2023-03-24 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Friday, 24 March 2023

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:31 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 09:31 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to consideration of legislation as circulated in the chamber. It would allow for consideration this morning of the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023. Leave not granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Birmingham moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion that would provide for consideration of the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023. Senator Watt 245759 Are you going to move the expulsion of your far-right members? Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X The unity with which all mainstream political parties in Australia have stood against Nazi ideology, Nazi sympathisers and Nazi propaganda— Senator Watt 245759 You sent the text messages. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X has provided a strong and enduring protection against a known evil being able to inflict harm on our society. Senator Henderson ZN4 You are a disgrace. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, could you resume your seat. Senator Watt 245759 You're a disgrace. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, order! Senator Henderson, please resume your seat. I will come back to you. Senator Henderson ZN4 President— The PRESIDENT 112096 I've asked you to resume your seat, Senator Henderson. Senator Cash I0M Filthy grub. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I ask you to withdraw that remark. Senator Cash I0M I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 President, Senator Watt said the most disgraceful thing. He is to withdraw it. I am disgusted in you. I'm so disgusted in you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, I did not hear the remark, but in the interests of the Senate I ask Senator Watt to withdraw. Senator Watt 245759 Madam President, I withdraw. I referred to the text messages that Senator Henderson sent. That's what I said. I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. I think we just need to take a moment. I ask senators to listen to the debate about the suspension of the standing orders to rearrange the business. I remind senators that that is really what we are talking about—about why we think it's urgent to rearrange the business. I ask senators to refrain from interjecting across the chamber. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X In light of what we just saw at the commencement of this debate, I'm going to repeat the first couple of sentences of my contribution because I think they are as important as ever. The unity with which all mainstream political parties in Australia have stood against Nazi ideology, Nazi sympathisers and Nazi propaganda has provided a strong and enduring protection against a known evil being able to inflict harm on our society. To fracture that unity would be to open a crack to people whose views are repugnant, are dangerous and are divisive. We must continue to stand as one against an ideology that is most associated— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I'm sorry. I'm asking you to resume your seat. I have asked senators to listen in respectful silence. Interjections to other senators across the chamber is incredibly disorderly. Senator H6X I find it remarkable that I'm having to be sat down on multiple occasions due to interjections on an issue like this. We must continue to stand as one against an ideology that is most associated with acts of genocide, mass murder and other forms of persecution. As a nation, we have successfully stood against Nazism in a number of ways, and we should seek to continue to do so. We do so through active remembrance, awareness and knowledge. The horrors of the Holocaust must never be forgotten, and I, alongside former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and many other members of the former government, are proud of what we did to establish Holocaust museums in a number of cities around Australia to ensure that we raised that type of awareness. We do so through efforts, at home and globally, to call out and to stamp out antisemitism. A powerful example of this is Australia's membership of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, membership that we took up on 4 June 2019, becoming the 33rd member country to do so, and in doing so adopting the following nonlegally binding wording of the definition of antisemitism: Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. This working definition provides a strong basis, through IHRA and the work of many, to make sure that we are able to call out and weed out antisemitism where and when it occurs. We stand against, and protect ourselves against, Nazism by balancing our commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of association with actions to identify, monitor and act against ideologically motivated or religiously motivated extremism, especially where it can manifest itself in acts of violence or intimidation. For that, we have throughout the years increased the funding, the resourcing, the reporting, the openness and the transparency of our security agencies. We work with others, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, who report frequently on acts of antisemitism and, concerningly, have reported their growth in recent times. We have an individual responsibility to call out such actions. I did so recently myself when I came home from Canberra to find a brochure in my letterbox. 'Calling all white Australians', it was headlined, and it called to action to associate with organisations that I find repugnant in the promotion of their actions and their approach. It is for all of us to take every opportunity to do so, and we must also protect ourselves against Nazism and antisemitism by preventing the glorification of them in any way. That is what this bill, which we seek to bring on, does. We seek to bring this bill on in light of the rise of antisemitism that has been reported. We seek to bring it on in light of debates that have occurred in and around this place during the course of this week which we think means it is important to send a strong united signal on these matters. This bill is a modest and proportionate measure that responds to the risk to our country of civil discourse. We want to make sure that through this bill we are modelling it against similar legislation. I urge the Senate to enable this bill to be considered so we can take the type of strong and united stance that we should. 09:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government will not be supporting the suspension motion today. I will speak to the suspension before getting to the substance. The government does not support the approach that the opposition have taken, without notice, to bring forward a bill that was introduced this week—I think yesterday—by Senator Cash and for it to now take precedence over all other business. It hasn't been through any process of scrutiny. It hasn't had any opportunity for consultation. The opposition have a spot next week for private senators' bills. They haven't even listed this for that; they've listed another bill. I think that goes to the credibility about the seriousness with which they want this matter dealt with. Senators know that the government has been working on matters relating to the prohibition of Nazi symbols for some time, and I think we can all stand in this place and say there is no place in Australian society for public displays of Nazi symbols or the Nazi salute. But I think we should also acknowledge that this is a complex area of law, and any move to ban Nazi symbols deserves serious consideration—more than an overnight drafting job with which the Senate has not been given the opportunity to scrutinise or consult on, or, indeed, take through our own processes, which, as people know, is custom and practice in this place. There are many questions about the opposition's proposal, including what head of constitutional power it purports to rely on. This is serious work that needs to be done. It deserves a serious approach. The Senate should enforce that today by not allowing the bringing on of this bill, including, I note, being allowed to debate for two hours and then the guillotine being put. That's not really an approach that the Senate would normally take without consultation across the chamber and, indeed, through our processes. On the substance of the bill that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate wants to move: let's not forget that last weekend in Victoria a member of the Victorian Liberal Party attended a rally where Nazi symbols and the Nazi salute were displayed. Let's not forget that. The Leader of the Opposition in Victoria moved immediately to expel that member from the Liberal Party, decisively and quickly, and yet, despite the grandstanding that we're hearing from Senator Birmingham this morning about all moving with a united and strong voice, where is the condemnation of that? Where is that? Why is the trans community being used as a political punching bag for other motivations? Where is the condemnation of that? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I've asked for silence during this debate, and I'm going to insist upon it. Senator GALLAGHER ING Where is the condemnation of that? Where is the condemnation of using the trans community to peddle other hate and division? Where is the condemnation of that? The political punching bag that is a vulnerable group in Australia continuously gets pulled out and used in a way that is appalling in this country. Where's the condemnation of that? Let's not forget what has led us to this point today in the grandstanding from Senator Birmingham. Honourable senators interjecting— Th 112096 I've asked for silence. If you want to contribute, stand and seek the call, otherwise listen in respectful silence. Senator GALLAGHER ING Where is the condemnation from Mr Dutton of reports of senior members of Mr Dutton's front bench undermining the Victorian opposition leader's attempts to stand up to right-wing extremism in his party? Where is the condemnation of that? They are questions that only the Liberal Party can answer, I'm afraid. But there are senators in this place that are supporting what we saw, through the way they engage with the Victorian Liberal Party on what we saw on the weekend. I think we deserve better. I think the Australian people deserve better. The Senate should stand united. We should stand together. We should send a strong voice about the events that we saw in Victoria and what have led, I think, to this bill being drafted this week. We definitely should do that, but that's not what's happening. Let's use the Practice custom of this place, which is to put bills into the chamber, have them go through a process, have them referred to committees if necessary and then have them brought back for debate during the time that's allocated in this chamber, not try and move a stunt when there are other things that should be happening, standing united on a whole range of fronts. This bill that the leader seeks to move today needs serious consideration, not a stunt. (Time expired) 09:45 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia It's extremely disappointing that this debate has kicked off the way it has today. I don't think that anything that we've displayed to the Australian people in the last 15 minutes, since the starting of this parliament, is anything to be proud of. The politicking over this issue—which is serious, which is sensitive, which is fundamentally about the values of a respectful, democratic nation—should not be drawn into the gutter. On the matter of the suspension to bring this bill on, I do not believe that this is the right way to go about it. I think the Attorney-General and the government of the day need to take this issue seriously and come forward with a proper process to deal with this. Nazi symbols being displayed in this country is wrong. That needs to be managed, but you don't do it by springing a debate in this place without a proper process. The private members' bill that is being asked to be brought on today has not been through—it was only introduced yesterday. It needs to go through a proper process. And whether it is a committee of the Senate or, indeed, in consultation with the Attorney-General, I suggest that the leader of the opposition has an honest and direct conversation with the government about how we can move forward as a united parliament to stand for what is right, and to call out what is wrong. Doing it today is not the appropriate way of going about it, and if you have any doubt in your mind about that, just go back and look at what the last 15 minutes in this place has displayed. It's a disgrace. You want the Australian people to believe you? Lift your game. We will not be supporting the suspension. We urge those in this place to work together to deal with this properly. Politicking over Nazi symbols is wrong. 09:47 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland One Nation will not be supporting the suspension to bring this motion on. We were called to have another day in this chamber to deal with important legislation about the reconstruction fund and Australian housing. That is what is important for us to discuss today. This bill was only brought into the lower house earlier this week and into this chamber yesterday. I think there should be time to debate this, not to be cut off and guillotined. I believe that every member in this house would vote to get rid of Nazi symbols—we would definitely vote for it—but I've got to respond to Senator Gallagher's comments about what happened at that meeting in Victoria. It is utterly disgusting to say that because a Liberal MP attends a rally, and because some other Nazi sympathisers—if they were truly that, or was it really a set-up? I've spoken to people who were actually there. Nazi sympathisers actually don't hold hands. That's not their character. Isn't it funny that a couple of them were actually holding hands at the rally? Wouldn't you ask the question: why were they just allowed to proceed through to the rally, given free entrance into that area by the police? Was it truly real or was it a set-up? That's how I see it; it was a set-up. You talk about the politics of that woman, who had every right to attend it. Are you going to say the same about me because I attended the rally out the front yesterday, because I went there to stand up for women to have a voice in this nation and not be dragged down because of people who are transgender and their rights? Where are the rights of the women in this nation—the right to have their sport, the right to go to their facilities, the rights to be called a woman and to be a mother? They are being hijacked for someone who is not biologically a female. And because a Liberal MP turns up at a rally to voice the concerns of women, you actually make the statement— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, I'm sorry; please resume your seat. Again, the interjections across the chamber, particularly when I've called for order a number of times, are disrespectful and disorderly. Senator HANSON BK6 Just stop your politicking in this place. Stop throwing rubbish around the place and mud at each other, because it doesn't make us look like the people we should be in this nation—and just prior to an election. It's not up to minister Peter Dutton, opposition leader of the Liberal Party, to say what the Liberal Party's Leader of the Opposition in Victoria should do. It's nothing to do with minister Peter Dutton. It is up to the members down there, and the members, I understand, are not going to throw her out of the party. I get frustrated and annoyed with the failure of this place to deal with the real issues. Like I said, no-one likes the Nazi symbols, and the people who were hurt the most out of this were the Jewish community. You have antisemitism that goes on, and it just has to stop. People have to stop and respect other people's views on many things. Yes, Nazi symbols, by all means, but let's debate it, because the words are only about Nazi symbols. I want to know how far you want to go with this. We need to debate it. We need to know what it means. To put it on this floor in two hours is just ridiculous. Put it up at a sensible time. I'd love to have a lot of the bills I put up heard, and to have a say on them, but I'm not given that opportunity. Let's deal with the bills that have been brought before this parliament today. I think it's more important to the people of this nation that we deal with the questions of whether we get can get the manufacturing industry going and whether we can actually deal with the housing problem. A lot of people are sleeping in their cars. Yesterday, one fella rang me up desperate because he's been sleeping in his car for the last year. That's because he's a nurse and, because he refuses to have the vaccination, he can't get a job. That's how desperate people are. And you're worried about Nazi symbols? Wake up! 09:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise in support of the suspension motion, moved by Senator Birmingham, to bring on for debate the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023, which would prohibit the display of Nazi symbols. Some in this place today have said that this bill is not an important bill to be brought on. Well, I say: shame on them! If this bill does not deserve precedence, quite frankly, I don't know what bill does. Every Australian should find the actions of that small group of protesters who dared to use the Nazi salute offensive, and every senator in this place, without a doubt, should condemn those actions. Those who display Nazi symbols or use the Nazi salute either are ignorant of the past or are deliberately promoting evil. As someone who in the 1990s had the privilege of living in Israel, let me assure you that this is something that is still on their minds today. There is absolutely no place in civil society for Nazi symbols, which, as we all know, are directly linked to one of the most heinous regimes in the history of the world. Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany carried out the deliberate, calculated and organised mass murder of six million European Jews, as well as five million prisoners of war and other victims. The Nazis' systemic and state sponsored campaign of persecution dehumanised an entire people. But it was much worse than that. The Nazi regime's industrialised extermination resulted in the Holocaust, one of the worst crimes ever committed in history. There can be no doubt that the Nazi regime was one of the greatest evils ever visited upon humanity. Nazism is a vile ideology of unparalleled hate. Because of what they represent—this evil, this terror—Nazi symbols are no ordinary symbols. We must all condemn Nazi symbols in any form that they are found or displayed. What we saw unfold on the streets of Melbourne last weekend was absolutely unacceptable and quite disgraceful. Again I say that every Australian should find the actions of a small group of protesters who used the Nazi salute offensive, and every senator in this place should condemn those actions. There is no doubt the Nazi salute is a symbol clearly associated with Nazi ideology and has no place in Australian public life. All Australians are diminished by the sharing and glorification of an ideology which is characterised by genocide, mass murder and other forms of persecution. So to those who say this bill is not a matter of urgency I say that is exactly why this bill is a matter of urgency and needs to be debated and passed by the Senate. We are all here in this place to show leadership within our community, so let's live up to that, because this morning we can stand together against these vile bigots. 09:57 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland This is an important and substantial issue. I too stand with those who have said that there is no place in this country for public displays of Nazi symbols or the Nazi salute, or anti-Semitism as well. But it is for the reason that it is an important and substantial issue that it deserves so much more attention and due process than what the opposition have proposed here today. They introduced the bill into the Senate yesterday, and then they have brought on this stunt today in an attempt to get this debated. Because it is of such importance, it deserves the full attention of the Senate and for the processes of the Senate to be allowed to deal with this bill appropriately. The opposition have time allocated to them next Thursday to debate and consider private senators' bills of their choosing. My understanding, as I think Senator Gallagher said, is that they haven't indicated that they will use that time for this bill that they are trying to suspend standing orders to debate today. So you do have to wonder what was the sudden motivation for those opposite to bring this bill on today. It is the fact that there are options available to them on the issues raised by what we saw on the steps of the Victorian parliament last week. They can show leadership or they can pursue stunts in this chamber, like they did in the House of Representatives. It is disappointing that the federal Liberals have chosen stunts over substance and showing leadership. That is what they are doing here today by pursuing this and unleashing this debate. When you compare the actions of Mr Pesutto, the Victorian Liberal leader, who was prepared to take a stand and say he didn't want this person in his parliamentary team, with what the federal Liberals have chosen to do this week, there is a real contrast. We have an opposition that, 10 months ago, concluded 10 years in government. They had 10 years to take action and legislate on something like this, yet all of a sudden, this week, we see a stunt in the House of Representatives. We now see a stunt in the Senate as well, on a day, as Senator Hanson said, that everyone knew had been set aside to discuss government business, so you do have to question their motivation. You also have to question the lack of leadership from the federal Liberals. We know some senators have been out there criticising Mr Pesutto for the stance that he took. Instead of backing Mr Pesutto, the federal Liberals have chosen stunts over substance and showing leadership. That's what they are doing in this chamber today. It is right that the Senate opposes this motion. This bill does deserve absolute scrutiny and debate that aren't possible to do in the two hours that this motion allows for, so it is the right thing to oppose it. It is the right thing to get on with government business. It is a shabby way for those opposite to treat such an important issue. It is not appropriate for a party of government to treat such an important issue in such a way that they're prepared to pull a stunt like this instead of showing the leadership that the Victorian Liberal leader did. 10:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I stand to support this suspension motion because of the importance of the issue currently being sought to be put before this chamber. It is extraordinarily disappointing to be standing here today with those opposite politicising something that could not be more important to humanity—not just to Australia and not just to this place but to humanity itself. To come in here and accuse us of pulling a stunt, as has just been done by those opposite, demeans them and absolutely shows their lack of understanding of the importance of this issue. I say to you: shame on you. Shame on you across the chamber for not understanding how unbelievably painful this must be for so many Jews around the world—to think that you would suggest that this is a stunt. I say to you: this is a matter of urgency. It is absolutely a matter of urgency. There is absolutely no place in Australia, in our community—there should be no place in the world—for Nazi symbols. Without doubt, they are directly linked to the worst crimes committed against humanity in any of our living history. This salute, and these symbols, represents absolute evil. It represents terror. It represents the attempted destruction of a group of people in our population. We must all condemn any form of Nazism, and that goes to their symbols and their salutes. Shame on those opposite for not supporting this very important issue. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [10:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 MOTIONS 6 MOTIONS Australian Bureau of Statistics: Mortality Data 6 10:10 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that yesterday a division was deferred relating to a motion moved by Senator Babet concerning Australian Bureau of Statistics mortality data. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Babet be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [10:14]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. 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.

 BILLS 7 BILLS National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023 7

National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023

Second Reading 7 10:16 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'll just recap some of the more general points I was making yesterday, particularly for those listening to this debate for the first time. It should be noted that the opposition, the Liberal and National parties, are supporting the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023, for the obvious reason that it makes a lot of sense. This legislation closes a loophole where a pharmacy holds a licence in a company name to engage in the PBS and provide medications to the Australian people through the PBS system. There can be circumstances where a director of that company has been found to have engaged in misconduct in the supply of those pharmaceuticals. Unless you close the loophole, the company that holds the licence for the pharmacy could continue to supply those medicines under the PBS, notwithstanding the fact that the director has been found to have engaged in misconduct under the PBS. It makes absolute sense to close that loophole. The opposition are supporting the government in this regard. The debate of this bill though has opened up other areas of discussion. Contributions have been made by senators across the chamber in relation to the PBS. That is where I will continue my remarks. The first point I want to make is that, from my perspective, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a core function of government. I believe the Australian government have a moral obligation to make sure that we provide affordable medications to the Australian people. It is a core function of government. Those listening today will hear debate in relation to other grandiose schemes that have been proposed by the Albanese government, including a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, which from my perspective is not a core function of government. Every dollar spent on those grandiose schemes is a dollar that can't be spent on the core functions of government, such as the PBS. That's the first point I make. The second point I make is that the previous coalition government had a proud history of managing the economy in such a responsible way that 3,000 medicines—approximately 30 a month—were added to the PBS during the term of the last coalition government. I have met people in the community. I recollect one particular conversation I had before the 2019 election, when I was first elected to this place, where I met a beautiful young woman who was suffering from a chronic illness. If she had been forced to buy the medication for that illness out of her own pocked, it would have cost her $250,000 a year, but the previous coalition government had added that medicine to the PBS, so it cost virtually nothing to buy that medicine. We are a rich country. We should be able to provide that service to the Australian people. I'm proud that, before the last election, I served in a government which did provide that service to the Australian people. That's a core function of government. In that context, what has happened with the PBS since the last election? On 2 March 2023 I received an email from a lady in the western suburbs of Brisbane in relation to her diabetes insulin medication called Fiasp. She could be your mother, your aunt, your sister or a dear friend This is what she wrote: 'I'm a type 1 insulin-dependent diabetic, and have been for over 52 years now. This morning, at 8.42 am'—she sent this email at 10.41 am, two hours after this event—'I received a phone call from my chemist, informing me that, as of 1 April 2023'—bear in mind that she sent this email at the beginning of March, so she had less than one month's notice—'my insulin that I use in my pump will be withdrawn from the PBS listing. This being the case, then, my insulin purchase on script will go from $30 per filling of five boxes to approximately $220 for the same.' This medication for insulin was on the PBS list. This lady and approximately 15,000 other Australians were accessing this medication, and then all of a sudden, because of ministerial inaction on the part of the relevant minister in the government, this insulin was taken off the list. This lady, and no doubt thousands of others, found out about it because her chemist rang her and said, 'By the way, your medication is going up from $30 to $220.' This is what she says—they are her words, not mine. They are not the words of a politician, but her words. She says: 'What the hell! This is a life drug for me, and I know it is not your doing, but if you could please assist in finding out what is happening here, that would be very much appreciated. I do know there are other alternative insulin is available that are still on the PBS, but I was moved to specifically enter this insulin due to the benefits of a quicker acting insulin for me.' The government said earlier this week that there are alternatives, but the thing about this medication for this lady and thousands of other Australians is that it is faster acting. Her medical specialist put her on this specific medication which was on the PBS and then, due to ministerial inaction on behalf of the relevant Albanese government minister, it's off the PBS. She continues: 'I've attached for your information the letter that was received by my chemist informing them of this PBS change. Please have someone in the federal government take a look at this, as I know I will not be the only person impacted by this terrible decision-making.' This is poor government, poor administration, poor ministerial oversight with respect to the PBS. Australians should not be put in the position where they have been put onto a drug that's on the PBS, on medical advice, that's working for them and then they find out from a phone call from the chemist that all of a sudden it's coming off the PBS. The minister should actually apologise to the cohort of 15,000 Australians who have been put in this position. It is unbelievable, to be frank. There was no ministerial intervention to make sure that this drug could stay on the list. There was no consultation with the 15,000 Australians who were taking this drug. There was no warning that it was coming off the PBS. This lady, like thousands of others, found out from a phone call from the chemist. There's no understanding whatsoever that people are on this medication—they've been advised by their medical specialist to be on this medication—because it gives them therapeutic benefits that other drugs don't provide. So I say to those opposite that the PBS is a core function. Instead of being distracted by utopian fantasies of the National Reconstruction Fund et cetera, get back to the core business of providing health services to Australians. 10:25 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I too rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023. I acknowledge that the substance of this bill is important, and the opposition will be supporting the bill because, obviously, it provides greater protection around the integrity of our PBS. We all know that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is an absolute foundational pillar of Australia's health system, and protecting its integrity is something that we believe is extraordinarily important because we need to make sure that Australians continue to have access to affordable medicines. As cost-of-living pressures continue to go up, never before has it been more important that Australians do have that access to affordable medicines. For that reason I foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment because I want to acknowledge the importance of the government continuing what the coalition started, and that is making sure that we have the best possible record when it comes to ensuring that Australians have affordable access to critical medicines. We are very proud of the fact that when we were in government we listed nearly 3,000 new or amended medicines on the PBS, which represented an extraordinary amount of listings each and every month. We know that, in the final years of the previous Labor government, they stopped listing medicines because they ran out of money. So we will continue to put pressure on this government to make sure that Australians can continue to have access to those affordable medicines—because that is the government's job; that is the reason they are here. We heard Senator Scarr referring to a particular medication called Fiasp, which is a very innovative form of insulin that is relied on by over 15,000 Australians. We know that at the beginning of March this government sought to no longer enable this drug to be listed on the PBS because of price decisions that were being made which meant that, as of 1 April, this drug would no longer be available. Anybody who has not realised how difficult it would be for 15,000 Australians, or more, to get an appointment with an endocrinologist to get their medication changed in the space of less than one month is not living in the real world. Obviously, we were pleased that Minister Butler decided that he would temporarily intervene and give an extension of time before this drug was taken off the PBS. But the reality is that all he has done is kick the can down the road, because in October exactly the same situation is going to be confronting those 15,000 Australians who rely on this amazing medication, because once again it will be taken off the PBS. So it is really, really tragic that, already, so early in the term of this government, it is not continuing to provide the medication, and we are starting to see medications come off the PBS. Equally, one of the things that we were very proud of in government was that, whenever the PBAC made a recommendation about the value of a new drug coming onto the market, or a drug being made available in a different context, we actually approved them and were able to get them quickly and easily into the hands of Australians who relied on them. So to find out that, despite the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommending that a drug that is provided to people with cystic fibrosis, a drug by the name of Trikafta which we had listed for use by people aged 12 and over—once the PBAC had made the recommendation that it was a safe and appropriate drug for children aged between six and 11 who suffer from cystic fibrosis, I suppose we all assumed that the government would make this drug available. Well, so far, the bid on behalf of those young Australians who suffer from cystic fibrosis, those young Australians who, like everybody else, deserve the best possible chance of living their best possible lives—they have been denied it. In another instance of this government undermining the strength of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, it has not listed this drug for those 500 young children—where this could make a life-changing difference to their lives. We would say to the government: please support our second reading amendment, which will ensure Tricafta is available for young children aged between five and 12 who suffer from cystic fibrosis. Make sure you use your ministerial discretion, Minister Butler, to enable those 15,000 or so people who live with diabetes, who have had their lives changed by this innovative drug called Fiasp—please, government, stop worrying so much and putting your budget bottom line ahead of the lives and wellbeing of Australians who rely on these amazing drugs. These drugs were made available under the previous government but so far appear not to be a priority for the government we have in place. It's really sad that, in all the broken promises we have seen this government break so far, whether they be issues in relation to cost of living, electricity prices which were supposed to be coming down by $275—there is nothing more unconscionable than breaking promises to Australians who rely on lifesaving and life-changing medications, which is what we are seeing here. I would be very disappointed if we didn't see the government support the second reading amendment that has been put forward by the coalition, to seek that they reinstate the drug Fiasp for insulin-dependent diabetics and list Tricafta for those young Australians. It can make so much difference in their lives. It would be a great sign of good faith on your behalf, government, if you would be prepared to do that. Unless we are prepared to prioritise our health system, particularly this pillar—that is, making sure that our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is the best it possibly can be—you are not doing your job. We support the bill, but we seek your support in amending it to make it better. 10:32 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank senators for their contributions on the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023. For your constituents and for all Australians, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has provided affordable access to medicines for over 70 years. The Australian government is committed to protecting the integrity of Medicare, which includes the PBS, and this government understands the importance of the PBS remaining sustainable into the future so that we can continue investing in new medicines for the community. Integrity of public funds and effective PBS compliance is a vital component of this commitment. The government needs to adapt its compliance arrangements for bodies corporate in recognition of the fact that they are increasingly involved in the ownership and operation of pharmacies. This bill strengthens compliance powers, especially the ability to protect the PBS from abuse and inappropriate practice by pharmacists who are directors of bodies corporate. Currently the discretionary power to suspend or revoke an approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits only applies to individual pharmacists. The amendment will extend the discretionary power to a pharmacist who is operating under a company structure and has been charged with, or convicted of, a PBS related offence. This will ensure the power applies equally to all approvals. I note the amendment from Senator Ruston. The Australian government is committed to ensuring Australians have access to affordable medicines recommended by PBAC. The government has delivered on its election commitment to cut the cost of medications for millions of Australians by reducing the PBS co-payment to $30 per script. Since 1 July 2022 the government has committed additional funding for 67 new and amended listings. There are longstanding considered processes for PBS listings through PBAC, not second reading amendments. The PBS provides Australians with access to vital medicines, and the government is working to ensure all people have affordable access to the medicines they need. The Department of Health and Aged Care is working with states and territories on expanded access for the Closing the Gap program for patients in public hospitals. More specifically, this bill will protect the integrity of the PBS, so that we can keep investing in new and better medicines in future. Again, I thank senators for their contributions to the bill. The 252157 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to. Question agreed to. 10:36 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland At the request of Senator Ruston, I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes the former Coalition Government's strong record on affordable medicines, having listed almost 3,000 new or amended medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), including the innovative diabetes drug Fiasp; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) reaffirm the former Coalition Government's commitment to listing all medicines on the PBS that have been approved by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), (ii) urgently intervene to ensure Fiasp remains permanently available on the PBS for the 15,000 Australians who rely on it, and (iii) urgently list Tricafta on the PBS for children 6-11 years old with cystic fibrosis, noting PBAC recommended it be listed in November last year". 10:36 Senator S 250156 Western Australia TEELE-JOHN () (): I seek to have sections (b)(ii) and (b)(iii) considered separately to sections (a) through to (b)(i). (Quorum formed) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Before I put the question on the motion moved by Senator Ruston, the minister is seeking the call. 10:40 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory In my excitement, I made an error in my summing-up in saying $30 million when I meant to say $30. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question before the chamber now is that paragraphs (a) and (b)(i) of the second reading amendment of Senator Ruston be agreed to. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question before the chamber now is that paragraphs (b)(ii) and (b)(iii) of Senator Ruston's second reading amendment be agreed to. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question now is that the motion for the second reading be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 11 10:43 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 As no committee stage is required by any senator, I call the minister to move the third reading. 10:43 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 11

