DOCUMENTS

2023-03-27 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 27 March 2023

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 1

National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 10:02 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, and here we go about making a difference. I start by commending the Minister for Industry and Science for his hard work on bringing this critical and ambitious policy to life. The National Reconstruction Fund is a $15 billion financing vehicle which will be one of the largest investments in domestic manufacturing in our history. The NRF will make targeted investments through a mix of loans, equity and guarantees in seven priority areas: renewable low-emission technologies, medical science, transport—given the former coalition government's debacle in New South Wales, with foreign-made trams, trains and ferries, we certainly welcome that—agriculture, forestry and fisheries; value-add in resources and defence capability; and enable capabilities across engineering, data science and software development, including in AI, robotics and quantum. You know, we used to make things in this country, and thanks to the NRF and thanks to the massive overhaul of our skills and training system through the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill introduced in the House last week, we can and will make things right here in Australia again. When we invest in making things in Australia, we make every dollar back 10 times over. We make it back by creating highly skilled, secure and well-paid jobs for working Australians. We make it back by creating economic and job opportunities in our regions. We make it back by securing our national sovereignty. If the pandemic weren't a wake-up call that we need to make essential goods here in Australia and not depend on the benevolence of China based manufacturers, then I'm not sure we'll ever get through to those opposite. The NRF has the support of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Australian Industry Group. In fact, to quote the Senate Economics Committee report on the bill: All submissions to the inquiry and witnesses at the public hearing were supportive of the bill and the objectives of increasing manufacturing in Australia. So why, when there was unanimous support from every single organisation that participated in the Senate review process, are the Liberals and Nationals opposing it? Why are the Liberals opposed to a $15 billion investment in reviving Australian manufacturing? Why are the Nationals opposed to this bill when agriculture is one of the priority areas for investment? Perhaps it's because they are the very same people who decimated manufacturing in this country. Perhaps it's because they are ideologically opposed to making things in Australia. Perhaps it's because they prefer that we offshore our blue-collar jobs to China. Why don't the Liberals and Nationals ask their colleagues in New South Wales how offshoring manufacturing has gone? If you haven't been paying attention, I'll tell you. In New South Wales they said, 'We're not good at building trains.' So, instead, they bought trains made in Spain, which, it turns out, had major cracks in the wheel arches that caused the Inner West Line to shut down for 18 months. They bought inter-city trains made in South Korea, which were delivered four years ago with a raft of safety issues and are only now starting to enter service. They bought river-class ferries made in Indonesia, which can't fit under bridges on the Paramatta River if passengers are sitting on the top deck. If you're sitting on the top deck of one of these boats you'll be decapitated when it goes under the Gasworks Bridge. The safety issues, repairs and delays on these projects have cost Australia billions of dollars. So why do they insist on offshoring manufacturing? Well, when the Liberals and the Nationals hear the phrase 'made in Australia', they start panicking about organised labour. They start worrying about workers in a factory or a warehouse organising together to have a united voice on wages and conditions. There is nothing that those opposite hate more than workers with a voice. That's why the Abbott government told our car manufacturing industry to leave. That's why the Abbott government said they wouldn't trust Australia to build a canoe. That's why the Liberals and Nationals are opposing this bill today. I'm sure there are members and senators in the coalition who are embarrassed but are forced to show up in this place and vote against this bill. They don't want to be on the wrong side of history on this vote, just as they don't want to go along with opposition leader Dutton's ideological opposition to the safeguard mechanisms and just as they don't want to go along with Dutton's opposition to our energy price relief bill. But unfortunately that is how history will record your vote on this issue. Your record will forever be stained by a vote against bringing manufacturing back to this country. So, to every Australian in the Hunter and Illawarra, in Central Queensland, in Geelong and in South Australia: pay attention to this vote, because the distinction couldn't be clearer. The Albanese government is voting for legislation to revive Australian manufacturing, and the Liberals and Nationals are voting against it. 10:08 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Today, following that contribution from Senator Sheldon, I rise to start clearing up a few misconceptions—and I'll call them misconceptions, not straight-out untruths. There are some misconceptions among the Australian public, largely fuelled by the rhetoric of those opposite about manufacturing in Australia. Would it surprise those who are listening to this debate to hear that manufacturing output in Australia has actually risen since the 1950s? Would that surprise you? Manufacturing output has actually risen since the 1950s. Yes, there's been a change in the mix. Some industries have gone, and others have come in to take their place. But manufacturing output as a whole has risen. In fact, from the 1950s to the early part of this century, manufacturing output in Australia quadrupled. So, when we're talking about the decline of manufacturing in Australia, when we're talking ourselves down as a nation, we're actually talking about the relative decline of manufacturing. As a senator—and I'm sure the same applies to Senator Cash and Senator Scarr, who are in this place with me—one of the absolute privileges I get is going out to so many small manufacturers across Australia. The industrial areas of Western Australia are replete with small manufacturers out there having a go. That is why manufacturing output in this country has actually grown over the last two or three generations, contrary to the rhetoric of those who want to talk down the manufacturing sector, talk down the Australian economy and make some cheap political points about unionisation that do not reflect the reality out there. What has happened is a relative decline in manufacturing, and that is because we've had another massive success story in this country. The services sector has grown since the 1950s. We all see it in the way we live our lives. We see it in these devices we carry in our pockets. So much of our daily lives and our work and our pleasure activities are on our phones. We see that the nature of the economy has changed over the last 50, 60 or 70 years. Much, much more of the economy now, compared to the 1950s, is in the services sector. That's where we've seen massive growth in our economy. Manufacturing output quadrupled between the 1950s and the early 2000s, but, yes, it has seen a relative decline against the really significant growth, from a very low base, of the services sector. Why are we actually opposed to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023? The cartoon caricature we get from those opposite is that we're voting against this bill because we don't like unions. My goodness, what a ludicrous argument that is. We're voting against this bill because it is completely the wrong thing to do at this time and because there are some serious objections to key parts of this bill that are just bad policy. In particular, from my point of view, the use of equity shareholdings in manufacturers by government is an exceedingly bad move. It's a poor policy decision. I know those opposite can say that other governments have done it in the past, but it is a very poor decision to make that a cornerstone of your manufacturing policy. Governments should not have equity stake stakes in business. The trouble is that Labor governments from the past have form on this. We've seen Labor governments getting way too close to business at the state level particularly. A number of administrations in the past have become, well, infamous. I will go to an example in my home state. Senator Cash, who's in the chamber, very well remembers the WA Inc days. The name 'WA Inc' has become synonymous with political malfeasance at the highest level, where political players, proverbially, got into bed with corporate titans and sent government money, by way of investment vehicles, into private hands. The absolutely disastrous results of that are still well and truly etched in the memories of every Western Australian—at least, every Western Australian who is over 30 years old. The WA Inc era was a shameful era of Labor Party politics in Western Australia, and it involved far too cosy relationships, including equity relationships through the Exim vehicle, with businesses in Western Australia. We actually saw the outcomes of this in my home town of Pemberton. Pemberton is heavy soil country. It grows a lot of vegetables. There is fruit production and a lot of cattle production. We saw a massive shearing shed built in Pemberton, of all places. It was built by one of those who had gained largesse through the WA state government. A shearing shed in Pemberton! I'm trying to think of an eastern states equivalent example, but it probably won't come to me on the fly. This really is something that's out of place. It's economically crazy, and yet there we saw the way money was being used as a plaything for political and large business leaders' purposes. It was a very foolish use of taxpayers' money. When governments get involved with business they are in an extremely difficult position. What happens if the business tanks? There's clearly a massive moral hazard. Does the government just let the business go under? Does it put more equity in to try and prop the business up, even though it knows it's failing? We get a situation where rather than being a silent shareholder—what if a large manufacturing business that takes one of these equity injections from the government is in a marginal seat? I know you spoke about this, Senator Scarr. What if one of these businesses is in a marginal seat and the minister for industry has the local Labor member banging on their door saying, 'You can't let this business go under; it'll cost me the seat'? Regardless of what the government's decisions is, it's going to be seen through a political lens. You risk corrupting the process, and perception is important in politics. We all know that. Everyone in this chamber knows that. Perception is important. Governments should not be taking equity shares in this way. Sadly, the WA Inc situation is not the only case we can cite. There's also the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. I'm certainly not as close to that one; I don't know the history, but I'm sure some of my colleagues in this place do. Again, a state Labor government vehicle tried to pick winners and racked up $110 million of losses for the taxpayer. Manufacturing is difficult. Small and medium-sized business is difficult. There is no doubt about that. There is a lot of private investment that goes into those businesses, and a decent percentage of them will fail. It is a sad reality of economic life that, through the economic process, we see businesses that cannot compete. Holding equity in those businesses puts governments in a very, very dangerous position indeed. We should stay out of the market where at all possible. The coalition's program in the last term of government was a grants program. Yes, there will be purists who argue against even those sorts of programs, and I do have some sympathy with that view. But, in a hands-off grants program, you are awarding money on the basis of a project's merit; there are effectively no strings attached. It's about trying to speed up an investment and advance a particular process, growing it from initial stages to the point where it can be taken to market, and there is an argument that that sort of funding from government can be a positive on the economy. There are arguments against that as well, but, when we get to the point of equity, we are entering very dangerous territory indeed. That is why I'm particularly strongly opposed to this bill. We've seen it before. We've seen government getting too close to business. Senator Sheldon said that every submission to the inquiry was in support of this bill. Well, gee, guess what—business looks at free money and says yes. Is anyone remotely surprised by that fact? That does not mean it's good policy. We have hundreds of cases—I've named a couple of them, such as WA Inc and the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, and I'm sure Senator Scarr can give me hundreds of examples from Queensland—where these sorts of approaches have resulted in very negative outcomes for the taxpayer. Throughout history and throughout the western world, there are plenty of examples of where governments haven't been able to help themselves—trying to achieve a particular economic outcome and protect a particular industry, they have got their sticky fingers involved, and it has never—or very rarely—ended in positive territory for the taxpayers of the nation involved. That is why I remain extraordinarily concerned about this bill and I will certainly, very happily, vote against it. 10:19 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Like most things that the Albanese government proposes, this $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund appears good—at first glance, anyway—but it raises more questions than it answers. The United Australia Party is, of course, completely supportive of the need to boost Australian manufacturing, but why is it being done first and foremost through subsidies rather than through tax cuts and regulatory reform? If the government is serious about helping the manufacturing sector in this country, it first needs to address the taxation environment and the regulatory environment. It needs to remove costs and unnecessary things that hinder business investment in our country. The best way to encourage business is not to shower elected winners with billions of dollars of taxpayer funded money; it is to free manufacturers from burdens and disincentives that inhibit investment. That's the best way to do it. Speaking of disincentives, manufacturers in this country face more red and green tape than a Christmas tree. And it's not just manufacturers but all businesses. Doing business in Australia is too difficult. As a business owner myself, I can attest to this from cold experience. It is so difficult to have a business and turn a profit in this country—much more difficult than it has to be. If the Albanese government wants to spark a manufacturing boom, it should first remove the copious amounts of red tape—red tape that strangles creativity and stifles investment. I'm going to keep saying this. What's the point of showering billions of dollars on some hand-picked manufacturers if the overall environment still remains hostile to manufacturing? Throwing around other people's money is easy. It makes for a good headline. But look beyond the headlines, and there is a complete lack of intent to do the hard work of reform to free business from the constraints that hinder it so that we can all thrive. Let's talk about that $15 billion for a moment—a huge sum of money. Politicians love to talk about huge sums of money because it makes it sound like we're doing something historic and monumental. The insinuation is that, if government is throwing billions at a problem, then that problem will somehow be fixed. That could not be further from the truth. As we all know, sometimes—actually most of the time—government spending only makes a problem worse. As Reagan said, the most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' He was not wrong about that one; I tell you what. Smart voters are attuned to the fact that, the larger the sum of money that a government proposes to spend, the more historic and monumental the waste is likely to be. As I have said before, the government couldn't organise a beer in a brewery. This is why cutting taxes and removing regulatory red and green tape is always preferable to throwing money around. Tax and regulatory reforms create an environment where business can thrive without subsidies. In other words, real reform creates real growth rather than a mirage of growth propped up by public money. It should not be lost on people that this government has just broken a pre-election promise on superannuation—taking billions from hardworking retirees only to go and hand it out to a few hand-picked industries who may or may not deserve it. The better idea would be for the government to plan some major cuts to spending. That would be the better idea. Cut spending. That would be a better way to fund this reconstruction fund. Don't just borrow more money to fund a manufacturing boom that is not real. I say 'not real' because this boom will only exist because of subsidies; that's it. It's not because of a genuine business model—much like the entire renewables debacle which we are currently being made to suffer through. That's what's going on. If the government wants to spend $15 billion, find some savings across the budget to ensure that we're not just adding to our already severe and out-of-control national debt just so that a few headlines can be written in the legacy media for a couple of days. At a time of uncontrolled inflation, 10 consecutive rate rises, the last thing that our nation needs is for the Treasurer, 'Super Jim' Chalmers, fresh from writing his 6,000-word essay on reimagining capitalism, to pump billions of dollars of borrowed money into an economy that is already much too hot. You don't need to have written a thesis on Paul Keating to know that such a move will only increase inflationary pressure and drive up interest rates. This is high-school economics. What are the struggling families who are trying to cope with constantly growing mortgage payments going to think about another rate rise? The government has also cleverly and, in my view, cynically linked the reconstruction fund to defence spending. Defence is too important to play politics with, and it's a pity that the government has sought to use Defence to shield the reconstruction fund from critique and criticism. The UAP will not stand in the way of defence spending. In fact, we urge the government to find more in the budget to fund defence—to fund the defence of our great nation in these uncertain times. The defence of our nation is not made easier by continued borrowings for other areas, especially those that are ill conceived. So we urge the government to supply the reconstruction fund through budget savings and to view the reconstruction fund not as the whole strategy but as part of a strategy to encourage investment. We also urge the government to start thinking about cutting our national debt while they're at it. The significant part should be, as I have said over and over again, removing disincentives so that manufacturing can flourish in this nation once again, not because of false economies created by taxpayer money, not because government trust in our manufacturers, but because government have the creativity and the daring to create an atmosphere in which things could be built in our country once again instead of, obviously, being sent overseas. Australia and our citizens deserve better than what is going on at the moment. Yes, we do. We don't need to spend $15 billion that we don't have. What we need is to free our manufacturers from red and green tape, we need to exit bad international agreements and we need to, of course, reduce the cost of energy. We need more coal, we need more gas and we need to add nuclear. We need to get rid of this idea of solar panels and batteries being enough to power a First-World nation like Australia, because it's not enough. The only thing it's going to do is lead us into poverty. That's it. Government is the problem. Government is not the solution—not now, not ever. What we need is a free market. The free market will take care of everything. The government will only make things worse, like it always does and like it always has. 10:29 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria It's great to be here today to make a contribution on the establishment of the National Reconstruction Fund. It is great to have Senator Scarr also in the chamber here. He is no doubt championing what I'm about to say, so it is good to see him. Today's contribution is about one of the key election commitments that the Albanese government took to the last federal election. This $15 billion fund is about revitalising an Australian industry that this country desperately needs. This country desperately needs to start to make things again right here in Australia. In doing so it needs to also represent one of the greatest investments that this country deserves. Certainly the manufacturing sector has been undervalued for some time. I listened to the limited contributions this morning. Australia suffered nearly a decade of policy drift, especially when the coalition goaded the car industry to leave this country. I remember—it is very much in my mind—the then Treasurer Joe Hockey famously telling the car industry to leave—'If you don't like it, just leave.' And they did; they left. That had a chilling effect right across our economy, particularly in domestic manufacturing. I remember that because a number of my family members and friends—and my father used to work in the car industry—unfortunately, lost