2023-03-20 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 20 March 2023

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

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Iraq War: 20th Anniversary 1 10:01 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the 20th anniversary of the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of the matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War. The Greens move this motion today and put this matter before the Senate on this, the 20th anniversary of the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq. There is no more appropriate day to consider this matter than today, given that it is, in fact, a moment in time when there are parties in political decision-making positions who oppose the Iraq War and given that family members across Australia worry for the safety of their children who are still deployed to Iraq, to this very day, under operations Accordion and Okra. The Greens move this motion as the first order of business for the Senate this morning with sorrow in our hearts. We move it with sorrow for the over 500,000 who have died as a result of the Iraq War and of the destruction of the infrastructure created by that war, sorrow for the 1.2 million people still to this day internally displaced because of the war in Iraq and sorrow because of the five million orphans created by that war—five per cent of the entire orphan population of the globe. We move this motion today in solidarity with the 92 per cent of Australians who gathered together—hundreds of thousands—in cities across the country, who marched to oppose the Iraq war because they knew that the community was being lied to. They knew they were being presented with false intelligence. They knew that they were being marched to war by men who wished to see other people's children placed in harm's way to suit their political ends. We do this in solidarity with the organisers of those protests. I am honoured to work, to this day, alongside Damian Lawson, a key organiser of the anti-Iraq War protest here in Australia, which formed part of the largest global protest in human history. And we do so this morning with a renewed sense of determination, a commitment from every single Green in the Senate, every single Green in the House of Representatives, every single Green in the state parliaments and every single Green in the local governments of this country to oppose ever again being led into an illegal, immoral and unjust war at the reckless hands of the United States of America. We do this in the full knowledge that the Australian people, at the time and to this day, knew full well that we should not go to Iraq, that it would be a humanitarian and foreign-policy disaster. They knew it, they protested and the Prime Minister ignored them point-blank because there is no requirement in this country to seek a vote of the parliament before the deployment of ADF personnel. ADF personnel from this nation were asked to go into harm's way in Iraq and in Afghanistan, yet not a single member of the government or opposition was required to vote before that occurred. Shame on this chamber for, to this day, opposing this reform that is supported by 86 per cent of the Australian people. Shame! Finally, in closing, let me say this: those mothers and fathers that, to this day, are kept up at night for fear of the safety of their children deployed to Iraq still under Operation Accordion and Operation Okra deserve to finally have that fear come to an end. Twenty years later, Australia must end its deployments to Iraq. We must finally bring our troops home and work for an independent and peaceful foreign policy that sees that never again are we called into a war based on a lie led by the United States of America. 10:07 Senator WAT 245759 Queensland T (—) (): Firstly, I want to state clearly once again for the record that Labor opposed the Iraq War at the time, and our position has not changed. As Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd brought Australia's combat troops home. But, on this anniversary of the commencement of the war, I want to say that our argument was never with our troops; it was always with the Howard government. Twenty years on from the Iraq War, we all reflect on the many tragedies of that conflict and its ongoing effects. Our thoughts are with the people of Iraq as well as the Iraqi community here in Australia, some of whom fled that conflict. Our thoughts today, as always, are with our veterans. We acknowledge the brave contribution and sacrifices made by the ADF and civilian personnel who conducted or supported operations in Iraq. We remember the four Australian service personnel who died, and we all share our deepest sympathies to the families and friends that still feel their loss. We express our support to those who still live with the physical and mental scars of that conflict and those who returned home and are tragically no longer with us. Labor did not support the Howard government's decision for Australia to go to Iraq in 2003, nor did we support the Howard government's decision to send a further 450 troops to Iraq, reneging on a 2004 election commitment. At the time he withdrew combat troops from Iraq, then Prime Minister Rudd said: … this government does not believe that our alliance with the United States mandates automatic compliance with every element of United States foreign policy. The Greens view that they have a monopoly on resistance to sending Australian troops to the Iraq War is odd, given Labor opposed it vigorously. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 They are wrong in thinking they have some moral superiority, although it is something we are very used to, and they are just as wrong in their claims that, through AUKUS, we have lost strategic autonomy. I hear members of the Greens heckling during this speech, and again it reinforces the point that they seem to think they have a monopoly on resistance to sending Australian trips to the Iraq war. Some of them may not remember the political debates that happened at the time as a result of Labor taking a principled stand on this issue. It's not clear whether the Greens actually misunderstand or just pretend to misunderstand in order to exploit this issue for crass political purposes. But let there be no doubt: Australia makes its own choices. Acquiring AUKUS's military capability was a sovereign decision. Any decision to use this capability will also be ours alone. Let me also be clear that our intent in acquiring this capability is to make our contribution to the strategic balance of the region. We want to have a stable region where no country dominates and no country has dominated. If that is to be the case, we each have a responsibility to play our part in collective deterrence of aggression. If any country can make the calculation that they can successfully dominate another, the region becomes unstable and the risk of conflict increases. I make this point acknowledging that our region has been home to an unprecedented military build-up in recent years, meaning that we must work hard and fast if we are to maintain equilibrium. Increasing our capability sits alongside our diplomacy, which is about increasing the opportunities and benefits from peace and partnership—positive incentives for peace. As well as positive incentives for peace, we need deterrence to conflict and aggression. By having strong defence capabilities of our own and by working with partners who are investing in their own capabilities, we change the calculus for any potential aggressor. There are those in this building who like to beat the drums of war, and there are those who like to believe that peace can come from passively hoping for the best. But this government knows that part of maintaining peace is making sure all countries are invested in that peace through effective diplomacy, and part of making peace is making sure any potential aggressor knows they cannot afford the costs of war. The government will not be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders, as there are plenty of alternative opportunities in the Senate that the Greens could use to debate this and related issues, rather than taking time out of government business that is needed to progress important legislation relating to issues such as the referendum for a Voice to Parliament, equality, national reconstruction, housing, and climate safeguards. So, I remind the Greens that it was the federal Labor Party who opposed the Iraq War at the time. We still consider that that was the right decision. Please: give up trying to lecture the rest of us. We're a bit tired of it. 10:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I begin by acknowledging all Australian servicemen and servicewomen who served in Iraq and who continue to serve in Iraq—those who have paid a price and for their service and particularly the families of those who have paid that price. We thank you for your service, we acknowledge your contribution and we pay tribute to the work you have done. You should know that it is valued, notwithstanding some of the debates that ensue around that conflict and war. I want to also acknowledge the Iraqi people and all those who served alongside—those who have suffered and those who have felt loss. That is significant, and that is a loss that we should recognise, and we should recognise the pain and suffering that that caused in so many cases. But loss is of course not something the Iraqi people were immune to prior to this war and this conflict. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and a leader who showed complete— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I cannot believe that the Australian Greens are seeking to argue with that point. Let me state it again: Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and a world leader who showed complete disregard for lives, for human rights, and for international laws and rules. He was a leader who used chemical and biological weapons—poison gas—against neighbouring countries, against his own citizens, against the Kurdish people. Whatever the attempts to form a black-and-white view of right or wrong, of war or conflict, some facts and realities should stand in relation to what Saddam Hussein, his dictatorship and his regime undertook. He didn't just use those biological and chemical weapons against his own people. He maintained, when the international community sought to scrutinise that, a deliberate ambiguity around whether he continued to hold those weapons. He deliberately sought to lure other nations into believing he continued to have them and would use them, as he had sought to do so in the past. He also led a regime that sponsored suicide bombers. He led a regime that was recognised as a state sponsor of terrorism. He was responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of people. The world and Iraq are better off for being rid of Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship. That is not to say that there are no lessons that can be learned. There are always lessons to learn. Those lessons go to the intelligence and analysis available and how that is scrutinised in the future. They have been widely debated and canvassed over the two decades since the war commenced. However, it's important that we do recognise Iraq today as a democracy, not a perfect one but one where the Iraqi people, as is acknowledged by many experts in the field, have more say over their future than they did 20 years ago. Where their rights are far from universally respected, there is better regard than there was 20 years ago. Calls to remove the remaining assistance from the ADF deployment or otherwise from Iraq would be to show disregard for the advances that have been made during that time. The Greens are misplaced in arguing that we should bring the remaining personnel home. We should be showing support to work with the democratically elected government of Iraq, to work with the people of Iraq, to ensure that the sense of greater stability, the improvement in standards and the development in relation to their democracy is supported and underpinned at this critical time as best as we possibly can. I lastly turn to the arguments advanced by the Greens. They're not contained in the motion they have sought to have debated about the decision-making processes and the powers of executive government. It remains the position of the coalition that the executive government of the day should have authority in relation to troop and personnel deployments. Our system is one where there is immense scrutiny of decisions made by government. But we should enable governments to exercise those powers under the appropriate scrutiny, transparency and accountability of parliamentary democracy. 10:17 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I commend the Greens for the intent behind their speech. We need scrutiny when we deploy people overseas. I commend our armed services for their work overseas and in this country. They have sacrificed a lot, and they have covered themselves with honour. But I remind the Senate of Mr Alexander Downer's interview on the 7.30program, on the last day before he retired, where he said that John Howard came from America and strode into cabinet and said, 'We're off to Iraq.' That's not good enough. Now is not the time to do this. I want to refer to a new book recently released by Clinton Fernandes titled Sub-imperial Power: Australia in the International Arena. Clinton Fernandes is a Canberra man who works for the University of New South Wales and lectures at ADFA. He has the guts to tell it as it is. It reads: 'We are a sub-imperial power of the United States. We are making a mess of things by following the United States blindly into conflicts.' Look at the Afghanistan withdrawal. Look at the mess that was created. Look at the weapons of mass destruction and the lies that were told to justify our invasion of Iraq. Then, quite openly and blatantly, we were told, 'Oh, there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; we lied to you.' The United States did that. Australia did that. Britain did that. Tony Blair admitted it. Where is the accountability? Yet, on the other hand, I'm conflicted. I had a haircut on Friday, and the barber was from Iraq. He said that Iraq is better off in certain areas. So I can't speak with knowledge. There are two parts to the Greens motion in part (b): (i) urges the Australian Parliament and government to learn the lessons of the past and to never again be dragged into another country's unjust war of aggression … I support that. We need to learn from this. The only way to get accountability is to ask questions about it. The second part reads: (ii) calls for the withdrawal of ADF personnel still deployed to Iraq today under Operation Okra and Operation Accordion. I can't vote for that because I don't know the background. I don't know what the consequences will be, so I'm not going to open my mouth one way or the other on that, but I want to echo the words of Senator Watt: we need an inquiry into that deployment. I think the Greens are on the right track in opening that issue up, but I cannot support the suspension of standing orders to do that. I do support the intent, which is to have an inquiry and to develop accountability for these decisions of wantonly invading other countries in support of the United States. So I commend the Greens, but I won't be supporting their motion for the suspension of standing orders. I thank you for raising it. 10:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I, too, rise to speak against the motion put forward by the Australian Greens. As has been pointed out already in the debate, there will be many opportunities throughout the course of today and throughout the course of the week that the Australian Greens could take to properly put this on the Notice Paper and have it debated in the Senate, but, again, as has been noted in the debate today, it's Monday morning and they have clearly decided to pull a stunt, and that is where we find ourselves this morning, instead of moving on to the items listed on the Senate Order of Business for today. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator CASH I0M But in reality—and you can hear the heckles in the background—what is this a suspension motion all about? Well, it's about one thing, and one thing alone: the Australian Greens are putting forward this motion because of their eternal opposition to Australia's close military alliance with the United States and with the United Kingdom. In fact, if ever proof of that were needed, we only had to see their reaction last week to what was, without a doubt, a significant moment not just in Australia's history but in the history of the United States and the United Kingdom, with the formalisation of the AUKUS deal to purchase eight nuclear powered submarines. In terms of those on this side of the chamber, we support the government's commitment to Australia's military alliance with the United States, and I am certainly proud, as I know my colleagues are, of the work undertaken by the former prime minister Scott Morrison and the former defence minister Peter Dutton in creating the AUKUS deal. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator CASH I0M In contrast—and, again, you can hear the heckles coming from the Australian Greens at this point in time; they are without a doubt on a unity ticket with former Labor prime minister Paul Keating, and that is obviously something with which those of us on the side of the chamber disagree—one thing that we are incredibly proud of on this side of the chamber is the alliance with the United States and, in particular, with the United Kingdom. This proud alliance has existed for more than 100 years—100 years of cooperation. When you look at the decision to send troops into Iraq, which is the basis of this motion, it was made by the government of the day—and, as Senator Birmingham has pointed out, the government of the day had the executive power to make that decision—and was based on the best available advice at the time. It is important to remember what that decision was about. The action was against Saddam Hussein. He was a brutal dictator who subjugated his own citizens, invaded neighbouring countries and used chemical weapons against his own people. Australian troops, without a doubt, served their country with honour and fought with dignity in Iraq, and they deserve to be recognised for the important contribution they made in the removal of the brutal dictator. It is clear that mistakes were made in the course of the war; however, we should not be abandoning our strong alliance with the United States and the United Kingdom. Their soldiers have stood side by side with the Australian diggers for over a century. We on the side of the chamber do not shy away from our strong support for the United States and the United Kingdom. We are proud of the strong alliance with these nations and we are strongly committed to the alliance going forward. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I give the call to Senator McKenzie. Senator Whish-Wilson, you are now on your feet. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I wish to make a contribution, Mr Deputy President. You've just had two in a row— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I know, but you weren't on your feet, so, as a matter of courtesy, I'll let Senator McKenzie have the call—there is plenty of time—and then you will have the call. 10:24 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I too rise to join with both the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the coalition more broadly to not support the Greens' desire to suspend the Senate to debate what they say was an illegal, immoral and unjust war. We know that war is a brutal undertaking. It should be avoided where possible, and the heavy decision of prime ministers and governments throughout our nation's history to send Australian troops to foreign lands to fight for freedom and democracy is often a decision that has been the most difficult for them to make. They have never done it lightly. But I think what we do know is that the Greens standing up today, trying to seek to suspend the work of the Senate, is simply the continuation of their anti-US alliance stance and their failure to recognise that this alliance has been beneficial not just to Australia, not just to the Pacific during World War II, but to the globe and to the principles of freedom and democracy that we both stand with. The federal government signed AUKUS, with a great announcement by the Prime Minister in America last week and it should be celebrated. We on this side are proud of our legacy as a former government in getting AUKUS off the ground and we are equally proud to support the current government in continuing an alliance that has brought stability to the globe for over 100 years. You Greens talk a lot about the impact of war but you cannot wish away the fact that sometimes you have to stand up to bullies. You shouldn't accept the behaviour of Saddam Hussein towards the Iraqi people as normal and acceptable, that it is just something that they have to put up with. Do you know what? You could make the same actual case for our commitment to assisting the Ukrainian people against Putin but you don't. You are happy for us to support that particular commitment but you aren't actually happy on this one, and do you know why? Because it is all about the US alliance. You are hypocrites when it comes to where you stand on foreign relations. We know that you have to stand up to bullies. There absolutely needs to be a strong US-UK alliance for stability across the globe. We welcome government's support and we stand with our allies. We are not ashamed of having allies. We are not ashamed of standing with them when we need to, and we call out the Greens for actually trying to hold future governments to not actually have to make the terrible and difficult decision to send Australian troops to war. We thank the troops for their fantastic efforts and we support them as veterans going forward. 10:28 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Today is a very sombre day and a very important day for reflection. It seems 20 years ago, following this illegal war of aggression in which our country participated, we have learned very little based on today's public debate, and it is very sad and frustrating to see the Liberal Party continue to wipe clean the blood they so very clearly have on their hands. They have never shown any remorse for the invasion of Iraq and Australia's participation in that. There was a very important point in Senator Steele-John's motion today that hasn't been touched on by either the Labor party or Liberal Party that is absolutely credible to the world we find ourselves in today, and that was the lie that this war was based on, not just a lie but a manufactured deceit of the highest order, not scrutinised by the media, not scrutinised by the parliament—even with a whistleblower in the other house, in the other place, Andrew Wilkie MP, who blew the whistle when he was an intelligence officer—but we were led to a war by a small group of powerful people who were totally unaccountable to the millions who marched around the globe in the biggest protests in our history at the time to oppose this war. We were ignored but we were right. Looking back on history, the Liberal Party can come in here today and say whatever they want. You have made the world a less safe place. The instability across the Middle East started with the insurgency that led to the Syrian civil war and tens of millions of refugees washing across Europe in a wave of misery. There were the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly innocents, for which no-one has been held to account, and the rise of terrorism. The Liberal Party, along with the UK government, the United States and the coalition of the willing gave birth to ISIS and to more global terrorism. And you come in here today and talk about stability? We have to know we've learned something from this illegal and immoral war if we're going to have any confidence for the safety of our children in this country. Are we part of an alliance that's going to lead us into another war with no scrutiny from the media or from parliaments because of the cosy relationship that you have with each other around national security? Are we going to be hoodwinked? Amongst all the frustrated people, many of my colleagues marched against that war. I marched again this weekend in a rally in Melbourne to commemorate this conflict. When are we going to learn? It's really, really important that we have a process that at least gives parliament the opportunity to vote on the deployment of our defence forces. It's not a silver bullet, but at least we can speak on behalf of the people that democratically elected us to this place. We will continue to push, as we have done for decades, to get at least a vote from the Australian parliament on the deployment of our defence forces. I want to finish with this point. There was one other person—one of many people—who was deeply angry and frustrated with this illegal war and the fact that they were ignored and who decided that they would do something about it. And that's Julian Assange. He set up WikiLeaks because of the Iraq war, and he was the only truth-teller of the war with everything that was published by WikiLeaks—and, by the way, republished by all media outlets around the world. He brought truth and transparency to the war, and he very famously said that if wars can be started by lies, they can be ended by the truth. And where is he now? He's behind bars in a maximum security prison. He's the only one who told truth and brought truth to power, and he's behind bars awaiting a virtual death sentence. And while there's a continued war on truth-telling and disclosure and transparency, which is what the war machine fears the most, this war is still ongoing. While he's on trial for telling the truth and doing his job as a journalist, press freedoms are on trial. The Iraq war is a long way from being over while Mr Assange sits behind bars. Make the decision. There's only one decision: no extradition. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Steele-John, that the standing orders be suspended, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [10:37]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Dodson, P. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 6 BILLS Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 6