National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023

Second Reading 11 10:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise today, on behalf of the opposition, to speak to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. The coalition will be opposing this bill. Why are we opposing this bill? It's because the bill is from an arrogant government which believes that it can tell the manufacturers of Australia what they need, rather than addressing with good and proper policy what the manufacturers of Australia are telling the government—because they're out there, I assure you—they require. If the government just listened to the manufacturers of Australia, what it would know is that they are asking the government to put in place the right economic conditions for them to succeed. This of course includes driving down the increasing input costs being felt by businesses and driving down the inflationary pressures that are currently pinching the family budget and projected, unfortunately, to only get worse. What the Australian people and in particular manufacturers in Australia are now seeing is that our economy and the Australian people are being woefully let down by this bad government. This bill does nothing for Australian businesses struggling to meet ever-increasing input costs. This bill does nothing for Australian families, who, day after day, are telling the government they are struggling to meet the rising costs of living. Inflationary pressures are pushing businesses and households to the brink and electricity prices are skyrocketing, and what's the government's answer? To push radical industrial relations changes and bake in off-budget costs, which the IMF has warned will have an inflationary impact. This bill that we have before us in the Senate does nothing to address inflationary pressures or power prices. In fact, the bill that we have before us in the Senate today will actually make these economic challenges even worse—an absolute disgrace. The International Monetary Fund has explicitly warned the Albanese government to avoid off-budget spending vehicles such as that which will be established by this legislation. Let's have a look at that again: the IMF has explicitly warned the Albanese government to avoid—not go ahead and legislate—off-budget spending vehicles such as that which will now be established if this legislation passes the Senate. In fact, when asked in Senate estimates if the department had done any inflation modelling, the response by the department was quite frankly startling. This is what they said: 'No, we haven't. It was a very simple response. When asked the direct question, 'Have you done any inflationary modelling?' the department officials said, 'No, we haven't.' When pressed on why, because we went further and said, 'Hold on. If you haven't actually done any inflationary modelling, we now need to ask you why,' it actually got even worse. Senator Duniam 263418 Tell us. Senator CASH I0M They said, Senator Duniam, 'Because it's not necessary.' Senator Duniam 263418 You're kidding! Senator CASH I0M I'm not kidding. The departmental officials said—I'm assuming based on the instruction, though, of the Labor government—'It is not necessary.' On behalf of all Australians, who just want to see proper process from this government, who want transparency and integrity, that is an absolute disgrace. What is worse is that energy experts are also telling the government to unlock further supplies of gas, but, as we know today, the one word that has been missing in the argument in terms of gas is 'supply'. You need to unlock further supplies of gas. That's what the energy experts are telling this government, but all we've seen and what we're going to witness is a dodgy deal done with the Australian Greens to prevent the NRF from actually assisting in that matter. You have the energy experts of Australia, who actually want to help Australians, wanting to get more gas into the market because, as we know, getting more gas into the market will actually put downward pressure on prices. That is what the energy experts want. Instead, the left-wing government and the even further left Australian Greens have done a dodgy deal to prevent the NRF assisting in that matter. You have a minister that talks big about value add onshore but, as soon as he goes and sits down at his desk, he just sells out. The desperate, dodgy deal with the Australian Greens is proof of that. The minister is selling out Australian manufacturers—and I say shame on you—to save his pride, and he is now recklessly pushing this bill through the Australian Senate. What this bill demonstrates not just to the Australian people but in particular to Australian manufacturers is that the Labor Party will always talk the talk. They did a lot of talking before the May 2022 election. I don't have time, unfortunately, to go through the number of now-broken promises. But I do have to mention the fact that even yesterday, in the Australian Senate, Minister Farrell, representing the Prime Minister of this country, was asked a very simple question: 'Can you actually say the words "two hundred and seventy-five"?' He was asked, 'Can you actually read out the highlighted part of your policy that refers to your promise prior to the election to reduce Australians' energy bills by $275?' and he couldn't even do that. So they can talk the talk on supporting Australian manufacturers but, when looking to implement policy, they cannot walk the walk. In fact, the policy they look to implement is going to have a detrimental impact on manufacturers and, ultimately, Australians. The government continue to refuse to rise to the occasion and address the key economic challenges which are holding industry back. This sort of government spending does nothing to improve the situation. In fact, any financial support that is ultimately provided will end up being whittled away by the increased costs that are put on industry. Money goes into one pocket, but the bad news is that it just gets transferred through and falls out the other pocket. It's very simple, and manufacturers in Australia will tell you: input costs affect the bottom line. I think anybody would know that. Quite frankly, I think someone doing Economics 101 would understand that. And the price of energy is the first among those input costs for many of our manufacturers. When I go around the country, as I know my colleagues do, at every single meeting I have with businesses they talk about the rising costs of energy as a concern. All of these underlying issues make it even more unbelievable that the government would sell out our resources industry. In a recent survey conducted by the Ai Group, 83 per cent of survey respondents said they were experiencing rising energy prices. Solaris Paper, a company that has been manufacturing in Australia since the 1950s, including a product people will be very familiar with, Sorbent toilet paper, are facing—wait for this—a tripling of their gas bill. That is an input cost. It means money goes in and then, unfortunately, it comes out reduced at the other end. Sorbent toilet paper: a triple gas bill! Advance Bricks have announced that, after 82 years in business, they will let their brick oven go cold. You have to be kidding me! After 82 years of being in business, because of the actions of the Albanese Labor government, they are going to let their brick oven go cold. You've got to ask why, Madam Acting Deputy President. Why would you make such a decision after 82 years? It's because, overnight, they have gone from paying $6 for a gigajoule of gas to paying more than $37 a gigajoule. In going from $6 to $37, the only decision you can make, after 82 years, is to let your brick oven go cold. That is an absolute disgrace! What this bill is now saying to all those manufacturers out there is: there is no hope for you, and in particular there is no hope for you when you are a second-generation family business like Advance Bricks. So many of our manufacturers rely on gas, yet what we have is the Albanese Labor government demonising the gas suppliers. When you demonise the gas suppliers, you don't get additional supply into the market; it does nothing but drive prices up. The Minister for Industry and Science seems to think that he can shirtfront gas companies into submission and, as a result, prices will drop. Then we have the Minister for Resources running around saying exactly the opposite. It is actually getting very confusing for the companies out there, and it's not just confusing in Australia. That confusion has a flow-on effect to global decisions that are being made. We don't operate in isolation. We might be an island and we might like to think we operate in isolation—seriously, those on the other side seem to think we operate in isolation—but we don't. The decisions made in this country can ultimately have a flow-on effect globally. I have to say, though, it's unsurprising that this dodgy deal passed the parliament while the resources minister was overseas in India, because the resources minister has one view and the minister for industry has another view. What that type of contradiction between government ministers does for those who are impacted by this policy is create uncertainty for industry. This government doesn't seem to understand that uncertainty for industry is bad. Quite frankly, I think people are becoming quite used to that, because almost everything this government does pits our manufacturers against succeeding. Whether it be the safeguard mechanism, their industrial relations policy or their failure to properly manage the economy, they are letting the manufacturers of this great nation down in a woeful and quite frankly inexcusable way. And, as I said, this bill actually does nothing for them. It does nothing to address what the manufacturers are telling the government they need from them. The government frame this bill as being a blue-collar bill, but it's actually not that. Small and medium manufacturers do not want loans or equity from government. They want lower input costs, access to workers and a fix to our disrupted supply chain. That's what they're telling the government. The reality is that the Labor Party, in so many ways, misled the Australian people—that is now becoming very obvious—prior to the last election by saying they would reduce people's energy prices. If they listened to our manufacturers, they would know that these are the issues manufacturers demand action on, instead of arrogantly bringing a bill to the Australian parliament in which they are hellbent on telling manufacturers what they believe they need. Look at what, say, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said: 'It would be a particularly damaging, given the already serious global risks and uncertainty.' Again, this government does not listen. It does not listen. The time it takes to establish the NRF will cumulatively cost our manufacturers some two years before they start seeing any government support for their work. The government has modelled the National Reconstruction Fund on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, known as the CEFC. After that legislation passed the parliament in August 2012, the first investment was made in June 2013, some 10 months later. The government claims that this legislation will get Australian manufacturing moving again. Again, based on past form, we can tell you that is not going to be the case. It will not do anything this financial year, it probably won't even do anything next financial year, and it certainly does not address those issues which manufacturers are telling those opposite they urgently need addressed now. That is why the government has yet to commit to a time line. This is lost time for our manufacturers, for prospective workers and for our economy, and it dampens prospects for investment. But, of course, what the government were quick to do was dismantle the policies they were working on under the coalition's Modern Manufacturing strategy. In fact, they were so spitefully partisan when they took an axe to those successful programs, and they've held many projects in limbo. That is, quite frankly, an absolute disgrace. We obviously have stated that we will be moving a number of amendments to this bill. They will seek to increase the woeful lack of transparency and accountability in this bill. They will provide certainty to industries, which this government is seeking to just leave behind. We will obviously move an amendment to seek to remove from this bill the government's dodgy deal with the Greens. Why would we be doing that? Because the Greens amendment, which the government is agreeing to, is going to have serious consequences for the economy, it demonises the resources and forestry sectors, and it is an absolute disgrace. If the government supports this, quite frankly, anyone in the resources and forestry sector in Australia should not vote for this government at the next election. On that basis, again, we are not supporting this bill. This is bad policy. 10:59 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I also rise to speak to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. In 2022, the Greens took a policy to the federal election to create a $15 billion 'Made in Australia' bank and manufacturing fund, designed to rebuild Australia's neglected manufacturing base and to decarbonise existing Australian manufacturing by significantly reducing emissions in industrial processes. The 'Made in Australia' bank would support and finance manufacturing, innovation, industrial carbonisation and relocalisation of supply chains. The 'Made in Australia' bank and manufacturing fund was born out of a need the Greens have heard from people and communities around the country, especially in places like Latrobe, the Hunter and my own community of Gladstone, for the government to take leadership in fostering a local manufacturing industry that contributes to decarbonisation while providing economic opportunity to often neglected regions. With an amendment secured by the Greens, we have ensured that, regardless of who is in government, the National Reconstruction Fund will be used to fund to the future of manufacturing and not finance coal and gas or native forest logging. Our amendment has ensured that financing of coal and gas, construction of gas pipelines and the logging of native forests are prohibited investments for the National Reconstruction Fund. The Greens have also secured an amendment that investments made by the National Reconstruction Fund board must align with the legislated climate targets and any future updated commitment by Australia under the Paris Agreement. These amendments mean that National Reconstruction Fund will be focused on its goal of creating high-quality jobs across a diverse economy. As a regional Queensland senator, I know how important these jobs are for communities. Living in Gladstone, I've seen firsthand the impact that rises and falls in economic circumstances can have on local industries, the people who work in them and their communities. Repeated boom and bust cycles which are dictated by international markets and the whims of unaccountable multinational corporations can be devastating for the economic and social health of our regions. They deserve better. People in communities like mine deserve good, secure and well-paid jobs in innovative, locally owned industries that are there for the long term. Workers should feel secure enough to put down roots and trust that that community will continue to thrive, encouraged by a booming industry. Young people living in those communities should have the ability to remain there, moving into secure, well-paid work when they leave school. Because of the amendments secured by the Greens, today the National Reconstruction Fund reflects most of the core spirit of the Greens' 'Made in Australia' bank. The NRF will set aside $15 billion to help rebuild an industrial base in Australia. The NRF will have seven priority areas, with $3 billion set aside for renewables and low-emissions technologies, $1½ billion for medical manufacturing, $1 billion for value adding in resources, $1 billion in critical technologies, $1 billion for advanced technology and $500 million for value adding in agriculture. Most importantly, it will not be used as a slush fund for coal and gas corporations or native forest logging. When they were in government, the coalition tried to use public money to fund coal and gas through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA, but they were unable to do so because of the guardrails the Greens and Labor had put in place. This was a deliberate intervention the Greens made then, and it worked. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments could not poison the well of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to prop up coal and gas. Now the NRF will be similarly protected. It will be focused on genuinely fostering Australian industry instead of padding the bank accounts of coal and gas executives. The opportunity and future of manufacturing lies in renewable technology. Governments decide what industries to nurture and want to let die. In the past decade, the coalition made a deliberate choice to accelerate the death of the car industry Australia. This was a choice, motivated in part by the supposed benefits of free trade by losing the good, secure, unionised jobs that comprised manufacturing. This choice was made by a government without regard for how closure of the industry would devastate communities reliant on the jobs provided by those manufacturers. Now Australia ranks 91st amongst countries for economic complexity. What this actually means is we have sacrificed our manufacturing industry and our self-sufficiency. In its place, we've chosen to organise our entire economic and industrial capacity around digging up and shipping out coal and gas on behalf of tax-dodging fossil fuel corporations. Industry policy is about choices. The decision to accelerate the death of car manufacturing in Australia was made for the short-term gain of the ideology of free trade and weakened worker strength at the expense of our own industrial capacity. We have an opportunity and the resources to really seriously tackle transition. Like the rug being pulled out from under car manufacturing, the rug is also about to be pulled out from under coal and gas workers. Workers across regional Australia know that a transition to low-emissions industries will happen. The Greens want well-paid, stable employment for people in communities currently engaged in the fossil fuel industry, and we're working to secure that future so workers will have opportunities for gainful employment in other industries. Our proposed national energy transition authority is a serious body designed to centre workers in this work. The Greens are the only party facing the reality of the energy transition and we're the only party that took a comprehensive and costed transition plan to the election. As a senator from regional Queensland, I'm here to make sure that our communities are put first, not coal and gas corporations. While the previous government decided to let our local car manufacturing die, they did not extend this fate to the fossil fuel industry. While manufacturing has struggled, successive governments have heaped billions and billions of public subsidies onto fossil fuel companies. Coal and gas are the main causes of the climate crisis. As the IPCC have set out, for us to have even a shred of a chance of saving our future and meeting a net zero climate target, there must be no new coal and gas projects. This is the view of the conservative International Energy Agency. This is the view of the United Nations Secretary-General. And this the view of the world's scientists. It is a moral imperative for this government to stop subsidising and approving new coal and gas. There are 116 coal and gas projects in the pipeline at the moment. Combined, they will produce 24 times the emissions that Labor's safeguard mechanism would theoretically prevent. They make a mockery of any commitment to transitioning workers and their communities. Labor may think they can keep exporting coal and gas for decades to come, but the reality is that our international partners will stop buying it. It's time Labor was honest with the workers in coal and gas and took that transition seriously. No new coal and gas. 11:07 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. The Albanese government proudly took to the election a comprehensive and ambitious plan to restore Australia's manufacturing base with the aim of seizing the economic opportunities posed by our rapidly evolving economy. We have long had a deeply proud history of manufacturing in Australia, and that proud history has been felt no more strongly than in my home state of South Australia, where automotive manufacturing drove several generations of prosperity and a growing middle-class. But after a decade of the Liberals and Nationals, manufacturing is hurting. South Australians will never forget the former coalition cabinet minister who dared Holden to leave our state, or the Liberal defence minister who criticised the AFC, saying they couldn't build a canoe. Now is our chance to restore pride in manufacturing across this country, to transform Australian industry and to revive our ability to make world-class products at home. This bill delivers on our government's promise at the last election to establish a $15 billion fund as part of our plan to rebuild Australia's industrial base. The NRF will provide finance—including loans, guarantees and equity—to drive investment in seven priority areas of our economy. It will target projects and investments that help Australia capture new high-value market opportunities to help our businesses grow and succeed in the economy of today and tomorrow. This includes NRF finance to grow advanced manufacturing and support businesses to innovate and move up the technological ladder. The pandemic taught us some very important lessons. It showed us how reliant we were on overseas supply chains and the challenges of scaling up local manufacturing in times of urgent need. From PPE to the vaccines themselves, delays in sourcing these products and being able to make them locally impacted our nation's public health response. It's because of this that the government has identified medical science products as one of the seven priority areas to be given consideration for NRF investment in order to leverage Australia's world-leading research to provide essential supplies such as medical devices, personal protective equipment, medicines and vaccines. I think the NRF is a very important step and a very important reform. I am absolutely unapologetic about our government using the levers it has as a government to deliver for the Australian people—to deliver, encourage and support local manufacturing; to deliver jobs; to deliver opportunity; to support businesses; and to scale up manufacturing. My state has always had a proud history in manufacturing, but this will help to make it better. It will provide more support and opportunities for businesses and, therefore, for those who work within businesses. Those opposite have a choice: they can support us and join us in renewing and revitalising manufacturing or they can turn their backs on manufacturing once again. I commend this bill to the Senate. 11:10 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'm delighted to be able to make a contribution to the debate on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. I'm pleased to also follow the contribution made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Cash. She made some very important points around some of the issues we have with this bill. I don't think there is a senator in this place who doesn't want to see manufacturing grow and who doesn't want to see jobs kept in Australia or brought to Australia from overseas in the manufacturing sector. The bizarre claim that anyone in this place wouldn't want those things for the people they represent I think should be called out for what it is, which is simply ridiculous. We might have differences of opinion on how we get to a good manufacturing policy, how we bring these jobs in from overseas and keep them here and how we value-add to the products, raw materials and resources we have in this country. That's a good thing. That's what we do in this democracy. Senator Allman-Payne and I probably have some very different views on things like forestry, but we can still work through them and come to a good outcome on behalf of the people of Australia—some of whom are in the gallery today. I will start with the fundamental issue that we in the opposition have with this bill—the fact it does ignore some of the economic situations and realities that industry faces. There are things like rising energy costs; a lack of supply of particular materials and inputs into the manufacturing process; labour market shortages; of course increased costs related to labour, which is another key input; disrupted supply chains that arise out of some of these challenges; and increased fuel costs. This bill does nothing to address those issues. Until we address those issues we are going to continually find ourselves coming up against the same challenges. They act as a stranglehold on the growth of manufacturing in this country. If the government were serious about growing this part of our economy—manufacturing—which is something we all want to happen, the government would seriously address those chokeholds, like rising energy costs and having no alternatives to the current energy generation options we have. The majority of energy in this country, as we know, is generated by coal and gas, but we have heard calls for, and some concessions made around, new coal and gas. We need to acknowledge upfront that the government, sadly, misunderstands the problems faced by manufacturing and, therefore, hasn't properly addressed those issues. There is another example, and we have other legislation before us at the moment. I'm not seeking to debate that legislation, because that would be against the standing orders of course, President. On the one hand we have a bill before us that enables the government to distribute support for manufacturing of various kinds in specific sectors—it's taxpayers' money in effect—and on the other hand we have legislation that introduces new taxes to manufacturing in this country. I refer to—without seeking to debate it—the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. That bill is going to drive up the cost of manufacturing because of the inability of industry to secure carbon credits to offset their emissions because they won't be able to meet the baseline emissions reductions. So this one government in the 10 months it's been in power has decided to make it more expensive to manufacture, making it more uncompetitive for businesses in this country to be able to do what it is they do—manufacture cement, aluminium or steel, for example—and then, on the other hand, they've come in as the heroes, saying, 'We have $15 billion to drive manufacturing.' To give with one hand and take with the other, frankly, isn't going to solve the problem. It just highlights that the government doesn't understand what's happening there. And all this is happening with taxpayer's money, which is becoming something that is very much in short supply. There are other issues I want to touch on in the time I have available to me. Senator Cash has gone through a number of issues around the process for application, how it's going to work, how long it is going to take to access support from this scheme and whether the funding model is fit for purpose given what businesses are up against. Those sorts of things Senator Cash has canvassed well. But I want to turn to the issue of forestry because that is one of those things that was marked out by the government in their election manifesto as a key industry to support. I was pleased that the now Albanese Labor government did support the forestry sector by copying our forestry policy nearly word for word. They added a couple of things. I acknowledge Senator Polley in the chamber here today, a proud Tasmanian who's always putting energy into support for sectors, perhaps not in the right way. But, as a proud Tasmanian, she will support good Tasmanian jobs. They had their policy on forestry. They also said that they were going to include forestry in the National Reconstruction Fund, which they've done, but it's all very unclear to me exactly what this bill will do. So I foreshadow that when we progress to the committee stage I will be asking questions around exactly how this legislation will work and how the program, once established, will be available to parts of the forestry industry and not others. In particular, I want to touch on native forestry. I recognise Senator Allman-Payne has made some remarks about that. I acknowledge the difference in opinions that we will have. That's a wonderful thing that we can freely do in this country—express different views and, at the end of the day, say, 'Good day,' in the corridor outside this chamber. But only a couple weeks ago the Australian Greens issued a press release about confessions they had procured in return for support for this legislation. My colleague Senator Allman-Payne, in a joint statement with Senator Urquhart and Mr Bandt, the leader of the Greens in the other place, talked about this program and the bill not being allowed to provide support for coal gas projects or logging in native forests and that, in return for that agreement, support for the bill would be provided. I will start by contrasting that with the statement of the Australian Forest Products Association, a very good entity. They have a slightly different view of what's in and what's out here. They talked about how value-adding in the native forest industry is still part of this legislation. I will come to my reading of the legislation in a moment. Again, as I said, I will have questions in the committee stage to interrogate this, because I want to know what is in and what is out and what certainty there is for industry around that. For what it's worth, I am a supporter of native forestry. I think it is something we should be doing more of here because we do it better than anywhere else in the world—more sustainably and to the world's best standards. People look to Australia and say, 'That's how we want to do it.' We should be very proud of that because, at the end of the day, it is better for the environment if we do it here rather than ripping forests out of the Congo basin and importing the timber here once the value-add has been done, perhaps by cheap labour in another country. We are better off doing it here, having the jobs and the environment credentials here in Australia. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Boo! That's the drug dealer's defence. Senator DUNIAM 263418 It is good to see Senator Whish-Wilson in the chamber. He has different views to me on things like forestry. But being the gentleman that I am I can acknowledge that we have different opinions and we can agree to disagree, and I will continue on with my contribution in silence, I hope. The Prime Minister made a promise before the last election to Tasmanian forestry workers. I have a letter here, dated 17 May, from the Hon. Anthony Albanese, Leader of the Opposition, as he was then. It was addressed to workers and participants in the Tasmanian forest and forest products industry. Without reading the whole letter, he said, 'I promise you that if I become Prime Minister the government I lead will not shut down native forestry in Tasmania.' Now, I accept it is only for the state of Tasmania. It doesn't relate to the industries in Victoria or the great state of Western Australia, where, sadly, closures of that industry are occurring, which is something I lament terribly and will talk about in a very respectful way. He goes on to say: The fact that a low-carbon-emitting industry like yours, which uses a renewable resource, grown in Tasmania, is excluded from the former government's Modern Manufacturing Strategy is shameful. Adding to my commitment to you, a federal Labor government will support native forest harvesting, and Labor will assist in growing the plantation estate and increasing Tasmania's capacity in sawmilling, timber processing and pulping, including more value-adding jobs in Tasmania.' It is pretty clear that the Prime Minister was making a commitment to the people of Tasmania that native forestry was in. In fact, he uses the three words 'native forest harvesting' in a letter that talks about manufacturing and is a reference to the policy we have now. As I said earlier, Senator Allman-Payne has secured an agreement out of the government that native forest logging is out, and that is something the Greens are very proud of. Senator Watt, the relevant minister, said in question time on Tuesday of this week, in answer to a question from Senator Sterle, that this bill 'was never about investing in coal, gas or native forests, despite the Greens patting themselves on the back for getting a win they didn't actually get'. I don't know who's right here, whether the Greens are right about having secured this agreement to have coal, gas and native forestry out or whether the government are telling the truth about it always having been out of the equation. This is when I turn to the legislation, and I look at clause 63, paragraphs (3) and (4), which talk about prohibited investments. Paragraph (3) says: (3) An investment of a Corporation body must not: …   …   … (c) directly finance the logging of native forests. Paragraph (4) defines 'native forest' to 'not include a plantation' and says: plantation means an intensively managed stand of trees that is created by the regular placement of seedlings or seed. I understand that, but does that mean the National Reconstruction Fund will fund the harvesting of plantation but not native? Or is it only about the value-add, which is what the minister was telling us about? It has been put to me a number of times in the chamber this week, mainly in response to disorderly interjections, President—I wasn't the one making them, I might add— Senator Polley e5x For once! Senator DUNIAM 263418 'For once', says Senator Polley. But the point is, is the National Reconstruction Fund funding the harvesting of plantation timber but not native? If so, on what basis? I'd love to know, and I look forward to interrogating this in the committee stage later on today or perhaps even next week. What is the science behind that? I'm sure the minister will be able to give us a very clear answer on that. The Australian Forest Products Association have dealt with this in a briefing paper they provided a week or so back for public consumption: 'Transition to plantations is not an option. Calls to transition public native forestry into supply through plantations are unrealistic, despite plantations playing a major role in the industry. The current plantation estate is not suitable for high-quality timber products. Hardwood timber from our native forests is sustainably harvested, typically every 60 to 120 years, giving it time to develop the strength and appearance properties that consumers want.' There's a great deal more information which I will put on record in the committee stage of this bill. It's timber like the stuff we work in and around here in this chamber. It's the timber that you will see on your window frames at home, that staircases are made out of, that important parts of furniture in any house will be drawn from. It's either that, from Australian sustainably managed, world's best-standard forests or, sadly, in many cases, that ripped out of forests in very vulnerable parts of the world where there is a depressed economy that is developing and it is done with no regard for the environment at all. Returning to my point around not understanding the issues that are pressuring manufacturing in this country, state Labor governments in Victoria and Western Australia, I lament, have policies to shut down native forestry. There are those who will have different views about this, but how can a federal Labor government say they support manufacturing, including native forest value-add, when their state counterparts in Western Australia and Victoria have a policy to shut those industries down? As a result of not supporting the harvesting and management of those forests, which is an important resource—as a Tasmanian, I'm proud of what happens in our great state in managing those forests—when the resource availability is shut down, the value-add is shut down. As a result of not supporting the harvesting and management of those forests—which are an important resource, and, as a Tasmanian, I'm proud of what happens in our great state with the management of those forests—what happens is: when you shut down the resource availability, you shut down the value-add. We saw Parkside lured to Western Australia, with much support and many commitments from the Western Australian Labor government. Now they are shutting down. Scores of jobs in that regional community are going. Do you know where they're going? It's not somewhere else in Australia. It's offshore, because we'll still want the products that were made in that mill, but we won't be able to get them here. It's the same in Victoria. The Heyfield Mill is closing down as a result of the shutdown of the native forestry sector, which means that those jobs are going. So Labor have a lot explaining to do. I'm looking forward to the certainty that will be provided as we progress through this. 11:25 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. I'm so proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government that is introducing a bill to restore Australian's faith that we can manufacture here in this country. The last few years have been tough for Australia and for the world. The cost of living continues to rise. We're rebuilding in a post-COVID world. The Ukraine invasion is contributing to the global cost-of-living crisis and supply chains are stretched. We realise manufacturing has been offshore for too long, which has had deleterious consequences for the people of Australia, including our manufacturing industries. It was very interesting to hear the contribution from my fellow Tasmanian in relation to this bill. On the one hand, yes, he wants to support native forests and the downstream processing of that timber. I, obviously, support that as well. But this is a bill, which he could support, that is going to return Australian jobs and manufacturing back to Australian shores. This bill is about addressing those issues and driving the economy in the longer-term, particularly with the challenges we're facing at the moment. Geopolitical issues come and go and are ever-present, and climate change is enduring, but these are opportunities not hindrances. We have reached a point in history whereby we must all work together to cooperate and negotiate. This is one of those bills that those opposite should be negotiating and, ultimately, supporting. This fund is designed to support the evolution, the reinforcement and the diversification of Australian manufacturing. Through the federal election campaign, I visited many businesses and industries across my home state of Tasmania. I was told, day after day, that the state and those businesses were desperate for the support they needed to bring back some of our industries that have left Tasmanian shores. What we need is manufacturing back on our soil, in our factories and in our workplaces. That's why we're investing in 180,000 fee-free TAFE places across the country, so we can develop those skills. This bill and this fund are designed to help Australia to again be a country of making things. We want to back investment in Australian businesses and Australian manufacturing. For too long, we've outsourced manufacturing when, in fact, we make the best products in the world right here—products of quality that are enhanced by Australian ingenuity. This fund will be managed independently of government. It's an independent board—expertise and a mix of investment mandate with a laser-like focus to give back to the Australian taxpayer. It will deliver for every Australian business. It will deliver for manufacturing in Australia. We want Australians and Australian businesses to have the confidence to once again invest in Australia, to purchase capital and to back in an Australian workforce to drive productivity and innovation. I've spoken passionately in the past about climate change and the opportunities presented by a changing climate. My home state of Tasmania is 100 per cent renewable. We are world leaders in renewable energy. So $3 billion within the fund will be dedicated to renewables investment. Three billion dollars out of the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund displays a commitment to renewables jobs and a commitment to reduce emissions to meet the targets the parliament supported for 2030, and net zero. It's a commitment to companies like Lion Energy and the Bell Bay Advanced Manufacturing Zone—very, very important to the Tasmanian economy. There is green hydrogen and solar, and exciting areas for renewables such as in education, investment and innovation in Australia, which is already manufacturing some of the best solar panels in the world. Australia can be the renewables superpower, and we can compete with Europe and Asia in the renewables space. It isn't too late. We've had nine years, nine very long years, of neglect by those opposite. It was on their watch that manufacturing left Australian shores. They never invested in Australian skills. So, when Holden closed, all that experience of those skilled workers that had year after year of expertise just disappeared. We know the previous Liberal government and Liberal state governments neglected the TAFE sector. They did nothing to bring our universities together with TAFE to ensure that Australians were skilled for the jobs of the future, because they don't believe in anything. We've seen clearly, over the last 10 months, that they're really the 'no-alition', because they say no to everything. We've got a fund that they should be supporting, but again we will see, when this goes to the final vote, that they will vote against it. They're voting against Australian jobs. They're voting against Australian skills. They're voting against the wishes of the Australian people, who gave us a mandate. We went to the election with this, and those opposite are going to vote against it. Australia can, as I said, compete with Europe and Asia. It's about supporting the manufacture of some of those new energy technologies that come with low or zero emissions, and we can scale up onshore, not offshore. Australia has always been a manufacturing country, and we can be that country again. We can make things here. We can make good-quality things. We should be supporting the industries of the future to make sure that those jobs come back to Australia. I can vividly remember, many years ago now, when those opposite let Holden close its doors here in Australia. It was a sad day not just for car enthusiasts; it was a sad day because we saw those jobs going offshore and those skills being lost from manufacturing in this country. But we as a government are supporting and we will invest in businesses, in renewable energy and in new technologies to make sure those manufacturing jobs come back to our shores. We need it in my home state of Tasmania. We need it right across this great country of ours. A renewables future is what the world is about. We need to take advantage of that. We need to back in manufacturing. We need to back in Australian jobs. We need to back this in because it's not only good for our economy but also essential to the social fabric of our communities to have Australians working. Let's advance. Let's support. Let those opposite and around the chamber think for a moment about what this will mean for our economy and for the Australian people. So I'm asking you, I'm urging you, to support this legislation and back in advanced manufacturing in this country. To those who are destined to vote against this bill, I want you to reflect on that while you still have the opportunity—what this is going to mean for our country. 11:34 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Senator Polley—through you, President—I will be reflecting on the fact that, between 1997 and 2012, billions of Australian taxpayer dollars went to supporting the automotive industry. How much do you think was spent between 1997 and 2012 in Australian taxpayer dollars? To everyone in the gallery, to everyone paying tax, to everyone listening: how much do you think was spent not in today's dollars but in 1997 to 2012? Five billion? No. Ten billion? No. Fifteen billion? No. Twenty billion? No. Twenty-five billion? No. Thirty billion dollars of taxpayer dollars was spent supporting the automotive industry. And what happened? It left anyway. Thirty billion dollars was spent. And now we have a new policy coming from those opposite, industry policy 2.0, proposing exactly the same thing. Senator SCARR 282997 Senator Tim Ayres says it's a disgrace. Do you know how much was spent in taxpayer dollars to subsidise those 40,000 jobs each year? It was $300,000 of taxpayer dollars that was spent per job, to subsidise each of those jobs. Does that make sense to anyone in the gallery? Does it make sense to anyone listening to this debate—$300,000 of taxpayer dollars to subsidise those 40,000 jobs. What happened at the end? They went anyway. Now the government is proposing a policy which will take us back into that territory. Those aren't my figures. If you want to learn about the issues in relation to this debate, have a look at the Bills digest—not prepared by a politician but prepared by our wonderful parliamentary staff, who go through these issues. We spent $30 billion on the automotive industry, and they couldn't get it to work. Now we're going down exactly the same path as we did in the past. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator SC 282997 Senators might want to restrain their remarks whilst I make this comment—I'm happy for you to continue after I make this comment: I would like to acknowledge former senator Kimberley Kitching in terms of her role in relation to the consideration of manufacturing policy. In the last parliament I served as chair of the economics committee, and former senator Kimberley Kitching, a Labor senator from Victoria, participated in that committee and demonstrated a great deal of passion and empathy for the cause of those opposite, which I respect but deeply disagree with. I'd just like to note her contribution in relation to this debate. There are so many myths in this debate. We heard from Senator Polley that the previous government apparently did nothing to support the manufacturing industry. What are the actual realities in terms of that? What's actually the truth in terms of the support of the previous government? You don't have to ask me; again, you can go to the Bills digest for the objective information in relation to this. I quote from page 12 of the Bills digest: The Commission estimated that the manufacturing industry had received more than $2.8 billion in net industry assistance from government in 2020-21— That was under the previous government—$2.8 billion in one year. Those opposite say, 'You did nothing.' That $2.8 billion is not my money or Senator Ayres's money; it's the people's money. And they want to increase that amount from $2.8 billion to $15 billion. That's their answer. Don't bring this farcical argument that those on this side of the chamber don't care about the manufacturing industry; it's totally a fallacious argument, and totally wrong. We are concerned about how we get to the position to provide the maximum opportunity for people to have productive, efficient manufacturing industries in this country, as opposed to this sort of nonsensical industry policy. First, I want to talk about approach. The core business of government should be about creating the investment environment for manufacturing and every other industry. That is the core function of government. It is not to take shareholdings in different businesses and become an owner of those private enterprises. I don't think anyone here or any of the 15 million Australian taxpayers signed up to contribute $1,000 each for the Labor Party's private equity fund. That's essentially what they're proposing. It's not your choice. They're going to invest your money in individual enterprises all over Australia. Gee, what could go wrong? The Australian automotive industry received $30 billion between 1997 and 2012—$30 billion!—for no result. The other point I want to make has been made by the Productivity Commission. You will not hear anyone on the other side of the chamber talk about the Productivity Commission. Why? Because the Productivity Commission have repeatedly warned Australia about going down this path. That's because it does not work. It distorts the economy. It promotes rent-seeking and the misallocation of resources. There will be a conga line of rent-seekers coming after the $15 billion from the government with respect to their projects. You've got to ask yourself this question—and it's in the Bills Digest— Senator SCARR 282997 Sorry, Madam President; I'm having trouble hearing myself over Senator Ayres's constant interjections. If they were witty, I might give him more indulgence. But it is hard to hear. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, I will remind senators that they need to listen in respectful silence. Of course, it is open to any senator who wishes to make a contribution to add their name to the list. Senator SCARR 282997 Thank you. I'm sure Senator Ayres will. I want to refer to the report I did, as deputy chair of the Economics References Committee, which looked at this, and ask two simple questions. What we've got here is the government proposing to invest your money, as taxpayers, in manufacturing enterprises all over Australia. Right? That's the proposition. It will be done either directly by becoming joint owners or by lending them money. That's the proposition they're putting forward for this $15 billion. I have two simple questions. Why can't the particular venture attract equity investment or debt support without going to the government? If someone's got a good commercial idea and they think they're going to generate a rate of return, generate profits—the flow of dividends—why can't they go and raise the money from private investors? What's the issue? Why can't they go and raise the money from the bank, if they've got a good idea? Maybe it's that they can't get the funds from somewhere else because it's just not a good idea. The government is actually going to fund them. Next time you come to Parliament House, Madam President, you'll see a queue of rent-seekers down Kings Avenue who are coming up to this place to seek equity capital and loans from the government to fund their projects. We're all going to become shareholders. We're all going to be thrown into this swamp. That's what's going to happen under this scheme. So the question is: if the private sector will not invest its equity in a venture and commercial lenders will not advance sufficient debt funds, why should the government risk taxpayers' money—your money? It's not my money; it's your money—$15 billion. At the same time, think about how else that money could be spent, Madam President. You won't hear those opposite talking about that. That's called opportunity cost, the scarcity of resources. These are basic economic principles. You will not hear those opposite talk about them. How else could that $15 billion be spent? Maybe it could be spent in improving our road infrastructure, in improving health services or in adding drugs to the PBS for people who need those life-saving drugs. Maybe it could be spent in doing the things that should be the core business of government. That's the opportunity cost. Every single one of the dollars that are spent on this utopian dream is a dollar that can't be spent somewhere else. That's opportunity cost. You will not hear those opposite refer to that. Could I just say, Madam President, that I come to this place with 25 years experience in the private sector. I have dealt with state owned enterprises on four continents. I was involved in one example where a state owned enterprise lost US$1.2 billion in relation to an investment. Do you know what? When you engage in these investments you don't always make a profit; you can make a loss. The problem is that when the government is the shareholder there's a blurring of the line between the commercial and the political. This has been well substantiated. I want to give you a quote from a book I often quote from, Basic Economics. Let me quote from this book. These aren't my words. Page 492 says: Where there are elected governments, their officials must be concerned about re-elected— Does that make sense? which is to say that mistakes cannot be admitted and reversed as readily as they must be by a private business operating in a competitive market— Does that make sense to you? in order for the business to survive financially. No one likes to admit being mistaken but, under the incentives and constraints of profit and loss, there is often no choice but to reverse course before financial losses threaten bankruptcy. In politics, however, the costs of the government's mistakes are often paid by the taxpayers, while the costs of admitting mistakes are paid by elected officials. That is the blurring between the lines of politics and the commercial. Senator SCARR 282997 Senator Ayres, you will have your opportunity. I know I'm getting under your skin because my rebuttal of your utopian notion doesn't suit you. President, you might ask Senator Ayres to just cool down a bit. That's basic economics. Let me give you an example. There is something called the Concorde fallacy. What's the Concorde fallacy? It's actually named after the Concorde. We all remember the supersonic jet. The Concorde was considered this great idea between the UK government owned enterprises and French owned enterprises. They wanted to invest in supersonic technology. They wanted to be ahead of the game. They wanted to provide manufacturing jobs. So they got together, they did the research and development, and they built the Concorde. And what happened? It was a commercial and financial disaster. The budget was blown, the project timetable was blown, and the Concorde doesn't fly anymore. But the reason they call it the Concorde fallacy is—this is the position those opposite in government are going to put all of us in as taxpayers—the UK and French governments of the day were unable, from a political perspective, to say: 'Draw a line under it. We won't put any more taxpayer dollars into it. It hasn't worked.' It's a fallacy to think that it makes sense to put an extra dollar of capital into it when you've invested billions of dollars of capital. You have to ignore the billions of dollars of capital you've invested and look at whether it makes commercial sense to invest that additional dollar of capital. That's the Concorde fallacy—billions and billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer funds were wasted under that fallacy. This is the reality. They don't like to hear it, but again I come back to that fundamental question. If these companies can't raise the money from private investors, there might be a reason. Typically, people who analyse investment opportunities will invest in an opportunity that makes sense. But they want to invest your money in relation to these private ventures. What's going to happen when it goes pear shaped? What's going to happen after the Australian government has invested and becomes a minority shareholder in, say, a manufacturing enterprise which has 500 workers and is making a loss? We know what's going to happen— Sena 30484 And it's in a marginal seat. Senator SCARR 282997 And it's in a marginal seat, as Senator Brockman says. Politics: 'We can't shut that business down. We've got to put in more capital. We've got to put more of your money into that business. We can't let those jobs go.' We've gone down this path before. Governments all over the world have gone down this path. It does not work. The focus of government should be basically a focus on the investment environment. There are plenty of things we can do to make this country more productive and more attractive for capital investment in the manufacturing industry, and that's what we should be doing, not investing taxpayer dollars in the way proposed. 11:49 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania We certainly have gone down this road before, Senator Scarr. Rather than listen to you, I've just spent the last 10 minutes on Google looking at the amount of money your government put into investing in private industry, so let us start with that, shall we? Two billion dollars announced under the Morrison government for the new energy economy, for critical loan facilities and for a whole range of things, like public-private partnerships in infrastructure. There was $500 million directly for carbon capture and storage technology. There was another billion dollars directly to assist private industry to fund low-emissions technology funds, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Medical Research Future Fund. They're just some of the schemes under the previous government. Obviously Senator Scarr has made a loud contribution in here, but he's not loud enough within the Liberal party room. This is accepted practice, for governments to invest in emerging industries. The simple reason is risk-reward ratios. This is why the Greens, back with the Labor Party in 2013, negotiated $10 billion to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in clean energies, which has been very successful; and $2 billion to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which has also been very successful. We've seen the CSIRO over many years using public money to invest in high-risk, high-reward technologies like the wi-fi we're all using in here on our phones. That came from government leadership in investment. The list goes on. This is a very common thing, and the Greens are proud to support a fund of $15 billion that will keep manufacturing in Australia and re-establish sovereignty in our manufacturing. I'd like to recognise the work that my colleague Senator Penny Allman-Payne has done in regard to this bill today and for her negotiations in getting outcomes on this bill, specifically to wreck funding into fossil fuel projects and into the forestry sector. We do support funding into renewable energy. As I said, the Greens have a very proud legacy, shall I say, working with the Labor Party just over 10 years ago to establish what I think was a revolution at the time in investing in driving the renewable energy revolution. We don't hear a lot in this chamber, especially in recent weeks with the debate going into the safeguard mechanism, about the fantastic work we did with the Gillard government. We tend to go back a few years, to the Rudd government, and talk about the CPRS. Personally, I'm not sure why the Labor Party continue to write Julia Gillard out of the history books, because she was able to negotiate the clean energy package, which was the gold standard for renewable energy action and driving low emissions right around the world. I was here when that was in the parliament. Obviously it was a sad day to see the Liberals dancing the ring o' rosy when they managed to remove the carbon price and some of the key elements of that package. I do want to acknowledge Julia Gillard for negotiating with the Greens and delivering such fantastic outcomes, which are still with us today and still driving lower emissions around the country, creating jobs, supporting research and development and supporting innovation. There are a couple of things I would also like to address before I get to my substantive contribution. Senator Polley mentioned that she's proud to see the government investing in retaining manufacturing in Australia. I was here to witness the whole myriad of trade deals that the Liberal Party signed where we did sell our domestic industries down the river, like our car industry. Who can forget the very famous cows-for-cars trade deal with the Korean government, not to mention the Japanese free trade deal negotiations around what was previously the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the RCEP agreement. We do need to retain sovereignty. I note that during COVID this issue became very critical. I remember being in this chamber in the early days of 2020 when the proverbial was hitting the fan and we were coming back here to pass stimulus packages and to try keep everything on track. It became really obvious to us that, in areas like medical technology and medical innovation in terms of dealing with this virus, we just didn't have the capabilities and the capacity in this country to even look after ourselves. We were desperately relying on overseas planes arriving from other countries to deliver simple things such as PPE gear. It was clear something was wrong with this country when we didn't have the ability to manufacture and deliver these things ourselves. I would like to recognise previous senator Rex Patrick: he always used to say there was only one place left in this country that manufactured toilet paper during the COVID crisis, and that was Kimberly-Clark in South Australia, which, through various strange twists of fate, we managed to keep operating in Australia even after relentless pressure to shut it down and move operations overseas. So we at least had one—one manufacturing place in this country that could make toilet paper when we so urgently needed it during COVID. It's really important to reinvest back into sovereignty of Australian manufacturing, not just to create local jobs, new innovation and technology and new industries but also because it's actually part of our national security. It's part of our sovereignty that we need to pay heed to. I would also like to address Senator Duniam's comments around forestry. We in the Greens have come to expect that from the Liberal Party. And it's very interesting to contrast Senator Duniam's contribution to Senator Scarr's, which was saying the government should invest directly in private businesses. Senator Duniam was in here defending the forestry industry. We have literally put in billions of dollars of public money to underwrite this industry over the years—billions and billions of dollars in both direct and indirect subsidies to keep what are largely small commercial operators functioning. There's nothing more important in our fight against climate change than protecting our native forests. Yes, we need to plant more trees, we need to regenerate denuded areas and we need to re-wild areas, but protecting our old-growth forests is absolutely critical. They are our first line of defence in our climate emergency. Tasmania has some of the most carbon rich forests on the planet. This has been proven beyond a doubt in places like the Tarkine and Tasmania's south-west World Heritage areas. These forests are essential to sequester carbon. It's no secret—the facts are out there for anyone who wants to check it. If you look at the Tasmanian government, yes, we're 100 per cent renewables, but why do we only just break net zero? Why are we are struggling if we're 100 per cent renewable in our power generation? Because Tasmania's native forest industry is a massive emitter under our carbon accounting. It is a very significant national emitter, so stopping native forest logging would actually be a very smart thing to do, when we're looking at where we can reduce our emissions and meet our carbon budgets with the restraints we have on them going forward. It's an absolute no-brainer to protect our native forests. They are our first line of defence in our climate emergency. While I'm on my feet in the Senate, I would really like to pay tribute to some of the groups that have tirelessly campaigned to save these native forests: the Tree Projects guys down in Tasmania, who I was just with on Saturday last week; GRANT, the Grassroots Action Network Tasmania; the Wilderness Society Tasmania; the Bob Brown Foundation; and a whole bunch of other tireless activists, who are protecting these forests not just for their biodiversity value and their value to local community but also because they know we need them to fight climate change. The drier they get and the more we see storms where we get dry lightning, the higher risk they are at. While logging is still, unfortunately, alive and well in Tasmania—actually, I will take that back, President; it's alive but it's certainly not well, because it's not a good thing to be logging native forests—logging is not the number one threat to our wild areas and our beautiful Gondwana Rainforests. Climate change is the biggest threat to these forests. We need to do everything we can to protect them. I want to make what I feel like is a significant point in contribution to this debate today, and that's around the circular economy. I will recognise the previous Liberal government took steps, through the waste reduction and recycling reforms we saw in the last parliament, towards building a circular economy, and I'd also like to recognise that the current Labor government are taking the next steps towards building a circular economy. We now have a circular-economy task force, appointed by Minister Plibersek, and I hope we're going to use the current framework in our country to start mandating product stewardship schemes so that we actually get action on things like recycling of plastics and other waste. But building a circular economy requires a whole-of-government approach. In areas like the priority areas that have been highlighted in this fund, like critical minerals and a whole range of other things, we need to take a circular-economy approach to these investments. I went and had a look at some of the submissions on this bill—for example, submissions from the Australian Council of Recycling. Obviously they commended the Australian government's priority of establishing this fund, but they brought to the attention of the government that they're an industry that needs this investment, and they urge the government to invest in circular-economy principles or invest in industries that could deliver on the circular economy and areas like advanced recycling technologies, which should be included under this fund. I think we all agree that this is an absolutely critical area that all Australians, no matter their political colour, agree on. We need to reduce waste. We need to build an economy where everything stays in our economy. That's the definition of a circular economy: everything's designed for its end of life; nothing is wasted. It's a zero-waste economy. That way we get to reduce inputs and we get to move to net zero emissions more quickly, because it's taking really important climate action, and we get to invest in Australian industry and keep that expertise here. Recycling modernisation funds were set up under the previous government that are still able to be accessed by the industry. They will be separate to the kinds of investments we're going to see under this fund. Sadly, there hasn't been a big uptake of those recycling modernisation funds. That's because the recycling industry doesn't want to spend the money, even if it's co-investing with government. They don't want to spend money in this industry, because they don't have confidence that we have the legal framework set up. They know that if you don't mandate, for example, packaging targets to use recycled content—so that when you go into the supermarket 60 per cent or 50 per cent of all the packaging that you see in the supermarket has come from recycled content in Australia—then it wont' happen. Until we get those mandated in laws, they won't have that confidence even to invest in the kinds of funds we've seen today. We've also seen submissions from the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, ATSE, who talk about the need to establish circular economies and urge the government to invest in projects that facilitate the establishment of a circular economy for renewable energy products. In the remaining minute I have left for my contribution, I would like to move my second reading amendment to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) is of the opinion that: (i) building a circular economy is a central element of delivering net-zero emissions, (ii) a circular economy can bolster Australia's capabilities and reduce supply chain vulnerabilities, and (iii) the benefits of a circular economy could add $210 billion in GDP by 2047-48, creating an additional 17,000 full-time equivalent jobs; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) invest in projects that facilitate the establishment of a circular economy for renewable energy and other products, (ii) explicitly incorporate circular economy principles into the seven National Reconstruction Fund priority areas; and (iii) ensure that the National Reconstruction Fund Board gives regard to outcomes and advice from the Circular Economy Taskforce". I imagine it wouldn't be controversial, certainly not for the Labor government, to support this. It's very broad. It's in line with what they're delivering in other areas. The Liberal Party of course should support this, because they've taken the first steps on the road to a circular economy. But they'll probably oppose it, because they're opposing everything. Somehow, now that they're in opposition, everything gets opposed. But it would be good to see the Senate come together and vote on something that—it's not binding on the government, but it is symbolic—sends a really important message that we're all on the same page now in trying to establish a circular economy and a zero-waste economy in this country. 