their jobs as a result. A number of them who worked for Ford in Victoria, sadly, lost their jobs because the then coalition government basically told the car companies to go. They were no longer willing to support the industry that ensured that there were fantastic and good-paying jobs. Generations of people from when they were children looked forward to these jobs. Unfortunately, the manufacturing sector suffered greatly. When we came to the 2019 election and subsequently the one after, Labor understood there was a need to address this. Currently we as a country rank dead last in the OECD when it comes to manufacturing and self-sufficiency. That is an embarrassment, considering the number of people that we have in this country. That is why I have risen today to make a very brief contribution about why I will be supporting the Albanese government's $15 billion fund. The fund will have seven priority investment areas: value-adding in our resources sector; value-adding in our agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors; transport; medical science; renewables and low-emissions technologies; defence capability; and enabling capabilities, like quantum computing, robotics and AI. These areas have been selected to strategically drive economic development in our regions and outer suburbs, to boost our sovereign capability, to diversify the nation's economy and to help create secure jobs, because that is really the crux of this policy. Throughout the COVID pandemic we all saw how our overreliance on international supply chains left us so exposed to disruptions outside of our control. We really need to have control over our supply chains once again. You can only do that if you have a strong domestic manufacturing sector. The Australian workers and businesses that stepped up to provide us with the goods and services that we all rely on have shown that there is great potential to improve our domestic capability. The National Reconstruction Fund is all about realising this potential. The fund will direct significant investment into regional Australia, creating jobs in agriculture, forestry, resources and other important industries. As the government previously announced, $500 million of targeted investment will be directed towards value-adding in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre, and that is so important. It was particularly disappointing to hear the contributions from those opposite. Their party pretends to stand up for regional Australia. I particularly point out that the National Party are refusing to support the establishment of this fund. It will benefit regional Australia. This is exactly the sort of policy the Nationals should be supporting. The government is stepping in to ensure that regional Australia benefits from the national building and industry development that too often does favour big cities. Unlike the political cash flushes from those opposite when they were in government, the National Reconstruction Fund will be directed by an independent board. There will be no colour-coded spreadsheets and no short-term political thinking; just strategic investments that are based on the priority of this government—a future that is made here in Australia. A couple weeks ago I stood up in this place and spoke about how the National Reconstruction Fund will stimulate defence manufacturing. It was interesting to hear the comments that Senator Ralph Babet made earlier around how the government is not doing enough in that space. But, putting that to one side, it is important to note that we are maximising sourcing requirements from Australian suppliers employing Australian workers. We should be very proud about the defence industry in this country, and we can ensure that our own country plays a much more active role in our defence supply chain. It is also important for other industries, particularly some that are very close to my heart. For a long time I've argued that forestry will be key to our low-emissions future, and the four priority areas of the National Reconstruction Fund recognise this. By providing investment for value-add in forestry, we can ensure that demand for timber products, which only keeps increasing—and we know we must always, always go towards meeting our climate goals—can be met with Australian goods. The Australian Forest Products Association has welcomed assurances from the government that Australian firms, which add value to our native forest products in mills and manufacturing plants right across the country, will be eligible for investment through the National Reconstruction Fund. Value-adding activities in agriculture will also be eligible for investment through the National Reconstruction Fund, ensuring that Australian workers and businesses play a significant role in more steps in agriculture supply chains. This is one of the fundamental purposes of the fund. We're a clever country, and with the backing of the government we can perform more of the value-adding activities in several supply chains right here in Australia, instead of just focusing on the first steps of the chain by supplying commodities. The advanced manufacturing processes that will be supported through the National Reconstruction Fund are integral to a low-emissions future, not just in Australia but in every nation that is taking action on climate change. We want Australia to be in a position to play a role not just in providing the materials required to make future technologies but also in design and manufacturing processes. Our country is rich with valuable critical resources, but for decades we've mined those resources and shipped them overseas for other countries to process. Often, we then import these finished products at many times the price, leaving all the profits and jobs overseas. Australia has the knowledge and capability and capacity to do better than this. So many technologies have been invented here, including the technology behind solar panels, but these technologies are being manufactured overseas. If we are to mine it here, we should make it here, and if we are to invent it here then we should make it here. As a co-investment fund—which always gets lost in this argument; it's a co-investment fund—the National Reconstruction Fund will make investing in seven priority areas more attractive for private capital, crowding in investment to create high-quality, sustainable industries and jobs. There has been some commentary about the potential inflationary impact of this investment, and of course inflation is a very big economic challenge facing our country, but the fund will be required to generate a positive portfolio rate of return, reinvesting its returns to become self-sustaining. Senator Scarr 282997 What if it makes a loss? Senator CICCONE 281503 It's interesting to see the pessimistic view that the opposition— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Sorry, Senator Ciccone. Senator Scarr, the objections are disorderly. I'm finding it hard to follow Senator Ciccone's speech. Senator Scarr 282997 I was finding it hard to follow before the interjections! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Order, Senator Scarr! Senator Ciccone. Senato 281503 Thank you, Acting Deputy President. Really, the Coalition are always doomsayers, always trying to play down the economy, always trying to say how bad it is that Labor is finally standing up for workers and for domestic manufacture in this country, somehow always playing the glass-half-empty approach. Why don't you come into this place and have a positive attitude about backing in Australian workers and Australian businesses, and let's give it a go together. Let's see some bipartisanship when it comes to manufacturing in this place. It is really, really concerning to see every time we try and put up a policy—one that we did take to the election, mind you; we did take this to the election, Senator Scarr. A bit of positivity will go a long way. We saw that play out in the New South Wales election over the weekend. Chris Minns and his team very much took a fresh-start approach to restarting the economy in New South Wales, reinvesting in their manufacturing and investing in the people and the health and education sectors in New South Wales—and look what happened. The public backed in Labor. They backed in New South Wales Labor over a government that, quite frankly, was past its use-by date and was more interested in its own internals. But I'm not here to talk about the New South Wales election result, although I must say it was very hard not to drop that into my speech today, as well as Collingwood having a second win on the weekend. It's good to see that the Pies are finally back on top of the AFL ladder, but I'll put that to one side. There's been a lot of commentary around the National Reconstruction Fund. This investment is expected to generate economic growth and boost productivity, which is why we are delivering this policy, and we know that's key to driving down inflation. We need to address the supply issues. Of course, the other way that the National Reconstruction Fund will actually help combat these pressures is by addressing the supply chain issues. We know that a lack of supply is driving up the cost of many of the inputs that are required across the economy, with these high input costs then rippling through producers and consumers. The fund will help address this lack of supply by improving our domestic capacity and insulating our economy from future supply shocks. There has long been an argument made by government that it should play no role in picking winners, no role in guiding the industry and no role other than establishing guardrails, letting businesses to do the right thing and only stepping in when there has been market failure, as we've heard from some opposite. While those opposite do argue that we shouldn't be picking winners, the previous government spent almost a decade picking, unfortunately, some of these losers. We saw what happened when the car industry left this country, leaving many towns and communities in the lurch. The destructive ripple effect that that had through local economies cannot be overstated. The lasting impact on our ability to manufacture advanced products in this country is still being felt. Passing this bill is a step forward in revitalising the industry after the damage that was caused. Let's all work together in this place. Let's all get together and support and rejuvenate the manufacturing industry in this country. Let's improve our sovereign capability across key areas. Let's reduce our reliance on fragile and uncertain international supply chains. I urge everyone this chamber, particularly the National Party, who say that they support regional Australia, to support this bill, and let's support the revival of manufacturing, support regional employment and support a future made here in Australia. 10:42 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I rise to make a brief contribution today. It's good to see that we can agree on many things in the house, and my speech will be short—but potentially 30 seconds longer because of Senator Ciccone's speech. I, too, like Senator Ciccone, am not here to talk about the— Senator McAllister 121628 Is this about the Magpies? Senator CADELL 300134 It may come up! I'm also not here to talk about the New South Wales election results, but I am here to talk about Collingwood's second win and them being top of the table again! In relation to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 and where we're going, I'm a bit torn about this because, on first reading, it's a bill that has really good motives and really good goals, and it seeks to do something that Australia needs tremendously. I thank Senator Ayres for facilitating some briefings on how this will go, answering some questions and filling out some things for me. I think that's the way governments should work. We should be trying to work out how we can make these things happen. It's always great in question time to get up and be shouted at about how we didn't support energy relief on that single sitting day, but it was the mechanism that we didn't support—and without the consultation. There was more consultation here, and I would urge that it should have come sooner. I don't think it was impossible for this side to make some changes because, while it landed in an area which we wouldn't necessarily like to support, it was only a chip and a putt away. After a bit of work together, a bit of early consultation and a bit of cooperation, I think we would have potentially been able to get somewhere. In relation to the mechanisms for injecting the money into the market and the transparency around that, there was a fear from a regional perspective that it might become a bit of a quango, where you could see money going into consultancies, money going into investment firms and lots more BMWs and Range Rovers getting around Vaucluse and Prahran—if I'm saying that right; it looks like 'prawn' to me. We were worried about how that goes and where that goes. On the whole process, I would like to say that I think this is a bill with good motivations. As to it being a chip and a putt, I think some of the negotiations to get it across the line on numbers have made it more of a seven-iron shot—they have driven it a bit further away than we can support. I understand that, but that is not a bad process. What I do have a problem with is that we're talking about regional manufacturing and how all the bills from the other side aren't in line. We'll potentially address the safeguard mechanism later this week in this place, and that bill will undo some of the good things that this bill may do for regional manufacturing. So we have policy working against itself and not in alignment, which is a concern for me. I specifically want to raise the grandfathering of existing contracts under the safeguard mechanism. I use the specific example of Orica and their ammonia plants. They've upgraded one in Newcastle, just north of my home base in the Hunter Valley, to be best-in-world practice based on contracts going out to 2029, and they were about to upgrade one in Queensland, at Gladstone, to be world's best practice on the basis of those ongoing contracts. But under the mechanism that will come forward later in the week, if it passes the other House, that is now grandfathered to two-year processes. So there is no investment certainty in that manufacturing industry for Queensland, so they've pulled out of the Queensland project, which would have made a cleaner project and a cleaner process for doing AN in Australia. We will lose manufacturing jobs because of inconsistency, so that is a real concern for me. I'm happy to give credit where credit's due, and I note that this includes agriculture in a bigger way than the previous government's manufacturing plan last year did, which is a good thing. I think the $500 million allocated, as Senator Ciccone said, in the first batch of the $7 billion can only go up, and should go up, to help support agriculture. There are many things on which Australia gets battered by others—our emissions, our exports and our mining—for the damage we do to the region, but we don't get the credit for feeding the region—for all the food we produce to feed the region and the benefit that gives to others—with our wheat, and I think this can assist it. In brief, I think the transparency, the mechanisms and the potential generation of a whole list of consultancies that will benefit out of this are a problem. I think there are issues with the timing of getting it to market soon enough. I know $7 billion has been allocated quickly, but that is a concern for us. In some of the negotiations about what's excluded, we don't know what's coming up. In the mining areas, we don't know what's going on there. If we're talking about existing mines and what we're doing there, that's fine, but, if we're talking about cobalt, lithium or copper mines—all these things—we don't know the number of mines we will need to bring on line. Some research and some manufacturing in the mining sector will bring that on line to help the current plan, which is the Rewiring the Nation plan. The Nationals understand. We feel the motive of creating regional jobs and we respect the government for doing that, but, unfortunately, we haven't been able to meet them on this bill. We hope to have longer, earlier consultations on the next one, but we'll be opposing this one. Thank you. 10:48 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one amazing Queensland community, I speak to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. One Nation has, on occasion, pointed out that Labor will run a government for the benefit of their union boss mates, the Liberals for the benefit of their big business mates, and the teals and the Greens for the benefit of their sugar daddies, the billionaire climate-change carpetbaggers. So it was with amusement that I saw an exchange between Minister Gallagher and Senator Rennick on social media over the weekend. Senator Rennick mentioned in a speech that he did not agree with the slush funds that the Liberal-Nationals set up during their government. I appreciate and compliment Senator Rennick for his integrity. He has shown that repeatedly in this parliament and outside. Senator Gallagher could not resist. Oblivious to the irony of her comments, Minister Gallagher said Senator Rennick had 'belled the cat', admitting to 'slush funds and rorts galore'. 'The Bell and the Cat' is a medieval fable—a cautionary tale on the nature of impossible tasks. Admittedly, it's an appropriate choice, given the impossibility of the Liberals ever running government for the benefit of the people. But the irony of the minister's decision to engage the Liberals on the issue of rorting is tone deaf, considering that this bill was on the Notice Paper at the time. The minister's words are suggestive of a quite different fable—the pot calling the kettle black, which is 16th-century Spanish homily in which somebody accuses someone else of a fault which the accuser shares and, therefore, is an example of psychological projection—that's a polite way of saying 'hypocrisy'. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 is 100 per cent pork barrel—the very thing of which the minister accuses others. This bill creates a $15 billion fund to oversee Australia's reconstruction. It would have been helpful to define the word 'reconstruction', Minister. Minister Husic must have overlooked the fundamental reason for this bill. The word 'reconstruction' does not appear in this bill. At a guess, reconstruction must involve infrastructure spending, right? Wrong. The word 'infrastructure' does not appear in this bill either. The word was added by the crossbench in the other place, the House of Representatives, as part of their amendment banning—banning!—certain types of infrastructure spending. The Greens and teals were helpful, as usual! For clarity, that was sarcasm. The bill does provide for spending on priority projects, yet there's no definition of what a priority project actually is. I understand these will be manufacturing projects. Why, then, does the bill not mention the word 'manufacturing'? Not once is manufacturing mentioned. This is significant because the bill allows the minister to fill in all these details later. Yet if these much needed initiatives—reconstruction, manufacturing and infrastructure—were the purpose of this bill then section 5 would define these concepts and set out what is and what is not 'reconstruction', 'manufacturing' and 'infrastructure'. It does not. It fails to do this basic step. I expected to see a statement of fairness, ensuring projects are funded based on the needs of the region in which the projects are located, having mind to the overarching concept of national interest. There's a novelty! It doesn't do that, either—which is not a novelty, because that's the way this parliament works. It's not in the national interest. This bill does have a section on consultation, requiring the corporation to consult with the Australian Banking Association—Minister Jones's best mates are the first ones on the list; what a surprise!—and the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Investment Council, Industry Super Australia and the Law Council of Australia. What an odd list. If this was about infrastructure, the requirement would be to consult with Infrastructure Australia; it's not there. If this was about manufacturing, then you could consult with Manufacturing Australia, or, to drive manufacturing into a new era, one could consult—one would consult—with the Australian Advanced Manufacturing Council, but no. Taking Australian industry into the emerging space industry offers the prospect of billions in new sales and high-paying breadwinner jobs. The Space Industry Association of Australia should have been on that list; it was not. There's $15 billion in funding without once mentioning the fundamental purpose of the spending—$15 billion, without once requiring consultation with the bodies that could help direct this spending to the national interest. There are no checks, no balances, no guidance to the minister, no guidance to the board of the corporation and no KPIs—key performance indicators. There's no measure of success, no measure of failure. To call this bill a blank cheque is an insult to blank cheques. And it's an insult to taxpayers, whose money is being spent. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill does cast some light on where this money will be spent. The inquiry heard from multiple witnesses advocating for spending the $15 billion on solar and wind energy boondoggles—more carpetbagging. Australia already has the clean energy fund, spending $25 billion on unreliable, weather dependent power to take us back to before the industrial revolution. If the transition to weather dependent power was actually in the national interest and was dictated by market forces, these solar and wind carpetbaggers would not be buzzing around reconstruction funding like flies in search of excrement. I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment in the committee of the whole which requires that a corporation cannot invest in an energy project that meets the criteria for funding by the Clean Energy Council—no double-dipping. There is no justification for using this $15 billion of taxpayer money to make Australia's energy capacity worse. The title of the bill raises an important question: what exactly are we reconstructing from? Are we reconstructing from three years of ruinous COVID lockdowns and restrictions that gutted the economy—destroyed the economy? Are we reconstructing from a generation of ruinous net zero measures that have seen cheap, reliable base-load power replaced with expensive and short-lived materials-heavy wind and solar power? Are we reconstructing from the exporting of Australia's manufacturing sector to China under the Hawke-Keating Labor government in the eighties? Indeed, discussion on the nuclear subs purchased last week shows that former prime minister Keating has lost none of his loyalty to China. Are we reconstructing from a generation of oppressive development constraints provided across the range of government? Is it red tape from an out-of-control bureaucracy that demands more and more power with less and less oversight in pursuit of a war against common sense, freedom and basic decency? Is it green tape, designed to make rich, pampered inner-city luvvies feel better about their own environmental footprint while destroying any chance the rural sector has for a profitable business? Or is it blue tape from the mountain of unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucrats spreading a gospel of everyday Australians having less so that predatory billionaires can own it all? It's about Australians having less so that predatory billionaires can own it all. That's their ideological bible. It is not the economy that needs reconstruction; it is the government that needs reconstruction. Here's One Nation's reconstruction plan: just stop it. Stop it. Stop strangling the life out of the private sector. Stop strangling the life out of small business. Stop strangling the life out of families and taxpayers. Stop using taxpayers' money to pick winners and losers amongst new business ventures, when that task should rightly be performed by the free market and by personal enterprise and initiative, leading to personal responsibility. Stop rewarding your mates in the solar and wind sector, who have spent tens of millions of dollars earnt from renewable solar and wind boondoggles to get pet parliamentarians elected who now have seriously conflicted loyalties. Stop rewarding party donors with taxpayer money dressed up as reconstruction funding. Stop the cronyism. Australia is not and never will be a centrally planned economy. In fact, no economy will be centrally planned; they all collapse. We have a trillion-dollar deficit, and the Albanese government is throwing around $15 billion like it were Monopoly money. It's time that the government got out of the way of the private sector, personal enterprise, and let the profit motive and free enterprise competition decide what gets built and what does not. Let the customers decide. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 is last-century Soviet thinking, a product of the comrades deep in Trades Hall who do not seem to have noticed that the Soviet Union has fallen, because it failed to maintain the standard of living of everyday people. Standards of living in Australia are decreasing—the reverse of what is happening to energy prices. That is one of the many causes. This bill is ideological rubbish designed to reward businesses who promote joining union bosses. That is the sentence the minister will put in later. Subject to amendments, One Nation opposes this bill. 10:59 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise to contribute to this debate on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, and it's been interesting to hear the various contributions so far. But let's be clear: this bill is essential. This is an essential step for our country, for rebuilding our industrial capability and for creating secure and well-paid jobs. The lack of vision that we saw from the Liberal government has led to policy drift and decline in our manufacturing self-sufficiency. This bill is not just another piece of legislation; it is a crucial step towards rebuilding our industrial capability, creating those jobs and securing our future prosperity. And I assure Senator Roberts that it is most certainly in our nation's interest to pass this bill. We saw very clearly through the pandemic that our ability to manufacture world-class products and ensure our national resilience was brought into question. We sailed dangerously close to not having the supplies that we needed. We had challenges with PPE, with ventilators, with the things that were essential for us at the time, but we did not have the capability to produce them ourselves because we import the bulk of what we need from overseas. The fact is that we have the smallest manufacturing industry relative to domestic purchase of any OECD country, and we need to address that. To ensure we have a prosperous future, we must prioritise building robust and adaptable industries that can produce essential goods in times of crisis. And to address one of the points raised by Senator Cadel, the safeguard mechanism, which will hopefully be introduced into this chamber later this week, will work very well with this bill. We have huge challenges to decarbonise our industry, and having those available funds to invest in essential areas will work exceptionally well with the safeguard mechanism. There is no shortage of enthusiasm or skill in business and in industry right across this country. We just need to harness it and structure it because we are heading in the right direction. The opportunities we have as a nation are boundless. Australia is an innovative country, and we've proven that time and time again. But we must develop the pathways that allow our science and technology brains to create those new ideas and then allow our industry brains to turn them into profitable, deliverable, sustainable industries of the future. We're all tired of hearing about organisations going overseas because they couldn't find the capital to back their idea here but had a willing investment partner overseas. We can end that, and that's exactly what we are looking to do in taking this step. We can support those great Australian ideas into fruition, and this bill is Labor backing innovation, backing entrepreneurs, backing our industries and backing the growth of new organisations in our manufacturing sectors. The plan to boost our regional economic development and accelerate our transition to becoming a renewable superpower, increase investor confidence and build on our natural and competitive strengths is quite frankly a no-brainer. Furthermore, the corporation will assist Australian industry to seize new growth opportunities by providing finance for projects that add value, improve productivity and support transformation. This fund will achieve similar structures to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which has been raised a number of times throughout this debate. The CEFC has proven that these kinds of structured funds do genuinely work. I remember that, when the CEFC was first brought to bear, there was a sense that it would default and there would be a lot of defaults within some of financing structures. But that was not the case. It has been a very successful structure, and basing this restructuring bill on that is a wise move because we know that it can work. A lot of the intellectual property we have in various areas gets exported. We've seen that in the medical development industry and we've seen it, as has been mentioned here, with solar panels. A significant amount of that intellectual property was developed here but was shipped overseas, where it was further developed. The product is developed and then we buy it back. There are so many opportunities for us to cut out that step, to keep our industries and ideas onshore to the fruition of their development. That's good for us as a country, it's good for jobs, it's good for industry—it's good for everyone. I think what we've seen, with the Liberals' lack of vision, over the past decade has resulted in us falling to last place in the manufacturing self-sufficiency index among OECD countries. That's not something to be proud of; that's something we should seriously address. This trend has to be reversed, and the National Reconstruction Fund is the first step in that direction. This bill is a golden opportunity for us to revive Australia's ability to make world-class products, create well-paying jobs and secure a future prosperity. We cannot miss this opportunity. I encourage everyone in this chamber to put aside the political barbs and think very seriously about what this is doing for our development, our regions and our future in industrial and manufacturing opportunities. 11:06 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I too rise today to contribute to the debate on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. The Albanese government is heralding the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation as the first step in Labor's plan to rebuild Australia's industrial base, and we've heard that again here today. This is a great ambition. I'm all for increasing manufacturing and building prosperity across the country, especially if it helps rural and regional communities, like my home state of Tasmania, but this bill has been rushed and it is not the right solution. The National Reconstruction Fund is supposed to be up and running by next financial year, but the government has not even committed to a launch date yet. Clearly, it hasn't been thought through and doesn't have a lot of substance behind it. The National Reconstruction Fund will be administered by a corporation with a chief executive officer and an independent board that will oversee the corporation and its fund. The Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic MP, has discretion to appoint the chair and board members. Can we trust Minister Husic to appoint truly independent members to the board of this $15 billion fund? This is the same minister who was caught out sending his official mail using paper made in the UK. Why not use paper made in Australia, Mr Husic? That may have been because Mr Albanese promised that forestry would be a priority under the National Reconstruction Fund before the election last year. But, less than a year on, he's broken this promise by agreeing to the Greens' demand to cut out the native forest industry in return for their support of the fund. The corporation will be tasked with delivering funding for projects that are designed as national priorities by the government. Instead of vague and indiscriminate ideals, we need to drive investment into specific sectors and provide certainty for Australian manufacturers and industry. This proposed model makes accessing funding harder because it shifts from the existing competitive grant programs, which already have robust selection processes, to the government acquiring equity and providing loans for projects. Some manufacturers could struggle to meet the return on investment thresholds, as part of these loans, while they are busy building capacity. Others will be ruled out of eligibility because their margins are too small or too risky—because of supply chain shortages. It will take years for the money to start flowing and to get the model for this fund right. So what happens to manufacturers in the meantime? On top of these access issues, I want to highlight how the prescriptive nature of funding requirements and the need for a guaranteed return means those who receive the go-ahead will be unable to invest in innovation. We've all heard the stories of innovation that involve years of research and development and many failures before the right combination was found and developed. Australian John O'Sullivan and his CSIRO colleagues were investigating echoes of black holes when they came up with a way to send signals to a destination without interruption. We know this innovation as wi-fi, but it actually began as black-hole research. The National Reconstruction Fund model will not encourage innovations like wi-fi as it does not allow failure. How can we have innovations without trial and error? This idea—its design and its planned execution—is problematic. We on this side of the chamber acknowledge the importance of having strong supports for Australian manufacturing. We achieved this through our Modern Manufacturing Strategy. This government's proposal is at a much greater cost and has a far greater risk for the taxpayers of Australia without any guarantee of the rewards that our policies have proved and delivered. What we do know, according to the Prime Minister's media release, is that the government plans to allocate funds from the National Reconstruction Fund to improvements in Powering Australia, medical manufacturing, value-adding in resources, critical technologies, and advanced manufacturing in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre. That was how it was announced, noting, of course, that the government have now done that desperate dodgy deal with the Greens which will prohibit coal and gas from receiving finance from the fund. So what we can see is the Albanese government proposing a corporation that can invest billions of dollars in projects in specific priority areas that already have designated funding arrangements. Consider, for instance, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Medical Research Future Fund or the Modern Manufacturing Strategy that the coalition set up. These initiatives offered focused funding for specific industry areas, so the Labor government, therefore, is really just offering us a rebrand. At a time when our country is battling rising energy prices, labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains, this government wants to add more manufacturing to a mix via a fund that is not needed and was not in the budget. This bill ignores the economic issues that we're already facing and that must be addressed first. Kickstarting a series of significant manufacturing projects requires strong economic conditions, and that is something we just do not have right now. This bill does not follow good fiscal considerations. The initial $5 billion appropriation is provided once the bill passes, but the timing of the remaining $10 billion is not subject to further parliamentary approval. Indeed, similar financial structures to what we see proposed for the National Reconstruction Fund were criticised by the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, in February of this year. In its 2022 article IV consultation, the IMF stated: Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment … should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided. Cost-of-living support in light of high energy prices should be targeted, aimed at protecting vulnerable households and small viable firms. This is a clear indication of where our focus should be right now. Manufacturers across Australia are struggling with rising power prices. The government's priority should be delivering inflationary support for industry rather than redirecting funds to manufacturing projects that had already been approved and costed under the Modern Manufacturing Initiatives. Projects came to a standstill and people lost jobs because of this government's redirection of funds to an initiative that does not have a launch date and industry feedback suggests could take some years to get right. Those will be lost years for manufacturers across Australia. 11:13 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales The Labor Party went to the federal election last May with a $15 billion commitment to deliver a National Reconstruction Fund. On the surface, it sounds like an exciting proposition. But, as with so many of Labor's election promises before and after the election, this one will not deliver what industry wants. It won't deliver what the economy needs, and it does not deliver what the community was expecting. It's not what Labor said it would do. But, frankly, why should any Australian be surprised that what Labor comes up with post the election is different to what they said before the election? This government has wasted no time in dismantling so many of its lofty election objectives. Their October budget slashed programs, particularly programs to deliver infrastructure in regional Australia. It pushed up the cost of living for families, and it put even greater pressure on rural and regional Australia. I mean, let's look at what the Prime Minister promised. He went to the election promising he would drive down electricity prices—indeed, 97 times. Yes, 97 times he promised he would cut electricity bills and that they would fall by $275—a very specific number, and he was wedded to it. And indeed, they have not gone down by $275; they've gone up—a lot. And their proposed cap on coal and gas prices has done nothing to alleviate the rising electricity prices. The Prime Minister went to the election saying superannuation would not be touched; it was sacrosanct. We now know that one in 10 Australians will have their super impacted by the taxation changes that this government, who promised they wouldn't touch super, are now bringing in. Let's not talk about what they're proposing for franking credits. That was another one: 'We won't touch franking credits.' Hmmm. He went to the election promising to strengthen Medicare, but instead he's cut back Medicare funded mental health support. They've cut back telehealth, and bulk-billing rates are falling everywhere. They promised cheaper medicine, but now we're seeing them remove medicines from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, meaning that people who depended on these medicines are now faced with higher prices, at a time of higher inflation, higher cost-of-living pressures across every single aspect of living. These are medicines that were on the PBS and they're being removed from the PBS—vital, life-saving medicines. Labor have butchered the support available to encourage overseas trained doctors to move to rural areas through changes to the Distribution Priority Area classification system. So now, whereas the DPA system ensured that overseas trained doctors or bonded medical students had to move to regional areas or that only regional areas could recruit those doctors, Labor have reclassified it so that peri-urban areas have the same status as places like my home town of Deniliquin, Bourke and Wentworth in the south-west. Senator DAVEY 281697 I have tried getting a doctor, thank, you Senator Pratt. We have also tried getting doctors to move to those areas through the Distribution Priority Area status, and Labor have just made that task impossible. Now doctors can move to Western Sydney under that DPA status, whereas before they couldn't. So, I don't accept—well, I accept your heckle, because you are wrong. We were seeing doctors move out to regional areas—not enough, admittedly. We introduced changes to ensure that the Murray-Darling Medical School was established to train doctors in regional areas. And what did we hear on the weekend? We heard your health minister, Mark Butler, say to the pharmacists that there will be health cuts in the budget. Where are those health cuts going to be felt the most? I can tell you where they're going to be felt the most: in rural and regional areas. It is despicable, the disrespect that this government has for rural and regional areas. They have butchered rural and regional infrastructure programs. The October budget set out clearly what this government thinks of rural and regional Australians. In the budget, they did have $4.7 billion for childcare support. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Pratt, a point of order? Senator Pratt I0T Yes, a point of order. I want to draw your attention to the relevance of Senator Davey's speech. She hasn't yet touched on the bill before us. Thank you. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Davey, you have been going for nearly six minutes, and I would concur with Senator Pratt. Can you come back to the subject of the bill in front of us, please. Senator DAVEY 281697 The subject of the bill is very much that, with a $15 billion commitment to deliver this National Reconstruction Fund, I cannot see anything in what is proposed that reflects on how this fund is going to help rural and regional Australia. And I am making the very valid point that the actual bill is entirely different to what people expected prior to the election and to what was promised prior to the election. We took to the election a very strong manufacturing proposal, and this bill was Labor's answer to that. However, in this bill they're not going to make any changes. We know manufacturing is a major contributor to the Australian economy and is a major employer in so many rural towns—small, medium and large businesses alike. They're all the lifeblood of these towns. Manufacturing makes a huge contribution to the prosperity of all Australians. Our manufacturing policy was designed to encourage manufacturing investment in rural and regional Australia. But, like the rest of the economy, manufacturing is being continually dragged down by the broken promises of Labor at the state and federal government levels. This includes the increasing cost of power, which is having such a negative impact on our manufacturing sector. This bill will undermine and confuse many industry sectors as to what the government's priorities are now and into the future. In these uncertain international times, Australian industry needs to know that the federal government has their back, but too many of our major industries don't know where they stand. Take the forestry industry, for example. On this bill—I'll keep it relevant, so Senator Pratt can continue to play on her phone and listen in and understand why we're opposed to this bill—the forestry industry made a submission as an industry stakeholder. The Australian Forest Products Association pointed out that their timber processing facilities are limited in the investment they can justify because of a shortage of wood fibre. Why is there a shortage? Because Labor governments across Australia are shutting down native forestry industries. We've got Victoria shutting down native forestry and Western Australia shutting down native forestry. But the government makes assurances: 'Oh, it's okay. We'll accept plantation forestry.' How does that help Tasmania, which is entirely dependent on native forestry? The Labor-Greens-aligned state governments are consistently shutting down this viable sustainable industry, which, ironically, helps us with our carbon capture schemes. But, no, it's not good enough, because we know the Greens' only approach to carbon capture is to lock it up and walk away—let the trees do their thing, and walk away—with no management and no return on investment. The mining industry, for so long the backbone of our standard of living, is another industry that has been battered by Labor. In their submission on this bill, they said: 'The fastest way to attract investment to the sector is to approve and open more mines in a timely manner. The longer the approvals process the greater the perceived risk.' The ALP is shooting their program in the foot, as mines can take up to a decade to approve. We're not just talking about coalmines here. We are talking about critical minerals, which are essential for us to have a renewable energy industry in Australia. But by beefing up the National Environment Protection Authority—this is not me saying this; this is the mining industry—their own policies are at odds with the outcomes of this bill. Similar sentiments and concerns have been expressed by so many other manufacturers. The steel industry, the cement industry, aluminium—all are unclear as to what it will mean. Even the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said, 'There is no clear definition of what a "priority area of the Australian economy" is.' On the matter of fiscal responsibility of this legislation, again, like so many of Labor's thought bubbles, no consideration has been given to the inflationary pressures of this bill. That was even acknowledged by the Assistant Minister for Manufacturing during a Senate estimates hearing. The International Monetary Fund has criticised financial structures similar to the one that underpins this bill. The IMF said: Cost-of-living support in light of high energy prices should be targeted, aimed at protecting vulnerable households and small viable firms. The Albanese government has been repetitive in its claim as to the state of the budget they inherited, but this bill is going to add $45 billion in off-budget spending. Off-budget, unaccountable, not transparent. It's not what this government promised. They promised increased accountability and increased transparency, and yet what we are seeing is increased off-budget spending measures. Where is the fiscal responsibility? The high ground that they claim to have is looking very low indeed. This bill highlights the inability of Labor to deliver a nonpartisan program that will assist all sectors. This bill picks favourites. This bill should not be supported in its current form. I note that the coalition have several amendments which will go some way to improving outcomes under this bill, if the amendments are passed. I would strongly request that all senators give those amendments full consideration. As it stands, I cannot support this bill, and I do not endorse it to the chamber. 11:27 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The pandemic highlighted in the starkest possible terms how critical it is to maintain a sovereign national manufacturing capability here in Australia. I welcome the establishment of the National Reconstruction Fund through the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. This $15 billion facility will begin to help rebuild some of that much-needed capability we have lost in recent years and will help set us up to be manufacturing into the future. It will help Australians have more confidence in supply chains and be better prepared for future shocks. It will help innovative companies, including those in the ACT, move along the innovation and commercialisation pathway. Now, I know that when people think about the ACT, they probably think government and Public Service rather than manufacturing, but that overlooks the extraordinary startup and small-business sector we are so lucky to have based here in Canberra. Canberra has the highest number of startups per capita in the country, and some unbelievably talented, determined, passionate people doing some truly mind-boggling things, from Quantum Brilliance, whose mission is to make quantum computing an everyday technology using their diamond based tech, to Syenta, who used electrochemistry to develop a 3D printer like no other on the planet. The ACT is a microbrewing powerhouse. A local firm, Skykraft, recently deployed the largest ever Australian made payload sent into space. We want to grow the potential of these firms even further. Currently Australia ranks below the OECD average of total government support to business research-and-development spend as a percentage of GDP. We need to turn that around. That's why I'm moving a second reading amendment to this bill, asking the government to commit to exploring additional policy mechanisms to provide Australian startups access to finance as they navigate the path to commercialisation. We have to ensure that we have a startup ecosystem in Australia that provides the type of capital needed to keep world-leading innovation here in Australia. We've seen too many startups have to go overseas to develop technology that is important to Australia and is important to our future. For the NRF to succeed, we clearly need a sustainable pipeline of eligible projects at a stage suitable for funding through the corporation, and additional work ensuring that there is finance available for those startups will help address the challenge of early capital to get them through the valley of death. The other second reading amendment I'm moving seeks a commitment from government to ensure the NRF Corporation has a presence here in Canberra. Yes, I'm being parochial, but I believe it's far more than that. The NRF will reach across so many sectors of our economy and it's vital that there is good engagement with other government agencies and departments. We can't afford to operate in silos. We need the NRF to be speaking to government departments like the department of industry, the department of agriculture, the CSIRO and so many more, and their presence here will help foster that. I will also be moving a number of substantive amendments that go to governance, reducing the maximum board terms to four years plus four years, rather than the five years plus five years, and bringing forward the date of the first review to before the end of December 2026. This is not something we can set and forget. We need to know early if this is working as intended or if tweaks are needed. I thank the government for being open to these suggestions. The other amendment I'm proposing on the bill goes to ensuring that we are meeting our international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, from Rio in 1992, and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. These are related but separate to our obligations under Paris and so vital given the unique biodiversity of our great continent. We are a megadiverse country and one of only two developed countries that is megadiverse, and biodiversity often misses out on being considered. We have to ensure that in all the decisions we are making we are taking into account the impact, negative or positive, that it will have on nature. We're part of nature. If nature goes down, we go down with it, and so it makes sense to consider the impact on nature in all of our programs and funds that are being set up. Finally, I'll be seeking commitments from government that the independent NRF board will give consideration to climate related risks and nature related risks when making investment decisions. TCFD and TNFD are gaining traction and momentum and will be critical tools in allowing companies to measure their climate and nature risks. This is more and more becoming an expectation overseas, and it will be a huge benefit to businesses for Australia to implement best practice so we are not at a competitive disadvantage when dealing with European or American based companies. I believe the board should also be considering nature based solutions when making investment decisions as this is clearly a huge opportunity for Australia. We have some of the world's best environmental scientists and some of the world's best innovators in that space. Ensuring we can help them get that technology to the point where it is being scaled and manufactured here in Australia will open up huge markets into the future as the world grapples with the climate and biodiversity crises. There's clearly huge potential to use the NRF to create the next generation of jobs, industries and environment we need to be front and centre in the kind of future we seek to build, so in principle I support this bill. Looking at the huge investments underway in countries like the US, with the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS act, this is us taking a significant—in the context of things, smaller, but I think really significant—step in Australia, ensuring we are making things here in Australia and we're not just making things; we're helping Australian start-ups and Australian innovation produce things here and export to the world. 11:36 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I rise today to address the main reasons why the coalition will not be supporting the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 in its current format, and I'm actually surprised that some opposite are going to be supporting it, because when they come in to address this bill, their bill, they're not selling the bill to us. They're not talking about how great it's going to be; all they do is keep looking back towards the coalition and talking about what the previous government did, and of course they're rewriting history significantly. But if this were so great, wouldn't you think they'd be in here to sell their bill, to talk about the positive impacts it's going to have, rather than just, hilariously, talking about using cheap political shots? They are the government and they should be in here selling the positive outcomes to the Australian people on the bills they propose, but unfortunately they can't do that, because this bill does not produce those outcomes. Firstly, the bill ignores key economic issues, and we know that's a consistent message from those opposite. In order for any of these things to be successful, the government must address rising energy prices, labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains if we are to have a manufacturing sector that is able to succeed. Without policies that create strong economic conditions, any and all government spending is simply in vain. It would be money in one pocket and out the other, due to the cost pressures the government is just failing to address. The coalition is opposing this bill because this arrogant government is telling our manufacturers what it thinks they need rather than addressing what manufacturers actually want. We know Labor have made a desperate dodgy deal with the Greens, their partners in crime, which will prohibit coal or gas from receiving finance from this National Reconstruction Fund. At a time when energy prices are causing businesses to close, those opposite are too busy doing deals with their Greens mates which are going to further restrict manufacturing in this country. Australian manufacturers—and we on this side understand this completely—rely on cheap energy to make things on shore, but Labor's continued demonisation of gas and broken promises to bring power prices down will force more Australian manufacturing overseas. Every expert in the country, every single one, is calling on the Prime Minister to unlock more supply of gas—more supply, meeting the demand, lowering the price. Indeed, some manufacturers have had their gas bills triple—not double, but triple. But these backroom deals they insist on making with the Greens undermine any effort to bring power prices down, and we know Labor will always work with the Greens to push their own agenda rather than support the needs of Australian businesses and families. Secondly, we'll be opposing this bill because we know it will create even more lost time for manufacturers in this broken model and it will take a significant time for any money to start flowing. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, on which the NRF is modelled, was established in 2012 and the first investment was only made some 10 months later. Manufacturers in Australian cannot afford to wait that long. The government announced that the NRF should be up and running by next financial year but haven't committed to a launch date. They said it 'should be' up and running. We remember all the broken promises made before the election—$275 off power bills; instead they're going the other way. Ninety-seven times Mr Albanese said that, and now no-one opposite can even mention that number. There were broken promises over superannuation. He said there would be no changes to superannuation, and now we regularly hear from Senator Gallagher that there will be 'modest changes'—modest changes that are scaring farmers, who may have to sell their family's property to pay a tax bill from an unrealised asset. We know there were going to be no changes to franking credits, but now they're back on the agenda. Why should manufacturers have any faith when those opposite say there should be a launch date by next financial year but won't outline when it will be up and running? Is this just going to be added to the litany of broken promises? Industry feedback suggests that this type of funding mode takes years to get right and that those years will be lost to Australian manufacturers and cause the loss of a significant number of jobs across our country. Let's not forget that, while those manufacturers are waiting, we get closer and closer to a world where hard-to-abate industries will no longer exist in Australia. Think about all the refining resources in this country—iron, coal and oil will all be forced out. I've already spoken in this place about the impact the safeguard mechanism is going to have on the cement industry. We know that the cement industry in Australia cannot abate the creation of clinker, the most important and emissions-intensive part of the cement-making process. Those opposite are going to send if offshore, destroying Australian jobs and Australian companies and ensuring that we have no sovereign supply of cement. We know that all of this is a recipe for economic disaster. We can't blame the public servants in each of the individual agencies. They only see the work that they're doing; they don't look at the broader implications across the different bills and the different departments. That is the job of the government—to look at what's being proposed across government departments and always consider the cost to our citizens, the impact on industry and what the unintended consequences may be—but this is a government that proves, day on day, that it is not up to the challenge. The NRF has a poor funding model. The model shifts from a competitive grants program with robust processes, to government acquiring equity and providing loans. When we talk about unintended consequences, we absolutely know what's coming down the track. Government equity and loan schemes are less successful than grants. Manufacturers may struggle to meet the return-on-investment thresholds or put together detailed business cases in house. What will happen to failed or failing loans? It's clear that the last experiment down this path, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, uprooted manufacturers. Eligibility is another issue—certain industries might have margins which are too small, or it could be too risky with disrupted supply chains. Many will no doubt miss out, and the fund could become equivalent to a white elephant. Before the election—aside from the 97 claims of a $275 reduction to power bills—Mr Albanese also claimed that he was putting forestry at the heart of his manufacturing policy, naming it as a priority under the National Reconstruction Fund. On 17 May 2022, he wrote to Tasmanian forestry workers, pleading for their vote: I promise you that, if I become Prime Minister, a government I lead will not shut down the native forestry industry in Tasmania … I will take up the fight against them— Referring to the Greens— to protect your job too. Not even a year on, the Prime Minister has broken this promise as well. He's made a desperate, dodgy deal with the Greens in return for support for the National Reconstruction Fund—a deal which prohibits investment in native forest logging in the so-called reconstruction fund. The bill also undermines investment certainty in national priorities, with the government changing Australia's national manufacturing priorities on a political whim, undermining investment decisions and eroding investor confidence. This is particularly pertinent to the space industry, complementary medicine and, to a lesser extent, recycling. The government's new priorities are too vague. The government don't know where their focus should be in order to drive investment into specific sectors. This is typical of Labor, choosing to spray money indiscriminately instead of continuing investment certainty for our manufacturers and industry. The government has displayed a callous lack of understanding for how these delays may have already damaged these projects. But one of the key pillars of this new manufacturing strategy was our strategic decision to bolster Australia's capability in the space sector. We supported funding to locally design, develop, manufacture and deploy specialised space products, equipment, systems and services for export to international markets and to support national and international space missions. The government has chosen to effectively wipe out the coalition's efforts to develop our space industry manufacturing by removing it as a priority area. The space industry and the Australian public are yet to understand the basis on which this shift in focus was made. The government must address the critical issues affecting our manufacturing, not tinker with a proven model. Power prices are forecast to spike—not to go down but to spike—by 56 per cent. I say to those in the gallery that, if you've already seen your power bills go up, they're about to go up a whole heap more, and you can thank those opposite for that. That is also to the businesses that are now going to be pushed to the brink. It's time this government delivered inflationary support for industry and put forward a plan to deal with these spiralling power prices. Finally, the fifth reason the coalition will not be supporting this National Reconstruction Fund in its current form is the complete fiscal irresponsibility that it shows. Delivering funding well in excess of the coalition's Modern Manufacturing Strategy, an additional $5 billion appropriation is provided upon passage of the bill. But the timing of the remaining $10 billion will not be subject to further parliamentary approval. So $10 billion of your money—$10 billion from those sitting in the gallery and every Australian taxpayer—won't be subject to any scrutiny in this place. Those opposite, the Labor government, will be able to put that money wherever they like. We know how those slush funds work and benefit their mates in the unions in this country—not small businesses, not Australian manufacturers and certainly not Australian families. We know that financial structures similar to the one underpinning this bill have drawn criticism from the IMF, who stated: Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles (National Reconstruction Fund, Rewiring the Nation, and Housing Australia Future Fund) should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided. The IMF is saying that it should be avoided. Other than that, this is the important part: Cost-of-living support in light of high energy prices should be targeted, aimed at protecting vulnerable households and small viable firms. Let's not forget that Labor is carelessly rushing through a total of $45 billion of off-budget spending. How's that transparency going, guys? Do you remember that new kind of place? Well, we know that hasn't worked; we saw a disgraceful performance by one of your frontbench cabinet ministers last week in this place. You promised more transparency, but instead you've moved $45 billion of off-budget spending, with no accountability, no oversight and no transparency. The bill hasn't passed, and already unions are licking their lips at the prospect of the NRF and have listed their demands. A third of the board positions are hand-picked by the Australian Council of Trade unions, the ACTU, that bastion of morality—not! Their positions will determine who gets access to funding and an enterprise agreement with unions as a precondition to make an application. Applicants must not have engaged in conduct that treats workers 'unfairly'. That's a very vague term and a vague way of saying, 'If you're not with the unions, you're against them,' and demanding that applicants commit to direct employment. So, if contractors or an indirect workforce are used, they must be employed on the same conditions as the direct workforce. This essentially enshrines compulsory unionism if you want to be a successful applicant. It's for these reasons—amongst others, but for these five reasons primarily—that the coalition will not be supporting this bill in its current form. 11:49 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. The bill as I expect it to be amended creates a powerful new lever to move us further and faster towards a renewable future, towards improved employment and more secure jobs and towards strengthening and rebuilding our industrial manufacturing and agricultural base. It is a pathway towards better jobs and less pollution. The bill will increase flows of finance into priority areas of the Australian economy, financing the