughout the course of the inquiry. They're deserving of singular praise for the quality of the report that's been produced. We heard evidence from a wide range of stakeholders: major retailers, unions, individual workers, early childhood educators, care advocacy groups, those within the formal care economy and beyond. Each one of the insights that were offered from those groups provided valuable contributions to the committee, and the recommendations of the report arise directly from their evidence. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association argued in their submission to the committee that access to carers leave should be extended to caring for anyone a worker provides care to, regardless of whether they form part of the person's household or immediate family. The reality is that people are caring beyond those arbitrary boundaries and their care is intersecting with their work, and not in a way that is sustainable, healthy, or practical. Families are not singularly defined. People may have different family structures that don't fall into the traditional definition of immediate family, and the provision of care to the people they recognise as part of their family or community should be supported. Care is a reality and a need that extends beyond bureaucratic attempts to contain it. The committee responded to this evidence through recommending that the definition of 'immediate family' be broadened within the Fair Work Act to more accurately reflect the close personal relationships which many Australians have in which they provide care. This is just one example of the way in which the committee directly responded in its recommendations to the evidence gathered and delivered to the inquiry. The report also recommends that the government undertake consideration of a number of measures relating to paid parental leave and early childhood education and care which will seek to form a pathway to bring Australia to the forefront of best practice when it relates to this industry. Labor is deeply proud of its legacy in the introduction of paid parental leave and the very important recent passage of legislation which will bring Australian carers to 26 weeks of paid parental leave within the coming years. But the reality of neglect in this area by the former government means that the path to what was declared as the international standard of 52 weeks is an enormous policy and fiscal challenge that needs careful attention and strategic planning. The report also contains recommendations aimed at ensuring that Australian workers have access to flexible working environments and roster justice and that large companies cannot intentionally fail to collect data which would demonstrate the often inflexible accommodation attitudes of management to those seeking altered hours and conditions. The SDA's 2021 survey report into work, family and care saw the collection of data from over 6,000 employees. It was submitted to the committee, and 55 per cent of the survey participants said they provided care to another person on a regular basis. This is not a niche issue. This is happening in every community, every family and every set of care relationships in our country. It's for that reason employers must ensure that flexible working arrangements are a practical reality for employees and that the process of requesting altered hours or conditions is not bogged down by bureaucracy or subject to the whims of individual managers. We have made recommendations to that end. Mandated roster notice periods were very uncertain. The data poverty was like a black hole. I was appalled that major providers of retail in Australia could tell us, within 10 seconds, of product leaving shelf 7 of aisle 3 but couldn't tell us about their workers and their shifts and rostering. That is no longer an acceptable reality in this time, when so much data is available to us. Evidence heard throughout the course of the inquiry also detailed increasing prevalence of gig platforms within the Australian economy and the way in which such platforms leave workers without normal working protections. It's also argued by some stakeholders that the algorithmic aspect of these platforms has the capacity to amplify existing bias and discrimination. For this reason, recommendation 26 of the report is that the principle of equal pay for equal work should be applied to those in the gig economy and that the Australian government should remove incentives for gig platforms to avoid workplace regulations. This recommendation arose out of evidence provided to the committee particularly relating to the potential harm of gig platforms in relation to the formal care economy. The report provides a range of options for further policy work and offers the government the opportunity to consider the work of the committee as it plans a forward program. The government has already made substantial progress towards improving Australia's industrial relations framework, as well as our formal and informal care economy. The centrepiece of the government's first budget was a major investment in affordable early childhood education and care and modernisation and expansion of paid parental leave. Sadly, this report reveals there is so much more work to do. 16:11 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria I rise to speak to the tabling of the final report of the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care. I join with my fellow senators in thanking the secretariat for the fantastic work that they performed in supporting us and marshalling a range of witnesses before us. I thank, too, Senator Barbara Pocock, who before coming here was in fact an expert in this area in her own right. It was a privilege to serve with her on this inquiry. The deputy chair, Senator O'Neill, added her experience to the mix, and I found that invaluable, as were the contributions of Senator Askew, Ari Stewart—Senator Stewart's new child—and also Senator Bragg. I'm no stranger to the complexity of the problems which face people, mainly women, who have to struggle simultaneously with the responsibilities of work and care. My working life before I came to this place was characterised by fighting for the rights of working people to care alongside their right to work, like fighting for the provision of paid parental leave at Qantas, fighting for the first EBA to include paid family and domestic violence leave, or fighting for and winning extra super in agreements at many, many private-sector employers. But, even with my experience of progressing issues like this, the committee process for this report highlighted just how far behind the times Australia has fallen in providing a decent structure to assist our fellow Australians to balance their working hours with their caring responsibilities. Unfortunately, Australia is an international outlier that demands that working carers mould their lives around working conditions designed for workers and households of the last century. Paid parental leave is a great example. While the previous government stalled, the world around us moved towards more comprehensive models of paid parental leave. Just this week, we saw the Labor government begin to turn this tide around by legislating for 26 weeks, a full six months, of paid parental leave by 2026. The changes have also increased flexibility arrangements and incentivised blokes to take on more caring responsibilities by strengthening the 'use it or lose it' provisions. This structure improves the way Australian families balance work and care by making it easier for both parents to participate in the workforce and share care. It means having a baby isn't as much of an economic and professional setback as it once was. I would note that the committee heard—and this is reflected in the final report—that 52 weeks of paid parental leave is generally considered international best practice. Given that, I echo the sentiment of the report, which recommends the Australian government consider how to fund and implement that best-practice standard. We deserve no less. Another example is the adoption of part-time work as the default option for working carers. In other countries, full-time work for parents is much more common because of the support systems around them to make this possible. Where there is part-time work, it has been structured to allow for flexibility and security. In Australia, part-time work is looking more and more like casual work but without the loading—that is, it's insecure and underpaid. In Australia we need to remedy this by thinking carefully about what a casual worker is, what a part-time worker is and what the important differences are between the two. We need to make sure that these different modes of work are defined meaningfully and can't be used to undermine flexibility and pay. The evidence has also reminded me of just how much is lost for our domestic economy and for individuals when the structure is not fit for purpose. As it stands, our system does not adequately recognise that work and care are two sides of the economy and labour in Australia. Both are productive and both take effort. We heard that women who have caring responsibilities for kids, the elderly or others don't want to be working part time. They want full-time work and full-time hours, but the inflexible nature of the way we approach things like rostering, leave entitlements and child care mean that for many woman full-time work can't be juggled with everything else. That is a shame for Australia because we actually lose a whole pool of workers who want to contribute more and who want to work more. It's also a shame for Australia because this same pool of workers is more likely to be the sort of professional carers we desperately need right now. They are the nurses, the disability support workers, the childcare workers and the aged-care workers that are in shortage. It's also a shame for women. Without the proper policy ecosystem to support women to work the increased amount they wish to, we are never going to cut the gender pay gap and we are never going to cut the superannuation gap. While the implicit assumption of our industrial relations and employment policies is that women are expected to sacrifice their professional work to fulfil their caring responsibilities, women in already poorly paid industries will not be able to get ahead. It's also a shame for men, who don't get the opportunity to care for their children and parents. We are failing pretty much everyone. Women and their families should be supported by governments, and the Labor government is starting to turn around a decade of that not being the case. Cheaper child care absolutely pays for itself. Rostering practices need to improve to generally consider employee views about the impact of proposed roster changes and to provide genuine flexibility for caring responsibilities. We heard all too often that a veneer of flexibility exists in rostering but that the reality of chopping and changing rosters with too little notice leaves women and those with caring responsibilities on the outer. We need to look closer at defining the meaning of casual employees in a way that truly reflects the nature of casual work and is restricted to work that is generally intermittent, seasonal or unpredictable. Similarly, we need to ensure that part-time employment isn't just a form of casual employment without the loading. This is important because, as the committee heard many times, limiting insecure forms of employment and creating a more predictable employee-employer relationship will, by extension, provides greater flexibility and scope for accommodating care responsibilities. One thing that is clear from the final report and from the evidence the committee heard is that there is no quick fix to the challenges Australia faces in rebalancing our system of work and care policies. At the moment, it's clear that our system doesn't provide the correct level of flexibility and support required to get the most out of the workforce and doesn't accurately reflect the caring responsibilities of a modern Australia. As important as it was in 1920, we can no longer rely on the Harvester judgment to organise our ideas of the workforce and the family, because that decision no longer reflects the families, economy or labour market of 21st century Australia. We have to look to what other countries are doing on many fronts: child care, parental leave, working hours, aged care and much more. Other countries have lowered the gender pay gap and have a better balance of work and care than we do. But there is no one silver bullet to improve the key indicators on which we want to be measured. We cannot continue to be an outlier in the world. I look forward to working as part of a government that is committed to tackling these challenges and that thinks critically and exchanges with complex issues rather than shirking their responsibilities, as has been the story in the last decade. This report is important. It contributes vital, contemporary knowledge to the debate about the state of work and care in Australia. It also provides great insight into the lived experience of workers who are also carers. These experiences are often neglected and fall by the wayside. I am pleased that the Senate has taken the time to listen, and I look forward to the discussion the report encourages us to have. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 85 DOCUMENTS Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 85 16:21 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I rise to speak to the motion to take note of the documents at No. 2 on page 6, on the defence and veteran suicide royal commission interim report. In relation to this, I just want to make a few short statements. Sadly, we know that the latest report found that 1,600 ADF members and veterans with service after 1985 died by suicide between 1997 and 2020. That reveals an additional 327 deaths by suicide since the last year's report, largely due to an expanded study period which now includes an additional five years of data and does not reflect an increased rate of suicide overall. The 2022 report found that the most common risk factors for permanent reserve and ex-serving ADF members who died by suicide were: experiencing a mood or affective disorder, such as depression, and problems in spousal relationships. One of the things that the Albanese Labor government is doing is that we are delivering on our commitments from the federal election, including a veterans employment strategy and expanding the network of Veterans' and Families' Hubs right around the country. I want to talk specifically about the veterans' hub that I assisted Minister for Defence Personnel Matt Keogh to launch in Burnie on 16 January 2023. The funding was $2.2 million to the veteran welfare board in Burnie, to assist in developing that hub to provide physical and mental health services, advocacy, wellbeing, housing assistance and employment for the whole north-west Tasmania region. We have a lot of veterans in north-west Tasmania. That area stretches right along the north-west coast, down as far as Marrawah in the far north-west and also down the west coast of Tasmania. It's a really broad area, and quite often it's difficult for some of those veterans to be able to travel even into Burnie. So I was really pleased to understand that part of the funding for the veterans' hub in Burnie was in fact an outreach capacity, where they would have the capability to go to the veterans, rather than the veterans having to come to them in at the hub. It is a really great program that will be implemented in Burnie. I know the veteran welfare board there were very excited when the final message came through in relation to the funding. It's run by, particularly, volunteers in Burnie, and they're a great bunch of veterans from right across the north-west coast. Obviously, the RSL also plays a very important role in that, not only in Tasmania but also right across the country. One of the points I want to make in talking about this report is that the Australian government, in implementing the government's response to the royal commission, has agreed to invest $233.9 million to engage 500 new frontline staff at DVA to eliminate the compensation claims backlog. I know that that's been in place for a period of time, and it was really important that we made sure that we cleared that backlog because that was one of the issues that veterans were facing in trying to get their cases managed. We also invested $9.5 million into developing a pathway for simplification and harmonisation of veterans legislation, which again has been a really important factor when I have spoken to veterans and veterans groups about their difficulty in navigating the various parts of the legislation. We're also investing $87 million to modernise the IT systems in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and that will also help improve the claims processing. We committed $24.3 million to provide increased support to veterans who are having their claims processed and to improve modelling capabilities needed to forecast and manage future demand for DVA services. In summary, I want to put on the record that the Albanese Labor government accepted the positions expressed in the royal commission's report. We've put in a lot of funding through the last budget, and I was very pleased to see that we supported the veterans hubs, which the previous government commenced. We have continued to do support those hubs, and I was very excited to assist Minister Keogh in opening and kicking off the one in Burnie, on the northwest coast, so we can assist veterans in that area. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. PETITIONS 86 PETITIONS Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps 86 16:27 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales by leave—I table a nonconforming petition, previously circulated to whips, relating to the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. COMMITTEES 86 COMMITTEES National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee 86 Government Response to Report 86 16:27 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I take note of the government's response to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee report into independent assessments. In case there's anybody who hasn't heard of the term 'independent assessments', let me contextualise it for you. This was a program, a proposal, introduced by the former government under which disabled people in Australia would be forced, before gaining access to the NDIS, to undertake a medical assessment by a medical practitioner they did not know and who did not know them. The proposal by the government was to have this assessment undertaken, often, by medical practitioners who had no knowledge of the disability which the NDIS participant may have, and the result of that assessment would impact not only whether they could access the scheme but ultimately also the funds they could receive under the scheme. It was, quite frankly, a terrible idea, and the disability community across the country joined together with the Greens in opposing that proposal every step of the way. The inquiry undertaken by the NDIS's parliamentary oversight body was a critical mechanism for giving effect to the disability community's opposition to this proposal. There were many disturbing aspects to the proposal, but the most disturbing aspect of the proposal, at its core, was the proposition that a stranger who the disabled person did not know would be the individual who would undertake the assessment of the individual. There was no opportunity to have somebody that you did know and that you had built trust with partake in that process. And the stranger you didn't know would then prepare reports that would ultimately determine whether you got access. I do have concerns with the government's response to this report, particularly in relation to recommendation 3. Recommendation 3 of the report clearly stated that assessments should be carried out by healthcare professionals nominated by the participant and/or their nominee where appropriate and available. The government has not supported that recommendation. It has simply noted that recommendation. Rather than simply fully support this recommendation it has pushed this question of the assessment off to yet another review. We heard clearly that the primary responsibility for developing reports should be undertaken by medical professionals who the participant trusts. Let me say that again: one of the key pieces of evidence that our inquiry heard was that an assessment of an individual for the purposes of access or funding should be undertaken by somebody the person knows and trusts, because it is the medical professionals with whom a disabled person has built a level of trust and who knows that participant who is best placed to provide information concerning access and supports and who is ultimately the person most appropriate to provide those supports. Yet the government has not endorsed that clear piece of evidence. Instead it has kicked it off to yet another review. Another concern of mine is the fact that the government has not fully endorsed our recommendation in relation to a definition around co-design, which is a critical element to actually getting the NDIS right. There are a bunch of things in this response I need to cover in a little bit more depth, given the full breadth of the report, so I seek leave to continue my remarks and expand on this in a future session of the Senate. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 86 Report 86 16:32 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'd like to make some brief remarks about the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report on the human rights implications of recent violence in Iran, which was tabled in the chamber on 1 February this year. As a member of the committee I want to thank the chair, the deputy chair and fellow members of the committee, as well as the secretariat, for delivering this comprehensive report. The committee received over a thousand submissions in this inquiry, with a significant number received as 'name withheld'. I thank those organisations and individuals who took the time to make those submissions. Since the death of Mahsa Amini in September last year, Australians have been appalled by Iran's violence against its citizens, particularly women and girls. I acknowledge the women and girls in Iran who continue to remain steadfast in the face of violence and intimidation. I also extend my deepest sympathies to the families of the protesters who have been tragically executed since the start of this very dark chapter. Finally, I want to speak directly to the Iranian diaspora here in Australia. We see your distress. We are worried about your friends and family in Iran and your grief for those you have lost. We understand the urgency with which you are striving for action. From the beginning of this new wave of crackdowns Australia has worked strategically to build pressure internationally on Iran. We have taken stronger action against Iran on human rights than any other previous Australian government. Australia was at the forefront of efforts to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women. Australia co-sponsored and advocated for the successful Human Rights Council resolution establishing the independent investigation into human rights violations in Iran. And, last year, the Albanese government imposed Magnitsky-style human rights sanctions on six individuals and two entities, including Iran's morality police, over their involvement in the Iranian regime's abhorrent human rights violations. In February, the Albanese government announced additional style sanctions on 16 Iranian individuals and one Iranian entity. We've also joined international partners to impose targeted sanctions on multiple Iranian individuals and entities involved in the production and supply of drones to Russia that have been used in an illegal and immoral invasion in Ukraine. I have more to say in regard to this matter, but I want to finish on these notes. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that we've seen some who are using new-found interest in these matters for their own political purposes. We know that the current government is working determinedly and successfully to get Iran removed from the Commission on the Status of Women. This is clearly an opposition that specialises in calling for action it failed to take, and our government will continue to join the choruses of international partners calling for an end to the Iranian regime's violence. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 87 Government Response to Report 87 16:35 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria In the remaining time we have, I rise to briefly remark on the Australian government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report into the national security risks affecting the Australian higher education research sector. I want to welcome the government's response to this report and the fact that they have agreed to implement the vast majority of the recommendations of the committee, which were unanimous and bipartisan. The conduct of the inquiry, I think, was an important part of Australia hardening our systems and our defences against foreign interference risks, in particular, but also the theft of intellectual property that we've seen from our higher education sector in recent years. I want to pay tribute to the former Minister for Education Dan Tehan, who introduced the University Foreign Interference Taskforce, which has helped contribute to a better culture in our universities, addressing these issues. I also note that the government, in responding to our recommendation about Confucius Institutes, has said that, while they will not exercise their power at this stage to cancel those agreements under the foreign arrangements act, the government does not wish to see any more of these established. Finally, I want to note one development since this report was handed down, which was an exclusive report in TheAustralian by Natasha Bita on Tuesday this week, which revealed that Australian universities are teaching students in authoritarian regimes, including China, offensive cyberhacking tactics and techniques. This is deeply disturbing because it includes tactics and techniques to overwhelm civilian infrastructure. The cybersecurity challenges that our country faces are hard enough already without Australian universities, perhaps inadvertently, assisting our potential adversaries to do more harm to our critical infrastructure. This requires an urgent investigation from the Albanese government. I hope since the publication of this story on Tuesday that that investigation is already well underway, in particular by the University Foreign Interference Taskforce. I look forward to them sharing with the public and the parliament the results of that inquiry as soon as possible, because we must get on top of this serious national security risk. DOCUMENTS 87 DOCUMENTS Deputy Chair of ASIC, Australian Carbon Credit Units, Commonwealth of Australia Credit Rating, Days and Hours of Meeting 87 Order for the Production of Documents 87 16:38 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I have four responses to returns to order to table. COMMITTEES 88 COMMITTEES Select Committee into the Provision and Access of Dental Services in Australia, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 88 Membership 88 16:38 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 16:38 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Dental Services in Australia—Select Committee— Appointed—Senators Askew, Cadell, Payman, Marielle Smith and Steele-John Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Antic, Bilyk, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Ciccone, Colbeck, Cox, Davey, Dodson, Duniam, Faruqi, Fawcett, Green, Grogan, Hanson-Young, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McKim, McLachlan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Neill, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Pratt, Rennick, Reynolds, Rice, Ruston, Scarr, Sheldon, Shoebridge, Dean Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Van, Walsh, Waters and Whish-Wilson and White Finance and Publ ic Administration Legislation Committee— Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Shoebridge to replace Senator Barbara Pocock for the committee's inquiry into the Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2023 Participating member: Senator Barbara Pocock Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee— Appointed—Substitute member: Senator McKim to replace Senator Shoebridge for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and a related bill Participating member: Senator Shoebridge Question agreed to. BILLS 88 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 88

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

First Reading 88 16:39 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 88 16:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This Bill contains a number of important integrity measures to ensure both our financial service and tax system are working as intended. Schedule 1 to the Bill fixes a deficiency in the existing law which could have led to accidental compliance breaches by financial advisers in relation to their registration obligations. It also allows the corporations regulator ASIC to use assisted decision-making processes when processing and considering applications for financial advisers to be registered. The use of assisted decision-making processes, including computer automated and computer-assisted decision making, will enable ASIC to deliver a high standard of service in an effective and efficient manner. Schedule 2 to the Bill lays the necessary foundations to allow the implementation of sustainability reporting standards in Australia. Growing awareness of the financial risks and opportunities of climate change and broader sustainability issues has prompted a range of international financial system responses. Many key markets for Australian companies are introducing measures to improve transparency, manage systemic risks and align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals. A common and important component of this is company disclosure of sustainability and climate-related financial risks and information. The Albanese government has committed to ensuring large businesses provide Australians and investors with greater transparency and accountability when it comes to their climate-related plans, financial risks and opportunities. The ASIC Act currently does not explicitly grant our standards bodies the function to develop and formulate sustainability standards. Schedule 2 amends the law to provide the Australian Accounting Standards Board with functions to develop sustainability standards, and clarifies that the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board can develop and maintain relevant assurance standards for sustainability purposes. It also empowers the Financial Reporting Council to provide strategic oversight and governance functions in relation to these sustainability standards functions. Sustainability standards developed and issued by the AASB will not be enforceable until further legislative changes are made to apply the standards. Treasury is consulting on the initial policy design and parameters that will inform this application. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to the amendments in Schedules 1 and 2 as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Schedule 3 to the Bill increases the independence and effectiveness of the Tax Practitioners Board, ensure high standards of ethics and competency in the tax profession and streamline the regulation of tax practitioners. These changes will implement recommendations from the final report of the TPB Review and uphold high standards in the tax profession, enhancing community confidence in the regulation of tax practitioners and the integrity of the system. The Albanese government is a government of consultation—we want to consult with the tax profession about improving the tax system. We can't do it if they use that information for commercial benefit. We've put the industry on notice—there can't be a repeat of recent confidentiality breaches. These long overdue reforms to the TPB are an important start but they won't be the end. The previous government turned a blind eye. We won't. These are just the first steps in that process, and we'll consult in coming months on further changes to ensure our regulators can appropriately respond to emerging issues. Schedule 4 aligns the tax treatment of off-market share buy-backs with the tax treatment of on-market share buy-backs for listed public companies. Currently, listed public companies can split the purchase price it pays for and off-market share buyback into a capital component and a franked dividend component. Companies factor the franking credits attached to the dividends into the purchase price, which facilitates them paying a below-market price for the shares. To maximise the discount, companies maximise the franked dividend component and minimise the capital gain component, thereby reducing the capital gains tax that would otherwise be paid on the sale. This is not possible with on-market trades. The reduced capital gains tax and franking credits effectively amount to a subsidy from the Budget to help fund companies' acquisition of their own shares at a discounted price. Aligning the tax treatment of share buy-backs will enhance the integrity of the tax system. Listed public companies will no longer be able to exploit the tax rules to buy back their own shares at a discount subsidised by Australian taxpayers. In recent years, the incidence of off-market share buy-backs has been irregular, but the value of shares purchased has been large. Allowing the current tax treatment to continue presents an ongoing risk to revenue if not addressed. Schedule 5 prevents companies from raising capital for no commercial purpose, and using this capital to fund special franked dividends to shareholders. This comes at a cost to the Budget. These distributions occur on an ad hoc basis, outside of established business or industry practice. The changes are in response to concerns raised by the Australian Taxation Office and the previous Coalition government that this activity needed to stop. This proposal does not make changes to the imputation system. Rather it improves its integrity by ensuring companies are unable to enter into contrived arrangements to artificially distribute excess franking credits. This is not how our franking credit system was intended to work. Companies should be investing and distributing profits based on sound economic and commercial reasoning—not because of a tax loophole. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 26 May 2023. Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 89

Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023

First Reading 89 16:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 90 16:41 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— MIGRATION AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIA'S ENGAGEMENT IN THE PACIFIC AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2023 The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 amends the Migration Act 1958 to establish the legislative power and framework to conduct a ballot—a 'visa pre-application process'—for specified visa programs. This Bill is a necessary first step in delivering on the Government's commitment to establish the Pacific Engagement Visa from July 2023, to boost Pacific permanent migration to Australia and build a stronger Pacific family. Boosting Pacific permanent migration to Australia is an essential part of the Government's plan to build a stronger Pacific family and strengthen Australia's ties with the Pacific. An increase in permanent migration through the new Pacific Engagement Visa program will boost Australia's people to people links across the Pacific family, and strengthen country to country ties. The Pacific Engagement Visa will provide opportunities for skills exchange and contribute to Pacific home economies through remittances and investments. It will also support wider mobility within the region and grow Australia's Pacific diaspora. The Bill will provide the Government with the legislative framework needed to implement and operate a ballot for the Pacific Engagement Visa, for eligible nationals of participating Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste. Each year, the Pacific Engagement Visa program will provide up to 3,000 permanent places to citizens of the Pacific and Timor-Leste to settle in Australia as permanent residents. Eligible participants will be randomly selected through a visa pre-application ballot process and then given the opportunity to apply with their dependent family for a permanent Pacific Engagement Visa. Currently, Australia does not have a dedicated permanent residence pathway for nationals of Pacific Island Countries and Timor-Leste. Contingent on the passage of all associated bills, including the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023, the Pacific Engagement Visa would be provided for through amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994, to commence in July 2023. The Pacific Engagement Visa program will be open to nationals of participating Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste, who have drawn a place in the visa pre-application process. Places available for skilled migrants under Australia's annual migration program will not be impacted by the introduction of the Pacific Engagement Visa. To encourage permanent migration from the Pacific, without jeopardising Australia's existing permanent visa pathways, the annual allocation of 3,000 places for the Pacific Engagement Visa program is in addition to Australia's