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 6 10:39 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria In its current form, the opposition will be opposing this bill, and we will be seeking to amend it. This bill is profoundly important. It's profoundly important because it will determine the processes around the most significant decision that voters will have confronted in over two decades: changing their Constitution, our nation's foundational document. Constitutional referenda are governed by section 128 of the Australian Constitution and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. This bill, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, will prepare and update the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 ahead of a referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which is expected during this term of parliament. More importantly, it will set a precedent for all future referenda on the Constitution. As difficult as this may be, this parliament should treat the changes to the machinery of referenda without consideration of what the referendum question might be, this time or the next. On principle, the principle must be that in any referendum everyone should be able to put their case and the parliament should facilitate a balanced and fair debate of that question, whatever the question is. In the debate that we've had on this bill and on the proposed referendum on the voice, we've had many references back to the last referendum on a republic. People have referred to how this particular operation was conducted or how the framing of the question was done in such and such a way. That referendum occurred more than two decades ago, but there is a strong reason why people remember that event and have very strong views on how it was conducted. They are fundamental to how we govern ourselves as people, and people are passionate about these issues. Certainly, rules need to be updated—we have no question about that—but this isn't like an AFL game, which might see a rule change between seasons to address issues of flooding or tanking. These are rules that keep balance, fairness, legitimacy and trust in how we change our founding document. Evidence presented to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters referred to the conduct of referenda from right back to the beginning of the last century. Since the introduction of the referendum pamphlet back in 1912, there have been only three occasions where a pamphlet has not been provided. A pamphlet has been distributed in every referendum since 1928. The three referenda without an official pamphlet, in 1919, 1926 and 1928, had good reason. In 1919 there was insufficient time to produce a pamphlet prior to the conduct of the referendum post World War I. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to argue or produce the yes argument. In 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between the parties and governments of all levels. The AEC provided evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that a pamphlet for all households would be expected to cost around $10 million and noted that around 40 per cent of Australians rely on the printed material that the commission provides to households in the conduct of their vote at every election. The government initially said that this was a bad, outdated idea and that we should provide voters with information about the issue on which they were voting. To their credit, the government did listen to the arguments put forward by the opposition, and we note that they have now announced that they will move amendments to restore this pamphlet. The reasons for this are simple. How we change our Constitution is as important as the change itself. How we change our Constitution should be blind to what that change might be. In the other place, the Attorney-General told members: The government intends for voters to have an experience at this upcoming referendum that is consistent with their experience at the last federal election. This bill reflects that, in the time between our last referendum and today, we've seen updates to donation regimes and disclosure regimes, and the introduction of a foreign donation ban and foreign interference laws. We all agree that these changes are now part of our electoral process and the expectations of voters at every election, but this bill doesn't address some of the core structural elements that are present at elections—elements that have not been provided by government. Just as the retention of the pamphlet will strengthen this bill, we need to recognise that for any referendum to be successful we need to provide the tools for the system to operate with integrity. We should certainly not divert from past practice where it would create uncertainty and when it would create mistrust. And we should take all measures available to us to ensure that the process is as robust as it can be and that voters have as much information as needed, and trust in the system, and about the choice that they are being asked to make. We do support the modernisation of the act insofar as it updates regulations on donations and expenditure for referendum campaigns and imposes reporting obligations. We support the legislative modernisations campaign contained in the bill. We support the ban on foreign donations, the ban on foreign campaigners—measures we introduced into the electoral system when we were in government. However, making these changes to the referendum act without understanding what is needed to operate them successfully is at best hopelessly optimistic and at worst ignorant of the consequences that it will cause. At any electoral event there are structures in place to manage the regulation of our new donations in foreign interference regimes. We have registered political parties, we have significant third parties and we have other participants who are required to register with the AEC, and all of this helps our regulators within our agencies manage the pressures that are placed upon our systems as we go through the often impassioned process of public debate. But because referenda occur so infrequently and occur on matters that aren't often consistent across party lines we don't have these reliable structures for these systems to work. This is why the opposition will move to include provisions for the nomination of official yes and no organisations for a referendum. Again, we approach this not with reference to the question that may be put later this year, but with a reflection on the fact that all referenda may need this provision and this mechanism going forward. The regulatory auditing process to administer these regulatory schemes would be assisted greatly by having official campaigns to provide a starting point for enforcement and education by the AEC. For a process that's as important and for an outcome as significant as what the government itself is calling for, this is a minimal provision to assist in a strong process for change. We are supportive of the regulatory framework for our elections to apply to our referenda, so let's not then leave regulators with a free-for-all process, impossible to supervise and monitor—with the rigor that Australians expect of them at an election. Under the government's model we would see that free-for-all of participants who will be captured by the donations and disclosures regime at the referendum. As the joint standing committee heard, there is potential for organisations and individuals to be unaware that their current or previous activities relating to the Voice will be captured under that regulatory scheme. The AEC stated in evidence that donations and disclosure regimes remain one of the most complex areas of the Electoral Act. It is complex enough that even the regular participants, political parties that are active at every election, still get it wrong. What's worse we will see that the regulatory regime is applied to a one-off electoral event and we'll only find out the extent of the success of that regime after the event, potentially months after the event and certainly after the outcome has been implemented. As the AEC has said to educate the number of participants on their responsibilities and obligations will be a significant body of work. An official campaign structure will at the very least provide a starting point for the AEC's efforts in coordinating education on the responsibilities of organisations and individuals participating in the referendum campaign, as well as providing a head start on the integrity measures that Australians should expect from a properly conducted electoral event. The requirement to guard against foreign interference is also paramount. Only recently Canada's government announced an inquiry into allegations that a state actor interfered in their 2021 election. We should remember that we're not immune to this in Australia. It has been publicly reported that our own major political parties were hacked by state-sponsored actors. We shouldn't wait to wonder what could have been done after that happens at a referendum. We should act now and provide the structure that will ensure that our agencies can work with participants against foreign interference. It's clear that if we're to have strong processes for this referendum we should be ensuring that there is a structure in place for those processes and the regulatory bodies to start their work. In doing so, we should fund official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations to ensure that they have the administration in place to be able to adhere to the laws that we're about to pass. That's why the opposition will move amendments to require that the nominated official 'yes' and 'no' organisations be provided equal funding to operate and administer themselves under the regime—note that the words are 'operate' and 'administer', not 'advertise' and not 'campaign'. As the current Attorney-General stated in his final report on the referendum machinery provisions in 2009, when he argued for equal funding of the 'yes' and 'no' cases, irrespective of parliamentary support, he said: This is in line with the original intention of the Yes/No pamphlet as well as consistent with democratic ideals of informed debate. That's from the current Attorney-General. We would encourage the minister and the government to consider these very reasonable changes that the coalition has put forward to ensure a referendum that has informed voters and a system that has integrity and trust, a system that will return a referendum that Australians deserve, whatever the outcome may be. This bill represents a very significant update to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, and the parliament should consider that these changes reflect how we go about changing our national document, not only today but also in the future. This was the lens through which the coalition looked at the referendum machinery bill—not what the question being asked is going to be but what questions may be asked in the future and what Australians expect and deserve in a referendum process. To that, I move: At the end of the motion, add "and further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the Government: (a) establishes official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations for the purpose of the referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; and (b) puts into place financial arrangements to provide for equal funding for those organisations". This amendment would delay the consideration of the bill until such time as it reflects a stronger and more balanced approach to conducting a referendum. This is something that the Senate should consider carefully. The decisions on this bill will set the precedent for all referenda into the future. It's what Australians expect. It's what Australians deserve. It's a referendum machinery that is separate from the question that is being asked. It's a referendum machinery that puts legitimacy and trust into the electoral process. It minimises the chances of foreign donations appearing in a referendum. It minimises the chances of electoral laws that we expect, that we require and that we demand being broken. It minimises the chances of foreign interference in a process that is so important, not just in elections but particularly so when we are changing our foundation document, the Constitution. 10:53 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, which provides the framework for how referenda are conducted, and we welcome many of the reforms in this bill to update that framework. We will be supporting this bill, but we would like to see that framework strengthened and we'll be moving amendments to strengthen it in many very important ways. I want to say at the outset that this bill presents an opportunity to improve franchisement, particularly for First Nations communities, and that is an opportunity that should not be missed. On-the-day enrolment with provisional voting and expanding remote polling programs and phone voting for those unable to get to a polling booth will increase the number of people who are able to cast a vote. That's why the Greens are moving amendments to do all of those things. We want First Nations people to have the maximum opportunity to have a vote on whether they have a voice. I'll talk more about this shortly, but all referendum decisions are historic, and engaging the highest number of people in decision-making is an outcome that we should be striving for when it comes to historic reforms. Let's get this right, starting now. This is not about stacking the deck for an outcome on the Voice referendum; it's in fact a timely opportunity to redress the decades of First Nations disenfranchisement and to ensure that people who have a clear stake in the outcome of a referendum are able to exercise their right to vote. Now to the details of this bill. In the past 10 years the parliament has conducted several inquiries into constitutional reforms and referenda. Those inquiries have recommended a comprehensive suite of reforms, including aligning referendum laws with broader electoral laws, removing the restriction on government's funding of education and promotion campaigns, modernising the way information about the 'yes' and the 'no' case is distributed, and establishing an independent expert panel to advise on the wording of referendum questions and information campaigns. This bill does only some of those things. Many submitters to the earlier inquiries emphasised the need for comprehensive, objective review of referendum machinery, separate from the rush of an impending referendum, and the Greens strongly agree. But here we are. Referendums are about constitutional change and about fundamental democratic reforms. Beyond giving a voice to First Nations people, future referenda will determine whether Australia becomes a republic and whether we remove the restrictions on running for parliament that ignore the multicultural background of so many Australians. So, the Greens believe that we do need more-comprehensive reforms to the Referendum Act to make it fit for the challenge of those future referendums. But, for now, we would like to see improvements proposed in this bill and the amendments proposed to it enacted before the upcoming referendum. We welcome the introduction of donation disclosure provisions for referendum campaigns. This bill would align referendum disclosure obligations with the Commonwealth Electoral Act obligations. However, the government has failed to acknowledge that those existing Commonwealth Electoral Act obligations are woeful. They are incredibly inadequate. We have long called for political donations of more than $1,000 to be disclosed in real time so that voters can see who is funding campaigns. The last time I checked, that was in fact Labor's own policy. We'll be moving an amendment to lower the disclosure threshold to $1,000 and to increase the frequency of disclosure. We hope the government supports us in improving transparency for all political donations. I said earlier that referendum machinery reform should be considered not only on the eve of a referendum. We also can't ignore the timing and the context of this bill. Alongside progress towards treaty and truth, the upcoming Voice referendum is a generational opportunity, and it will be critical in order to maximise the participation of all Australians in the vote. The Voice referendum is about giving First Nations people a say in the policies and programs that affect their lives. Without reforms, there is a real risk that many First Nations people may not get the chance to have their say on the Voice referendum itself. We want to give the Voice referendum the greatest chance of success. First Nations people will be the most directly affected by the outcome, so it's imperative that we do everything possible to ensure that their voices are heard in the vote. This is not about giving anyone any new rights; it's simply about giving people the best chance to exercise their rights. And whilst enrolment amongst First Nations people has been increasing, it remains lower than in the non-Indigenous population. Many First Nations people who are not currently on the electoral roll and who may not have participated in recent elections could try to vote in the referendum and be turned away. On-the-day enrolment and provisional voting options like those proposed in the Greens amendments—which we'll come to in the committee stage of this bill—would allow voters, including but not only voters in First Nations communities, to attend a polling place, apply for immediate enrolment, and cast their vote. The vote would be done by declaration and added to the formal count only once the usual checks are made and the AEC has verified the enrolment is lawful. There is no downside to this proposal. There is only an upside of enabling people to have their say on a policy that will affect them. This system has worked well in the Northern Territory for years, and it's had a positive impact on voter turnout. On-the-day enrolment, along with automatic enrolment and the current mailbag program to allow automatic enrolment for communities with centralised postal services, will maximise the number of people who are eligible to vote—and in a democracy we must constantly work towards ensuring that everyone can have their voice heard. But even with efforts to increase First Nations enrolment, many voters, particularly in remote areas, may be effectively disenfranchised by the unpredictable, limited availability of mobile polling services. During the last election, some remote communities were visited by remote mobile polling units for only a few hours, and some missed out altogether. Communities received very little information about when polling places would be open, and many people missed out on voting as a result. We need to do better than that. The government is moving amendments to extend the mobile remote polling period from 12 days to 19 days, and we welcome that as a positive first step. The AEC has confirmed to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, on which I sit, that this extension of time would significantly enhance their capacity to get to remote communities and give those communities enough notice of the opportunity to vote. The NT Electoral Commission report on the Daly by-election noted that, where a polling place in the Wadeye community was open for five days, there was a nearly 40 per cent increase in voter turnout compared with the previous by-election, when the polling place was open for only two days. Giving people in remote communities the best chance to have their say is an investment that we need to make. The phone voting service trialled during COVID proved a very successful way of enfranchising voters who had no other way of casting their vote. The Greens support extending that option to provide a way for people at risk of missing out on voting to have their say, including voters in remote areas who can't get to a polling place, people with an unreliable postal service, people in care facilities or who are unexpectedly in hospital on referendum day, people impacted by climate disasters and overseas voters who can't get to an embassy. Phone voting would be used in rare circumstances only, but, particularly when it comes to foundational decisions about constitutional reform, Australians should be given the widest possible range of options to ensure their voices can be heard. That's why I'll move amendments to that effect as well. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has made similar recommendations, and the AEC has supported those calls. The government needs to act. We're pleased that they'll extend mobile remote polling, and we urge them to support on-the-day enrolment, provisional voting and phone voting so that all Australians can have a say. If the AEC is supportive, it's not clear what is stopping the government from acting. There also needs to be a concerted effort to engage interpreters to assist voters at polling places to understand the voting process and to make sure that their vote can be counted. Interpreters play a critical role in translating material but also in reducing distrust in the process. Despite the clear benefits, the last election saw many communities without interpreters. The AEC needs to be funded to ensure that that situation is not repeated for the referendum, nor for any future elections. The Greens also believe that constitutional reforms are generational changes that will affect the lives of all Australians. Young people, particularly First Nations young people, will be impacted by the outcome of this upcoming referendum and deserve to have a say. We estimate that an additional 32,000 First Nations people would be able to vote if the voting age were lowered to 16. The Greens have a bill to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, and we urge the government to get behind that. Lastly, I want to briefly talk about the pamphlet, which the government has now agreed to prepare. The Greens support some form of independent, objective information outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases being made available to the voting public. However, we acknowledge the many submitters who have questioned whether the pamphlet and the archaic way that it will be developed meet this objective. It's critical that all Australians are given access to resources to inform their decision. This is true of both elections and referendums. Any time we go to the voters and ask them to choose, the options must be clear. We've already seen the danger of misinformation and missing information in the current debate. Resources on any referendum must be accurate. Resources on this referendum must ensure that they don't misrepresent the implications of a voice, that they don't fearmonger or spout racist or discriminatory talking points and that they don't undermine the democratic process. We want a vote informed by robust discussion, where people can trust the information they get about the alternatives and where we get a result with integrity. We will be supporting measures called for by our crossbench colleagues to ensure that the pamphlet is clear, factual and developed in consultation with experts. We'll also support measures to ensure materials are available in appropriate formats and languages to reach all voters and continue to support calls for truth in political advertising campaigns in all elections going forward. The Greens believe in democracy, and we want to see referendums conducted fairly and openly with transparency and respect. This bill goes some way towards that, and we will keep the pressure on the government to go further in electoral reforms in this term of parliament. We again urge the government to support Greens amendments that would actually allow First Nations voters to vote in this historic referendum about whether they have a voice to this parliament. Please don't miss that opportunity to increase the chances for people to have their voice heard, particularly on a matter that affects them, and to get this done in a timely way. 11:04 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill provides the foundation for a fair and transparent referendum on a voice to parliament by the end of this year. As already noted, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act has not been used since 1999. It has not kept pace with the improvements we have made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act—improvements that ensure we have free, fair and democratic federal elections. The primary purpose of this bill is to replicate the improvements that have been made to the Electoral Act for this referendum and for referenda into the future. It will mean that the experience people have come to expect when they vote in a federal election will be the same as when they cast their vote on referendum day. This will be one of the most significant votes most people will make in their lifetimes. Referenda are infrequent, but they are at the heart of our democracy. They provide Australians the opportunity to use their right to vote to consider changes to the Australian Constitution. The Constitution is an act of the Westminster parliament for the people of Australia, passed in 1901. Only the people of Australia, voting in a referendum, can change the Constitution. In that sense it is the Australian people's document. In the forthcoming referendum the Australian people will be asked if they support the principle of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution and whether they should have a say to the parliament and the executive on matters that affect them. The details of what the Voice is, how it functions and how it will influence change for the better will be dealt with by the parliament after further consultations with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So what does this bill actually do? It seeks to update the laws governing the machinery of referenda. The last referendum was held without modern online systems, without social media and without email campaigns. It was also held without many of the rules and protections that have been built into the Electoral Act since then. Those incremental changes may not be obvious to many members of the public or even to many of us in this chamber, but they have become essential to the smooth running of the voting process. The important changes made by this bill will include banning foreign donations from the referendum campaign, allowing people to apply for a postal vote online rather than using a paper form, vote-saving measures so that the people's vote can be valid where their intentions are clear, enabling early sorting of pre-poll votes to support a timely result on the day, extending protections to prevent multiple voting, updating authorisation rules so voters know who is behind political materials and extending contingency measures to enable the AEC to conduct referenda safely in times of emergency. The bill also introduces a funding and disclosure scheme to ensure there's transparency and accountability. No matter what your views are on the Voice, these changes should be a no-brainer. It's about ensuring people who turn up to vote at the referendum can vote in the same way they are used to voting at a federal election, it's about transparency and accountability, it's about bringing our referendum machinery into the 21st century and, importantly, it's about ensuring an efficient and fair vote so that when we head to the ballot box later in the year, we can be confident that this referendum is conducted on a sound and safe foundation. It is important too for Australians to be able to focus on what the referendum is about and the significance of the principle they are being asked to vote for: a voice to the parliament for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Leaders of the Uluru statement understood that it is the Australian people who make decisions about our Constitution. That is why they invited us to all walk with them and support their recognition in the Constitution. For 122 years our Constitution has failed to recognise the First Peoples of this country and their continuous connection to the land for more than 60,000 years. We were deemed by the founding fathers to be a dying race, so Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are conspicuously absent and unrecognised in our founding document. The political power to lord it over us was held by the states. It was not until 1967 that we were finally counted in the census and the Commonwealth was given a clear power in the Constitution to deal with us. While the 1967 referendum was an historic moment of national unity, the work of constitutional recognition is unfinished business. Fifty years later and more than a century after Federation, there was another constitutional convention at Uluru, this one held by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Uluru convention followed months of consultation and 12 regional dialogues that involved more than 12,000 First Nations people from across the country. It built on work previously done by the constitutional recognition committee. At Uluru, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people spoke up about how they wanted to be recognised in the Constitution. They presented us with a proposal that is elegant in its simplicity and potent in its capacity to achieve practical change for their lives—a constitutionally enshrined voice that can advise the parliament and government so that better policies and laws are made. It's a fact: you get better outcomes when you consult people on the issues that affect their lives. This is what is proposed after almost 250 years. During the last sittings, I spoke about meetings I held in regional Western Australia during the week of action on the Voice. I spoke about the traditional owners, elders and community leaders from these small and often forgotten communities. They explained why the Voice is important to them. We heard from the Kariyarra elders that the Voice is 'the next step in a long history of advocacy by Aboriginal people of the Pilbara'. We heard from the Yinggarda people and their elders, who said, 'The Voice will empower community voices.' And we heard from staff who worked at local organisations, health services and organisations rehabilitating young people about the differences that the Voice will make to their work. They need to have a say over the policies and laws that we make in this place that affect their lives, laws that affect their health and ability to get jobs and housing and the wellbeing and education of their children. These are people who have worked hard to improve the living conditions of their communities. They deserve to be heard at the national level, and they will be heard if the referendum is successful. So, when we consider this bill about the mechanical provisions, keep in mind what it is ultimately about. I want to briefly reflect on our experience of negotiating this bill with some of those opposite. From the start we have extended the hand of bipartisanship on the referendum. The Voice should be above fearmongering and political gains. The government has agreed, in a show of good faith, to reinstate the official pamphlet, yet the support of the opposition is still wavering—or, as I've heard today, they will not be supporting the bill. On this side, we are treating both 'yes' and 'no' campaigns even-handedly—zero public funding for both, because, as I have said, this is the people's referendum; it's for the people to organise their own campaigns and their own funding. Those on the other side believe in the free market. Well, to them I say that both supporters and naysayers are free to fund their own campaigns, within the legal constraints of the bill, of course. So now is the time for those on the other side to support this bill, whether or not they intend to finally support the Voice, because this bill is about fair, transparent and accountable processes. It is about recognising that it's a modern world, much changed from the time nearly a quarter of a century ago when Australians last voted in a referendum. It's a modern world, and it will be a better world if this legislation is passed, because it will lay the groundwork for a referendum that will create a legacy—if the referendum is supported—that all of us in this chamber can then be proud of. In closing, let me say something about the AEC. The AEC have been working very closely with the engagement group that the government has set up, and they have been very responsive to many of the group's suggestions and concerns. In parts of our country and some of the jurisdictions, their work has actually increased the voter registration for Indigenous peoples. They have been responsive to the calls about remote polling and the need to stay longer, and they are even considering other matters. They are undertaking work to help Australians attend, be informed about the process and be able to exercise their vote in this very important referendum. This bill is well worth supporting, and I commend it. 11:17 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to make a contribution to the debate on this important legislation that we have before us, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. I want to state at the outset that I won't be supporting this bill, and I will lay out the reasons why throughout my contribution. I also want to make it very clear to those that might be following this debate here today that this bill is about setting up the mechanism to be able to have a referendum; it's not actually a substantive debate on the referendum itself, and it's certainly not a decision on the final outcome. It will be up to every Australian to decide what their position will be. I'll touch on those two latter points throughout my contribution today, and you will be able to indicate from what I say where I'm at with it, but I just want to really focus on the mechanism bill that is before us and address the concerns that I've got with the bill. This bill seeks to change the way in which the referendum on an Indigenous voice is carried out. Be in no doubt that the changes made here will impact future referendums, and that's why it's critical that we get this bill right here today. We're debating the way in which Australians can have a say on how our Constitution is changed; it is the most important framework governing this country, so it is absolutely critical that we get it right. As the Institute of Public Affairs said in their submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters: Constitutional changes represent a fundamental alteration of the institutional and governmental arrangements of the country. The drafters of the Australian Constitution allowed elected politicians to propose constitutional amendments but reserved to the Australian people the right to approve of those proposals, by way of a referendum. The Opposition have raised three points with the government to address the concerns that we have with the referendum process. The first is to restore the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' case, and I understand there will be an amendment from the government to address that, and that's good; that's welcomed. I look forward to seeing it and understanding exactly how it's going to work. The second one is to establish a 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisation. We understand that that's not what's happening here, so that's a major concern and I'll outline my concerns for that. The third is that those organisations be appropriately funded. These are the three things that the opposition are looking for. As I said, I welcome the government's announcement that they'll restore that pamphlet, and I look forward to seeing that amendment and understanding it better. Originally, the Prime Minister wanted to conduct this referendum without distributing the views of both cases to the Australian people. It's a real shame. The requirement for a pamphlet was actually introduced in 1912, so it has a very long tradition and it's critical. In fact only three referendums have been held—in 1919, 1926 and 1928—where the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets were not distributed. The AEC gave some evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that a pamphlet to all Australian households will cost approximately $10 million. Further to this, the AEC said that around 40 per cent of Australians rely on receiving a pamphlet provided by the AEC. So, despite what my fellow Western Australian in the other place the member for Perth said in the other place, it's not sufficient for people to receive this information only by TV, email and social media—as if we've moved beyond the need to get this information. I think it's absolutely critical that people are provided with that. One of the reasons it's critical is that you can't always trust what you read online. If Australians receive something from the very credible source that is the Australian Electoral Commission, it gives them confidence that what they're reading is actually legitimate and that it's not influenced by any particular agenda or any particular actor that might seek to interfere. Having that AEC letterhead or the inscription on the envelope adds particular confidence to the reader—the receiver of that notification—to be able to know that what they're seeing is in fact from an authorised source and can be trusted. The pamphlet and the information contained within it will present both cases in a clear and, hopefully, concise way—they won't be too lengthy. The pamphlet will present the information in a way that people can understand so that they can make a proper and informed choice. It is critical that that information is provided. You can't just rely on TV advertising, you can't just rely on emails being sent out and you can't just rely on social media to be able to deal with it. We all see things that are sent out via social media, and they're not always accurate. Sometimes they've been taken over by others—they call it spoofing—and so, obviously, we want to make sure that that's avoided. It should be noted that a previous House of Representatives standing committee inquiry into constitutional reform and referendums recommended in December 2021 that the electoral commissioner be allowed to distribute a pamphlet through the mail and using any additional methods that the commissioner considers appropriate. That was recommendation 6. As the IPA correctly noted in its submission: Abolishing the requirement to publish and distribute a booklet to electors on the spurious grounds cited by the federal government overturns an important and indispensable Australian political tradition, critical to freedom and democracy, which has ensured arguments in respect to both sides of the debate can be heard. Then, last month, we saw the Prime Minister have his 'Saul on the road to Damascus' moment, where he performed a spectacular backflip—no doubt one of many that we'll see this government do over the next 2½ years that are left of their term. As the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out: It was frankly quite arrogant of the prime minister to believe that he didn't need to provide details to the Australian people. We welcome the Prime Minister's change of heart and willingness to help inform Australians about what they'll be voting on, but we can't rely on a Labor government to do anything right. We know that Labor have not had a lot of success when it comes to referendums. Not since 1946 have they held a successful referendum, and it was the only time that they succeeded in changing the Constitution—this was to give the Commonwealth power over a range of social services, such as age pensions, unemployment benefits and the like. This bill, sadly, also does not provide for official 'yes/no' campaign organisations. This bill does not outline any official funding for those campaigns. So far, what we're seeing is that this government's handling of this debate is woeful—it's woeful! I have had a lot of experience working across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Indigenous affairs across the country; I have worked alongside Indigenous people to help them achieve great outcomes, particularly in the area of employment. I'm very proud of that work, through my partnering with many different people and organisations. It saw tens of thousands of long-term unemployed people—people who Centrelink had classified as having intractable barriers to employment—take up work. They were provided with training to get them into jobs, sustainable jobs, and, importantly, to retain those jobs. So I have great networks across the country in connection with many Indigenous people, and I can tell you that they want real outcomes in their communities. They don't want a talkfest. They don't want people speaking on their behalf. They want to have a very real outcome in their communities. I will give you a good example of this. Just this week I got on the phone—I haven't had a chance to get up there, mainly because the roads have been blocked and there have been other issues; you don't want to be a tourist, as such—and I spoke to people on the ground in Fitzroy Crossing. Those who followed it would know that there were enormous floods—record level floods—that went through there over January. They wiped out the bridge and wiped out significant infrastructure across that community. I called and asked how things were going; I plan to go up there in April, when I get the first chance to get up there. I spoke to someone on the ground who said, 'Some bureaucrat somewhere, in West Perth or in Canberra, made the decision that we have to put a barge across the river as a temporary measure to deal with the fact that the bridge is washed out.' They said, 'If they just spoke to the local people, they understand that the water levels go up really high when it floods and drops really quickly.' They said that the idea of a barge was never going to work because once the water levels drop, obviously, you can't take the barge across the river, and yet it still might be impassable to trucks. So they spent all this time and all this money building the entrances on both sides of the river to get it right for this barge to go across, and the barge worked for three days. Right now the barge doesn't work; they're going to have to dredge it underneath so that the barge can cross the river, whereas if they'd spent the time—'If they'd listened to us; we know our river, we know our community'—actually understanding that then they would have done the preparatory work on the crossing that's always there. They said that when the water level drops: 'Even if that just meant there were a couple of extra weeks where we had to rely on other sources to get across the river, we'd have a more permanent solution. And once the water level dropped quick enough, we would be in a position to be able to move ahead.' This is just an example of where you have to be listening to the voices of those on the ground, not just some elite, high-level thing, The hopes of Indigenous people across the country are held high in relation to the outcome of this whole thing, and so it's incredibly important that the government gets it right. It starts with this bill. Sadly, what we're seeing is that they're not getting it right; their handling of this debate is really, really terrible. I don't want to see a situation where we've raised the hopes of people across this country and those hopes being dashed because of the poor handling by this government of this particular debate. What we know is that this government, or Labor, has a poor history when it comes to referendums. As I said, it was the mid-1940s of last century since they last had a successful referendum, and so it's critical that we get it right. This bill makes no mention of the plan to regulate donations. We've seen that foreign interference can really play an active role in elections. It's important that elections and referendums are held without any taint of interference, because that would completely undermine the whole process and it would be an absolute shame. As we know, even political parties have been targeted, so it would make sense that practical measures to help mitigate the risk are included. Those grounds alone I think are a good reason to have some formal structure around the referendum, with at least nominated official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. I have big concerns about this referendum. I have big concerns about the proposal that's been put forward. Nothing so far that the government has put forward have assuaged my concerns. I am a constitutional conservative. If the Constitution's ever changed, it has to be done after very careful consideration. Nothing that the government has said so far and nothing in their handling of it has assuaged my concerns. I think in appropriately setting it up to ensure that there is a proper process, to ensure that there is scrutiny and to ensure that there is integrity around this referendum they should allow the establishment of both a 'yes' and a 'no' organisation—two organisations that are seen by the Australian people as being trusted sources on the situation and the issues that are before us. You don't have to agree with both, of course. You won't. You are going to choose. You are going to pick a side. But it is important that there be those organisations. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't enable the establishment of that and it certainly doesn't allow for the funding of that. I think that's a real shame. It's not going to do anything. The problem I am seeing in this debate is that it seems that the Labor Party thinks that everyone thinks like them. They are thinking that people will just go along with it on the vibe of what is going on. Sadly, that's not the case. Even the electoral results showed only 30-odd per cent of people actually voted for the Labor Party, so they can't think that everyone thinks like them because only a third of people supported them at the election. So get it right, Labor. 11:32 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I want to start by saying that this country is one of only a few that does not have a treaty with its First Nations people. Instead, we are going down the road in reverse and wanting to put First Nations people into the colonising Constitution that was born in 1901 over the top of the oldest constitution on the planet. I will park that for now. I wish to speak in general support of the intentions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill. It is providing much-needed updates to how referendums are conducted in this country to keep up with our times. It is also a way to prevent foreign interference with matters in this country, and they are truly ours to resolve. But I also think that the bill fails to address some key matters, in particular, when it comes to the provision of independent and factual information on the referendum cases and accessibility to voting for those who cannot easily attend a voting booth due to various reasons but also accessibility in regard to cultural and linguistic background. Not everyone is white in this country anymore, right? Last, but not least, it's about accessibility for First Nations people to vote, particularly in the upcoming referendum. Given you wiped out 97 per cent of our people and there's only three per cent left, basically it's up to the majority white people in this country to decide what's best for us. On a First Nations voice to parliament it is absolutely essential that First Nations people are getting as much say as possible, which we know we are not given that it is pretty much a white majority in this country who will decide what is best for us. The debate around the referendum has already lasted many months and will last many more. We've seen politics playing out strongly in the course of this debate, including the separation in communities, being asked, 'Which camp are you in? Are you in the 'yes' camp or the 'no' camp?' and not even taking into account that we have a progressive 'no' who want a treaty and the end to the war that was declared on First Nations people in this country. 'But we'll park that because that doesn't feel good out there'—the fact that genocide still continues in this country against First Nations children. Let's get back to the warm and fuzzy of a voice. I appreciate that the government has put forward an amendment to their bill to enable the pamphlets to be produced for the referendum after all. However, we have heard, coming out of this Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on this bill, that people are concerned about politicians developing these materials. Imagine politicians developing these materials—look at this place!—particularly for the upcoming Voice referendum. And we have heard that there should be an independent entity responsible for developing the pamphlets. Who trusts the politicians in this country anyway? This is why I am moving today an amendment which would put the responsibility for preparing these materials for the Voice referendum in the hands of the Australian Human Rights Commission. The AHRC is very well respected by all and in a good position to ensure the referendum's implications for human rights are fully considered—because you know politicians in this place don't really care about people's human rights, so how can you trust them? The AHRC would be responsible for ensuring that information is clear and factual and accessible to culturally diverse communities and First Nations communities. Imagine that! Understanding what a referendum actually is about is incredibly important, so that people can make an informed decision, which is what politicians don't want the people of this country to do. They don't want you to know the information that makes the decisions in this place. And this bill goes into that. Accessibility to information but also to the voting process count in any electoral matters, and it is time we ensure that those who cannot easily physically access a voting booth or who live in remote areas can still vote. Beyond what you all think, their votes actually matter, and you need to make it available to these people, instead of the ableism that occurs in this place too often. This is why I have proposed that mobile-polling-booth periods in remote areas be extended to 19 days, instead of the turning up then leaving after half an hour, when you've had enough of being in that community. I appreciate that, after conversations with the government on this matter, they actually agreed to my amendment, and therefore I won't putting that forward, because they did see the importance of having the polling booths available for people for a lot longer than they normally are. Whilst this provision will assist First Nations people in remote communities to vote in referendums, there is more that needs to be done to ensure as many First Nations people as possible can vote, particularly in a referendum which decides over us being put in the colonial Constitution—or not. Senator Dodson just stated that the Constitution is the people's document. Well, since 1901, it has been the white people's document, not ours. Now our people are supposedly going to get acknowledged by this document, but once again we don't get a real say and we certainly don't get any real power. Something that would make a real difference for the First Nations vote is allowing provisional voting and enrolment on the day, which is why I will move amendments to extend this today. If this government is going to claim that this referendum supports self-determination of First Nations people, then it needs to be doing everything it can to ensure that as many blackfellas as possible vote. We might only be three per cent of the population due to the genocidal acts of previous governments that wiped out 97 per cent of my people. We don't get a say. It's up to everyone else. Where's the self-determination in that? The government has expressed reservations about allowing provisional voting, even though we have heard of the benefits of it in the inquiry process from the Australian Electoral Commission themselves. I quote the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Rogers, who said: I would really like to see it for the referendum— referring to enrolment on the day. I think it's important. … I know that may not necessarily make it into legislation, but … We think it is a failsafe mechanism … I guarantee that when we get close to the event it will become significant … I think it will be a problem if we don't have it. So, when First Nations leaders, which you love referring to all the time, and now the Electoral Commissioner himself are going for the inclusion of provisional voting, what will it say if the government does not support this provision? How much faith does this give us that the government listens to advice such as that provided by the proposed First Nations Voice to Parliament? We know it's a tokenistic gesture from the Labor government. It's the black cladding that you need. But you won't even listen to the advice about ensuring that blackfellas actually get a say in matters that affect them. You're showing your colours now. You talk about voter fraud despite there being no evidence that this actually occurs. That's what you came back with during the negotiations: you're worried about voter fraud if our people get to enrol and vote on the day. Do you know what that is? It's racist. With the AEC dismissing concerns around this, fears of voter fraud are simply racist rhetoric that conservatives have used to suppress First Nations people. Provisional votes still require some form of ID, whether that be a Medicare card or a Centrelink card, and can involve an elder attending the booth to help verify people in the community. It's alright for your Labor elections—you'll allow all that to happen—but, when it comes to this business, you're not doing the same thing. It is not hard to do, and it would be a shame to see this government reject the advice from First Nations people and the Australian Electoral Commission on this measure that would significantly increase the First Nations vote. You would think that, in good faith, you would just do it, but you're going to make it hard for blackfellas to vote. Well, wave the flag. Article 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states: Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State. I know you don't care about the UNDRIP. We know that Australia is only a signatory to it and it's just a token gesture, saying: 'Oh, we're signatory to the UNDRIP, but we really don't care about it and we're really not going to make it part of the law in this country. It makes us feel good that it's just over there somewhere.' This right and the right to citizenship are undermined if First Nations people are not able to exercise their right to vote, especially on a matter which foremost concerns us as a people. Today I'm also proposing telephone voting provisions similar to those that we were using during COVID to be made permanent so that people in remote areas, in residential care, in hospitals—not just blackfellas but everybody—or in places affected by emergencies, which we know this country is full of, can vote through a secure telephone line. This would also apply to those overseas who have no access to a postal vote or an overseas polling place and would allow homeless people to vote. I mean, you're not looking after them fellas in the first place; at least let 'em vote! Or is it that you're scared they might vote you out when they get the right? All of these matters are incredibly important to ensuring that people—in particular, First Nations people and those from diverse backgrounds—can engage with and access the next referendum; in fact, any referendum. You talk about the people, you talk about the Voice—you talk, talk, talk. There's no action. Don't talk self-determination when self-determination means that the government control what we decide. It doesn't make sense, and you're in breach of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And this country is still guilty of genocide, with 22,000 Aboriginal children in out-of-home care today. So give us the right to participate in the democracy you are so precious about. Allow those who aren't as able as all of you are to pick up the phone to vote and to enrol on the day and vote. Allow the people to determine their own destiny, instead of bullying your way through and shutting voices down. I ask you all to consider this properly and I would ask you all to think seriously about supporting my amendments to this bill. 11:46 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. The first point I wish to make is that it is extraordinarily hard to change the Australian Constitution. The Australian Constitution is the founding document of our parliamentary democracy, the founding document of our nation. It does represent what we aspire to be, and the drafters of our Constitution made it particularly difficult to change it. They set a very high bar and they did so for a very good reason. You do not want, particularly in a federation, where you have the coming together of states to form a nation, to have a founding document, a constitutional arrangement, that is very easy to change. To do so would, of course, invite chaos, where state and federal governments were never clear as to their responsibilities and roles in the nation and where they would find it extraordinarily difficult to navigate a change in environment in that way. Mr Deputy President, if you look back on the history of Australian referendums, you'll see that only eight of 44 have been successful. That's a well-known statistic. Three of the eight that succeeded were held together, so actually there have been only six occasions when people have agreed with the proposals in front of them. So the Australian people, throughout our history, have shown a reluctance to change our foundational document. Referendums need to be very necessary and very well understood and discussed prior to being presented to the Australian people. I look back now, with the benefit of hindsight, the benefit of history, at the proposals that the Australian people rejected and I think that in the vast majority of cases the Australian people got it right. A raft of early referendums were put up, perhaps unsurprisingly, by the federal parliament to extend and expand its powers after a number of initial High Court judgements that, quite rightly at the time, saw state government as having a very significant role in certain areas of public policy. It probably was, in fact, quite the reverse of the situation today and the situation over the last 50 years. In those first 20 or 30 years of democracy, where the referendum proposals were about expanding the powers of this place, you had the outlying states actually supporting them. The vast majority of referendum proposals in the 1901-to-1930 period were actually supported by states like my home state of WA, South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland because at that time they had a very unique dynamic in that they were much smaller, much less economically developed and much more reliant on assistance from a small and albeit less powerful Commonwealth government. So when presented with the opportunity to expand the powers of the Commonwealth government to perhaps gain a bit more support those smaller states actually voted yes, but the referendums failed because of the requirement that it be a majority of people in a majority of states. That was a very important check that the drafters of our Constitution put in place. As I said, in hindsight I suspect that every single one of those proposals would now be opposed by the voters in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland—and I won't comment on Tasmania. I suspect they'd all vote against them, and quite rightly so. They were probably overreach at that time. So we see regular referendum failures throughout our history. I want to highlight another one that failed. Again, if we look at it today I think we'd say: 'Goodness gracious. Was it ever even proposed to give this place, the Commonwealth parliament, the power to basically nationalise monopolies, to nationalise corporations or people in positions of significant commercial power within our nation?' Again, that was soundly defeated in a referendum where there were no 'yes' or 'no' cases presented, which had become the norm even at that point in our political democracy. So you can see that the Australian people have over the course of our constitutional history been very reluctant to change our foundation document, and that is why it is so important—even more important I would argue in this day and age than in previous referenda—in an age of disinformation, in an age of misinformation and in an age where the sources of information available to people are both legion and in many case highly dubious, that we actually look at machinery bills, such as this one, and make sure they are crafted to achieve the outcome, which is giving the Voice to the Australian people's decision-making. That's why we in the coalition have raised a number of points—the need to restore the 'yes' and 'no' cases which were eliminated in the first draft of this bill, the importance of establishing those official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations that have become a part of our usual expectation of referendums proceeding, and appropriately funding the official organisations. Once again we don't have to look back that far in history to see that the Labor Party has a very poor track record in these machinery provision bills. We only have to go back to 2013 to see the Labor Party then putting up a referendum on the recognition of local government. I point out that that had failed twice before, and so the Australian people had had their say on that proposal in the course of relatively recent political history. I believe—and this is just going from memory—it was in 1977 and 1988. That matter had been put before the Australian people at least two times before and the Australian people had quite resoundingly said that that was not something that they supported. There was a very particular set of circumstances around that bill. It was done as part of a deal to form government by the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, with Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott. In order to form a minority government with Labor, part of their demands was that a referendum on local government proceed. But the handling of that referendum was, to put it in its kindest light, highly dubious. Rather than equally funding a 'yes' and 'no' case, as had become the norm, the decision was taken to hand the 'yes' case $10 million and the 'no' case $500,000. I will say those numbers again, because it is an important fact to remember that, at the last referendum the Labor Party in government put forward, they were willing to fund the 'yes' case $10 million and the 'no' case $500,000. This was done on the spurious basis that only a couple of members of parliament had voted against the bill. It was completely lacking any justification. The fact that only two members of parliament voted against the machinery provisions bill did not reflect their view on the final referendum outcome in any way, shape or form, just as the vote on this bill does not represent a view on a referendum outcome in any way, shape or form. Yet, at that time, Labor was willing to use the very paper-thin justification of the fact that there were only two votes against the referendum mechanism legislation to put in place unbalanced funding to the tune of $10 million for the 'yes' case and $500,000 for the 'no' case. As it turned out, that referendum didn't go ahead, and the politics of that were very strange as well. Obviously, Prime Minister Gillard lost out to Prime Minister Rudd, and the election date changed by a week, slightly suspiciously, which meant the referendum was knocked off the agenda. I would be willing to put 10 quid on the fact that it was knocked off the agenda because they knew that referendum was going to go down and go down resoundingly. Regardless of how many people in this place voted against the referendum machinery bill, from working in politics at that time and talking very closely with large numbers of people, I know that, in my home state of Western Australia, even those inside local government at that time were extremely opposed to that referendum being successfully carried. So I suspect that, in the knowledge that that referendum was not only going to go down but was going to go down resoundingly and at a time of a federal election where the Labor Party had acted so inappropriately in funding the 'yes' case to the tune of $10 million and the 'no' case to the tune of $500,000, the election date just happened to be moved forward by a week so the referendum wouldn't go ahead. So Labor, sadly, has form. This is an area where you cannot afford to be political. As I said earlier, there have been 44 referendums in Australia's history; eight passed. This is an area where you cannot allow politics to enter the fray. It can be a discussion—people can have legitimately different perspectives. But, when you start politicising those things, when you start treating different sides of an argument in different ways, when you start ruling out or ruling in the traditional way that we have approached these—an Australian commitment to fairness, a fair go—that is something that we on this side take very seriously indeed. Yes, the Labor government has acted on the 'yes' and 'no' case. I haven't yet looked at the amendment myself, but I certainly will do so. But it needs to go beyond that. The coalition and Senator Hume made the coalition's position very clear—that it needs to go beyond that. Labor needs to be committed to a referendum arrangement and structure that is fair, open, transparent; that deals properly with donation regimes and foreign interference; and that provides a plan for how the scrutiny of the referendum will be conducted. So I say to those opposite and I say to all Australians: this is extremely important. It is hard to change our foundational document, and it should be hard to change our foundational document. It is a matter about which all Australians deserve the utmost chance to hear arguments for and against, to hear the case for and against. Without that, I think we leave ourselves in a very difficult and dangerous position as a democracy. 12:00 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak in support of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, although I will be moving a number of amendments to try to improve it. When it comes to setting up the conditions for a referendum, we've heard arguments that tradition is important, and I agree. There is much to be said for looking to the past and seeing how things were done and how that served us. But that should not stop us from ensuring that we are learning from the past and that we are putting into place things to deal with the challenges that we know we are facing when it comes to referendums and elections: the changing landscape when it comes to social media; the expectations of Australians when it comes to truth in political advertising; political donation reform; and advances in technology to allow those things to be dealt with by the government. While I'm hopeful that these amendments will receive support, I'm realistic that they're unlikely to get enough support to get over the line in the face of opposition by the major parties. This is really disappointing, to be frank. We hear a lot about transparency, and yet when Australians are clearly saying: 'We want more real-time political donation reporting. We want truth in political advertising. We want to be able to trust ads and things online when it comes to elections,' we don't hear much from the major parties. They point to reviews, when we actually have an opportunity now, with this referendum, to put some of those in place. This referendum will be a defining moment in our history. As a younger Australian, I see it as an incredible opportunity to begin to right 100-plus years of wrongs—of not listening and of not consulting—and, for the first time as a nation, to say that we acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and that we believe they should, and will, have a voice on issues that affect them. That's what this referendum is about. The details of how that happens and what that looks like is up to politicians. It's up to elected representatives, as it should be, to vote on the model, and then, you'd hope, to improve it over time. That's what we're here to do. This is not a set-and-forget thing. This should be a matter of principle at the referendum and then a live, ongoing debate about what the best way is for First Nations people, Australia's First Peoples, to have a voice on issues that affect them. To save the Senate time when it comes to committee of the whole, I'm going to run through my amendments here. The first one is about real-time donation disclosures. I know that a number of crossbenchers have raised this. It's something that has often been raised with us, and we'll be circulating amendments, if that hasn't been done already. I believe it's so important, from a transparency perspective, that when we go to the polls to vote on this potential change to our Constitution that we know who has funded the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. Clearly, we need that level of transparency for federal elections, and I'm very hopeful that the government will move on that before the next election. But the referendum is an opportunity for this. Frankly, it's laughable that six months plus after an election we see who funded it. It isn't good enough anymore, and it's very easy to fix with the technology we have now. We could have close to real-time disclosures. I'm suggesting 14 days for these disclosures to be made public: seven days to submit a donation disclosure declaration and seven days to for it then to be made public. This technology is clearly available, so this is about political will by the government. The next amendment is to do with exclusion zones. Referendums, like elections, can be very emotive. We've seen that play out even amongst politicians in this place and the other place. A number of jurisdictions do have exclusion zones which exclude certain activities around polling stations, like handing out how-to-vote cards and other behaviour designed to influence others. This amendment proposes setting up a similar zone nationally for the referendum. I believe it's an opportunity to ensure that polling stations are a safe space where people can go and cast their votes on this very important issue. It avoids the potential for some of the awful scenes that we saw on television over the weekend. The next amendment is fact-checking of the pamphlet. Whilst I don't necessarily agree that in 2023 we should be mailing a pamphlet to every household, the government has decided that that's something it wants to do. At the very least, it should be fact-checked. We've heard a lot about truth in political advertising. Senator Brockman talked about us living in the age of disinformation and misinformation, and I believe this amendment begins to address some of that. We've seen political parties engage in misinformation and smear campaigns over a number of elections. The member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, has been pushing for much broader truth-in-political-advertising reform, which I fully support and which, certainly, from what I've been hearing from people in the ACT, the majority of people support. It makes a lot of sense. Again, we need political leadership and will from the government on this. Whilst there is the broader agenda, we have the opportunity to ensure that, at the very least, the pamphlet goes out with the contents of that pamphlet grounded in fact. It doesn't seem to be a big ask to me. It's a pamphlet written by parliamentarians and I understand that it can have up to 2,000 words from each side of the debate. This has been raised with me by a lot of concerned people, including by people on the referendum working group, saying that if we're going to have a pamphlet then let's ensure that it's factual. That's because we saw some pretty average things going out in the names of various political parties and activist groups in the federal election. We in this place, the parliament of Australia, need to set the standard. If we're going to send something out, it should be factual. Australians should be able to believe what they see coming from our parliament. As it stands, that potentially won't be the case. The 'yes' and 'no' sides can write what they want and mail it out to every Australian household. I don't see how that's good enough. We talk about wanting to raise the standard of debate here and wanting to restore some trust in politics and politicians. Here's an opportunity—with the referendum. So I implore the government to consider this amendment. It is common sense. It is sensible. It is simply about ensuring that whatever goes out on that pamphlet is grounded in fact and people can have confidence in that. The last amendment will be to add social media to the advertising blackout period. Again, things are changing. I don't see why we should say there's a blackout period for TV and print media and not include social media. We know that a huge amount of political advertising happens around elections, and I think that will certainly be the case with the referendum in 2023. I ask the government to consider this small update, which, again, is possible. Social media companies have pretty stringent rules when it comes to political advertising. The argument that it's too hard simply doesn't work in this case, because there are ways that they can ensure that all political ads are pulled a few days before the referendum. Those are the amendments, which, again, will set up this referendum for what is a defining moment in our history. I would urge parliamentarians to stop playing cheap politics with this. This has the potential to change our nation for the better and allow us to begin to deal with the problems. In my short time here, we have debated for hours about wanting the federal government to step in and intervene in Alice Springs. What's happening there is an absolute tragedy, but we know that these things do not happen overnight. This has built up over a long time. If Australia's First Peoples had a way to have a voice to parliament, that would, in my mind, better equip this parliament to consult and then to make laws in a way that is more reflective of what Australians want and what Australians want Australia to become. This is a huge opportunity. I really implore people in this place to embrace this. It's something that I think is on all of us. The way that we talk about it, the way that we set this up and, leading into the vote, the level of debate—those are choices that we will make, and we will be held accountable for our actions after that. 12:14 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland It's good to see Senator Farrell here as well, this week; it's good to see Senator Farrell back. It's always a pleasure to follow Senator Pocock, and I'll first acknowledge the heartfelt nature of his comments. He brings to this debate, and to all the discussions in this place, a heartfelt conviction: he's to do what's best for this country. I acknowledge that, Senator Pocock. Queensland has voted yes in 21 referenda out of the 44 referenda, and, as far as I can work out from my research, there has not been a single referendum passed in Australia without Queensland's support. So Queensland is a key state in terms of all referenda that are considered in this country, including the forthcoming referendum. I think that context is very important to note. Australia has a history in referenda where, on many occasions, the most populous states have approved a referendum, so the majority of citizens in those states—namely, Victoria and New Wales—have voted in favour of a referendum, but less populous states have voted against the referendum. That should be recognised and noted by all senators engaging in this debate. There are really three issues which the opposition has raised in relation to the referendum machinery, and, at the outset, I compliment the government for at least addressing the first one, and that is the need for a pamphlet to be disseminated to all Australian voters in relation to the referendum and for that pamphlet to have a 'yes' case and a 'no' case. I do take on board Senator Pocock's observation as to whether or not a pamphlet is required in this day and age, but the AEC, in the evidence it gave to the committee, noted that a lot of people do rely upon that sort of information coming from the AEC, so I think there is benefit in terms of having that pamphlet with the 'yes' and 'no' cases. One other collateral point I want to speak to which Senator Pocock raised in that context was this issue of fact-checking. As a matter of principle, one could say: 'Well, what's the concern about fact-checking?' The issue is: when does a fact become a matter of opinion? Certainly, a majority of ex High Court judges have written opinion pieces in relation to the impact of the proposed wording on the Constitution and might consider that the risks are low, in relation to courts deciding matters flowing from that wording to the constitutional amendment; it could well be that a majority of ex High Court justices have that opinion. But there are also High Court justices—in particular, Ian Callinan from my home state of Queensland—who have a different point of view and believe there are risks associated with the introduction of those words. Now, should it be within the province of a so-called fact-checker to make a determination on the basis of whether or not those risks are live risks, or should it be for the Australian voters to make their own decision based on the credibility of people putting the differing arguments and deciding for themselves? That is my concern with respect to so-called fact-checking—that issues which are really matters of opinion and subjectivity fall within the province of so-called fact-checkers and that people are given just one predetermined view with respect to matters in which there are legitimate views on both sides of an argument. That is my fundamental concern as to the concept of fact-checking and how fact-checking can morph into opinion-vetting and go beyond the remit of just checking facts. That is a real concern that I have with respect to the notion of fact-checking. Let people check their own facts. Let people assess the credibility of those who are putting forward arguments. Let people access information in the marketplace of ideas and come to their own view. I think that's an important point to note. Moving on from the issue of the pamphlet to the issue of formal campaigns, my second point is this. I think there is great merit in terms of the establishment of formal campaigns—a formal campaign for and a formal campaign against. In the context of so-called fact checking and the credibility of arguments which are put forward and the basis for those arguments, having formal campaigns will actually provide a credible source to which people can go to obtain reasoned arguments, whether in favour or against any particular policy. So I think there's great merit in having formal campaigns recognised. Senator Pocock has spoken about finance, donations, in relation to this referendum campaign. Having formal campaigns established also assists in ensuring accountability with respect to the reporting of donations and getting across the maze of our electoral laws with respect to the reporting of donations. That is the second limb of why it's important to have formal campaigns recognised. The first is so that people have a credible source to which they can go to get the information they're searching for to answer their questions when they're determining how they're going to cast their vote in the referendum. The second is that it also provides for accountability with respect to the deployment of donations and to ensure that our Australian electoral laws are complied with. The third point I want to make is with respect to funding. Bear in mind that we're considering and debating a piece of legislation that deals with referendum machinery. It isn't just a question, from my perspective, with respect to the forthcoming Voice referendum. It's a question as to what principles should apply when the Australian people are considering change to their Constitution. As a first principle, I think disseminating to every Australian elector a pamphlet which has a 'no' and a 'yes' case is an important part of the process. Formal 'yes' campaigns and 'no' campaigns, providing for accountability, credibility and responsibility—I think that's an important limb. But the third one is equality of funding. In this respect, again, as a general principle there should be a minimum amount of equal funding provided to the 'yes' case and the 'no' case—a minimum level of funding to ensure that the arguments for and against have the ability to cut through to the Australian people and the Australian people know where they can get the information which they're seeking in order to make their decision with respect to the Voice referendum or any other referendum. I want to go back in time—and Senator Farrell may remember this. I'm not going that far back in time; I'm sure there are many things Senator Farrell would remember, but we're not going too far back. I do want to go back to the proposed referendum on the recognition of local government. Senator Farrell, do you go back that far? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Order. Senator SCARR 282997 That was rhetorical. I'm sure he does remember. In that referendum the choice was made by the then Labor government that they should allocate $10.5 million to the question of whether or not local government should be formally recognised in our Constitution, but $10 million was to be given to the Australian Local Government Association for the 'yes' case and $500,000 was to be given for the 'no' case. This allocation of funding was apparently based on the percentage of members of parliament who supported the change. I don't want to go back in history and analyse the reasons for that, but the basic proposition that you would give $10 million—20 times as much to one case over the other case—did not go down well with the Australian people. In fact, it actually hardened the opposition to the referendum. It was a strategic blunder by the then Labor government, and it didn't end well in terms of the prosecution of that case. So I think there is a lesson. We should learn from history. This is an example which suggests that we should look at providing equal funding to both a 'yes' case and a 'no' case—a minimal level of funding to ensure that the arguments can be ventilated in an appropriate way with the Australian people. If other people want to provide additional funding—absolutely. That's their right. We live in a democracy. There is no issue at all. But there should be at least a minimal level of equal funding for both a 'yes' case and a 'no' case, notwithstanding what the question is. Whatever the question is, whether it's the Voice or anything else, there should be that minimum, equal level of funding. The last comment I want to make in relation to this matter is the way in which the debate is conducted, and I have spoken in this place before and called out what I consider to be egregious personal attacks which have been made on various members of this place who have stood up and given their perspective, their view, with respect to this question. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that, when senators—members of the lower house, members of the Australian community—get up and give a good-faith, bona fide position on this referendum, they are personally attacked, their motives are impugned and they are subjected to personal slurs. That is unacceptable. I say—and I remind myself; we should all reflect on ourselves—to those who engage in conduct at that level, who use that overblown language, personal slurs and rhetoric, whether you're 'yes' or 'no', all you will do is empower the opponents of whatever position you hold, whichever side of the debate you are on, because Australians typically, certainly in my home state of Queensland, do not approve of that sort of personal politicking. They really don't. I think all of us in this place should lead by example in terms of the conduct of this debate and call out those who overstep the mark. I understand it's a passionate debate, and you've got to give some licence in that regard. But the line has been crossed on a number of occasions in the course of the last 12 months in ways which I consider to be indefensible. Certainly, I believe that those who have overstepped the mark have in fact undermined their own credibility, when they actually raise legitimate arguments for the consideration of Australians in the context of this debate. With those comments, I support the position of the coalition in relation to this bill. 12:27 S 296215 Western Australia enator COX () (): I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill is an enabling piece of legislation that will pave the way for our first referendum in nearly 25 years. For many, this will be the first referendum that they have ever voted in. Putting aside the topic of the referendum for just one moment, this in itself is an incredible opportunity. It's an opportunity for a new generation of people to participate in shaping our Constitution, ensuring that our Constitution is updated and ensuring that those updates are voted on and fundamentally enshrined as part of our democracy here in this country. At its core, that is what this bill is actually about. It's about ensuring people can participate in shaping a fundamental document for this country and about the way that we can conduct referendums in the future. That is, importantly, what this bill represents. Regardless of your position on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice or on constitutional recognition, giving the people of this country the chance to have their say on the matter is about supporting a healthy democracy. Your personal opinion doesn't mean that the people of this country should not get to have their say, and I urge members of this place to reflect on this as they vote on this bill. Now, this isn't the first time we've attempted something like this. Many of you may remember that we had a failed attempt made under former prime minister John Howard in 1999, when the proposed change was to mention First Nations people in the preamble to the Constitution. This was a proposal that involved no consultation with the Australian public or with First Nations people. But this time it is different, and this calls for a voice to parliament and, indeed, the other two elements of the Uluru Statement of the Heart, which are truth and treaty. These arose from many forums, after much robust discussion. Most importantly, this came from First Nations people. The constitutional reform process is now entirely appropriate, as opposed to the reform that was proposed in 1999. This referendum isn't about what form of recognition that Australian people want to give to First Nations people, but whether they will accept the form of recognition that is being sought by First Nations people. I want to echo the comments made by my colleague Senator Waters about the great importance of this referendum but also the importance of actually getting this process right, to ensure that as many people as possible can vote in this referendum, especially First Nations people. The Greens have several amendments before you around this matter, particularly on provisional voting and voting in prisons. At its core, the Voice actually allows First Nations people to have a say on matters that affect them. Yet, many First Nations people will not have a chance to have their voice actually heard during this referendum process, particularly if the amendments before you don't get up. The government has a very important role to play in making sure that this in fact is not the case. There is a long history in this country of First Nations people not being able to vote, and I take this chance to remind you that First Nations people were only granted the right to vote in 1962. Historically, we've not been allowed to vote at all. There are other obstacles that stand in the way of First Nations people voting, such as the location of polling stations and the requirements of enrolment that many in this country still cannot meet. The Australian Electoral Commission has estimated that there are 87,000 First Nations people who are eligible to vote but are in fact not enrolled. There needs to be a grassroots community movement to get as many people on the electoral roll as possible, which is led by elders and community leaders. It is completely understandable why many First Nations people don't want to vote, and we need to meet them right where they're at, have a yarn with them and help them get what they actually need in order to enrol to vote. There are also many who wish to enrol but simply cannot meet the requirements. So this is not about stacking the vote, as we have heard today, in particular from the government; this is about ensuring that people exercise their right to vote. Voting is a right. It's not a privilege. And it is the job of this government to make sure that voting is as easy as possible for everyone, regardless of where they are across this vast country. They may be in prison, in hospital, in a remote community or even abroad, but they should have that opportunity and that right. There has been $52.6 million allocated to the Australian Electoral Commission, the National Indigenous Australians Agency and the Attorney-General's Department to prepare for this referendum. This must include efforts that absolutely get the 87,000 First Nations people on the electoral roll and able to have access to provisional voting, voting in prisons, mobile voting booths and communications in language that ensure that people understand in their own language what they are in fact voting for. This includes independent and fact-checked pamphlets, but it's also vitally important that the information in any pamphlets is carefully considered and also crosschecked. For this to work, we need as many people to participate as possible. We know that provisional voting is possible, and the wonderful crew at GetUp have done some incredible work on provisional voting, particularly in the most recent Northern Territory election. We must allow people to enrol to vote and to cast their vote on the day. This is key in ensuring that as many people as possible get the opportunity to have their say. There is no evidence—absolutely no evidence—that provisional voting is a risk for voter fraud. Indeed, provisional voting is supported by key stakeholders—which you heard earlier—and by the Australian Electoral Commission in particular. Thirty-two per cent of people in prison are First Nations people. Many of these people will not have the opportunity to vote. First Nations people are not just overrepresented in our prisons; they are also disproportionately impacted by our criminal justice system and receive harsher penalties. The harsher penalties often impact on their eligibility to vote and their eligibility to have access to identification. This is all part of the continual colonial oppression that First Nations people still experience to this day. I can't overstate how important this is: these amendments would ensure that everyone, but especially First Nations people, can vote in this referendum. We have a lot of work ahead of us to ensure that this referendum is in fact successful. This bill is just the start. The Greens are supporting this bill, but, as Senator Waters already said, we are seeking to improve it. We need to get First Nations people on the electoral roll, communicate information in language, ensure voting is accessible in remote communities and make provisions for people to enrol and cast their vote on the actual day of the referendum. I am absolutely disappointed. It is shameful that the government will not be supporting our amendments. These amendments would ensure many people, especially First Nations people, can actually vote in this referendum. This is about access and equity. This referendum is to establish a voice to parliament. The Voice is supposed to represent First Nations people, and the government is actively opposing measures that will enable greater First Nations participation? Shame! If there is any genuine and meaningful action towards self-determination that is in fact informed and framed by our human rights, this work has to be in the present. In fact, it has to be right here and now, in this place. The government must ensure these reasonable amendments are supported to ensure the success of the Voice to Parliament. I have said this before and I will say it again: this should be a unifying moment in this country, a turning point for us. We need this because, for the last 230 years, First Nations people have not had a voice or, if they have had a voice, they haven't had it listened to. We have been subjected to countless government policies, some of them well meaning and most of them absolutely devastating to our people. So this referendum is just the start of what could be a decade of change for First Nations people, which is why it's absolutely vital that we take the time in this place to get this process right. So I am asking all of you to take this into consideration when you think about voting for this bill. 12:37 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I won't seek to repeat all the various matters that have been discussed this morning about the lack of success of referenda in Australia over the past 120 years. These changes that have been proposed are modernisation changes, largely, many of which were canvassed in a significant report conducted in the last parliament by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. This bill which we are looking at today, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill, seeks to modernise voting and counting, authorisations and financial disclosures for referendum entities and also to deal with foreign donations. The coalition have flagged that there are additional changes that we are seeking. I want to put on the record my thanks to Senator Hume for the work she has done in working with the government to secure the 'yes and no' booklet, which I believe will be an improvement to the bill as originally introduced. There are some additional changes that have been sought in relation to the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns and the designation of those and there has been the proposal of administrative funding for those campaigns, if they are to be designated. These are laudable objectives to try to ensure that we have a clean referendum, because, in the age of misinformation and disinformation, we don't want to see the referendum tainted in any way by outside actors, given the deteriorating environment in which we live. The idea of having 'yes' and 'no' cases is not a new one. There were committees that were drawn upon for the republic referendum in '99, so it's not a new idea. It may be a complicated idea, though, and we need to look very closely at how that would work, given there are a multitude of voices in this space. There are already multiple 'no' campaigns, and there are different views on the 'yes' side as well. So it is important to give careful consideration as to how that would work, given there are strong views amongst both camps already at this very early stage. I think the question of administrative funding is a clearer concept, if you can deal with the difficulty of designating a committee or designating a particular campaign or group of campaigners. I would say this is an issue where there is an enormous amount of misinformation and it may be very difficult to bring all the different views on just one side together, but I believe it is worthy of consideration. I want to talk about the issue here of the Voice. It is a referendum, like the other 44 that have occurred in the past, but it is a referendum which must be above politics, because it is not about a routine or day-to-day political issue; it is about trying to overturn and reverse 120 years of paternalism, which has been a disaster for Indigenous people in the main. When you stand back and look at Australia, you can say we have been a successful country. But we have not been a good country for Indigenous people in the main, and we spend a lot of time in this chamber and the other place discussing the various discrepancies on an almost weekly basis, as we should. So to achieve success at this referendum—and I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister's leadership in putting this on the agenda—requires a process which everyone can get behind in their own way, recognising that for different communities and different Australians there are different ways they will respond to the messages in this campaign. As we saw with same-sex marriage in 2017, there will be a desire and there will be a need for targeted messaging to motivate people to vote yes, perhaps, but also to vote no, if that is the will of the campaigner. To date I must say it is regrettable that there has not been more effort put into setting up structures inside this parliament to enable a bipartisan position or tripartisan position in relation to these matters. In terms of the wording that is proposed for the document itself, we read in the papers today that the government wants to introduce a Constitution alteration bill in these sittings. That is their prerogative. But the fact that that has not been the product of a parliamentary committee I think is hugely regrettable, because once the government introduces a bill into this parliament then that is by definition the government's policy, and there have been multiple attempts by members of this and the other chamber to offer to work with the government and the community on looking at the wording that is going to be put to the Australian people. I recognise the minister is proposing that there be a routine committee, I assume a select committee or through the legal and cons committee of the Senate, to look at the wording. But as I said, that will be reviewing the government's policy. It would've been far better if the parliament could have looked at the various models for constitutional alteration before a bill was introduced into the parliament. I make these statements because we are addressing a bill which is to do with the ongoing machinery arrangements of referenda, but it is very hard to separate the fact that this particular bill is being introduced and debated as a precursor to the Voice referendum. Even in glancing at the House committee recommendations from 2021, that link is made. If you want this particular referendum to be successful as I do then a lot more effort needs to go into building up a broader base of support for the change. I know that many people here and many people around Australia will also vote 'no', and that is a reasonable position. It doesn't mean that you are a racist. It doesn't mean that you are anything. We want to see a debate where the facts are known, there can be civility and the vote will be known to all Australians with a degree of integrity. My sense of what Senator Hume is trying to pursue here is just that: that the changes that are to be made to the referendum machinery act are changes which ensure that Australians have confidence that the referendum to be conducted later this year on the Voice has been conducted with integrity and appropriate governance and oversight. We want to think very carefully about the changes we make here, particularly if we are to be empowering ministers to make judgements about these matters. There are very different views about these issues in the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, and I think we ought to consider that. I want to place again on record my acknowledgement of the work that's been done by the government here in acknowledging a slew of changes which have been needed to the machinery act but also of the suggestions that Senator Hume has made, part of which have been adopted by the government. In closing, I want to reiterate for the record my expectation that, whether people are 'yes' voters or 'no' voters, they will engage in this debate with respect and civility. If this is a 'yes' vote, I personally believe that, if the wording in the Constitution is right, it will be a very significant step forward; but, if it is a 'no' vote, which I think would be a disaster for race relations in this country, we will need to live together and we will need to find a way to move ahead. I think anything we can do to maximise opportunities for us to get to a 'yes' vote with a bipartisan accommodation should be urgently addressed by the government in the coming weeks and months. 12:47 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The referendum working group is still working at the detail as we are being asked to pass this legislation, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. Flip-flopping, backflipping, chopping and changing, and making it up as we go along are the staples of the lead-up to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament by this government. We've seen changes to the wording, suggesting the Voice might also speak to national cabinet and then that maybe it would not, muddling about it making representation to the executive and parliament. One week we were told the Voice was about closing the gap, the next that it was about reconciliation—but wait. It's also about giving Indigenous people a say in the laws—or is it now 'matters'—that affect them and it's about international reputation. It is all a little confusing, really. Regardless of whether you made up your mind long ago or are still waiting for the detail, one thing that should be a given is that the information related to the question is accurate and presents both sides for consideration. The bill makes fundamental changes to how referenda are conducted in Australia that go beyond what has been done in the past. Australians have proven time and time again that they don't take changing the Constitution lightly, and so we should all be cautious every single time, regardless of the question. Australians think deeply and carefully about changes to the Constitution and should expect that their only consideration and concern should be how they vote, not the process that has enabled the vote. Of the 44 referenda that have been put to the people on the Australian Constitution, only eight have succeeded. This referendum should be no different from any other in form. There is no genuine, reasonable reason for it to be different or out of step with every other referendum. That is why I won't vote for the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill in its current form. In an age of disinformation, the Australian public, no matter where they live or how they access information, must have access to and know that there is credible and evidence based information that they can rely on. That will assist a strong, informed referendum process that has integrity, transparency and accountability. Three things need to happen for us to support the bill: the pamphlet that outlines both the 'yes' and 'no' cases needs to be restored, official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations need to be established, and those official organisations need to be appropriately funded. This bill removes the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases for changing the Constitution. This action sets a dangerous precedent. The requirement for a pamphlet was implemented in 1912. This is the first time there has been no pamphlet provided to voters since before Phar Lap won the Melbourne Cup. In 1967 and 1977 only 'yes' pamphlets were provided to the electorate. There have been three referenda without an official pamphlet—in 1919 when there was insufficient time to produce it, in 1926 when there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument and in 1928 when there was overwhelming agreement between parties and governments. In the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters the electoral commissioner said that a significant education effort would be important to ensuring that individuals and entities involved in referendum campaigns are aware of their disclosure obligations. The act prescribes that each argument in the official pamphlet can be up to 2,000 words in length, and there's a time line to ensure it arrives in a timely manner. How could anyone, understanding the diversity of Australians, think that there was something wrong with that? We welcome the government's announcement to restore the pamphlet, but we'll reserve our position until a final amendment is presented. It's the detail that's needed. The bill does not outline any official funding of these campaigns. We can't support a bill that doesn't have a plan on how to properly regulate donations and foreign interference and doesn't provide a plan for how scrutiny of the referendum will be conducted. Surely it's reasonable to look at simple, practical steps that put structure around this process and help our regulators and our agencies manage the referendum. Changing the rules to meet the fast-tracking of an election promise creates risk, some of which could be resolved by the establishment of appropriately and equally funded official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations. We welcome the engagement from the government on this bill, but until we have our concerns addressed we must and will oppose this bill. In the general community I still hear people say that they don't even know what the Voice is. There is little confusion about the concept of constitutional recognition, but the concept of the Voice remains insufficiently explained. It is simply not people's priority and not front of mind for people. The cost of living is the predominant issue I hear about. Yes, although the public narrative seeks to ignore them, there are also Aboriginal people who will not vote for it. Quality information needs to reach people, regardless of where they live and of whether they've formed a position. If the process for referenda needs to be changed then it should not be made up on the run. These changes, without proper consultation and interrogation, should not become a precedent for future referenda. This bill suggests a number of non-controversial changes to the act to bring the operation of referenda into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. These positions have consistently been advocated to the government by the opposition. We will support a bill that allows for a referendum process that informs voters and a process with integrity based on precedent, whether you live in Pukatja, Port Augusta or Peterborough. We heard from the Australian Electoral Commission that when they've provided mailed material to voters during elections 40 per cent of recipients used that documentation as a main source of information in casting their vote. We also know that electoral events are increasingly influenced by misinformation. The ACCC has published data that has reported that 92 per cent of the respondents to the ACCC news survey had 'some concern about the quality of news and journalism they were consuming' and that 'analysis has identified concerning consumer and competition harms across a range of digital platform services that are widespread, entrenched, and systemic'. Official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will increase trust and integrity in the process. Having official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of the referendum. The AEC has given evidence to parliamentary committees that the donation and disclosure regime remains the most complex part of the Electoral Act. We know there will be a significant number of organisations and participants in this referendum who are not associated with political parties or who do not regularly participate in electoral events. Having a single point of coordination for an audit process for donations and for reporting suspected interference is the best way to ensure the integrity of the referendum. They have even acknowledged that political parties sometimes struggle to get this right. We are seeking an assurance that, once these bodies are established, there is a guarantee of equal funding—if any is provided—to each side, to ensure that neither side is advantaged and that they can comply with the disclosure and regulatory regimes at the referendum. The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 governs how the government must conduct a referendum. It is similar to the Commonwealth Electoral Act's role in governing the process and procedures in conducting an election. The act includes how a referendum's donations and regulations will operate, how the pre-poll voting, scrutineering and counting will operate and how the newly introduced foreign interference regime will operate. Any change must be made in an organised way, not made up on the run, for a process that has the potential to result in a change to our most important document, our Constitution. 12:56 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Consideration of constitutional change should be careful, should be balanced and should be thoughtful, and that consideration should be made without undue or nefarious influence. We live in an age rife with misinformation and attempts at foreign interference in the Australian political landscape. With the vast uptake of social media across the world, it is my concern that it has become increasingly difficult for people to find fair and honest coverage that does not already affirm their previous convictions. Modern politics is siloed. Views are echoed in partisan safe spaces, rarely challenged and barely understood. Social media was to be the great leveller, but, instead, the use of social media in campaigning has become the great builder of walls. For an undertaking as important as the proposed amendments to our Constitution, the independence of the media, freedom from misinformation and the countering of foreign interference are key to a sustainable, democratic outcome. However, sadly, the Labor government does not seem to think that the sanctity of our referenda is so important. When it comes to the Voice referendum, the Labor government has consistently been dodgy with the detail, on top of providing no information to the Australian people about what the Voice to Parliament would look like in practice. With this bill, they effectively want to halt any form of independent public discourse by killing off any form of serious, balanced, democratic debate. A constitutional referendum is a rare thing. It has been pointed out by senators in this chamber that it comes along once every 24 or 25 years. It is because it comes along so rarely that we should ensure that our consideration of the question is done without recourse to allegations of gerrymandering the result. This is what we face today, because Australians rarely change the Constitution. We've had 44 referendums since Federation, only eight of which have passed. For a third of Australian voters, this will be their first referendum, so we need to do this properly and we need to do this thoughtfully. We've had the time to do this slowly, but, unfortunately, we have a Labor government who are playing politics with constitutional change and playing politics with the unity of this country. That is a shameful thing. We need to ensure that every Australian has the right and the obligation not only to hear the arguments in favour of constitutional change and, as importantly, the arguments against constitutional change but also to hear the arguments free from misinformation and free from foreign interference. I am concerned as someone who has spent most of his life not only campaigning for the centre-right of politics but also campaigning for freedom, not just in this country but in emerging democracies around this world. It is my concern that we have a government in this country who are abusing the democratic process and are attempting to gerrymander a result. That does concern me, and that is why our position has been clear-cut from the get-go. The position of the coalition has been so clear. We must restore the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases. There must be an establishment of 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations, and those campaign organisations must be appropriately funded. I refer to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and their gloriously titled Advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, a report on an inquiry which Senator Cadell and I participated in over the Christmas break. Doesn't that tell you something—that over the Christmas break this Labor government referred this bill to an inquiry to be conducted when Australia was on holidays? Of course, being senators, we don't take holidays, unlike the riffraff in the other place, so we happily participated in this inquiry. The coalition senators brought forward a dissenting report not only disagreeing with many of the government's proposals but also, for those who might be listening at home, agreeing with where the government wanted to update the bill to bring it in line with how federal elections are run. It is important that on some issues like that there is a bipartisan approach. But when it comes to constitutional change and when the government, over the Christmas period, had inquiries on, I think, 21 December and maybe 9 January, it's almost like they were trying to hide something—trying to hide that they were going to change this bill and change how referendums are conducted in this country. That meant that members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters did not have sufficient time to scrutinise witnesses and the proposed bills. But, more importantly, it limited the ability of Australians to find out what the government was up to. We're very fortunate that we have wonderful organisations like the Institute of Public Affairs, which I'm a member of—just to clear that conflict of interest. They did an analysis of the submissions that were put in to this inquiry, and they found out that, from the 78 submissions, where a view was expressed for the need to have or not have a pamphlet, 97 per cent of those submissions expressed a clear opinion in favour of a 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet. I raise that because Labor didn't want to have a pamphlet. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it. We welcome Labor's backflip—that is to be commended—but I would ask that Labor and Senator Farrell be versatile when it comes to backflips and that they do similar backflips in relation to the designation of official 'yes' and 'no' bodies, as well as the equal funding of 'yes' and 'no' bodies. It is my concern that, regardless of your view on the Voice and whether you are 'yes' or 'no', you should have the view that the process should be thoughtful, carefully considered and without favour to either side. I'm a student of politics, which is a polite way of saying I'm a nerd. What I've observed, and what I would warn the government about, is what happened in the United Kingdom less than a decade ago. The political establishment, the sporting establishment, the business establishment—the establishment—were all in favour of the UK remaining in the European Union. There was a referendum that was promised by David Cameron. It was an election commitment. What that referendum campaign showed is that when the government take people for granted and when the government effectively attempt to gerrymander the result of a referendum, the mob out there will sometimes have a different opinion. My observation of the remain or Brexit referendum was that the remain side won every single opinion poll up until the votes were counted and Brexit won. I would encourage the government to be so careful, because they are bringing forward a referendum that they have not explained to the Australian people and will not explain to the Australian people. Peter Dutton—my leader, the leader of the coalition and the Leader of the Liberal Party—has put 15 questions to this Labor government and received no answers. That is such arrogance. It is so sad that people would call for good manners in the demonstration of the political process yet fail to demonstrate such manners themselves. It is so important that there is a consideration here of what is being proposed substantively in the referendum. It is just as important that, as senators who are protectors of the state's rights and who stand up against the excessive behaviour of the executive, we ensure that this house of review holds the government to account and makes appropriate changes and amendments to this bill. That's so that when the referendum is put forward later this year, the Australian people—the people to whom we are accountable and the people who are our bosses—can make the decision with as much information as possible in front of them and with information is not subject to people who do not have Australia's best interests at heart. Only a few weeks ago, the director-general of ASIO told Australians that we are seeing the greatest level of foreign interference in Australia's history. Surely we should look at some simple, practical steps that can put a structure around this process and help our regulators and help our agencies manage the referendum. We know that there has been foreign influence in other countries' elections. In Canada, their intelligence agencies uncovered plots to interfere in their 2021 election in order to create a minority government. According to secret documents published by the Globe and Mail, Chinese officials in Canada said that Beijing wanted a minority Canadian government so that parties in parliament would be 'fighting each other'. This is one of a long list of foreign influence campaigns that have been revealed publicly not just in North America but in Europe and elsewhere. We are not immune. We know that we've had our own parties targeted, with reports that the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party have been victims of state sponsored hacking. On those grounds alone, we think there's good reason—it is sensible—to have a formal structure around the referendum that allows a pamphlet to go to every household and that allows there to be 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, that says who can help with the management of campaign donations, and that has equal funding for those campaigns so that we do not have in Australian politics the nefarious influence of big money attempting to change the Constitution against the will of the Australian people. 13:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I also rise today to speak against the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 that's before the Australian Senate. As Senator McGrath has so eloquently stated, a referendum to change the founding document of this nation, the Australian Constitution, is not something that can be taken lightly. It is particularly incumbent on those of us elected to this place that we uphold the highest standards of integrity when examining the process by which any such referendum should be conducted. In fact, given the speech by Senator McGrath, it is a little ironic that the Albanese Labor government, who, prior to being elected to govern, talked so much about transparency and integrity, would actually bring this bill to the parliament, because there is nothing in this bill that lives up to the standards that Mr Albanese said he would be setting for himself in terms of transparency and integrity. It is irrelevant what question is being put to the Australian people. Any question which will change the Australian Constitution—in this case, to establish a voice to parliament—is a momentous occasion. In many ways, we are the protectors of this nation's founding document, and each and every one of us in this place should take that role very, very seriously. There is no doubt that we live in an age where information is ubiquitous, as is disinformation. Therefore, it is important that the government takes the lead—which it is not doing, with the bill that it has presented before the parliament—by providing clear information to Australians and delivering a strong referendum process. Those of us on this side of the chamber believe that the government is falling short—in fact, I would say well short—of what should be done. It took pressure from our side for the government to commit to producing pamphlets to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases. How do you actually answer the Australian people when they ask, 'When will I be receiving the 'yes' and 'no' cases'? You have to say to them: 'Guess what? The government did not want you to receive a "yes" or "no" case.' They are actually lost for words and cannot believe that a government would want to hold a referendum without formally providing them with a pamphlet that clearly outlines both the 'yes' and 'no' cases. This should never have been something that was in dispute. A responsible government engaging in a referendum process should always, unless it had something to hide, have been willing to outline the two cases in such a way. We also believe that the official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations should be properly established and appropriately funded by the government. Again, are you a government that believe in integrity and transparency or are they just weasel words that fall nicely from your tongues? We cannot support a bill that does not have a plan for how to properly regulate donations or foreign interference or that doesn't provide a plan for how the scrutiny of the referendum will be conducted. Again, this is a referendum to change the founding document of this nation, the Australian Constitution, and it is not something that anybody in this country should take lightly. And yet, with the bill presented to the Australian Senate, that is exactly what the Albanese government is doing. All of the issues that have been raised could have been resolved by the establishment of appropriate and equally funded official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations. This bill will determine the settings for how the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is conducted. However, what the Albanese government is, I would say, almost deliberately failing to tell the Australian people is that they should be very, very aware that the changes included in this bill could also be used for future referenda. Whilst the bill makes a number of non-controversial changes to the act to bring the operation of referenda in line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act, it also makes fundamental changes to how referenda themselves will be conducted in Australia. We have made our position clear: we will support a bill that allows for a referendum with informed voters—because why wouldn't you want the Australian voter to be informed about what they are actually voting on?—and a process with integrity based on precedent. We advocated for a pamphlet because, without one, a dangerous precedent would have been set. This would have been the first time no pamphlet was provided to voters since before Phar Lap won the Melbourne Cup. Senator Scarr 282997 When was that? Senator CASH I0M A long time ago, Senator Scarr—that is exactly right. The requirement for a pamphlet was implemented in 1912. There have been three referenda without an official pamphlet—in 1919, 1926 and 1928—but let's look at the reasons as to why. In 1919 there was insufficient time to produce them. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument. In 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between parties and government. For this referendum, none of those circumstances apply. We know there's not complete agreement on this issue, we have time to produce a pamphlet and we can get agreement on how to argue the cases. The government has relented on this issue, but there is still more to be done to ensure the referendum is conducted with both integrity and transparency. Official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns are required to increase trust in and the integrity of the process. Having official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of the referendum. The AEC has given evidence to parliamentary committees that the donation and disclosure regime remains the most complex part of the Electoral Act. We will be applying that regime in this referendum and to participants who are not regularly involved in elections. An official campaign structure is going to be the best way for our regulators to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of the electoral laws for the referendum. We know with this referendum that there will also be a significant number of both participants and organisations who will not be associated with political parties or who do not regularly participate in electoral events. Having a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence any audit processes for donations or foreign interference is the best way to ensure the integrity of the referendum. We've already heard from officials that there might be people who will fall under donations legislation and other electoral laws who don't even know it. The AEC have said that the education of participants will be significant, given that these events happen so rarely and that it isn't the usual political parties that they will be regulating. They have even acknowledged that political parties struggle to get it right every time. So why are we asking for equal funding? We are seeking an assurance that, once these bodies are established, there is a guarantee of equal funding to each side to ensure that neither side is advantaged and that they comply with the disclosure and regulatory regimes at the referendum. Again, if you believe in the integrity and transparency of this process, why do you bring a bill before the parliament that fails to address these issues? Why is foreign interference a concern? The director-general of ASIO recently told Australians again that we are seeing the greatest level of foreign interference in Australia's history. This government does not seem to be concerned by the words and the warnings of the director-general of ASIO. Surely, though, we should look at simple, practical steps that put structure around this process and help our regulators and our agencies manage the referendum. We know that there has been foreign interference in other countries. In Canada, their intelligence agencies have uncovered plots to interfere in their 2021 election in order to create a minority government. That was actually foreign interference wanting a particular outcome of the Canadian election: a minority government. According to the CSIS documents published by the Globe and Mail, Chinese officials in Canada said Beijing wanted a minority government so that 'the parties in parliament are fighting each other'. That is foreign interference, and this government is not heeding the warnings from their director-general of ASIO about it with the bill that it has brought before this parliament. This is one of a list of foreign influence campaigns that have been revealed publicly in Europe and elsewhere, and anyone who thinks that Australia is immune doesn't know what they're talking about. We know that we've had our own parties targeted, with reports that three major parties have been the victims of state sponsored hacking. On those grounds alone, we think there's good reason to have some formal structure about the referendum and at least a nominated official 'yes' and 'no' campaign. As I said when I commenced my comments, the conduct of a referendum to change the founding document of our nation, the Australian Constitution, is an important moment for all Australians. The Australians who'll be required to vote in this referendum deserve every assistance possible to ensure that they are able to make an informed choice. We know from history that Australians do not vote for changes in the Constitution lightly. They take this duty seriously, and the government should take its duty to all Australians seriously. Providing all Australians with reliable information and protecting the integrity of this process need to be at the forefront of this bill. We do not believe that this bill reaches the minimum standards that should be in place for such an important process, and, on that basis, we are opposing the bill. 13:24 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise today to speak against the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill proposes to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, and, in doing so, threatens to undermine the way we do referendums and, by extension, to undermine the Australian Constitution—the bedrock of the institution I stand in today. The referendum act sets out clear regulations on how donations to referendum campaigns are made, ensuring that the process is transparent and fair. However, Labor's proposed amendments to the act, contained in this bill, threaten to undermine these regulations, potentially allowing for foreign interference in our electoral processes. It is a crying shame. It is our duty to ensure that these processes remain free from outside influence and that the voices of all Australians are heard equally. While the bill does make some noncontroversial changes to the act to bring it in line with Commonwealth Electoral Act, there are still three key issues that remain. Firstly, the removal of the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases for changing the Constitution is a significant concern. While the government has announced its intention to restore the pamphlet, we will reserve our position until a final amendment is presented. The provision of an official 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet has been a longstanding feature of referenda in Australia, with the first requirement for a pamphlet being implemented in 1912. This is the first time there has been no official pamphlet provided to voters since before Phar Lap won the Melbourne Cup. I'm reminded of a great quote from the late Roger Scruton, that 'good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created.' I remind those opposite that perhaps there is a reason that we have had official pamphlets for more than 100 years. Perhaps it is because it's a good idea. The foundations of democracy are held strong by having a well-informed public, and by attempting to create a much-less-informed and possibly misinformed public debate is simply a low and deceiving act by those opposite, who claimed an election platform of transparency, little of which we have seen since they were elected. When I first read the Attorney-General's Department media release on this matter, I couldn't help but laugh. They say: The next referendum will be the first in the digital age. There is no longer any need for taxpayers to pay for a pamphlet to be sent to every household. The gall of a government that spends money like nobody's business, with one of the biggest taxing-and-spending agendas in our nation's history, to all of a sudden implement a policy of austerity on our democracy, of all things—it is laughable. There have been three referenda without an official pamphlet: 1919, 1926 and 1928. None of the circumstances that applied in those cases apply to the current situation. In 1919 there was insufficient time to produce a pamphlet. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument. In 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between parties and government. In contrast, there is not complete agreement on the issue of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament, but there is time to produce a pamphlet and it is possible to get agreement on how to argue the cases. Furthermore, research has shown that people use official material when deciding how to vote. The Australian Electoral Commission has reported that, when people are provided mailed material in elections, 40 per cent of recipients will use this documentation as their main source of information when casting their vote. This suggests that an official pamphlet would be a very valuable resource for voters, particularly given the increasing influence of misinformation in electoral events. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has reported that 92 per cent of respondents to their news surveys had some concern about the quality of news and journalism they were consuming, and that analysis has identified widespread, entrenched and systemic concerning consumer and competition harms across a range of digital platform services. An official pamphlet would provide voters with a reliable and trustworthy source of information about the proposed changes to the Constitution and would help to counteract the influence of misinformation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Van, it being 1.30, I'm going to call on senators' statements. You will be in continuation as the debate on this bill resumes. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 30 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Independent Members of Parliament, Regional Funding 30 13:30 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to address some key misinformation that is out and about. As we all know, the voters of New South Wales go to the polls at the end of the week. This misinformation was out, loud and clear, at the last federal election as well. It is the claim that Independents deliver. Let me be straight. Independents can promise, Independents can argue and Independents can bang the table, but Independents cannot deliver. It is governments that deliver. For example, in my electorate we have an independent. They were formerly with the shooters and fishers party, but they jumped ship. They claim that they deliver on average $363 million per year. That's not true. They don't deliver a cent of it. The Liberals and Nationals in government delivered, on average, $363 million per year to that electorate of Murray. That includes funding the Griffith Hospital to a value of about $250 million; funding for the beautiful Roxy Community Theatre in Leeton, which I personally put my support behind; and funding for the Deniliquin Town Hall redevelopment, which I was very proud to attend the opening of just a few weeks ago, as the local senator who, again, threw their support behind it. It is governments that deliver, not Independents. Gender And Sexual Orientation 30 13:32 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Respect and acceptance have long been core components of Australian culture, regardless of an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. Recent events in my home state of Victoria have made it evident that, shamefully, not everyone subscribes to our shared Australian values. Some only seek to disgracefully promote hate, bigotry and division, including some people in this place. I'm proud to be part of a Labor government committed to celebrating diversity. Since coming to government, we have introduced considerable measures to improve protections for trans and gender diverse people in all parts of life, because every Australian deserves dignity and respect. Last year, the Albanese Labor government moved to ensure trans, gender diverse and intersex workers are protected from determination under the Fair Work Act and promote equality of access to the same protections as any other worker who experiences workplace discrimination. We are sticking to our election commitment to platform the voices of LGBTIQA+ Australians in the next census. We also know that LGBTIQA+ have poorer physical and mental health outcomes and face more barriers when accessing the healthcare system. Stigma, discrimination and, at times, violence, exacerbate existing hurdles and make it that much harder for trans and gender diverse people to receive the health care they need and deserve. Earlier this month, at WorldPride, the Albanese Labor government unveiled a new national action plan and a $26 million investment towards health equality, Australia's biggest ever investment in LGBTIQA+ health. As part of this momentous announcement, our government will establish an LGBTIQA+ advisory group and ensure that LGBTIQA+ Australians are listened to and included in the development of the national action plan. This government is committed to celebrating difference for all members of our community. Murray-Darling Basin 30 13:34 Senator HANSON I0U South Australia -YOUNG () (): I rise today to speak on the catastrophe that is unfolding in outback New South Wales right now, in the western part of that state: the environmental catastrophe on the Darling-Baaka. The mass fish kill that unfolded over the last few days has again just brought to the nation's attention the sheer crisis that our Murray-Darling Basin is in. Whether it is in flood or in drought, this river system is being managed badly. Over and over again we are seeing the warning signs from scientists and experts that unless we start managing this river system with the key objective of keeping it alive, nature is going to continue to try to fight back. And that is what's happening. This river is struggling: the fish are dying and the community in Menindee, in particular, is suffering. And, of course, this mass fish kill is only a few years after the last one, where we were told that this would not happen again and where we were told that the management of the river system would be improved. Today's fish kill is 10 times worse than that which happened in 2019—10 times worse! And what has occurred with the $70 million that was promised? Where has that gone? Why hasn't the previous government and the government of New South Wales implemented the recommendations of the report from the last time millions of fish died on the Darling-Baaka? Of course, these are native fish—some of them endangered. The Murray cod is already struggling to survive. It is time for the environment minister to pick up— (Time expired) AUKUS 30 13:36 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The coalition welcomes the announcement of the next steps in the AUKUS partnership. Put simply, US is good, UK is good, AUKUS is good and nuclear submarines are good. This is building on the work of the coalition in our last term in government. The acquisition of nuclear powered submarines is a step in the right direction at a time when we face an unprecedented threat from foreign actors who do not have our interests at heart. But that doesn't seem to be enough for some members of the Labor Party. Last week, Australians turned on their news and witnessed something truly horrifying: we witnessed a former, cranky Labor Prime Minister crawl out of his hole, try to prop himself up on his soapbox and proceed to bite and bore the nation. And I'm not talking about Kevin Rudd, I'm talking about Paul Keating. Do we remember Paul Keating? Paul Keating, the Placido Domingo of Australian politics, was a bit more Paris Hilton: more lip, less relevance. It was Paul Keating who sent hundreds of thousands of Australians broke through the recession that we had to have. It was Paul Keating who went to an election promising 'L-A-W law' tax cuts. This guy had the cheek to get up and give gratuitous advice. Shame on Paul Keating! The former Prime Minister tried to tell the Australian people that Communist China does not pose a threat to our nation. It was almost like he was still in 1990—maybe 1986. His comments were so ridiculous and so out of touch, you almost feel sorry for him. But I don't, because I remember what he did to this country. I remember the people he sent broke through that recession we had to have. Paul Keating, get back in your box and close the lid! New South Wales Election 31 13:38 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I rise today just to point out to the chamber the details of a sleazy preference deal that has been reached in New South Wales between the Liberals and the Greens. The deal, which has been kept secret from voters to date, is a complete betrayal of those who claim to be representing the conservative side of politics and those who claim to be representing a progressive component of the Australian electorate. What is the deal? The deal, unprecedented, is that the Greens are preferencing the Nationals last in the one Liberal-National contest that there is, in Port Macquarie. They are putting all other parties, including the extremist anti-vax party, ahead of the Nationals, who they are putting last. And what is the New South Wales Greens political party getting in return? They're getting preferences from Dom Perrottet—Mr Perrottet—and Mr Dutton's party, the Liberals, in Balmain, Newtown and Summer Hill. This unprecedented sleazy political arrangement has been kept secret from voters in Balmain, Newtown, Summerhill and Port Macquarie. It deserves to be exposed. Voters ought to repudiate the New South Wales Greens political party and the Liberals doing sleazy deals. Besides the New South Wales Nationals, who knows what other concessions have been made by Mr Perrottet and Mr Dutton in order to secure New South Wales Greens' preferences to support their preferred candidate in Port Macquarie? (Time expired) Banking and Financial Services 31 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many amazing people who make up our one Queensland community I note that in the last few weeks we have seen with the failure of Silvergate Bank and Silicon Valley Bank what is in aggregate the largest banking collapse in US history. Australia is not America and it is not Europe. If everyone keeps their heads, we will be fine. Our big four banks are bastards, yet they are well capitalised. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to not take this opportunity to revisit how to save a failing bank. I remind you that there are two choices: bailing out, with a large injection of taxpayer money, increasing debt for everyone, or bailing in, which is where the banks take their depositors' money to save themselves. A bail-in still requires the bank to close for days or weeks, preventing customers accessing any money left in their accounts. Business are left without money to pay staff or suppliers. The effect on the economy is catastrophic. Everyday Australians trying to pay for their shopping would find their account empty or their card suspended. Travellers may be stranded. One Nation introduced a bill to prevent bank bail-ins and to protect the people. Labor and the Liberal-Nationals defeated our bill in 2020. One Nation did lead a successful campaign against the cash ban bill that the Liberals, Nationals and Labor proposed in 2021, so Australians can still use cash in an emergency. This is relevant again because President Biden initially chose to seize half of Silicon Valley Bank depositors' funds and freeze the rest for up to three years. That's a bail-in. What followed was a run on all banks, forcing the president to backflip and instead initiate a bailout. Australia has a bank guarantee scheme, a bailout, but it's a con trick. There's no funding and no requirement to use it. It covers only $20 billion per bank—$80 billion total. This is supposed to protect $1 trillion in depositors' funds. It's eight per cent. I call on the government to categorically rule out a bail-in and properly fund the bank guarantee scheme. Air Force Association 32 13:42 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia At the end of last year I had the great pleasure of visiting the Australian Air Force Association, known as RAAFA, in Bull Creek. RAAFA is a fantastic organisation that offers retirement community living to senior Australians. They have seven retirement villages, comprising over 1,500 units in Western Australia. On site at RAAFA Bull Creek is the Aviation Heritage Museum, comprising a collection of aircraft, including a World War II Lancaster bomber and a British Tornado fighter jet, which is very impressive. A recently-retired F/A Hornet will be received later this year. If you live in Perth or are holidaying, I strongly encourage you to take the time to visit this first-class museum. RAAFA briefed me on their veterans homeless project in Cannington—the Andrew Russell Veterans Living centre. RAAFA have already purchased a parcel of land and have drafted designs for a 27-unit facility. This project will provide emergency housing for veterans and ex-Defence Force personnel in desperate need of a roof over their heads and will also offer affordable housing for those needing a more stable and long-term living solution. Once completed, this facility will offer veterans and ex-Defence Force personnel a chance for a fresh start and a new opportunity to get their life back on track. RAAFA are looking for financial support from the federal government. I look forward to working with them to support this critical project. I encourage the government to take a look at it and see how it can offer the support that they need. This is a critical project to help our former service men and women who are doing it tough and have, unfortunately, fallen on hard times. Defence Procurement: Submarines 32 13:44 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Last week's AUKUS announcement marked a transformational moment for our nation, our Defence Force and our economy. The significance of this announcement to my home state of South Australia cannot be underestimated. South Australia holds manufacturing in its heart, but for far too long all those workers at Osborne and at every small and medium sized enterprise engaging with this work have been in limbo. There was uncertainty under the previous government around the future of full-cycle docking work, there were promises of jobs that were never realised, and there was Christmas after Christmas of uncertainty, but, with this announcement, the future looks much more secure. The announcement of AUKUS is a watershed moment. It represents the single largest investment in Australia's defence capability in our history. The heart of this program is in South Australia. The decision to build the future Australian fleet of submarines at Osborne presents the biggest economic opportunity for our state since the end of the Second World War. The enormous educational, employment and infrastructure investment required to prepare South Australia for this build will be transformational for my state. It will provide thousands of workers in South Australia with great jobs and secure jobs, and this investment will flow into the hundreds of small and medium sized enterprises involved in the supply chain at each part of the development. AUKUS presents South Australia with an opportunity to restore its great place at the centre of Australian manufacturing, where it belongs. It will transform future opportunities for the next generation of South Australians, and I welcome that today. Queensland: Housing and Homelessness 32 13:46 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland A report released today by the Queensland Council of Social Service confirms what anyone who's been paying attention already knows: Queensland is in a housing and homelessness crisis. The report found that homelessness in Queensland has increased by 22 per cent in the past five years. This is almost triple the increase seen across the rest of the country. In regional Queensland the housing crisis is even more stark, with homelessness increasing by 29 per cent in four years. These shameful and skyrocketing homelessness rates align with the astronomical rent increases that we're seeing in every city and every state. Over the past 12 months, rents have increased by 21½ per cent nationally and by 24 per cent in Brisbane. With no affordable rentals, people are being forced to couch surf, and families are living in their tents or out of their cars. The crisis is felt even more acutely by women and children experiencing family and domestic violence and by older renters. Women are being forced to choose between abuse or homelessness because there's simply nowhere to go. QCOSS predicts that, within 20 years, more than 220,000 households in Queensland will be without social housing. The only way to fix it is to start building. In Queensland we need 11,000 affordable and social homes each year for the next 20 years, but Labor's plan to build 6,000 public homes a year for five years, nationally, won't even match the current increase in Queensland, let alone tackle the crisis around the country. Direct investment in housing is what responsible governments do to address a housing crisis, but Labor's plan is not a massive investment in social and affordable housing, like we need; it's an investment in the stock market in the hope that the market will deliver funding and housing. Funding for crisis accommodation and short-term and long-term affordable housing will benefit all Australians. We must prioritise giving every single person in this country a roof over their heads instead of prioritising tax cuts for the rich and nuclear submarines. Mineral Exports 33 13:48 Senator 300706 Victoria BABET (—) (): The Labor and Greens coalition and the teal Independents are pushing a clean, green renewable energy fantasy that is going to bankrupt this nation. They will never be able to achieve their renewable goals of a rechargeable battery-powered economy, but what they are powering is child slavery. That's because billions of lithium ion batteries required to store renewable energy cannot function without cobalt. The insatiable demand for cobalt has been a bonanza for China, which owns and controls most of the world's cobalt mines, and many are located in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Unfortunately, in the rush to extract as much cobalt as possible, children are being sent into dark, dangerous mines that make the work conditions of Oliver Twist look like a Swiss finishing school. These kids work in subhuman conditions, with pickaxes and shovels, to scrounge out cobalt for a few bucks per day. The air is laden with toxic soot, the water is contaminated with toxic sludge, and the forests have been destroyed, all to feed the green energy delusions of wealthy Westerners. Australia is one of the few countries that produce cobalt while respecting human rights, but we send it to China to be processed. We must stop doing this. Sure, it may be cheaper to do it there, but that's only because they exploit their workers, they pollute the environment, and they have access to cheap power, which we do not. It is time that the government stops the hypocrisy and puts human rights and environmental protection ahead of cheap batteries, and it is time that we process our cobalt right here in Australia. Let Women Speak 33 13:50 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia On Saturday a rally designed to let women speak was held in Melbourne, at which women's rights advocates and MPs like Victorian MP Moira Deeming spoke. The movement is rightfully concerned about biological men undermining the integrity of women's sports and spaces such as bathrooms. They're absolutely correct to be concerned; I am too. The rally was gatecrashed by a group of apparent Neo-Nazis, and like most Australians I unreservedly condemn those views. But one wonders how it's possible that Victoria Police managed to hold back the trans activists but were not able to do the same with the apparent Neo-Nazis. It's all very odd. Perhaps that's a question Premier Daniel Andrews could answer. The invaders were condemned by the rally organisers, who had nothing to do with the arrival of these gatecrashers. Moira Deeming, MP, also had nothing to do with these people and condemned them herself. It's a shameful reflection on the lazy partisan media and our political classes that Ms Deeming would be vilified for something over which she had absolutely no control. How is this different from a member of the Australian Labor Party or the Australian Greens attending a rally for Palestine which is descended upon by antisemitic or union thugs? The answer to that is it's no different at all. The only thing that's different here is the media and the political class cannot find the requisite spine to stand for a principle. Is this the low-water mark of our free speech and our democracy, to now be defined by those who gatecrash an event? Those who have once again danced to the beat of the drum created by the Left of politics and their allies in the censorship industrial complex—that is, the mainstream media—should hang their heads in shame. Moira did nothing wrong. International Women's Day 33 13:52 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Earlier this month we celebrated International Women's Day, and as part of the Albanese Labor government I'm so proud that we are the first majority-female government in this country's history. We have delivered significant improvements in areas such as affordable child care, paid parental leave and paid domestic violence leave, and these things are all going to improve the wellbeing of women. However, the Status of Women Report Card released earlier this month shows us that in many areas women are still experiencing inequality. We are committed to changing this, and I want to take some time today to commend the grassroots community groups and organisations out there that are promoting gender equality, particularly to young women and girls. A group I have spoken about previously in this chamber, Girls with Attitude 100%, which is run out of Para Hills School in Adelaide, was set up in 2019, and it has taken a group of young girls each year and worked with them around what they can do in the school to actually change the environment they are growing up in and learning in. I was delighted to be out there last week when we saw the program expanded to Ingle Farm Primary School, which is one of the neighbouring schools, and the two sets of girls got together for a session. As I said, I was delighted to be there. I want to shout out to both of those schools, Para Hills and Ingle Farm, for the work they've done in promoting these young girls and the work they've done promoting gender equality. Well done. Indigenous genocide 34 13:54 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to speak about the genocide this country is guilty of over the last 200 years and also the fact that in 2023 this country continues to commit genocide. The Labor government allows genocide to continue in this country, given that we still have 22,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who have been stolen out of their homes and put with other communities. According to the United Nations definition on genocide, the Labor government continues the Liberal-National government's regime of genocide against First Nations people in this country. We see Labor governments around this country perpetrating violence, particularly against our young people. Particularly in Queensland, they're locking young people up against their free will, putting young people into adult prisons and locking up young people who have low-grade offences or no offences at all. It is an absolutely disgusting and shameful act that all of you should be appalled by, but, unfortunately, it's just another eye-roll, because you won't act and you won't stop the continued genocide that the lucky country called Oz continues to commit. Western Australian Government 34 13:56 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Celebrate not! In Western Australia, we're at the halfway mark of the McGowan government's second term, and there is no cause for celebration. Western Australians have buyer's remorse after re-electing Premier McGowan and his Labor team just over two years ago. A few points will demonstrate why Labor's Mark McGowan is being marked down by Western Australians. Whether it's homelessness, a crisis in the construction industry or escalating law and order issues, WA families are feeling the pain of WA Labor. With average rents at record highs and vacancies at all-time lows, many Western Australians are now urgently seeking social housing, with almost 34,000 people on the social housing waiting list, including 9,000 on the priority waiting list. The latest figures indicate there are now at least 300 fewer public housing properties in WA than there were in 2017, and 1,857 of them were sitting vacant in January. The Labor government's flagship homelessness project, East Perth Common Ground, which was to consist of 100 units, is nowhere to be seen. After three years, all that vulnerable people have is the opportunity to look at an empty lot. That's despite the deaths last year of more 100 people who were experiencing homelessness. For those lucky enough to be able to buy a home, WA Labor is keeping them waiting. WA's building industry is in crisis under Labor's watch. Over a hundred building companies have gone bust in the past year alone due to challenges exacerbated by Labor's lack of a plan to deal with labour shortages and supply chain issues. The lengthy construction build times are putting increasing pressure on WA families when they can least afford it. It's true; the Premier did act—and made the matter worse. It's time for WA Labor to lift its game. Parliamentary Friends of Nutrition 34 13:58 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania It's been a great morning here at Parliament House. This morning I launched the Parliamentary Friends of Nutrition, and we heard from very passionate advocates from Dietitians Australia, including the guest speaker, Laureate Professor Clare Collins AO. In thinking about a national nutrition strategy, the Albanese Labor government and the opposition understand the importance of preventative health and the part that nutrition and a healthy lifestyle play in people's lives. As a society, we can do more—from our kids, to those older people living in aged-care residential homes, to Aboriginal health within our Indigenous communities. Good nutrition might just save your life, so I welcome conversations and discourse around this issue as we celebrate Dietitians Week 2023. This new friendship group, working with Dietitians Australia, will lead a discussion about the importance of nutrition and how we can create a healthier society. The group will also play an important role in agitating for reform and in the creation of a national nutrition policy. I acknowledge the CEO of Dietitians Australia, Robert Hunt, and the Advocacy and Policy Manager at Dietitians Australia, Natalie Stapleton, for helping with the event today. I also thank the board of Dietitians Australia for coming to the event and making a healthy Australia a priority for the national discourse. To think that each year 27,500 Australians die from preventable diet related disease! We all know the health impacts and that the major causes of heart attack, obesity and childhood obesity can be resolved if we invest in better nutrition. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Polley. The time for this debate has now expired. MINISTRY 34 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 34 14:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I seek leave to make a statement concerning ministerial arrangements. Leave granted. An opposition senator: There's been a coup. Senator FARRELL I0N No, there hasn't been a coup. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N I know you missed me all last week. I heard the demand. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Politics is full of surprises, let me tell you. Sorry, I better get going. I advise changes to ministerial arrangements. Senator Wong, unfortunately, will be absent from the Senate this week for personal reasons. In her absence, I am Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Watt 245759 Hear, hear! Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, Senator Watt. In Senator Wong's absence, ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President, party leaders and Independent senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 35 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Albanese Government 35 14:01 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Minister, prior to the election, now Prime Minister Albanese said: … if I ever do make a mistake, I'll put my hand up. I'll own it. I'll take responsibility, and I'll set about fixing it. Mr Albanese, without question, promised that Australian power bills would be coming down. The Labor Party promised not just once but 97 times before the election that Australians were going to see a reduction of $275 in their power bills. Minister, why won't Mr Albanese own up to his mistake, take responsibility for the broken promise and set about fixing it by delivering to Australians the $275 reduction they were promised they would receive? 14:02 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Reynolds for her question. I think we've discovered in Prime Minister Albanese one of Australia's great prime ministers. Senator FARRELL I0N I'm smiling, Senator Henderson, because I'm so happy— Senator Birmingham H6X That power bills are going up? Senator FARRELL I0N No. I'm so happy that Australia has finally got a really decent prime minister—somebody who genuinely understands the issues facing Australian consumers. Of course, higher electricity prices are one of them. What was one of the first things that the new Prime Minister did on taking office? He inherited this mess. He inherited 10 years of neglect on the part of the former government, and what did he seek to do? He sought to put downward pressure on electricity prices. He saw, as quickly as he could, what your 10 years of neglect had done to electricity prices. So what did he do? He introduced a cap on gas prices and coal prices to push that pressure down. He can't fix every single problem that you've created. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, first supplementary? 14:04 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I'm sure we're all very happy that you're happy, but I don't think Australians are very happy about the broken promises. My supplementary question is this. The Prime Minister also promised the Australian people on 2 May 2022 that the Labor Party had no intention to make any changes to superannuation, but we now know that one in 10 Australians will be affected by the change they announced. Minister, when will you announce that the government has broken its promise in relation to superannuation? 14:05 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Reynolds for her supplementary question. It doesn't appear to have been a supplementary question about electricity. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N I'm simply saying— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Senator FARRELL I0N Let me finish. You missed me all of last week. Here I am, here to answer your questions, and you won't let me answer those questions. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left and my right. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you for that protection, President. We've made very clear what our position on superannuation is. The figure that you mentioned, Senator Reynolds, is a figure way into the future. The reality is that the only people— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, second supplementary? 14:06 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Two out of two questions not answered on broken promises, and no wonder. My second supplementary question to the minister is this. The Prime Minister also promised to lower the cost of PBS medicines—but, guess what, another broken promise—but the government has removed, for example, life-changing drugs from the PBS, one of which is now being relied on by 15,000 Australians who suffer from type 1 diabetes. Despite the minister doing an embarrassing backflip on Friday, now listing it until October— (Time expired) 14:07 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Reynolds, for your question. I'm also a diabetic, and I very much appreciate the way in which the PBS assists me with my particular products that I am required to use. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Reynolds? Senator Reynolds 250216 A question of relevance. This was about what the minister was going to do for yet another broken promise on the PBS— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Reynolds. Senator Reynolds 250216 and it's not about his own personal medical situation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, there was so much preamble to your supplementary that it wasn't actually a question; it was a statement. Senator Reynolds 250216 President— The PRESIDENT 112096 Is this a secondary point of order? Senator Reynolds 250216 With respect, while, yes, it is a sad story of a broken promise— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, what is the point of order? Senator Reynolds 250216 it was not about Senator Farrell's health. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N The particular drug I think you mentioned—is it Fiasp? Yes. It's a fast-acting insulin drug for diabetes. Minister Butler's office was made aware on 22 February 2023 of Novo Nordisk's intention to— Senator Ruston 243273 Are you going to stand by that? You can't mislead the Senate. Senator FARRELL I0N Please. You've asked a question; I'm directly answering the question, and then you're talking the whole way through the answer, and I don't get a chance to answer the question. (Time expired) Defence Procurement: Submarines 36 14:08 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Given that Senator Farrell is doing a fine job, my question is also to Senator Farrell, as the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate and representing the foreign affairs minister. Senator Farrell, how will the AUKUS submarine acquisition make Australia and our region much safer and stronger in this part of the world? 14:09 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ciccone for his question. I know he has a deep interest in Australian security matters. The AUKUS optimal pathway, announced last week, is an unprecedented investment in our national power. The acquisition of nuclear powered submarines will be the single greatest defence capability acquisition in our history. I'll repeat that: it's the single greatest defence investment in our history. Our nuclear powered submarines will be an Australian sovereign capability commanded by the Royal Australian Navy and sustained by Australian shipyards. Senators have heard members of the government speak of how our region is at the centre of a world that is being reshaped, of how we face our most challenging circumstances since the Second World War. AUKUS is one element of Australia's approach to addressing this strategic environment and contributing to strategic balance in our region. I hope senators would agree that Australia has a responsibility to contribute to a regional balance and capability that helps underpin regional stability. We want to ensure that no state will ever conclude that the benefits of conflict outweigh the risks, and so nuclear powered submarines are part of our contribution to this aim by transforming our ability to deter or respond to any future threats. As part of our contribution to the regional balance, these submarines add to collective security in a region where no country dominates and no country is dominated. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, first supplementary? 14:11 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria With my first supplementary I ask Senator Farrell how the AUKUS submarine acquisition will contribute to the Australian economy. 14:11 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I once again thank Senator Ciccone for his question. The scale of partnership and commitment of this deal are unmatched. Governments, businesses and communities in all three countries are invested in this being a success for generations to come. AUKUS will create around 20,000 direct jobs over next 30 years. In particular, my state, South Australia, will be the home of Australian nuclear powered submarine construction. Labor has always stood up for South Australian shipbuilders, and now we're delivering with an historic investment. Up to 4,000 workers will design and build the infrastructure for the submarine construction yard at Osborne. A further 4,000 to 5,500 direct jobs are expected to build nuclear powered submarines in South Australia when the program reaches its peak. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, second supplementary? 14:12 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Minister, how will Australia maintain its world-class non-proliferation credentials under the AUKUS submarine acquisition? 14:12 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I once again thank Senator Ciccone for his question. Labor has a proud history of non-proliferation and disarmament advocacy. We are resolutely committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We are working openly and transparently with the International Atomic Energy Agency to develop a robust non-proliferation approach to underpin our program. Let me be clear: Australia will never seek to acquire nuclear weapons. Our AUKUS partners recognise Australia's obligations under international law, including the Treaty of Rarotonga. Naval nuclear propulsion is consistent with those obligations. Finally, I note that United States Defence Secretary Austin has confirmed that submarines visiting Australia on rotation will be conventionally armed. Superannuation: Taxation 37 14:14 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania My question is to Senator Farrell, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Was Mike Hirst, former CEO of Bendigo Bank, correct when he said recently that taxing unrealised gains is going to provide cash-flow problems for people who might not be earning a lot of income but have assets? Can he guarantee that no farmer will have to sell any part of their farm to pay for a superannuation tax bill? 14:14 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Colbeck for his question. I didn't get the opportunity with the previous question to point out just how small the impact of our super change is going to be. It's worth repeating that 99.5 per cent of superannuation recipients are not going to be the subject of this change. In terms of the issue that you've just raised—in terms of unrealised gains—the simplest and least-cost approach is to apply the tax on the growth of an individual's balance over the year. This approach, recommended by Treasury, includes assessing unrealised capital gains. This approach strikes, we believe, the right balance between simplicity and ensuring that the tax can be applied across the system. Trustees already calculate the value of their fund each year and submit that to the tax office, which will enable the ATO to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Colbeck? Senator Colbeck 00AOL A point of order on relevance: it would be nice if the minister did at least use the word 'farmer', because the question was about whether a farmer might have to sell part of their farm. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Colbeck. The minister is being relevant to the question. Senator FARRELL I0N Well, in terms of the question of whether farmers need to liquidate the family farm in, say, an SMF to pay the tax liability: under our superannuation law, funds should have some liquid assets to meet any additional tax liabilities and to meet their running costs. This is no different. There are a range of— Senator McGrath 217241 Do you have any idea of how farms are run? Senator FARRELL I0N Well, I do have some idea about how to run a small business, Senator McGrath. I do have some practical experience in that matter. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, first supplementary? 14:17 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Under Labor's new super tax, if a farmer with a self-managed super fund sees the paper value of their farm's self-managed super fund fluctuate above and below the $3 million threshold across a number of years, will those gains be subject to the 30 per cent tax rate each time? 14:17 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia In terms of answering that question and the previous question: of course, there are a range of cash-flow requirements within an SMF, not just tax liabilities, which trustees are required to consider. They include the examples accounting and administration costs, investment fees and costs associated with maintaining real assets, such as property. In terms of putting your question into some perspective, Senator Colbeck, I think it's worth pointing out that only 0.2 per cent of SMFs have a hundred per cent of their assets— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X A point of order on direct relevance: the question asked by Senator Colbeck in this case went particularly to the impact of thresholds and to those funds operating at or close to the threshold potentially moving up and down, above and below that threshold. Senator Farrell has had 49 seconds. He's only got 11 seconds left. He hasn't come close to the issue of the threshold. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. The question was about self-managed funds, but I will remind Senator Farrell of the entirety of the question. Senator FARRELL I0N I was trying to put the issue into some perspective, particularly so as not to frighten those farmers who do— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, second supplementary? 14:19 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania How will you ensure that farmers, small-business owners and other self-funded retirees are not subject to double taxation under your new super tax? 14:19 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The point I was trying to make before was that, obviously, the opposition thinks there's some political advantage in running a scare campaign— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston. Senator Ruston 243273 On a point of order: the minister has clearly used the entire time not to answer the question— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, if you're calling for a point of order on relevance— Senator Ruston 243273 Could you direct him to answer the question— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! If you're calling a point of order on relevance, then it is on the question before the chair. That is the second supplementary and the minister has got to his feet. I will listen closely and, if he's not relevant, I'll remind him of the question. Minister. Senator FARRELL I0N With due respect, to Senator Ruston: just because you don't like the way I answer the question doesn't mean that what I'm saying is not relevant to the question. On this very point, the point I'm trying to make is a simple one. There's no point in trying to scare farmers or other small-business people with a scare campaign that bears no relevance to the facts. It bears no relevance to the facts! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, thank you. Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham H6X A point of order on direct relevance, again, President. This minister is seeking to speak constantly in generalisations when a specific question has been asked. If he's worried about putting people's minds at ease, perhaps he should be able to answer the specific questions to put their minds at ease. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Minister Farrell, I will remind you of the question and the need to be relevant. Senator FARRELL I0N Just on the question of double taxation: of course, one of the things to note about this new change is that it doesn't come into effect for a couple of years and that there's plenty of time to consult— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. The time for answering the question has expired. AUKUS 38 14:21 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is directed to the Hon. Don Farrell in his capacity representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence. Since becoming foreign minister, Senator Wong has repeatedly stated that re-engaging with China on a diplomatic level is the first step to stabilising the two country's relationship. Last week, China responded to the announcement about the $368 billion nuclear powered submarine deal by saying that the US, UK and Australia are completely disregarding the concerns of the international community and 'walking further and further down the path of error and danger'. Isn't it true that whatever efforts your government was making to repair relations with China through diplomatic means, they have now been fundamentally sabotaged by this hawkish push from Defence and the US and UK arms industries? 14:22 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Shoebridge for his question. I don't agree with your assertion there, Senator. I'll make a couple of points. I made this point on Sky TV yesterday: I think that Senator Wong is shaping up to be one of the finest foreign ministers that we've had in this country—certainly in my lifetime. I think of all the things that she has done—not just in the Pacific and not just— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N It may be provocative but I think it's true, and I can see most of my colleagues here nodding. She— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator FARRELL I0N It's not only what she has been doing in the Pacific and the Asian region but what she has been doing in terms of China. I might remind you that two days before Christmas, when most of us would have been spending time with our families preparing for Christmas Day, Senator Wong flew up to China to meet again with her equivalent. That meeting was the precursor to a meeting that I had a couple of weeks ago with my equivalent to try to stabilise and normalise the relationship with China. There's nothing I've heard that would suggest anything other than that this process of stabilisation is well on its way. You may read everything in the Chinese newspapers, but I hear and believe all of those things— Senator Shoebridge 169119 You might live under a rock! Senator FARRELL I0N No, I don't live on a rock! The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister, the time for answering has expired. Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary question. 14:24 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales A senior Indonesian official says the country's sea lanes should not be used by Australian nuclear propelled submarines because 'AUKUS was created for fighting.' Similar concerns have been expressed by Malaysia. Given the negative response from our regional neighbours to the AUKUS submarine deal, can you now acknowledge that it marks the official demotion of Australian diplomacy and the bypassing of Senator Wong's office for an international posture driven by defence hawks and the US and UK arms industries? 14:25 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Again, I completely reject the assertion and the underlying assumptions in your question. I saw Senator Wong, just about every day last week, out there explaining to the Australian people what the AUKUS arrangements mean for not only her own state, which is a very significant development, but the country and the region. I would have said that, on balance, the response—for instance, of the Indonesians, which you've referred to—was a very balanced response to what was a sensible decision in our national interest. The most important job of any federal government is to ensure the safety and security of its people. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary? 14:26 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Thank you, Madam President. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Thank you, Pete. Today marks 20 years since the invasion of Iraq. Minister, do you accept that the $368 billion plus AUKUS submarine deal and its handcuffing of our largest-ever military program to the United States military and their future war-making shows we've learned nothing from the disaster of Iraq? 14:26 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Again, I reject completely the suggested link between AUKUS and the events in Iraq. I'd point out that had we had a Labor government in office at the time the decisions were made in respect of Iraq, Australia would not have joined— Senator Shoebridge interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Farrell, could you resume your seat, please. Senator Shoebridge, I've called you at least three times. You've asked your question, now allow the minister to respond. Minister, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N My point is simply this: there is no link between AUKUS and what happened in Iraq, and had a Labor government been in office— Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 What was the coalition of the willing if it wasn't AUKUS? Senator FAR I0N Well, the Labor Party under Simon Crean— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Again, Senator Whish-Wilson, I've called you on numerous occasions. The question has been asked; allow the minister to answer. Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N They ask the questions and then they don't like the answers. The truth of what happened under the Iraq war— (Time expired) Defence Procurement: Submarines 40 14:28 Senator MARIELLE 281603 South Australia SMITH () (): My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Last week, the Albanese government announced the details of the optimal pathway for the AUKUS pact between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. Can the minister outline to the Senate how this agreement will create Australian jobs? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question. This is a really historic announcement and a unique opportunity for jobs and skills right here in Australia. It will create an entirely new workforce sector, driving skills, training and employment opportunities which will benefit the national economy for generations. It's a whole-of-nation effort that will deliver nation-changing opportunities, including around 20,000 direct highly skilled and highly paid jobs, including as technicians, engineers, scientists and project managers. This means jobs right across Australia but also in the good Senator Smith's home state of South Australia and, indeed, Western Australia. In South Australia, which I had the honour to visit last week, with Senator Wong, this project will mean up to 4,000 workers will be employed to design and build the infrastructure at the submarine construction yard in Osborne—at its peak. A further 4,000 to 5½ thousand direct jobs are expected to be created to build the nuclear powered submarines in South Australia when the program reaches its peak in 20 to 30 years—almost double the workforce that had been forecast for the Attack class program. In Western Australia, the expansion of HMAS Stirling to support the infrastructure required for nuclear-powered submarines is expected to create around 3,000 direct jobs over the decade. An additional 500 direct jobs are expected to be created to sustain the Submarine Rotational Force—West, over the period 2027 to 2032. We need to get moving on these investments, investing not just for our national security but in the future of defence and also the future of our economy and the skills and jobs that come with it. This is a big investment, and we've been upfront with the Australian people about the substantial pressures on the budget. Defence is one of the big five fastest-growing areas of spending, along with the NDIS, aged care, health care and the cost of servicing the trillion dollars of Liberal debt. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a first supplementary? 14:30 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, how will this agreement benefit not just Australian workers but also Australian companies? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith again for her advocacy—in particular, in relation to her state of South Australia. Last week, when I was visiting South Australia with ANI at Osborne, we announced the sovereign submarine partnership, which will be the architecture that is used to guide and set how these submarines will be built. This agreement will provide the opportunity to select the partners but also to maximise the opportunities for Australian businesses to participate in these new arrangements. This is complementary to our plans for A Future Made in Australia and the Buy Australian Plan, which is about leveraging the purchasing power of the Commonwealth to increase opportunities for Australian workers and businesses. We're estimating that $6 billion will be invested in Australian industry and workforce—a transformational investment which will remake Australia and accelerate growth in the same way that large projects like the Snowy did all those years ago. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a second supplementary? 14:31 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Thank you, Minister, and you're welcome in South Australia any time. Can you tell us how the creation of new jobs and opportunities for Australian businesses will benefit the Australian economy? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes, it will transform our economy for a new era. A whole generation of workers will be trained in the latest engineering, technology and building skills. There will be significant benefits across the nation, through increased economic activity and job creation, which will start immediately and grow over time as we develop a whole new industry and new supports for that industry. It's all part of our economic plan to undertake investments to build the capability of our people and expand the productive capacity of our economy for a new era. I've already mentioned the Future Made in Australia plans and the Buy Australian Plan policy. We also have the National Reconstruction Fund, obviously. It would be good to pass the legislation that supports that. We've policies for fee-free TAFE, Jobs and Skills Australia and acting on climate change. All of these policies are designed to grow the economy, boost productivity and upskill Australians, and the AUKUS investment is another vital part of our economic plan going into the future. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 41 14:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. The updated strategic directions statement from the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which falls under the portfolio of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, says that it provides advice on whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as well as leading and coordinating the implementation of Australia's Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Given we have the NIAA, why does the government contend we need a Voice to Parliament in the Constitution? 14:33 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hanson for her question. I think the first and primary answer to that question is that, at the last election, the Labor Party listened to those people who had advocated on behalf of the Uluru Statement from the Heart—people like my very good friend here, Patrick Dodson, and like Jana Stewart over there, amongst very many other significant members of the Labor Party—to try and deal with the issue of Indigenous recognition through a Voice to the Australian parliament. That process wasn't developed overnight; it took place over a long period of time. We took that proposition to the Australian people at the last election, and the Australian people made a decision about who they wanted to govern this country. As soon as we got into government, because they elected us as the government, we undertook to implement the promise that we had taken to the election. You talk about promises. We took a promise to the Australian people, and we have sought to implement that promise. I have to say that I have been disappointed with the opposition in their approach so far to simple things like the machinery bill that could start the process of implementing the— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, a first supplementary? 14:35 Senator BK6 Queensland HANSON (—) (): The NIAA priorities this year include closing the gap, implementing the Uluru statement, developing a new jobs program, delivering First Nations justice—whatever that means—and more. It has also budgeted $31 million to deliver local and regional Voice implementation despite the Prime Minister saying he would not fund the 'yes' or 'no' cases in the coming referendum. Will the minister please inform the Senate about the NIAA's total budget for 2022-23? 14:36 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hanson again for her question. I think you're conflating a couple of issues, to be honest with you, Senator Hanson. Senator Ruston 243273 How patronising. Senator FARRELL I0N No, it's not patronising. It's simply a statement of fact. Senator Hanson has asked a question, and I'm trying to answer that question for her. That information that you are requesting will of course be published in due course as part of the relevant budget papers, but the issue of the referendum, to implement Indigenous recognition with the Voice— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, a second supplementary? 14:37 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland That doesn't surprise me; there was no answer, and you don't even know. The budget papers are already out. Actually, the NIAA has almost $4½ billion. It employs more than 1,300 people, and its remit appears to be largely the same as the government's somewhat vague intentions for the Voice. That's truth-telling for you. Will the minister please explain why Australians should not believe that the government's ulterior motive in implementing the Uluru statement is to establish an independent, sovereign black nation in Australia? 14:38 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Senator Hanson, I completely reject your proposition. This is an issue that, as I said, the Labor Party took to the last election, and we are seeking to implement Indigenous recognition through a voice to parliament. We are seeking to do it in an open, honest and transparent way. To give you one example, originally there wasn't going to be a 'yes' case or a 'no' case pamphlet. It was requested that we do that by the opposition, and we agreed. As part of that process, Senator Hanson, because you're a member of parliament and because of the way in which that document is going to be prepared, you yourself will have an opportunity to explain to the Australian people whether you're supporting 'yes' or 'no'. I think I can guess your— (Time expired) Energy 42 14:39 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. AEMO explicitly named regulatory approvals, price intervention and a mandatory code of conduct as key uncertainties impacting project time lines and likelihood of completion. Minister, will you admit that the interventions of your government are suppressing and damaging investment in new gas projects? 14:39 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Rennick, for this rare question! The short answer to that is no. Look all around the world, Senator, at the consequences of this terrible war between Russia and Ukraine—what it has done to gas prices right around— Opposition senators interj ecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N All around the world, governments are dealing with this issue of rising electricity prices. All around the world, governments have had to deal with a way of trying to put downward pressure on those prices. What we have done— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Order on my left and right! Minister, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N What are the Europeans doing? What are the Europeans doing at the moment? They're putting caps on gas prices. Is anybody in Europe saying, 'This is going to result in disinvestment in gas'? No, they're not saying that. In fact, what they're doing is increasing their investment in this area. And, of course, my belief is that that's where— Senator Canavan 245212 I know you want to do that, Don, but that's not what your government did. Senator FARRELL I0N I'm happy to talk to you, Senator Canavan, about gas prices and the importance of investment in gas in this country— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, first supplementary? 14:42 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland When will the Albanese government's mandatory code of conduct be finalised? 14:42 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Unlike the former government, who seem to be unable to come up with any sensible plan in respect of gas prices, coal prices, electricity prices or climate change, this government has got a plan, and we are working through that plan as we speak. We're working through that plan as we speak. We've got a number of excellent ministers, like Minister— Senator Rennick 283596 Point of order, President: I asked when the mandatory code of conduct will be completed, not when you are working through it. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will direct the minister to the question. Senator FARRELL I0N We're dealing with the issue. We're putting downward pressure on the electricity system, and we are consulting, as we should— (Time expired) The PRESIDEN 112096 Senator Rennick, second supplementary? 14:43 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Labor has broken its promise to lower power bills by $275. Given the simple economic fact that price controls do not increase supply, what do you have to say to Australians who may also lose power and heating this year because of Labor's failed energy policies? Is the government lowering bills by simply not having any power or gas to buy? 14:44 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank the senator for his supplementary question. This government has made it very clear that we continue to support the gas industry in this country. Senator FARRELL I0N They may not say that to you, Senator, but they say that to me, and I have regular discussions with many of the major gas companies in this country. They understand the pressure that Australian consumers and Australian businesses are under as a result of your failure to— Opposition senators interjecting — The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Minister, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N These issues are being dealt with. (Time expired) Economy 43 14:45 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, you and other members of your government consistently say that it is the financial position you inherited which is the reason you can't provide more support for Australians getting smashed by the cost-of-living crisis, yet last week your government delighted US and British weapons manufacturers by signing up to a $368 billion deal for nuclear powered submarines. Minister, how are you ever going to look Australians in the eye again and tell them that you can't afford to put dental and mental health into Medicare, that you can't afford to raise the rate of income support and that you can't afford to wipe student debt when you are prepared to splash $368 billion on the AUKUS subs? 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator McKim for the question. As senators will know, the main job of a federal government is to keep our citizens safe. This investment in our national security is important on its own, but it also has significant economic benefits across the country. The question goes to the impact on the budget. As people will be aware, we've forecast that over the forward estimates the impact will be in the order of $9 billion, of which $6 billion sits in the forward estimates as provision for the Attack class. The additional costs over the forward estimates will be met from within Defence's existing funding arrangements. Over the medium term, we are looking at costs in the order of $50 billion to $58 billion. Beyond that, we are looking at around 0.15 per cent of GDP into the next 20 to 30 years. This investment is also just under 10 per cent of the overall investment that we make into defence. It is an important agreement, but that doesn't mean that those other areas of priority within the budget don't get the attention of the government as well. As you would know, we've made investments into key social policy areas like child care, like making medicines cheaper and like investing in fee-free TAFE. The budget will also have a significant investment in the cost of living around energy bills. We've also got the work that's coming our way from the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee that will also inform the government in its decision-making. It's not an either/or; we have to do all of these things. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, first supplementary? 14:48 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Labor's stage 3 tax cuts will cost even more than Labor's nuclear submarines. Three-quarters of the benefit of the stage 3 tax cuts will go to the top 20 per cent of income earners, while women in their 60s are having to sleep on their friends' couches. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he said that Labor would leave no-one behind? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator McKim for his ongoing interest in stage 3 tax cuts. As the senator will know, our policy on these tax cuts hasn't changed, and our focus on tax reform is in the area of ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax and around some of the changes that we've recently announced around high-balance superannuation accounts. We have important policies that go to that point. I'm not dismissing the point that Senator McKim raised about other areas of pressing pressure and need in the budget, including for women and women's housing. That is a real priority, and that's why we'd really like to see this Senate pass the Housing Australia Future Fund in this fortnight so that we can make sure that some of the allocations for that go absolutely and specifically to that demographic group. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, a second supplementary question. 14:50 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, we hear a lot from the Treasurer about relief, repair and restraint, but the stage 3 tax cuts and the submarines are none of those things. Given your cash splash on weapons and the wealthy, and your avoidance of serious tax reform, what excuse will you use when you hand down your austerity budget in May? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator McKim for his question. Senator McKim can describe a budget that hasn't been handed down or finalised in the terms which he chooses, but this budget is an important budget in terms of the relief that we need to offer for the cost of living. I've gone through the forward estimates impact of the defence arrangements of AUKUS, to make sure that it isn't an additional cost that's being met from within the forward estimates. In this high-inflation environment there is also a responsibility not to be adding to or fuelling inflation. That means the decisions we take have to be very careful. They have to be about investing in the productive side of our economy—not making the inflation challenge harder but making sure that we are providing sensible and affordable cost-of-living relief where we can. We think we will get those. There are still a lot of decisions to be made, but the budget will be determined in that light. Defence Procurement: Submarines 44 14:51 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, Senator Watt. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Albanese Labor government's AUKUS submarine program's skills and training academy will help to upskill and attract the workforce to support and build the capabilities of Australia's world-leading defence industry? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator White, who I know has had a lifelong interest and dedication to raising skills and training within our community. Last week, the Prime Minister announced Australia's optimal pathway to acquire conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines. In addition to strengthening Australia's national security, this announcement will build a future made in Australia, by Australians, with record investments in defence, skills, jobs and infrastructure. As Senator Gallagher has stated, the program will create around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years across industry, the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Public Service. This includes trade workers, operators, technicians, engineers, scientists, submariners and project managers. At its peak, building and sustaining nuclear powered submarines in Australia will create up to 8½ thousand direct jobs in the industrial workforce. It's a decision which means many, many jobs for workers right around the country and, in particular, in the states of South Australia and Western Australia. On Wednesday, the Commonwealth and South Australian governments signed a cooperation agreement outlining our respective governments' commitment to supporting the construction of Australia's next generation of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide. As part of the agreement, the Albanese government and South Australia will work towards the construction, establishment and operation of a skills and training academy campus in South Australia. The academy will be a dedicated hub to attract, grow, develop and qualify the shipbuilding workforce to meet current and future demands, and to provide opportunities for continuous development of the existing workforce. The academy will support the entire shipbuilding workforce, providing hands-on trades training and classroom based professional development backed by cutting-edge technology and modern facilities. This will be a whole-of-nation initiative and will incorporate multiple locations to deliver training where it's needed, with the central campus being built in South Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator White, a first supplementary. 14:54 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Can the minister explain how the new academy will work hand in glove with education and training providers, and with state and territory governments, to drive Australia's workforce and skills development? 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator White. The new skills and training academy will be delivered by working in lockstep with state and territory governments; unions; universities; education and training providers; and the scientific and technical sectors. It will be vital to supporting the capabilities of Australia's world-leading defence industry. Importantly, the academy will be responsive to, connected to and informed by Australian industry. This will be an academy that strengthens Australia's sovereign capabilities by growing our industrial workforce, ensuring that industry has the people and skills it needs to realise emerging opportunities across the shipbuilding economy. The Albanese Labor government has a strong record of working hand in glove with state and territory governments when it comes to skills development. In addition to the announcement of the new academy, the Albanese Labor government has also signed landmark skills agreements with every state and territory government, and that of course includes the delivery of 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places nationwide in 2023, along with a range of other initiatives. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator White, a second supplementary? 14:55 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria What steps has the Albanese Labor government already taken to help upskill Australians to harness these jobs and opportunities of the future? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland (—) (): The Albanese Labor government understands the life-changing benefits of vocational education and training to create good, secure jobs and to address skills shortages. Unlike what we saw from the former government—cutting TAFE and cutting training opportunities, until it was all too late—the Albanese Labor government is serious about building the skills of our workforce so that people have the opportunity to take on the jobs of the future. Australia's vocational education and training sector already contributes significantly to our naval shipbuilding and sustainment sector, providing diverse skills requirements ranging from complex engineering and design roles, and project management and logistics roles, through to highly advanced technician and trade roles. Our delivery of 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places in 2023 is further supporting this. The Albanese Labor government is investing in our greatest resource—our people. Our fee-free TAFE places will provide training opportunities, particularly focusing on priority groups; they'll increase workforce participation and address skills gaps in the economy. (Time expired) Menindee Lakes: Fish Kill 45 14:56 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Murray Watt. Minister, what assets does the Commonwealth have which could be used to help remove dead fish from the Darling River at Menindee? Has the Commonwealth offered any of these resources to help the New South Wales authorities in the clean-up of these dead fish along the Darling River? 14:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Davey, for the question. As Senator Davey is well aware, the Commonwealth is always open to the option of deploying Defence Force personnel to assist in any natural disaster, if requested by the state government. I am not aware of any request having been made by the New South Wales government for that form of assistance. I'm happy to be corrected, if such a request has been made. But, of course, the other point to be made is that the Menindee Lakes fish deaths, while absolutely tragic—and I think all of us have been very disturbed by the footage from there—do not constitute a natural disaster, so I'm not sure whether there is even the capacity to deploy the Defence Force, even if such a request were to occur. If Senator Davey is aware of a request having been made by the Defence Force, I'm happy to be made aware of that, but I'm certainly not aware of any request having been made. Of course, it's not uncommon for the opposition to call for the deployment of the Defence Force and other federal assistance when it hasn't been requested by state governments. We saw Senator McDonald do that in a radio interview last week in relation to the floods in north-west Queensland, only a matter of hours after I'd informed her that no such request had been made by the Queensland government. But never let things get in the way of making a political point when that can be made! As I said, I think we are all concerned by the large-scale fish kills that are being captured on footage at the moment at Menindee Lakes, and this, of course, is the second time in four years that we've seen this occur. While this is still being investigated, it seems that it's mostly caused by blackwater and the low oxygen that results from that. The fish kills have been caused by flooding, combined with high temperatures, which is what causes that low oxygen that flows from blackwater. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey. Senator Davey 281697 My question, however, Minister, was not necessarily specific to the Defence Force. The minister would well be aware that six years and $15 million— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, what is the point of order? Senator Davey 281697 I'm standing to ask my supplementary question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Okay. Sorry. Senator McGrath 217241 Will you stop interrupting people! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, that was entirely unnecessary. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, resume your seat. You are out of order. Minister Farrell? Senator Farrell I0N That deserves a withdrawal and an apology. Senator McGrath 217241 I will always withdraw and I will always apologise, but a President— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, resume your seat. You are being disrespectful and disorderly. Senator Farrell has asked you to apologise and withdraw. I ask you to reflect on that and consider that. Senator McGrath 217241 I apologise and I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McGrath. Senator Davey, I ask you to start the question again. I apologise because you stood just before the minister had finished and I thought you were seeking to make a point of order. Please start again. 15:00 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Thank you. As the minister is well aware, six years and $15 million have been spent researching ways to deal with and remove large volumes of dead carp from our waterways under the National Carp Control Plan. What are some of the ways that the National Carp Control Plan proposes for large-volume dead fish clean-up that could be offered to New South Wales to assist in the current crisis? 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said, I'm not aware of any such request having been made by the New South Wales government to the federal government, but I am aware that our government is working closely with New South Wales authorities in relation to these fish deaths. I also understand that an emergency operations centre has been activated at Menindee to coordinate multi-agency operations. The centre will ensure fresh and clean water supply is maintained to the Menindee township, as well as coordinate the removal and disposal of fish. Of course, the tragic events we do see unfolding at Menindee are yet more proof to fully deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—something that the former government were unable to do in all their years— Opposition sen ators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 I know it sets off the Nats, and it's setting them off again. But after a decade of delay and sabotage by Liberals and Nationals around the country there is still a way to go to finish the plan. We haven't yet received the full benefits for the river system and, unfortunately, this is more proof— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales It's incredible that you want to flood a flood. Will the Commonwealth be deploying any of the ideas developed under the National Carp Control Plan to remove rotting dead fish from the Darling to assist New South Wales in this crisis? That was a program done across jurisdictions and it resulted in a 3,800-page document with options for fish clean-up. Have you even looked at it, Minister? 15:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Davey, not only have I looked at the National Carp Control Plan but also I have looked at in particular the fact that it was first announced by the then minister, Mr Joyce, back in May 2016, and was supposed to be delivered in 2018. Four years later, when the coalition lost office, it still hadn't been delivered. I don't remember this level of outrage around your own government having failed to deliver the National Carp Control Plan that it said would be delivered in 2018. The carp plan is complete, although the report that has more recently been received by the government provides insights into the feasibility of the carp virus as a biocontrol agent. There are uncertainties about its efficiency and effectiveness in safely removing carp from our waterways. I am surprised that the National Party—being the environmental vandals that they are—want to get out there and immediately release a virus into the Murray-Darling. Senator Davey 281697 President— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey? Senator Davey 281697 I can make a point of order—thank you, Senator Ayres. I can make the point of order that he has just poorly reflected on every member of the National Party. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Davey! Senator Davey, resume your seat. I remind senators that when you seek to make a point of order to stand and wait for the call. If there are interjections from the other side, I will deal with them. Senator Davey, please continue. Senator Davey 281697 I have a point of order, thank you, President. My point of order is that the minister has reflected poorly on every senator in here who is a member of the National Party by calling us environmental vandals. I ask him to withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Davey. In the spirit of keeping the chamber decent and respectful I ask Senator Watt to withdraw that comment and to continue his remarks. Senator WATT 245759 I withdraw, but I am surprised that the National Party want to release the carp virus into the Murray-Darling when there are serious concerns about the effects that it would have. (Time expired) Senator Farrell I0N Madam President, I request that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Workplace Safety: Engineered Stone 47 15:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In question time on 9 March, I took elements of a question asked of me by Senator Shoebridge on notice. I have written to Senator Shoebridge to provide a complete answer, and I now table that answer for the information of the Senate. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 47 15:05 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of all answers provided by the government today to questions without notice from the opposition We have heard here today a number of issues canvassed which go to some of the major issues facing this government at this point in time. I want to speak directly in relation to, firstly, forecast gas shortfalls. The Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, is responsible for managing the electricity and gas systems across the whole of Australia. They are an absolutely integral part of making sure that all the businesses and retail customers and consumers, both business and personal, across Australia, get the electricity and gas they need to operate their businesses or to maintain their households. That organisation—not a politician, not a person in this place, but a key organisation in running the electricity and gas system across Australia—in its most recent report explicitly named regulatory approvals pricing intervention and the mandatory code of conduct, policies of the government, as 'key uncertainties impacting project timelines and the likelihood of completion' of gas projects. These are the policies that were introduced in haste at the end of last year, in mid-December. The government called back the whole of parliament to introduce policies which effectively put price controls on the gas industry and provided the government with the opportunity to dictate the terms and conditions upon which that commodity could be sold and who it could be sold to. As a direct result of that, we now have our key regulator, an oversight authority of Australia's electricity and gas systems, saying that policy has created key uncertainties impacting project timelines and likelihood of completion. When those of us on this side of the chamber got up and warned that it was basic economics that price control, however well intended, invariably impacts supply those opposite were derisive. They said, 'You don't care about keeping down electricity rises; you don't care about keeping down gas prices.' But, quite to the contrary, the price issue that this country was facing fundamentally was a supply issue. This country has enough gas to provide that energy resource to private consumers and businesses and plenty more on top of that. But the policy of the Albanese Labor government introduced price controls that have had a direct negative impact on Australians, be they in business or in their homes, relying upon that gas. I can give you an example of a particular project in my home state of Queensland operated by a Queensland company called Senex which has been delayed as a direct result of that price control legislative architecture that was introduced late last year. As a direct result of this policy, a company called Senex, which I should say is approximately 50 per cent owned by a Korean organisation called Posco which has been investing in the Australian resources industry for decades and decades, has delayed $1 billion of spending on a gas project in south-west Queensland. Those gas reserves were actually reserved for domestic use. That project, which would produce gas for domestic use, has been delayed as a direct result of the price controls which have been introduced by the Labor government—$1 billion of investment. And why? They actually tell us why. They say, 'Because there's too much uncertainty.' How can you invest a billion dollars in a new project if you do not know how much you're going to be able to charge for your product, who you can sell it to, and the terms and conditions of sale? I'll say it again. How can you responsibly invest $1 billion in a project where the government can dictate to you the price you can sell it at, who you can sell it to, and the terms and conditions of sale? You know what? You can go three kilometres north of Australia, to Papua New Guinea, and invest in their oil and gas industry and not be faced with the same restrictions. So why would you invest an extra dollar in this jurisdiction, with those price controls, when you can invest in one of our nearest neighbours? 15:10 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm astonished, really—I'm regularly astonished—by the line of argument of those opposite in relation to energy prices. The first thing that the people opposite should do in any discussion about energy prices is apologise—apologise to the Australian people, apologise to households and apologise to business—for two things. One is a decade of complete sclerosis, complete inactivity, complete failure on energy prices and complete failure on energy policy. Who can forget they had 23 different energy policy frameworks and didn't land a single one of them? That contributed to a decade of complete policy uncertainty and frozen investment. Billions of dollars worth of investment in Australian energy capability flooded offshore because the rabble over there, when they were on the government benches, couldn't land an energy policy—utter failure. The upward pressure that there is on household and business energy bills is a complete consequence of their failure. The second thing— Senator AYRES 16913 we'll come to that in a minute—which Mr Morrison and Mr Taylor should apologise for, is the fact that, immediately prior to the election, the then minister, Mr Taylor, with his unknown colleague the secret minister—the then Prime Minister—were in possession of some knowledge about what was going to happen to wholesale energy prices that it was their responsibility in the normal course of events to communicate to businesses and households because that's what ministers do. And what did they choose to do? What did Mr Taylor choose to do? He decided to keep that information about price rises in the order of 18 per cent secret from the Australian people. Why did they do that? Because it didn't suit their political interests. With Mr Morrison and Mr Taylor—and Mr Turnbull, and Mr Abbott—their approach to energy was always about glib catchphrases. It was always about slogans. It was all about trying to find division. It was never, not at any point, about actually trying to encourage investment in Australian energy and in distribution. There was all this piffle from Mr Morrison about a gas led recovery. Nothing got built. Nothing got done. It was just a slogan, tested in focus groups, that led to no actual investment and no actual action. We had Senator Scarr in here claiming that Labor's decision last year, in government, to intervene, to put downward pressure on gas prices and coal prices, has somehow led—he says it's economics 101. The thing about making that argument is that anybody who's spent time studying economics knows that, yes, there is indeed economics 101, but there's second year too and there's a third year after that, and nobody credible would make an argument to say that price controls today with investment horizons that far out are going to lead to supply constraints tomorrow. It's just a silly argument. It's a dishonest argument. It's an argument that's trying to scare people. What do the people who actually have facts say about this? The Australian Energy Regulator says that energy prices, because of our intervention, are much lower than they otherwise would have been, by a factor of 10 or 20 per cent—much lower. But that doesn't suit the hyperpartisanship and nonsense that we're seeing from the other side on energy prices. 15:15 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to take note, particularly of the answer from Senator Farrell about Labor's policy on gas. We've just heard there from Senator Ayres why this government has not got a clue about handling the gas market. They can't just look at the last 3,000 years of economic history and recognise the fact that what they were doing was not going to have a positive impact on the gas market. In fact, it was highly likely, you could have predicted, that it would have a negative impact on the gas market. And guess what. I predicted it. Three weeks before we were recalled to parliament—and those opposite who are laughing can go back and look in the West Australian—I wrote an op-ed because this idea of a gas price cap was being floated around by a few low-level Labor ministers, I thought: 'No, they're not crazy enough to do that. They're not crazy enough to ignore 3,000 years of economic history and impose a price to try to get gas flowing. They're not that silly.' So I wrote what I thought was a tongue-in-cheek op-ed, and it turned out that three weeks later we were recalled to parliament to pass gas price caps. I said in that op-ed—and everybody with an ounce of economic sense said at the time and have said subsequently—that a gas price is not going to do what the government says it supposedly wants to do, which is put downward pressure on gas prices and, therefore, energy prices. In fact, it's done precisely the opposite, which is what I said in my op-ed and what a lot of very-well-trained economists said, because this stuff isn't actually rocket science. There are 3,000 years of economic history, going back to ancient Greece, that shows that price caps of any sort are entirely counterproductive. And what do we have just a months later? Anyone with any sense knew that, by putting a price cap in place, you would slow down investment, put a lot of uncertainty in the market and increase volatility in the market, and in the end you would actually put prices up. Guess what we got from the Australian Energy Regulator's draft default market offer the last week. This is frightening. It's not a matter of joking, because this impacts household power bills. It impacts small businesses—mostly on the east coast, and I will say a little bit more about that later—throughout the national energy market. What has the Australian regulator said about the default market offer? There will be electricity price rises in South Australia, New South Wales and South-East Queensland of around 24 per cent. In Victoria, it will be 31 per cent. That's a doubling every three years—a 31 per cent increase in one year. This is at the same time that those same families and small businesses aren't just being hit with massive spikes in their energy prices; they're also being hit by massive spikes in the cost of their borrowings. A lot of small businesses need to run an overdraft. They need to run debt in order to operate, and we've seen the fastest rise in interest rates pretty much in the history of Australia. Families have seen their mortgage repayments go up by in many cases a thousand dollars a month. This has a real, direct impact on Australian families and Australian businesses, and those opposite think it's a joke to recall parliament and pass legislation to impose price caps for a political sugar hit to be seen to be doing something when actual fact they knew it would be entirely counterproductive, if they were being at all honest with themselves. In Western Australia we're a little lucky. We have large domestic gas availability and obviously we export the vast majority of Australia's gas, and that's thanks to the Court government's decision in the 1970s. 15:21 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I am also astounded at those opposite and their claim to care about some of the most vulnerable people in the community and their talk of caring about the cost of living and the impact that has on Australians. The Australian people inherited a trillion dollars of debt. The Australian taxpayer inherited a trillion dollars of debt. We're now experiencing a cost-of-living crisis, and those opposite have shown their true colours. They don't care about the people who are experiencing the full brunt of the cost-of-living crisis we've got in our country. They've spent the last couple of weeks advocating for the 0.5 per cent of the population with over $3 million in their superannuation balances. They want to advocate for 17 people, I think it is, with over $300 million. But actually the people who are doing it tough are the people on the ground. It's something like around 10 nurses that would be needed to pay for somebody's superannuation balance with over $3 million in it. They think it's okay for nurses to pay for the superannuation balances that have over $3 million in them. Then on the point about energy, it is so rich for those opposite to get up and talk about energy prices in this country. I just want to talk about a couple of legacy pieces of those opposite. They voted against a saving to household power bills. They changed the laws to hide a 20 per cent increase in the default electricity offer. In nine years, almost a decade, they had 22 energy policies and not a single one of them worked—not a single one of 22 policies. They ignored over 12 warnings from the ACCC and AEMO about domestic gas supply. They're talking about gas. How's this for a fact: no new gas basins opened up under them. Under them we saw four gigawatts of dispatchable power leave and only one gigawatt come in. There are some facts for you, but we're still continuing to have some denial in this chamber. It's okay. We've got a responsible plan to tackle some of the challenges we've inherited as a government. It's about relief, repair and restraint: responsible cost of living relief, like cheaper child care, cheaper medicine and direct energy bill relief; repairing supply-side constraints, like fee-free TAFE, cleaner and cheaper energy, National Reconstruction Fund and more affordable housing; and a responsible budget with spending restraint, returning almost all revenue upgrades to the bottom line and keeping spending essentially flat over the next four years to not add to inflation. I just want to repeat that: spending is flat—not wages, like the policy of those opposite. Our spending is flat and we're not keeping wages flat. Australians understand that we didn't create these challenges, but they elected us to take responsibility for them. Our actions on the cost of living are there for people to see. I just want to spell them out: we argued successfully for a Fair Work Commission minimum wage increase in line with inflation and we've introduced legislation that will drive investment in cleaner and cheaper energy, putting downward pressure on power prices. The May budget will include direct energy-bill relief for households and businesses, which the opposition tried to block. We are delivering cheaper child care and medicines. We are delivering fee-free TAFE and more university places. We are expanding paid parental leave and we're building more affordable homes, including through the new National Housing Accord. Pensions, allowances and rent assistance have increased in line with inflation. And we've brought in a new pensioner work bonus so that older Australians can keep more of what they earn without affecting their pension. We are on the side of all Australians; those opposite are on the side of 0.5 per cent of Australians. 15:26 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to take note of answers to questions, I think from Senator Ciccone and Senator Stewart, about AUKUS. Senator Stewart 299352 I didn't ask any questions on that— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The motion that was moved by Senator Scarr did not include the response to that question. You can speak about the other question— Senator VAN 283601 No problem at all, I can happily switch to the other one. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator VAN 283601 I've got two—I'm good at both! Deputy President, on energy policy: it has become very apparent that this government does not, and cannot, deliver on its promises. Those opposite, after almost a decade in opposition, have obviously forgotten how to govern and that, in government, actions must be taken to deliver results. Senator VAN 283601 Yes, I was just about to—the AUKUS ones that we announced. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Van, Senator Shoebridge and Senator Stewart! It isn't a conversation. Through me, Senator Van. Senator VAN 283601 I'm about to tell you—I tried to before. Right now, the reality is that under the Albanese Labor government Australians are far worse off. It will only be worse so later this year when the energy prices go up. Those opposite were always out there on the hustings, saying, 'We're going to lower energy prices,' and that energy prices were going to be lower by $275. We've heard how many times Prime Minister Albanese promised that. We know that hasn't happened and we heard this week, again, that prices are going up. Not only are they going up but there are going to be shortfalls of gas this winter. Why? Again, because of the policies on the other side. Senator Stewart 299352 No new gas projects— Senator VAN 283601 It doesn't matter, yes, because your Andrews government had a moratorium on it, that's why. When they knew they wouldn't be able to fulfil the promise of cutting power bills by $275, they promised an assistance package would be finalised in March—with support expected to flow from April. However, again—surprise, surprise!—they've broken that promise and not delivered the financial support that they promised on the time line that they set to help people with the rising energy cost crisis that they have caused. The truth is that we knew higher power prices would come with this government's ill-thought-out, illogical and, frankly, quite ridiculous energy plan. To be clear: I'm very supportive of the transition to a net zero economy, and I believe it should be more ambitious than what this government has set for its Paris target. When I attended COP27 in Egypt last year, one thing was abundantly clear: whether you like it or not, transition to renewables is happening. Anyone not on board and in front of this tidal wave of investment, regulation and finance will be swept away. However, it is lucky that only a few Labor members attended. If they had been there, if they'd had a strong presence, they would have been laughed out of the place, had they presented their plan to get to 43 per cent. In the best of conditions, this transition is going to be long and it's going to be hard and it's going to be expensive. Given that, we don't have a dollar or a day to waste. What we need is for this government to not make energy more costly and harder on Australians that it has to be. Despite the Albanese government repeatedly blaming the Ukraine invasion and coalition policy to explain Australia's steadily rising power bills, the impact of the current proposed policy is foundational to the uncertain future of domestic energy prices, decarbonisation and the required investment. This government's reasoning is that the energy crisis is due to Russia's illegal invasion. However, it is more important to note that the ACCC reported that the netback price of LNG was at $41 per gigajoule before the events in Ukraine. This issue has been prevalent globally, including in Australia, for a decade, due to a lack of investment in new supply. In fact, JP Morgan's 2022 annual energy paper explicitly states: countries that reduce production of fossil fuels under the assumption that renewables can quickly replace them face substantial economic and geopolitical risks If the transition is to succeed, we cannot disconnect the generation we have before we have time to replace it. We know that, under this government, power prices are going to remain high—that's just a fact—and that will be its failure. Question agreed to. AUKUS, Economy 50 15:31 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by Minister Farrell to questions without notice asked today by both Senator McKim and me, and of answers given by the Minister Gallagher to Senator McKim. It's now 20 years since Iraq was illegally invaded, an invasion that was predicated on a lie that was sold to the world by the United States and the United Kingdom. It was a lie that our government accepted at face value, never testing it, never bringing it to this parliament, never putting it to the Australian people; and it was a lie that produced a brutal war, the effects of which are still being felt 20 years on. Those effects are particularly felt by the people of Iraq. There were some 7,000 Iraqi civilians killed in just the first two months of the 'shock and awe' campaign, as it was described. Some 500,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since, and millions of Iraqis remain displaced, many of them refugees in their own country—all for a war based on a lie. We followed the United States into the war like a little loyal poodle. And has this government learnt the lessons from that war? Obviously not. First of all, this government joined with the coalition to refuse to release the documents about the decision-making leading us into that war and continue the secrecy of the coalition under the new, Albanese government. But then, in this last week, we have seen just how little Labor have learned from history, because they have committed us to a $368 billion plus nuclear submarine package with the United States and the United Kingdom—the two countries that peddled those lies that dragged us into the war with Iraq. They've signed us on to a 30-year, $368-plus billion nuclear submarine program which will inevitably drag us into the United States's next war, because that's the purpose of it. It's to tie the Australian military and the Australian people intimately into the United States military—because these are subs we can't build, we can't crew, we can't operate and we won't be able to deploy without the express consent of the United States. That isn't about defending Australia; it's about projecting force, well from our shores, into the South China Sea as a loyal sub-unit of the United States military. And that lie that is repeatedly told by the Albanese government, peddling the reheated cooked-up coalition policy that this is about defending Australia, is being learnt by millions of Australians as we speak. 15:34 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania While people are getting smashed by a cost-of-living crisis, Labor is proceeding with a quarter of a trillion dollars worth of stage 3 tax cuts for the top end and a grotesque $360 billion commitment to nuclear powered submarines. I want to issue a challenge to every single Labor Party senator in this place: go back to your communities and tell the people who are living in those communities how proud you are of your priorities. Go and tell a worker whose real wages are going backwards at the fastest rate on record how much you and Gina Rinehart need that $9,000-a-year tax cut. Go and tell the woman in her 60s sleeping on her friend's couch how you can't afford a house for her to live in. Go and tell the person starving on JobSeeker how the weapons manufacturers need public money far more than they do. Go and tell the parents who can't afford to fix their kids' teeth how you can't afford to make it any easier for them to go to the dentist. But you won't, will you? Because you believe in austerity for the poor, in tax cuts for the wealthy and in blank cheques for the military industrial complex. The fact that both major parties are now supportive of Labor's stage 3 tax cuts for the top end and Labor's $360 billion commitment to nuclear submarines means that you will never criticise each other for those decisions. But I can tell you one thing: the Australian Greens will line up to criticise you, and we will do it every day because we want to be able to look people in the eye and say: 'Actually, we can afford to put dental and mental into Medicare. We can afford to wipe student debt. We can afford to make child care free. We can afford to raise income support.' We should be able to afford to do that because we should not be proceeding with the AUKUS nuclear sub deal and we should not be proceeding with the stage 3 tax cuts. Poverty is a political choice, and it's being made by the major political parties in this place every day. Question agreed to. NOTICES 51 NOTICES Presentation 51 BUSINESS 53 BUSINESS Leave Of Absence 53 15:37 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Farrell for 22 March 2023, on account of ministerial business; (b) Senators Green and McCarthy for today, for personal reasons; (c) Senator O'Neill from 23 to 30 March 2023, for personal reasons; and (d) Senator Sterle for today, on account of parliamentary business. (e) Senator Wong from 20 to 24 March 2023, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 53 NOTICES Postponement 53 15:38 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. COMMITTEES 53 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 53 Reference 53 15:39 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Hughes, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 September 2023: Allocations of grant funding under the Improving Mobile Coverage Round (IMCR) of the Mobile Black Spot Program (MBSP), with particular reference to: (a) advice provided by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts to the Minister for Communications in relation to the MBSP generally and specifically the IMCR; (b) the role of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts in recommending locations for the IMCR; (c) the role of the Minister for Communications and her office in relation to the locations selected for the IMCR; (d) communications with communities seeking funding from the MBSP, including communities who sought to be included in the IMCR but were excluded; and (e) any other related matters. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Askew standing in the name of Senator Hughes concerning a reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee regarding grant funding under the Mobile Black Spot Program be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:43]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.