businesses, governments and other entities through loans, equity, guarantees and a wide range of other financial instruments. It requires that those investments will be solely or mainly Australian based, but the Australian government would otherwise have full discretion to define those priority areas. These are jobs in Australian companies for Australian citizens. It's focused on manufacturing and technology priorities and rebuilding our industrial base, which has been hollowed out over recent decades. We see funding of up to $3 billion for renewables and low-emission technologies; $1.5 billion for medical manufacturing; $1 billion for value adding in resources; $1 billion for critical technologies; $1 billion for advanced manufacturing; and half a billion dollar for value-adding in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre. These areas need support and investment to encourage their shift to innovative technologies and a long-term future. The fund will be funded by an initial $5 billion in equity and a further $10 billion by July 2029. It is vital that we support our essential industries as they make the transition from fossil fuels and carbon intensive production to renewables and a low-pollution future. This is vital in our manufacturing, in our agriculture and broadly across our economy. We also must stop using public funds on new coal and gas and on the construction of gas pipelines, and we must not finance in any form native forest logging. I'm very proud that the Greens took a proposal to the 2022 election for a 'Made in Australia' bank that would support and finance manufacturing innovation and relocalising our supply chains. That was a very important policy, and I see many features of that policy in this bill before us today, especially through the amendments that we have secured that prohibit any investment in coal, gas and native-forest logging. We need leadership to foster our local industries. Our history tells us how important the leadership of governments is to growing those industries in South Australia, in Adelaide and in places like Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie, let down over many decades by sporadic, intermittent investment, losses of jobs and insecure communities. So many of our kids have to leave those towns because there is not secure, ongoing employment. We need our clean, green agriculture in places like South Australia to find its way to a post carbon pollution world. Our history tells us how important good leadership and good support are to a long-term investment future for our industries. I lived in Newcastle, a place I love, for many years in the early 1980s, and I knocked on the door of the general manager of BHP as he announced thousands of job losses in that industry, asking him to employ more female apprentices. It was a bad day to make the request, but we've learnt a lot from that transition in the township of Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. That region has learnt that it's very important to make appropriate investments in the future as communities transition. They need early advice about the plans for employment changes; early support to make the skills development and create the employment bridges to the jobs of the future; and, most importantly, access to the kinds of funds that are embedded in this bill as they support the emergent, new industries and sectors that are the job creators of the future. I've lived now for many years in South Australia, and we there also know a lot about what goes wrong when investment and industry policy falls off the rails. We know too much about underinvestment in our manufacturing industries in our state. It was the failure to back manufacturing in our state that resulted in an enormous amount of hardship and job losses. We certainly don't need leadership like we have seen by the coalition in the state of South Australia in our recent history. Our state is the poster child of how not to do industry development. Joe Hockey slashed the Commonwealth's co-investment in the automotive industry by a 'mere' $300 million a year in 2013, and South Australia lost more than 1,600 direct jobs in the Elizabeth plant and thousands of indirect jobs in the parts sector. For the failure to find a way to invest in that last part of our manufacturing sector in our state, car production, we lost thousands of jobs. Many families never found their way back to having a breadwinner in their household. Many of those workers with decades of experience and skill were not able to find their way into a labour market for their future. We lost the opportunity to be leaders in the transition economy, to be the 21st century manufacturing hub that we really need, with highly skilled, well-paid workers producing cutting-edge electric vehicles powered by South Australia's world-leading renewable energy sector. We had so many losses from the failure of vision and the failure of an equity fund like this to underpin the transition to the vehicles and the manufacturing industry we need in the future. Senator Hume spoke about this bill, calling it a 'Greens-Labor backroom deal'. If a backroom deal means discussion, negotiation, thought, looking at the evidence and working out how to find a way forward, then I'm proud to be part of it, because it's an arrangement that will result in an act which will put billions of dollars into backing our manufacturing program for the future. She also referred to slush funds. She referred to unions having a say over how such funds might be used. What a mistake. Unions so often know through their members and their delegates what's actually going on on the ground. They know what's happening at Port Pirie or Whyalla. They know how our steel industry, our shipbuilding or our future manufacturing needs to be adjusted. Don't think those workers on the floor of GMH, in the years before Joe Hockey took a hatchet to them, didn't know what was going on and what might be done to save that manufacturing industry. Don't think they didn't have a contribution to make. The opposition has a lot of experience with slush funds. As I understand this bill, it is very far from a slush fund. If it is properly implemented—and I'm sure amendments will be considered in this place—it will ensure a strong governance structure and transparency of decision-making, which is what Australian taxpayers expect. In place of the positive spend that we needed, Liberal governments in that period of GMH decline gave South Australia a consolation prize in the form of a defence manufacturing industry. Across a range of shipbuilding projects, this created a fraction of the local direct jobs for a spend in the billions. We got the trade of our automotive industry for a set of jobs in defence, so the opportunity to supply a really good, strong manufacturing base in our South Australian economy was missed. We missed the opportunity for supplying electric vehicles into the domestic market and fighting climate change. That all took a back seat to an ideological project led by Joe Hockey and others, and by that government and other governments, to build weapons of war that endanger the peace and stability of our region, rather than finding our way to a renewable, safe and low-polluting future. It is not sustainable, economically or environmentally, for this nation to continue to be reliant on the resources sector. Australia should aspire to do more than extracting and exporting fossil fuels that poison our air and water and drive the climate crisis. Surely the skilled hands and minds of our manufacturing workforce have more to offer the world than weapons of war. Our rich biodiversity, in particular, is worth more as a pristine world heritage wilderness than it is as wood pulp or cheap furniture. We cannot build our future by investing in an old economy. We need to innovate and find new and creative ways of doing this. One of the weaknesses in the bill, in my view, is that it doesn't make enough of our arts and culture sector, which is a powerful industry for generating employment. That sector employs more Australians than coal and gas or defence manufacturing, and it doesn't rate a mention in the fund's priorities, despite the industry being decimated by the pandemic. If we aren't investing in the creative arts, Australia risks losing the design workforce, which is essential to giving function and form to modern consumer products. We cannot add value by manufacturing what we can't sell and, in a competitive national and international market, aesthetics are the key to the success of goods and services: the lines of a car, the cut of a dress, the feel of a device or the layout of an app. Without serious investment in arts and education and all of our technical areas, and in the important national cultural institutions that help nurture and create talent and keep it where it is in Australia, we're letting ourselves down. So we need to rebuild our manufacturing and agricultural workforce through skill development and through support for investment in industries that create well-paying long-term jobs. Workers should feel secure to put down roots in our communities and to live in thriving communities, not boom-and-bust communities based on polluting industries with short horizons. Our young people should be able to find their way into decent jobs—and into the training for them—in renewable, low-emissions technologies, in agriculture and in regional Australia. Many aspects of this bill are very welcome, and it's essential also that we see benefits from it arising for women alongside men. Women need access to training, to participation in research and innovation, and to the jobs that investments through this fund will create in cities and regions. They need access, alongside men, to good-quality, decently paying jobs and to long-term career paths. Because of our Greens amendments, this fund will not use public money to fund coal and gas. This is a really important aspect of this bill. The coalition, when they were in government, tried to use public money to fund coal and gas through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA. They couldn't, because we Greens and Labor made it impossible. Now the National Reconstruction Fund will be similarly protected. It'll focus on genuinely fostering our agriculture, manufacturing, innovation and research, and I hope it makes appropriate investments in our universities, in our young people and in developing the capability to do research that is original and new and is transmitted into real action in our manufacturing and agricultural sectors. This is so much more important and useful than padding out the profits of coal and gas, which will increase carbon pollution. We need an industrial future that provides decent jobs and offers our planet a safe place. This is the shift we have to make. We as a country are more than a quarry. We have a very enterprising, well-educated workforce which needs opportunities through investment and support from government so that our regions and our clean and green industries of the future offer our kids and our men and women the jobs that they can build a life on. We need to go further. We have to stop approving new coal and gas. The 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline must not go ahead. The IPCC made it clear last week that the planet cannot tolerate any new coal and gas. That's where we need to go, and we need to invest in our industries outside coal and gas and outside logging our native forests—our industries of the future which give our country the sovereignty in its manufacturing and agricultural supply chains that will secure the products we need for our future. So we need no new coal and gas and a lot more secure, well-paying jobs underpinned by strong government support and mechanisms like those proposed in this bill. 12:03 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise today to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. It's an interesting name that's been given by the government to this bill. When I first saw the title, I thought it was a bill aimed at establishing a fund to maybe help communities that are recovering from natural disasters or from a state of low economic impact or activity. But this bill probably would have been more appropriately named the union slush fund bill or something like that, because it's quite a misnomer. Those on the other side have coined a new phrase—the Liberal-National 'no-alition—like it's some sort of zinger. We're all sitting back, having recoiled into our positions over here, because they've got us on these zinger claims. We oppose policy when it's a dud deal. We oppose policy if it's going to be bad for the economy or if it's going to be bad for the Australian people. Indeed, we'll oppose policy if it's clearly not going to meet its objectives. If it's not going to address the issue that they say it will address, we'll oppose it because that money could be better directed or better spent elsewhere, which is the case with this bill. We're opposing this bill because we don't believe it's good policy. We don't believe it's going to set up Australia for a better future. It's a big issue. Australians rely on having cheap and reliable energy, but because of Labor's deal with the Greens on this bill, this bill prohibits coal and gas from receiving finance from the National Reconstruction Fund. We think that's a real mistake. The best way for Australia to be competitive, particularly on the international stage, is to utilise the advantages we have as a nation, and one of the best advantages we have as a nation is access to cheap and reliable energy. Other countries don't have. We can capitalise on that, take advantage of that and have a real impact. This bill, because of the dodgy deal that they have done with the Australian Greens, takes away the ability of the fund to fund important projects that will build into the future of this nation. The Australian Aluminium Council said: The single biggest factor in determining the location of future refining, smelting and manufacturing locations is reliable, internationally competitive, low emissions energy. Surely, everyone here understands. You don't have to be an expert in energy or an expert in the generation of energy to know that wind and solar are not reliable. They might be a good source of energy while the wind is blowing and while the sun is shining. Developments in technology for when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing are improving. The products that harness that energy are improving and becoming more efficient in their manufacture and how they are made ready. But they are not reliable, because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Everyone, surely, can understand that. But there does seem to be a lack of understanding that the best way for us to transition technology to those forms of energy—there might be better storage of that energy so it can be used when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, through batteries or other means of storage, such as hydrogen technology, for example, and the production of hydrogen. No-one, anywhere in the world, has yet built a big electrolyser to produce hydrogen. It might happen, and over time, the development of those technologies could certainly make a big difference. What seems to be missing in the Labor Party, and most certainly from the Australian Greens, is the knowledge that gas is the transitional fuel which will maybe get us to that point, if it does result. Labor cannot continue to demonise reliable energy sources such as gas if it is serious about addressing the issue of having a carbon-free future. We must consider gas as a transitional option. I say that as a very proud Western Australian, because we have enormous potential and we have enormous reserves of gas energy in Western Australia. We have become the world leaders in the exploration, production and delivery of gas. I invite my colleagues in this place to go up to the North West Shelf and the Pilbara and have a look at the projects that are operating up there. You will see some real ingenuity, particularly when it comes to carbon sequestration. The work that has been done in CCS is quite phenomenal, and you will be inspired by that. I encourage people to do that. Unfortunately, what we're seeing with this bill is a recoiling from that industry when we need it more than ever. We need it for the future of the economy. We also need it if we're going to have a serious ambition to cut emissions. Gas is the transitional fuel that enables us to get there. The Labor Party, because they're so reliant on the Greens—be it here in this chamber or, on election day, relying on their preferences to get over the line in individual electorates—have to succumb to the demands of the Greens every time. We're seeing that on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, which we'll be debating later this week, no doubt. They have to give in, because that's the only way they will be able to pursue their agenda. But deep inside, in every single one, there is this demonising of traditional forms of energy, and gas is the traditional fuel that will really make a difference. This bill also ignores the key economic issues, such as rising energy prices, labour shortages and supply chain disruptions. But we all know, when it comes to energy prices, Labor can't keep their promise. This bill will cause manufacturers to lose time. In this broken model it will take significant time for money to start flowing. The National Reconstruction Fund has a very poor funding model. This bill shifts from a competitive grants program to government acquiring equity and providing loans. This bill is fiscally irresponsible, in our view, delivering funding well in excess of the coalition's Modern Manufacturing Strategy. It undermines investment certainty in national priorities, with the government changing Australia's national manufacturing priorities, on a political whim, undermining investment decisions and eroding investment confidence. We're seeing recurring examples, unfortunately, of this government's arrogant response: telling industry what to think and how they should conduct business. The Prime Minister is very adept and more than willing to tell Australians how to suck eggs and, indeed, telling industry how to suck eggs. Remember, we saw this behaviour with the union jobs summit—the Jobs and Skills Summit—they had right at the beginning of this term of parliament. We saw with this summit that they had more union officials than Western Australians. I think there were only six or seven Western Australians invited to this great talkfest that was held here in the Great Hall. There were probably more Johns or Bruces at that conference than there were Western Australians. It's a shame. There were certainly a lot more union officials—significantly more union officials—than there were Western Australians. I remember standing on polling booths during the election. Obviously, the government won. The Labor Party won the election. But they stood there, in Western Australia, right throughout the campaign, with signs up all over the place saying 'Put WA first. Vote Labor'. This bill and other examples like it are not putting Western Australians first. As a Western Australian senator that's what I'm here to defend, and they're not doing that. They didn't do it when they had their union talkfest, their union jobs summit. They had far more unions than they had Western Australians. They're not taking into consideration the very important industries that exist in WA and what will drive investment and the future prosperity of this nation. The Treasurer's first budget, last year, was a missed opportunity to support industry and business in tackling the rising costs of workforce shortages and supply chain issues. Rather, they decided to stoop to their union paymasters and run a radical industrial relations agenda that is having a devastating impact on business, and the Albanese government has failed to rule out radical union demands as they rush through this National Reconstruction Fund. The unions are demanding. To quote the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union submission to the department: The composition of the NRF Board must include two ACTU-nominated positions, two employer-nominated positions, and positions from representatives from academia and pro-union elements of civil society. That's who's going to be running this slush fund once it's set up. It's going to be Labor aligned, union interested individuals—be they unions themselves or, in their own words, 'pro union elements of civil society'. Mr Albanese is rushing this bill through, just like he rushed through the industrial relations bill late last year, side-stepping parliamentary scrutiny and avoiding appropriate consultation with industry. Australian taxpayers will be the ones who will end up wearing the recklessness of this bill. That's because the National Reconstruction Fund delivers on what the Labor Party and the unions want. Let me say that again: this bill, this fund, delivers on what the Labor Party and what the unions want, and not what struggling Australian manufacturers need. The bill hasn't passed yet, but probably will sometime today, and unions are already licking their lips at the prospect of the National Reconstruction Fund and have listed their demands. They can't wait for this bill to pass. The Business Council of Australia said, 'To successfully diversify and transform Australia's economy, we need to get macroeconomics right. If we fail to do this, Australia will continue to fall behind our competitors.' Well, this government doesn't understand economics. Senator Paul Scarr often likes to pull out that Economics 101 book and quote from it. It's a very good source and something that lot on that side should probably read. Senator Scarr's very willing to hand it over, I'm sure, at any time that anyone from the economic frontbench want to take a look at it. It's clear that this lot over here don't have a grasp of basic economics. They don't have an understanding of basic economics and they're not getting the settings right with this bill. The out-of-control inflationary pressures currently being experienced by Australian families speak to that. This bill is actually going to add further fuel to those inflationary pressures that exist. This government do not build up industry confidence. Rather, they leave industry in the lurch and concerned that the current government will just change their direction on a whim. That is a real concern. I get that deals are done in this place. The Australian Greens have done their deal, and possibly the crossbench have sorted themselves out on this, but I urge them to reconsider it. This is a big issue. Getting the settings of our economy right is critical to putting downward pressure on cost of living—that's the big issue Australians are facing right now. That is the biggest issue. I don't know if the Labor government realise that. They probably don't talk to enough people other than those in their little union circles. But let me tell you, you talk to anyone out on the ground—come with me to Western Australia and I'll introduce you to some people who are feeling it right now, who are feeling the cost-of-living pressure. They're under pressure because those opposite are not doing anything to address the issues that people are facing. This bill is only putting further inflationary pressure on the economy, and that's going to drive up costs even higher for people's living. 