overall annual permanent migration program intake. Pacific Engagement Visa holders will be permanent residents and, like other permanent residents in Australia, these visa holders can live, work, and study anywhere in Australia, which will support local economies and contribute to communities throughout the country. The ballot process could also be used in the future by Australia's other temporary and permanent migration programs to promote equitable and fair access, specifically for those programs where the number of prospective applicants may exceed available places, and where it is otherwise appropriate to do so. This Bill, together with the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 and the anticipated permanent Pacific Engagement Visa will deliver on the Government's commitment to secure our region and build a stronger Pacific Family. These reforms demonstrate to the Australian community, and to our Pacific family, that stronger Pacific partnerships focused on shared needs and priorities are in Australia's national interest, and support stability, prosperity and security in our region. I commend this bill to the Chamber. MIGRATION (VISA PRE-APPLICATION PROCESS) CHARGE BILL 2023 The Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 introduces legislation to impose a nominal charge on registered participants in a visa pre-application process, administered by the Department of Home Affairs. This Bill complements and supports the amendments in the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which makes amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to introduce a visa pre-application process (a ballot). This Bill allows for regulations to be made to prescribe an amount in Australian dollars that can be imposed on a person registering in a visa pre-application process, which can be nil up to a maximum charge of AUD100, with the ability to prescribe different amounts for different visa pre-application processes, and for different classes of persons. For the Pacific Engagement Visa ballot, this will be a nominal registration charge of $25. Regulations prescribing a charge would be disallowable by the Parliament. The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 provides that any visa pre-application process charge is to be paid at the time of registration and establishes that the regulations may make provisions for remissions, refunds and waivers of, and exemptions to, the charge. A bill to impose a charge to register in a visa pre-application process is necessary to ensure the ballot does not attract non-genuine participants and preserves the opportunity for genuine participants who intend to apply for the relevant visa should they be successful in the ballot draw. Subject to the passage of this Bill and the prerequisite Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, consequential amendments will be made to the Migration Regulations 1994 to create a new Pacific Engagement Visa subclass. This package of legislative reforms delivers on the Government's commitment to establish a new permanent Pacific Engagement Visa program to boost Pacific permanent migration to Australia, secure our region and build a stronger Pacific Family. I commend this bill to the Chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 13 June 2023. MOTIONS 91 MOTIONS Albanese Government 91 16:41 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That the Senate notes the Albanese Government's broken promises to deliver cheaper power prices, cheaper mortgages, to not make any changes to super, as well as broken promises on medicines, country doctors, Medicare and mental health. For all their moral posturing and their promises, Labor show time and time again that their rhetoric in opposition is not matched by their actions in government, and it's costing Australian lives. Anthony Albanese promised cost-of-living relief during the election, but the reality is life is only getting harder for Australians under this government. Mortgages are rising, energy bills are skyrocketing, and the price at supermarkets and the doctor's is only going up. To borrow a phrase from those opposite, everything is going up except your wages. Labor promised on 97 separate occasions that Australian electricity prices would drop by $275, but instead they have delivered the most expensive average wholesale electricity prices on record. Labor said they wouldn't make any changes to superannuation, but one in 10 Australians will be affected by the changes they have now announced, and it's clear this is just the groundwork for more taxes and changes to come. Labor promised cheaper medicines, but already they have removed life-changing drugs from the PBS, one of which is being relied on by 15,000 Australians who suffer from type 1 diabetes. Labor promised to strengthen Medicare, but so far they've only weakened it: they slashed Medicare mental health support in half, they've cut 70 telehealth items from Medicare, and bulk-billing rates have plummeted after being at their highest levels when the coalition was in government. Labor said they'd make it easier to see a GP, but they've ripped GPs out of rural, regional and remote Australia. It's clear that their expedited requirement for 24/7 nurses in aged care homes is both undeliverable and damaging, and there have been more deaths in aged care under this government than in the entire first 2½ years of the pandemic. Despite all Labor's rhetoric on increasing access to health care for all Australians and protecting Medicare, they just don't understand the importance of affordable and adequate mental health supports for the most vulnerable of Australians. As part of our response to support Australians in tougher times, the former coalition government doubled the number of Medicare subsidised psychological sessions available through the Better Access initiative from 10 to 20. With significant pressures on Australians currently facing cost-of-living pressures, we recognise that mental health support could not be more important. But, despite these pressures impacting Australians and our communities, the Labor government decided that now apparently was the right time to slash access to Medicare subsidised psychological sessions in half. They can say all they like that they are the party of Medicare, but, make no mistake, this is a blatant cut to Medicare and it's hurting the most vulnerable Australians right now. Labor promised they would strengthen Medicare, but so far they have only weakened it. The Strengthening Medicare Taskforce report they released is merely aspirational. It has no urgency. It has no details. It has no time lines. It has no budget. Aspirations are commendable, but with no urgent action to follow them up they're not going to assist Australians with the significant increases and pressures of cost-of-living rises, that continue to go up. It's $55 for a script—$60 out of pocket for a GP—and all at the same time energy bills, mortgages and general cost-of-living pressures are skyrocketing. Bulk-billing rates were at record highs under the previous government. Now they are plummeting because Labor's actions have caused the sector to lose confidence in the system. For all the rhetoric on Medicare, they have come into government and slashed Medicare health supports in half and cut 70 telehealth items. Labor also went into government with an election promise to prioritise access to health care and reduce the cost of medicines. But now they've decided to remove an innovative life-changing form of insulin called Fiasp from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, sending prices soaring to absolutely unaffordable levels. The coalition government listed this very important diabetic medicine on the PBS in 2019. We understood that Fiasp is an innovative meal-time insulin that improves sugar blood levels at a faster rate than other diabetes medications, resulting in improved quality of life for the people who take it. But Labor—in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis—has made the decision to remove affordable access to a life-changing drug that's being relied upon by more than 15,000 Australians with diabetes. They must be transparent with diabetes patients in Australia and admit whether they took this action to support the commercial viability of Fiasp remaining on the PBS or took this intervention because they were protecting their own budget bottom line. We know that Minister Butler as the Minister for Health has the ability to intervene, but so far he has chosen not to. We in the coalition are absolutely proud of our record of affordable medicines. We listed almost 3,000 new and amended medicines while we were in government. We know that the previous Labor government had to stop listing medicines because they ran out of money. Let's hope this isn't a sign that it's about to repeat itself. Labor also promised they'd make it easy to see a doctor, but they're just making it harder. Serious workforce shortages are putting pressure on our healthcare system, right across the country. Unfortunately, rural, regional and remote Australia are being the hardest hit, because they are the ones that were already facing challenges. In the middle of this workforce crisis the Albanese government decided to rip GPs out of country towns, by changing the distribution priority areas for overseas trained doctors. We know that the DPA classification system was designed as a crucial part of trying to ensure that we had access to GPs in rural communities. But the government's decision to extend this priority access to outer metropolitan areas means that they have rendered this advantage, to rural and regional Australia, to the dustbin. To quote the Rural Doctors Association of Australia: 'This policy change will cost the lives of rural and remote patients who already suffer poorer outcomes.' On top of this, we have found that they've relegated international doctors and nurses working in regional areas to the bottom of the visa pile—failing to prioritise 887 regional skilled migration visas. This is all at a time when the country needs, more than ever, to ensure that we have access to timely health care and GPs. Finally, Labor said they'd put the care back into aged care. Instead, they've just put more pressure onto a sector already struggling under workforce pressures. As the sector deals with the challenges of these significant pressures, the government has brought forward the deadline for 24/7 registered nurses in every aged-care home by an entire year—against the recommendations of the royal commission into aged care. Of course everybody wants to see older Australians getting the care they need and deserve, but there is no point legislating for something that's impossible to deliver. Disappointingly, they are now ignoring calls for help from aged-care homes around the country. They have consistently refused to provide them with any information about what is going to happen them. Despite their best intentions and efforts, if they are unable to meet these mandated requirements, what will happen to these homes? These are homes of older Australians. And there are very serious concerns that aged-care facilities will be forced to close because they can't access the required staff, which will mean that people who live in these aged-care homes will be kicked out of their home and be forced to move hundreds of miles away from their own communities, from their families and from their loved ones. The UTS Ageing Research Collaborative report released last year showed that less than five per cent of the surveyed homes currently had the required direct care workforce needed to fill the requirements that are being forced upon them. We've raised these concerns time and time again with the government, but they are refusing to consider the unique challenges faced by small, rural and regional providers. The aged-care sector needs urgent and tangible support, but sadly they are getting absolutely none of this from this government. All they get is more rhetoric. That's all we're getting from the Anthony Albanese Labor government. They're happy to make the big talk, big headline promises to get themselves elected to government, but, when it comes to delivering on its promises, they're nowhere to be seen. 16:50 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Sometimes I find it hard to respond to some of the claims from those opposite. It's as if they can disassociate themselves from the nine terrible, long years in which they were in government and the construction of failure after failure that is really making life hard for Australians. It didn't happen overnight. It was on their watch, under their construction, that we