Department of Finance: Discretionary Payments 54 Order for the Production of Documents 54 15:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 5 pm on 27 March 2023, all documents relating to: (a) the $1.456 million in discretionary payments from the Department of Finance to the Australian Labor Party in the 2021-22 financial year; and (b) discretionary payments from the Department of Finance to the Australian Labor Party in the 2022-23 financial year to date. 15:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—Mr Deputy President, I ask that the government be recorded as opposing this motion. Department of the Treasury: Energy 54 Order for the Production of Documents 54 15:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on 27 March 2023, all modelling by the Department of the Treasury in relation to: (a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022; (b) the draft Competition and Consumer Amendment (Gas Market) Bill 2022; and (c) the impact of the war in Ukraine on the price of coal and gas. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question before the Senate is that the motion, No. 177, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:52]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

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

Question negatived.

 NOTICES 55 NOTICES Withdrawal 55 15:54 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I withdraw business of Senate notice of motion No. 178 because the documents have arrived. MATTERS OF URGENCY 55 MATTERS OF URGENCY Gender Dysphoria 55 15:55 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 20 March, from Senator Hanson: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for an inquiry into the rising number of children suffering from gender dysphoria in Australia and the increasing number of children being treated for gender dysphoria at gender clinics, to examine the causes and possible remedies for this trend and to ensure that children and their families receive appropriate support and care." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 15:56 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for an inquiry into the rising number of children suffering from gender dysphoria in Australia and the increasing number of children being treated for gender dysphoria at gender clinics, to examine the causes and possible remedies for this trend and to ensure that children and their families receive appropriate support and care. You'd be forgiven for thinking that a rapid tenfold increase in a condition that was causing Australian children to suffer would immediately lead to calls for urgent action and investigations into its causes and treatments, but this isn't the case with the condition known as gender dysphoria. It was revealed last year that more than 2,000 Australian children were enrolled in public adolescent gender clinics, almost 10 times the number in 2014. This figure did not capture the number of children being treated for gender dysphoria by GPs and private clinics, so it's likely the number is much higher. The number of children prescribed puberty-blocker treatments for gender dysphoria in 2021 was more than 600, up from only five in 2014, while there was also an eightfold increase in children receiving cross-sex hormone treatments over a similar period. Why isn't this a matter of urgency? Why didn't the Senate support my notion last year to refer the alarming increase in Australian children suffering from this condition? Because the issue is completely wrapped up with the appalling politics of identity. This progressive form of politics holds that biological reality means absolutely nothing and that people can simply choose their gender at a whim, ever-changing the gender on their birth certificates. Rather than address the problem and debate the issue, the so-called progressives insist on deplatforming and silencing those who dare to go against the gender-affirmation narrative. This is because they realise there is no difference in encouraging teenagers with the same problems and confusion that teenagers have always had to deal with them by choosing a different gender. It's this affirmation approach which was found to be the major problem in the wide-ranging Independent review into gender identity services for children and young people commissioned by the United Kingdom's National Health Service in 2020. The review found a significant and sharp rise in referrals of children with gender dysphoria, similar to what is understood to be happening in Australia. It also found a major change in the case mix of referrals, from predominantly birth-registered males to predominantly birth-registered females. Most importantly, it found scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making—specifically, the gender-affirmation approach, which immediately resorts to the use of puberty-blocker and cross-sex hormone treatments. These treatments have been conclusively shown to cause lifelong negative health impacts, and it's destroying lives and families. The story of UK teenager Keira Bell has come to serve as an example of how these confused, suffering children can be led to a life of misery by the gender-affirmation approach. At the age of only 15, she was referred to the Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in London, where she was diagnosed with gender dysphoria. She was put on puberty blockers at age 16 and was getting testosterone shots at 17. At 20 she had a double mastectomy and had developed a more masculine build, a beard and a man's voice. However, by then, as an adult she realised her so-called gender dysphoria was only a symptom of her misery—not the cause, as she had been strongly encouraged to believe. But it's too late. The changes were irreversible. Keira joined a judicial review case against the clinic, which unanimously decided it had conducted what amounted to uncontrolled experiments on these poor confused kids who could not understand the implications of gender dysphoria treatments with life-altering consequences. The Tavistock clinic is now being closed, but what happened there is happening across the world and right here in Australia. At the very least there must be an Australian inquiry into this issue to find the causes of this rapid increase in gender dysphoria and ensure the same kind of experimentation is not being practised on our children. Either you are genuinely concerned that our kids receive appropriate treatments and will support an inquiry into the issue, or you are more concerned about identity politics and will oppose it. I choose to stand up for our kids and I choose to stand up for the parents who actually came and walked the halls of this parliament to talk to each member here in this place, yet you did nothing to satisfy their needs and concerns to have a Senate inquiry into this to find out the real causes behind it, because you're too gutless to do it and stand up for these people, the poor children who are led down this path of destroying their lives. (Time expired) 16:01 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia For any freethinking Australian it can be a challenge to navigate through the left-leaning propaganda when Australia's censorship industrial complex is pushing indoctrination to promote their own ideological agenda. In the last decade there has been a significant increase, in English-speaking countries, of adolescents identifying as transgender and pursuing medical and surgical interventions to transition. Many medical professions and parents have raised concerns about misdiagnosis and the potential harm caused by experimental treatments being offered as the only solution to gender dysphoria. Historically, gender dysphoria was a rare condition that primarily affected prepubescent boys and adult men. However, the current trend shows an inverse pattern, with teenage girls making up approximately 70 per cent of the referrals to these gender clinics. Concerned parents of trans-identifying teenage girls often cite various factors such as peer influence, online communities, body and mental health issues and isolation as contributing factors to their child's decision to identify as trans. Under the guise of gender-affirming health care, treatments such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and even surgery are being used to alter a child's body to match their mental image of themselves. These treatments are irreversible and experimental and have been shown to cause significant harms in the form of infertility, impaired development and decreased bone density. We're now seeing heartbreaking detransitioning stories being told—the sorts of stories which really should make any reasonable person stop and reconsider what is happening. We're seeing the closure of clinics like the Tavistock clinic in the United Kingdom. Australia needs its media and its political class to wake up urgently. It needs an urgent inquiry, and that's why I support this initiative. 16:03 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The Senate dealt with this matter of an inquiry on this topic back in November. We didn't support such an inquiry then, and it should not be supported now. The timing of this debate does not escape me. This motion has been moved in the context of rallies held over the weekend and the week before, regarding and often hosting a controversial UK anti-trans activist, and her speaking appearances in Australia. They are views which, as we saw on the weekend, are backed by far-right extremists, some of whom were seen using a Nazi salute outside the Victorian parliament. These are not the Australian values I grew up with, they're not views we should be amplifying in our parliament and they don't deserve treatment as a matter of urgency in this place. The debate before us on this emergency motion is not about ensuring appropriate inquiry, support and care, as the motion might suggest. It is about giving a platform to people with views that would harm an incredibly vulnerable, patient group and their families and loved ones. You only really need to look at the way these matters were debated in the context of the marriage equality postal survey and see how the identities of trans people were targeted back then. It is not in the interests and safety of children to be debated in this way. We should not amplify these issues under the guise of seeking to improve access for trans and gender-diverse people to care. We should be supporting better access to care and better health outcomes for all Australians, including children, young people and their families. It has got to be a key priority for our Australian government, as it is. Only a few weeks ago I walked over the Sydney Harbour Bridge with some 50,000 proud, peaceful, kind families and individuals from all over the world. Community members and allies walked with the LGBTQI+ community over the Sydney Harbour Bridge. That was a far cry from the small gatherings of protest we've seen around Australia in the last week. The community is overwhelmingly against such an inquiry, as are the medical experts in this field. I remind this place that in 2020 the Royal Australasian College of Physicians provided advice to the then Minister for Health on the treatment of gender dysphoria in Australia and that advice, supported by paediatricians, endocrinologists and groups with specialist research in bioethics, recommended against such an inquiry. They noted that it would not increase the scientific evidence available regarding gender dysphoria but would further harm vulnerable patients and their families by subjecting them to debate in this place. Every time these kinds of motions come up in this place you see responses from parents whose children notice such debates. They are alarmed at the impact that such debates have, as their very personal identity is debated in this way in this place. We know of course that the clinical treatment of children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria is a complex and evolving area. We do need long-term evidence to inform treatment protocols. This is well understood by researchers and clinicians who are working to expand the evidence base based on best practice and care, an evidence base that will be supported by Labor's $26 million Medical Research Future Fund. (Time expired) 16:08 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Usually when irrelevant right-wing senators use the Senate to put forward offensive ideas I don't engage. I don't like to give them the satisfaction of knowing how much they've provoked me or to risk giving more airtime to their bigoted views, but this weekend in Melbourne we saw what can happen when transphobia goes unchecked, so I'm calling this motion what it is. It's a dog whistle to the anti-trans demonstrators who organised the rally in Melbourne on Saturday and who use their platform to vilify trans people and incite hate; it's a dog whistle to the Neo-Nazis who supported the rally and who stood on the steps of the Victorian parliament giving Nazi salutes and it's a dog whistle to the police who used excessive force and assaulted peaceful trans people and allies, while allowing transphobic demonstrators and Neo-Nazis to organise. What happened on Saturday shows the ideological similarities between anti-trans campaigners and the far right: both groups are targeting marginalised members of our community and stoking fear, hatred and violence towards them. It's clear that far right groups are using transphobic campaigns to recruit people to their own extremism. But we know that they are also racist and antisemitic. So I say to all trans and gender-diverse people, as well as Jewish people and people of colour who are still reeling from the weekend: I'm sorry. You don't deserve what happened then, and you don't deserve the ongoing attacks on your very identity that are being waged in this parliament. Gender diversity does not need to be 'remedied'. Trans and gender-diverse people need to be loved and celebrated. So to all the trans kids and young people out there: I want you to know that I and the Greens have got your back and I will go into bat for you at any chance I get. You deserve to be celebrated. You deserve to be safe to be yourself. You deserve all the good things in the world because you are magnificent. We must do more than call out transphobia. We need to work together to actively dismantle it, because trans rights are non-negotiable. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Before I call the next speaker, I'm just reminding senators in the chamber that it's disrespectful to interject. In a debate like this, we should show some restraint. With the interjections, I had some difficulty hearing Senator Rice's contribution. So I remind senators: if you're going to stay in the chamber, show some respect. Senator Walsh. 16:11 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I, too, rise to speak on this motion moved by Senator Hanson today. We should all be clear on what this motion is and what it isn't. It's not about protecting children and families. It's not about protecting trans kids. It's not about protecting trans families. It's not about prioritising the lives of vulnerable young people. It's actually about throwing vulnerable children onto the national stage to be judged—to have their lives and identities picked over—for political gain. If we really want to protect our trans young people and trans families, then we really need to stand with them today—to stand with kids who just want to be loved and accepted for exactly who they are. I want to thank the trans activists who fought for so many years for respect and for a voice, who worked tirelessly, in the face of incredible opposition, to save lives and who are the real heroes protecting vulnerable young people. My message to the trans community today is that we hear you in this place and we stand with you in this place, today and every day—and especially today, because, on Saturday, in Victoria, a group of anti-trans activists gathered to spread hate and, on the steps of Victoria's parliament, some of them performed a Nazi salute. It should not have to be said, but there is no place for this hateful and evil ideology in our country—not anywhere: not on the steps of the Victorian parliament and not in this parliament, either. This is an opportunity for everyone in this place to stand together and condemn these views outright. This is an opportunity for the coalition to stand up against these views—views that deliberately target a vulnerable minority of people. This is an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, to call this behaviour out, loud and clear. Mr Dutton needs to call out the bigotry. He needs to call out the hate; he needs to call out the horrendous display in Melbourne on the weekend; he needs to call out anyone who holds and endorses these views, because we all have a responsibility to condemn this appalling behaviour and stand with the trans community today. We are meant to be leaders in this place, and we know that extremists are emboldened by the words and by the views of politicians. And we all know how dangerous it is to not call out extremist views. We know how dangerous it is to not call out the hateful views that were on display in Victoria over the weekend. We know that almost half of transgender and gender-diverse young people have attempted suicide in their lifetime—almost half—because hate hurts and hate kills. We know that access to gender-affirming surgery, on the other hand, can be lifesaving. We know that love and support of trans young people is lifesaving. There is absolutely no excuse for spouting hate that puts young people's lives at risk. There is no excuse for endorsing or keeping silent when we see scenes like those on Saturday. Silence is just as bad. That is why it is so important today, and every day, that in this place we call out these views—this extremist hate. Every member of this parliament should be calling this out. Again, Mr Dutton needs to call it out. Most importantly, what Mr Dutton needs to do is stand publicly with the trans community, who are under attack right now. Let me be clear on this. I stand with this trans community today. Trans rights are human rights. These rights should never be negotiable. I want to give particular acknowledgement today to members of the Victorian trans community, Austin, Sally, Tiff, Laura and Ricki, who I met with recently. You are actually the people who are doing the real work of protecting trans kids. You are the people providing an example to all of embracing who you are. You are the people who are providing the love, support and acceptance that our trans young people need. Thank you for everything you do to keep trans kids safe in our community. 16:16 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I rise today to support Senator Hanson's urgency motion calling for an inquiry into the rising number of children suffering from gender dysphoria in Australia and the increasing number of children being treated for gender dysphoria at clinics. We must examine the causes and the possible remedies for this trend to ensure that children and their families—and their families—receive appropriate support and care. It is not an easy topic to discuss, not at all. In fact, it is difficult and it is uncomfortable. But that is the very reason why we here in this place must discuss it. Our job is to seek the truth and act for the greater good of all. When it comes to gender dysphoria, it is children who suffer most and there is just so much that we are yet to learn. In the last decade, nearly every single English-speaking country has seen a massive rise in adolescents believing that they are transgender and pursuing medical and surgical interventions to transition. Many doctors and parents have been expressing grave concerns about misdiagnosis and the harms of experimental treatments being offered as the only solutions to gender distress. When you think about it, until very recently almost nobody was talking about things like gender dysphoria. Hardly a soul would even imagine that one's sex at birth was merely a social construct and something simply to be pushed away. We now have countless cases of not just adults but children at ever younger ages telling us they are the wrong sex and wanting to change that sex with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone therapy and gender reassignment therapy. Studies do show that up to 90 per cent of children who are supported—but without medical intervention—will eventually go on to accept their native gender. It is well documented that there are significant issues that arise from puberty blockers. These include but are not limited to: sterility, lack of sexual function and bone and brain development issues. Puberty blockers are being prescribed off-label. They were not designed for gender dysphoria, and children simply cannot consent to such radical and irreversible intervention. It is now illegal in parts of Australia for parents, doctors or therapists to stop children from transitioning. State education departments in Australia are advising schools that they can transition your child without your knowledge and without your consent, if they suspect that you, as a parent, would be unsupportive. An honourable senator: That is not true. Senator BABET 300706 That is true. It is true in my home state of Victoria. There are already multiple cases in Australia where a parent has lost custody of their child for not affirming the child's wishes to medically transition, with judges tending to rule in favour of a supportive parent rather than a cautious parent. In light of new and emerging evidence, many countries around the world are changing their tune on the gender-affirming treatment model. Sweden, Finland and France have banned the use of puberty blockers and hormones for minors, and rightly so. The UK's Cass review into London's Tavistock gender clinic led to a 2020 High Court decision stating that children under 16 were not capable of informed consent about the long-term impacts of puberty blockers and other treatments. I urge the Senate to recognise what's happening to these vulnerable children—they're just children, after all, and need guidance from adults—to examine the causes of their gender dysphoria and to consider the most appropriate remedies to treat these children, and to ensure that they and their families receive appropriate support and care. 16:20 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland This is not about supporting trans kids and their families. It's a dog whistle to the far right—those same people who stood on the steps of the Victorian parliament on Saturday. When we shadowbox the strawmen of the far right—for decades it has been about the Islamic and LGBTQIA communities, but today it's trans kids—we're not talking about an abstract, far-off concept; we're talking about real kids and real families in our community. In doing this we give air to a far-right movement that seeks to torment a marginalised community in Australia by turning their lives into political fodder. We're talking about the vilification of trans kids and their families— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Sorry, Senator Allman-Payne. Senator Hanson, do you have a point of order? Senator Hanson BK6 I have a point of order. Under section 193, section 3. I call on the fact of imputations being put upon me and my motives in moving this motion—saying that it's far right and that I want to destroy children's lives. That is not the case, so I'm asking the senator to withdraw her comments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Hanson, it's not a debating point. That isn't a point of order. Please resume your seat. Senator Allman-Payne has the call. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Hanson, you do not have the call! Please resume your seat! Or you can leave the chamber; it's your choice. Senator Allman-Payne, you have the call. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 We're talking about the vilification of trans kids and their families, who we push closer and closer to the risk of self-harm and suicide when we grandstand for anti-trans bigots and the neo-Nazis who support them. We must condemn in the strongest terms platforming what is, at its heart, a cynical and hateful exercise in far-right theatre. As a teacher for 30 years, I have taught thousands of young people. And I've seen what hate and transphobia does to young people who are discovering their identity. I want those young people to know that we in the Greens have your back and that we will continue to stand up for you both inside and outside this place. We must continue to affirm and celebrate trans kids, ensuring that they feel loved, supported and safe in our schools, our workplaces and our community. We must let them know that this love is felt across Australia—that in the face of this hatred, trans campaigners and allies still outnumber the bigots. We should give real priority to getting gender-affirming health care into Medicare and to strengthening our antidiscrimination laws to better protect trans young people. Trans rights are human rights, and they are nonnegotiable. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I just remind senators that in debates like this it's important that we show respect. I draw attention to the fact that there are children upstairs and that we are leaders of the community. Senator Askew, you have the call. 16:24 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I also rise to support Senator Hanson's urgency motion. In the past, we have seen Labor and the Greens work together to shut down an inquiry into this complex and yet extremely important issue. I'm proud to be a member of a party which allows a conscience vote on issues such as this. As you have heard in earlier contributions, it is widely known and accepted that subjecting children to puberty blockers and hormone treatments can have irreversible consequences to the long-term health and mental wellbeing of children. This, coupled with a drastic increase to the rates of diagnosis of gender dysphoria, is alarming and in itself should be reason enough for a Senate inquiry to investigate the issue. Over recent times there has been a rise in some people in our community who seem to be obsessed with sexualising young children and encouraging gender dysphoria, all under the guise of some kind of inclusion. Does this not warrant an inquiry to protect our children? We have seen drag queens in our libraries and on our TVs encouraging preschool-age children to cross-dress and discussing some very complex adult themes and issues. Regardless of each of our individual positions on gender dysphoria, we should all agree that it is vital that our youth are protected and kept safe at all times. I agree that a robust inquiry is needed to investigate this alarming rise in diagnosis and the treatment of gender dysphoria to allow our youth to access age-appropriate treatment and not be forced into making complex, adult, life-changing decisions without appropriate information and support. The PRESIDE 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:30]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 16 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hughes, H. A. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Regional Security 61 16:33 The PRESIDENT 112096 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Birmingham: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to recognise that AUKUS expresses Australia's ambition for enduring peace and prosperity in our region, and to reject criticism from former Prime Minister Pa ul Keating that it is the worst deal in our history. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 The proposal is supported. With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:33 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to recognise that AUKUS expresses Australia's ambition for enduring peace and prosperity in our region, and to reject criticism from former Prime Minister Paul Kea ting that it is the worst deal in our history. I move this motion noting that this is a matter of, indeed, utmost importance for this parliament and for the nation in terms of the operation of the AUKUS agreement and its impact upon the defence of Australia. One of the most frequent criticisms of politics is that of so-called 'short-termism', the view that governments take decisions focused too much on the next election cycle in the near or short term rather than using longer-term perspective. In this case, what we have very clearly is long-term decision-making for Australia in our national interest, guiding the type of defence strategy and defence industry strategy that our country needs to see us through the decades ahead. Those of us on this side are very proud to have been the authors and architects of the AUKUS agreement. We acknowledge and give credit to the other side for having delivered on the process that we put in place—the 18-month Nuclear Powered Submarine Task Force process—and ensuring that, within that, we are taking the steps forward under AUKUS, and that it is delivering a long-term strategic plan for Australia's defence capability, contributing to a long-term strategic plan for our Defence industrial capability and helping to strengthen our alliances and partnerships with key nations with whom we share an interest in the preservation of shared values and support for the international rules based order. The AUKUS agreement and Australia's pursuit of enhanced military capabilities is unquestionably about underpinning the stability, peace and prosperity of our region across the Indo-Pacific. It is intended to make a contribution to the defence of Australia and to the defence of Australian interests. Our interests are served by upholding the international rules based order that has underpinned stability and peace across the world, in the main, since the Second World War era. Our interests as Australians are based upon preserving respect for those laws and rules that enable open shipping lanes, freedom of navigation and overflight, and, of course, for our access throughout our region, along with that of every other partner nation within our region. AUKUS was possible as an agreement because the coalition made Australia a credible partner and ensured that we made the difficult decisions that had to be made. We made Australia a credible partner by restoring Australia's investment in our defence budgets. When we came to office in 2013, Australia's defence spending had dropped to 1.56 per cent of GDP—the lowest level since the pre World War II era. We restored that to two per cent of GDP, notwithstanding the pressures of balancing the budget pre-COVID and the competing priorities. We had an eye firmly focused on the long-term interests of Australia and made the decision to make sure we prioritised that restoration. We made the investment decisions to establish a continuous shipbuilding strategy, also ensuring Australia was a credible partner for nations like the United States and the United Kingdom to work with on a program such as AUKUS. We also made the difficult decisions to switch to nuclear powered submarines. That was one of the biggest and most difficult decisions that a government could make, given the program that was already underway in terms of conventionally powered—diesel powered—submarines and the challenge of the technology and ambition associated with nuclear powered submarines. We made that decision because of changed strategic circumstances and changes in technology and the detectability of submarines and in the operation of their powering. It's clear that only a coalition government was capable of making and able to make that decision. While those opposite in government have delivered on what we did, it is clear from the remarks of Mr Keating, Mr Garrett and former Senator Cameron that Labor could never have led such a decision. We did lead such a decision. We're proud to have done so. We continue to give bipartisan support, because we want to see it succeed. 16:38 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Last week, the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, along with the US President, Joe Biden, and the UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, announced the most significant investment in Australia's national security in our country's history. We will be building eight next-generation nuclear powered submarines here in Australia, in the state of South Australia, in Adelaide. But it will be a whole-of-nation effort, requiring workers in every state and territory. It will create around 20,000 direct jobs, and, with construction beginning this decade, we will train more engineers, more scientists, more technicians, more submariners, more administrators and more tradespeople. At its peak, building and sustaining nuclear powered submarines in Australia will create up to 8½ thousand direct jobs in the industrial workforce alone. With hundreds of thousands of components, nuclear powered submarines will present a unique opportunity for Australian companies to contribute not only to the construction and sustainment of Australia's new fleet but to the supply chains of partner nations. Australia's scientific, education and training institutions will also play a central role. Australians have already commenced training and working on UK and US nuclear powered submarines, and in UK and US facilities. This will mean that Australia has a trained and experienced sovereign workforce for the arrival of Australia's Virginia class submarines from as soon as the early 2030s. The cost of this endeavour is estimated to be between $268 billion and $368 billion, making it the largest investment in defence ever undertaken by Australia, and it's something that I think we should be very proud of. Some people may see that figure and wonder if this investment is really necessary, but the short answer is: yes, it is necessary. We are in a situation where we have the fastest and most significant naval build-up that we have ever seen at our back door, in the Indo-Pacific. As Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles said last week, we would be condemned by history if we did not take our changing strategic circumstances seriously and take steps to improve our defence capability. But the Australian Greens seem like they want to disregard protecting our sovereignty and protecting our people, who we are elected to look after. While I don't think it is at all improper for people to ask questions about how the government is spending money, it's important to call out the irresponsible commentary that seeks to downplay the change in strategic circumstances that we find ourselves in. The lines that are coming out from some that AUKUS is somehow unnecessary or even provocative are complete nonsense. We should be very, very clear: Australia and our allies are not the provocateurs here. We are not seeking to change the status quo. We are not seeking to undermine the international rules based order. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for every international actor, and, when these actors commit to unprecedented military spending and naval build-up, it is incumbent upon Australia to respond. We are increasing our defence capability by deepening our cooperation with our close allies, by working together so that we can design, build and deploy defence assets greater than the sum of our individual nation's knowledge and capability. It will complement the Albanese government's wider agenda to revitalise Australia's manufacturing, ensuring that we are a country that makes things here, including identifying defence capability as a priority funding area for the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. Australia's defence industry and workforce will be vital partners in the AUKUS submarine program over the next four decades and beyond, delivering critical defence capability and supporting an industrial and skills expansion of national economic significance. So, while I think almost all Australians would agree it's deeply unfortunate that we live in a world where these steps are necessary, we should also recognise the increased cooperation between ourselves and our closest partners as a good thing. 16:43 Senator 250156 Western Australia STEELE-JOHN () (): The AUKUS political deal being debated today—dreamt up by Scott Morrison and by Boris Johnson, of all people, and sanctified by President Joe Biden—is, of course, a tremendous waste of public funds. It sees Australia go all in to the tune of $368 billion on the purchase of eight nuclear powered submarines that won't be delivered until I'm 60-odd. And, for this, the Australian people will get the privilege of becoming a nuclear waste dump for the refuse of these machines and will see their public money subsidise British and US defence manufacturers. It is a waste of public funds. It puts us at risk. But, this afternoon, what I want to comment upon is this. It is one of the most catastrophic foreign policy decisions an Australian government has ever entered into, and it fundamentally undermines our ability to be considered as independent actors in our region. This deal forever shackles us to the United States of America. It removes the question in the minds of any of our regional neighbours as to whether, when the United States says, 'Jump,' we answer, 'How high, and would you like a backflip, sir?' I find it to be outrageous in the extreme and hypocritical in no end that both parties have spent this week criticising Paul Keating—a man with more right to comment on these things than most people in here—for his observations, yet you all have remained silent in relation to John Winston Howard, a man who should be before the Hague for his involvement in the war in Iraq. 16:45 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I think it's appropriate, particularly as I look up in this chamber at the young people in the gallery, for an understanding of the history of Australia and our relationship with other nations to point out that when Australia was faced with invasion by a totalitarian regime of the imperialist Japanese government we called out, 'Help!' to the Americans, and they said, 'We've got your back.' Young men and women lost their lives. The United States spent money, capital and lives helping to defend Australia and the region, and much of the prosperity and peace that has existed in the world for the 60 or 70 years since is because of the sacrifice and support of the people of the United States. The Defence strategic update—and I acknowledge Senator Reynolds, who was then Minister for Defence, for her work in bringing that about—took a serious, unbiased look of the circumstances facing Australia. It is clear that we face circumstances today that we have not faced since those dark days of World War II: grey zone activities and various economic coercive measures as well as the military build-up in our region. The AUKUS agreement, far from being just about nuclear submarines, is about a system of collaboration and support between like-minded nations—nations that are characterised by the rule of law and that wish to work together to increase their collective resilience to stand against totalitarian states. As well as the submarines, it covers a whole range of things, such as precision-guided munitions, undersea capabilities that are autonomous systems, quantum technologies, artificial intelligence and autonomy, advanced cyber, hypersonic and counterhypersonic capabilities, various forms of electronic warfare, and innovation and information sharing. That is partly because of the lessons we learned during COVID, when we found that supply chains were incredibly vulnerable and often very narrowly sourced to nations such as China, where the Chinese Communist Party are coercive in their behaviour. We need to have supply chains and technology with allies that will enable us to maintain peace and stability in the region. I'm attracted to the philosophy of President Roosevelt of the United States, who coopted an African saying: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick.' He described his style of foreign policy as 'the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis'. As practised by Roosevelt, so-called 'big stick diplomacy' had five components. First, it was essential to possess serious military capability that would force an adversary to pay close attention, to calculate the risk. The other qualities—and these are not talked about as much, but they were important—were to act justly towards other nations, never to bluff, to strike only when prepared to strike hard and to be willing to allow the adversary to save face in defeat. History teaches us that there are authoritarian powers that see weakness and a lack of commitment as a reason to act. The war in Ukraine that we're seeing at the moment with the illegal and brutal invasion by Russia is a case in point. But we can also look back through history. The invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina on 2 April 1982 was because General Galtieri had seen that the British government were actually looking for potential ways to cede the Falkland Islands back to Argentina, if the people of the Falklands agree The assessment by people in strategic think tanks was that a military response to an invasion was impossible. He saw that weakness. For domestic political reasons he acted. He invaded. We know that history in part was because of the collaboration of the US and the UK and the industrial base in the UK that was able to co-opt a number of civil assets, particularly ships, to use in that conflict. So AUKUS, far from being a tragedy, is actually about the exercise of intelligent aforethought and decisive action sufficiently in advance of any likely crisis so that any adversary will see that we have both the intent and the means to actually preserve the global rules based order that has led to peace and prosperity for tens of millions of people in the world. 16:50 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Strengthening our nation's ability to defend itself is something that we in this place should all support. I would like to thank every Australian who has served or is serving us in our defence forces. We respect and honour you. I congratulate the PM for continuing the work of the former government to boost our defence capability by the acquisition of nuclear subs. The UAP's policy of acquiring nuclear subs we took to the federal election, and we are pleased to see it become a reality. The sum of $368 billion is obviously huge, and we will do our best to hold the government to account. We must ensure this significant investment of taxpayer money delivers the largest increase in defence capability possible. We must ensure that it increases defence capability and protects our people and our sovereignty. We hope that the project is delivered on time and on budget. 16:51 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It was a significant moment for our nation's history when Prime Minister Albanese, President Biden and Prime Minister Sunak, last week in San Diego, announced the support for the AUKUS deal on the nuclear submarines. This will be the single biggest investment in Australia's defence capability in history. AUKUS represents a transformational moment for our nation, our Defence Force and our economy as well. It will strengthen Australia's national security and contribute to regional stability in response to unprecedented strategic challenges. Australia actively seeks to contribute to creating a set of conditions that would make it unthinkable for any one country to choose conflict over coexistence. We will always be better off in a world where rules are clear, mutually negotiated and consistently followed. But we must also contend with the implications of a changing region. In the context of deteriorating strategic circumstances in the Indo-Pacific region, we must act decisively to ensure the security and stability of the region. Australia's nuclear powered submarine capability will enable AUKUS partners, in collaboration with like-minded countries, to better contribute to a sovereign and resilient Indo-Pacific region and deter aggression more effectively. AUKUS is a multigenerational commitment amongst the trilateral partners to broaden our ability, promote stability and contribute to deterrence in the region. Embarking on this vital effort will further strengthen our already deep-seated relationships with the United States and the United Kingdom and provide further opportunities to work with partners in the region. With the AUKUS agreement, the Albanese government is making record investments in defence, skills, jobs and infrastructure. Starting this year, the Australian military and civilian personnel will embed with the Royal Navy and the US Navy and with the UK and US submarine industrial bases to accelerate their training and development. Training and development will be supported by longer and more frequent visits by nuclear powered submarines. The first nuclear powered submarines built by Australian workers at Osborne in South Australia are expected to be delivered in the early 2040s, with the next subs to be delivered on a regular drumbeat following. The phased approach will result in $6 billion invested in Australia's industrial capability and workforce over the next four years. AUKUS will create around 20,000 highly skilled and high-paid direct jobs over the next 30 years across industry, the Australian Defence Force and the Public Service. At its peak, up to 4,000 Australian workers will be employed to design and build the infrastructure for the submarine construction yard at Osborne. A further 4,000 to 5,000 direct jobs are expected to be created to build nuclear powered submarines in South Australia when the program reaches its peak. In Western Australia, around 3,000 direct jobs will be created through the expansion, with an additional 500 direct jobs to sustain Submarine Rotational Force—West from 2027 to 2032. This whole-of-nation effort also presents a whole-of-nation opportunity for new jobs, new industries and new expertise in science, technology and cyber. Businesses right across the country, in every state and territory, will have the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from these opportunities over decades to come. I was in Rockhampton last week and met with the mayor and other leaders there. I also met with the delegation of mayors from the Central Queensland region late last year. They know the opportunity that an increase in defence spending can provide for their communities. They are optimistic about the opportunity it can create in Central Queensland. Central Queensland has well-known, well-established defence industries in places like Rockhampton and further north in Townsville. It has also been a manufacturing hub for decades, and these skills can continue to be utilised to contribute to our defence industries. The AUKUS agreement will provide even greater opportunities for increased defence spending to benefit communities across the whole of the country. Funding for this commitment will amount to around 0.15 per cent of GDP per year, averaged over the life of the program, which supports the Prime Minister's commitment during the election campaign to see defence spending lift to over two per cent of GDP. These transformational partnerships with the UK and US will deliver our Australian Defence Force a superior capability, not just for our generation but for generations to come. 16:56 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales As a Greens MP and senator, I didn't come into politics to agree with the likes of Bob Carr and Paul Keating. But hard politics can make unlikely allies, and the fact that we agree on the need to end the reckless $368 billion-plus AUKUS submarine deal proves just how broad the feeling is in mainstream Australia against this. We should be building a safe, peaceful future for Australia and our region, and instead the Albanese Labor government is seeking to permanently handcuff us to the United States military's aggressive war-fighting plans. The Albanese government has now officially adopted a hand-me-down coalition war plan from Morrison and Dutton and jettisoned any pretence of a foreign policy based on peace and diplomacy. That is a national strategic surrender by Labor to the coalition. So is it any wonder they feel uncomfortable when the hard truths are also coming from their side, from the likes of Keating? (Time expired) 16:57 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to speak about the AUKUS submarine deal. This government is in way over its head with this deal. Not only is it spending hundreds of billions on submarines, instead of investing in our communities, but also it is leaving us, as a country, to deal with high-level radioactive waste which needs to be safely stored for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Nobody knows how to deal with radioactive waste for that amount of time or how to communicate with future generations in thousands of years to explain the dangerous inheritance they will have received—from you. These nuclear submarines are putting our waters, countries and communities at risk. First Nations people in this country have passed down knowledge for thousands of years that this is poison. Uranium needs to stay in the ground, as it creates sickness and death. We should not go anywhere near these nuclear submarines. (Time expired) 16:58 Senator RE 250216 Western Australia YNOLDS () (): It is true today, as it has always been, that there is no democracy for any of us without both peace and prosperity, and the maintenance of both peace and prosperity is not a task for one country alone. Our nation's security and our prosperity, and also our peace, have always relied on supporting others in their time of need, and also on other nations supporting us in our times of need and in times of war. For over 100 years—122 years, in fact—there has been a debate that has raged in this nation about our nation's strategic policy, from our reliance on imperial forces through to our reliance on the United States, in particular, and other allies. The debate then shifted between what's called continental defence—the defence of Australia—which was a predominant strategic objective here in Australia under Labor and after the Vietnam War, and the internationalist approach, with its expeditionary and collaborative defence, which we have inevitably moved back to because we all realise that no one nation has ever done it alone and no one nation can do it alone. I'm very proud of the AUKUS agreement that was struck and also the first project, the nuclear submarine project, because, as defence minister, I initiated that with Scott Morrison, including the possibility of moving to nuclear powered submarines in collaboration with the Americans and with the British. I'm delighted to see that that has now come to fruition on a bipartisan basis. As Senator Fawcett said, AUKUS is so much more than nuclear submarines. AUKUS is all about us working together, combining our industrial military bases through the NTIB arrangements and through better ITAR arrangements, so that we can work together with those who are our friends and allies and those who we trust and can operate with. The AUKUS agreement is with the United States and United Kingdom, but, when we were in government—and it's still the case under the new government—there were many other nations that we were talking to in terms of new arrangements. It is a stark fact that the world that we knew post World War II has gone. There are nations now who do not adhere in any way to rules based order under the economic and security constructs that were set up after World War II, and that necessitates a new way of working with our allies. It also requires this new government to clarify, when they put out the Defence strategic review, that they fully understand the implications of AUKUS and also this new submarines deal, because the minister's talked about porcupine defence, which is continental defence that's now associated with Taiwan, and that's a very different circumstance to what we face here in terms of the defence of Australia. The submarines can be used for the defence of Australia in terms of our sea lanes, but they are so much more than that, and AUKUS is so much more than that. Labor is clearly divided on the way forward on this, with Paul Keating's comments last week. He is clearly still a proponent of the defence of Australia strategy, and I'm sure that still has resonance in the government benches. But make no mistake: by committing to AUKUS and by committing to the new submarines, this government has, I think very wisely, committed itself to an expeditionary form of defence of Australia, to an internationalist approach and to a collaborative approach, which, clearly, Paul Keating and others are not yet agreeable to. In the Defence strategic review, it is critically important that this government confirm the strategic underpinnings, because, if they are not committed to this and to the methods that are now needed domestically to deliver this, then it will spell disaster for our nation. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [17:08]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Van)