12:18 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. I'm really pleased, thanks to Greens amendments, that this fund can now facilitate decarbonisation and an actual focus on rebuilding manufacturing and a renewables industry, rather than propping up fossil fuels. The National Reconstruction Fund will set aside $15 billion to rebuild an industrial base in Australia. The NRF, as it's known, will have seven priority areas. Pleasingly, renewables and low-emissions technologies will receive $3 billion set aside in particular. The other priority areas include medical science; transport; value-add in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors; value-add in resources; defence capability; and enabling capabilities. I'm very pleased that the Greens have secured amendments that ensure that coal and gas and native forest logging are prohibited investments for this fund. This is the same amendment that was put in place by the Greens for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA. This prevented the CEFC and ARENA from being used as a slush fund for coal and gas by the previous government. The amendment we have secured to the National Reconstruction Fund makes sure that the fund will be focused on the task of rebuilding a manufacturing base, not just propping up coal and gas corporations—who, frankly, are already overly subsidised and don't even pay their fair share of tax, all the while cooking the planet—and that the fund won't prop up native forest logging. But we managed to secure a further amendment to make sure that investments made by the National Reconstruction Fund board must align with Australia's legislated climate targets and any future updated commitment by Australia under the Paris Agreement. We're very pleased to receive those amendments and secure those changes. In fact, we're pleased also because the National Reconstruction Fund looks remarkably similar to an election policy that the Greens took to the last federal election, where we elected a record number of Greens. We took a policy to create a $15 billion made-in-Australia bank and manufacturing fund. Because of the amendments that we've managed to secure to the National Reconstruction Fund, today that fund reflects much of what we had hoped and aspired for in that Greens made-in-Australia bank. The point of that was to decarbonise our existing manufacturing base and to make stuff again. Let's make stuff again in this country. We've got brilliant scientists. We've got skilled engineers. We've got a world-class workforce. If we back them and invest in our manufacturing industry we can tackle the climate crisis. We can strengthen local communities and we can create well-paid, secure jobs. There's no downside to that. I'm reminded that Australian technology and Australian nous invented solar panel tech, invented wi-fi and invented the bionic aye. We used to make our own cars, and we could in fact do that again. We took a plan to that last election that, as I said, now looks remarkably like the National Reconstruction Fund. Under our plan we wanted a manufacturing Australia fund to help local manufacturers recover from the pandemic, move off coal and gas, and expand into new sectors. We wanted to use government investment to drive new export industries in green hydrogen and minerals processing and ensure that Australia could become a renewable energy superpower. We wanted to facilitate that rapid transition to 100 per cent renewables—which, of course, would create jobs and encourage new industries and innovation in the course of achieving that. And if we use low-cost green energy to rebuild our manufacturing industry we can support those new green export industries and bring back jobs that have gone overseas. Manufacturing still has a place in Australia, and I'm so pleased that this $15 billion fund—which, as I said, remarkably resembles what we took to the election—can now support manufacturing, innovation, industrial decarbonisation and a relocalisation of supply chains. When we campaigned on this we referenced the fact that clean, cheap abundant energy from our vast solar and wind resources could be Australia's competitive advantage in net zero global trade, but only if we seize it. We know we've gotten further and further behind as the world decarbonises and moves towards 100 per cent renewables. But with such an abundance of sun and wind energy we could drive energy costs close to zero, which would see the return of manufacturing to our shores. Australia's manufacturing renaissance could occur in those areas where we know we've got an advantage in a zero carbon economy, from manufacturing electrolysers to heat pumps to battery technologies. But it could also extend to medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, to food and packaging projects. There's also great opportunities in supply chains for electric vehicle components, for wind towers and for public transport infrastructure made with emissions-free steel. The manufacturing bank that we have envisaged, which this fund now closely resembles, would support manufacturing, innovation, industrial decarbonisation and a relocalisation of supply chains. In our minds it would have had a similar structure to the existing Clean Energy Finance Corporation and provide direct grants, equity investment, financing and concessional loan options, depending on the structure of the corporate applicants. And it would target small business, workers co-ops, green not-for-profits and social enterprise that are engaged in innovative production, research and development. We need this more than ever, because Australia currently ranks 91st for economic complexity, because we've traded our previously self-sufficient manufacturing base for an entirely fossil fuel reliant economy of extraction. We are deeply reliant on a globally integrated open-market economy. Therefore, shocks abroad reverberate through the Australian economy. We saw that and felt that so viscerally during COVID. The mining boom has not translated into a sophisticated economy capable of handling those shocks. Rather, we've failed to build up an industry base or the infrastructure necessary to handle a bust in the resources sector. Previously, the former government accelerated the death of the car industry in Australia, and this really added a devastating blow to our manufacturing base. But we have the capacity to rebuild a strong industrial base with a focus on renewable energy. Coming to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, this bill would invest in rebidding Australian industry and manufacturing, and it's a public policy outcome that the Australian Greens have long pushed for and very much welcome. We strongly support public investment in rebuilding manufacturing in Australia. Broadly stated, the aims of the fund are supported by the Greens, in particular a reinvigorated role for state led investment in designated priority areas of the economy. During the inquiry into this bill we heard some very persuasive evidence from a number of experts, including the Tech Council, who said, 'Given the long-term and strategic nature of these investments, governments are often the best placed actors in an economy to address this gap by being patient funders of strategic investments and crowding in further private investment.' Whilst the aims of the National Reconstruction Fund were always consistent with Greens policy, we were very concerned regarding the potential for fossil fuel finance under the original bill as it was pro-proposed, prior to the discussions that my colleague Senator Allman-Payne and our leader, Adam Bandt, were able to successfully have with the minister. The legislation as originally proposed was wide open to abuse by governments that wanted to use the $15 billion for more coal, oil and gas, and that's a risk that the Greens simply would not take. We needed legislative restrictions to stop public money from being used to prop up oil and gas. As I mentioned, $11 billion in subsidies in cheap diesel and accelerated depreciation already get given every year to the big fossil fuel companies. That is too much. They certainly didn't need any more. We know that coal and gas are the main causes of the climate crisis, and to have any chance of getting the climate crisis under control and meeting even the net zero climate targets that this government claims to support—too weak and too late—there can be no new coal or gas projects. This is also the view of the usually conservative International Energy Agency. It's the view of the United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, and it's the view of the world's scientists. But, concerningly, there was nothing in the proposed legislation to prevent investment in coal and gas or in the projects that would lock in and extend the use of coal and gas. Anything that the government of the day chose to support could have been declared a priority area for investment in the future. Under the original proposed legislation the minister would have issued the investment mandate as a non-disallowable legislative instrument and then declared the priority areas of the Australian economy in the form of a disallowable legislative instrument. The minister provided a good deal of detail on the proposed priority areas, and we again thank the minister for his collegiate approach. But the detail provided was effectively going to be a moot point, where there were so few limitations on what the government of the day could choose to direct NRF funding towards. When we asked in Senate estimates, the government confirmed that they could have used the $15 billion as a slush fund for coal and gas—although I don't believe they used the term 'slush fund', but certainly that was our concern. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources confirmed that the government of the day could have invested in coal and gas by simply changing the priority investment areas and subject to revised priority areas not being disallowed by the Senate. There was a real risk with this legislation that this government, or, indeed, subsequent governments, would have had almost unlimited discretion to declare priority areas for a gas fired recovery or a coalmine renaissance—flying in the face of global trends, climate science and community sentiment. This, in fact, was a view that was shared by some of Labor's own members, who made a submission to the department's consultation. In a submission to the Department of Industry, Science and Resources's consultation on the National Reconstruction Fund, the Labor Environment Action Network, or LEAN, stated: LEAN strongly recommends that the NRF not invest in any technology which will support further fossil fuel development including discredited carbon capture and storage processes or 'clean gas or coal' technologies. All NRF investment should support the delivery of policy to deliver net zero by 2050, an end to extinctions and delivery of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework obligations. All proposals should be tested for alignment with the government's existing commitments and policy priorities. Those were the words of the Labor Environment Action Network. They were not alone. Many other submitters highlighted the fact that coal and gas should not play a part in the future of modern manufacturing in Australia, including learned experts such as Ms Lee, who is the CEO of Beyond Zero Emissions. She said: When we looked at shoring up and giving confidence to the manufacturing sector and the businesses in it—nobody is looking for any fossil fuel input streams for that. What we hear are people looking at the time frame for when they can turn off existing coal and gas use in their facilities, and this is because, for the facilities that we are looking at, everyone is dependent not just on Australian financiers but also on global finance, so the medium- to large-end-of-town businesses. All of that investment money is looking for ways to decarbonise, so we're seeing that in so many commercial, financial and other businesses. There's a whole lot of pressure on these businesses from all sides—from shareholders as well, for those that are public—and all the pressure is on transitioning to renewables. The question is: how fast? There is a need to make sure that energy is reliable today, but there is no increasing demand that we see for future-proofed manufacturing to have any fossil fuels. It was against that background that we were insistent, and successfully so, in our request that this fund be precluded from investing in coal and gas or in native forest logging. Our amendments create a class of prohibited investments within the legislation that explicitly bans the National Reconstruction Fund from financing the extraction of coal and gas, the construction of gas pipelines and the logging of native forests. As I mentioned before, we also secured an amendment that investments made by the board will have to align with the legislative climate targets and any future updated commitment by Australia under our nationally determined commitments under the Paris Agreement. We now have an opportunity to actually invest in regional Australia to build stuff again, to make our economy more resilient and self-reliant and to genuinely give regional communities a sense of opportunity. As we transition off coal and gas and towards 100 per cent renewables, let's ensure that we've got a strong manufacturing base for those communities to aspire to work on and to help build the things that our new clean, green economy will need and will be based on. The Greens are really pleased to have secured amendments that ensure this fund can't just be a slush fund for coal or gas or for native forest logging, and we're very pleased that it might kickstart local manufacturing again. 12:33 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I, too, rise to make some remarks on the National Reconstruction Fund Bill 2022. I'll talk briefly of the overview of the bill and some of the areas that the coalition has concerns about. I'll also touch on the issue of rhetoric versus reality because I'm hearing a lot of rhetoric from those opposite about what has occurred over the last 10 years and it is simply not matched by the reality on the ground. So I want to touch on a few of those points and put a few facts onto the public record here around what has actually been occurring. I'd like to talk specifically about space, which was an area of focus for the coalition's modern manufacturing fund. In our home state of South Australia we have seen a huge amount of investment and growth, and it's something that is missing from this bill from the government. I'd like to talk about opportunity. There's been a lot of talk here about Australia becoming resilient and self-reliant, but it will need a change to the way government—via the persuasion of, in particular, the Department of Finance—deals with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and breaking the negative cycle which has existed for many years around how the Commonwealth views startups and small companies when it comes to contracting, as opposed to defaulting to the safe option of a big company, often offshore. Lastly, I'm going to touch on the point of energy. Those opposite have been talking a fair bit about energy and what they see as opportunities. But, again, the rhetoric, the ideology and the narrative which is being put forward is directly contradicting the science out of the IPCC, the economics out of the OECD and the engineering out of the International Energy Agency on the impact of an overreliance on variable renewables moving into an economy, as opposed to having baseload power, and also the role of abatement on fossil fuel projects. So there's a fair bit there, and I'll see what I can get through in the remaining 12 minutes that I have. I have a few concerns. Colleagues have spoken about the economic issues and the fact that this fund doesn't address some of those key enablers, and I will come to power shortly. They've talked about delays. Not only have we seen delays built into how this legislation is put forward, but one of the things that were deeply distressing to industry in South Australia was that, for companies that had indications from the coalition that they had been granted funds under the Modern Manufacturing Initiative, those funds were delayed, causing huge interruptions to their capital productivity. The money they had put aside to co-invest in new capability and a new workforce was then put on hold, which was a significant handbrake on the development of manufacturing in South Australia. There's a concern about national priorities. I will come to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which looked at the lessons of COVID and why it is so important for the Commonwealth to set and invest in national priorities, collaborating with industry so that we can get national resilience in that area. On the funding side of it, the coalition put some $5 billion into the Modern Manufacturing Initiative. It was against quite specific areas which were targeted as national priorities, including things like space, as well as medical products, food products and defence—a range of sectors that were important for our economy. It was a competitive based program in those important sectors, whereas here we have $15 billion, $10 billion of which is not targeted against anything and will not be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny. That is an enormous amount of taxpayers' money to not have a structured, strategic plan for its investment or the oversight of the parliament, as the Australian taxpayers' representative, to make sure that it is spent wisely. I come to the topic of rhetoric and reality. One of the things that have been said frequently by those opposite is that Australia's manufacturing went into a nosedive as a result of the coalition government and particularly the demise of Holden. I encourage people who are interested in this to go back and have a look at a speech I gave in August 2015 on this exact topic. It goes to my experience as the member for Wakefield—a seat which no longer exists, unfortunately. That was the electorate in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, as well as regional areas, where General Motors-Holden had their manufacturing plant. I was a frequent visitor to the manufacturing plant, dealing with Mike Devereux as the head of the organisation at that time, as well as dealing with Ian Macfarlane, as the minister for industry, and the then Prime Minister, Prime Minister Howard, about opportunities for us to invest. There were countless times when I spoke to General Motors about things like co-investment by the federal government to bring research and development on things like electric vehicles and other opportunities here to Australia. But the consistent message was that General Motors was a global organisation that had made investments in other countries, both in research and in manufacturing, and the ultimate demise of that industry, as Mr Devereux later said in public, was unrelated to decisions by the federal government about funding they would or would not make. Those opposite can point as often as they like, but it's like someone saying the earth is flat. You can say it a thousand times; it doesn't make it true. When the Australian public listen to this debate, I would encourage them to challenge the rhetoric by looking for the facts. Just because those opposite say a hundred or a thousand times that it was then Treasurer Joe Hockey who caused the demise, that is not matched by the reality that I know, as the then local member in that last period of the Howard government, and of the statements made by Mr Devereux subsequently around why General Motors made that comment. Importantly, it's good to look at what actually happened, not just to the 80 per cent of workers who went on to find other jobs in the manufacturing industry but to the parts suppliers. For example: for the Nissan Leaf, an electric car, there was a firm here called Nissan Casting that went from one shift a day struggling to provide parts into General Motors to, after that change of focus, running three shifts, seven days a week to keep up with export demands for parts. There is Heliostat, a subsidiary of Precision Components, who started manufacturing solar components. Again, that was a significant investment in an export capability into the solar industry. We have seen a whole range of investments in manufacturing through the coalition's time that have led to a range of important things. In 2022 the National Centre for Vocational Education Research found that the proportion of Australian businesses with apprentices and trainees was at its highest level since 2011. What that is saying is that the government's investment not only in training but also in creating the environment where the private sector wanted to invest was leading to people coming on board. Here are just some of the grants in South Australia. In October 2014 the Industry and innovation magazine made the comment that Australia's manufacturing was in decline. 