12:04 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I am very pleased to rise today as a proud member of the Albanese government in this chamber to speak about our government's plan to bring manufacturing back home and back to many regions, like the region I live in—regional Queensland. Before I go through the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, the fund that the bill will establish and how the fund will support manufacturing workers, I want to address some of the comments that have been made in this debate. I apologise to Queensland manufacturing workers who are watching this debate for the words that were used in describing their contribution to our state. I certainly do not agree with the Liberal senator who called manufacturing workers rent-seekers. I don't think manufacturing workers in Maryborough who build our trains are rent-seekers. I don't think the manufacturing workers in Cairns who maintain, build and repair our naval ships are rent-seekers. I don't think our sugar workers, whether in Mossman, Gordonvale or Mackay, who produce the sugar that we send overseas and eat ourselves are rent-seekers. I certainly don't think the men and women in defence manufacturing at Rheinmetall in Brisbane are rent-seekers. It was an appalling slur against good men and women who simply seek to have a good, secure local job—and many of them are in regional Queensland. It's not a new concept to Queenslanders that the LNP doesn't support manufacturing or manufacturing workers. I know that those words will really cut home. I seek to distance myself from those statements and make it clear that we on this side of the chamber value the work that manufacturing workers do. We want to create more manufacturing jobs in this country, and that's what this bill seeks to do. Labor's National Reconstruction Fund will invest $15 billion in rebuilding Australia's manufacturing industry. The fund will revitalise Australian industry after a decade of coalition neglect and the extraordinary pressure industry experienced earlier in the pandemic. It will provide loans, equity investment and guarantees for seven strategic investment areas for our long-term security and prosperity. It will provide finance for projects that add value, improve productivity and support transformation, rather than enabling expansion of business as usual. Our bill will ensure that significant investment is above politics, with the fund being administered by an independent board that will assess the projects at arms-length from government. It will be staffed by industry and finance experts, who will ensure that the most up-to-date, clear advice is available and utilised at all times. What's better is that we expect a positive rate of return. It will be a desperately needed boost for those seven priority industry areas. We are looking to value-add in resources because we are a country rich in minerals and it is only right that we transform them into valuable products right here in our country. We shouldn't be mining critical minerals just to ship them overseas, for profits to be made by other countries and other workers and for jobs to be created elsewhere. We want those jobs right here in Australia. We have the skills and we need to do it right here. We are investing in value-adding in the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors as well. The last few years have shown just how important food security is for our country. The last few years have also shown us what kinds of challenges we need to be ready for. That's why one of the areas we are prioritising is investing in medical science. We are making up for lost time, after 10 years of climate inaction and denial, by making renewables a priority investment area. We are also bolstering our strategic workforce skills advantages by prioritising our defence capability. Some defence manufacturing is happening in my home state of Queensland. We're underwriting all of this potential by investing in enabling capabilities like quantum robotics and AI. It's a really exciting prospect that all of these different areas of investment will be prioritised by this government and by this fund so that we can get these ideas off the ground and we can be ahead of the times when it comes to investing in advanced manufacturing. Most excitingly, we have a government that is finally backing Australian workers, industry and communities by including transport manufacturing in the seven priority areas. I'm particularly excited about this investment because, in my home state of Queensland, we've proven what comes from investing in manufacturing and investing in regional communities. It was a state Labor and government who brought rail manufacturing back home to Maryborough and the workers in that region, who make up a third of the existing manufacturing workforce who benefit from decisions like these. These are the workers that these decisions matter to. Maryborough, as a thriving industrial town, has rail facilities that employ hundreds of workers. There is long-term certainty, because we know that big projects like rail or defence or resources are long-term projects. That means that families can make a life in regional Queensland because workers know they have a long-term, secure job. These projects drive growth up and down the supply chain, creating jobs in small and medium enterprises. This investment isn't just about the job on the manufacturing floor; it's about the childcare centre, the cafe, the teacher, the person working in the local school—all supported by a rich history of manufacturing jobs in a regional town like Maryborough. It's a story that shows how investing in manufacturing can transform communities, states and, hopefully soon, the nation. Since the change of government, support for regional manufacturing is back on the agenda. The Albanese Labor government took to the election a plan to rebuild Australian manufacturing and the jobs that come with it. Since coming to government, I've had the opportunity to visit dozens of manufacturing sites across regional Queensland—something that I've continued to do since being elected. I'm always interested to find out the types of things that we make in regional Queensland and what we could be making more of if we just got the chance to do so. Last week I visited a local window and door manufacturer in Cairns. Some of the staff have worked there for over 20 years. I really shouldn't be surprised by the length of their service, because manufacturing jobs are secure jobs. Secure jobs mean that families can build a life in regional towns, and that means regional towns can build a prosperous future. It means that young people in the regions can build a life for themselves without having to move too far from home, which is something I know is important to parents in regional communities as well. Regional Queensland can and should be a manufacturing powerhouse. We already make trains in Maryborough, which was a blueprint for the prosperity that this government's support for manufacturing can deliver. Now our National Reconstruction Fund promises to unlock more opportunities in more regional towns. We should be making more things in Cairns, in Townsville, in Rockhampton and in Bundaberg as well. Not only does it mean good local jobs and industry; it also contributes to our economy being more robust and complex. Regional manufacturing jobs don't just benefit the towns where they are based; they benefit the whole community. Already, as a Labor government, we are investing in projects like the Cairns Marine Precinct, a $300 million investment into the marine precinct there to maintain and build and repair ships for our naval fleet. I announced this alongside Minister Catherine King a few months ago and am very pleased to continue to visit the shipyards there in Cairns to see the work progressing. We are investing in the Townsville Hydrogen Hub, which will ensure that regional Queensland is a centrepiece of our path to become a renewable energy superpower. We're also backing the cutting-edge research, development and training facility in Townsville referred to as NQ Spark. All across Queensland, Labor is investing in regional workforce, infrastructure and ingenuity to rebuild Australian manufacturing and industry. The National Reconstruction Fund will supercharge all of these investments. Make no mistake: this is a very good-news story. It's a good-news story for manufacturing and businesses, it's a good-news story for regional Queensland, and it's a good-news story for regional families. It's a story that makes the decision by those opposite to vote against the bill all that more disappointing. Every day in this place it seems like LNP senators are standing up to talk about how they're the party for the regions and yet, without a second thought, they threw up their hands and said no to the biggest peacetime investment in Australian history, one that will create jobs in regional Queensland. When we consider the state that those opposite left our manufacturing industry in, it becomes clear that maybe their opposition is more than just sheepish, that it's a little bit of embarrassment. They weren't up to the job of securing our supply chains when they were in government, they weren't up to the job of growing heavy industry and they weren't up to the job of creating good secure jobs in our regions. It's no secret that manufacturing in Australia has declined steadily over the past decade under the Liberals and Nationals. It's an absolute disgrace that, at the time of the last election, Australia was ranked at the very bottom of the OECD list of self-sufficiency ratings in manufacturing. Industry provides economic sovereignty and security, and Australia ranked dead last in those ratings. Manufacturing grows regional economies and secures long-term jobs, and yet we continued to slide down the scale. Our manufacturing sector makes up only seven per cent of our gross domestic product. But it isn't just a set of statistics and economic indicators; we lived this through the pandemic and we saw the impact of not being able to manufacture things right here in Australia. We know that during the pandemic healthcare workers were making their own PPE because we didn't have enough. For a time, supermarket shelves were empty and we were at the mercy of more self-sufficient countries in accessing vaccine supplies, because our capacity to manufacture vaccines ourselves was incredibly limited, and our much-needed summer break was ruined because we were relying on scarce imported RATs. But the truth is that everyone saw this coming, particularly the manufacturing workers who had been belling the cat for years. Apparently, everyone knew, except for the former government, that we didn't make enough things here. Successive Liberal-National governments pushed the car industry out of Australia. They slashed R&D support, stifling innovation, and they cut funding for apprentices and trainees, which dried up the skills pool we needed to create more jobs and to make more things here. That's the legacy of those opposite when it comes to manufacturing. It's a legacy that they're standing by today when they choose to vote against this bill. Let's be clear about this bill and this policy. It's good policy. It's not only good policy but its outcomes will create a design to make sure that, unlike so many programs under the previous government, the National Reconstruction Fund will make investment decisions free from political interference. There will be no colour-coded spreadsheets, no secret industry minister and no rorts like we saw in the sports and car park funding. Australians can be assured that we have designed this policy to be governed with integrity. This policy will be administered by an independent board and will make decisions based on expert industry and financial advice. And it is expected to deliver a return on investment. This is good policy, and it's about those good people who are manufacturing workers in our country. I've had the real privilege, not only to meet many of them but to understand what drives them. I'll say today, in this Senate, that this is a policy and a commitment to support manufacturing workers. I know that the debate will go down many channels and that there'll be many excuses from those opposite. But, on this side of the chamber, and through this policy, we support manufacturing workers. The people who vote against this policy don't support manufacturing workers. It's black-and-white: we support manufacturing in regional Queensland, and I encourage other senators to do the same. I say to those manufacturing workers in regional Queensland: whether you work in sugar, train manufacturing or marine manufacturing, thank you for the work that you do. I'm so proud to represent you and to deliver this policy for you today. 12:19 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland First of all, I'd just like to defend my good friend and colleague here Senator Scarr against those outrageous slurs by the prior speaker, who seemed to think that he was calling people who work in manufacturing rent seekers. That was completely outrageous, and it's typical of what we have come to expect from the other side, who deal in feelings and fear rather than facts. For a Queensland Labor senator to come in here and say that she supports manufacturing in the regions is an outrageous statement, because it was the Queensland Labor party who sold the Port of Brisbane and sold Queensland Rail. Queensland Rail was built by Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who opened up the Bowen Basin which actually built the railway lines that provided the freight, provided the royalties and provided the demurrage charges at the ports. That recurring revenue, built by the National Party in the 1970s and 1980s, provided the money to fund schools and hospitals—hospitals like a maternity ward in my home town of Chinchilla that had four maternity nurses in the seventies and eighties, when I grew up there. Under a Labor government, we don't have a maternity ward there in Chinchilla or Biloela or many other towns, including Gladstone. And you know why? Because the Queensland Labor government has driven Queensland broke. And you know how they did it? They flogged off all of our infrastructure built by the Liberal-National government of the seventies and eighties that provided the revenue to pay for the recurring expenses and provided jobs in the regions. It wasn't just the Bowen Basin that was opened up. There was the Weipa bauxite deposits. There was value-add going on at Gladstone that created jobs there. We built lots of dams—the mighty Burdekin dam up north and the mighty Wivenhoe Dam. That paid for things like the Captain Cook express in Brisbane to provide valuable infrastructure. But it wasn't just the Queensland state Labor government that destroyed manufacturing in that state and this country; it was the federal Labor government—in particular, the Hawke-Keating government and their reckless neoliberal policies of the eighties, particularly when Paul Keating opened up our capital markets to the world in the 1980s. In 1985 we had $8 billion in foreign debt. The banks had borrowed $8 billion in foreign debt. By 2008 we had $800 billion. The banks had borrowed $800 billion in foreign debt. Nearly all of that money went into inflating house prices in Sydney or Melbourne so that the average house price in Australia had risen from four times earnings to approximately, depending on which city you lived in, between 10 and 12 times earnings. The reason why that matters and why capital controls matter is that you need to dictate how money that is borrowed is invested. The banks were allowed to pump so much money into residential housing, and all that did was inflate the price of housing. It didn't add to productivity. It increased demand, but it didn't increase supply. So now we've got this situation in Australia where we're drowning in debt because we've overinvested in consumption—and, yes, houses are important, but a house is the same house whether it's valued at half a million dollars or $5 million. Because Paul Keating went on this reckless neoliberal ideological spend, we have allowed the foreign banks to drown us in debt, not to mention withholding taxes, which I'll come to in a minute. Not only that but we then had the Button plan, which rationalised and did a lot of things that made it very difficult for Australian industry, particularly the car industry, to compete in international markets. Now, no-one is for a minute suggesting that we didn't need to reform the industry. But we didn't need to actually destroy the entire car industry. I'm not going to say either party is blameless in any of this, but, when the Labor Party come in here and say that we shut down car manufacturing, that's not true. Nissan and Ford shut down under the Rudd-Gillard government—during those years. So we need to get that into context. Not only that but other policies—things like superannuation. When Senator Scarr talks about rent seekers, he is talking about industries like superannuation that didn't exist 30 years ago. We have got tens and tens of thousands of financial engineers in this country that do nothing but shuffle paper and pocket fees. They do not create one asset. I well remember Bob Hawke going out there and saying how compulsory superannuation was going to build infrastructure in this country. That was a completely outrageous lie. Superannuation does not build infrastructure; it buys infrastructure. That is a very significant difference. These superannuation funds sit there every week. They don't have to do a thing. They get 12 per cent—soon to be 12 per cent—of the entire workforce's wage, and they don't have to do anything. This is money for jam. They just pay over the market for existing infrastructure assets, and if they have too much money—which they do now—they don't actually invest here in Australia. They've gone and parked $1 trillion of superannuation offshore. One of the Queensland public super funds is the biggest shareholder in Heathrow Airport in London. Why have we got Australian superannuation funds investing in offshore infrastructure instead of building new infrastructure here? If we want to get manufacturing back on its feet in this country, we need to go back to the past and look at the way it was done in the past. Let me say this: infrastructure is a monopoly. I believe in the private sector, but I don't believe in free markets, and I speak with a great deal of authority when I say that. No greater person than Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, actually said, in the last paragraph of the 'Forgotten people' speech, 'We should not go back to the old and selfish notions of laissez faire.' That's very important. I am on this side of the chamber because I believe in capitalism, and that is people risking their own capital. I don't care whether you're a teacher, a nurse, a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer, a bricklayer, a mechanic or a carpenter; if you get out of bed every day and put your nose to the grindstone, you are a capitalist in my book. You are the one risking capital. That's how markets work. They have to rely on the risk/reward paradigm. That is why, when it comes to monopolistic infrastructure, I believe that governments should build and own it, and that is why I'm against this fund. This fund is going to channel $15 billion to—as my good friend and colleague Senator Scarr rightly says—the rent-seeking parasites. The fact of the matter is that small businesses, like window manufacturers up in Cairns, won't know how to go through all the applications and the paperwork and jump all the hurdles to get the hand-out. This is the thing: guys who work in manufacturing, the guys who are on the tools, can't stand the paperwork. What you will have is the professional class of rent-seeking elites, who know how to work the system—a lot of them will be ex-staffers and lobbyists, who do nothing but grease the wheels, sucking money out of the system. By the way, I don't disagree with Senator Whish-Wilson; I never agreed with a lot of the slush funds we set up, either. Either you own it and you build it, operate it and are accountable for it, or you let the market deal with it, provided that the people who participate in the market are risking their own capital. That is why I hate superannuation. You've got a whole industry out there gambling with other people's money, and that's not right. I should add that most corporations, large corporations especially, aren't capitalists either; they're socialists. The executives who run those corporations get paid millions of dollars, and when they drive those companies into the ground—or, God forbid, sell an asset off to a foreigner—they collect their billions of dollars in bonuses. They don't care about jobs here in Australia. I'm not going to sit here and whinge for the whole 15 minutes. I know I've done a fair bit of whingeing already, so I will move forward on how we get manufacturing back in this country. If we want to rebuild manufacturing in this country, first and foremost we need cheap and efficient base-load energy. I notice that Senator Green didn't once mention the coal workers or the gas workers. What stinks about this so-called reconstruction fund is that the coalmines, the gas mines and the pipelines to pump gas around the country—these are things that give us a natural advantage in this country—are excluded from this fund. If we're really serious about getting manufacturing back on its feet in this country, we need cheap, reliable energy. There's 400 million tonnes of coal out there near my home town of Chinchilla, sitting on the ground, which is owned by the people of Queensland. It is free, except for the cost of production, and it is very cheap to produce. It is right at the ground level. The power station is known as a mine-mouth power station—the coalmine is right next to the power station. The power station sits next to the southern interconnector, which sends electricity to New South Wales and Victoria. It is the cheapest energy in Australia, as per the Finkel report in 2017. We could put up a couple of turbines there. We could put up a nuclear power station to the north of Chinchilla, just outside of Chinchilla in Barakula State Forest, the biggest state forest in the Southern Hemisphere. We can get cheap and reliable base-load energy—coal, gas and nuclear energy. We have got a competitive advantage in that worldwide, and we need that competitive advantage because we can't compete with countries like China on wages because we have a higher standard of living. We should never sacrifice a higher standard of living, but if we want to be competitive we have to produce. The next thing we need to do is to start rewarding those people who actually produce goods and services in this country. We have got an obscene tax structure in this country called payroll tax that actually taxes the employer to employ people. I suggest we bring back a stamp duty on share trading, and the money raised from share trading can be used to fund the abolition of payroll tax in this country. It is absolutely absurd that we tax people to employ people. We have six different payroll taxes in this country—six different threshold levels. For anyone trying to do payroll tax in this country, it's a compliance nightmare, but not only that; it adds to the cost of business. We've got this absurdity in this country where we charge stamp duty on real assets, like houses and businesses and farmland, but we don't charge stamp duty on paper assets. Now, 40 to 50 per cent of the Australian stock market is traded by high-frequency foreign traders who come in and scalp the market. We're rewarding that sort of rubbish, where we have the day traders and the speculators, by not having stamp duty on share trading. We've got to stop rewarding speculators and start rewarding the producers. Let me tell you this. Freedom comes from prosperity. Freedom is the child of affluence, and prosperity comes from productivity, and it's the producers, the workers in this country, that have made this country great. It is the workers in this country who have built this country. They bled for this country, and they are the ones that should be rewarded. Last but not least, we need to fix up our withholding tax structure in this country. I was attacked by none other than the Treasurer when I was a Senate candidate because I made the bold assertion that we should raise withholding taxes on offshore profits. What we've got in this country is a company tax rate of 30c and, depending on the tax treaty, withholding tax rates of between 0c and 15c. That gives multinationals who use foreign capital a tax advantage over domestic capital. That's because, effectively, if you make $100 here and you're a multinational, you can set up a marketing hub like BHP, Rio, Chevron and plenty of others did and you can pay all your profits—what are called above-line profits—offshore. Take General Motors. When we were all complaining about how General Motors was broke, did anyone ever ask the question: how much in interest royalties and rent did General Motors pay offshore back to Detroit? Do you know how much it was? It was enough to make sure they never made a profit in this country, because if they made a profit here they would pay 30c on the dollar for every dollar of profit. But they shipped those profits offshore. With our withholding tax rates, there is no withholding tax rate on profits sent back to Detroit. I doubt the money went back to Detroit; it would have sat in a tax haven. I'm glad to say a few years ago the Taxation Office picked up Chevron for messing around with transfer pricing. Chevron in the US tried to charge an interest rate of nine per cent to its local subsidiary here, when the real market interest rate was two per cent. What we have to do if we want to fix up our competitive nature and our manufacturing industry is to make sure that we raise withholding taxes and lower onshore tax rates—as well as income tax, because we should never lower company tax before we lower income tax. We've got to make it more competitive, to encourage companies to retain their earnings on shore here in Australia, because retained earnings is equity and equity is title. As a sovereign country we must maintain title of our assets, because we owe that to our children. That is why I ran for politics—to make sure our children get the same opportunities our forefathers gave to us. We cannot do that without a manufacturing industry, but we cannot do that when we have all these middlemen keeping the profits in their back pocket. 12:34 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I, too, rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. Australia should be a country that makes things right here, because 'Australian made' means Australian jobs. That's why I rise to speak in support of this bill, which will rebuild Australian manufacturing in this country. The National Reconstruction Fund will support and grow our economy. It will create good, secure Australian jobs and it will get Australia making things again. Our vision for a better future is one that is made right here. We should be taking advantage of all the skills and talents we have in our country. We should be using the skills we have and encouraging innovation. We have some of the best scientists and innovators in the world. If we invent it here we should make it here. We know what happens when Australia fails to back itself and fails to back our people; they go overseas and they take their skills with them. We want to empower the NRF to invest in Australians—Australian knowhow, Australian ideas, Australian ingenuity—bringing manufacturing back to our shores. The National Reconstruction Fund is one of the largest peacetime investments in Australian manufacturing. This will be a $15 billion fund to help industries across the country seize the opportunity to invest in and develop the technologies and industries of the future. It will create secure jobs for Australian workers and drive investment in the regions that need that investment the most. It will invest in new clean and green technologies of the future. It will provide a long-term vision for the economy—a strong, diverse and productive economy. Importantly, it will be independent of the government of the day. Based on the successful model of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—another proud Labor legacy—the NRFC will bring government, business, industry and researchers groups together to build our industrial and manufacturing base. Guided by an investment mandate set out by the minister, the board of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will make arm's-length and independent investment decisions. This is about using the power of the Commonwealth to independently provide funding for the industries of the future. The NRFC will provide finance to drive investments in seven priority areas of the Australian economy, from value-adding to our resources and agriculture, to medical science and manufacturing, to renewables and low emissions technologies, to defence and enabling capabilities, including in areas such as artificial intelligence and robotics. This is the kind of joined-up thinking this country so desperately needs. It's the long-term, sustainable thinking we need to get our country moving. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee had the opportunity to conduct a public hearing into the bill as part of its inquiry. Evidence presented to the committee was overwhelmingly positive—positive from industry, positive from unions, positive from scientists, positive from universities and positive from climate groups as well. Indeed, all submissions to the inquiry supported this bill. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry came to the hearing and said, in support of the bill: Generally we see the NRF as an opportunity to provide funding to support businesses to develop in Australia. Currently there are a lot of opportunities for businesses—Australia is very good at research and development and innovation—but we have a lot of difficulty in then moving that research and development and innovation into production here in Australia. So the opportunities the NRF provides through the loans and guarantees will give an opportunity for those ideas to be scaled up, commercialised and produced here in Australia. That will potentially provide us with a lot of export opportunities as well. That is a good endorsement of the bill from ACCI direct to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee in the hearing for the bill. And there was so much more endorsement for the bill in inquiry's hearing that took place. Thomas McMahon from the Tech Council of Australia described the NRF as having 'the scope to grow new high-value industries and jobs across the country'. Heidi Lee, CEO of Beyond Zero Emissions, highlighted the opportunity and role that the NRF will have for investing in critical renewables technology that will bring down emissions and create the renewables jobs of the future. Andrew Richards, CEO of Energy Users Association of Australia, emphasised that this bill will create certainty and continuity for the renewable energy sector, with investments in technologies like wind turbines, hydrogen electrolysers and technology to modernise steel and aluminium processing. As the rest of the world quickly embraces this technology, it is absolutely critical that we invest in the renewables sector strongly, too, and the NRF will do just that. Workers know their industries better than anyone else does. So, it was important to hear in our inquiry from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union about how the NRF will be critical in rebuilding our domestic manufacturing and the importance of good secure jobs for workers, particularly in those regions that need to diversify—and diversify now. The NRF is also about sovereign manufacturing and securing our supply chains. We know that to repair our broken supply chains we need to diversify and transform our industry and our economy. In medical science we will be able to use our world-leading medical research and technology to provide for essentials such as medical devices, PPE, medicines and vaccines. Greg Mullins from Research Australia told us that the NRF gets us 'in the global race' that is on right now, to do just that. In resources, we can ensure that more of the materials coming out of our Australian earth are processed right here, because if we mine it here we should make it here. In transport and defence, the NRF will improve how we transport goods and services and maximise the use of defence materials made by Australian workers. Peter Chesworth from Universities Australia agrees, stating that the NRF represents 'a direct investment in the nation's sovereign capability'. It's time to fix our broken supply chains. It's time to rebuild our sovereign capability. As Professor Ian Chubb from the Australian Academy of Science put it, 'It takes business, government and the research sector to work together.' This is what the NRF will do. Submitters to the inquiry understood what those opposite seem not to understand: that there's a global race for capital and a global race for talent, and the NRF allows us to compete in that race. We can't afford to wait, as so many submitters to the inquiry told us. This government is committed to both our existing and our emerging manufacturing sector, and we are delivering on it—something those opposite had nearly a decade to do. But what did we get from them in that time? We got nine different industry ministers in nine years and a government that literally goaded the car industry to leave this country and drove Australian manufacturing off a cliff. For too long, while those opposite were in government, decisions were made in the interests of the coalition and their mates, not in the interests of Australia. Today, again they're putting some sort of political interest above creating jobs and investment for Australians. The opposition face a choice here. It's a choice between revitalising Australian manufacturing and turning their backs on Australian manufacturers once again, just as they did when they were in government. Make no mistake: to vote against this bill is to vote against Australian jobs., to vote against Australian industry and to vote against Australian workers. Australians are at their best when they dream big, when they believe in a better future. We've seen this throughout our history, and this is what Labor governments do. It's in our DNA. We champion new ideas. We build our country up, and that's why we're committed to being a country that makes things here again—a country that invests in the technology of the future, the skills of the future, the jobs of the future and the working people of the future. The NRF will move this country forward, and I implore the Senate to move forward with us. 12:45 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise to speak in support of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, and I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues, particularly Senator Allman-Payne, who has been the Greens spokesperson on this bill. I commend her and others in the Greens team for their detailed work on this bill and the improvements to this bill that she and the team have been able to achieve. As Senator Allman-Payne noted in her speech, the Greens took a clear policy to the last election: a $15 billion 'Made in Australia' bank and manufacturing fund to support manufacturing in Australia. So, with that, it's no surprise that we will be supporting this bill. But we have been able to get improvements to this bill which show the importance of having Greens in the parliament, fighting for a better response to the climate emergency and to protect future generations. As people know, the amendments that we were able to secure were to make sure that none of this fund went to supporting coal and gas mining or to direct support for native forest logging. You will note that the wording of 'direct support' does leave a few loopholes, and in fact 'direct support for native forest logging' doesn't go as far as I would have liked to see. I would have liked to see that this bill did not support native forest logging or, in fact, any use of the wood products that come from native forests, because you can't have a National Reconstruction Fund that is moving Australia forward and is absolutely supporting jobs whilst at the same time you are supporting destructive industries. Just as we secured an amendment that means this fund will not be able to support coal and gas mining, which are fuelling the climate crisis and pouring petrol on the fire, we cannot think that the future of Australian manufacturing and the future of jobs in this country are going to continue to be reliant on native forest logging and the wood from native forests. Native forest logging is so last century, if not before. It should have been completely phased out. It should have been seen as an industry of the past, just as whaling was before it, because it is an industry that has been particularly destructive of our forests and it's an industry that has been superseded. Almost 90 per cent of the wood products that are produced in Australia now come from plantations, which are a much, much more ecologically sustainable way of producing the fibre that we need. I don't want to anyone to have any confusion. Wood is a terrific material, and the wood products industry is an incredibly important industry for Australia. The potential of wood from plantations to be ecologically sustainable is incredible. But that doesn't transfer to wood from native forests. Wood plantations are basically a crop; they are grown to produce wood. That can be done in an ecologically sustainable way and can produce really high-quality wood products. There are industries—and the industries can be even greater—based upon the wood products from plantations, which basically are really sound, sustainable products. Wood from native forests, on the other hand, relies upon destructive logging of our native forests—the industrial-scale clear-felling logging of our native forests—which has been shown to decimate our forests and forest ecosystems. There was an article in the Guardian just this morning with regard to New South Wales that showed that over half of the original forests of New South Wales had been destroyed and a vast amount of the forest that hasn't been destroyed has been degraded. Yes, you had the issue of where forests had been cleared, but the issue of the degradation of our forests by logging is a huge, huge issue and is sending our precious wildlife hurtling towards extinction. If we had no other choice, like in the era before we had plantations, you could say, 'Well, okay, wood is a good product, so we have to do this,' because you have to make those compromises. But we don't have to make that choice now. We've got the plantation stocks that we need. Yes, they can be improved, they can be added to and certainly you could have more value-adding and better use of the wood from those plantations, but we do not need the wood from native forests. Given the destructive nature of the logging of our native forests, there is absolutely no reason for why it needs to continue. A week ago I introduced the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill. As I said in the speech that I tabled for that bill: The Commonwealth Government has a fundamental responsibility to protect our environment. That's reflected in international commitments that the Australian government has made on the international stage, and that have been enacted through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Despite those requirements in legislation, there is a loophole that entire truckloads of logs are being driven through. That loophole is contained in the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002. For far too long, these regional forest agreements, or RFAs, established between the federal and state governments, have exempted native forest logging from the environmental protections we have in place. These agreements cover significant parts of Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia, and New South Wales. RFAs were allegedly intended to protect complex ecosystems, and