 40 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Dodson, P. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 DOCUMENTS 66 DOCUMENTS Consideration 66 DELEGATION REPORTS 66 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the European Union and France 66 17:12 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia by leave—I table and present the report of the Australian Parliamentary delegation to the European Union and France, which took place from 5 to 9 December 2022. DOCUMENTS 66 DOCUMENTS Returns to Order 66 Order for the Production of Documents 66 BILLS 66 BILLS National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 66

National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023

First Reading 66 17:13 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania 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 66 17:14 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill, and 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— Today I am proud to introduce the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. The National Reconstruction Fund is a key election commitment of the Albanese Labor Government. Introducing this bill today is a significant step in rebuilding Australia's industrial capability. Another step in creating secure, well-paying jobs for Australians. Australia CAN be a country that makes things again. We SHOULD be a country that makes things again. We MUST be a country that makes things again. If we want to elevate our national economic, environmental and social well- being, build our strategic industry capability and drive economic growth, we need to partner with industry and researchers. The pandemic highlighted the importance of an agile, advanced manufacturing capability that can pivot to produce critical products—and meet our needs at the time we need it the most. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will oversee one of the largest investment funds in our country's history, with $15 billion to invest in independently assessed projects that will support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and economy. We can help build investor confidence and see the private sector -whether they be institutional investors, private equity or venture capitalists—work with us to turbo-charge Australian industry. Making sure Australia is a country that makes things, now and into the future. Australian industry wants to know that Government recognises their efforts, recognises their contribution. They want to know their government is not only vocal in its support but backing that support in a concrete way. Not just with a domestic focus, but helping them make the most of the opportunities that overseas markets present. They need access to capital to back well thought out, deliverable business plans. For too long we've seen good ideas leave our shores for lack of supportive capital. Our government wants this fund to help keep talent and businesses on our shores, growing this nation. Today we make clear our commitment to helping Australian industry rebuild, grow and evolve—to capture the strong opportunities for Australia to be a global leader in high-value manufacturing. The pressure is on every nation to support sectors that are vital to their economy and sovereign capability. The National Reconstruction Fund will do just that here in Australia. We should rank among the nations with complex economies, advanced manufacturing and thriving technology exports. The National Reconstruction Fund will build on our strengths and ensure long-term national resilience, supporting well-paid, sustainable jobs of the future. It will help Australian industry capture new, high-value market opportunities in the economy of tomorrow. Priority areas This Bill allows the Government to set priority areas for the Corporation to invest. The seven priority areas we've outlined will be further defined through public consultation, including of course with industry, to draw out market gaps and investment opportunities. Our national science agency the CSIRO played a critical role helping identify these priority areas—identifying the opportunities that offer the best chance for growth in jobs, including across advanced manufacturing, science and technology. The priority areas reflect current and emerging industry strengths. They will help uplift our capacity to respond to domestic challenges and global opportunities. These priority areas will build on, and transform, our strategic industry capabilities—including of course in manufacturing—and strengthen our ability to harness technologies to future proof our prosperity and national wellbeing. Government needs to be part of the investment in these frontier technologies sourcing them from overseas is not enough. We should be a maker, not a taker of technologies. And the ideas they sprang from. The seven priority areas are value-add in resources; value-add in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; transport; medical science; renewables and low emission technologies; defence capability; and enabling capabilities. Let me go through them one by one. We are going to invest in Value-add in resources: like high-purity alumina from red mud in bauxite processing or lithium processing for batteries. Our resources industry is a bedrock of our economic prosperity and critical minerals will be vital to reaching net zero emissions. Through the National Reconstruction Fund, we want to support the creation of additional value onshore as high-quality inputs for domestic manufacturing and higher-value exports. Value-add in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors: investments that help sectors like food processing, textiles, clothing and footwear manufacturing. Australian science and clever ag-tech firms are at the forefront of developing novel ways to provide food that is low impact and high in value—both for nutrition and potential export to our friends and neighbours in Asia. Transitioning to a net zero economy will deliver jobs and export income, while delivering sustainability to the precious environments upon which this value is built: our lands, forests and oceans. Transport: including value chains for cars, trains and shipbuilding. The Budget started the work on our commitment for a National Rail Manufacturing Plan. The NRF can assist in our vision to develop not just rail, but support manufacturers to ensure they are tapped into rapidly developing global supply chains in electric vehicles and shipbuilding. Medical science: such as medical devices, medicines and vaccines. We are already investing in our health industries. With the Victorian Government we have established a strategic partnership with Moderna to manufacture mRNA vaccines on our shores. Through this we will become one of the few countries in the world with end-to-end mRNA manufacturing capability. Australia has a proud medical manufacturing heritage which, with some notable exceptions, was largely frittered away. Time to change this. The NRF will be able to support investment in medical manufacturing, not just in vaccines, but for medical devices, helping to create more companies to share the success of manufacturers like Cochlear, which makes the bionic ear. Renewables and low-emission technologies: We led the world in solar technology only to see others seize the opportunity by scaling up manufacturing. Investing in solar and wind technologies and developing batteries to store renewable energy. The NRF can accelerate Australia becoming a renewables superpower. The other two priorities identified are in defence and enabling capabilities. Working with our international partners we can transform Australian know-how into globally recognised skills and manufacturing in defence industries. And we can build on our undeniable expertise in areas like quantum technologies, robotics and artificial intelligence. We will seek to partner with industry and State and Territory governments to identify investment opportunities within priority areas. An on-ramp, if you will, of turn-key opportunities for investment to make sure the NRF is well placed for success. Independent, transparent decision making by experts The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will be independent. An independent board, making independent investment decisions. Independent of political influence. There will be no commuter car parks built far away from train stations. No sports rorts and colour coded spreadsheets like the previous Government. The Australian taxpayer rightly expects their tax dollars to be treated respectfully, guided by the national interest not political interest. That's what they'll get with the NRF. The Board—appointed jointly by the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance—will be made up of industry and investment figures, experienced in job creation, finance, governance and business. The independent Board will be empowered to manage its investment portfolio. Decision-making will be based on the merits of a project, free from political influence. Giving industry the tools to innovate and adopt new technologies. The Bill provides the Corporation access to $15 billion over the next seven years for its investments. And we aim for returns from those investments to be reinvested in the Corporation, ensuring its sustainability in the long-term. The Bill gives the Corporation broad investment powers, allowing it to invest across business types and industries, using debt, guarantees and equity to ensure that its investments are suited to industry needs. It will allow for significant, large-scale investments, facilitating transformative projects that help industry innovate and adopt new and complex technologies. To ensure the projects benefit Australia, the Bill directs the Corporation to invest in projects that are solely or mainly Australian-based. Helping to keep industries onshore, opening up opportunities here, now and in the future. Australian ideas are powerful. When our continent can have heatwaves in one corner and floods in another, it takes an ability to think on our feet to not just survive here but innovate—something First Nations people have done for millennia. Great Australian ideas create great firms and great jobs. Our ideas are worth backing. We must inspire investment in our companies, in our industries, in our people. The introduction of this bill is another step in delivering an important election commitment which will propel Australia towards a strong, modern and diverse economy. The NRF is about growing our ability to make world-class products. It's about creating secure well-paid jobs. It's about building on our national strengths. It's about diversifying our industrial base. It's about developing our sovereign capability. It's about growing our regional economy. We want to work together—with all sides of politics—all parts of our community- to deliver high-value, high returns and high tech. An economy of high wages, high productivity and sustainable growth. We might not always agree in this place about the journey, but we very often agree on the destination. Today, that destination is a faith in Australia and its people and a strongly held belief that our industry is capable of so much more, with the support of Government, its Parliament and its people. Debate adjourned. Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 69

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 69 Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 69