2014 was at the end of a long period of those opposite being in government. They were talking about companies that were actually moving ahead. One of those, just to highlight, is a company in South Australia called REDARC. REDARC is an innovative company, and Commonwealth support—the AMGC grants, for example, in February 2021—led to an expansion of the workplace there, adopting things like industry 4.0 technology. The point REDARC make is that advanced technology doesn't necessarily mean fewer jobs; it means better jobs. A $20 million expansion by REDARC created over 100 jobs there. REDARC are one of Australia's best-known suppliers into not only the automotive industry but also the defence industry, particularly with lighting and other components into naval programs overseas. Tindo Solar, again in South Australia, I think are the only company here in Australia that actually makes solar panels. There was a $5.3 million investment, assisted by $1 million from the Australian government, to expand their facility to actually become a significant manufacturer of solar panels for the Australian market, creating jobs and creating sovereign capability. Those are the things that were happening under the coalition government. In the space sector, the Centre for Defence Industry Capability, for example, is investing in small companies like Inovor. I've had a fair bit to do with Inovor. They are a company in South Australia making satellite buses. They are an example of the kind of company where we need to continue the investment not just in grants but in contracts to give them the opportunity to grow. The federal government, under the coalition, invested some $65 million into the nation's space industry. Not only did we actually create the Space Agency; we invested in the industry because of the opportunity not only to have sovereign capability but also to get into the $12 billion worth of international market. The Space Agency also received funding around Australia's launch capability, some $32.5 million, to help the local sector gain what they call flight qualifications. But what do we see under this plan? That focus on space has gone. Space industry is vocal in media at the moment, highlighting the concern that the lack of focus and the lack of investment will hurt the sector and its growth, which was stellar—no pun intended—under the coalition, and which is now at risk of stalling. One of the significant things that is disappointing is that the planned strategic update for the space sector, which was launched by the coalition in an attempt to bring together the streams of both civil investment and defence investment has gone nowhere under this Labor government. Given the strategic update of 2020, which highlights the threats that Australia is facing, this is a classic example of where sensible procurement policy from the Commonwealth could actually help Australia have sovereign capabilities. So we're not talking about just making a widget for a satellite that's going to be made overseas but the kind of investment we see in South Australia, where we now have a space manufacturing park—funded partly by the coalition government, partly by the then Liberal government in South Australia and partly by industry—which is looking to manufacture satellites. We have the launch capability, funded in part by the coalition government, to have three space ports in Australia capable of launch. What it means is the kind of outcome that governments should be looking for are very specific; in this case, military response options. How do we work with Australian industry, not to make a widget but to have the capability to build a payload for ISR—intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance—the satellite bus, the vehicle they put it in, and the launch platform, so that, in a conflict, if the assets we rely on, often from Europe or particularly the US, are either taken out of service by an adversary or deployed to areas of greater priority, we have the ability, within a short time frame, to design an appropriate payload, put it in an appropriate bus, put it into a launch platform and launch it into an orbit that will meet our sovereign needs. Companies that can achieve that for Australia will be well placed to get products town the global market. That's the change of thinking we need. I'm going to run out of time to talk about energy, but the last part on this procurement is that many companies, particularly in the defence and national security space, but even for things like personal protective equipment, need the government to move beyond giving them a grant to actually purchasing things from those companies. PPE is a classic example we looked at during the COVID-19 report my then committee, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, conducted. We found that the focus of both the private sector and governments of both persuasions to go competitively to the international market for things like respirators and surgical masks meant that in 2015 Kimberly-Clark closed down the last remaining spun bond factory here in Australia, which is a critical component. Through COVID there was massive investment to rebuild the capability to make things like respirators, but what we find is that government departments largely continue to buy through panels or other policies that push them to overseas suppliers. There has been some change in some states and some change in the Defence department here, but what we need to see is federal governments not just looking at these large industry policies from a grant perspective but then following through with contracts, because it's the contracts that will actually enable these businesses to become sustainable, and to invest more in workforce and innovation so we can have sovereign capabilities, whether it be in space, in medical products or in other areas. On another occasion, I will come back to talk about energy, because that is a critical thing for this nation's future. 12:48 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. Firstly, I want to echo the comments of my colleagues Senator Allman-Payne, Senator Barbara Pocock and Senator Waters and acknowledge the huge win that Senator Allman-Payne and our leader, Adam Bandt, have managed to negotiate with the government. Due to the hard work of my colleagues, the National Reconstruction Fund now and under future governments will not fund fossil fuels and native logging projects. It was confirmed in the most recent round of Senate estimates that there was nothing currently stopping the proposed corporation investing in these destructive industries. In the past we've seen the coalition try to use public money to fund coal and gas through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. They were unable to do so because of the guardrails that the Greens and Labor put in place. Now we have the same assurance for the NRF, which won't be used to fund the climate crisis. The amendments that the Greens have secured will ensure that the National Reconstruction Fund will be focused on creating high-quality jobs across a diverse economy, particularly in regional Australia. Senator Brockman, my fellow Western Australian senator, earlier spoke of the importance of this for our home state. These amendments, which passed in the other place, create a class of prohibited investments within the legislation to explicitly ban the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation from financing the extraction of coal and gas, the construction of gas pipelines and the logging of native forests. This is absolutely critical in the climate crisis because we simply can't keep pouring petrol on the fire while we're trying to put it out. The Greens have also secured a government amendment so that the investments made by the board will have to align with the legislated climate targets and any updated future commitment by Australia under the Paris Agreement. I cannot understate how important this is, as the Greens continue to fight for stronger climate action and for the government to listen to the climate science. This is a huge win for our climate, jobs and the economy. It's aligning us with a global movement and not propping up some of those dying industries. The Greens took a policy for a manufacturing fund to the election. I was in Kalgoorlie in regional Western Australia talking about the importance of investment in manufacturing. We strongly support public investment in rebuilding manufacturing in Australia. Every cent spent on coal and gas will wreck the climate and divert much-needed funding from manufacturing initiatives, especially in regional Australia. This win is extremely timely, as the IPCC report was released last week. This will be the last report until the 2030s. Many are seeing this as a final warning, as we are on track to fly past 1.5 degrees of warming and beyond under the current regime. This report clearly states that we cannot open any more new coal and gas projects and that we must rapidly move away from this approach. That means that there is a sprint required, not the casual walk that we've been taking, away from fossil fuels. We have to do that to move towards a decarbonised economy. That means a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 is required. We are not on track to meet this, for the key reason that this government's emissions target is not even close to what we need. It also means that we must stop giving public money—yes, that's right: taxpayer money—to fossil fuel companies to fund these dirty projects. I'm so pleased to see that this fund will not be doing that, but there is still a long way to go before we see not a single cent being given to these greedy companies, which, quite frankly, don't need or deserve this money. In the 2021-22 financial year, the Australian government handed out $11.6 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. Let me repeat that: $11.6 billion was paid just in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. That's almost the size of the National Reconstruction Fund that we're debating today. Let's imagine what could be done with that money. It could be added to the NRF, to almost double it. It could support our health sector and our education sector. It could help with flood recovery. We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and a government that is willing to place billions of dollars straight into the pockets of these companies that are seeing record-breaking profits is absolutely unacceptable. This $15 billion fund will help support our economy, create jobs, drive regional development and grow our sovereign capability, but we must ensure that it's sustainable and that these investments will help us face the climate crisis, not make it worse. This fund, if we use it well, could go a long way to helping transition away from fossil fuels and into that decarbonised economy. What could also go a long way in helping the transition would be a commitment to a national transition authority, something that Senator Allman-Payne has also done some amazing and incredible work on—so I congratulate her. As the Greens spokesperson for resources, I'm pleased to see that this will not be used as a slush fund for greedy fossil fuel companies but will help us extract the resources we will need as we transition away from fossil fuels: the minerals we need to make our solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. I'm also pleased to see that the NRF will be used to invest in renewables. However, again, it is so important that we ensure that this is done sustainably and also not just in consultation with traditional owners but actually with their free, prior and informed consent and with First Nations people owning some of the projects that are happening on their country. This goes beyond simply signing an Indigenous land use agreement and paying them some royalties. This will ensure that the traditional owners are deeply involved in every aspect of projects that are happening on their lands and that they will have a say about the types of projects, the locations, and who will operate and maintain them and be involved in restoring their country. There is so much possibility for First Nations people to be the owners and beneficiaries of what is happening on their lands, and I would like to point out that the benefits aren't only in terms of money and jobs. These projects could foster connection to country and culture and having people work on the land. First Nations people know which areas are sacred and therefore should be left alone, which areas need to be preserved and protected from development, and which areas will be suitable for solar panels, wind turbines, offshore wind and whatever else is required, since we have been the custodians of this country for 65,000 years. In terms of mining of critical minerals, we must ensure that mine rehabilitation is at the forefront of these projects—in fact, it must be included as part of the approvals process—and that companies behind these projects are actually committed to the process before they begin. Far too many of these companies will take government money to operate mining projects—again, without free, prior and informed consent from traditional owners—and make enormous profits, which they give to their executives and shareholders, and, at the end of the life cycle of the mine, cry poor and claim that they cannot afford to rehabilitate the mine. So either the infrastructure is left on site, pits are not closed and potentially harmful chemicals are not cleaned up or, as we have seen with the Northern Endeavour case, the government—but really that is a pseudonym for the taxpayer—has to step in and foot the bill. Again, think of everything that we could do with this money that is tied up in bailing out mining companies. We cannot keep making the same mistake. It is unacceptable that mining companies are allowed to get away with this in this country. We know that many companies will put away bonds, but, as we've seen with the Ranger mine, these bonds are put away to cover the rehabilitation costs as estimated at the start of the mine—in this case, some 40 years ago. Now they don't come close to covering the cost, because since the mine opened the standards have changed and there have been many unforeseen circumstances that are not accounted for. We have a lot of work to do in this space. I acknowledge that we need these minerals for the transition to the net-zero economy, but we must carefully consider the need for these minerals and the risks to water and to the environment and also the risk of destruction of cultural heritage. This will not be an easy balance. I know we must consider all of those factors, but we cannot keep contaminating water sources, destroying sacred sites and driving native and endangered species out of their natural habitats. On another note, this fund will be critical in the research and development of new technologies and methods. As the science portfolio holder, I'm glad to see this investment in research and development. We need to see this through from the research and development stage to production, preferably here on Australian soil. Another exciting potential for this fund that has not been widely discussed is in growing native botanicals and bush foods. This brings so many benefits in relation to food security, caring for country, supporting First Nations businesses and creating and sustaining a First Nations led bushfoods market, both domestically and internationally. It also brings investment in this sector that can support connection to country and culture, and this is particularly important in northern and regional Australia. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of plants that grow only in Australia and have been used in a variety of ways in First Nations communities for thousands of years—for food and also for medicine. Recently, I've noticed an increase in the use of these ingredients by companies that are not First Nations businesses, and, due to this, these ingredients are not always used in a culturally appropriate way. I'll give an example. The moodjar tree, commonly known as the Christmas tree, which grows in Western Australia, contains the spirit of our old people, the spirit of our ancestors. I have seen companies place this into alcohol, particularly gin, which is not an appropriate use. If we make sure that First Nations people are not only growing these botanicals and bush foods but also owning the businesses that are processing and developing the products using them, this could be avoided, with good legislation and regulatory frameworks. I really hope the government sees the large number of benefits that this might bring by encouraging and supporting First Nations businesses to access the fund to grow native botanicals and bush foods on our country. This fund represents so much opportunity for First Nations communities, for addressing the climate crisis, for science and technology and for jobs right across this country. At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I seek leave to move the second reading amendment in his name, on sheet 1896, highlighting the need for the NRF to invest in a circular and decarbonised economy, as such investments can bolster Australia's capability and reduce supply chain vulnerabilities. Leave granted. Senator COX 296215 I move: 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) incorporate circular economy principles into the Investment Mandate for the National Reconstruction Fund; and (iii) seek that the National Reconstruction Fund Board give regard to outcomes and advice from the Circular Economy Taskforce". 13:03 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to speak to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. Before commencing, I want to acknowledge the contributions of my Senate colleagues, Senator Cox and Senator Allman-Payne. I particularly want to give credit to our regional Queensland senator, whose work has been critical to ensuring amendments that will see this $15 billion fund deliver long-term security, long-term jobs and clean, renewable investment across not just her state of Queensland but the entire country. It's an example of Greens senators and MPs understanding their brief, talking to their community and then delivering real, measurable change in this place. We saw those amendments adopted downstairs, and they will make a nationally significant contribution to this bill. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill is designed—from the Greens perspective, anyhow—to move us towards a decarbonised manufacturing industry. It will have an actual focus on rebuilding manufacturing and rebuilding a renewables industry, literally stepping into the gap that has been created by the dead years of the coalition government federally and, before that, a lack of strategic investment in green renewable manufacturing by the previous Labor government. But we should acknowledge just how much ground there is to cover. The last nearly decade of the coalition's dead hand on manufacturing, it's dead hand on any kind of investment in a renewables industry, its direct messages to that industry that the then coalition government didn't want those jobs, didn't want that investment, didn't want that future for Australia—we have to lift off that dead hand. The Australian public went a long way to doing that in the last election, when they put in a minority Labor government and a big increase in Greens representation in this place and in the other place. We're hopefully seeing through that commitment from the Australian voting public, with millions of Australians not only throwing out the coalition but also voting in this government, a parliament that's going to look to rebuilding Australia, a government that will rebuild with those green jobs and that renewable investment. Critically, we're looking at this parliament, which sometimes looks like a petrostate with both major parties literally owned by the fossil fuel industry, somehow turning this parliament around and getting that investment in jobs that are not only going to be there for our kids but going to sustain our kids' and grandkids' future. What will the National Reconstruction Fund deliver? This is a $15 billion fund to help rebuild an industrial base in Australia. The National Reconstruction Fund will have seven priority areas. The first is one that I've been passionate about throughout my political life, and that is renewables and low-emissions technologies. Again, this is about lifting the rotting corpse of the previous coalition government out of industry and out of manufacturing so that we actually have that future and will see significant investment in renewables and low-emissions technologies. We're talking about a $3 billion investment in renewables and low-emissions technologies, which will hopefully be leveraged with other investment from industry to make a significant difference. The second priority area is in medical science. If you wanted a lesson in how important it is to have domestic capacity in medical science, we've just been through a three-year lesson on that with COVID. We've seen the need to have onshore manufacturing, facilities and R and D in Australia—that has been proven to us—I'm hoping we see with this that the parliament—or at least that part of the parliament sitting in the majority on this and supporting this bill, which includes the Greens—is listening. Again, the coalition are trying to tear it down and take us back to the 1950s. but, thankfully, a majority in this house are listening to those millions of Australians who want a different future and are putting aside $1.5 billion for medical manufacturing. The third is transport. I've got to tell you how frustrating it is to see government after government in the past not actually investing in low-emissions transport but investing in reports and studies. If I see another study on a fast train from Sydney to Canberra or on a fast train from Sydney to Newcastle, but I don't see another fast train, I think, like five million other people from the Greater Sydney region, I'll have a singular revolt. We don't want another study, we