ended up with systems that are so broken. They didn't invest carefully, they didn't invest wisely and they didn't invest for the benefit of Australians. They invested for the benefit of very, very few. While they were making those decisions, they blew the budget right out of the water and stretched it out to $1 trillion of debt for Australian taxpayers. So I want to thank you, Acting Deputy President Van, for this opportunity to speak to Senator Ruston's general business motion. The contrast between this government and the train wreck we watched for nine years is absolutely daylight and darkness. Australians, for nine long years of the LNP government, watched their wages go backwards and backwards. They saw energy generation go out of the system. The gap between the rich and poor in Australia grew greater on the coalition's nine-year watch. That's what they did; they grew the gap between Australians. We saw institutions of responsible government absolutely totally trashed. We saw grant schemes rorted. They used Australian taxpayer funds as if they were Liberal Party dollars to throw about for their own re-election. And, of course, there's the old chestnut: jobs for the mates. That became endemic. Since Labor came to government, Australians have been telling me, when I'm out and about, that they are feeling like their government has stabilised the country. They wake up every morning knowing that somebody is actually doing the job of government and is being 'the adult in the room', as has been put to me many times. We are responsibly managing the nation and acting in the interest of the many. We were promised a national anticorruption commission. We heard about it for five years. There was a lot of gum flapping going on, on the other side. There was a lot of persuasion, a lot of column inches invested in the confidence that the Liberal-National government would deliver it, but they never did. We've done it. This is a comparison between nine years and nine months. We did in nine months what they couldn't even bring themselves to do in nine years. And didn't we need an anticorruption commission to get to the bottom of some of the rorting and the nonsense that was going on over there! We have delivered cheaper child care, which will kick in on 1 July, and cheaper medicines, saving Australians hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of dollars over the course of a year. We've reinvigorated the industrial relations system to make sure that wages rise and that people can get enough money to live on. We're implementing the Jenkins report recommendations. We're increasing the weeks of paid parental leave and bringing in funding increases for First Nations services. These things are happening. They are real changes making a real difference to the bottom line for ordinary families. On the other side, at every turn, as we try to bring these cost-of-living measures to support Australians, we're faced by the 'no-alition'. In nine months, they've already got a record of opposing anything in this place that might benefit ordinary working families. They've opposed the Housing Australia Future Fund. Senator Polley e5x They've what? Senator O'NEILL 140651 They've opposed the Housing Australia Future Fund. Senator Polley, I can't believe it either! Given the rate of homelessness in Australia and the struggle that people face finding rental properties, they are opposing the Housing Australia Future Fund. They opposed a legislated emissions reduction target because they think we don't need one. They opposed our industrial relations legislation which was meant to get wages going, and they are opposing our National Reconstruction Fund. Why would they support something that would create manufacturing jobs for Australians? The 'no-alition' —that's what we see here, day in and day out. This is when we saw them get excited. They finally decided that they'd go into bat for the top 0.5 per cent holders of superannuation. Forget 99.5 per cent of Australians. We talk about the average super balance being about 140K. They're out there fighting to the death for the ones who've got over $3 million. I think it's great if you have a successful life, if you invest well and you run businesses and you have great jobs and you grow your wealth. That's fantastic. But don't expect somebody on a low-wage to be paying more tax than a wealthy retiree with $3 million already in their superannuation fund. Those opposite dare to lecture us on power prices. On their watch, they delayed a key electricity pricing update until after the election. They had the facts. They had the documents. But, like so many other things, they decided to do nothing about it. That's probably a bit of a misrepresentation. They did decide to do something about it. They decided to hide the report under the bedcovers. That is an obscene response to the reality facing Australia in terms of electricity pricing. That report that they didn't want Australians to see showed that prices had more than doubled under their watch from January to March 2022, and the prices continued to climb right up until the election. So ashamed, they were, that they actually hid their work. They hid the facts. But Australians had seen enough by that stage and turfed them out, as they absolutely deserved. The rank incompetence of those opposite on energy policy was astounding. Despite having floated over a dozen policies—I think it might have been 22 or 23; it's hard to keep track—they never landed a single energy policy. The fact is that, with regard to how much power there was in Australia's system, they left Australia with less power in the system than they got into it. Maybe that's because they had an energy minister who was more committed to forging documents and patting himself on the back on Facebook than actually adding power to the grid. I almost forgot. They did have an extra energy minister—a secret one—in the form of PM Mr Morrison. But, sadly, he couldn't figure out what he wanted to do in this portfolio or any of the others, so they just did nothing of any use. The coalition, in fact, had two energy ministers but no energy policy. Global inflation, we know, is hurting nations around the world, and Russia's illegal and brutal attempt at conquest has impacted supply chains, along with the aftershocks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Inflation is coming down, and we are doing far better than many other nations around the world because this is a global phenomenon. But let the facts speak for themselves. The worst quarter for inflation in this period of time was under the LNP Morrison government in 2022 prior to the election. Those opposite, frankly, have no integrity. They do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to broken promises. Just off the top of my head, here is the soundtrack of some of my memories of nine years of watching the previous government day in and day out: cuts to the ABC and SBS; cuts to health care; cuts to education funding; no national integrity commission; more expensive power; less energy generation to the system; destruction of Australian manufacturing; and a decade of stagnation. The only sorts of reforms were the ones that they were dragged kicking and screaming into. Labor will continue our plan to fight inflation and keep bringing down the cost of living. Those opposite had nine long years to deliver cheaper power prices, to make super more sustainable and to fix Medicare. Instead, all we got was a doubling of power bills, increasingly unaffordable super tax concessions and GP wait times longer than ever. Instead of moving stunt motions like this one, those opposite should reflect on their record of failure and the reason they were turfed out at the last election. In opposition, they have a chance to participate in great public debate to lift the nation. But what do we see? No new policies from them, no new initiatives, no soul-searching and no introspection following their crushing defeat. Instead, they choose to be the no-alition. Many of the same characters from the Morrison government are still on the frontbench, including Angus Taylor, whose litany of failures as a minister and endless stream of scandals—one after the other after the other—have not prevented him from becoming shadow Treasurer. Then we have Mr Stuart Robert and the robodebt scandal. He is now the shadow Assistant Treasurer, despite telling the royal commission that he saw it as his ministerial duty to openly promote falsehoods about the illegal robodebt scheme and stick with his mates over telling the truth to the Australian people. Whatever happened to ministerial accountability? It died under Mr Morrison. Sussan Ley, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, returned to the frontbench after being sacked as health minister after using taxpayer funds to visit the Gold Coast to shop for a new holiday unit. Australians don't trust those who are on the opposition benches. They don't trust them on integrity, and for very good reason. That is why Australians voted to kick them out. The Albanese government is absolutely committed to improving rural health. But to fix what has been broken due to the compounding impact of so many bad decisions made by the previous government simply cannot be done overnight. This is a consequence of a government that governed by press release rather than doing policy work and making the necessary careful investment in building a great workforce in the healthcare sector and providing the services Australia needs. It is a long walk back to improving rural and regional health for Australians. We saw the scrapping of the National Health Partnership Agreement—torn up in the first days of Mr Abbott's government—and, with that, the destruction of the GP co-payment model, which saw hundreds of doctors leave primary care, leading to some of the longest wait times in history. I have had GPs tell me that they couldn't sell their practice or even give it away for free, so ruined was the business of GPs by the LNP government. They actually broke the business model for GPs, and now they come in here bleating about how hard it is to see a doctor. They ruined the ecosystem. It is no small thing what they did; it is huge. They actually broke Australians' access to GPs—and it is being felt most keenly in regional and rural parts of Australia. It is pretty bad when it is only an hour and a half out of Sydney to get to the Central Coast, where I live, but you have to plan to be sick six weeks in advance. That is how denuded of a proper workforce the Australian healthcare system is. When I travel to regional and rural New South Wales I hear stories about the inability to have a child anywhere near where you live and having to leave home a month before your pregnancy completes and stay in a hotel somewhere like Dubbo because there is nowhere you can get the health care you need in north-western New South Wales. That doesn't happen overnight. It took a lot of effort from those opposite to so totally break the connection that Australians rightly have with primary health care—and they expect it, because Labor delivered Medicare, and they actually got the benefit of Labor's forward-thinking policy and investment in access to health care. We're going to fix it. We're absolutely going to fix it. But it's going to be hard. Mayors have described the GP coverage in the Eyre Peninsula as being as bad as in Afghanistan. But Labor is going to build 50 Medicare urgent-care clinics to take the pressure off, including in Albury and on the Central Coast. Emergency departments simply can't cope. We need to ensure that Australians can get the care they need in a timely way—the slashing of prices for hundreds of medical scripts and capping the maximum co-payment down by $12.50 to $30. We've done more in the first nine months of our government than those opposite did in their entire nine years, and we're going to keep working to make sure everyday Australians are getting their fair share. In retrospect, I'd love for the opposition to keep moving motions like this so we can point out the differences and what can be achieved in nine months by a government with vision and integrity. (Time expired) 17:06 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I know it's the end of the week, and it has been a long one—it really has—and I know we're here for three out of four weeks this month. But clearly those opposite haven't quite adjusted to the fact that they're actually in government now; it's actually their responsibility. They are looking at every opportunity they can. I notice Senator Polley's here suggesting that the coalition government had calm economic waters and that Labor are now experiencing