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

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

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

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

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

Assent 69 Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 69

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 69 17:16 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria As I was saying earlier before I was interrupted, just as concerning is that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 also intends not to fund the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. I'm sure that, if the Labor Party could get away with it, the government would do nothing but fund their party operation and their party apparatchiks—for they follow that great line from Dale Carnegie: 'The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.' Advocating for official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns is a crucial step towards increasing trust and integrity in the referendum process. The implementation of official campaigns will simplify the regulatory environment and ensure the proper conduct of the referendum. The Australian Electoral Commission has provided evidence to parliamentary committees that the donation and disclosure regime remains the most complex part of the Electoral Act. Applying this regime in the referendum will require proper education and enforcement of the electoral laws for participants who are not regularly involved in elections. Having an official campaign structure is the best way for regulators to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of the electoral laws. An official campaign will provide a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence any audit processes for the donations or foreign interference, thereby ensuring the integrity of the referendum. This is especially important because in this referendum there will be a significant number of participants and organisations who will not be associated with political parties or who do not regularly participate in electoral events. Moreover, the AEC has expressed concerns that some individuals might fall under donations legislation and other electoral laws without even knowing it. The education of participants will be significant, given that these events happen so rarely and they aren't the usual political parties that they will be regulating. Even political parties struggle to get it right every time. Therefore, the implementation of an official campaign will provide a framework for education and support, ensuring that all participants have a clear understanding of their obligations and responsibilities. Official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will also enhance transparency and accountability of the referendum process. They will ensure that all participants have equal access to funding and resources, thereby levelling the playing field for both sides of the debate. This will ensure that, whatever the result of the referendum, all Australians respect it and accept it. We don't want the Australian people to feel like their side won or lost because of dodgy donations and misinformation. We want our referendum system to be like all of our other election systems: the gold standard that the rest of the world follows. It is also a concern that the threat that a foreign power may influence this referendum and, by extension, our country is worsened by this piece of legislation. The director-general of ASIO only two weeks ago told Australians that we are seeing the greatest level of foreign interference in Australia's history. In light of this, it is crucial to consider practical steps that can provide structure around the referendum process and help regulators and agencies manage the situation effectively. The issue of foreign interference is not unique to Australia, as evidenced by similar incidents in other countries, for example, Canadian intelligence agencies uncovered plots to interfere in their 2021 election to create a minority government, and state-sponsored hacking has reportedly targeted three major parties in Australia. As such, the need for a structured approach to the referendum becomes all the more important to mitigating the risk of foreign interference. The establishment of official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, along with the formal structure to regulate the process, can help provide a single point of coordination to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of electoral laws and help mitigate the risk of foreign interference. The arrogance of the Australian Labor Party is on full display here today. They show that they have no respect for democracy and no respect for the Australian people and their decision. They think, if a 'yes' vote for the referendum is such a forgone conclusion, why would they ever need to give any respect to the other side of the argument? Just like in 2019, when they were so sure of a win they were practically measuring the curtains, Labor's arrogance and pride will be their downfall. I was reminded of one of Paul Keating's quotes on Fightback!, before he entirely lost the plot. He said of John Hewson's policy: If you don't understand it, don't vote for it; if you do understand it, you'd never vote for it! So I say to those opposite: if you don't give the Australian people the chance to understand the Voice and the referendum that they are voting on then you are sorely mistaken if you think they are going to vote for it. 17:22 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia This government loves nothing more than signalling virtue about the importance of countering so-called disinformation—or is it misinformation? I get confused. The reason for this is that they view anything that contradicts the left-wing talking points such as the identity politics narrative or the need for the welfare state as disinformation—or is it misinformation? I'm still trying to find that out. Of the 44 referenda that have been put on the Australian Constitution during this country's history, only eight have succeeded. The last successful questions were put in 1977, relating to voters in territories being allowed to vote in referenda, age limits for judges and the question of casual senate vacancies. Labor has not proposed a successful referendum since 1946. It's the only time they succeeded in changing the Constitution. It's no wonder Labor now seeks to use every opportunity to change the rules to suit the style of telling the Australia people what to think and how to vote. This bill seeks at its heart to fundamentally remove safeguards in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act to ensure that referenda are conducted with informed voters and with integrity. Under this bill Labor will get to put their finger on the scales, and Australians will pay the ill-gotten price. The bill will determine the settings for how the referendum on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament is conducted, but the changes included in this bill will of course be used in future referenda as well. Now, it's true that this bill does make a number of what we would describe as non-controversial changes to the act to bring the operation of referenda into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. As currently drafted, though, there are three issues which really ought to ring alarm bells in every Australian. Firstly, the bill removes the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases for changing the Constitution. Secondly, the bill doesn't make provision for the official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations, and the bill also does not outline any official funding for these campaigns. All that aside, let's drill into what this is really about. This is really about the government's obsession with race based politics. It's really about saving the government's failing Voice to Parliament by removing your right to be fairly informed about the true motivation for and the practical outcomes of the proposed race-based division that the Voice represents. Far from being something that would actually help Indigenous Australians, if it is even designed to do that, the Voice is nothing more than a Trojan horse for creating yet another left-wing bureaucracy that, once established, will not be able to be disbanded without another referendum. We know that the point of these amendments is to facilitate that referendum on the Voice. The point of the Voice is to have it entrenched in the Constitution. It's really an underhanded tactic from Labor. It serves only the welfare state's interests and promotes more division in our culture at a time when we simply do not need it. There's absolutely no reason why the so-called Voice to Parliament requires a referendum at all. If the intention behind the Voice is to help Indigenous people and alleviate the very real suffering that many of them face, this could be done without an advisory body and it could be done tomorrow for things like the cashless welfare card that was abolished earlier in the year. As I said, the real agenda here is to brick a left-wing bureaucracy into the Constitution. It's just more jobs for their lefty mates, and pretending to speak on behalf of Indigenous people is just not the point. Only, this time, this particular body would never be able to be disbanded without a referendum. The swamp won't be able to be drained. That's another way of putting it. We will not be able to drain the swamp without another referendum, and the Australian people are being led down that path. Does the Albanese government already have in mind the changes that it would make, or are Australians going to get what they're being told they will be voting for? The only way to find out will be to see the manoeuvres that this Albanese Labor government pulls after the referendum. I prefer not to take that risk, given how difficult it would be to undo if it happens. But, simply put, Labor is hoping that Australians just don't ask too many questions about the Voice. Instead, Labor is relying on being able to call you names if you start asking questions—names like 'borderline racist' if you dare to question it—even if your concern is for the wellbeing of Indigenous people, and I would suggest almost everybody on this side of the chamber holds that concern. The bill seeks to pay lip-service to democracy and transparency in the referendum process while removing and meddling in the safeguard processes that are actually designed to keep referenda clear and honest so that Australians know the facts and can then make up their own minds. In fact, Labor's own explanatory memorandum describes it as a bill 'to ensure a consistent voter experience across elections and referendums'. But we know what this is about. It's about greasing the wheels for a major strike on our democracy by way of this Voice to Parliament. And, if the bill passes in its current form, the operation of section 11 of the act will be suspended for the purposes of the vote, meaning there will be no requirement for government to distribute information to electors that sets out both the case for and the case against the Voice. These pamphlets, as they're known, are vital to ensure that Australians understand what they're voting for and understand the long-term consequences of making such a radical change to our Constitution, our founding document which underpins the entire system of government and our way of life. These important safeguards of our constitutional amendment process have only been departed from three times since the requirement was introduced in 1912—firstly, in 1919, when there was insufficient time to produce them; in 1926, when there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument; and then, in 1928, when there was overwhelming agreement between the parties and the government. None of those circumstances apply today. So one must ask: why is Labor pushing to avoid these important checks and balances? It's because they know they can't defend their own position under proper scrutiny. They don't want you to know the detail and they don't want you to hear the arguments against the Voice. The notion that dividing Australians by race in our bureaucracies and asserting that only people of Indigenous descent have a valid opinion about matters pertaining to Indigenous people is absurd. Such a notion is hostile to the reason and the words of civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King, who, as we all know, famously said that he hoped for a world in which his grandchildren would not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. Talk about missing the point. Labor are actively trying to hide this from the Australian people. They don't want you to question it. They don't want you to know that, when it comes to the very real and serious issues that Indigenous people face—such as incarceration rates, lower life expectancy, alcoholism, drug addiction, unemployment, homelessness, suicide and so on—the Voice to Parliament will not have a positive impact on those issues. They don't want you asking what new departments will be established, what welfare policies will be enacted or what advertising or welfare campaigns will be undertaken that haven't already been tried. They don't want you to know that the welfare-state approach to these issues simply isn't working. They don't want you to query why the government isn't taking consistent, practical action on tackling these problems rather than engaging in more semantic rhetoric. The Voice is a Trojan horse for a bureaucracy that we won't be able to curb or disband, even though its powers and functions are subject to change. Either way, it's more jobs and more taxpayers' money for the unelected. They just want you to think that you are borderline racist if you oppose them. All that is happening here is that the government is making an advisory body for itself and claiming it will serve Indigenous interests. It's a very convenient way of appearing to do something to help Indigenous suffering while actually not achieving that goal. The Voice members are only going to echo the same old left-wing talking points designed to trash Australia's heritage and divide us. So it's my position that this chamber should oppose the bill. I ask you to do the same. 17:30 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I, too, rise today to contribute to the debate on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. Constitutional change, no matter how minuscule, must be carefully considered but must also be based on extensive research and consultation. The coalition worked hard to promote electoral change and update related legislation in a measured and balanced manner during its term. But we knew any reforms made would pave the way for future changes. Australia's Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act has not been used since 1999 and, as a result, has not kept pace with the successive changes we have made to the Electoral Act. As a member of the JSCEM committee at the time, I was involved in the inquiry into the 2019 federal election, and I am also familiar with the committee's 2013 and 2016 inquiries. Recommendations from these inquiries resulted in numerous changes to the Electoral Act, and this bill will extend those changes within a referendum context. Recent electoral reform included changes to the way elections are conducted during emergencies, which proved necessary for elections conducted at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes were also made to the electoral authorisations required for material produced by political parties and entities as well as on foreign interference through donations. These reforms were developed to retain public trust in our electoral process and strengthen electoral legislation. Now it is time to reform the referendum act and bring it into the 21st century. The changes proposed in this bill will modernise postal voting, vote sorting and counting in referendums by bringing the referendum act in line with the same processes and efficiencies around federal elections introduced by the former coalition government. The bill reforms proposed here will also increase transparency by updating authorisation requirements and amending financial disclosure and foreign donation restriction frameworks. Additionally, contingency measures have been incorporated to modify some aspects of referenda that are held during a declared emergency. However, when the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters held the inquiry into this bill it was rushed to completion over Christmas and the new year. The short time frame of just weeks made it difficult for members and stakeholders to scrutinise witnesses and the proposed legislation. In its submission to the committee inquiry, national representative organisation Blind Citizens Australia said this bill was introduced without consulting those within the blind and vision impaired community. Further, their submission noted only two weeks were allowed for consultation on this legislation. The organisation said: We believe this failure to consult risks disenfranchising our community and excludes our voices from the electoral process, during a potentially once-in-a-generation vote of nation shaping consequence. On top of the concern about the short consultation period, Blind Citizens Australia pointed out the lack of technology assisted voting options outlined within the bill, like human assisted telephone voting, which has been available for voting in federal elections for the past decade. Additionally, there is no provision for voters who are blind or vision impaired to request a postal ballot in a braille or large-print format. Legislation like we are discussing now presents an opportunity for us as policymakers to create laws that meet the voting needs of all Australians. We must not rush such important change. We should be conducting a proper consultation process to ensure all voices are heard. The coalition has raised three major points with the Labor government about this bill, which we believe will address our concerns on the proposed referendum process. These points are simple but important. We ask the government to: provide an information pamphlet that outlines the cases for 'yes' and 'no'; establish official 'yes 'and 'no' campaign organisations; and appropriately and equally fund those organisations. These three measures are fundamental to a referendum where the electorate is informed, and they will contribute to a process that has integrity. Those of us who have participated in referenda before will remember it was these points that formed the basis on which they operated, and it is this process we understand. Section 11 of the current referendum act requires an official pamphlet containing arguments for and against the referendum proposal be prepared and distributed to households by the Electoral Commission at least 14 days before the voting day. This requirement was first introduced in 1912, more than 100 years ago. As you have heard from earlier speakers, there have only been three occasions since 1912 where a referendum was held with no information pamphlet issued. They were in 1919, 1926 and 1928. From this, we can conclude Australians have received information pamphlets at all referenda held since 1928. Such a document is even mentioned in the AEC's fact sheet explaining the referendum process, stating: The Australian Electoral Commission prints and distributes an information leaflet to voters outlining the proposed alterations and the 'yes' and 'no' cases Referendum pamphlets are consistent with the Australians' expectations. Why would we not proceed on the same basis with this and future referendums? I welcome the recent announcement by the Labor government to restore the 'yes' and 'no' information pamphlet. Such a pamphlet will give all Australians an official source of information on the question being asked at the referendum and is an important step in countering misinformation. Indeed, Professor Anne Twomey, AO, who has worked as a solicitor, a parliamentary researcher and as secretary to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, told the committee inquiry that not allowing information pamphlets to be produced would create a vacuum for misinformation and a free-for-all on the internet, encouraging bizarre views out there to be given some level of legitimacy. These comments came from someone who has practised law, who has worked within our senate committee system and is as an expert in constitutional law. Arguably, she understands the legal and social implications of such decisions well. The coalition is also concerned about the government's decision not to create official 'yes' and 'no' campaign entities. Again, this has been standard practice during past referenda, so why change something we understand? Official campaign entities reduce the chance of proxy organisations claiming to be official bodies during the campaign, like we have already seen multiple times in public media coverage of this referendum. This situation calls the integrity of the referendum process into question, detracting from the debate about the actual issue. Additionally, official campaigns provide a starting point for the AEC in its coordination of education for those participating in the referendum campaign. The government's decision not to provide public funding for either the 'yes' or 'no' campaign risks creating a situation where there is a dependence on private funding from those with vested interests. Obviously, interested parties could dominate debate for their chosen campaign, colouring public discourse on the topic and compromising the quality and reliability of information shared. Drawing on Professor Twomey's expertise again, she explains: 'If voters are to be fully informed before they vote in either a referendum or an election, they need transparency about who is funding relevant campaigns. Providing that information well after the referendum is held is really shutting the stable door after the horse has already bolted.' We want Australian voters to be able to make informed decisions when they come to cast their vote. This is less possible with multiple disparate campaigns, rather than one official campaign for 'yes' and another for 'no'. It has been more than 20 years since Australia's last referendum. Given this circumstance, and that this will be the first referendum for a generation of voters, we support the government's a plan to run a community education campaign ahead of the vote. However, the coalition is mindful of the Institute of Public Affairs's analysis of the bill, which finds it is unbalanced and favours the 'yes' case—and that's before campaigning has even begun properly. The institute warns, 'The bill would mean the federal government will use the notion of misinformation to control the public debate,' which must not happen. This is not the hallmark of a democratic referendum. In their joint media release on 1 December 2022, four of our government ministers justified changes that would 'temporarily lift a funding restriction in the act, to enable funding of educational initiatives to counter misinformation'. But this is ambiguous. What constitutes misinformation on this issue? The government has not provided a definition in this context, which opens up debate around the need for both sides to have one official campaign and equal funding. Supporting an amendment to restore the referendum information pamphlet is one thing, but we cannot support a bill that doesn't have a plan for how to properly regulate donations and foreign interference or, most importantly, doesn't have an outline of how the conduct of the referendum will be scrutinised. As my colleague Senator McGrath said when speaking to the report of Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on this bill, it does contain sensible and constructive changes, but it is clear that the government has put forward other changes that are not in the interests of an informed and robust process for conducting a referendum. The coalition has been asking the Prime Minister and his government for basic detail on the Voice just so we can understand how this proposal works. We all want to see an improved situation for Indigenous Australians, but how do we actually know this proposal will do that when we don't have the detail? Don't take my word for it. Surveys repeatedly show that Australians want detail too. Week after week for months now we've heard reports of confusion around the upcoming referendum on the Voice. People are wondering what the Voice actually means and, more importantly, what the Voice will mean for them. Australians deserve basic detail to help them make an informed decision about such an important constitutional matter. Disinformation is rife right now, with scammers, pretending to be a child in trouble, preying on parents by asking for money, while others are taking advantage of the housing crisis to fleece people of hard-earned money with the promise of a rental property if they stump up a sizeable deposit. At a time when it's hard to know who we can trust, the government must provide the detail we are asking for ahead of a national referendum. We must have clear information on this issue for the referendum process to be a strong one. In relation to the proposed Voice, opposition leader Peter Dutton MP has directly asked the Prime Minister to advise Australians the answers to 15 questions. The answers to those questions must be forthcoming. More than $75 million was set aside in the 2022-23 budget to prepare for the delivery of a referendum to enshrine a First Nations Voice to Parliament in the Constitution over the next two years, but what has been done to give Australians the answers they seek about this referendum? The bill before us today relates to the legislative framework of this and future referenda. A number of amendments to this legislation have been proposed, showing the significant impact it will have in determining the outcome of future referenda and demonstrating the significance placed by all sides of the political divide on getting it right. I acknowledge that the government have already decided to restore the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases. At a minimum, they also should now agree to establish official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations and appropriately fund those official organisations. As the bill currently stands, I will not be supporting the measures contained in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. 17:43 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to make a contribution to debate on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. There are really two points I want to make, which I'll flag upfront. First is the importance of conducting the proposed changes to our Constitution via referendum in an utterly impartial, fair and transparent way that the Australian people can have confidence in. Second, which relates particularly to my shadow portfolio responsibilities, is the need to take appropriate steps to mitigate the very serious risk of foreign interference in the upcoming referendum. On the first point, there are few more consequential things that we will vote for in this parliament and that the public will be asked to consider than changes to our Constitution. Elections in this country are of course significant. The choice of who governs his country—the policies they will implement, the majority they may or may not have in the parliament—is enormously significant. But if the public feel they've got that choice wrong there's always an opportunity to revisit it 2½ or three years later. By and large, our country is well governed and has a strongly supported democracy, and the change of power between the parties is done peacefully, without acrimony, and life goes on. The consequences of getting an election wrong and electing a political party with a bad program can be quickly remedied. Changing the Constitution is much more fundamental than that, and this constitutional change proposed by the government is a very far-reaching potential change to the way in which we govern ourselves. The changes, if they're agreed to by the public, will have ramifications for years, if not decades and centuries to come. Long after we are all gone from this place, and long after it is forgotten what we did in terms of legislation we passed or policies we enacted, it's likely that this change to the Constitution, if agreed to, will remain in place and will have impacts on the way our country is governed that we here today can't yet anticipate. Given the gravity of that change, and given the almost zero likelihood that the public would change their mind on that and reverse it, it is more important than in any other decision the public is asked to make that they do so within a framework which is utterly impartial, transparent, agreed upon and freed from controversy. It would be my hope that, regardless of whatever each of our positions ultimately are on this substantive question put to the people, we are able to put to them a system for making that decision, a framework for making that decision, which we all agree with, which we all have confidence in and which we can all say, with sincerity, there are no issues with. As it currently stands, as proposed by the government, I don't think it passes that test. Certainly, for at least a significant proportion of this chamber, we will not be able to go hand on heart to the Australian people and say that, as it stands, the process for making this decision is impartial, fair and untainted by any perceptions of bias or of aid for one case or the other. It is a good thing that the government has made the concession that they have already, to restore the 'yes' or 'no' pamphlet, but it is a bit troubling that government speakers in this debate have framed this as a concession, like it is a magnanimous action which they didn't want to take but they're being forced to take through the negotiation process, when it should actually be viewed as putting forward the normal processes of a referendum and the normal policies that are in place to facilitate a referendum. There's nothing exceptional about continuing to provide a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' or 'no' cases. It was illustrative that so many disparate groups within the joint committee process inquiring into his bill recommended that this be restored after the government tried to remove it. But, as you've heard in this debate from other coalition speakers, we're not satisfied with this concession as it stands, and we do believe it is necessary to, at the very least—as has often been the case in referenda—restore official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns and also to fund those campaigns so that they can communicate with the public about their message and deliver a fair contest in this upcoming debate. History is instructive here. The last time that the Labor Party in government successfully proposed a change to our Constitution was in 1946. That was also the last time that the Liberal Party supported a Labor government attempt to change the Constitution. Since then, on every occasion that the Labor Party has proposed a change to the Constitution, it has failed, and the coalition in opposition has opposed it. If the Labor Party wants to guarantee that this referendum is like all of those—in that it fails—then putting forward a bill for a process that is not fair and not impartial is one way to guarantee that that also happens. History is also instructive when you think about the most recent previous attempt of the Labor Party to change the Constitution. It was in 2013 and it related to the recognition of local government in our Constitution. In that debate, the Labor Party, quite openly, in government, tried to put a thumb on the scales of that referendum to aid one side over the other. It's one thing for government ministers, members and senators to campaign in favour of a change to the Constitution—they're perfectly entitled to do so—but it's another thing entirely to set up a lopsided process that favours one side over the other. In the proposed local government referendum, which was abandoned because of a lack of bipartisan support and was never put to the people, the government proposed public funding in the 'yes' and 'no' cases of $10 million for the 'yes' case and $500,000 for the 'no' case. They thought that was justified, based on what they assessed to be the support in the community and in the parliament for that change, and they didn't want to give the 'no' case significant resources to push back and to contest that campaign. I think Australians saw that for what it was, and the parliament saw that for what it was, and it was one of the reasons why support for that referendum was withdrawn by the coalition and why it was never put to the people, because it would have failed. It's instructive to remember who the relevant minister was who made that decision, because, of course, the minister for local government at the time was a Mr Albanese. It was he who devised, and publicly defended and articulated, the rationale for an unfair, biased and lopsided public funding model in that referendum. I hope that the government which he now leads—of which he is now the Prime Minister—is not trying to do the same with this referendum through less-transparent means. Of course, we know that the government plans to spend public money on a public education campaign. I hope that it will be rigorously impartial and fair, and won't side with one case or the other. But forgive me for wanting to see it before I'm assured of that. Of course, the government has already awarded tax-deductible status to one side of the debate and not the other. I hope it's the case that the people associated with the 'no' campaign are given equal access to that tax deductibility when they're able to apply for it. I hope it's granted. But, even if it is granted, the 'yes' case has had the advantage of being able to raise tax-deductible funds over many months to facilitate their campaign. The 'no' case has not had that equal opportunity. So it does look to me like the government are again trying to put their thumb on the scale. I urge them to reconsider that, if their objective is for this to succeed and to occur without rancour or conjecture. I think there's a very high risk that if they continue to proceed with a lopsided and biased process that the public will react very strongly to that—as they should. I'll turn to the second question, which is the question of foreign interference. This upcoming referendum campaign, as we know—and as the Attorney-General himself has said—does run the risk of foreign interference. Foreign interference probably won't be generated in this campaign because a foreign government has a particular interest in one side or the other prevailing. Instead, there are foreign governments and potential adversaries of Australia who seek to profit from division within our society and who seek to exacerbate existing tensions within our society as a means of undermining social cohesion and our national unity, and of doing harm to our democratic institutions in the eyes of the public. We have seen attempts to do this all around the world, both through cyberenabled and other means in recent years. The most recent case study that we have is from Canada, where leaked documents from the Canadian intelligence agency set out pretty clearly what the Chinese Communist Party's objectives were in intervening in previous Canadian elections. What I thought was most interesting from those leaked documents was the assessment by the Canadian intelligence community that the outcome the Chinese government most preferred wasn't just the re-election of the Trudeau government but the re-election of the Trudeau government in minority. A comment was attributed to a Chinese government official as part of that intelligence assessment which said, 'We like it when parties are fighting between each other.' That's as if division, discord and disagreement are an objective in and of themselves for our potential adversaries. It's very important that we don't allow this referendum to become a vehicle for that, and there's a risk that it will become so unless we put in place appropriate measures to mitigate and guard against that threat. One of the three requests by the coalition to the government was, in particular, to re-establish and restore the official 'yes' and 'no' cases. That's very important in mitigating that threat. I've been in discussions with a number of tech companies, including the major global platforms. While protecting the confidence of those conversations, and without attributing this to any one company in particular, the point was made to me that one thing they would rely on in their task in contemplating this upcoming referendum and dealing with the misinformation that will no doubt arise and the disinformation that may be placed deliberately and maliciously by foreign states as an attempt to divide us—to combat that and to help inform the public—was to be able to point to official authoritative sources of information which are reliable and which represent the opinions of leaders of the community in conducting these campaigns. It would assist them greatly if there were an official 'yes' case and an official 'no' case which they could point to. that's because, in the absence of that, they are put in the difficult position of having to make those decisions and draw those distinctions themselves, drawing themselves into a domestic political debate in which they have no particular interest and which they don't want to get involved in, quite appropriately. If we don't provide an official 'yes' or 'no' case which they can direct Australians who are searching for information to when disinformation surfaces in our system then they won't have that authoritative source to rely on and they'll have to do that by other means. That involves them making compromising and values based judgements about the merits of arguments being made in a domestic political context. I think that the last thing any Australian should want is putting big tech companies headquartered in Silicon Valley in the position of deciding what the limits are of acceptable public debate in an Australian referendum, or what constitutes misinformation or disinformation, because those are inherently values based judgements. I think Australians will make the right decision, considering all the information presented to them, and we should facilitate their ability to do so by providing those official sources of information that they can rely on so they can easily weed out those sources of disinformation that might be provided to them. I really do sincerely hope the government reconsiders this, because, as it is, this is on a path to being very rancorous, hotly disputed and open to foreign state disinformation and interference. None of us, regardless of our view on the substantive issue, on which we differ and on which good people of sincere values come to different conclusions, will be proud at the end of the process if what we have facilitated is a debate which descends in this way and undermines social cohesion or our national unity. I urge the government to reconsider the pathway they are on and to consider the reasonable requests that the coalition has put. It is not an outrageous request to say that there should be 'yes' and 'no' cases and that they should be appropriately funded. I hope they consider doing so. 17:55 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I stand to talk on this matter as part of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. We had an inquiry on the bill over the January period. I think the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 does a lot right. There is some harmonisation of the electoral processes that is well and truly needed. Some of the amendments that have been foreshadowed probably go a step too far in trying to lead the electoral process; I think we should harmonise wherever we can. There are some great changes that I support coming up in amendments, but they are things I would like to see first in the Electoral Act before launching a referendum. The problem with going this late on the speaking list is that all the good things have already been said. I will have to do a bit of making up, but I like constitutional change. I like the option of it. I like the idea of a country being able to have referenda to change its document. I quote a couple of previous prime ministers. Sir Robert Menzies said, 'The Constitution is not an unchangeable tablet of stone but a living document responsive to changing conditions and needs.' Quite topical at the moment: 'The constitution is a reflection of our values and aspirations as a nation. It should be changed when those values and aspirations change.' That was Paul Keating, who is in and out of favour depending upon the day. I would like to see referendum machinery that is fit for all purposes, not just one that we're changing for this referendum—a referendum position to going through constitutional change where we aren't fearful of losing the referendum; we're joyous at being able to put the question to the Australian people and for them to have a say in an informed and considered way. Ultimately, that is where I have a problem with where this bill comes down in the end and is why there is the dissenting report of the coalition members in the inquiry. There is, as Senator Paterson put it, a thumb on the scale. It's not seen as a fair fight. It's seen that there is some advantage in starving resources from a constitutional question this time, and to me that doesn't work in longevity. We want people to walk into the light knowing what they're talking about, knowing what the consequences are. This isn't a blind date. You don't go in hoping it goes well and then getting unintended consequences. In Australia we've had not a lot of luck with constitutional reform, and we haven't had a lot of unintended consequences from that, but around the world I notice, of all places, Bolivia in 2009, when a new constitution came in. One of the things it did was to give a lot more rights to Indigenous people, who had been suppressed for some time. It ended up in violence and significant problems because it wasn't well considered. It wasn't gone through. It was put in as part of a whole new constitution. We Australians, as a nation—everyone here—need to take a more open and considered look at these changes. As I said, I wish there were more of them. I wish the government had no stigma against putting forward things in this parliament, them being considered and getting it wrong—'No, we don't want that.' I'd like to see some work on property rights. It would not be just Mabo or The Castlecoming through but real property rights. When we're talking taking productive lands, the right for transmission lines for electricity, e-zones over farmers' lands and not fairly compensating that, I'd like to see constitutional questions there. Maybe there could be something on debt levels. All these sorts of things that are open, where we could do more as a country—just put them up. Have them every now and then. Go through the process. I don't think this bill is fit for having a long-term lifespan as the way we hold referenda. I think it is a short-term beneficial thing in light of just one referenda: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. I don't want to get into the politics of that, because whether you support the change in the referendum shouldn't influence you; it should be the bill by itself. When you acknowledge that a lot of corporate Australia in their ESG plans and a lot of sporting bodies will come out on one side of this referendum question, to starve the other side of resources seems a little exploitative and opportunistic. That's not good, because we need to be safe with our changes. We can't have unexpected consequences. I had a real strange soliloquy. I was with my son when he went for his Ls on the weekend. You get 50 questions and you can get only two wrong. He sat through the whole thing. The last question was his second one wrong, so he failed on question 50. It seemed a little unfair, but then I thought, 'He's about to be on the road with other people and I want him to be safe.' If I ever got 48 out of 50 on a test, I would be pretty stoked, because I was never that smart. But he got that and he failed. It's the same with our Constitution. We want it to be safe and informed. We want to go through. One of the great sorrows I see in this process is that, without greater clarity on what the question is and without greater clarity on how it will be implemented—and we are taking away funding for something that will give people knowledge of what will happen—it isn't a safe process. It's a process set for an outcome, and that is not fair. As we go through we'll look at all of the issues one by one. I personally am in love with Senator David Pocock's exclusion amendment, as I'll probably have to spend this Saturday on a polling booth in Monaro for the state election. I'll come back on Monday sunburnt and either happy or unhappy. I love that amendment, but again it is too soon for that. As we went through the joint standing committee process—and it has been mentioned by others, but I'll repeat it—there was a turning point for me on the pamphlet. I was swayed by the use of new technology to disseminate information. I was really interested and thought, 'That's right.' The turning point for me was the Australian Electoral Commission saying that 40 per cent of their respondents use the electoral booklet as their primary source of information for the election. A normal part is being included—I thank you for that change to bring that back in because, even if it's not the majority and even if their numbers are fudged a bit, a significant number of people will feel better about that. When we come to how we go through the process and show up, concerns were raised by Senator Paterson, the previous speaker, about foreign interference. There is a specific purpose—and again I don't think it's to influence the outcome of this—to cause division. We are at a time in this country when people are looking at the next year or two years, are looking at their finances, are looking at their lives and are looking at what's going on. We are consistently talking about potential conflict around the region and we have a war in Ukraine. People are worried about a lot of things, so it doesn't take a lot to trigger disunity, disharmony and exploitation—'Someone is getting what I haven't got.' If we were better funded and had better provisions to protect Australians from having a go at one another, that would be a great thing. All constitutional changes can be emotional. They change this country we've built over 100 years and the rules which we have. Some will be for the better and some are potentially for the worse—obviously they won't get up if they are for the worse. But we need more clarity and better vision. We need a better process so that people don't go, 'Oh, we didn't know,' because, as hard as it is to get constitutional change through a referendum, it is harder to get it undone. The medical view is 'do no harm'. We can talk about lots of things with that. My fear is that, by having this as the referendum model that now works and that starves one side of resources, it will become the norm. That would be a horrible thing for our country. What could potentially be worse is if it doesn't get up because it is seen to be weighted. What does that do to the conversation in our nation about bringing more things forward? What does it do for people who had their hearts and souls in this? I think it's a management process in any election. I managed campaigns. I ran them. When you can show that something is not fair and you can show that something is loaded against them, people get their heads up. In this building, we have spent years having a go at one another. Negative advertising, truth in advertising—we're talking about all these things at JSCEM. We invest so much money and time making the public doubt us, think less of us and feel worse about our public processes. This will feed directly into that narrative. Personally, I would love for there to be a time when, in the conversation about fact-finding, the South Australian model of truth in advertising were there when facts are wrong. But there are so many ways around it. If I want to make an accusation, 'Have you seen candidate A has got a criminal record?' I'll just get around that by asking a question, 'Do you know if candidate A has a criminal record?' I'll ask a question; I won't make it a fact. There are ways around it. We need to do better. We can't go complaining about the way this parliament, government and politicians act and why referendums are held if we keep being nongenuine and we keep doing things in our own interest. I think a great change would be one where any political advertising can only mention you, your candidates or your policies and you can't have a go at anyone else. It's clearly something that would make it a lot harder to place negative ads. That is something we have to think about when we're talking about some of the amendments, and I think Senator Pocock has got something on a factfinder's booklet. Whose facts and where are they? Facts are only when you say, '32 per cent of people,' or numbers or stats. They don't cover opinions or grey areas. We've got to do more work on it. Constitutional reforms are great. Again, I would encourage us to do more of them. It's a time for people to have a greater say on the long-term future of their country and on things that can't be done by political will. But I think this bill needs to be constructed in a way that is fit for purpose for the long term. This doesn't do it; therefore we can't support it. 18:06 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise to speak on the government's Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022—I was just checking the date, because it is now 2023! This bill will determine the settings for how the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to parliament is conducted, but it should be noted, and the coalition is of no doubt, that the changes included in this bill could be used for future referenda, so it is absolutely critical that we get this right. It is no small issue when a government calls for the people of this country to vote on a referendum on our Constitution, whatever that proposal may be. In due course, Australians will get the chance to have their vote and have their say on the proposal that the government puts forward for that referendum. Changing our nation's Constitution is always a very serious matter. That's why it's so important that the ground rules that govern each and every referendum are fair, are balanced and give Australians the best possible chance and opportunity to fully understand the proposition that is being put forward so that they can cast their votes accordingly. We, in this place, cannot set a precedent in relation to referenda that it is acceptable or normal for the government of the day to set ground rules that favour a preferred side. The principle that both the 'yes' and the 'no' sides are able to operate from a level playing field is vital in ensuring that Australians who have the duty and the privilege to decide on any changes to our Constitution can make an informed decision. If a position put to the Australian people deserves to receive enough support to successfully pass, then it should be able to achieve that support without getting an unfair leg-up from the government of the day. That's why it is so important, in setting the machinery of this referendum, that it proceeds in a way we can all agree is fair and we can all agree is reflective of the way that future referenda should be operated. This is not just about the referendum that we will have at the end of this year; it is also about the potential for future referenda later in this parliament. It is an obvious point to make that we don't know what those future questions may be that could be put to the Australian people regarding constitutional change. Many people who vote 'yes' in this referendum might find themselves voting 'no' in a future one and vice versa. It's in nobody's interest for a precedent to be established that either a 'yes' case or a 'no' case is advantaged or disadvantaged by the rules. That is why the opposition doesn't support this bill in its current form. While other speakers from the coalition have spoken to the issues that we have with this bill, I want to reiterate some of my concerns and some of those concerns more generally with this bill tonight. The opposition has highlighted the following three points for the government. It is our sincere hope that they will not only take note of our concerns but move to address them. The government must restore the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases. The government must establish official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations. And the government must appropriately fund those official organisations. Addressing these three key points is essential if the government hopes to hold a referendum in which voters are empowered to make informed decisions while upholding the integrity of the referendum process. To directly address point 1, the opposition welcomes the government's announcement that they will restore the pamphlet. It is particularly important that this is the case not just for this referendum but for future referenda. The same applies to the other points that the opposition has raised in relation to this bill. The establishment of official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns which both start with an equal minimum level of funding so that neither side is denied the opportunity to adequately put their case is another important standard for all of the referenda we hold in the future. We can't allow a precedent or have it be suggested from the starting point that there is only one legitimate side to an argument or one legitimate opinion to be expressed. That goes for referenda as well. Whichever way this referendum goes, it is a fact that there will be millions of Australians who vote yes and there will be millions of Australians who vote no. Advocates, activists and everyday Australians will debate, discuss and put their views on which way Australians should vote, and that is a good thing. That is a vital function of our democracy. We should be able to have these conversations openly. But the matter for consideration for this parliament with this bill is to set fair rules so that each side in the debate can put their case and then each Australian adult can meet their own decision and vote based on those cases that have been presented and their own consideration of the views that have been put forward. As the debate proceeds, we will see a huge number of different opinions and different cases put forward. As I said, this is a good thing. It is a vital function of our democracy that we live in a society where we are able to put these different views on the record and argue the points and make our case. But having official campaigns and an official pamphlet means that there is a clear reference point for all Australians to start informing themselves, doing their own research and forming their own opinion. I think sometimes being in this place and being as engaged in the political process as we all are it's easy for us to forget that not everybody is engaged in that way. We have compulsory voting in this country, so at some point there is an element of compulsion to make a decision. But we need to be cognisant of that lack of knowledge or lack of engagement and put information into the public sphere so that people who have not necessarily been as engaged on this particular issue for this referendum, or any issues for any referenda, are able to get that information and make up their own minds which way they should vote. You can't have a situation where it is easy to find the official case for one side but much harder to find the official case for the other side. On the internet, particularly social media, we know there will be many spurious arguments put out. That is why having an official pamphlet with official cases put forward by official campaigns for both sides is incredibly important. We need that pamphlet and those campaigns to have the basic resources to put the case to ensure that there is always an official source of information for each side that Australians can go back to and review and refresh their memory on exactly what is being proposed before it comes time for them to make their decision about the proposed referendum at the ballot box. It ensures that the centre of the debate is an official document that both campaigns feel puts their best arguments forward. That's because in the absence of having any sort of official campaign documentation, I can certainly see the situation where the centre of the campaign for this referendum, or for any referendum into the future, is played out on social media, whether that's Twitter, TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat or wherever you get your social media from. Yes, those are part of the environment we're operating in and part of our democracy, but we know from elections past that not everything that somebody says on social media is necessarily factual and that we do need to have those single sources of truth for both sides of the referendum debate. Like I said, we know that there are potential problems with misinformation and that there are potential issues with foreign interference, so I certainly encourage the government to consider and adopt the sensible points put forward by the coalition. Conducting a referendum on changing our Constitution is no small thing; it's a big decision for Australians to make. It's a decision that Australians of my age haven't had to make before because we weren't of age when the republic referendum was conducted. I can just remember that happening when I was nine years old, and so I think it's important to recognise that when the republic referendum occurred resources were provided to ensure that Australians could make an educated choice about becoming a republic or not. A 'yes' case was presented and a 'no' case was presented, and that has been the case in referenda past. The referendum that we will approach towards the end of the year should be no different and, like I said in my initial remarks, we also have to keep in mind that any decision about the conduct of referenda that we make in this chamber today will impact on the conduct of any potential referenda in the future of this parliament. We owe it to ourselves and to the Australian people to provide the information they need to make an educated and informed decision on changing the Constitution whenever that might happen—but, certainly, within the life of this parliament. 18:16 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. One Nation will support this legislation, which effectively aligns referendum practice with election practice. This is not to be taken as support for the question to be put to the Australian people at the referendum on the Voice to parliament proposed by the Labor government. One Nation will be active campaigners for the 'no' vote. We cannot support a race based Voice to parliament. We will not support taking the Constitution backward more than 50 years. We will not support giving a minority of Australians more political power based solely on their race. We will not support opening the door to a separate, sovereign, independent black state being established in Australia. We will not support a proposal that, if successful, will expose Australia to a series of constitutional crises that will threaten the supremacy of parliament and make the country ungovernable. We will not support handing over the government of Australia to the unelected High Court. We will not support allowing activists and the Aboriginal industry to hold parliament and the executive government hostage. The Voice to parliament is racism at its very worst. It is effectively a perverse apartheid, and there's not a shred of evidence that it will address real Aboriginal disadvantage or close the gaps. In fact, there's every indication that it will only entrench the disadvantage experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote communities. This is because the same leaders of the Aboriginal industry, which have failed to close the gaps over the decades at the cost of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, are the ones eagerly anticipating high-paid, constitutionally protected jobs with the Voice. These frauds, who have no experience of the real disadvantage in remote communities, will only keep it going because they have a vested personal interest in doing so. They saw what happened with the corrupt money train that was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Once the corruption, nepotism and dysfunction of ATSIC became obvious, parliament wisely abolished it, although it took about eight years after I warned the government to get rid of it. They don't want that to happen with the Voice, which is why they want to put it into the Constitution. Once it's in there, it will be very difficult to remove. It is no small thing to change the Constitution, and it's critical the Australian people are given all the information they need to make a wise decision. But Labor won't do that because it knows the details of its plan for the Voice won't be acceptable to the Australian people. Fortunately, the activists pushing the Voice are revealing their true intentions, because they are drunk with power and can't help themselves. First we were told by the Prime Minister that only parliament would decide the powers of the Voice. Since then, members of his own referendum working group have admitted they are looking forward to these powers being decided by the courts. The same working group can't even decide on the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment or the question to be put to Australians at the referendum. It's indicative of the wider division within Aboriginal Australia being caused by this proposal to forever separate our nation by race. While the Prime Minister claims there will be no public funding for the 'yes' case or the 'no' case, we know he's stacking the odds in favour of the Voice with bucketloads of taxpayer money. Only donations to the 'yes' campaign have received tax-deductible status. More than $30 million has been budgeted to establish local and regional versions of the Voice, and we're yet to see exactly how much this referendum—let alone the Voice itself—will cost taxpayers. This is why I foreshadowed that I will move the second reading amendment circulated on sheet 1857. We will note that referendums held separately from federal elections cost the Australian people more than holding them in conjunction with elections, and we will call on the government to hold the coming referendum at the next election. I remind this government that it must at all times, always, look for sensible ways to save money. This amendment requires the government to do precisely that, yet there was an indication today that Australian taxpayers may have to pull back on what they can claim in their tax in order to save the government money. To those hard-working Australians: you're going to have to miss out on getting some tax deductions back while the government spend very loosely with the money. It's also why we must have a comprehensive audit of all the taxpayer funds thrown at Aboriginal land councils and corporations and why they've have failed Aboriginal communities. This is not the first time I have raised this. I have been raising it for years and years, and we know for a fact that about $33 billion of taxpayers' funds goes into the Aboriginal industry, and that, on average, about $44,000 is paid to every Aboriginal, whereas only $22,000 or thereabouts is allocated for every other Australian. You see, it's not about money; there has been money. It's about keeping these people in poverty and the conditions that they are in—in remote communities, mainly. For the majority of people who claim to be Aboriginal, there is no real definition. Anyone can jump on the bandwagon from one census to the next and increase it to 24 per cent. They believe there's about 850,000 claiming to be Aboriginal at this stage; that's an increase of 24 per cent since the last census, yet the increase in the Australian population was only eight per cent. Does anyone question that? Are you interested? Is it easier to jump up and down and say, 'I'm claiming Aboriginal status,' with no true definition of it? No wonder a lot of the Aboriginals themselves are fed up with the whole system. They see people abusing it and claiming Aboriginality when they are not Aboriginal, because of the benefits paid out by the government, and that's quite obvious, with $33 billion a year for approximately 850,000 people who claim Aboriginality. And it's based on race, not on means-testing. We have age pensioners who have to pass the means test. We have people on the NDIS who have to pass a test. We have disability pensioners who have to pass a means test. But we don't do this for this race based voice that we want to introduce in this parliament. I want to talk about this referendum. I have stated I'll be moving an amendment to it. The referendum should be held at election time, again saving about a hundred million dollars. We're talking about wanting to buy submarines that are going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and how we're going to pay for it. Well, let's get rid of the tax cuts to those hardworking Australians—the ones who are truly struggling. That's the way to pay for this. It's not about reining in government spending and the money that's been wasted through NDIS government programs and also a hundred million dollars for Aboriginal communities to deal with climate change of all things. Let's throw out another hundred million dollars for a referendum when we can have it at the next election. No, it suits you to have it at a time you know you've got more chance of getting it up. You don't care about saving the taxpayers' dollars, but you'll be looking to pull back their tax relief. I don't know if you really understand how hard people are doing it out there, how many people are going to lose their homes, how many people are suffering. People can't even go to the doctor anymore; they can't afford it. They can't even afford their prescriptions. They cut back on their food; they can't afford it. If referendums are held during an election, there will be savings to the Australian taxpayers. That's what we're here for: to ensure that the taxpayers' money is accounted for. But there's no accountability in this place for bad decisions, for anything, for ministers who are useless in the positions that they hold and the portfolios they deal with. They have no idea, no understanding. No-one's held accountable. You pass laws in this place all the time where you are ensuring that directors of companies and everyone else are held accountable with jail terms and heavy fines, yet you don't do it for yourselves. You can make decisions in this place, but no-one's held accountable. There's another thing I will be moving. It's a citizens initiated referenda, and it's been a policy of mine and One Nation since 1997. This is about true democracy. It's about giving power back to the people to have a say on something. If it's that important to them, they will make the effort to sign a petition. Two per cent of electors must sign a petition. That is then overseen by the Australian Electoral Commission, and 50 per cent—it has to be investigated—have to be eligible to sign that petition, so we can't have people from overseas or people in the country who are using false names just to sign the petition. It's overseen to make sure that we do have eligible people who are actually signing the petition. That petition then comes to the parliament, and it's up to the parliament then to decide whether they accept that petition and do something about it. If not, it automatically goes to the next election as a referendum. You are giving the people the opportunity. If they want to insert or remove anything in their Constitution, they have a right to have a voice and put it to the parliament. There are a lot of things that the people want to say and want changed. It's not all about policy when it comes to elections—what we, the members of parliament or political parties, want to do. The people should have a right to have a voice. This will give them that opportunity if there is something really concerning them. Isn't that what democracy is about? Isn't that what this chamber is about—representing the people of this nation? When I put up that second reading amendment, I hope that you will consider it wisely and give some power back to the people. We would not be the first ones to have it. New Zealand and other countries around the world have this referendum. It's called the citizens initiated referenda. If you're truly interested, go and read up on it. If you do vote for it, it will show me and the people of Australia that you really care about giving them a voice that they don't have. I note and commend the notice of the motion to this effect proposed by senators, who can be assured it will receive enthusiastic support from One Nation. 