ensure threatened species were protected, as well as provide sustainable timber supply, and protect jobs. In their 2020 report, Creating Jobs, Protecting Forests? The Wilderness Society concluded that RFAs have failed on every front. …   …   … The federal Labor party, since taking government, has comprehensively failed to address this multi-faceted crisis. There are vague statements about the need to protect our precious forests; but there is no action. The federal government has failed to act when the courts found that the Victorian government was failing to uphold its commitments under the Regional Forest Agreements. Government should act, but it has failed to. Native forest logging has had its day. It is destroying our environment. This bill— my bill, the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill— would end the destruction. It would close the RFA loophole, so that the limited environmental protections we have in place would genuinely apply to forests, offering some level of protection that's greater than what we face now. We can act, we can create change and protect our forests. That was from my second reading speech for the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill. Obviously the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill before the Senate today isn't going to be the bill that's going to end native forest logging. But the amendment that we secured to at least make sure that money from this much-needed fund is not going to be directly supporting native forest logging is a big improvement. It's a step in the right direction, and it acknowledges—and I think it's very important, in achieving this amendment, that there is acknowledgement—that there is a difference in terms of the wood that's being produced from destructive practices in our native forests and the wood that comes from plantations. I would hope, in fact, that there is money from the National Reconstruction Fund that goes into supporting our plantation industries; goes into supporting value-adding from our plantation industries; and goes into making sure, for example, that the wood that is currently just being chipped and exported from our plantations actually has some higher-end purposes here in Australia. At the moment, vast amounts of the plantation logs that we grow here in Australia are just being shipped offshore as whole logs or as woodchips, both softwood logs and hardwood logs. There are huge volumes of plantation logs that are being exported out of Tasmania and out of western Victoria with zero value-adding. You look at that resource and, particularly for people who are concerned about where you can get hardwood timber from to provide the wood products that we like—yes, eucalypt timber is a lovely timber to have in your home, on your floors and around your windows. It can actually be grown in plantations. But it is a travesty that the largest eucalypt sawmill in the world is actually in Uruguay. It is processing 20-year-old plantation logs to turn into flooring, window frames and other products which are being sold into the North American market. Why aren't we making much greater use, much better use, of our eucalypt plantations here, rather than just shipping them offshore? I hope that the funding through the National Reconstruction Fund can indeed be used to support plantation wood products. We should acknowledge that that is the future if we are concerned about jobs, about manufacturing and about protecting our environment. There is a way forward, and in the areas of the wood products industry it is absolutely firmly and clearly in the area of plantation forestry. The other thing that the amendment does is signal that subsidies for the environmental vandalism that have been provided for so long must end. It hasn't been an equal playing field. We haven't had the support that was needed for plantation industries, but there have been huge subsidies paid out to continue native forest logging. A year ago, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that taxpayers were spending $441 a hectare to log native forest, with their state owned corporation facing a net loss of $20 million. In 2021, media reports indicated that the Tasmanian state corporation was operating at a net loss of $4 million, despite government funding in the millions. The data from Victoria is more dated, but a VicForests plan from a decade ago—I can tell you it hasn't improved since—noted that 'timber from harvesting operations in the East Gippsland forest management area have not been profitable for VicForests for many years. Operations currently lose up to $5½ million per annum after distribution of corporate overheads'. For all the statements from the Labor Party that this fund wasn't going to be supporting native forest logging anyway, the history of state governments subsidising native forest logging—destructive native forest logging—is there. I would not have put it past this government to have continued those subsidies for native forest logging except for the amendment that we have been able to achieve. Let me be clear in conclusion. We support government expenditure when it supports people and the environment, but the tragic reality is that native forest logging is wanton environmental vandalism, and it's being subsidised by state governments at a cost to many people who would be outraged to know their governments are subsidising the destruction of our precious forests. This amendment is a small step towards ending that financial support for a dying and dangerous industry, but there is more to do. Native forest logging is devastating for our climate and devastating for endangered species, and it leaves us worse off as a society and as a nation. We are supporting this bill today—particularly, from my perspective, supporting the amendment—but, on ending the logging of our native forests, we will keep fighting and we won't stop until we know that Australia's precious forests have all been protected. 12:58 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to make some statements about the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. I note at the outset the confidence that Senator Rice has in the distribution, or, perhaps, the distributional focus of the fund. This is another bill that the parliament is considering that is effectively a shell bill with no detail and that grants the minister of the day god-like powers—if you don't mind me using that expression in here, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan. This fund is going to be part of the Albanese government's strategy to massively fuel inflation in Australia, or perhaps I should be a bit kinder and say it is part of their plan to have no plan to address inflation in Australia, which is riding at a 33-year high, at 7.8 per cent. This $15 billion fund is one of three major off-balance-sheet items where the government is seeking to appropriate $45 billion of taxpayer funds and set them up as slush funds for their favourite vested interests. The International Monetary Fund has warned against the use of these structures because they are inflationary, and inflation is driving the Reserve Bank to jack up interest rates. We've had 10 interest rate rises in a row since the election, and the government continues to spend. It's not just the off-balance-sheet items, like we see today with the reconstruction slush fund. It's also tens of billions of dollars baked into the budget in recurrent expenditure. This is the problem that the Australian people are facing in a day-to-day sense: a national government which is fuelling inflation. It is true that over the past few years federal governments have run inflationary fiscal policies. This government should be trying to put that to death, because it is hurting, in particular, lower income people, who deserve better from their government. This is part of the key design feature of this government, which I've often called 'the government for vested interests'. When you work through the list of grievances of their best friends and backers at the unions, the super funds and the class action law firms, inevitably you come back to a bucket of cash, a big bag of cash or a sack of cash. In this case it's a $15 billion sack of cash which will be dished out in order to placate their favourite vested interests. The major problem here, though, is that, when you are only focused on the narrow vested interests of a few select parties, you don't have time to consider the major economic issues that the nation is facing. That is the major consequence of being the government for vested interests and the government which is only interested in introducing new slush funds, of which this is just one of three. It's the Australian people who are suffering, because no-one is interested in their welfare. You're at the back of the queue if you're an everyday Australian, but you're at the head of the queue if you're a union official, a super fund, a class action law firm or just a fellow traveller with unique access. This, I would say, is probably the best example of the government for vested interests focusing on delivering cash directly to its favourite persons and organisations. We often hear the talking points that are read out from the Labor Party senators. They're usually indistinguishable, but they often talk about this trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt. I always think that's an interesting expression. When Labor was last in office, from 2007 to 2013—they left office in 2013—their last MYEFO had a debt projection of $667 billion. I would've thought that, if the Labor Party had already racked up almost $700 billion of debt, then the so-called trillion dollars of Liberal debt must therefore be $700 billion of Labor Party debt and perhaps the balance incurred through the COVID period. I think that's always an important stat to remind the chamber of: that the 2013-14 MYEFO records that $667 billion was the Labor Party's debt trajectory for this nation. I urge the chamber—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—to consider that. This bill, as I say, is a shell bill. It sets up this corporation with very little detail on what exactly it will be doing in terms of its priorities, its investment objective and its investment capability. The priorities are to be set by a minister in due course. These are to be disallowable, and then the mandate of the fund is to be non-disallowable. We have a very interesting distinction there. We're going to see the priorities set by a minister. They could be disallowable and they could, of course, be anything. I make these remarks in a most constructive way, but I note Senator Rice's confidence about how the funds may or may not be invested. Effectively, this bill allows the minister to set any priority. The priority could be that the Senate should have a different tinge of red. It could be that we should have a very good economy. Any platitude could be the priority. It could be that Australia should have a strong and fair economy and be a nice country. It could be anything. My point is that the broad shell of the bill is not helped by having a great big woolly priority attached to it which is disallowable. If this is a concession then I'll eat my hat. The key here will be the investment mandate, which is not disallowable by this chamber, and the investment mandate will be set by the minister, not by the board. This is held out to be an independent entity, I understand. We discussed this at the estimates process, and we also had a very good committee inquiry, conducted by Senator Walsh and the economics committee, and at those hearings we were able to ascertain that the mandate and the priorities would be made by the minister, in due course, but not by the board. The board is going to be appointed, and there will be a range of different people on the board. I think there have been some concerns raised by stakeholders on these matters: the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have noted that the legislation lists industrial relations as a relevant skill set, so you might find you've got a few people with that skill set on the board. I don't know. It might be a bit like the Senate—there could be a lot of people from that area. That's going to be one of the criteria to be on the board. But it probably doesn't matter that much because the board is going to be a toothless tiger. The board isn't going to be setting the priorities, which will be woolly. It's not going to set the investment objectives or anything like that. That's going to be done by the minister. So what's the board going to do? They might poke around with a few tiddlywinks and find a few pieces of paper and a few rats to rub together. But the board isn't going to be doing too much, is it? The board has been neutered. Maybe they will pick people that have industrial relations as a skill set, stick them in there, make their disallowable instrument and stick the money where they want it to go, and that will be the end of it. Senator Scarr 282997 What could go wrong! Senator BRAGG 256063 It sounds good, doesn't it? I think the governance of this fund is going to be very interesting, and we will watch this with interest. Obviously, we'll be voting against this inflationary slush fund, but we will keep a close eye on the governance of this fund. It's been neutered in its own shell bill, but the government will, I'm sure, want to issue press releases in future years saying that the very independent, very highly skilled board has made these judgements about various matters. Senator Scarr 282997 Especially if it goes wrong. Senator BRAGG 256063 That's right. I don't want to take much more of the Senate's time, because it has already been very generous, but I want to make one more comment about this bill in relation to AUKUS. There was a newspaper article in the Australian back on 13 February 2023 titled 'Coalition "putting nation's security at risk": industry minister Ed Husic'. That's what the Australian said. It goes on to say that apparently if this bill isn't passed AUKUS will fall over and it will be a disaster and that there will be major issues in terms of our security if this very important fund doesn't pass. So I thought, 'Well, that's an important statement the minister's made; I'd better just see whether that's right.' We had the hearing on 22 February looking into the bill, which was really well chaired by Senator Walsh. I'll put on the record the very good way that that committee has been run. I said to the department, who turned up: Thanks very much, Chair. Good afternoon. Has the department provided any briefing or advice to the minister that if the NRF is not passed it would have a direct impact on the AUKUS agreement? The official, Ms Narelle Luchetti, who is the head of the Manufacturing and National Reconstruction Fund Division, said, 'No, we haven't.' Okay; that's good to know. And then I thought, just to make sure that I'm not going completely bonkers, because sometimes I get a bit confused— Senator Scarr 282997 Just a little! Senator BRAGG 256063 Just to make sure, I said: Has the department provided any briefing or advice to the minister that if the NRF is not passed it would have a direct impact on Australia's national security? And Ms Luchetti said, 'No, we haven't.' So I think we can put that to bed. AUKUS is going to be safe if we vote against this bill, which we will. In summary, I do believe that the Australian people deserve a government that is prepared to fight inflation and is prepared to take the lessons of the past and listen to the IMF and other esteemed organisations that are telling the government to restrain spending and stop the off-balance-sheet items. In relation to the governance of this fund, we will watch very closely how it unfolds in future years. I think it's very questionable and I think potentially very problematic. But it is a huge sum of money, so I'm sure many people will be looking at that and we will be voting against this bill—with confidence that AUKUS will be able to continue as it has, as a bipartisan arrangement. 13:10 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think Senator Bragg was trying to angle to get a few of his crypto bros on the board of this new entity, maybe! But often when I hear Senator Bragg's contribution, I wonder whether we actually do live on the same planet, because Senator Bragg obviously hasn't met any of the Australians who were concerned about what went on over the past couple of years, during the pandemic, which highlighted our lack of sovereign capability. I certainly heard that a lot when I was out and about around Queensland. I know the Prime Minister did, too, which is why he put forward this proposal for a national reconstruction fund when we were in opposition—because he knew we needed to learn those lessons from what went on during COVID and our lack of sovereign capability and he wanted, if we were lucky enough to form government, to do something about it. And that's exactly what we are proposing to do. It was something we campaigned on strongly in opposition. I think that was well received. And it's something we really want to deliver on in government and get on with, because we understand that the Australian people want to support and see more manufacturing in this country, and that's exactly what the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 is about. Think about what was highlighted during COVID: the lack of PPE and the impact that had on aged care and health and the fact that we couldn't produce enough of our own to supply people; how we were at the back of the queue for the vaccines because we didn't have our own manufacturing capability. There were so many examples over the past couple of years showing the damage from the neglect of the last 10 years of the previous government. Manufacturing in this country had suffered. It's something that, as a government, proudly, we want to correct. We want to fix it, we want to create those opportunities, and we think this bill is a great opportunity to do that and to really start turning the corner and providing those opportunities for the Australian people. Under the previous government, tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs were lost in Australia, causing manufacturing to account for a smaller share of national employment than in any other OECD country. That's how much manufacturing declined in Australia over the last decade. It saw Australia hit the lowest levels of manufacturing self-sufficiency of any OECD country. As I said, in opposition we made a commitment to rebuilding Australian manufacturing and ensuring we become a country that makes things again. That's what Australians voted for and that's what we are delivering with this bill today. The National Reconstruction Fund represents one of the biggest investments in our manufacturing capacity ever. The fund will be modelled on the successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a body set up by a previous Labor government—once again, opposed by the coalition—which has been an outstanding success. That's why we've modelled the National Reconstruction Fund on the CEFC—because it is a proven vehicle that has worked for more 10 years. It's unlocked $2.60 in private sector investment for every dollar it invests. So it actually produces a return, which I think is smart economics and smart government policy. The reconstruction fund will be governed by an independent board and will be empowered to co-invest in projects through loans, guarantees, and equity, partnering with institutional investors, private equity and venture capital. It will invest in strategic priority areas, like: value adding in resources, renewables, and low-emissions technology; transport: agriculture; forestry; fisheries; and a wide range of other industries. Importantly, it will help to grow a more resilient and diversified economy that will create more jobs—and I think it will particularly create more jobs in regional Australia. There are over 90,000 manufacturing firms in Australia, and one-third of those are in regional areas. My home state of Queensland has more regional based manufacturing firms than any other state in the country. Our agriculture industry is turning sugarcane waste into biofuels in Burdekin. We have impressive projects and companies like Tritium are exporting high-tech EV chargers around the world. In Gladstone we're seeing the development of new hydrogen facilities, as well as companies like Rio Tinto, which has significant operations in Gladstone, considering proposals to build four gigawatts worth of solar and wind capacity to power manufacturing in the region in the future. In manufacturing we've seen the success the state government has had by building trains in Maryborough. That has revitalised the town. We also saw this week a deal announced to manufacture in Ipswich the Boxer combat vehicles that will be exported to Germany as well. Importantly, our resources sector powers Australia. With new opportunities in renewables and critical minerals, regional Queensland can continue to be the powerhouse of our economy. The National Reconstruction Fund is going to open up even more opportunities for regional Queensland, and the government will be driving those. Unfortunately, the Queensland Liberals and Nationals on the opposition benches are voting against these opportunities. But it's not always because they think this is a bad idea. Just look at what Colin Boyce, the member for Flynn, told 4RO radio in Central Queensland last week. When asked if he could see the benefits of the National Reconstruction Fund for regional Queensland he said, 'Absolutely.' He also said that, if money in this fund were directed towards agriculture, he would certainly welcome it. I don't know if the member for Flynn has had a look at this policy, which Labor announced before the election. If he had, he would have seen that the National Reconstruction Fund will absolutely be directing funds towards agriculture. In fact, we've reserved $500 million for funding of the agriculture sector and opportunities there. They can see the benefits for regional Queensland and they welcome the funding in sectors that we are supporting, but still the member for Flynn, along with the member for Capricornia and the member for Hinkler, stood in the other chamber and voted against this legislation. They voted against a $15 billion fund that will support more regional Queensland businesses and they voted against secure, local and decent jobs for workers across communities in regional Queensland. They are too busy playing politics and voted against the interests of their own communities. There is no doubt that Australians want to see a future made in Australia. That's why they voted for an Albanese Labor government, and that's exactly what we will be delivering on with the passage of this bill. 13:17 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Senator Chisholm may be a little bit Queensland myopic, but I remind him that in Victoria we did manufacture two million AstraZeneca vaccines at CSL. He said that we didn't manufacture vaccines, but I point out to him that we actually did. I also point out that we secured an mRNA manufacturing facility in Victoria to manufacture mRNA vaccines and other therapeutics. But he just ignored all those things that we did. Let us be clear—and there are no two ways to spin this—the economy is struggling under the Albanese government. Bills are up, mortgages are up, taxes are up and inflation is increasing. No amount of political spin will enable the government to talk their way out of the fact that life is harder under Labor. Right now we need sensible policy. The best way to implement sensible policy is to listen to the experts. When times are tough, like under COVID-19, you must listen to the experts. That's what got us through the pandemic better than almost any other country in the world. What have the economic experts said about the National Reconstruction Fund that the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 enables? In the IMF's report they state that implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles—and the National Reconstruction Fund accounts for $15 billion, Rewiring the Nation accounts for another $20 billion and the Housing Australia Future Fund costs another $10 billion—should be avoided. I'll say that again for those in the chamber who do not hear: newly created investment vehicles, like the National Reconstruction Fund, should be avoided. Senator Chisholm 39801 Why? Senator VAN 283601 I can hear Senator Chisholm asking why. It's because they're inflationary! That's $45 billion of inflationary spending that this government is not putting through the budget. The economic experts at the IMF have assessed this government's key policies, such as the National Reconstruction Fund, Rewiring the Nation and the Housing Australia Future Fund, and said that these are a bad idea. And it's not just the IMF and the coalition saying that the Albanese government is implementing bad policy: the IMF has countered against this strongly and yet the government is intent on forging along with their ideological approach to governing and implementing their policies, despite being told that they'll make life harder for Australians. I just don't know how those opposite can do that. There are no two ways about it: this bill will not improve the lives of Australians, it will only make things harder. The government may as well change the name of this bill from the National Reconstruction Fund to the 'Labor slush fund', because all it's going to do is pick mates and throw taxpayer dollars into projects that people, such as the IMF, have said should be avoided. This bill also has the potential to contribute to the increase in inflation, which is already skyrocketing under the Labor government. The legislation's intent is to borrow $5 billion of the $15 billion up-front, increasing the interest bill for Australians. This off-budget funding of $15 billion, in conjunction with the other off-budget policies that I've talked about, will increase government spending and drive up inflationary pressures. The government can't say that this won't happen, because the minister's own department admitted at Senate estimates that they had done no modelling on the inflationary impact of the National Reconstruction Fund. And this is at a time when Australians are suffering through a cost-of-living crisis. Energy prices are rising and mortgages and rents are rising; it astounds me that those opposite wouldn't at least to some modelling on this fund. With its $45 billion in off-budget spending, the Albanese government is going on a political spending spree while the rest of Australia is tightening its belt. The RBA is looking to lower inflation, and this government seems to think that it's a good idea to push inflationary pressures up. But, again, we know that what has become clear with this government is they're great at making promises but not at keeping them. The PM promised to lower power bills by $275 on 97 occasions—I'll add that in there—and has not delivered them. In fact, they've gone up. Those opposite promised cheaper mortgages and have not delivered those either. They promised they would not make changes to super and we've had the world-class Olympic backflip which just happened on that. They promised cheaper medicines and better access to health care, and they have broken those promises. And they promised an aged-care pay rise but have broken that promise. That's just to name a few. However, back to this bill. Despite the Labor government campaigning in the election on accountability and transparency, this bill lacks any of the checks and balances necessary for good governance. For a $15 billion fund, it's absurd that this legislation only proposes a five-yearly review of the act. It must, at the very least, be annual. On top of this, the bill will allow the corporation to keep investments anonymous. Where's the transparency, guys? As Research Australia stated in the Senate economics hearings, there's no apparent reason that the default position should be that the identities of recipients of NRF investments be kept secret. Rather, it's the other way around. Not only does the National Reconstruction Fund lack transparency and integrity it's just simply a poor funding model, shifting from a competitive grant program which the coalition implemented through the Modern Manufacturing Initiative—and I have visited many dozens of companies which have got to an economic position where they can survive and go to market through that—to one where this government is providing equity and loans. Government equity and loan schemes are less successful than grants, and manufacturers may struggle to meet the return on investment thresholds or to put together a detailed business cases in house. And what will happen to failed or failing loans? It's clear that last experiment down this path by a Labor government, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, almost destroyed the Victorian economy. We have to think about what this one is going to do to the Australian economy. It risks drowning out private investment, and this is also terribly concerning. It also begs the question: if there are such great investment opportunities the government will acquire equity in, why hasn't the private sector already taken advantage of these lucrative opportunities? We must not overlook the importance of retaining ownership, especially given many of our manufacturers are family owned businesses. Are the government going to appoint directors to the boards of these family owned businesses? If so, who are they? My guess would be their union mates because that's how they roll. The bill will also stifle inflation as beneficiaries of the fund will be unlikely to invest in innovation without a guaranteed return. This funding model does not entertain failure, which is inherent in being able to innovate. What is most concerning to me is how the government has attempted to politicise national security and AUKUS to try to support this slush fund. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources stated in committee hearings that they had provided no advice or briefings to the minister, who stated that, if the national reconstruction fund bill were not to pass, it would have implications for the AUKUS agreement. When the minister introduced the national reconstruction fund bill, he didn't mention the words AUKUS or national security once. If the NRF was about national security, then why did Labor cut the space industry out of their priorities? If Labor are so concerned about defence manufacturing, why have they held up millions of dollars in funding to critical defence manufacturing projects funded through the Modern Manufacturing Strategy? Or how about they start looking at supporting many of our great SME defence companies whose products are being sent around the world and integrated into foreign armies, being used in conflicts such as that in Ukraine, but who cannot get any acquisition support here in Australia. Actions speak louder than words, and this government isn't supporting our defence SMEs. They've delayed projects because of the DSR, and let's point out that they've delayed them until after the New South Wales state election and after the Aston by-election. They're undermining national security by drawing it into this political vehicle and they're undermining AUKUS with a concerning increase in the number of Labor backbenchers speaking against the AUKUS deal. National security and the AUKUS agreement should be bipartisan and above the politics of the day. It's absolutely disgraceful that the minister has attempted to tie it to this political slush fund. It is clear, at least to me and the people on this side of the chamber, that this bill should not pass. It's riddled with problems. There are parts of it the government cannot explain as to why or how this will improve the lives of Australians. It's clear that it's going to be inflationary, that inflation is running away and hurting Australians every day in their household budgets, in their mortgage repayments, in their credit card repayments, in their car repayments—everything that they use in their daily life. They are simply paying more under this government. So how this government can look Australians in the face and add more inflationary pressures to the back pockets of our hardworking Australians is completely beyond me. I call on this government to scrap this fund. I call on the Senate to vote against this fund because I cannot, in all good conscience, support this bill. Thank you. STATEMENTS 36 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 36 13:29 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria In accordance with standing order 190, I seek leave to make a personal explanation about what transpired in the chamber this morning. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 During a motion to suspend standing orders to bring on for debate a private senators' bill entitled Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023, Senator Watt interjected. As he pointed directly towards me, he said words that I will not repeat and that no other person should repeat. They were abhorrent and offensive. Since I was first elected in 2013, I do not recall in this chamber or the other chamber a more distasteful statement. The precise words uttered by Senator Watt will be seared into my memory for a very long time. Any attempt to distort and recharacterise his interjection only compounds the damage. The only words Senator Watt should be saying are, 'I unconditionally apologise.' The parliament provides members and senators with enormous privileges, including the right to speak freely under parliamentary privilege. However, with that right comes significant responsibility. Our workplace must be safe in all respects. Words can cause enormous harm. I acknowledge and thank my colleagues, who have provided me with support. I also acknowledge and thank the President for calling me to check on my welfare and to advise that I may wish to contact the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, which I have now done. Thank you. Personal Explanation 36 13:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATT 245759 The events of this week have been challenging for many in and out of this place—most of all, for vulnerable people who have faced persecution merely for being who they are. For the clarity of all senators, this morning, in response to Senator Birmingham moving the suspension motion, I asked Liberals why they were not condemning their own senators who are texting Victorian Liberal leader Mr Pesutto to support Victorian MP Moira Deeming, who recently stood with neo-Nazis. It was consistent with my view that as senators we are all accountable to each other for our actions. I did not intend to upset Senator Henderson, and that's why I withdrew my remarks, as did Senator Cash, when she withdrew remarks that she made against me. We all want this place to be a safe and respectful workplace. None of us wants to see our colleagues in distress. It is my hope that as senators we can come together against hateful and divisive rhetoric and engage in respectful debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 We will now move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 37 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Merredin 37 13:32 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia On a bit of a change of tone, and hopefully in a more positive light, when we've just seen a very sad reflection on this place and in that response from Senator Watt—to be perfectly honest, I'm extremely shocked and disappointed—I actually want to talk about the opening of a Merredin office by my two good political friends and I. With Rick Wilson MP, a member from the other place, and Steve Martin MLC, a state Liberal upper house member of the Western Australian parliament, we're opening a satellite office in Merredin for a very good reason. Merredin is a regional community about three hours east of Perth. It is the centre of a significant part of the Western Australian wheatbelt that needs access to strong representation. It's always had strong representation in its local member, Rick Wilson, and in Steve Martin, MLC for that region, and I would hope I contribute in that respect as well. By having a satellite office in the town of Merredin, we give Merredin and surrounding communities direct access to those state and federal issues, showing them that the Liberal Party have their back—very distinct from both the state and federal Labor governments, who do nothing but neglect, if not outright damage, regional Australia. Yunupingu, Ms Yalmay 37 13:34 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'd like to share with the Senate the incredible career and work of one of our educators, a dear friend in the remote East Arnhem region, Yalmay Yunupingu. Having spent more than 40 years working as an educator, inspiring and supporting children in the bush, Yalmay began her education career in 1974 as a librarian at the Yirrkala School and took up various jobs, including as classroom and senior teacher, teacher linguist, and also acting principal. As well as teaching students, she oversaw pivotal projects, including: the Galtha Rom workshop, which involves learning on country; the Garma maths curriculum, which embeds Indigenous learning into mathematics; the Yaku ga Rirrakay language app; and the first Aboriginal language and culture component of the NT curriculum framework, creating pathways for more-informed Aboriginal education. Ms Yunipingu is a strong advocate for bilingual learning, where children are taught their own language, Yolngu Matha, alongside English. She's described by her colleagues as a bilingual warrior and also a gentle and loving teacher. Ms Yunipingu has a love for books and described how she would translate Dr Seuss books into language for students. She's been acknowledged for her stellar career with a Teaching Excellence Award, received the NT Indigenous Educator of the Year and the East Arnhem and East Arnhem Senior Citizen of the Year Award, and was named an honorary fellow of Charles Darwin University in the office of the pro-vice-chancellor. Even in her retirement, she's devoted to the school and community and just recently has been elected as the chair of the Yirrkala School council. Dear Yalmay, to you and your family, I congratulate you and thank you for your love and dedication to the people of the Northern Territory. New South Wales State Election 37 13:36 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Tomorrow, the people of New South Wales will go to vote. Frankly, the election cannot come too soon. Twelve years of a rotten Liberal-National government have done immense damage to New South Wales. They've given the green light to the Narrabri coal seam gas project, which will destroy the Pilliga, the fertile Liverpool Plains and the climate. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land have been cleared, koalas are at the brink of extinction, there's a housing crisis, the public hospital system is on its knees, and communities everywhere are suffering. The Greens want to kick the Liberals out. We will not support a Liberal-National government, but we do have a warning for Labor. Our support for the Labor government comes with crystal clear expectations about what people want changed, and that means ending new coal and gas, bringing rent under control and enshrining people's right to protest. It means pulling the pin on pokies. It means starting a truth and treaty process in New South Wales, led by First Nations peoples. By getting rid of the coalition and putting the Greens in the balance of power, there will be meaningful action in New South Wales—not half-measures or tinkering around the edges. To the people of New South Wales, I say: vote 1 Greens tomorrow. Let's root out corruption and take power away from corporations by putting more Greens in parliament, who will fight hard for people and the planet. Our people powered Greens campaign has left no stone unturned. Thank you to all our candidates, members, supporters and volunteers. I can't wait to see a Greens New South Wales party room full of wonderful women: Lynda-June Coe, Jenny Leong, Amanda Cohn, Kobi Shetty, Tamara Smith, Abigail Boyd and Cate Faehrmann. Laverty, Mr Declan, Darwin: Crime 38 13:38 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Declan Laverty was a young man living in Darwin with his father, who described Declan as a wonderful, opinionated, strong lad who loved his football, was working to become a musician, and was studying and putting in a 30-hour week on top of it all. I was shocked and saddened to learn earlier this week that, just after 8.30 pm on Sunday evening, Declan was fatally stabbed while ending his shift at the local bottle shop in Jingili, Darwin, not 20 metres from my own office. Before he died at the scene, he managed to text his dad, saying, 'I love you.' And why was he killed? Because a 19-year-old, who was out on bail over an earlier alleged aggravated assault involving a bladed weapon, was refused service of alcohol as the shop was closed. So he killed a fellow human over a drink. As a mother of four boys myself, and as a mother of a young man who is going to turn 20 soon and whose name is also Declan, this news shook me to my core. I offer my most sincere condolences to Declan's family. But I have to say that things are not okay in the Northern Territory. A kitchen knife, a 24-centimetre steak knife and an axe are some of the weapons allegedly used just last night in multiple separate incidents at two more bottle shops just down the road in Palmerston. How did the police describe it? As a 'very disappointing night'. It's not disappointing; it's unacceptable. It's unacceptable that people in this country go to work worrying about their safety, and it's unacceptable that parents send their kids off to work worried about whether they're going to come home or not. It is unacceptable. We need real action on crime in the Territory, we need strong action on crime in the Territory, and we need the Territory government to get their act together to keep the people of the Territory safe. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 38 13:40 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria It's been a huge and positive week. We have seen significant progress on a First Nations Voice referendum. Australia's Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill passed through this chamber with bipartisan support, and yesterday morning the Prime Minister announced the wording of the referendum question that will be introduced into this parliament. These are important milestones in delivering our commitment for a referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice into Australia's founding document. Australians are now presented with the opportunity to walk with us to a better future for all Australians. While I feel optimistic about the future of our country, I know that the next few months will be hard. My message to First Nations people right across this country is that you are seen, you are loved, and you are worthy. Some will use this time to try and divide us as a nation. But we must stand together, because this should be above politics. At its core, a First Nations Voice is about two things. It's about recognition and consultation: recognition of the over 65,000 years of shared history and continuous connection to this land by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and consultation through Voice, because working with communities leads to better policy outcomes. A constitutionally enshrined Voice will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians a say in matters that affect our communities. It will create practical and lasting change that will improve the lives of First Nations people in areas like health, housing and education. Now is the time to hear our communities' voices. The Australian people support reconciliation. They support giving First Nations people a fair go. It's time to walk together, it's time to unify our nation, and it's time for a voice. Banking and Financial Services 38 13:42 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many amazing people who make up our one Queensland community, I note that if an everyday Australian steals a few thousand dollars they go to jail, yet if a banker steals $4.7 billion they do not go to jail. As at 31 December 2022, six of Australia's largest banking and financial services institutions have paid or offered a total of $4.7 billion in compensation to customers who suffered loss or detriment because of fees for no service or non-compliant advice. 'Banks gone bad', greedily charging fees for no service and providing financial advice that failed to meet the standards for financial advice, ripped $4.7 billion off everyday Australians. And they got away with it. Let me name and shame them: National Australia Bank, AMP, ANZ, Westpac, Commonwealth Bank and Macquarie Bank. Australia has a Banking Executive Accountability Regime, B-E-A-R, that's supposed to hold bank executives to account. Clearly, BEAR does not work, because no executive has been fined, let alone jailed, for this corporate fraud. Is corporate fraud now okay with Labor, with the Liberal-Nationals and with the teals? Apparently. Now Stephen Jones, the minister representing the banks, is planning to introduce legislation to take the penalties out of the BEAR scheme to expedite the banks ripping off more Australians in the future. One Nation has a simple message for banking executives: don't even think about it! Unless we keep and use penalty based regulation, nothing will stop these banks doing the same again. Free market competition, though, will bring the banks to heel. A proper Australia Post bank will provide genuine competition for our banking cartel, using ethical, community based banking at thousands of new bank branches. It's been proven with the original Commonwealth Bank a hundred years ago. One Nation has a long history of standing up for everyday Australians. Clearly, the Labor Party does not. Faith-Based Schools 39 13:44 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia The Labor government want to destroy faith based schooling, and they have engaged the Australian Law Reform Commission, through its recent consultation paper entitled Religious Education Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws, to start the next campaign against faith based institutions. If adopted into law, these proposals will (1) require the state to decide what is legitimate religious practice, (2) require faith institutions to allow the teaching of matters in complete opposition to their views, and (3) give the state the power to investigate faith based schools. The Australian Labor Party wants the state to control every aspect of your life, including your right to choose your child's schooling. The proposals raised by the ALRC aim a dagger at the heart of independent education and bell the cat regarding this Labor government's true intentions. In the last few years, all around the country, the leftists who control our parliaments have waved through reams of egregious legislation, such as the erroneously named 'conversion therapy laws'. They want to elevate and promote modern cults like the unhinged climate and COVID cults. The proposals presented here have the potential to establish and strengthen Marxist beliefs in our schools while compromising your ability to provide your children with an education aligned with your principles. Don't think this is just about schools. The ALRC has recommended expanding these reforms to all religious organisations in the future. To those who hold dear the principles of freedom of religion, association, and speech, I say: wake up. These people are coming for you, and you are asleep at the wheel. Labor Government 39 13:45 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland It has been a long week here in parliament, so I thought that, to help us shake it off, I would bring a little cheer to the chamber. When my staff wrote this speech, I should have said no, but I hope that you're all ready for it. It has been 10 months since the election, and everything has changed. The Australian people told the Liberals, 'We are never, ever getting back together.' Their policy agenda offered sweet nothing. It truly was a blank space, except, of course, for their 22 failed energy policies. They kept talking about all the things they 'would've, could've, should've', instead of worrying about ordinary Australians. All they had was champagne problems. But, at the election in May, we got out of the woods. Australians voted for change and we were able to begin again. All of this is me trying to tell you that the story of us—a progressive Labor government—is a story of delivering and bringing Australians together. We are taking meaningful action on climate change, and we're making child care cheaper. We're letting sparks fly by supporting manufacturing. We're making sure Australians are safe and sound at work. You can call it what you want, but—long story short—we're better off because the Australian people said to the Morrison government that they won't tolerate it. I know for those opposite, who are sitting there in exile and trying to create bad blood between Australians, that this type of progressive agenda can make tears ricochet, but I'm here to tell you that you need to calm down. Australians know all too well that there is an invisible string between Labor's positive policies and making our country a state of grace, fairness and equality, and that's why they turned the nation red on election night. New South Wales State Election 39 13:47 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Tomorrow is the New South Wales state election, and there is a stark choice for voters on gambling reform. For too long, the gambling industry has been untouchable in New South Wales because of the political power of the clubs lobby. New South Wales and ACT Labor clubs themselves own around 600 pokies. In New South Wales, pokies will rake in about $8 billion in profit this year, stealing most of that from people in low-income areas. In the first half of last year, clubs sucked in over $190 million and hotels another $138 million in poker machine profits just from the Canterbury-Bankstown area. Imagine the economic harm that is doing to families there. We also know that poker machines are designed to launder billions of dollars of illegal funds from organised crime. They literally corrupt police and politics. My state colleague Cate Fairman has been a powerful advocate for gambling reform. The Greens are committed to using the balance of power in the next parliament to impose a statewide cashless gaming card and a pokies tax that funds a poker machine reparations fund, designed to fix the harms done by gambling. If, like me, you know it's time to rein in the pokies, then vote the Greens into the balance of power tomorrow. We have some amazing candidates in the lower house. In Mount Druitt, Greens candidate Asm Mahbub Morshed is a powerful advocate for his community. He has lived through the climate emergency firsthand, and he knows that education and health systems need to work for everybody, not just the rich. In Castle Hill, Greens candidate Tina Kordrostami has been blazing a path with her powerful relentless work. Everywhere from podcasts to street stalls, she's speaking to people about the need to take on the housing crisis and protect the planet. Tina is one of four Australian Iranian women currently running for the Greens in New South Wales. I also recognise Masoomeh Asgari in Auburn, Thelma Ghayyem in Kellyville and Minoo Toussi in Penrith. I can't wait to see what these extraordinary women achieve. World Indigenous Tourism Summit 40 13:49 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Last week I had the honour of attending the World Indigenous Tourism Summit in Perth, where I spent two days learning about First Nations tourism around the world, how different countries are embracing unique opportunities for First Nations tourism and how we can protect the cultural heritage of First Nations people as we invest in and expand on our First Nations tourism. It was a very insightful two days and I thank all the presenters for sharing their knowledge. One of the key takeaways from my time is just how much work we have in front of us to have a thriving First Nations tourism sector that not only educates the public about our unique culture but which also protects it and ensures that First Nations people are the beneficiaries of sharing this knowledge. Employment for First Nations people in the tourism sector provides an opportunity for mob to stay on country and earn an income by maintaining and sharing their culture and traditions. This helps to continue cultural practices and to foster connection to country and culture, which is vitally important for the wellbeing of First Nations people. I am pleased to see that First Nations tourism is a feature of the government's THRIVE 2030 plan to invest in our visitor economy. I look forward to working with the government—in particular, with Minister Farrell—to ensure that this plan protects cultural heritage and that there's adequate funding for First Nations tourism in the implementation of this plan. Lastly, I want to urge travellers to ensure that when they go out to the bush or to the coast, or anywhere in this wonderful country we all live and share in, that they know whose land they're on, that they make an effort to learn about that nation's unique culture and stories, that they support First Nations local businesses and that they participate in First Nations cultural tourism activities. They should also do their own research to make sure that these ventures are owned and operated by First Nations people. Chorus Melville 40 13:51 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Earlier this year I had the pleasure of hosting a visit by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Dutton, to Western Australia. He met with multiple organisations that have been experiencing a sharp increase in the need for their services in the past year due to the cost-of-living crisis. Chorus, in Palmyra, has more than a thousand employees and volunteers who work alongside the community, with a particular focus on the elderly and people with disability or mental illness. Chorus operates a meal service, Chorus Kitchen, which, importantly, provides meals to some of the most vulnerable members of our community from the City of Melville right down to the City of Albany. Sadly, for some Australians a service like Chorus is their only point of contact with the wider community, so Chorus's impact on our community is through so much more than simply providing a meal. Unfortunately, the commercial kitchen that they're operating out of to cook meals will be gone by the end of the year due to the land being sold by the local council. In such difficult times for so many Australians, I personally believe that it's critical to have organisations like Chorus which can provide meals and also keep people connected within our community. I look forward to working with Dan, Mandy and the team at Chorus to help them find a suitable venue that will meet their needs so they can continue to deliver thousands of meals to hundreds of Western Australians well into the future. Tasmania: Housing Australia Future Fund 40 13:53 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I asked the government yesterday how many homes their Housing Australia Future Fund was going to build in Tasmania. They did not say. I asked for a number: I didn't get one. This government talks up their housing fund like it's going to solve all the country's housing problems, but as soon as I ask what it's going to do for the people who I represent then there's radio silence. They say to me, 'We can't guarantee you'll get any homes in Tasmania because we don't want to compromise the fund's independence.' So how did they guarantee 10,000 homes for frontline workers? Who decided that? Not the fund, not the board and not the minister. The Labor Party decided that's how many homes would be built for frontline workers. So the Labor Party doesn't care about the independence of the fund when it comes to investing in remote Indigenous communities, domestic violence shelters, housing for veterans, housing for older women and housing for frontline workers. Only when it comes to delivering for Tasmania do they say, 'Oh, no, we couldn't possibly do that.' It's not that they can't, it's because they don't want to. That's what is lacking: not the ability, but the will. It's a lack of will to do anything about Tasmania's housing crisis which has led us to where we are today. And it's this government's lack of will to do anything that will mean that we're stuck there, with nothing getting better and everything getting worse. If we just get our population share of the fund we will get 600 homes. That is flat-out unacceptable, because we're not just a state with two per cent of the country's population; we're the state where homelessness is growing by more than 10 times the national average, and we're the state that's on track over the next five years to have another 1,110 people without a home. Anything less than a guarantee of 1,200 homes is a guarantee we're going to drown. I will not vote for anything that condemns us to simply drown more slowly. Marine Environment 41 13:55 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Today I'd to bring the Senate's attention to an important article published in the prestigious journal Nature just yesterday, 'Continent-wide declines in shallow reef life over a decade of ocean warming'. One of the key scientists who authored this report, Professor Graham Edgar—who, by the way, was the Tasmanian Scientist of the Year just recently—wrote about this article in the Conversation and the Guardian just yesterday. Professor Edgar says: Marine heatwaves are damaging reef ecosystems around Australia, but while the tropical north has received the lion's share of the attention to date, we equally need to worry about the temperate south. That's partly because the Great Southern Reef is of immense biodiversity value. Species found here are found nowhere else in the world. Even their distant relatives are long gone. It's also because these temperate reefs are suffering even more from heatwaves than the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Southern Reef, for senators who aren't unaware, is the name for reef systems that stretch from southern New South Wales all the way down through Victoria, Tasmania, across to South Australia and around to the southern tip of Western Australia. Professor Edgar's report talks about the surveys that they have done of marine life. They have studied over 1,057 common shallow reef species from across nearly 1,636 sites around Australia. He and his team have been studying this for over 30 years. He talks in this report about very troubling and concerning declines in habitat, biodiversity and species. I would urge all senators to read this report. It's certainly a very sobering reminder of the reality outside the Canberra bubble, where we spend a lot of our time. Gender And Sexual Orientation 41 13:57 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I must say that I was eating my breakfast this morning, flicking through my Twitter account, only to find out that I'd been copping smears from the other side, where I was accused of, basically, weaponising queer people for political purposes. Nothing could be further from the truth at all. I should say that it was actually left-wing activists—who think that biological men should compete in women's sport and use women's change rooms—that weaponised transgender women for political purposes. I'm pleased to say that the World Athletics Council agrees with me, and I'm pleased to say that women have rights to a safe space as well. Subsequently it needs to be said that I think we're entitled to use some logic in this debate. Can someone please explain to me how a higher level of testosterone—hormones—and bone density doesn't give biological men an advantage in competitive sport? These are questions that we're allowed to raise. We're allowed to protect women from injury or intimidation in a change rooms without being smeared as Nazis and associated with Nazis. I notice Senator Watt said that before as well. Moira Deeming didn't go to that event on Saturday because she was associating herself with Nazis; she went there to stand up for women's rights. And yet we've got a Victorian premier, a man, who stands there and bullies a woman for standing up so that women can speak. If you want to start pointing the finger at anyone, it should be asked of the Victorian Premier why it is that more Nazis are in Victoria than in any other state. What is the Labor Party doing about the Nazis in Victoria? It's about time you guys took a good look at yourself in the mirror before smearing people on this side with unfounded allegations. Shame on you. New South Wales State Election 41 13:59 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales A few quick reasons to vote for Labor and Chris Minns tomorrow. Mr Perrottet has flogged off our roads, electricity, ports and housing to his mates on the cheap, and now he wants to privatise Sydney Water. Under the Liberals, Sydney is the most tolled city on the planet. It costs some people in Western Sydney $60 a day to commute to work. Unlike the Liberals and the Nationals, who rorted bushfire recovery grants for their own electorates, Labor won't treat taxpayer money as political slush funds. Under the Liberals, New South Wales nurses, teachers and other essential public workers are the only people in Australia who are banned from negotiating pay rises. We'll end the war on health workers and teachers. And Chris Minns has never worn a Nazi uniform. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for two-minute statements has expired and we will move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 42 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Income Tax 42 14:00 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. I welcome the statement made by both Minister Farrell and the Minister for Finance this week in relation to the stage 3 tax cuts, which was: 'The policy we took to the election was that those tax cuts remain, and our position has not changed.' Can the minister outline to the Senate why the Albanese Labor government is so committed to implementing the stage 3 tax cuts that will cut taxes for hardworking Australians? 14:00 S I0N South Australia enator FARRELL (—) (): I thank Senator Bragg for his question. I suppose the simple answer, and the most direct answer to your question, is that this issue was discussed in the shadow cabinet before the last election. There was debate about whether we would originally support or oppose the tax cuts. Of course, we took a decision as a shadow cabinet to support the tax cuts and we took that position to the last election. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is nothing if not a person who honours his commitments, so he took that policy— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N I'm right about that, aren't I, my colleagues? Government senators interjecting— A government senator: You are! A government senator: Yes, absolutely! Senator FARRELL I0N He's a man of his words. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N No, they weren't looking worried. They're all happy. They're looking very happy there. They're looking happy because it's Friday; it's the end of the week. Thank God it's Friday! We can get out of here, we hope. Look at all those happy faces. Like me, they know that Prime Minister Albanese is a man of his words and he took that policy to the Australian people, just as he's doing in a whole range of other areas, like child care, aged care—you name it. There's electricity, putting downward pressure on cost of living, of course. He's— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Thanks very much, Minister. Can the minister explain how the implementation of stage 3 tax cuts will help address increasing rates of bracket creep? 14:03 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Bragg once again for his question. I guess it's pretty obvious that, after 10 years of neglect in this area from the then government, this issue of bracket creep continues to be a matter of concern for Australian taxpayers. Like everything that the Prime Minister does, he's all about looking after Australian workers. Of course, in the same way that he's putting downward pressure on electricity prices, helping people with their childcare costs, assisting aged-care workers, this Prime Minister is committed to looking after Australians, making their lives easier, not harder, and that's— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Finally, Minister, how will your commitment to the stage 3 tax cuts help Australians to keep more of what they earn? 14:04 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Bragg, for that second supplementary question. It is rather self-evident, I would have thought. If an Australian taxpayer receives a tax cut then it's rather implicit in that they'll keep more of the money they earn. I find it difficult to understand why you would have difficulty with that concept. I certainly don't. When a person who's on a particular rate of tax gets that tax rate reduced, that gives them more disposable income. Surely, Senator, you understand that? I can see you're smiling and acknowledging— (Time expired) Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 42 14:05 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament will give Indigenous communities a route to help inform policy and legal decisions that impact on their lives. We heard yesterday that the wording of the referendum question relating to changing the Constitution has been resolved, which is great news. How is the government progressing its commitment to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament? 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Grogan for her question and her advocacy in relation to support for constitutional change and a voice to parliament. Yesterday was a truly historic day, when the country took a big step forward on the journey to constitutional recognition for First Nations Australians through a voice to parliament. The Prime Minister, together with members of the Referendum Working Group, announced the wording of the constitutional amendment and the question that will be put to the Australian people at a referendum later this year. That question is: A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration? This is a straightforward question and one we believe will get the support of the majority of Australians at a referendum later this year. That's because Australians understand that constitutional recognition through a voice is about two things: recognition and consultation. It's recognition of the 65,000 years of shared history and continuous connection to this land by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and consultation through voice, because listening to communities leads to better policies and better outcomes. The voice referendum is a unifying moment for Australia. It's about moving Australia forward for everybody. The Constitution amendment bill will be introduced to parliament next week. There will be a parliamentary committee. This will provide an opportunity for further examination. It will also give all Australians a chance to make formal submissions on the proposed amendment and the question. Australians can have confidence that the amendment has been put under the microscope and stress-tested by the best legal minds in the country. The amendment is constitutionally sound and the Solicitor-General has been fully involved in this process. Constitutional recognition has been discussed in this country for decades, and this is an opportunity for us to answer that— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a first supplementary? 14:08 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia There's been a lot of work behind the scenes over quite a lengthy period of time to consider the Voice to Parliament and what it might look like. Can the minister detail the advice provided to the government from the Referendum Working Group? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Grogan for the supplementary. The Referendum Working Group is made up of First Nations people from across the country who have been working on constitutional recognition for many, many years—people like Ken Wyatt, the former Liberal minister, professors Marcia Langton and Megan Davis, Noel Pearson, Pat Anderson, Thomas Mayo, Tom Calma, Dale Agius, Pat Turner and Tony McAvoy, amongst others. These are the First Nations representatives that the government has been listening to and taking advice from. This process has been chaired by Minister Linda Burney and the special envoy, Senator Dodson, as well as the assistant minister, Senator McCarthy. This has been a rigorous and comprehensive process. Some of the best legal minds in the country have been looking at this issue for several months now, people like the former High Court judge Justice Kenneth Hayne and constitutional experts Professor Twomey, Professor Williams and Cheryl Saunders. Australians can be confident that the work has been done to ensure that this is a voice that works. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a second supplementary? 14:09 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The gap has yet to be closed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. In fact, under the last 10 years of the coalition, inequality worsened between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Can you, Minister, explain how the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament will improve the lives of Indigenous Australians? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Grogan for the supplementary question. The life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can and should be better, and I think we heard everyone at that historic press conference yesterday express those remarks. The gaps in life expectancy and educational outcomes are unacceptable, and a voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is a real chance to improve on these outcomes. It is perhaps the best opportunity we will ever have to address the injustices of the past and create change that will deliver a better future that will improve the lives of First Nations Australians on the ground in practical ways, like health, education and housing. This isn't about more bureaucracy. This is about making sure that voices in remote and regional communities are heard, that the parliament is given that advice through First Nations voices so that we can improve on the policies that support— (Time expired) Economy 44 14:10 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Earlier this week we asked you how much electricity prices had gone up since the Albanese Labor government was elected. Regrettably, you were unable to answer it. Minister, in the intervening days, have you sought the answers? If so, can you please inform the Senate of how much electricity prices have gone up since the Albanese government was elected? 14:11 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank the good senator from Tasmania for her question. I said in response to just about every question you asked yesterday that we're not going to get into this 'gotcha'-moment activity. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X A point of order: it's hardly a 'gotcha' moment when we're reciting the same question asked some days ago! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, that's not a point of order. Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N What I can say about what this government has done by comparison to what your government did is to just remember this: when you pushed up the prices of electricity just before the last election, instead of publicly telling people, telling the Australian public, telling all those people up there in the audience, that you'd pushed up the price of electricity, what did you do? You hid— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Askew? Senator Askew 281558 On relevance: the question was a very straightforward question that needs to be addressed. I'd just ask you to draw the minister back to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is reflecting on power prices, but I'll also remind him of the second part of your question. Senator FARRELL I0N It's highly relevant to the issue of electricity prices when your government failed to disclose to the Australian people, weeks out from an election, that you had pushed— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Gallagher! Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President—and thank you for that protection from Senator Gallagher! An honourable senator: She wants the job, I'm sure! Senator FARRELL I0N And she'd do a very, very good job, too! Senator FARRELL I0N No, that's not fair, Senator McGrath. An honourable senator: You don't reckon? Senator FARRELL I0N No, I don't reckon. No. Look, it's highly relevant to the circumstances when your government failed to disclose electricity prices— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Askew, a first supplementary question? 14:14 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Earlier this week we asked you how much grocery prices have gone up since the Albanese Labor government was elected, and, again, you were unable to answer it. Minister, in the intervening days, have you sought the answers? If so, can you please inform the Senate of how much groceries have gone up since the Albanese Labor government was elected? 14:14 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Askew for her question. As I said yesterday in answer to a not too dissimilar question, our Prime Minister wakes up every day and thinks to himself how he can assist the Australian population in pushing downward pressure on the cost of living. We did it in respect of electricity prices by introducing a cap on gas prices and coal prices, and that has pushed downward pressure on electricity prices. Of course, some of the beneficiaries— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N It's pushed downward pressure. If you're a supermarket that's using— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N What's the point of asking— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, on my left! You have a senator on her feet—a second supplementary, Senator Askew? 14:15 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Minister, earlier this week we asked you how much rental rates had gone up since the Albanese Labor government was elected and, once again, you were unable to answer. In the intervening days, have you sought the answers, and if so, can you please inform the Senate how much rental rates have gone up since the Albanese government was elected? 14:16 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Askew for her second supplementary question. The Albanese government understands quite clearly the sort of pressure that people are under, in terms of rental costs and of mortgage costs. We've seen both of those rise in recent times. That's why the Albanese government has been so keen and worked so hard to put downward pressure on all of the things that are causing distress to the Australian community. I've listed some things already. I've listed child care. In less than 100 days, childcare costs in this country will go down— (Time expired) Nuclear Waste Management: Submarines 45 14:17 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia My question is directed to Senator Farrell in his capacity representing the Minister for Resources. Nuclear submarines mean weapons grade nuclear waste. Five Australian governments over 70 years have tried and failed to find a suitable place for the permanent storage of our existing low- and intermediate-level waste from medical and research activities. Even finding a site for low-level waste in our state of South Australia has met with very strong opposition from local communities and First Nations people. The AUKUS deal locks Australia into managing large quantities of weapons-grade waste, requiring military protection for more than 100,000 years. Neither the US nor the UK have moved beyond temporary storage of this material. Given that no-one on the planet has found a permanent solution, isn't it true that your government will also be unable to dispose of this dangerous waste and will simply kick the problem down the road to our kids decades ahead. 