stormy economic waters. Maybe TikTok was down when the COVID pandemic was happening, but there was a global pandemic that affected economies around the world, including Australia—an unprecedented pandemic, a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. Absolute uncertainty was thrown at the Australian people and those around the world during the COVID pandemic. We saw Victorians locked up for global record times, we saw lockdowns across the country and we saw borders between nations and within Australia closed. Yet Senator Polley seems to think they were calm economic waters. I mean, the fantasy land that these people must be living in is breathtaking. But when we're talking about pressures on the Australian electorate—the cost-of-living pressures facing Australian families—they're happening now, and they're happening without a plan from this government to address them at all. I just listened to Senator O'Neill's diatribe on what she alleges the coalition did in government—which is, again, hilarious in its absolute misrepresentations, in its biased view. It's extraordinary how you can actually stand up there and say these things. You must just have zero shame to be able to do that. The reality is that no amount of posturing, no amount of 'But it's hard!' and no amount of 'There are global factors at play now' is going to help one Australian to pay their mortgage or pay their power bills. Not one bit of whingeing, whining, looking back or pointing the finger is going to make the bottom line in a family budget look any healthier. The difference is that the Australian electorate were promised 97 times before the election that they were going to see a reduction of $275 in their power bills—$275, the number that shall not speak its name if you are a member of the ALP. Ninety-seven times Mr Albanese promised that Australians' power bills would be coming down. And what have they got to show for it? Increasing power bills and the fact that we've now seen, after all their bluff and bluster, everything they were carrying on about, bringing back the parliament at a huge expense to the Australian taxpayer. There's been no cost-of-living relief, no energy price relief, but we're told today by the energy companies that we're about to see prices increase by 20 per cent. I hope that for some of these elderly Australians that everyone seems to be so concerned about when they talk about the nurses in aged-care homes—oh, hang on: that's not actually going to happen anymore, sorry. Maybe they don't care that much. I hope it's not a cold winter, because cold winters, when Australians and particularly older Australians can't afford to heat their houses, have dire consequences—absolutely dire consequences. But what we're getting from the Labor government is complete inaction—no plan. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny. Listening to those opposite, they have no details about anything. They talk about their broken plans when it comes to superannuation, that it's a 'modest change'—clearly that was the phrase most used in the focus group. But we've now had an admission from Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones today that there will be unintended consequences to these superannuation changes, and that they will now undertake a lengthy consultation processes. Here's a tip, guys: when you're putting together policy, it is usually good to undertake some of that consultation process before you announce it and before you go out there and absolutely frighten Australians, particularly our farmers, and particularly when you're going to tax an unrealised asset, when you're going to potentially force people to sell the investments that they have worked so hard to build up, because on paper they're over a particular price threshold—and one that you're not planning to index. We will see increases to property prices and increases to land values over the years ahead. That does tend to happen. Think about how much a house cost 20 years ago versus today. We're talking about changes to superannuation. Superannuation is when people retire. There will be people starting their working lives now and they won't be accessing it for 40-plus years. With no indexation, how many people do you think will be impacted then? This is nothing but a blatant grab by the industry super funds to try and smash self-managed super funds. We know what your agenda is. Your agenda is to do anything you can to support your Labor mates. We know that the Labor mates in the unions pulled the strings. I welcome, in many regards, the national corruption commission being set up, because I think we may start to get to the bottom of some very interesting deals that have been done, and why every policy this government has managed to put forward is one that boosts union involvement, that gives a bit of a pat on the back to the union mates: 'Don't worry, guys, we've got you. We'll change industrial relations. We'll make sure we get bargaining across industries to make sure life becomes better for you.' It's absolutely disgraceful. It is time to remember that you are the government and that everything you do has an impact on everyday Australians and how they're going to pay their bills for their families. It's about time you man up, grow up, woman up—whatever you want to call it. I don't know what we're all allowed to be nowadays. We're too busy worrying about— An honourable member interjecting— Senator HUGHES 273828 Yes, the Prime Minister is certainly too busy worrying about the Voice and crossing the Harbour Bridge at a pride event. He's not doing any work on how he's going to make Australians' lives easier. Before the election, Mr Albanese told us we would have cheaper mortgages. I can absolutely tell you that since May last year my mortgage is definitely not cheaper. In fact, I've had nothing but mortgage rate increases since then. It is definitely not cheaper. We did say it wouldn't be easy under Albanese, and it's certainly getting harder for retirees. I don't know why you don't like retirees. I know you don't like self-managed ones, because they actually manage to work for themselves, to contribute to the Australian economy, and to provide most of the jobs that everyday Australians have, which are in small business. They are the backbone of our economy. But, because they're not in a super fund with you're union buddies, you're going to do anything you can to undermine them and destroy their retirements. Do you remember that we were going to have no franking credits? We weren't talking about that. We weren't changing that. That was something that the member for McMahon floated in the last election. The member for Maribyrnong, who holds dear ambitions to be the Prime Minister, may still do so. He may have to compete with my local member, the member for Sydney, for that one. But remember that we're not touching franking credits. Minister Bowen told the electorate, 'If you don't like the policy, don't vote for us.' So they didn't. So what did you do this time? You just didn't tell them. You just lied. You said: 'We're not going to touch franking credits. There will be no changes to super.' It wasn't that you said there will be 'modest changes' to super; you said there will be 'no changes' to super. Remember that there would be no industry-wide bargaining? 'It's not part of our policy.' That was another lie. You said, 'We're going to do our bit to assist with real wage increases.' What have we seen since you've come to government? Wages have in fact fallen at faster rates. Remember the promise, 'We're going to cut the cost of consultants and contractors'? That one didn't happen, because they realised there are a few former chiefs of staff who now work with big advisory and consulting firms, so they all had to be looked after. These are all broken promises. You've been in for nine months, and you've managed to break almost every promise you made. Not only are your broken promises eroding the trust of the Australian electorate in democracy and political processes, but they reflect badly on everybody when you blatantly lie in this manner. The impacts of your decisions, the impacts of what you were doing, make a bad situation worse for every single family. If I hear once more that the Labor government is talking about boosting manufacturing, I can tell you that you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You want to boost manufacturing, but you also want a safeguard mechanism that will impact industries that will find it the hardest to abate. It would require some intellectual depth and some policy know-how to look at a broad range of industries and go: 'You know what? I saw a pharmaceutical company this week, and they have made great strides in getting to net zero. They're actually going to be ahead of it.' But the pharmaceutical industry is one of the easier industries for abatement, unlike the cement industry. They going to kill off Australian jobs, they going to kill off Australian manufacturing because, if you look around this place, you'll see that it's pretty full of cement. Cement is in everything we do, but the one company that might actually survive is the one that now sends its limestone over to China, so that company has all the extra emissions from transporting the limestone to China. They make the clinker in China, the most intensive emissions part of the cement process, because it's less regulated and less controlled and there is less oversight in China. They then put the clinker on a ship and bring it back to Australia, again adding to the emissions. But because those opposite have no understanding of transference of emissions, they seem to think this is an Australia-only problem, that somehow Australia can fix the global emissions problem, global warming, climate change. They can fix all of these things by regulating our own activities and are willingness to cut off our nose to spite our face, tie one arm behind our back, kill our economy. But they do not understand emissions transference in what's happening. The fact is that these emissions are being created in China—and probably additional emissions from the transport—and companies are not going to meet the threshold in the safeguard mechanism because their emissions are happening overseas. If the Greens are serious about this, they should start having a look at transparency because this is what companies are going to do. They're going to start sending jobs overseas, and they're going to go to countries that don't have the same regulations that we do. That means that not only are you going to have the increase in transport costs, but you're also going to have emissions being created in much less technologically advanced ways. Again, this would require some understanding of policy development and intellectual depth. No-one in the department could answer a question about a sea ban—no-one. The safeguard mechanism is designed with an arbitrary number—if you're at 99, you're exempt; if you're at 101, you're in. It is an arbitrary number for those companies that will find it the hardest to abate their emissions. That will destroy industries, destroy jobs, destroy families, destroy the regions. Maybe that's what you're going for, Chris. The way you're going with your renewable energy targets and everything around them, we're not going to have the energy and the power resources to keep anything going. Rolling blackouts will become the new norm in Australia. It's an absolute disgrace that somehow you are focused on taking this country so far backwards by destroying industries. We are a resource-rich nation, and there is no excuse for this. We should be leading the way, but, no, those opposite cannot get out of their own way. Maybe they're a bit psychologically bruised from the 2019 campaign, so that they're rocking in the corner—I don't know. Pick yourselves up, guys, and realise that the decisions you make impact Australian families, and you shouldn't be breaking the promises you made to them before the election. If they're all so great, all so excellent and they're not coming into place until after the next election, take them to the next election. Put them in the budget papers, show us what the costs are going to be, explain in detail whether or not an unrealised asset will have to be sold because the tax bill's so high. Take them to an election, take them to the Australian electorate and say: 'Hey, we said no changes to franking credits, we said no changes to superannuation, but we're talking about modest ones now. On those franking credits, you can't pay a dividend if you're raising capital.' Explain them to the Australian people, take them to the next election. But you know what's going to happen because they're bad policies making bad situations for families, and you're attacking some of the people that have contributed the most to building up this country. You're destroying families and their dreams for a better future. 