18:29 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. Before I go to the details of the bill, I think it's important just to reflect for a minute on what it is this bill pertains to. It pertains to changing Australia's Constitution. That is not something that we should do lightly, because of the role of the Constitution in making Australia one of the most stable, prosperous, multicultural—and united—democratic nations in the world. It is a huge achievement, and the Constitution plays a large part in that. So any proposal to change it should make sure that we have good governance, with processes that do due diligence and inform people appropriately. In fact, the Australian Constitution Centre highlights, as part of their campaign to educate people about the Constitution, the six principles that the Constitution has underpinning it. It says that the six foundation principles are 'democracy, the rule of law, the separation of powers, federalism, nationhood and rights balanced by responsibilities'. They go on to say: The daily processes within the institutions of government should always be in the public interest. The principles interact with each other providing checks and balances. They protect things we value as a community such as a fair go, religious tolerance and the freedom of political communication. If we can better understand the principles, then we are better equipped to know, and to get involved with what is happening around us. And they ask: What powers does a Government Minister have and who keeps him or her within those powers? How are issues solved between State and Federal Governments? What are your rights and who defends them? What are your responsibilities as citizens of Australia? And they make two last points: 'How do we develop as a nation? And what is a parliamentary representative democracy?' So these are the key principles and their purposes, as outlined by the Australian Constitution Centre. I think it's important that we keep that in mind as we discuss this machinery bill, because what we're talking about is the integrity of a process that will change the document which is at the foundation of Australia's success as a modern, multicultural, plural, liberal democracy, where people with different views and backgrounds can come together and have respectful debates and work as a nation to drive prosperity and inclusion for all people. That's something we have done successfully as a nation to date. So to the machinery bill: like most bills in this place, it was referred to a committee. I'd like to read through some of the recommendations from the coalition members and senators in their dissenting report to the majority report, which was supporting the government position. Recommendation 1 from the coalition members and senators—this being a joint committee—supported recommendation 1 of the government's report, and, in particular, changes which seek to increase enrolment and participation, particularly of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including in remote communities. Many of the other changes proposed in this just align the referendum act with the Electoral Act and are sensible changes which the coalition does support. Recommendation 2 of the dissenting report, though, goes to clause 4 of the bill, which relates to the suspension of section 11 of the act. Now, there are three key things that the coalition believe we need to have, if, indeed, we are to have a population in Australia who are well informed and are confident that the information they have received is unbiased and factual, as opposed to many things that you see in social media which end up being opinions as opposed to a considered case. The first of those three things is to restore the pamphlet—which, since 1928, Australians have had at every referendum—and that pamphlet being a simple clarification of what the issue is, and the case for and against the issue. We welcome the government's undertaking to change their position and bring back the pamphlet, but we will obviously reserve our right to comment until we see what is actually delivered. Importantly, associated with that is the distribution of that information to people. It will take some funding to distribute it but also to ensure its integrity and that it has the trust of people. Rather than having a broad spectrum of voices speaking at the Australian public, there's a need to have an official 'yes' case and an official 'no' case, where people can go: 'Okay, this is where the various views for and against the referendum question are coalescing.' That will provide people across Australia with a degree of confidence that they're hearing the full range of views relevant to the cases for and against, as opposed to having to pick through the many different views in print, on television, on radio or on the internet, whether through social media, webpages or other places. It will also make sure there isn't undue influence—and we have seen that in recent years both here, amongst diaspora communities, and in nations where foreign interference has sought to change the outcome of the democratic process or cause dissension. The last part the coalition is looking for is around appropriate funding for those official organisations. Again, going back to precedent, former attorney-general Daryl Williams, in looking at the referendum around the Constitution in Australia, made it clear that the government would actually match funding between the 'yes' and 'no' cases so that there could be no accusation that there were additional funds put toward one side or the other. That was an important outcome. The Bills Digest, prepared by the Parliamentary Library, highlighted the $15 million, with half provided to each of the campaign committees to use to run their campaigns. That is an important precedent which has been in place and which we should follow. Going to the actual committee report and the evidence that was received on the provisions of the bill, it highlights in paragraph 120 that, under section 11, the act currently requires that that official pamphlet containing the arguments in favour of and against the referendum proposal, along with the proposed textual alterations and additions to the Constitution, be prepared and distributed to households by the Electoral Commission by post no later than 14 days before the vote. There was quite a bit of evidence provided to the committee about that and why it has been in place since 1912. It's because of concerns about misinformation and partisanship during previous referendums. By suspending section 11 of the referendum act the bill would remove the requirement for the official pamphlet to be produced and distributed for any referendum held before the next general election. Instead, parliamentarians would choose how and when to engage with their constituencies, along with any other groups who wish to have a voice to influence the Australian public. As I said, that broad range of voices to the Australian public has sometimes in the past led to confusion. Hence, the Electoral Commission held an inquiry highlighting the value that people place upon official information and how many people use the AEC's information in preference to that distributed by political parties and others as to how an election would run. The other part is that the official pamphlet also helps to set the tone. There's been a lot of concern raised about debates on sensitive topics in this nation. People have raised concerns that the tone is going to become negative and people will be attacked. To be honest, we saw that in the chamber today, where there was debate around a topic and accusations were made that people who had a different view were somehow racist or support things which are not true. Some of the evidence to the committee said that the official pamphlet helps to set the tone of the referendum by ensuring an open and fair exchange of ideas in which no side is demonised. In fact, the Australian Human Rights Commission submitted: While it may be appropriate to modernise both the form and distribution of the Yes/No pamphlet, it continues to be 'a valuable document which provides electors with the views of their elected representatives. The other part that I found interesting, in paragraph 1.32 of the committee's report, was that one of the witnesses was actually the Central Land Council. Here we are having a referendum because the government's keen to introduce a voice to parliament for Indigenous people, and here is the Central Land Council expressing concern that 'not providing a physical posted pamphlet in remote areas would leave some people, particularly older people and elders, without reliable access to information about the referendum, especially given the barriers to telecommunications access in some communities'. I think that, in seeking to implement the machinery provisions, surely we should actually be listening to people from remote communities who are calling for a particular outcome. We would encourage the government to follow through on their commitment to reintroduce the pamphlet but also the funding for those official 'yes' and 'no' cases. There was also evidence given to the committee, noted in paragraph 1.38 of the report, which I think is sound, in that the official pamphlet should also be distributed through other means. Yes, we can print it and send it, but that information can then be distributed in audio format and, for example, in Aboriginal languages or other languages for groups within Australia for whom English is a second language. Also, the Central Land Council suggested that the pamphlet could be displayed in public places, and there are clearly other forms, such as television, radio and the internet, where that could occur. So there are a number of reasons why we should have that pamphlet and the funding for the 'yes' and 'no' cases. In conclusion, if we go back to the six principles that the Australian Constitution Centre puts out as the very basis of Australia's success as a representative democracy, as a place that is building a nation, a country that has become the most successful multicultural, plural, liberal democracy in the world—the Constitution is a bedrock of that. We need to be certain that any changes to the Constitution are understood by the Australian people and that the people understand the arguments for and the arguments against. Then they can, in an informed way, legitimately make the parliament aware of their will, which can then be implemented. But we have a precedent in this nation of a form and a way. We've had some recommendations to improve it, through interpretation and translation and in the ways we can disseminate it, but the precedent shows that an important part is having an official 'yes' case, an official 'no' case—both equally funded—and the pamphlet which provides that information to the Australian people to express their will. 18:43 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales In reality, I don't think it's actually that unreasonable that members on this side of the chamber have asked for some more detail with regard to this referendum. All we've asked for is detail. We want detail about the very thing that we're voting on and what it'll look like so that we in this place can make informed decisions on behalf of our constituents, whom this will impact. I've already brushed past the weasel words of calling this thing an Indigenous voice to parliament, when we literally have Indigenous members of parliament from across the political spectrum, in this very chamber and in the lower house, fighting for Indigenous Australians. Implying somehow that Indigenous Australians within our electorates and patron seats don't get a voice, as if we represent all Australians, regardless of ethnicity, except Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, is an absurd and, honestly, a racist way of thinking. But, as I've said, we want to be reasonable and consider what the government's proposing. The problem is that there's nothing to consider—no real detail once again, no plan, no transparency from those opposite. We keep seeing this. It doesn't matter if it is refusing to have a look at the Mobile Black Spot Program today, the lack of modelling with regard to the safeguard mechanism, the gas cap being rushed through without a proper plan or the changes to super without considering the broader implications. They are just more broken promises. We have raised, though, three points with the government to address our concerns on the referendum process: restore the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases, establish official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations and appropriately fund those organisations. These measures are really fundamental to having a referendum with informed voters and a process with integrity. The coalition are generally standing here in good faith. We want to reasonably consider the proposal, but we need the government to actually come to the table. We can't support a bill that doesn't have a plan for how to properly regulate donations or foreign interference or that doesn't provide a plan for how the scrutiny of the referendum will be conducted. All of this could be resolved by the establishment of appropriately and equally funded official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations. Until we can have these concerns address, we will be opposing the bill. Surveys repeatedly show that Australians want detail, and the Prime Minister is repeatedly ducking under the table. The government must set out specific details, but I guess the bigger question is: does that detail even exist? As Mr Dutton has said, it's strange that the Prime Minister now says that the Calma-Langton view of having local and regional voices is potentially not part of his plan. We had one senior government minister—indeed, the envoy in this area—saying that there would be a seat at the national cabinet for the Voice. That was then backtracked by Minister Linda Burney and then ruled out by the Prime Minister. So which one is it? How can Australians understand what they're voting for or the government ask us to support it when the government doesn't even know what they're asking Australians to vote for? This is just confusing for everybody. There are 15 questions that Mr Dutton has asked the Prime Minister to address for Australians and their concerns. Who will be eligible to serve on the proposed body? That is probably something important that we need to know. What are the prerequisites for nominations? As Senator Hanson pointed out, we saw the failed ATSIC model years ago; are we just moving back to the same feeders that are looking for a permanent snout in the trough under the Voice? Will the government clarify the definition of 'Aboriginality' to determine who can serve on the body? How do we know? Does someone have to talk in and say, 'By the way, this is me,' or is some sort of proof required? And how will those numbers be elected, chosen or appointed? Will it be another mates-fest for those opposite to continue to appoint those and push their so-called agenda? How many people will be on the body? I think you might have to be able to answer that one. Pretty fundamentally: how much will it cost taxpayers annually? Concerningly to Australians, you can't even answer what its functions and powers are. Is it purely advisory or will it have decision-making capabilities? Who will oversee the body and ensure it's accountable? If needed, can the body be dissolved, like we had to do with ATSIC, and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances? How will the government ensure that the body includes those who still need to get a platform in Australian public life? How will it interact with the Closing the Gap process? We can come onto that and how it will actually impact Closing the Gap, because we know, ultimately, it won't. Will the government rule out using the Voice to negotiate any national treaty? Will the government commit to local and regional voices as recommended in the report and the co-design process led by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton? That is something that we now know they can't answer definitively. If not, how will it effectively address the real issues that impact people's lives on the ground in the community? Again, these are really reasonable questions. They're not gotcha questions. There's nothing malicious in their intent. They're just questions that the Australian electorate with like answered. It's information which really should be provided at a bare minimum when you're proposing a change that could have lasting and far-reaching consequences for all Australians, not just for Indigenous Australians. The fact that we actually have to keep asking if there will be a local or a regional voice already shows us that this proposal is nowhere near ready to go. It would be a totally futile—in fact, purely symbolic—and empty exercise to implement any kind of system without ensuring it actually works for all Indigenous Australians at the very least and not just for those who signed up to the Labor Party in their inner city hubs and who are going to push their own agendas forward, ignoring the plight of those in regional and rural communities. We know that they don't care about Alice Springs. If they were paying any attention today, they'd have noticed that one of the bakers out there has had his shop broken into over 40 times. But of course those opposite have absolutely no plan for what to do or any willingness to do anything to help the people of Alice Springs. That's because it doesn't quite fit with their woke virtue-signalling agenda. That's all, quite frankly, that Labor is capable of and it's their lifeblood: virtue-signalling to the high heavens just so they can make it look like they're doing something good without actually having to do any work. We on this side of the chamber are actually quite happy to do the work if you guys on the other side just really aren't up to it. My colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price has stood in his chamber, day in and day out, time and time again, championing the cause of and being the voice for the people of the Northern Territory—Indigenous and non-Indigenous. But, of course, she's the wrong type of Indigenous woman; she's the wrong type of Indigenous voice. She is a genuine regional voice for the forgotten Australians who are struggling right now in the Top End. These are the people who actually need a voice the most. We know that this Voice is not going to be their voice. So whose voice is it? The inner-city bureaucrats or only the Indigenous groups who vote red? How can the Prime Minister think that this parliament, Senate or the Australian people will simply send this through to the keeper so that he and his government can work the details out on the fly once they've worked out what they're actually trying to do? Either he has total contempt for this chamber and the people of Australia, or perhaps he already has a plan that he doesn't want to come clean on. That's kind of getting a bit of a ring about it in this place, isn't it? In that case, is he really working for the people of Australia or just for the people who check his name at the ballot box? This bill makes fundamental changes to how referenda are conducted in this country, removing the requirement for a pamphlet to be provided which outlines the cases for and against change. Why would a government that's so confident that this is something that people want—they're so confident that this is just going to sail through—be eager to hide the details? Why would less information be a good thing? How can this be the way forward? The coalition will support a bill that allows for a referendum with informed voters and a process that has integrity. Do you want me to spell it out for you? We need some integrity that's based on precedent. On principle alone we cannot support the precedent being set by the government, regardless of the referendum question it's being used to support. This would be the first time that there has been no pamphlet provided to voters since before Phar Lap won the Melbourne Cup. There have only been three referenda in our nation's history without an official pamphlet; the last one was in 1928. There was one in 1919, when there was insufficient time. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument and in 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between the parties and government. None of the circumstances for those referenda apply here, so we have to ask why the government wants to unwind this longstanding precedent. We've heard from the AEC, a bipartisan organisation, that when they provide mailed material to voters during elections, up to 40 per cent of recipients will use documentation such as pamphlets as their main source of information for how they cast their vote. The government is just simply playing games and trying to find ways to play the edges of this referendum without explicitly saying so. It's trying to skew the argument one way over the other to appease its base and stakeholders, instead of taking a genuine approach in asking the Australian people about whether they think this has any merit or not. The act governs how a government must conduct a referendum and it's similar to the Commonwealth Electoral Act's role in governing the processes and procedures in conducting an election. The act also includes how a referendum's donations will be regulated and will operate; how the prepoll scrutiny and counting will operate; and how the newly introduced foreign interference regime will operate. The bill doesn't determine the question being put at the referendum on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. So why are we still playing games with this? Why are we messing with the mechanism behind the question, instead of dealing with the actual detail around the question? I say to those opposite: it's time to ever come clean to the Australian people about your agenda, or meaningfully engage with us and address our concerns. If this is something the Prime Minister truly feels strongly about, and if he believes that the majority of Australians feel the same, then I think he would provide reasonable detail. That is what we are asking for. 18:55 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I can't believe that in the year of 2023, in the month of March, I am standing up here tonight to have to speak about the integrity of our democracy. It is just beggar's belief. But, then again, that is the type of government that we have in power at the moment. It isn't interested in representing the rights of all individuals. No, what they want to do is divide the population by race, and they want to be sneaky about how they go about it. They're not going to conduct this referendum by normal rules. No, as usual they've got to hide and basically have no transparency and no accountability. This is the recurring theme of my time in government and Labor's time in government: with the bureaucrats, they never want to disclose anything. It is secret after secret after secret. What is this referendum all about? It is designed to give a class of people a voice that they already have. We have a voice in this country. It's called the ballot box. It is the fundamental bulwark of Western democracies. It has made many countries prosperous, based on the fact that every individual gets a say. What have we got over on the other side of the chamber? Are they interested in wanting to preserve the rights of every individual, the dignity and worth of every individual? Do they want to empower the individual? No, they do not. The other side of the chamber is interested in one thing and one thing only. That is command and control. They do that through three means. Number one, of course, is Marxism itself. That is where they to want to divide the world by race, by gender, by whatever you can think of. It is always us against them. Instead of just coming out and saying that there is only one race, the human race, and that we should all work together for the betterment of our children—no, that is not what the other side of the chamber are interested in. They are only interested in division, so that they can distract us with superfluous issues like the Voice at a time when we have much more pressing issues, like the cost of living. We have Australians who can't find houses—can't buy a house or rent a house. We have other Australians who are in mortgage stress because we have an out-of-control RBA that has no idea about monetary policy. We have got people still locked down who can't get work because of COVID mandates, and here we are wasting time on a Monday about a bill that is designed to undermine the very essence of democracy itself. We've already got a National Indigenous Australians Agency that has over $2 billion a year that is spent through it. It employs people that cost up to $300 million a year. So tell me this: what is it that this agency can't do that a change to the Constitution will? Why do those opposite actually want to change the Constitution? Heaven forbid that this ever gets into the hands of an activist High Court Judge. We well remember the impacts of the 1983 Franklin dam decision, where a High Court judge undermined the Constitution. I'm not talking about saving the environment; I'm talking about how the court ruled that foreign treaties could override powers of the state government. That was an attack on democracy itself. This is an administration issue. By all means, let's close the gap; let's provide essential services. I touched on it in my maiden speech. You hear me talk ad nauseam about improving essential services, building infrastructure—dams, power stations, roads, rail, ports, airports and telecommunications—especially for those people in the regions. That is what the role of government is. It is to build things and to serve people. It is not the role of government to regulate people to within an inch of their lives, and it is most certainly not role of government to try to divide people on any identity or every identity you can think of. That is what this referendum is all about, and that is why Labor is being so sneaky—very, very, very sneaky. If you look at the Constitution, you will see we already have a section—section 51(xxvi)—that says government has powers with respect to making laws on race. So, yet again, I ask the chamber and I ask those on the other side: why are we wasting millions of dollars on a referendum when we need to be focused on those things that matter? We need to be focused on providing essential services to all people, regardless of race. Let's focus on building hospitals, building schools and providing better water supply or better transport or whatever it takes to lift the standard of living in all regions of Australia. That is what we should be focused on. Instead, all day today, we have been winding ourselves up like the Tasmanian devil, in a spin over the rules of this referendum, which is basically dealing with something that shouldn't even come into it. I note the questioning of my colleague Senator Antic in estimates, where he asked what the definition of an Aboriginal was. Of course, he got the usual reply; somehow, in asking a very simple question, fundamental to this referendum, he was accused of being a racist. And that is what we're up against here. This side of the chamber wants to deal in facts. It wants to deal in the output of deliverables—real services that make a difference to people in their everyday lives. People don't go around the world looking at people through the lens of race. We're way past that. This is Australia. We're a proud multicultural nation, brought together by wrongdoings, whatever, in the past. We've all come from— Senator Pratt I0T Then then why won't you recognise Aboriginal culture and have a voice to parliament? Senator RENNICK 283596 I'll take that interjection, thanks, Senator Pratt. It's good to know that you don't think Australia's a multicultural country. But we have all come from persecutions. I've got Irish ancestry. The maternal side of my family came from the potato famine in 1851. My great, great, great grandfather—however many 'greats' I've got to say—was picked up on the streets of Dublin in 1826 and sent out here to build Paramatta Road. But, apart from paying out on my Pommy mates in the pub, do I go on about? No. The point is that a rising tide will lift all boats. The best thing that we should be striving for is prosperity and unity, not division and poverty, which is what identity politics will give us, because poverty will distract us from those things that really matter, like family, and respect for the dignity and worth of every individual, regardless of their background, their race, their gender or whatever, because it doesn't matter. It is none of our business as politicians. As politicians and as bureaucrats we need to get out of people's lives. People are sick and tired of the government telling them what to do and regulating them or, on the other hand, being fear merchants about things like COVID, climate change, the race division—fear and loathing. This stuff has to stop. This stuff has to stop, and we need to get on as one country, as one race, and work together to provide better services. We have an enormous number of bureaucrats involved in providing services to Aboriginals and their communities, so why can't they close the gap? That is the question to ask. What is it that we have to do to close the gap in regional Australia, in whatever community that may be, and across the entire nation? What we should be striving to do in this chamber when we make laws is to actually lift all the boats of all the people by providing services to the Australian people. I can tell you we won't be doing that this year while we're wasting time debating the intricacies of a referendum that is designed to permanently divide this country along the lines of race. It is abhorrent. It is completely abhorrent that, in the 21st century, this Labor government has sought to bring about a referendum to undo the work of the great 1966 referendum brought about by the Liberal Party. The Labor Party is trying to tear a wedge in this country, and it is completely wrong. They're playing games. I read today, for example, that the Australian Electoral Commission is now mandatorily signing up people to the electoral roll without even informing them. If that report in the Australian is true—it came up this afternoon—that is alarming. That has got red flags for electoral fraud. I'm not sure if that's a part of this bill, but you don't just go around signing up people; they have to sign themselves up. Let's face it; what government agency hasn't made a stuff-up when it comes to managing databases? It's signing people up without their consent, without their knowledge. There are shades of compulsory superannuation here, where Keating ripped out—it started off at two per cent, but it's gone to 12 per cent of people's wages. There was never a referendum there. There are shades of the COVID mandate, forcing an untested jab into people's arms. Now we're going to sign people up to the electoral roll without them even knowing it. This just smacks of control and division. Of course, this is what we have come to expect from those on the other side of the chamber, who aren't interested in peace and prosperity and unity. No, no, no. These people want to control you by fear and loathing and division. That's the modus operandi of the Australian Labor Party, backed by their mates in the Greens party—basically a watermelon party: Greens one day, Marxist the next, green/red. It's very, very scary. Let me tell you that this side of the chamber isn't going to allow our country to be divided by race, or fear and loathing. Senator Shoebridge 169119 You've had seven conspiracy theories in one speech. Senator RENNICK 283596 I'll take that interjection. Thank you very much, Senator Shoebridge. As you can see, they won't even tolerate a different type of opinion. For those of you who can't hear him on the audio, Senator Shoebridge is over there shouting at me. That is typical of the Greens. They always try and shut down a different opinion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Rennick, resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge, what is your point of order? Senator Shoebridge 169119 Surely it's contrary to the standing orders to have seven separate conspiracy theories in one speech, which is what Senator Rennick has had. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 That is not a point of order. Resume your seat. Senator RENNICK 283596 Of course, what we saw there was the same old modus operandi, in saying this is a conspiracy theory. That's what these people do. They attack you. They have to make personal attacks all the time. This is the Greens, and this is the element of wokeness. This is what the essence of wokeness is, which is that feelings matter more than facts. Let me tell you that the world and Western society originally—it's been the basis of our prosperity—was built on empirical science, not on feelings. It was built by empirical science underpinned by mathematics. That is what we should be focusing on as a government in delivering engineering projects that are going to improve the prosperity of this country. 19:11 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It's a delight to be able to make a contribution to the debate on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. As anyone who's watching, all seven people out there across Australia, can see, it is an issue that invokes a high degree of interest and much passion on the part of many of our colleagues across the spectrum of views that we have seen expressed throughout this debate. I think it is important, though, for us to remember that what we're debating here is slightly removed from, but not completely removed from, what the referendum will be about—the question and details of which we are yet to be provided. This is about establishing the mechanism to be able to ask the question, and I think it's important that we do try our very best to focus on that as much as we can, although, as we've heard from our last speaker and through many of the other contributions throughout this debate—and well made they have been, I say to Senator Rennick—it is an issue that brings out a passion in the debate in our democracy, which is a wonderful thing. I'm pleased to see the interactions we've been having here in the chamber. It's been a source of much entertainment for many of us, but it is a serious matter. Of course, here in Australia, in the lucky country, as we are often referred to—it being free and democratic—we have to have the ability to: make informed decisions based on all the information; make the right decision based on our circumstances and what we believe to be right or wrong; and impose our values framework over whatever decision we are making and reach a conclusion. That's essential for us to be able to get to the right outcome. Whoever they are, every single individual in this country has an equal right to make the case for what they believe in and cast a vote or make a decision in accordance with that will. Having a process that enables us to do that, which is underpinned by integrity, is also essential. If you have an absence of either of those characteristics—full information being provided or a process underpinned by integrity—then you're going to undermine everything that is good and wonderful about this democracy, which we take for granted in this country: both the processes related to democracy, including elections, referenda and plebiscites and the institutions that are built upon them as well, including our state and federal parliaments. It is important to highlight that I think we have taken these things for granted as a country, because, frankly, we've known nothing else in the years since our Federation. Yes, many of those who came before us have fought wars, and we've seen terrible things happen overseas in other jurisdictions, but here in Australia we have not had to face the terrible situations of dictatorship and loss of liberty in the way that we have seen in other countries. That is because we have a strong and functioning democracy. That's underpinned by one thing, and that is our Constitution. It's something that we need to guard, and we need to make sure that when changes are made they are made properly, for good reason and with full information and that they are underpinned by a process of integrity, as I said before. We want to make sure that we protect the processes around the alteration of this foundation document—the thing that so many people lost their lives fighting to protect because they believe in it—and the end product that is delivered. Australians expect us in this place—in the other place and here in the Australian Senate—to make decisions that are in accordance with protecting this foundation document, our democratic processes and our institutions. I think it's important to highlight, as a number of my colleagues have, a couple of concerns there are with the legislation. I don't want that to be conflated in any way with the suggestion that there is a desire to deny people the right to have their say on an important issue. Where people stand on the ultimate question that will be asked in the referendum is, as I said, not de-linked but separate to the debate we are having here. I don't want anyone to look at our expressing concerns here today and our wanting to make sure that the process that underpins the mechanics that will enable this referendum to take place has integrity—questioning those things and wanting to make sure that they are the best possible standard, the standard Australians are expecting us as a parliament to deliver—and say, 'They're trying to deny us the opportunity to have our say.' I'll come to those particular concerns and itemise those shortly and also refer to some of the points that were made in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that had a quick look at this legislation. This is not a trivial matter. In making changes to the Australian Constitution and to the process that leads to making those changes it is incredibly important to make sure how it is administered is fair, transparent and even-handed. The laws relating to communicating information, the organisations that communicate information are all there on an even playing field, and transparency—I think all of those things need to be front and centre as we move forward through this debate. As previous speakers who have participated in this debate have indicated, it is something that invokes a high level of passion and interest. It is something that I'm sure Australians—and there are not many tuned in tonight—will take a high degree of interest in over time. I turn to the issues that the coalition have indicated they would like to see addressed with regard to the progression of this bill. There are three key areas. The first one is the restoration of a pamphlet to outline clearly and directly the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns as we head toward a referendum. That is something that has been in place in every referendum, as far as I'm aware, since 1912—a good 91 years ago. The second is the establishment of official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations so that we know who we're dealing with and how to apply the rules and we make it easier for the AEC to administer the laws related to campaigning, disclosures et cetera. Of course, then there is ensuring that appropriate funding is available to each of the organisations that I've just mentioned—the official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations. Having that arrangement and establishment in place is essential. As I said before, one of the vital characteristics to ensuring we preserve democracy in the way that we thrive and depend upon is to have a process based on integrity and where voters are fully informed through the process we're setting up today through this legislation. I turn to the first of the issues though—the restoration of the pamphlet to outline both the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns. It is welcome that the government have indicated that they will re-establish the provision of the pamphlet to Australian households to outline what each campaign is arguing for or against. It is essential that people are fully informed. This is the first arm of the issues I talked about before. I might turn to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. I'll go to the remarks of some of my colleagues in the dissenting report by coalition members and senators. There are a number of recommendations contained within it, and it provides a good overview. In terms of the pamphlet, I think it is important to look at some of the comments of entities that were interested in and involved in this process, starting with—and I know others have referred to this—the Central Land Council, which: Noted that the failure to provide a physical, posted pamphlet in remote areas would almost certainly leave people (in particular older Australians and Elders) without reliable access to information regarding the referendum question, especially given the barriers to telecommunications in regional communities. That was based on a submission from the Central Land Council. We also had references to the same problem from Dr Shireen Morris, the Australian Monarchist League, Professor Anne Twomey and others in the submissions they provided to that committee. The Australian Electoral Commission said that its research: … shows that 40 per cent of people still rely on and use the guide posted to households as their primary source of information. These are the people who administer these processes where we seek to have Australians fully informed—the process to do that is by way of a pamphlet—and they are the ones who also administer the process of counting the votes with integrity. The IPA, the Institute of Public Affairs, also argued: … that the official pamphlet plays an integral role in setting the tone of a referendum debate and helps to ensure an "open and fair exchange of ideas in which no side is demonised". I think that is important. I think this idea of a free and frank exchange of views and ideas in this democratic country where pluralism is endorsed is a good thing. It is great that the government have said: 'You know what? The pamphlet is back on. That's going to go ahead.' Let's hope that that remains the case and that we do see, at the end of the day, a proper set-up where we will have a proper, fully informed debate by way of, at the very least, a pamphlet provided to Australians in the form that those entities—the Central Land Council, the AEC, the IPA and others who made submissions to that inquiry—have requested. Having some established 'yes' and 'no' campaigns properly recognised and properly organised is a very important part of any referendum. The history that has been gone through at quite some length throughout this debate has outlined how this has formed the basis of any successful referendum in the past. Indeed, any government willing to make sure that Australians are taken on the journey of change would ensure that these provisions are a part of what they take forward. As the dissenting report of the coalition members and senators said in paragraph 1.26: The absence of official campaign entities is of concern when considering the implementation and enforcement of modern electoral regulations on donations and foreign interference. It also says: The regulatory auditing process to administer these regulatory schemes would be assisted by having official campaigns to provide a starting point for enforcement and education by the AEC. If we don't have official organisations established, who is responsible and who does the AEC pursue in the event of breaches of electoral law? If we don't have these entities established, then how do we ensure that the process has integrity? There will be myriad entities out there entering into the fray and making their views known, and they may be, sadly, in breach of the law. How is the AEC going to have the resources to pursue all of this, and what do we do if there is the implication that the outcome has been tainted by the fact that there has been a huge increase in breaches of electoral law because of the number of entities out there—because we don't have recognised official entities—breaching well-established electoral laws, particularly as they relate to a referendum? The third issue that was raised in the dissenting report was around public funding of official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. Again, if we don't have that and we don't have some clarity around the provision of this funding, then there will be this increased and incredibly more likely dependence on private funding from vested interests, which will invariably dominate debate. The dissenting remarks in the committee report also made it very clear, at paragraph 1.33, that those sorts of vested interests and the information they may disseminate 'would undoubtedly compromise the quality and reliability of referendum information available to Australians, negatively affecting voters' ability to make informed decisions'. One of the key elements to a successful outcome here is the ability of Australians to make an informed decision, with all the facts on the table before them. So there are a range of issues that need to be addressed to make sure the very important decision we are about to ask Australians to make by way of a referendum, should this legislation pass, is made properly. We need to ensure that the elements I have outlined here, which other coalition members and senators have outlined and which the dissenting remarks in the report point to, underpin (1) the capacity of Australians to be informed as we make this incredibly important decision, and (2) the integrity of the process we have as a vehicle for making this decision. I hope the government heeds these calls and that we have a proper process before us. 19:26 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 is probably more critical than most people appreciate, because it is the bill that will determine whether or not the referendum we're about to have has integrity. I think Australians expect their referendums to happen in a way that is orthodox, predictable and not subject to the particular whims of the government of the day. I come to this discussion—and, indeed, will come to the next discussion, when we have the constitutional alteration bill—from two distinctive perspectives. The first is that of someone who was very much at the centre of the last transformative event that this parliament presided over, being the same-sex marriage act. I'm surprised that more people are not talking about some of the important lessons learned from that particular legislative success, and I'll come to that in a moment. The second, and less commonly known to senators, is that I was very much at the centre of the last constitutional referendum debate that this Senate had, in 2012-13—indeed, Senator Ciccone, I was. That debate concerned the matter of constitutional recognition of local government. Again—it's interesting how history turns—I was on this side of the parliament and was appointed by Senators Bushby, Bernardi, Madigan, Leyonhjelm, Day and McKenzie as the convenor of the parliamentary 'no' committee. Again, I'll come to that in a moment. When we get to the constitutional alteration bill there will be an opportunity for the Senate to debate the substantive issue of changing the Constitution, but I think it's very important to make this point: it's my modest view that the great bulk of Australians are now ready to have—are now very comfortable with having—a form of constitutional recognition for Indigenous people. That is my honest and informed view. What the parliament will be forced to debate this year is in what form that constitutional recognition will be undertaken and, perhaps, approved by the Australian electorate. So our country has travelled a tremendous distance, and I'm pleased to say that the coalition has played an important role in bringing forward different sorts of ideas about what constitutional recognition of Indigenous people should look like. I think that's a very important point: that we will debate in the near future a particular form of Indigenous recognition. But that, as I said, is a debate for other time. Let me turn back to the experience of the same-sex marriage debate. I applaud the Prime Minister for being the first Prime Minister to walk in the Sydney Mardi Gras. I'm surprised he did not learn better some of the lessons from the most recent same-sex marriage debate. That debate was greatly aided by the fact that a bill to legislate same-sex marriage was released three months before the first vote in the plebiscite. That gave people great confidence about what the bill would be when we came to debate it in the parliament if the plebiscite was successful. It's not my job to advise the government, but if I were a member of the government my strong advice to it would be this: you create confidence and you build trust when you allow Australians to see the type of bill that they, through their representatives, will be asked to endorse. It is not true that the parliament will decide the form of a legislated Voice. It's not true. That will be decided by the government, the Greens, Senator Pocock and perhaps Senator Lidia Thorpe. I don't know the extent to which Senator Smith will be invited to participate in that. I don't know the extent to which Senator Bragg will be invited to participate in that. It's a great error of judgement by the government and the Referendum Working Group not— Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Excuse me, Senator Pratt. I'm making a very serious and sensible contribution. I know you know that. So it's very, very strange. It's a great error of judgement by the government and the Referendum Working Group not to bring forward a draft legislative proposal. The second lesson from the same-sex marriage debate is this. The same-sex marriage bill was not the first marriage bill; it was the last, but it was number 22 of 23. I make that point because it was a work that allowed everyone to bring particular perspectives. Some people gave important ground in order that the parliament could come to a near-unanimous decision. Unfortunately, what we had here was the Labor Party in opposition adopting a form of recognition, making that its policy, and then suggesting that somehow it had virtues that extended beyond that. This is an election commitment in regard to a form of Indigenous recognition; it has no more virtue than that. And, as I said, we'll get to the merits of that when we talk about the constitutional alteration bill. Those are some important lessons, I think, from the same-sex marriage debate. When we last debated constitutional reform in this Senate chamber in 2022-23—and I see that Senator McKenzie has now joined me, and Senator McKenzie was very much involved in that—it's worth noting that the referendum mechanics bill passed the Senate; it passed the parliament. The constitutional alteration bill passed the parliament. The 'yes' and 'no' committees were created. Senator Smith—you can see it on Facebook if you wind right back—took down the official 'no' case to the Australian Electoral Commission. And others—I don't know who it was; it might have been Mrs Prentice, a Queensland member of the House of Representatives—took down the official 'yes' case. It was orthodox. There were official 'no' and 'yes' committees. There was a 'yes' case and a 'no' case. It instilled great confidence in people, and there was never a skerrick of doubt about the integrity of that referendum process—until the government decided it would allocate disproportionate funding between the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. Anyway, for those who are keen students of history, you might remember; I actually don't remember going to vote in that referendum. An honourable senator: No. What happened, Dean? Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 What happened? Leadership change: Prime Minister Gillard was forced out of office; it shifted to Prime Minister Rudd. The referendum was abandoned. That brings me to my other substantive point. I am genuinely confused why some people have chosen to trust Labor to deliver such an important referendum proposal. Putting the merits of Labor's particular proposal aside for a moment, people, I think, have been foolish to trust Labor on this referendum. Under Labor—after, it would say, a distinguished period of government since Federation and a very, very long history of political participation in our country—just one referendum proposal has been successful. That's just one, in 1946. Not even Gough Whitlam, not even Bob Hawke could bring referendum proposals forward in our country and have them endorsed. The great legends Bob Hawke, Gough Whitlam and Ben Chifley could not even deliver constitutional reform except on one occasion, in 1946. And what is the other salient fact about that referendum proposal, which supporters out there in the community should think very carefully about? It enjoyed just 54 per cent of support. Wow! If this referendum proposal is successful, I hope it's successful with a thumping majority. I do because I worry what it would mean if the referendum proposal is endorsed with a significantly lesser majority. This brings me to the next issue. As a keen student of constitutional reform—as I said, as someone who has participated in it—we and the government start with those opinion polls perilously low. The record shows with great clarity that support for constitutional referendum proposals in our country diminishes over time. They do not start with low support and get lots of support; they diminish over time. Why are those opinion polls—and opinion polls should be treated with a touch of scepticism—trusted? Again, it is not my job to provide advice to the government, but there has been much already in the government's actions around this referendum that has caused Australians to be suspicious, that has caused Australians to be concerned. The government was slow to endorse a 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet. How can that possibly be? The 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet is the single means that allows everyone to have the debate framed in a way that is respectful and that sticks to the issues, because it is framed by parliamentarians. No matter the intensity of our contest in chambers like this and the House of Representatives, more often than not, we each conduct ourselves in a way that is generous and gracious and thinks of the country's interests. I'm very confident that the 'no' committee and the 'yes' committee, when they come to write those pamphlets, will do so in an informed, concise and conscientious way. The government was slow to think that that was a suitable way to proceed. The government is confused. The working group is confused. What is it that is actually going to be in that constitutional alteration bill? What is the question that Australians are going to be asked to support? And there is the government out there, saying that somehow everyone else is slow to understand. No, people have been quick to be suspicious because Australians, whatever their political views, are cautious and conservative on constitutional change. That's not me making it up. The history proves that. And so we have two outstanding issues: 'yes' and 'no' committees and the issue of equal funding. The 'yes' and 'no' committees are very important. Again, I'm not speaking to the government; I'm speaking to the referendum working group. Take more care. Pay more attention. In your opposition to a 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet, in your opposition to 'yes' and 'no' committees, you might just be aiding and abetting the tarnishing of our proud democratic tradition by giving the government the wrong advice. I don't doubt that the advice is sincere. I do not. But it is wrong. There must be 'yes' and 'no' committees. It formalises the debate. It makes parliamentarians—and I hope that it would be chaired by parliamentarians—accountable. When we go to general elections every three years in this country, we don't hold our neighbours accountable. We hold our parliamentarians accountable. So 'yes' and 'no' committees that are comprised of parliamentarians and a pamphlet that is authored by parliamentarians allows Australians to hold parliamentarians accountable. It is unfair and it is wrong that other people might find themselves made accountable for a referendum that is unsuccessful or a referendum that is successful but doesn't enjoy a high enough level of confidence amongst Australians. Orthodoxy is the way to approach referendums in our country, and, even then, they cannot be guaranteed of success. Getting the mechanics right is very, very important. Paying attention to these things is very, very important. The referendum machinery issue is what voters will see first, and they will quickly come to a judgement about whether or not the referendum mechanism has integrity. I've got to say, the government has started shabbily. The Prime Minister goes to great pains to say that this is not his referendum proposal. When he says that, bells should ring, because if it's not his proposal then who is accountable? If it's not his proposal, whose proposal is it? If it's not his proposal, who is going to have to deal with the disappointment if it's unsuccessful? The Prime Minister must take more ownership, and, thus far, this is off to a very, very bad start. It is bad for our democracy and bad for supporters of this Indigenous recognition proposal. 19:41 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It's such a pleasure to follow my good friend and colleague Senator Dean Smith. Together, he and I have stood in this chamber, sat in this chamber and crossed the floor in this chamber against our own side on constitutional matters, and I know he is very principled when he makes his contribution on this issue. His is always an intelligent, thoughtful and considered position, and one of great experience. His concerns—and I share them—are ensuring that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 is not just some tick-a-box venture to get us to the referendum and to Albo's legacy project quicker, as it actually goes to the very heart of our democracy. Australians are a conservative people. Sorry: Prime Minister Albanese. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 One moment, Senator. We've got a point of order. Senator Ayres 16913 I think Senator McKenzie anticipated my point of order. It was that the Prime Minister should be referred to in the proper way, and she has just done that, so thank you. Senator McKENZIE 207825 No matter where you stand on the substantive issue that will be put to Australians sometime later this year, getting this bill right will actually affirm this chamber's beliefs in some principles that underpin our democracy. We're all democrats, I hope—with a small 'd', Senator Paterson. Hopefully, everybody who participates in the parliamentary and political process in our country believes in the sovereign will of the Australian people, because it is only by the exercise of that sovereign will of the Australian people that the diversity of the Senate chamber exists as it does. All the different political philosophies and ideologies that form this chamber are as a result of the reflection of the sovereign will of the Australian people. Changing our founding document, the Constitution of Australia, is a very serious business. It's not something to be taken lightly. It's not some frippery. It's not something to get all emotional and warm and fuzzy about and just tick the box. It is a serious venture. That is why Australian people have been very reluctant to change that very simple document that underpins how we run this place and the great institutions that have meant we've stayed free and open for the last 123 years. When we come to changing that document and to this bill before us, there are things like the 'yes' and 'no' committee and things like making sure Australians come to that question not with social media or their Instagram account informing them but with some serious understanding of the substantive question before them—both sides. The reality is most Australians aren't deeply engaged on this issue and the question in and of itself. And so the only decent thing, the only responsible thing, for us as legislators to do is make sure, if we really respect their sovereign will and are not rushing down a road to corral and coerce the Australian people into a certain view, that they go to that ballot box with a full understanding to exercise that sovereign will. The fact that the government has agreed, after much pressure, to have a pamphlet outlining both the 'yes' case and the 'no' case to every Australian means that, whether they live in capital cities like Brisbane or whether they live in Indigenous communities like Santa Teresa, they will have the 'yes' and the 'no' proposition before them and they will be able to confidently walk into that ballot box and exercise their sovereign will. What comes out of that will be as it should be, and we will all need to respect that decision. But the Labor Party, the government, put a bill before us that didn't have a 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet in it. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make this fair. It doesn't have equal funding for both sides of the campaign, so the rich and powerful—big sport, big business, multinationals and people that see that there is some political or economic advantage for them to support whatever the substantive question is later on down the track—will actually be able to pour millions of dollars into an economic outcome, and, instead of it being a reflection of the will of the Australian people, it will actually be a perverse outcome because it will have been garnered from those who seek to profit from promoting a certain view over another. We happen to be a very egalitarian society. That's why governments in the past have funded both the 'yes' and the 'no' cases equally for whatever question it is. It was so that Australians could have confidence that it was not a partisan issue and that the government really believed that they were sovereign under our Constitution. So that's been concerning. The fact is that the government haven't set up the official campaigns. They are happy for this to all be a bit loose and all a bit opaque because it suits them. With Australians starting to understand this question and starting to see that serious Indigenous academics themselves have competing views about what this body should look like and what the substantive question should be it's getting a bit rubbery and a bit concerning. The big legacy project for the Prime Minister is actually looking a little shaky. It looks a little like an albatross around his neck. That's concerning because those of us who have been around this space a little while are very, very committed to reconciliation and to closing the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in this country, but this is a separate question before us. The bill itself is about making it a fair and democratic process, and that is not what they have done here. They have tried to rig the results and they have been exposed for it. They have been exposed for trying to rig the results for the Australian people. So I am looking forward to the government's amendment that will actually include the pamphlet outlining clearly for the Australian people the 'yes' and 'no' cases. I'm making sure they recommit to that. I call on them in the name of fairness, democracy and egalitarianism to commit to official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns and equal funding. It's not too late to draft amendments to their own legislation. Lord knows it is changing at a rate of knots, and I'm sure it won't be the last thing to change in this debate. I saw some Labor senators mocking my stated commitment to reconciliation and closing the gap. I was actually the minister who negotiated the Barkly Regional Deal after the rape of a two-year-old in Tennant Creek. I actually sat down with the Gunner government and the Tennant Creek Regional Council to put forward a whole body of work—$78 million for infrastructure projects agreed between three levels of government to deal with what are systemic issues in that community. No-one can go up there, sit and talk to people in these communities and not be impacted by our roles and responsibilities in this place. Whether you sit on this side of the chamber, down in the back stalls, or have the privilege of government, this has to change. The saddest thing for me, as the minister who negotiated that, was when I sat down and actually talked to the people who were dealing with these issues, day in, day out, and hearing that, yes, you can build a new skate park, put some lighting up and some boarding facilities, but what we really need to do is to map the service provision by local government, private providers, the Territory government and the Commonwealth. That's mapping what each service provider is actually doing, find the gaps and filling them. There was a lot of duplication and a lot of gaps. I said, 'Okay, that sounds like a smart thing to do.' Out of the $78 million they said about $800,000 and that it was going to take a couple of years. When you go through the list of projects under the Barkly Regional Deal, the one thing that hasn't been done is the one thing that the people on the ground said would make a difference. That's an indictment on all of us who sat there and said that we would change this. So we can talk about symbolism over substance—and I'll have much more to say about that when we debate the substantive issue. As I said, changing the Constitution, our founding document in this country, is incredibly hard. We don't do it lightly, and to be so divided now would show that the Labor Party needs to appreciate that Australians want to have confidence in the process and the journey that they have taken us on. They don't, and it's decreasing every day because they've rushed this. They haven't gone to the heart of core principles around the mechanics for referenda. Be fair: people expect the Australian government to be fair, to give them the information they need and to fund both sides to make sure there's an official case, so that foreign interference doesn't play a role in this referendum. People want donations to be tracked so that we actually know who was funded for what, and by how much. Without an official campaign, we won't know who is paying who. Who is actually rigging the results here? All that leads to a lack of confidence, not just in the government's ability, or trust and faith in the sovereign will of the Australian people, but to a level of mistrust in the institutions of government itself: the Senate, the House of Representatives, the cabinet and the ministry. I think that all of us are better served if Australians trust us more to have their best interests at heart and also know that we trust them to make the right decision, whatever that may be. They're sovereign entities: give them the information and they will make their decision, whatever it is. We actually have a responsibility to back that. I think that, at a time when fake news is rampant around global society, for the government to remove those provisions for an impartial and trusted source of information for the consideration of the Australian people goes to the heart of it. So we welcome the pamphlet, and I look forward to voting for that amendment. But it must be without caveat. A deal is a deal, unless this is going to be another backflip by Prime Minister Albanese and his government. Those opposite stated publicly that they would do a pamphlet, and that was without caveat. I know that there's a whole range of amendments to this bill and that we'll work our way through this as a chamber over the coming days, but Labor has to walk the walk. It's tough to be in government; you can't say one thing one day and backflip the next. Unfortunately, over the last few months we've seen a few backflips. We've seen a few broken promises. But, on something as important as changing our founding document, you've got to square up, give Australians the information they need, fund both cases equally and have the official committees so that we know where the funding and donations are going and we can actually have more confidence out in the broader community. Then they can make their own minds up. I will reserve my right on the bill, to see what the final bill looks like after this chamber has its deliberations around amendments. We support Australians' right to vote. I support their sovereign will, and I will respect whatever that is, come the time. But I am absolutely committed to them being able to have information, so they can make an informed choice and so that we don't rig the results to make sure one side has more money flowing into it than the another. I support fairness and egalitarianism, because I am a small d democrat, and this is an important conversation that our community is going to have over the coming months. I want it to be fair. 19:56 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales As my colleague said, we all support the right of Australians to have a say on this very, very important issue. We absolutely believe in democracy and the right of our people to have a say on the most important document in our society, which is our Constitution. That is why it is so disappointing that the government are not supporting free, open, transparent and balanced democracy. We on this side have raised three very important points with the government, three points that are fundamental to having a referendum with informed voters, open and transparent processes and integrity. The first point was to ensure we have a pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases, as we have done in all but very few referenda in the past. The second point was to establish an official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisation. This is even more important in this day and age, where we have social media and where everyone can set up a tile. You can get a blue tick on certain platforms or be verified on other platforms. If you don't have an official campaign, how do those platforms know who to tick or not to tick? We have seen in the past some of our social media platforms selectively pick and choose who is right and who is wrong. Quite frankly, and with all due respect to Facebook—I am on Facebook and I use it on a daily basis—do I want Mark Zuckerberg determining who is the right person to distribute information on this campaign? No. I would like an organisation, for 'yes' or 'no', to be identified by this place and recognised by this place, so that it takes the Googles, the Amazons and the Facebook Metas out of the picture; it should be an organisation recognised by this place to put forward their case. But, apparently, it's a free-for-all. This government is happy for a free-for-all, is happy let Meta to decide whose voice we hear on this very important debate on the Voice. We also asked for appropriate funding, equal funding, for those organisations. I've heard the argument: why should taxpayers fund an either/or campaign? Absolutely. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 94 ADJOURNMENT Gifford, Ms Judith Ann (Judy), OAM 94 20:00 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise this evening mindful that the Gifford family are actually watching this tribute to their beautiful mum Judy, and I'm very pleased to be joined in the chamber by Senator Tim Ayres, who through family is related to the Gifford family and who, like me, was privileged to be at Judy's funeral on the Central Coast in the last weeks. I seek to take this opportunity in the federal parliament of Australia, in the house of the Senate, to pay tribute to the wonderful life and legacy of the beautiful Judy Gifford OAM of Green Point, in my old electorate of Robertson on the beautiful Central Coast. Judy was a dear friend, a remarkable and incredible achiever as a volunteer, a brilliant and engaging leader and organiser, and, very happily, a Labor true believer. Judith Ann Gifford was born to Bill and Lorraine Rogers at Gosford Hospital in 1942 and grew up in Point Frederick, during a very a different time, on the Central Coast. She grew up in a fibro house on the shores of beautiful Caroline Bay, from which her father would often take her out fishing for crabs and other treats from the water. Judy was a brilliant student as a child and developed a lifelong love of education, which manifested in her great achievement as a graduate from Gosford High School, where she achieved the status of dux of the college, and she did what all brilliant students at that time did, which was study to become a teacher. She eventually became a French and Latin teacher in rural New South Wales. It was there, down in the Riverina, that she met and married John, universally known as 'Giffo', a fellow teacher and cricket tragic, and a good of friend of Judy's cherished brother Derek. John and Judy went on to have three daughters—Alison, Bronwen and Helen—during their life together in Wagga Wagga. It was following the birth of her first daughter that Judy came upon was to become a livelong passion. That was the role of a breastfeeding advocate. After seeing an advertisement for nursing mothers, which was to become the Australian Breastfeeding Association, she joined and soon made herself indispensable, organising another nine branches in the Riverina and making a name for herself through her constant letter-writing and agitation. People learnt very quickly not to get between Judy and a goal that she set out to achieve. She soon came to national notice and served in many different capacities, including as the national president, honorary secretary, a board director and editor of Essence, the magazine for the Breastfeeding Association. After moving to the Central Coast following a long-awaited departmental transfer for Giffo, Judy became a vibrant part of the Central Coast social fabric, continuing her leadership role with the ABA as treasurer of the Erina branch right up until her illness in recent years. Judy was also a Labor Party stalwart, a constant presence at branch meetings and a tremendous source of support to me and to other Labor candidates on the Central Coast for many, many years. She was awarded the OAM in 2013 for her services to breastfeeding. She probably deserved a few more OAMs for her services to the community in so many ways. At her funeral, a beautiful woman was sitting beside me and spoke about how she had been in despair and had wondered how she was going to manage the breastfeeding challenges with her young child. As soon as she met Judy, a lifelong friendship was formed. People spoke on the day of Judy's funeral about how remarkably supportive, encouraging and enabling she was. What a wonderful woman, a remarkable woman—an unforgettable presence in the lives of all she touched—she was. Judy Gifford has been honoured by the ABA by inaugurating the Judy Gifford Impact Award. Judy had a strong hand in writing the criteria for it, so we know it will go to a really good person! I was actually very privileged to see Judy the night before she passed—to hold her hand and chat a while. She remained remarkable until the end. Judy is survived by her husband, John; by her daughters, Alison, Bronwyn and Helen; and by her nine grandchildren. I pray that her memory is a blessing and that her life and legacy remain an inspiration to all those who knew this truly remarkable woman. Senator Ayres 16913 by leave—President, I'd just like to associate myself with Senator O'Neill's remarks. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Tasmania: Mental Health Services 95 20:05 Senator AS 281558 Tasmania KEW (—) (): It does not matter who you are: making the choice to speak about your mental health challenges takes courage, as does seeking support. Since early 2020, we have endured multiple lockdowns and huge disruption to our daily lives due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some were even locked inside their homes or hotels, cut off from family, friends and co-workers, for months. Much has been said about the negative effects of lockdowns and the impact of the pandemic on mental health, but today I'm going to highlight one of the silver linings of the situation. The very disruption I mentioned has increased awareness of the importance of good mental health at home, in the community and in the workplace. A national discussion about improving mental health, particularly in the workplace, has positioned Tasmania at the forefront due to several exciting mental health initiatives within my home state. Last year, in October 2022, the Tasmanian Liberal government launched a multimedia campaign to promote awareness of mental health support in collaboration with Lifeline Tasmania and the Mental Health Council of Tasmania. The campaign will direct people who need help to the right support, and is informed by people with lived experience of mental ill-health. And that is only the beginning. Earlier last year, the Tasmanian government also signed a memorandum of understanding with the University of Tasmania to deliver a plan for the Centre for Mental Health Service Innovation. The centre will facilitate engagement and collaboration between the health department, statewide mental health services and UTAS across workforce development; training and education; research and development; and policy and advocacy. It builds on the work of the Head to Health facility in Launceston, which provides walk-in mental health services without a referral. Head to Health was an initiative of the coalition, and was delivered by the Morrison Liberal government to help expand access to mental health services to all states and territories. The Launceston Head to Health facility opened in January last year, offering free walk-in mental health support to adults who needed immediate help. It also provides wraparound services to access allied organisations, and offers information and advice to family and friends of people experiencing mental ill-health. I am pleased to note that 12 months later, in January 2023—just weeks ago—Head to Health's new permanent home in Canning Street was opened. Mental illness can affect anyone at any time, often without warning and without reason. While such an illness is often the result of complex trauma, that is not always the case. Much work has already been done to reduce the stigma associated with mental health, but this work is not yet done. Like many other industries, the mental health sector is facing a workforce and skills shortage, with the ability to attract enough people proving difficult. It is becoming a familiar story, and one that needs rectifying. Modelling from the Mental Health Council of Tasmania estimates that the workforce is about 900 full-time-equivalent roles short of what is needed across professional and peer roles, and that shortage continues to grow. With many of those roles likely to be filled by part-time workers, the number of people actually required is likely to be double that number. Rather than sit on its laurels, the Mental Health Council of Tasmania is working on some groundbreaking collaborations with education providers like UTAS and TasTAFE to fill that gap, along with targeting other initiatives, such as skilled migration. They're also working on education campaigns to shift the common perception among the public that you need a referral to access mental health support. This campaign commences shortly, and has no equal anywhere in Australia. It's another way that Tasmania is leading in the area of mental health. Educating the public will take pressure off the state's stretched GP services and emergency departments, and will provide another outlet for people to seek help. Collaborative partnerships such as the one cultivated at UTAS are already delivering dividends, with the news that UTAS has expanded its successful psychology clinic model from Hobart into Launceston. This clinic offers another option for mental health services for the community and also provides real-world training for students. Those in training who work at the clinic are partnered with a qualified psychologist to help them complete the practical components of their education. It's an innovative solution that not only meets clients demands but also prepares and strengthens the workforce. Ingenuity and collaboration such as this is setting Tasmania up to address the growing need for mental health professionals and services. I'm certain that, if successful, these initiatives will flow from our small island state to the rest of the country. Harmony Day 96 20:10 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Every year, 21 March marks the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, or IDERD—at least, it does in every other country in the world. Here in Australia, it's celebrated as Harmony Day, which now falls within Harmony Week. Harmony Day is a John Howard era invention. It represents a superficial, self-congratulatory celebration of diversity, which completely ignores the entire point of the urgent, pressing need to recognise racism and eliminate it in all its forms. It imagines Australia as being part of some kind of post-racist future. It has never existed and, at this rate, it will never exist. Harmony Day whitewashes the historic and ongoing racism in Australia. It denies Australia's colonial, bloody history, which is tainted with dispossession and violence, and the depth and breadth of discrimination against First Nations people still rooted in our institutions. Systemic racism manifests itself every day against people of colour—in workplaces, schools, sport, media and public places, and in parliaments. That's why I've written to Minister Giles, calling on the Labor government to revert to the UN designated name and purpose and to redouble efforts to combat racism. As the Australian Human Rights Commission has said reframing IDERD as a celebration of 'harmony' distracts from the cause of eliminating racism. With the harmony framing, 'the systemic racial discrimination experienced by so many for so long in Australia' is effectively 'swept under the rug'. The day is meant to be one of solidarity with people struggling with racial discrimination—let's keep it that way! The sad reality is that when we speak up about racism we are ignored or we are gaslighted. We are incessantly questioned about the validity of our claims. We are told to go back to where we came from. We're accused of causing division by just mentioning the r-word. Last week marked four years since the Christchurch massacre, when an Australian man, driven by an extreme right-wing Islamophobic ideology, killed 51 Muslims during Friday prayers. I wish I could say that the Christchurch massacre by an Australian white supremacist prompted a reckoning with these dangerous racist ideologies and spurred those in power to action. It hasn't. On the weekend, we literally saw Nazi salutes on the streets outside parliament in Melbourne. It was vile and disgusting. Report after report tells us that Muslims in Australia continue to experience horrific racism and hate, and women and children are on the front line of this Islamophobia. Structural and systemic racism is embedded in the very fabric of this country, from the way it was founded, on stolen land, to the way our systems remain discriminatory to this day. This harms and damages the physical, psychological and social wellbeing of so many in our community, yet we are expected to remain silent on racism and pretend that all is well. Well, some of us have refused to play the grateful migrant card that is demanded of us time and time again. We have refused to apologise for our existence. We have stuck our necks out and we have spoken the truth about racism. We cannot pretend racism doesn't exist or that discrimination is a thing of the past. As a country, we recognise the advantages of multiculturalism in the food and in the cherry-picked cultural practices and festivals, but when it comes to tackling the issues we face nothing changes. This recognition of diversity is tokenistic, shallow and skin deep. There is no doubt that we are very far from an antiracist Australia, and there is no point in pretending otherwise. We have to reckon with the truth. We have to face it with fearlessness. So let's not pretend that racism doesn't live on in government policy. Australia's inhumane and barbaric policies for those seeking asylum are built on racism, and they were made easier to sell to the public because their victims are from places like Afghanistan and Iraq. First Nations people continue to face the worst kinds of discrimination, with deaths in custody and children being imprisoned at alarming rates. The hard work of antiracism starts with using the r-word: racism. So let's use the International Day for Elimination of Racial Discrimination to talk about the pervasive scourge of racism, rather than hiding behind the veil of Harmony Day. This is only the start to building an antiracist country that is fair, equal and truly celebrates and respects the human rights of people who live here. Senate adjourned at 20:15