14:18 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Pocock for her question and for her interest in this particular topic. I guess the short answer to your direct question is that no decision has yet been made on the location for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Let's look at South Australia. There was a proposal by the former government, in respect of Kimba, to deal with low-level nuclear waste, the sort of thing— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N I'm trying to answer your question, Senator Pocock, in the most honest way I can. You could at least give me the opportunity to complete the answer. I sat in silence while you asked your question. I would appreciate the same courtesy while I'm giving you the answer. I'm pointing out that there is the issue of low-level nuclear waste. The previous government attempted to resolve that issue in respect of a site in Kimba in South Australia. By the end of this year, Defence, in consultation with the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency, will complete a review to identify sites within the Defence estate that could be technically suitable for the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, including spent nuclear fuel. The process to identify— Senator Barbara Pocock BFQ Weapons grade! Senator FARRELL I0N With respect, you've asked me the question and I am directly answering your question. You might not like the answer, but please— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:20 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia We're yet to hear an answer on how large quantities of weapons-grade material are going to be stored. The South Australian Premier has called for the Barngarla people to have a right to veto the low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste dump proposed on their country near Kimba in South Australia, a proposal that the current Labor government has pursued, having had it suggested by the previous government. Any site for AUKUS nuclear waste would be on the lands of traditional owners. Will you commit now to giving traditional owners the right to veto? (Time expired) 14:21 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Pocock for her first supplementary question. I'm not entirely sure that you've correctly characterised the statements by the South Australian Premier, but I'll look closely at what you claim he has said and find out exactly what it was that he did say in respect of that particular site. But the process to identify a suitable location for storage of high— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Now, now, now, now. Now, now, now. Now, now, now. The process to identify suitable locations for storage— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:22 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia So no promise of a veto for First Nations people—no voice. The AUKUS deal creates whole new challenges around nuclear waste, and the Barngarla people, local Kimba farmers and many other South Australians continue to unequivocally oppose a nuclear waste dump at Kimba, a site that is unsuitable for permanent storage of even intermediate-level waste. In this light, will you commit to immediately suspend all preliminary works at Kimba and end your David and Goliath legal fights against the Barngarla people? (Time expired) 14:22 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Pocock for her second supplementary question. I can certainly give you this assurance, Senator Pocock: any spent fuel from the nuclear submarines will not be stored or disposed of at the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Kimba. There are legal proceedings underway in respect of a dispute about the site at Kimba. I think that, in the circumstances that there are legal proceedings underway, generally speaking we don't comment on those particular proceedings and we allow those proceedings to take their course and, of course, abide by any decisions that might come out of those proceedings. (Time expired) Infrastructure 46 14:23 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. Commonwealth Government infrastructure investment has suffered from a decade of waste and rorts, with funding decisions made for the purpose of issuing of media statements rather than actually delivering for the community, particularly in New South Wales, because Mr Perrottet has flogged off roads, electricity, ports and housing to his mates on the cheap, and now he wants to privatise Sydney Water. Minister, how has the Australian government cleaned up the mess in infrastructure investment to focus on delivering the projects that really matter to Australians? 14:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sheldon, a very long-term advocate for transport infrastructure in New South Wales. Before answering Senator Sheldon, I give a shout-out to those in the public gallery. I can only imagine the joy you felt when you arrived here today and found out that House of Reps question time wasn't on and instead you'd be coming to the Senate, so we'll do our best to provide you with some relief. The Albanese government is committed to delivering the infrastructure projects that grow productivity, create jobs and build a better life for Australians across our country. That is why we are reinvigorating Infrastructure Australia and are partnering with states, territories and local governments to invest in projects that will deliver the greatest benefits to people across Australia. Over the last decade, unfortunately, our nation saw the Infrastructure portfolio rorted by the Liberals and Nationals to pork-barrel their own seats while failing to deliver for the community. Senator WATT 245759 It's always good to have interjections from Senator Rennick. We know he won't be here very long to make more of them. We saw how the Liberals and Nationals treated Infrastructure Australia, ignoring its advice and stacking its board with its Liberal Party and Nationals mates. We all know how they used colour-coded spreadsheets to pick projects. That is simply how the Liberals and Nationals roll. They only focus on the projects that will benefit them politically—and listen to them bleat now. They never focus on projects that will actually benefit the community. At the Commonwealth level we saw this most clearly with the Urban Congestion Fund. This was a $4.8 billion program that allocated 83 per cent of its funding to Liberal held seats. It was meant to target pinch points and congestion in cities across the country—cities that people in the gallery live in—but 136 of the announced projects were in the Liberal held areas. In New South Wales we've seen pork-barrelling turned into an art form. From sports club grants to bushfire grants, is there anything that the New South Wales Liberal and National parties haven't sought to rort? This Saturday the voters of New South Wales have a chance to have their say, just as voters did last May. They can reject rorting, reject porkbarrelling and elect a Labor government. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 14:26 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I thank the minister for outlining the work that's being done to fix a decade worth of coalition mess while restoring integrity to the infrastructure pipeline. I note that in New South Wales the Liberals and Nationals bought cracked trams from Spain, unsafe trains from Korea and decapitating ferries from Indonesia. Minister, how is the government investing in infrastructure that creates jobs and enhances the economic productivity of local communities in New South Wales? (Time expired) 14:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks again, Senator Sheldon. The Albanese government is investing in projects that will deliver jobs and opportunities to communities that actually need them, regardless of what colour they are on the spreadsheet. One of the biggest infrastructure projects in the country right now is Western Sydney airport. It will support almost 28,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2031, five years after the airport opens in 2026. Importantly, these benefits and this opportunity will flow to local residents in Western Sydney, with at least 30 per cent of jobs during the construction phase having to come from local residents. When the airport opens, this will increase to a minimum of 50 per cent, and the Albanese government's Skills Guarantee means that 10 per cent of workers on Commonwealth funded infrastructure major projects will be an apprentice, a trainee or a paid cadet. Communities across New South Wales are sick of spending that is focused only on the political advantage of the government of the day. Working with a Minns Labor government will focus on the enabling infrastructure to deliver the greatest benefits to communities across Western Sydney. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 14:28 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales It's great to hear that, Minister, because proper infrastructure investment in our regions is critical and residents of regional New South Wales are sick of investment decisions being made on the basis of electoral boundaries rather than on merit. For example, we all saw the Liberals and Nationals even pork-barrel the bushfire grants. There will be no-one in the Minns government that will be turning around and calling themselves 'Pork Barilaro'. How has the cleaning up infrastructure investment delivered for regional communities? (Time expired) 14:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We all remember that under coalition governments, Commonwealth and state, it is regional communities that bear the brunt of underinvestment and political porkbarrelling. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WATT 245759 The biggest example of this at the Commonwealth level is the Building Better Regions Fund—and, gee, they don't like being reminded of it. Former coalition ministers make decisions on projects based on 'choose your own adventure' criteria that were not even explained to those applying for grants. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, across the chamber! Senator WATT 245759 National Party seats benefitted the most— Senator McGrath 217241 Eddie Obeid—where is he? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, I just called the whole chamber to order. I do not expect you to then continue interjecting. It is disrespectful and disorderly. Senator WATT 245759 At a state level the Nationals behave in exactly the same way, even going so far as to rort bushfire funds in New South Wales. And, if you think all this behaviour ended with 'Pork-barrel-aro', you'd be very mistaken. The same people who were around the cabinet table when these decisions were made are now seeking another term in office. Only the Albanese Labor government and a Minns New South Wales Labor government will stop the rorts, deliver for Sydney and deliver for regional New South Wales. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I will remind you, when referring to members of other parliaments, that it is inappropriate to not use their correct titles. Ambassador for First Nations People 48 14:30 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and thus today to Senator Farrell. An ambassador is a person sent as the chief representative of his or her own government in another country. Given that you have appointed a First Nations ambassador, does the government believe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are a separate, sovereign nation? 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your question and your earlier advice about the fact that you were going to ask that question of me. The Albanese government is committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full and embedding Indigenous perspectives, experiences and interests in our foreign policy. Australia's foreign policy should reflect who we are: home to more than 300 ancestries and the oldest continuous culture on earth. We have, as you have rightly said, appointed Mr Justin Mohamed as Australia's first, inaugural, Ambassador for First Nations People. He will lead an office for First Nations engagement within DFAT to listen to and work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Mr Mohamed has worked for decades in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, social justice and reconciliation, in roles spanning the Aboriginal community, government and corporate sectors. Our First Nations foreign policy will help grow First Nations trade and investment. Having had the opportunity to discuss an Indigenous role in trade and investment, it is a significant issue of interest for other countries—and, I might add in that area, tourism as well. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Will you guarantee that the First Nations ambassador, Mr Mohamed, will not make any representations to foreign countries or bodies on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty? A yes or no is sufficient. 14:33 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Roberts, for very helpfully suggesting how I might answer your question! With due respect, I'll answer it in the way that I would like to and that I think addresses your point quite directly. This appointment is about making sure that Australian foreign policy tells our full story: home to peoples of more than 300 ancestries and the oldest continuous culture on earth. Our projecting this reality of modern Australia to the world enables us to find common ground and alignment with other countries so we can work together towards the region we want—open, peaceful, prosperous and respectful of sovereignty. First Nations' connection to the countries of our region goes back thousands of years. They were the continent's first diplomats and the first traders. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:34 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland City based, white-skinned activists imported the term 'First Nations' from Canada and installed it in our universities. The term has nothing to do with our Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Given these facts, do you agree that it is insulting to call our Australian Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders 'First Nations' and to appoint an ambassador using that term? 14:34 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Roberts for his question. No. TikTok 48 14:35 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Will the minister update the Senate on the status of TikTok bans announced or implemented by other Five Eyes nations? 14:35 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Fawcett, for your question. I note that concerns regarding TikTok are not new and have been matters of public debate for some time. I think it's fair to say that in government you had plenty of time to take some action on this issue. I'm disappointed— Senator Fawcett DYU A point of order: the minister is misleading the house. TikTok only launched in Australia in 2019. The PRESIDENT 112096 That is a debating point. Senator FARRELL I0N My point was that, if your government was so worried about TikTok and you claim that TikTok was introduced in 2019, by my calculations that gave you three years— Senator FARRELL I0N No, not that; this one here, three. That gave you three years to deal with it. I don't say you had nine years to deal with it, but I do say you had three years to deal with the issue. Talk about crocodile tears, crying about— Senator Birmingham H6X A point of order on direct relevance: Senator Farrell has had a little bit of fun in responding to the earlier point of order, but I would ask you to bring him back to what was a quite precisely worded question and to be directly relevant to that, which was asking him to update the Senate on the status of TikTok bans announced or implemented by other Five Eyes nations. He has not gone close to the status of those international actions. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will direct the minister to the question. Senator FARRELL I0N On the rise of social media, those in the chamber the other night would recall me giving some advice to people about social media platforms. Australians are sharing more data and more details on platforms that are not necessarily protecting that information. Australians deserve to be protected by regulatory— Senator Fawcett DYU A point of order on relevance: the question was about the actions by other Five Eyes nations, not by Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 I have directed the minister, and I will direct the minister again to your question. Senator FARRELL I0N The Australian government is currently looking at— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Fawcett, a first supplementary? 14:28 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia On 16 March the deputy leader of the UK Labour Party, Angela Rayner, said in relation to the recent UK government ban of TikTok on government devices: … a Government behind the curve, with sticking-plaster solutions, forced to lurch into a U-turn at the last minute. Does the minister agree with the UK Labour Party that a decision on TikTok is already well overdue? 14:39 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Fawcett for his question. I have to say, wonders never cease! I never, ever thought that I'd see the day when you were quoting statements from the UK Labour government in support of your arguments! This government takes the issue of TikTok seriously. We are in the process of— Senator Birmingham H6X Can't see it. Senator FARRELL I0N Well, you had years and years to deal with this issue. You did nothing, like with so many other things. There were issues that you should have dealt with when you were in government, but of course you didn't. (Time expired) The 112096 Senator Fawcett, second supplementary? 14:40 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Minister, given that Senator Paterson, on behalf of the coalition, first raised the dangers of TikTok on government devices in July last year, given that all of Australia's Five Eyes partners have now acted and given that even the UK Labour Party—which, by the way, is in opposition, not government—supports a ban, will the Albanese government now finally commit to banning TikTok on government devices? 14:40 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia You're right, Senator. I was jumping ahead of myself. I'm anticipating a Labor victory in the New South Wales election of course and in the UK election in due course. We have taken this issue seriously, in a way you never did when you were in government. The minister is currently looking at— Senator Birmingham H6X All the other Five Eyes nations have acted, Don. Senator FARRELL I0N Well, why didn't you act when you had three years to do it? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell— Senator FARRELL I0N Like with so many things, you never acted when you could have. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Once again, senators, there was so much disorder in here that the minister wasn't able to hear me asking him to resume his seat so that we could regain order and hear his answer. Please continue, Minister. Senator Sterle e68 Go, Don. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, when I've just called the chamber to order that is incredibly disorderly. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N On a day when we're trying to lift the standards here and show a bit of respect— Senator McGrath 217241 Labor started off well. Senator FARRELL I0N Yes. I can't even get an opportunity to answer the question. An honourable senator: Just say, 'I don't know.' Senator FARRELL I0N No, that's not the answer. (Time expired) Defence Procurement: Submarines 50 14:42 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is to Minister Farrell, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. How many kilograms of highly enriched uranium—that's, nuclear weapons grade uranium—will be carried on each of the Virginia class submarines Australia is intending to acquire under the AUKUS submarine deal? How much, Minister? 14:42 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Shoebridge. The Australian government has taken the decision—and it's a decision I appreciate that you and your party don't agree with—to go down the track of replacing our Collins class submarines, which were built in South Australia, with nuclear powered submarines. There's a staged process here. As we know, the former government for nine years had a series of— Senator Shoe 169119 Point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, I have drawn to your attention before not to stand on your feet and call 'point of order'. I am trying to keep order in this place, and doing disorderly things like that does not assist. Senator Shoebridge? Senator Shoebridge 169119 My point of order is on relevance. My question was very simple: how much highly enriched uranium will each of these Virginia class submarines carry? I was not requesting a history lesson about the failure of the coalition. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. You have made your point of order. I remind the minister of your question. Minister. Senator FARRELL I0N I don't think you can deal with the issue that you're seeking to ask questions about without looking back at the nine long years of neglect— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! I have a senator on his feet. Senator Shoebridge. Senator 169119 It's the same point of order, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, thank you. Senator Shoebridge 169119 The minister is even ignoring your direction. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. I will remind the minister of the question. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. Well, I know it aggravates the opposition to keep referring to the fact that in nine long years you couldn't make a single decision about the issue of— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge. Senator Shoebridge 169119 It's the same point of outer, but now the minister has twice flouted your direction to him. I ask you to call him to order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I have called the Senate to order. I will again remind the minister of the question. Minister, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. The decision that we have made—and, as I have pointed out earlier, I— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Senator FARRELL I0N No, there's still a few up there. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N No, we're all awake. We're all sound asleep—all wide awake. On the issue which Senator Shoebridge raises, of course I understand he doesn't agree with the decision to shift to— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary? Oppo sition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Senator Shoebridge. Order on my left! I have a senator waiting to ask a question. 14:46 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Given it is impossible for nuclear regulation, safety or disposal to be effective if you refuse to say, as you did just then—or don't know, as is probably the case—how much weapons-grade uranium these submarines will carry, how can this decision be in line with our international non-proliferation treaty obligations, and why won't you tell the truth? 14:47 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Shoebridge for his first supplementary question. I totally reject the proposition that we're not telling the truth. Unlike the former government, we have been as absolutely open as we can about the way forward on our defence and security issues. Only last week, the Prime Minister sat with the American President and the English Prime Minister to explain to the world—and, of course, subsequent to that to our neighbours in this region—exactly what it is— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge. Senator Shoebridge 169119 My question was about nuclear regulation, safety and disposal, not the meeting some weeks ago, and the minister is again refusing to be relevant. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. You did go to the non-proliferation treaty and you did talk about telling the truth as well. I do believe the minister's being relevant, but I shall continue to listen carefully. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. We will honour all of our obligations under our treaties, and that was made very clear by the Prime Minister and the defence minister in all of the discussions— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary? 14:48 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Given it's on the public record from the likes of radiation and nuclear safety expert Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe that each Virginia class submarine carries 200 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium, more than three times the amount of enriched uranium used in the bombing of Hiroshima, what guarantees are you providing on how that material can be safely accommodated in major population centres like Port Kembla? 14:49 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Shoebridge for his second supplementary question. To be honest with you, I'm not sure that decisions have been made about where the submarines will be docked on the east coast of Australia, so I'm not sure that your assertion that it relates to Port Kembla is correct. Look, we have treaty obligations. We support those treaty obligations. We will ensure that we comply with all of our international obligations in respect of nuclear issues. That includes the Treaty of Rarotonga. Rest assured that every one of our international obligations— (Time expired) Trade with the United Kingdom 51 14:59 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. In the minister's speech delivered on 14 November last year at the Australian APEC Study Centre at RMIT, the minister outlined the Albanese government's approach to trade policy. A central plank of the government's trade policy strategy is market diversification. This approach seeks to provide more commercial opportunities in overseas markets to avoid overly relying on any single trading partner. To this end, can the minister provide an update on the status of the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement? 14:51 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Walsh for her question. I know she has a deep interest in trade issues. After a decade of coalition government, Australia is more dependent than ever on a single market for our exports. To overcome this predicament, the Albanese Labor government is actively progressing a trade policy agenda that creates more opportunities for Australian businesses to gain new market access into major markets. This includes implementing a gold standard trade agreement with the United Kingdom. The former Liberal government dropped the ball by failing to conclude parliamentary processes to implement the Australian— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Birmingham H6X Negotiated and signed by who? Senator FARRELL I0N In contrast, this government prioritised the parliamentary processes to implement the UK free trade agreement, which was concluded last year. Senator Birmingham H6X Negotiated by the former government. Senator FARRELL I0N No, it wasn't. I'm pleased to advise the Senate that overnight— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Please listen to this. Calm down! I'm pleased to advise that overnight the United Kingdom moved closer to finalising its domestic processes to be in a position to implement the trade to deal with Australia. A significant step was taken with the king providing royal assent to UK legislation to bring the bilateral free trade agreement into force. Completion of this step paves the way for the laying of subordinate legislation in the United Kingdom and Scottish parliaments, the final procedure required to complete the UK's ratification process. The Albanese government is looking forward to implementing the free trade agreement— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, your first supplementary question? 14:53 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The United Kingdom is one of Australia's closest and most important partners. We already have deep economic and people-to-people links. Can the minister explain how the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement will deliver additional benefits to Australians? 14:53 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Walsh again for her question. A free trade agreement with the United Kingdom will provide significant opportunities for all Australians. The United Kingdom is Australia's fifth-largest trading partner. The deal removes tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian goods exported to the United Kingdom, valued at about $9.2 billion. This outcome provides significant commercial opportunities for our farmers, our food producers, including for beef, sheepmeat, wine, dairy, rice and sugar exports. The agreement will provide a level playing field for Australian services suppliers— Senator McGrath 217241 No-one's listening on your side, Don; they're all on their phones! Senator FARRELL I0N They are transfixed, Senator!—including professionals accessing the UK market. When implemented, the agreement will help to lower the cost-of-living pressures for Australian families. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, a second supplementary? 14:54 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement is the first full trade agreement the UK negotiated from scratch following Brexit. Can the minister explain how the free trade agreement will boost jobs and commercial opportunities? 14:55 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia While the UK trade deal will benefit all Australians by creating more jobs and commercial opportunities, I will provide one example for the great state of New South Wales, which goes to the ballot box tomorrow. SIA Medical, which is based in Sydney, is Australia's largest provider of epilepsy diagnostic services. The company is expanding fast and recently opened an office in London. While in London last year, I saw firsthand this Australian cutting-edge technology in action. It's truly amazing technology developed here in Australia. The team said they were excited about the benefits the trade deal will deliver, including facilitating the movement of equipment and staff. This is just one example of how the UK trade deal will improve business opportunities. Energy 52 14:56 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. In question time on Wednesday, Senator Farrell stated to us all, 'It is the objective of the Albanese-Labor Government to put downward pressure on power prices'. Minister, as we near the end of the first year of the Albanese government, are power prices now lower anywhere in Australia compared to the day of the election? 14:56 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Canavan, for the question. Of course, you were part of that coalition government that refused to disclose to the Australian people that you had increased the price of electricity in the weeks before the last federal election. So please don't come into this place lecturing us about power prices. Now, what have we done? What have we done about it? Well, we did two things in particular. We did two things in particular to put downward pressure on electricity prices because we saw the neglect by your government over almost a decade in dealing with this issue. What did we do as soon as we came into office? One of the very first things— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan? Senator Canava 245212 Just a point of order on relevance. The question didn't go to what is being done; it went to the outcomes. It was a very clear, very simple question about whether the minister knows a place in Australia where power prices are lower. I would ask you respectfully to draw his attention to that particular question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Canavan. The first part of your question did go to downward pressure. I will remind the minister of the second part of your question. Senator FARRELL I0N Senator Canavan, I like to answer all parts of your questions. The Albanese government understands the pressure that is on Australian families as a result of rising electricity prices. Of course we have seen the terrible war in Ukraine and what that has done to prices right around the world. Every country in the world is facing upward pressure on electricity prices. What did we do? We capped the price of gas and we capped the price of coal in order to push the price down, and you voted against it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, your first supplementary? 14:59 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Also in question time on Wednesday, Senator Farrell said, 'nobody understands cost-of-living pressures more than our Prime Minister'. If that is true, Minister, then can you explain why, after 10 consecutive interest rate rises on Mr Albanese's watch, an Australian family with a mortgage on a $750,000 property are now having to find an extra $20,000 a year to pay off their mortgage? 15:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Canavan for his question. Senator Gallagher ING When did those interest rates start increasing? When do you think that happened? Senator FARRELL I0N Worldwide, there's been upward pressure on mortgage rates. Regrettably, Australia is not alone in that regard, and in many respects it's a hangover— Senator FARRELL I0N As Senator Gallagher rightly says, of course, they started going up under your government. It was the economic policies set in place by your government. We understand why that was: because you made a whole lot of wrong decisions in the course of the pandemic, which no doubt— Senator Birmingham H6X You called for more spending! Senator FARRELL I0N No, no, no. Senator Birmingham H6X Yes, you did. Senator FARRELL I0N No, Senator Birmingham. I— (Time expired) MOTIONS 53 MOTIONS Albanese Government 53 15:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Albanese Labor government as circulated in the chamber: That the Senate: Notes that: (a) Senator Farrell has demonstrated how out of touch the Albanese Labor Government is when it comes to cost-of-living pressures on Australian households and businesses when he said, "I do not follow power prices…closely". (b) Senator Farrell has demonstrated that the Albanese Labor Government has no real plan to address cost-of-living pressures on Australian households and businesses; and (c) Condemns the Albanese Labor Government for breaking its promises to Australians by: i. failing to deliver its promised $275 reduction in power bills; ii. failing to deliver its promised cheaper mortgages; iii. failing to honour its promise to not change superannuation taxes; iv. failing to honour its promise to not change taxes on franking credits; v. failing to honour its promise to deliver real wage increases; vi. failing to honour its promise to lower cost-of-living pressures; and vii. failing to categorically rule out breaking its promise to honour the legislated stage 3 tax cuts in full. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left and right! Thank you, Senator Birmingham; you have sought leave, but I remind the chamber that Senator Canavan was entitled to ask his second supplementary question. Senator Canavan, do you wish to do that before I go to the question of leave? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, I'm asking you a question; when you answer I expect you to stand. Senator Canavan 245212 I'm perfectly fine for the Leader of the Opposition to have precedence on these matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Canavan. Is leave granted to Senator Birmingham? Leave not granted. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Your leader is on his feet. Leave has been denied. Senator Birmingham. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion as outlined before and circulated in the chamber for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Albanese Labor government. Most Australians know the smallgoods advertising campaign with the slogan: 'Is Don. Is good.' Sadly, this week Senator Farrell has looked and sounded more like a turkey than any sorts of tasty smallgoods, with answer after answer comprising nothing but gobbledegook, endless ums and ahs, stalling tactics, pauses and evasion tactics to get to the end of every single question and run the clock down. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. A suspension of standing orders has been sought. That is what you are speaking to. You need to be explaining why we need to suspend standing orders. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X President, it has been an extraordinary show this week from the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, so extraordinary that it does warrant consideration of an extraordinary motion that necessitates the suspension of standing orders. Senator Farrell, during the course of this week, was asked about the rate of electricity price increases in Australia. What did we get? 'Don't know.' He was asked about the rate of grocery price increases in Australia. What did we get? 'Don't know.' Senator Farrell was asked about the rate of rental rate increases in Australia. What did we get? 'Don't know.' Senator Farrell was asked about the rate of mortgage increases in Australia. And what did we get? 'Don't know.' Opposition senators interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Not only does Senator Farrell not know but, indeed, he— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, across the chamber, but particularly on my left! Senator Birmingham, I did remind you that you have sought to suspend standing orders, and you need to be demonstrating to the chamber why you are seeking that suspension. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X President, as I outlined, this has been quite an extraordinary week in the Senate that does warrant the suspension of standing orders— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, I've just called the chamber to order. You are being incredibly disrespectful and disorderly. I would ask you to be silent. Senator Birmingham, please continue. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X So extraordinary has it been, that not only has Senator Farrell indicated he doesn't know the answers to these things, but, on power prices, he admitted: 'I do not follow power prices closely.' Right around Australia, households and small businesses are opening their power bills, each and every day, under the shock of the increasing rates of electricity, with genuine concern and pressures that they are feeling, and here we have the Albanese Labor government saying it doesn't know, it doesn't follow it and, apparently, it seems, it just does not care. Senator McGrath 217241 Out of touch; don't care. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X It doesn't care. It is a government, indeed, that is out of touch. Of course, it isn't just in relation to those matters affecting the cost-of-living pressures on Australians that we've seen this remarkable performance. Even on national security matters, such as cybersecurity protections of Five Eyes partners or, indeed, in relation to giving cogent answers on the AUKUS partnership, Senator Farrell has demonstrated time and again that he and the Albanese government just don't know—don't know, don't care, are not properly in touch. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Of course, it comes on the back of a government that is continuously breaking its promises. As we approach the one-year anniversary of this government, it is worth this chamber taking the step to giving special attention to debating the many broken promises of this government, because Senator Farrell— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Once again, the disorder across the chamber— Senator Carol Brown F49 It's the 'no-alition'! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brown, I've just sat the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate down, to call for order. I don't expect senators to continue to call out. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X As we approach the one-year anniversary of the Albanese government, it is worth this chamber taking the time to debate the extraordinary list of broken promises that have been racked up and the denial of them that is occurring on the other side. Time and again, we have sought to get the government to respond directly to their promise that they would reduce household electricity prices by $275. During the course of this week we actually asked them to acknowledge direct quotes out of their own policy document. They won't acknowledge it. We've even handed the document across the chamber with the quote highlighted. They still wouldn't acknowledge it. We even asked Senator Farrell yesterday just to say the words 'two hundred and seventy-five dollars'. He could not say them. He would not say them. They will not admit that on more than 97 occasions before Australians cast their votes they went out and promised power price reductions of $275. And then the day after the election, and not once since have they been willing to repeat that promise. Not on one single day have any of you been game to repeat that promise—nor has Prime Minister Albanese—because you knew you never had an intention of delivering it. You knew it would never happen. It was a broken promise from the moment you made it, just like your promises not to change superannuation taxes, just like your promises not to change franking credits. They're all broken promises from a government that has demonstrated just how inept it is, how committed to breaking its promises it is and, as a result, how much the Australian people are feeling the pain from a government showing so early how out of touch it is. (Time expired) 15:10 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I've got to say, I'm pretty disappointed in Senator Birmingham. You should have left these schoolboy tactics behind—maybe at university, even. One of the reasons why—and I don't think you've quite understood this, Senator Birmingham—you only got 71 likes on your Facebook the other day is nobody is listening to you. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N The reason they're not listening to you— The 10000 Minister Farrell! Senator FARRELL I0N is you're irrelevant to the Australian people. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Farrell! Senator FARRELL I0N Why did you lose? Why did you— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Farrell! Order! Please resume your seat. Once again, I had to call 'order' about four times. This is disrespectful and it's incredibly disorderly. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N They don't like me telling them the truth about how irrelevant they are. You were rejected by the Australian people and you haven't got over that. You haven't got over the fact that you were rejected. What you hate, what you absolutely hate, is— Senator Sterle e68 Each other! Senator FARRELL I0N That's true. You're dead right there, Senator Sterle. You do hate each other. I know you want some diversion from the Ruston-Antic—where is Antic? Out getting his numbers, I suppose. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please, when referring to a senator in this place, use his proper title. Senator O'Sullivan? Senator 283585 On a point of order. You just addressed the first one I was going to raise. The second one is that I ask you to ask the minister to direct his comments through the chair, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe he is doing that, Senator O'Sullivan, but I will remind him to direct his comments to the chair. Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, I should have referred to the dispute between Senator Ruston and Senator Antic about preselections in South Australia. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRE I0N That's why, of course, it's Senator Birmingham who's trying to divert attention from the terrible, terrible internal— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Order! I'll come to you in a moment, Senator Birmingham. I had just called the chamber to order, and the minute the minister got back to his feet the disorder and the interjections immediately started up again. Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham H6X President, on a point of order: you drew me to the question of the matter of suspension of standing orders on multiple occasions, without anybody having to make a point of order. I invite you to apply the same standard to Senator Farrell. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I did draw you to the suspension; I note you very rarely went there. I will do the same to Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N They can't stand the truth. The truth is: you were an irrelevant government, you were a bad government, and you are an irrelevant opposition. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 You are so arrogant! Senator FARRELL I0N That's not arrogance— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, resume your seat. I ask for that to be withdrawn. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N What are we doing in terms of cost of living? We're putting downward pressure on cost of living. How many times have I spoken this week? How many times have I spoken this week about what we're doing to push down the price of— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Farrell, I direct your comments to the suspension of the standing orders. Please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N I am commenting on the suspension, President. The reality is that this government is doing things the previous government was never, ever prepared to do. They have opposed, in opposition, to put downward— Senator McGrath 217241 We didn't break promises! Senator FARRELL I0N Oh, come off it, Senator! This is a government that understands the problems of ordinary working Australians, which your government never, ever understood, and it never, ever will understand the problems of ordinary working Australians. We're putting on that downward pressure with cheaper medicines and cheaper child care, and by expanding parental leave for six months. We are finally getting wages moving again. What was your— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat! I'm going to wait for order once again. Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N What was your policy on wages? Structurally, to keep wages depressed! We've supported ordinary working people to get wages going. More affordable housing: we're doing something about affordable housing, which you completely ignored! Fee-free TAFE places and all of these things are putting the downward pressure on. And, of course, we're delivering on recognition of Australia's First Nations people by delivering a Voice to parliament. You don't like us doing any of those things, but we're the government. We're looking after the people of Australia and we're looking after the people of Australia in a way that you have never done and have never been able to do. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Senator Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N I have completed my answer. 15:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government won't be supporting this suspension of standing orders. I think we've all learned today that we won't invite the opposition to attend the next sitting Friday. That's what we're seeing— Senator McGrath 217241 That's because you don't like accountability! Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, no, that's because— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath— The PRESIDENT 112096 And Senator Hughes! I have just called the chamber to order! Minister Gallagher. Senator McGrath 217241 If you put wages up— Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator McGrath, you're making my point for me! You're shouting at us! Keep going—come on! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath! Senator GALLAGHER ING Is this the Senate of Australia? This is honestly the Senate—Australia is watching this! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat— Senator GALLAGHER ING He's— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, I have asked you to sit down. Senator McGrath, I have constantly called you because you are out of order and you are being disrespectful. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, President. I think that this suspension demonstrates what we've been seeing for the last 10 months. But it has really hit home this week for the opposition: it seems to be an increasingly irrelevant and obstructionist gathering of senators in this place who are determined to undermine, distract and cause damage to anything constructive that tries to be done in this place. That's what we've been seeing. That's why here we are, with the last 10 minutes of the Senate sitting this week, dealing with a suspension debate. Nothing else, just a suspension debate, essentially reflecting on their conduct this week. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING Obstructionist and irrelevant: say no to everything—say no to absolutely everything! Everything that we are sent here to do in this place to progress issues on behalf of the Australian people and to implement the policies that we took to the election, you say no to. You say no to wage rises. You say no to the safeguard mechanism. You say no to the climate laws. You say no to extra housing and you say no to new manufacturing jobs. The list goes on and on and on. And when you say no to everything you have nothing to say, do you? So you have to move suspension debates, like you did this morning and like you're doing now, because you are so irrelevant that you have nothing to bring to this chamber. You have absolutely no value to bring to this chamber and so we're at the point, with 10 minutes to go, where this is the best that you have. This is the best that you have! You say no to almost every piece of legislation that comes into this chamber. You don't want to debate anything. You don't want to talk about it. Your behaviour— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Once again, and I reminded senators of this earlier, if you wish to participate in the debate please seek the call. It is not okay to continue to be so disorderly that I have to call this a place to order every few minutes. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government has done more in 10 months than those opposite did in almost 10 years. Senator Van 283601 You're kidding! You're absolutely kidding yourself. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van! Senator GALLAGHER ING We have done more in 10 months, and you can't stand it. You can't stand the fact that that is what we have done. We've gone around implementing our election commitments. We've gone around with the commitments we made to the Australian people to put those in place, and you have voted no at pretty much every single opportunity. That's what has happened, and that's why we find ourselves here, with 10 minutes to go, discussing this suspension motion, which won't even get completed by the end of the time the Senate sits. That's the strategic brilliance of what's being put before the Senate today! We have been implementing our policies for women. We have been implementing our policies to invest in early childhood education. We have been implementing policies to put downward pressure on energy prices. You even voted no to that—$1½ billion going in to ensure people's power bills don't increase to the point that they otherwise would have, and you voted no to that! I mean, honestly! How do you go back to your jurisdictions and explain that to constituents? How do you go back and say: 'Oh, well, actually, you know what? The government tried to put downward pressure on your electricity bills, and we said no.' There's a badge of honour! There's something ticked off in Canberra! What about the minute wages were getting moving? Getting wages moving is something you spent 10 years opposing. All the attempts that we make, like our secure jobs, better pay legislation—you say no, no, no. Nothing. All the bills that were in place for this week—you said no to all of them. National Reconstruction Fund? No. Housing Australia Future Fund? No. That's not good enough for those opposite! You didn't do anything in 10 years and you don't want to do anything for the next year either, it seems. The Housing Australia Future Fund—who could oppose putting extra money into housing? People of Australia, I give you those that will do that! Here they are, lined up, every single one of them! Today's behaviour has been a disgrace, with two suspension motions on a day that we were sent here to do government legislation and you couldn't bear it because you don't want to get anything done. 15:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I also rise to support the motion moved by Senator Birmingham. But the question we all need to ask is: why? Why is it so important that we be given an opportunity to note what has been outlined in Senator Birmingham's motion? In the first instance, the role of the government when it comes here is to justify itself to the Australian people. For one hour a day, those who are not in government are given the opportunity from two o'clock until three o'clock—and we've had members in the gallery today join us—to pursue what is called question time. The role of question time has been one that has been here since the time parliament commenced. The mere fact that you clearly don't know what the role of question time is says a lot. During question time— Senator McGrath 217241 You don't like accountability. You can't even spell it! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, your interjections are so loud they are drowning out Senator Cash. Please continue. Senator CASH I0M those not in government are given the opportunity to ask questions of the executive, but, you see, the ministers that have been asked the question then have a responsibility to the parliament to be accountable. And what we have seen this week—in particular with Senator Farrell, as the acting leader of the Australian Senate, the Minister representing the Prime Minister of Australia—is a complete, total and utter disregard for this place, the Australian Senate and a complete, total and utter disregard for the Australian people, because, quite frankly, if you don't know the answer to a question, you're actually better off just saying to us you don't know. We would actually prefer that answer to what you have done this week. To those listening in, this is the contempt the leader in the Australian Senate, the Minister representing the Prime Minister, has shown. And it's not just to the Senate, because the Senate represents the Australian people. So, it is the contempt that is being shown this week to the Australian people. Senator McGrath asked Senator Farrell a question: 'My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Can the minister name anywhere in Australia where power prices have been reduced since Labor have been in government?' This is the response Senator Farrell gave to the Australian people: 'I thank Senator McGrath for his question. I do not follow power prices closely enough to be able to answer the question.' He then went on to say: 'I'm not sure that there's any person in the chamber who so closely watches power prices that they are able to get that answer.' Well, Senator Farrell, I say to you, there actually are people in the chamber who follow power prices. There are people in the gallery who know what the increase in the their power bill is. There are people listening in— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! Senator Cash, again, I remind you that we are discussing the suspension of standing orders. You started off well. Thank you. Senator CASH I0M The whole point is, it is the lack of accountability shown by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, the contempt that was shown to the Australian Senate this week. Yes, it is a matter of urgency that this motion be debated. Looking at the substance of the motion that Senator Birmingham has moved, why should we take note of this? Because it is important for us as the opposition to hold the government to account for broken promises. The government went to the election and stated certain things to the Australian people. Are we saying we should not note this fact in the chamber? Are we saying that it is not important enough for this place to actually note that, prior to the election, Mr Albanese said on over 97 occasions, 'I will reduce your power bills by $275'? And you had in the Australian Senate this week a simple question. Can you actually even say the words '$275'? The minister can't even bring himself to say the words '$275'. So, President, I would put to you and to the chamber: it is of great importance that this suspension motion be agreed to. It is of great importance because the contempt that has been on display to this place, to the people who've joined us here in the gallery this week and to the Australian people has, quite frankly, been like nothing I've seen in my almost 15 years here. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Cash. Senator McKim. 15:28 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Thank you, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment. I have Senator Ruston on a point of order. Senator Ruston 243273 I seek precedence. The 10000 We've just had someone from your side. You've had two speakers. Senator Ruston 243273 Yes, we had two from your side. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will seek advice from the Clerk. Please resume your seats, Senators McKim and Ruston. Senator Ruston, I'll give you the call. 15:28 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That the question be put. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim? Senator McKim JKM On a point order: I'd just remind you that there is a large crossbench in this Senate, and the Senate has not had the opportunity to hear from the crossbench at all in this debate. In fact, we've had two contributors each from the government and the opposition. I think the crossbenchers are entitled to have a say. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKim. Because there were two contributors from the government I felt that in fairness it had to go to the opposition. An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Ruston, to close debate be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:34]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.
Debate interrupted.

 NOTICES 59 NOTICES Presentation 59 COMMITTEES 61 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 61 Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Dental Services in Australia Select Committee 62 Membership 62 15:39 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—I move: Community Affairs Legislation Committee — Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Steele-John to replace Senator Rice for the committee's inquiry into the Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023 Participating member: Senator Rice Dental Services in Australia — Select Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Thorpe Question agreed to. Economics Legislation Committee 62 Report 62 15:39 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Pursuant to order and at the request of the chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Walsh, I present the report of the committee on the Provisions of the National Energy Transition Authority Bill 2022 together with accompanying documents. BILLS 62 BILLS National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023 62

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 62 15:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland 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 62 15:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Australian vocational education and training (VET) sector delivers outstanding education and training through a variety of institutions, through public TAFE and private registered training organisations (RTOs), within universities, and through schools. It is a dynamic and responsive sector that supports millions of students each year to obtain the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in an ever-changing economy. It provides flexible opportunities for individuals to engage in education and training as a starting point to a career pathway or as a solution to upskill or re-skill. At the heart of its agenda, the Government is uplifting the VET sector, including by delivering 180,000 Fee-Free TAFE and VET places in 2023, upgrading essential TAFE infrastructure through the $50 million TAFE Technology Fund, and supporting New Energy Apprenticeships for a modern economy. Today, I introduce the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023(the Bill)to amend the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (the NVETR Act). The amendments in the Bill will: support changes to the way VET activity data is collected and submitted by RTOs to the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER); and modernise the way that VET activity data can be accessed and used by authorised users. More broadly, the amendments will support data reforms which will be implemented as part of the VET Data Streamlining program and which will help to deliver high quality training outcomes. The Australian Government is working with states and territories and the NCVER to improve the availability and quality of VET activity data through VET Data Streamlining program and its reforms. This program will modernise the way TAFEs and other RTOs manage their collection, validation and submission of VET activity data. There are currently data lags of up to 20 months in national VET activity data collection which is published annually. Current data lags make it difficult for governments to respond effectively to emerging skills shortages, or other policy and funding issues as they occur. VET Data Streamlining will introduce: modern technology that will enable progressive submission and validation of VET activity data; an updated VET information Standard to replace the current statistical standard which was first developed over 25 years ago; and updated regulatory, legislative and governance settings that will support the objective of "better data, faster". These important VET data reforms aim to: enhance the transparency of changes and developments in the VET market, including responses to unexpected shocks; make VET student activity data reporting simpler; reduce reporting pathways for training providers; reduce the time delay between the collection, availability and reporting of VET activity data; improve data quality and business efficiency; provide evidence to support key policy and funding decisions to the VET sector (such as Fee-Free TAFE and VET); enhance governments' ability to assess the effectiveness of investment in VET; improve consumer information on scheduled course offerings; and ensure Unique Student Identifier transcripts are updated sooner, assisting students and their employers. "Better data, faster" will support government priorities for the VET sector including: the work of Jobs and Skills Australia which relies on VET activity data to inform its advice to the Australian Government on current and emerging skills and training needs in the labour market and workforce. ensuring that additional TAFE commitments are delivering skills in priority areas. World leading training must be supported by quality information—and evidenced-based assessment of the VET Sector. The NVETR Act established the National VET Regulator and the framework to provide nationally consistent regulation across the sector. To inform the regulation of the VET sector, the NVETR Act places data provision obligations on RTOs to report data in accordance with the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Provision Requirements) Instrument 2020. The Bill engages with this legislative framework. I will now outline several aspects of the Bill. To ensure VET activity data remains responsive to the needs of governments and other VET data users, the Bill will enable the Skills Ministerial Council (made up of the Commonwealth and State and Territory Ministers) to agree that a specified body or person can agree to amendments to data provision obligations of RTOs. Currently, the relevant Commonwealth Minister and the Ministerial Council must agree to such amendments. This amendment will streamline future processes to update the new VET Information Standard, making the data standard more responsive to the needs of governments and other VET activity data users. The amendments in the Bill will authorise the access and use of VET activity data by ICT system operators engaged under a contract to collect, use and disclose VET activity data through a new legislative instrument, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (VET Data System Information) Determination 2023. The amendments in the Bill will remove an ambiguity by expressly incorporating the authorisation for the National VET Regulator, ASQA, to make an administrative decision to exempt an RTO from providing specified data that is prescribed by the Data Provision Requirements. Finally, the amendments in the Bill will permit the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to release information collected in accordance with the Data Provision Requirements if agreed by the Ministerial Council or a specified person or body agreed by the Ministerial Council. Improved VET data collection will also support other agencies and projects, including ASQA and the Multi-Agency Data Integration Project, and is aligned with the principle of open data exchange with States and Territories under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Data Sharing between Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments. Consultation with these stakeholders, and peak bodies and training providers, has demonstrated the support for improving the quality and timeliness of VET activity data I would like to acknowledge the contributions of these stakeholders in advancing these important VET data reforms. Conclusion The Bill is a key step in modernising the collection and use of VET activity data. The data reforms in VET Data Streamlining are important: they will enhance both the quality and relevance of VET by making timely and quality VET activity data available to governments, regulators, training providers, students and the VET sector as a whole. This Bill and VET Data Streamlining will provide the Government with "better data, faster" as it delivers its agenda to uplift VET, be it through Fee-Free TAFE and VET places, the TAFE Technology Fund, or the many projects which depend on reliable VET activity data. I commend this Bill to the chamber. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 64

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022

Returned from the House of Representatives 64 Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2023 64

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023

Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2023

Assent 64 ADJOURNMENT 64 ADJOURNMENT Labor Government 64 15:41 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise in the adjournment debate after what has been a very odd day in this place. It has been a rather peculiar week in this place, and there has been an extraordinary circumstance in this place in question time, where we have seen repeatedly through the course of this week an inability of government ministers to answer the simplest of questions. There was someone who sat over this side in around this spot for a long period of time who would have said, 'They'rre a rrabble,' and they are. They're a rabble. They cannot answer even the most basic and serious questions. The questions to Senator Farrell in this place on TikTok were serious questions. This is a matter of national security. It has arisen relatively recently, and the government wants to turn it into a political joke. It's not just the government who wants to turn it into a political joke; it's not just those opposite. It's also their state Labor colleagues. In my home state of Western Australia, Premier McGowan was asked yesterday—it could have changed today; he might have seen sense—if he was going to take TikTok off his phone after clear advice that people in senior parliamentary positions should do so—that all parliamentarians should do so but certainly that people in senior parliamentary positions should do so—and he basically laughed at it and made it a joke. Then we've seen today in this place the government being asked questions about this important matter that has been prosecuted by my colleague Senator Paterson for many, many months now, on the presence of TikTok on Australian government devices, and the government can't answer simple, basic questions. The government can't face up to the fact that they're now in government. They actually need to take responsibility. They need to act on these matters to protect the Australian government and the Australian people. They can't look around the world and see what our Five Eyes allies have done in this space—the fact that they have acted quickly and decisively to not allow TikTok to be on government devices. What do we get in this place today, in answer to some very direct, very straightforward questions on what the government is doing, and when the government is going to do it, to safeguard the Australian government and the Australian people and, like four of the Five Eyes, to ban TikTok on government devices? They cannot answer the question. But it wasn't just on that. We've seen it across so many policy areas today, from one minister—a complete inability to answer the most basic questions about cost of living and what the government is doing to address cost-of-living issues such as gas prices. Those opposite just say, 'Oh, you didn't support our legislation!' We didn't support your legislation, and we didn't support it for a very simple reason: it has failed and we knew it was going to fail when you brought it to this place in an emergency session late last year. So, yes, we voted against your legislation very proudly because it was failed legislation before it got anywhere near this place. It wasn't going to put downward pressure on gas prices. In fact, it was quite the opposite: by drying up the market for gas investment in Australia it actually put an extraordinary amount of volatility and uncertainty into that market. Not only that, it frightened our major trading partners overseas—the buyers of our gas. Western Australia is the gas-exporting state; our entire gas industry was built on the back of international investment in that industry. That wasn't in the last decade and not in the last 20 years; it started in the 1970s. It was the WA Liberal Court government's decision to enter into a take-or-pay agreement with the North-West Shelf Project which meant that those overseas investments flowed, that the gas price was underpinned and that we now have a large reserve available for domestic use while also being the largest gas exporters in the nation. We voted against your gas legislation because it was bad legislation that didn't achieve anything. In fact, it made the situation worse. Nuclear Industry 65 15:46 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia The truth about our nuclear waste disposal systems is that finding a permanent solution for the safe storage of the world's nuclear waste remains a big, dangerous challenge everywhere. It's a very expensive problem and challenge. The UK has 70 years worth of waste from its nuclear power plants, 260,000 tonnes of it, in unsafe temporary storage: a major problem for their government and their citizens. In the US, nuclear disposal has been plagued by dangerous leaks and failures. No long-term solution exists in the US, not for waste from power generation or from nuclear powered submarines. No country on earth has safely disposed of its high-level nuclear waste for the long term. After many decades, Finland is approaching completion, but the process there has been long and complex, and it's still not operating. Any senator in this place who wants to propose anything nuclear has to give citizens a proposal for waste disposal, not kick the can down the road to future generations and budgets—and not leaving highly toxic waste in dangerous temporary storage, often against the wishes of local communities. Our own experience should teach us. South Australians have some real experience with this. In 2016, our citizens had a very good look at a proposal to take the world's nuclear power waste and store it. The nuclear spruikers promised us a revenue stream of $51 billion, and that's a lot of money, but South Australians said no. The world's largest citizens' jury, 350 South Australians, read the fine print and recognised that there are no functioning long-term waste disposal dumps anywhere on the planet. This waste is in temporary storage all over the world, and this is a national challenge for us in Australia of long standing. Since we first started producing nuclear waste 70 years ago, five successive governments have tried and failed to find a suitable place for the permanent long-term storage of our relatively small quantities of medium- and low-level waste. Low-level waste arising from medical uses must be stored safely for 300 years. This is the least challenging of the waste disposal tasks, but we've still not been able to convince the community to store that waste. And intermediate-level waste arising from research at Lucas Heights must be stored safely for 10,000 years. The LNP began a process towards storage of low and intermediate waste at Kimba some years ago, and it has been bitterly disputed at every step of the way since. It lacks social licence in the community of Kimba, where so many community members and farmers are opposed to it, and where the First Nations people, the Barngarla, have opposed it and are now fighting the Labor government about it, asking for a voice. Yesterday, the Minister for Resources, Madeleine King, received a petition from 10,000 Australians asking her to stop the Kimba project. The AUKUS sub deal, should it go ahead, will take us to a whole new country. It will lock Australia into managing large quantities of high-level radioactive waste. The fuel from decommissioned submarines is nuclear weapons grade. It will require military security and it must be safely stored not for 300 years, not for 10,000 years but for at least 100,000 years. Neither the UK nor the US have been able to find permanent storage solutions for their submarine waste. Given successive governments have continuously failed to manage much less dangerous radioactive waste in Australia, any government will find it very hard to find a solution to dispose of nuclear waste arising from AUKUS submarines. Traditional owners of any future site should have a say and a veto about any such proposal—a basic voice requirement. The AUKUS deal has sparked a new conversation about nuclear waste storage. It makes no sense to have in train multiple federal processes seeking sites at which to store radioactive waste. It's time to put a stop to Kimba. There is a long list of reasons why the $368 billion AUKUS deal is a terrible idea, but most important amongst them is that the government has no sensible storage solutions that will work. This is not a small problem. The Australian public is right to be sceptical and concerned about the waste disposal site that we need for any such proposal, and there is, at the moment, no plan. All citizens should be asking: why, and what is the way forward? Senate adjourned at 15:5 2