17:19 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Wow! What was that? I've never heard anything so extraordinary, not even from this lot previously. We've had fake crocodile tears all week in this place around superannuation. They're going to go to war for anyone who has $3-plus million in their superannuation. They're going to fight for those people. Senator POLLEY e5x Yes, they have been successful, but they need the opposition to keep fighting day in, day out for them because they've got it so tough. What about the majority of Australians, who don't have $3-plus million in their superannuation? I'm all for people paying their fair share, but I do want to take the—I was going to say 'good senator' but I'm probably exaggerating there!—contribution of the senator before, Senator Hughes. Again, she was in here talking about her poor performance when it comes to the Premier of Victoria, Dan Andrews. I can remember her crying, from the rafters almost, about how Mr Andrews was going to get voted out of parliament. His government was gone because he locked everyone up during COVID. Senator Ciccone 281503 What happened? Senator POLLEY e5x That's a very good question. He was re-elected with a bigger majority. Why did he get re-elected? Because he did his job and he kept Victorians safe. On the other hand, the Prime Minister—what was his name? Mr Scott Morrison; he was Prime Minister. He wasn't actually doing his job very well, but he thought: 'I can do more than being a hopeless, corrupt Prime Minister. I can also be a minister for everything!' So he took over— Senator Scarr 282997 A point of order: there was a term which Senator Polley used then in referring to a member of the lower house. I'm sure, now that it has been brought to her attention, she will withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Would you like to withdraw your comment? Senator POLLEY e5x I'm happy to withdraw the comment. But I will keep talking about the former Prime Minister, who was in fact not satisfied with being able to demonstrate a complete lack of good management as the Prime Minister. He governed over a dysfunctional government. He was so concerned about his own ministers that, in fact, he decided that he should take on more responsibilities. Can I seek clarification through the chair: I thought I had 15 minutes on the clock. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 We have a hard marker at 5.30. Senator POLLEY e5x Okay. Well I better be quick then because I want to get on the record the stark contrast between the former Prime Minister, who was the leader of a dysfunctional, rorting—people may not like to accept that it was a corrupt government, but the reality is that that's how it's going to be remembered. That's how it will be recorded in history. I think we also have to put a few other things on the record. The former senator was saying that we have no agenda and we've broken every election promise that we took to the election, which is untrue. It is the government of today that wants to invest $10 billion into the Housing Australia Future Fund. That fund will ensure that there is access to affordable housing in this country, which is so desperately needed. It's needed for women and mothers with their children trying to leave and escape from domestic violence. We don't just talk about it; we've come into government and we're doing that. We've also already legislated for 10 days paid leave for people that have found themselves in those circumstances and need to flee, because you can't leave a domestic violence situation without having somewhere to go. People can come into this chamber and champion this, but the reality is you have to actually deliver, and that's what this government is doing. We've highlighted, over and over again, the waste and mismanagement of the former government. They had nine years in government, and what did they do with it when it comes to energy policy? They were very creative—they were—because they had 22 policies. They had 22 different policies in relation to energy. How many were actually implemented? Senator Ciccone 281503 How many? Senator POLLEY e5x Not one. Not two. Not 10. Not 22. Not even one. There were zero. They did nothing. So we have senators coming in here wanting to rewrite history and not tell the truth when it comes to what this government has already achieved. I'd like to run through a few things to remind people of the reality of how bad the opposition were when they were in government. They were so bad at dealing with aged care and the aged-care crisis in this country that they had to call a royal commission into their own failings. That's what they had to do. We had the senator who misled this chamber and repeatedly misled the Australian people. We have a plan. We've already announced that we want to see nurses back in every residential aged-care home in this country. We know that's not going to happen overnight. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 Senator Polley, I ask you not to reflect on members of this place, please. You said that the senator lied to this place. I ask you to withdraw that. Senator POLLEY e5x I withdraw that. The reality is that senators come in here and, as in the previous contribution that was made today, accuse us of not delivering on our election commitments when it comes to aged care and nurses in residential homes. As I was saying, they were so bad through all the years that they were in government that a crisis was confronting us in aged care. It was not only the quality of care, not only the abuse that was happening in the residential aged-care homes, but the lack of recruitment and the inability to retain staff because they were being paid some of the lowest wages in this country. Coincidentally, it happens to be predominantly women who work in aged care. We know that those opposite will not do anything to help anyone who works in the caring economy. Just as they abandoned people who work in aged care and they abandoned the senior citizens of this country, they have done exactly the same when it comes to child care and early education. They have failed over and over again. In this government we've actually changed the way that we view aged care. During the election campaign the now Prime Minister made a commitment, which he has already delivered on. We are in the process of implementing all the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We are leading the way in restoring the confidence of the Australian people in their government. After nine years—almost 10—the respect of the Australian people was no longer there, because they were sick and tired of having a government that was only interested in using the government benches to look after its mates. The government was rorting and mismanaging the economy. It was not looking after the people it was elected to represent. We've implemented so many of the things that we want to do. I heard the good senator talking about manufacturing and making the allegation that we're not really interested in manufacturing. We were not in government when we saw company after company, industry after industry, leaving this country, taking their goods and going offshore. And what did the former government do? Nothing. What did they do they about skills? What did they do to keep people in TAFE so that we have skills for the future? Nothing; we don't. They haven't done anything. All they did was rubbish TAFE. We're the ones who have invested in 180,000 fee-free TAFE places to make sure that we have the skills of the future. This is what an adult government does. We show by leadership, and I will come into this place every single day and put Mr Albanese's reputation up against Peter Dutton's or Scott Morrison's any day. (Time expired) ADJOURNMENT 98 ADJOURNMENT Education 99 17:30 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I'm honoured to have spoken recently at the Australian Education Union conference down in Melbourne, where I was able to hear from union delegates and teachers. As a state school teacher of 25 years I've seen first-hand how the current system is failing our public school teachers and their students. I've seen first-hand the ever-increasing pressures placed on teachers and the lack of funding to meet the challenges of more and more work with less and less time. While the government and the coalition gleefully dish out a quarter of a trillion dollars in stage 3 tax cuts, largely to rich blokes, we force our public school teachers and students to fight over funding scraps. On average, public schools across Australia will be funded at only 87 per cent of the schooling resource standard this year. It's projected that, if we stay on the current trajectory until the end of the decade, private schools will be funded at over 100 per cent of their SRS, while public schools won't even be funded to 91 per cent. When governments fail to reach this funding level they fail the students of this country. Every Australian student deserves a world-class education, and public money should be for public schools. The tight purse pockets of the government reverberate across the working conditions of teachers. On top of the workforce being overworked and ignored, pay and conditions continue to drop. The situation is particularly acute in New South Wales, with recent research from the University of Sydney showing that teachers' pay continues to deteriorate significantly, with real earnings falling by 5.7 per cent between 2020 and 2022. While pay drops, conditions worsen. Teachers and classes are being crammed into more and more demountables, which are overheating during the summer and freezing during the winter. Of course, teachers are fighting back. I'm proud to extend solidarity to AEU members down in Tassie as they continue to fight tirelessly for the resourcing that they need from the Rockliff government. We've lost sight in this place of what public education actually means. It means no fees. It means an education that is accessible to all. It means that getting a note about having to buy a $50 school uniform or paying $200 for a school trip doesn't wreck your budget. It means that all kids, regardless of class, can receive a well-rounded education led by a supported and well-resourced workforce. Of course, not all schools are suffering. Australia has one of the most privatised education systems in the world, and it's a system that entrenches inequality and ensures generational disadvantage for millions of young people. Private schools funding across the forward estimates will now be $1.7 billion more than the amount former Prime Minister Morrison committed to in his final budget. That's $70 billion for private schools over the next four years, compared to only $45 billion for public schools. Despite the huge amount of money that governments provide to private schools both in general funding and as capital works grants, the average independent school has raised their fees by 50 per cent over the last decade, and some of them have raised their fees by 80 per cent. Public school students and teachers have been waiting for over a decade for a fully funded education. Let's not make them wait any longer. Road Safety 99 17:34 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise to bring the house's attention to some statistics that should ring alarm bells among those opposite who have the power to act. I'm joining the Australian Automobile Association in asking for urgent federal action on identifying the causes of bad crashes, in light of shocking statistics that show higher rates of death for regional drivers. The AAA reports that drivers in regional Queensland are more than three times more likely to be killed behind the wheel than their metropolitan counterparts, but in New South Wales, regional drivers are nearly 10 times more likely to die on the road than city drivers, and in Western Australia—a shocking statistic—regional drivers are 20 times more likely to be killed while driving than metropolitan drivers. Furthermore, for every 100 people killed in road crashes per month across Australia 100 are hospitalised every day. As a resident of regional Australia, I'm appalled at these statistics, which show that metropolitan road deaths in Queensland in 2022 occurred at a rate of 3.05 per 100,000 people, while in regional areas it was 10.24 deaths per 100,000. In New South Wales, metropolitan deaths were 1.62 per 100,000, while in the regions it was a staggering 9.32. In Western Australia the metropolitan death rate was 2.84 per 100,000 people and 18.7 in the regions. In light of this information, you would think governments would instantly be able to identify the disparity between city and country road deaths, but this is not the case. The AAA reports that all Australian governments have committed to halving Australia's road toll through to 2030, yet deaths are currently increasing at 3.7 per cent per year and have increased in each of the past five years. The AAA is one of many road safety advocates calling for the Commonwealth to leverage the funding it provides to the states to urgently facilitate the timely, consistent and open reporting of national road safety data. Specifically, the AAA's federal budget submission calls for all Commonwealth road funding to states to be made contingent on states and territories releasing data related to the safety assessment of road infrastructure; casualty crash details, including crash type, location and conditions; vehicle details; road user details, including road user type, licence status and behavioural factors; and enforcement and compliance data. When in opposition, Labor called for this, so I ask: now that they are behind the wheel, so to speak, will they commit to this action? It is no good spending billions on roads if there is no way to calculate road conditions as a factor in road crashes. The RACQ's 2022 analysis in Queensland showed that 17 regional roads, including seven in North Queensland, were considered as being of high to medium risk of serious injury and death. The Bruce Highway as a whole received the most complaints from motorists, particularly between Rockhampton and Innisfail, with potholes, rough surfaces and limited overtaking lanes drawing the most criticism. When I see these figures I have to ask why the Queensland Labor government has allowed its road maintenance program to fall behind schedule by $6 billion. The Palaszczuk government will throw billions of dollars at tunnels and bridges in Brisbane, it will find billions more to host the Olympics and it will happily rip millions in speeding and other fines from motorists, but when it comes to ensuring that regional people have decent roads, the money just isn't forthcoming. Just this week I have heard on good authority that federal funding for the Flinders Highway between Hughenden and Julia Creek is still waiting for matched funding from the Queensland Labor government. Anyone who has driven that road will tell you it's like a roller-coaster ride, making it treacherous for all but most especially the heavy vehicles taking cattle and minerals to Townsville and, soon, equipment for the CopperString project. Roads in our region must be upgraded and well maintained because, unlike the big cities, there's no other way to go if these roads have issues. Each year towns in Cape York and the gulf are cut off for weeks and sometimes months by flooded roads. That means supplies have to be flown in at great expense because there is literally no way to drive anywhere. Add in substandard roads and we can see why risks are higher. This is a critically important issue. New South Wales State Election 100 17:39 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise in the chamber today to speak about the upcoming state election in New South Wales. I am proud as a Labor senator for New South Wales to also be the Labor duty senator for Parkes, Calare, Farrer, Riverina, Lyne and Hume. One of the greatest parts of my work is my travel to the rural and regional parts of our great state, which this past weekend took me to Dubbo, Warren, Wellington and Koorawatha Show, across three of my electorates. I'm not the only person who spent this weekend working. I got paid, but the people who are standing for the election do it for absolutely nothing. Many Australians don't seem to understand that. Over this weekend and for the past few months, I've had the great privilege of meeting and doing my best to support, from a distance, candidates running for Labor in the upcoming state election in areas that overlap with my duty seats. While most people consider their ideal weekend to be spent relaxing and spending time with family or friends, these candidates have decided to devote themselves wholly to their communities, often travelling huge distances, as rural New South Wales necessitates. I feel it's only right that I recognise them and their efforts in this place today. For people who aren't so clear I will just repeat that none of these citizens who are standing for election are putting themselves forward with any sense of recompense. They are doing it as a gift to our democracy. Josh Black, Labor's candidate for Dubbo, is a high school teacher and a councillor in Dubbo. I was privileged to join Josh on Saturday night and Sunday morning as he spent his weekend hosting politics in the pub and participating in Clean Up Australia Day with other volunteers. Michael Pilbrow, who has spent his lifetime volunteering in and supporting his local community, is Labor's candidate in Goulburn. Last weekend, Michael met with local stakeholders. He held a stall at the Goulburn Show and travelled to Sydney for the official launch of the Labor for New South Wales campaign. Sally Quinnell, Labor's candidate for Camden, is a popular local school teacher who spent her weekend out and about hosting street stalls, speaking to locals and consulting her community about what they want and need to see from a Minns Labor state government. Max Buljubasic is Labor's candidate for Murray. He spent his weekend meeting locals and consulting with his team as he begins to get his campaign on the ground. Chris Dahlitz, Labor's candidate for Cootamundra, lives in Narrandera, but he spent his weekend travelling to the Koorawatha Show to attend the annual show and provide service to local people. I was lucky enough to join him there and talk to locals about the issues that truly matter to their communities. Mark Vanstone is a community nurse and Labor's candidate for Myall Lakes. He was at the Black Head markets, talking to members of the community. Keryn Foley is a mother of three, a mediator and family counsellor, and also Labor's candidate for Wagga Wagga. Keryn spent her weekend at the Tumut Show, talking to locals and ensuring that voices of all within her community were heard. Keith McMullen, a former high school teacher and our candidate for Port Macquarie, hosted a politics at the pub event and held a stall at the Sunrise Markets in his electorate. Heather Dunn, a remarkable young accountant and university student, is Labor's candidate in Orange. She spent last weekend running street stalls, talking to locals and engaging with federal MP Susan Templeman, talking about the importance of arts in education. Joshua Roberts-Garnsey, Labor's candidate for Barwon, is a public school teacher in Narrabri. Josh spent his weekend travelling almost 500 kilometres between his home and Cobar and Broken Hill to host his campaign launch and consult with members of the community. He then travelled under 500 kilometres home. Cameron Shaw, along with his wife and campaign manager, Keira, is the proud father of their six-month-old son, Ronin. He's also our candidate for Bathurst, and he spent the weekend travelling to Sydney to attend the official launch of Labor's New South Wales campaign. Marcus Rowland, Labor's candidate for Albury, is a local primary school teacher who was born and raised in the Albury community. He spent his weekend travelling through electorates to towns like Mulwala to make sure he is consulting all members of that vast and diverse electorate. And all of this was in addition to doorknocking and letterboxing, which also occupies these courageous candidates' free time. I am extremely proud to support all candidates standing for Labor in the upcoming election. As a former teacher and university lecturer myself, I'm particularly proud that five of the 12 candidates running in these seats are current or former teachers. There will always be more work to be done, and we're continuing to strive to improve representation and participation of women and First Nations Australians in politics, especially in the regions. Labor is strong and has an ever-growing presence in the regions— (Time expired) Northern Rivers: Floods 101 17:44 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise today to talk about the extraordinary courage of the people of the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales. One year ago they were hit by the most unimaginable challenge, in the form of a major flooding that devastated large areas of their community and caused up to 10 deaths. Last week in Lismore they came together to acknowledge what they had been through and what they still had to face. I was privileged to be invited there in my role as the Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery. Others in this place were present too: The Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt, and the former Minister for Emergency Management, Senator McKenzie. Emergency management and disaster recovery must always be a bipartisan endeavour, and so it was last Tuesday. It was a solemn day of affirmation and hope. Commemorations were held for lives lost and the communities devastated in last year's floods. The commemoration of Lismore's tinny army was particularly moving. There were the boaties who risked their safety to rescue many of Lismore's residents from flood waters. Amongst them were the Fijian migrant workers who gave their all in the disaster, cementing an enduring place in the community's history. During my visits to the Northern Rivers since the 2022 catastrophe, I have been struck by the strength of the communities and the optimism of those who lost their homes, possessions and livelihoods. I thank all those who have shared their experience and welcomed me into their lives. Last week I visited Cas and Julie at their home in Fingal Head, near the Queensland border. Despite dealing with what they described as a dog's breakfast after their home and business were substantially destroyed by the floods, Cas and Julie overcoming challenge after challenge. Like many Australians affected by such events, they have faced a bureaucratic minefield trying to get timely assistance from insurance companies. Cas and Julie have often been at their wit's end dealing with their insurance claims and navigating multiple levels of government assistance and regulation. The Albanese government is working to unravel as many of these challenges as possible, in conjunction with our state counterparts. The recently announced review of Australia’s disaster funding arrangements will be part of addressing this issue. Cas told me: 'I worked my butt off to get a home, and I am not going to give up now.' But they know they are not alone. Cas said: 'Everyone is doing it tough—but the community is tougher.' I met with the Tweed Residential Park Homeowners Association and park residents in Chinderah. Sandy Gilbert, an advocate for these residents, said: 'They feel they are the forgotten ones.' Sandy’s community are campaigning to ensure residential park residents are treated equally to other property owners. This includes being allowed to build back in a way that avoids a repeat of the catastrophe they endured. I heard from representatives from Richmond Valley, Kyogle and Tweed Shire councils about the challenges they are facing and their plans for the future. These plans include making resilience the cornerstone of any future infrastructure decisions. I was pleased to discuss with them that the Albanese government’s new Disaster Ready Fund has exactly that at its heart. While we can't stop all natural hazards, we can prepare for and prevent the worst. In this regard, I was pleased to hear about the Living Lab’s work in Lismore to support both the immediate recovery and the longer term rebuilding of the region. The Albanese Government is committed to strengthening Australia’s disaster preparedness, response and recovery. That is why we created the National Emergency Management Agency and have rolled out the Disaster Ready Fund. I am pleased that the first tranche of projects funded under our $150 million Northern Rivers Resilience Initiative has been given the green light. Last month, $50 million worth of projects was announced and the remaining $100 million will be fully allocated within six months. All seven local government areas in the Northern Rivers region will benefit. We will continue to work with the Northern Rivers communities and all communities across the country to build resilience against natural hazards so that they need not become humanitarian disasters. Senate adjourned at 17:49