don't want another brochure, we are not another episode of Utopia, which is what we really got from the coalition; we want investment in clean, green transport. I would love to be catching a low- or zero-emissions fast train home from here at the end of every session and, I can tell you, so would every other Greens senator and MP. Let's start making it happened with this kind of strategic investment in transport. The fourth area is value add in the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors—low emission, securing regional jobs, securing regional investments. From a New South Wales senator perspective, when you go to the western slopes and ranges in the southern half of our state of New South Wales or you go around the region of Oberon and see the jobs and industry and regional wealth that follows from investment in the plantation industry—rather than the destruction that happens in native logging—it gives you a sense of hope in how strategic government investment can fundamentally change lives in regional New South Wales. The Greens are hoping this will provide that value-add investment in industries like plantations. That will make a real and meaningful change for generations to come in regional NSW. I'll speak later, briefly, about the amendments negotiated by my colleague Senator Allman-Payne that will prohibit investment in native forest logging. That's a critical part of ensuring this investment goes where it's needed—not in native forest logging but in plantations and value-adds, genuine long-term value-adds, in the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors. It's also going to invest in value-adding resources. Again, that cannot—and must not—be fossil fuels. Thankfully, key Greens amendments will make that happen. Investments in defence capability are a matter we will have a watching brief on. The obscene amount of money that this government seems to want to spend on defence is something that should trouble anybody interested in their kids' future. But if we are going to have an expenditure on defence, and there will be some, ensuring as much of that is spent locally, rather than as part of a global arms industry, is going to be an important way of keeping Australia safe without fuelling a global arms industry. And, lastly, in enabling capabilities. We're talking about, out of the $15 billion fund, $500 million for that value-add in agriculture, a billion dollars for the advanced technology and a billion dollars for critical technologies. This, I hope, will be nation-shaping investment. I want to highlight and give credit for the amendment moved in the other place on behalf of the Greens but negotiated by my Senate colleague. It secures an amendment that ensures coal and gas and native forest logging are prohibited investments from this fund. That was make or break for us with this investment fund. We told the government that straight up, in negotiations. We will not see billions of dollars more of public money going into coal and gas or native forest logging. That was an absolute red line in negotiations. Thankfully, we've been able to deliver on that, in the amendment in the other place. Let's remember, that is the same amendment that was put in by the Greens for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA. That prevented the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA being used as a slush fund for the coal and gas industries—as the coalition so wanted to do. The coalition has never seen a bucket of public money that they don't want to dip in to the corporate coffers of the fossil fuel industry. It has taken the Greens, using their balance of power in this place, to prevent Labor doing exactly the same with this bill. Senator Scarr 282997 Power sharing! Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I'd like to call what we're seeing in this 'renewable power sharing' and delivering the hope and lifting that dead hand of the coalition off investment in renewables, in a green, clean future for regional Australia. That amendment also ensures that the NRF will be focused on the task of rebuilding a manufacturing base, because we don't have endless amounts of public money. Every dollar that we dip into the corporate coffers of the fossil fuel industry, the gas industry, every dollar we spend destroying our native forests, which I know is where the coalition likes sending public money, is a dollar we can't spend on building our manufacturing base. I know that there are minor right-wing parties that want to see endless amounts of taxpayers' money—paid for by hardworking Australians—go into fossil fuel corporations. They love doing that. The Greens don't, and we won't let it happen on our watch. Those Greens amendments mean it won't happen on our watch. The Greens have also secured an amendment that will ensure that investments made by the National Reconstruction Fund board align with the legislated climate targets and with any future updated commitment by Australia under the Paris Agreement. This will track in line as, I hope, our national targets become more ambitious and our climate targets become more ambitious and start getting close to meeting the science. This will mean that investments by the National Reconstruction Fund board need to also align with those improvements going forward. Why do we need this investment in manufacturing? If you look at some of the data and compare Australia's economy with other economies around the world, we have an economy that is excessively reliant on the resources industry, with a lack of complexity that makes our economic future extremely fragile as those changes happen—as they will happen in the fossil fuel industry and other parts of the mining sector. Australia ranks 91st in the world for economic complexity, and that's because we have literally, through years of neo, of— Senator Scarr 282997 Neo-liberal! Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Thank you! I choked on the word 'Liberal'—in the Australian context, Paul—that's all! Through years of a neo-liberal economic policy agenda of tearing down every protection for local manufacturing, of handing it over to the brutality and the lack of love of the global market, we have literally destroyed our self-sufficient manufacturing base, to become an almost entirely fossil-fuel-reliant economy based on extraction. It's those industries of extraction that keep coming here and trying to derail national policy. That's why we need this key investment, to step back some of those aggressive attacks on Australian manufacturing that have been designed, really, to destroy manufacturing at the expense of a few extractive industries. That's why we need this investment through the National Reconstruction Fund. What we saw from the coalition was literally the squandering of the mining boom—and we saw it partly from Labor, too—from the massive increase in offshore gas and the massive increase in revenues being generated by multinationals. Both the coalition and Labor have joined together to prevent there being a fair share of tax revenue being put into things like the National Reconstruction Fund to build our future. Tax concessions for big gas, tax concessions for big coal—that has been a joint ticket from the coalition and Labor over the last decade and a half. Hopefully, we are going to see some of that being turned around, because that has meant that the mining boom has literally been squandered. It hasn't translated into a sophisticated economy that is capable of handling the shocks that our economy will face in the future. That's why we have to have this spending to rebuild our industrial base. I do also want to commend the second reading amendment moved by my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson talking about a circular economy. Building that into our planning is a critical way forward. With those comments I commend the amended bill to the Senate. 13:18 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I am speaking in support of this legislation, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. The Greens have been able to negotiate with the government to improve this package to ensure that the money that comes from the Reconstruction Fund is actually spent on high-quality jobs that are going to future-proof our nation. The key amendment moved by Senator Whish-Wilson is to ensure that none of this money is squandered by the fossil fuel industry, which for far too long has taken dollar after dollar—tens of millions; in fact, billions—of taxpayers' money in order simply to carry on polluting and ruining our climate. It is time it stood on its own two feet. It doesn't need any support from any type of government fund going forward. This should be the first break in handouts to the fossil fuel industry, the first break in what should be a long list of cuts to handouts to corporate welfare to the coal and gas industries in this country. We heard the resources minister herself, Madeleine King, saying that, if fossil fuel industries can't stand on their own two feet, it's up to them. Come on then, Minister, scrap all the fossil fuel subsidies in this year's budget, scrap all the fossil fuel subsidies that continue to be a drain on the public purse and that in fact should be going into projects and programs that help everyday Australians and not line the pockets of these corporations who are continuing to pollute our environment. And, most of them, of course, are shipping all of their profits offshore as foreign entities. This amendment that the Greens were able to secure to ban this fund going to any fossil fuel projects is fundamental, and it is a shot across the bow to an industry that needs to evolve and move on. When you hear of those statistics and when you hear the science from the world's scientists and through the IPCC report released last week, we are running out of time, not just as a nation but as a globe, to tackle dangerous global warming. For every step we take to reduce pollution, you have the fossil fuel mafia doing what they can to make the job even harder. In the dying throes of the fossil fuel industry, they want to double down and get it while they can to make the profits while they can. And, yet, time after time after time, they have their hand out for public subsidies and support from the public purse. So this amendment is fundamental to how this parliament and the current government must start dealing with the fossil fuel mafia in this country—no more corporate blackmail from any industry that is pushing our climate to the brink, that is sucking our public purse dry and that continues to mislead the Australian community with their bogus greenwashing claims. I would like to commend the huge amount of effort that my colleagues in this place have put into getting this bill to a point where we can support it. Senator Allman-Payne, from the great state of Queensland, has put in an awful lot of effort in relation to this piece of legislation and is someone who understands that if you want a thriving community you must invest in the jobs of the future, is someone who understands what real transition means for a community like Gladstone and is someone who is willing to roll up her sleeve sleeves and put in the effort to ensure that when we pass pieces of legislation in this place it actually has a real impact on people's lives. So I would like to thank her for her efforts in this. This legislation of course is being debated on the day that the Greens have just announced that we will pass the government's safeguard legislation. It, too, when first drafted, did far too much to help the fossil fuel industry than it should have. Thanks to the abilities of the Greens to negotiate and drive a hard bargain, we will now see pollution under the safeguard mechanism go down and not up. It is ludicrous that the government thought that they could put a piece of climate legislation in 2023 into this parliament that would have allowed pollution to grow and with the rank greenwashing that comes from suggesting that as long as you can offset everything you can keep pushing pollution sky high. Well, the Greens' hard cap on pollution will mean that actual pollution goes down, not up, and that is a significant win for the climate and a good move from the Greens in this place to deliver an outcome that is much better for our environment. I'm sure that as the days roll out this week we will hear the squealing from the mouthpieces of the fossil fuel industry in this place about how hard done over they are. Well, let me say this. For every squeal of the fossil fuel industry this week over these negotiated amendments, there is a smile from mother nature. Every time you hear the mouthpieces of the coal industry over these coming days as we debate this legislation, just remember that future generations will know and will be thanking us for pushing pollution down, because we are on the brink of climate collapse, and tinkering around the edges is not enough. What we've been presented with by this government has been a pretty weak attempt at dealing with the issue. Their climate target is too weak. Their impost on the fossil fuel industry is too weak. But we have managed to improve and strengthen that legislation so that, for the first time, we now have a cap on real pollution; pollution will go down, not up. That is exactly what the scientists are telling us we need to be doing—and we need to be doing quickly. We also know we have to clean up the bogus offsets in this country. It's not good enough to have a set-and-forget scheme where some people are raking in millions of dollars because no-one's really looked at the legitimacy of their offset projects. One of the key negotiations the Greens have managed to get out of this package is that the integrity of those carbon offsets will be frozen, looked at, considered, reviewed. Those offsets that are found to be dodgy will need to be scrapped. It beggars belief that it even had to be a negotiation, frankly. If we are determined to set the train back on track to have a liveable climate, we desperately need to be acting now. But of course we know who pulls the strings in this country in terms of the politics of both major parties in this place, and it is the coal and the gas industry. They continue to roll out the donations. They continue to have the slick PR machines. They greenwash their way through the halls of parliament and put their hand out every chance for a public subsidy and a cash handout from the public purse. It's time that came to an end. Both in this reconstruction fund and through the safeguard mechanism negotiations, the Greens have blown a hole in the fossil fuel industry in this country, and we are very proud of that. I can't wait to hear the squeals from the fossil fuel mafia. The types of manufacturing jobs that we need to be investing in and using this fund to invest in should be the high-quality jobs of the future. And I say this as a proud South Australian. When our car industry collapsed in South Australia, workers were promised new manufacturing, and they're still waiting. Funds like this should be used to invest in an electric car industry in Adelaide. They should be used to invest in the renewable energy industry right across the country, creating the real clean jobs of the future. We know that, during COVID, one of the biggest problems we had was accessing supplies, because we had seen a decade of undermining and unhelpful policy from the government, which meant we had a sovereign risk. We couldn't even make— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator, you will be in continuation. It is now time for two minutes statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 31 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 31 13:30 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland We just heard in the speech by Senator Hanson-Young that the dodgy deal by Labor and the Greens announced today to introduce a new carbon tax is a massive new stop sign in front of every coal, gas and mining project in the country. The deal announced today says, 'No more emissions—a cap on emissions.' All new projects have to do that. Iron ore mines, which have to use a lot of diesel—they're gone. It won't be possible to put in place new iron ore mines, because they'll have to offset. It won't be net zero by 2050. It's net zero today. This is absolutely insane. It won't be net zero overseas. It'll just be net zero here. In Mr Bandt's statement, he said: The Beetaloo gas field will be required from day one to offset all of its emissions—scope one, scope two and scope three—for domestic use. That means you can export the gas and coal to China and you don't have to worry about it, but if you happen to have the temerity to want to use our energy resources here, you'll be taxed and penalised. This is a pro-China deal from Labor and the Greens. It's not a pro-Australian one; it is a pro-China one. It gets worse. All new offshore gas projects—for my friends in Western Australia—that will be feeding LNG terminals will be required to be net zero CO2 from day one. Vladimir Putin's Russia won't need to be net zero from day one, but the gas projects here in our own country that create Australian jobs will have to be. Closer to home for me, in Central Queensland, there is a coalmine being built right now. There are 500 people working on that coalmine. It's not in operation yet. It's called the Olive Downs mine. It's producing coking coal, which we need to produce wind turbines and steel. Those 500 people there don't know whether they'll have a job tonight, thanks to this deal being announced in Canberra. They haven't been spoken to; no-one's spoken to them. They're a new coal mine. Will they need to offset their emissions from day one? If they do, those 500 jobs will be lost and the 1,000 jobs that would have come from the operation of the mine will never start. This is policy announced today is deadset against the interests of this country. We should be making this country go, not stopping the jobs being created in Australia. Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia 32 13:32 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, also known as FECCA, is the national peak body representing Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Last week I met with Mohammad Al-Khafaji, the federation's CEO. In Victoria, FECCA's members include the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria, the Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District and Sunraysia Mallee Ethnic Communities Council. FECCA's role is to advocate on issues that affect ethnic communities and promote the ongoing success story of multicultural Australia. FECCA strives to ensure that the needs and aspirations of Australians from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds are given proper recognition in public policy—something that is very close to my heart. Mohammad spoke to me about the incredible work FECCA does in supporting the wonderful diversity of Australian communities. We spoke about the importance of uniting communities through a voice to parliament, something they are passionately advocating for. We also spoke about many different issues multicultural communities experience, particularly in health. We shared stories about the various challenges of operating in a western system and how this disproportionately impacts people from multicultural communities, particularly in spaces such as health and wellbeing. These are experiences of discrimination that aren't too unfamiliar for me, as a First Nations woman, and people from my community. It is absolutely critical that parliament, the people's house, truly reflects the country—the people who elected us—because it is the people who have elected us to represent them. We must make sure we use our platform in this place to amplify the issues our multicultural communities care about and emphasise how important it is that these communities are reflected in the public domain. We cannot underestimate how powerful it is to see yourself reflected in this way in this place not as an afterthought but front and centre. (Time expired) Gambling Advertising 32 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to reflect on the latest figures that show that more than half of Australians—in fact, two-thirds—want to see urgent action taken to curb gambling advertising on our televisions, on our radio stations and online. Gambling, and gambling addiction, is a scourge. Here in Australia, about $25 billion is lost in legal gambling each year. That's the highest in the world—$25 billion—which is extraordinary, not to mention the ramifications for people's welfare, wellbeing and mental health. I'm extremely concerned that we have a Minister for Communications, who is in charge of the advertising rules, who has taken donations from the gambling industry. She has sat down, had dinner with Sportsbet and taken $19,000 in donations, yet here we have the community crying out for her to wind back the influence and scourge from this industry. This is a moral issue. It is simply wrong. It is simply wrong that gambling companies are able to target Australian children through online advertising and through running betting ads during sports matches. It is morally wrong. I don't care how many dinners the minister has or how many dollars in donations she collects. She must accept that her job now is to clean this up. (Time expired) Goods and Services Tax 32 13:36 Senator DEAN SM 241710 Western Australia ITH () (): Wall-to-wall Labor on the Australian mainland has sent a shiver down the spines of Western Australians. Wall-to-wall Labor on the mainland is now wall-to-wall opposition to the GST deal that was secured by this parliament in 2018. It's worth reminding people of some facts. Without the GST deal, Western Australia's GST relativity could have fallen to 0.1. Think about that for a second: 0.1. In Western Australia, we know the GST relativity did fall to 0.3. Just last month we heard the great news for Western Australians of a $6.5 billion GST dividend to Western Australia next year. That is good news, and it's only because of the GST deal that was struck in this parliament. Western Australians are right to ask: Why is Jim Chalmers hiding GST documents from the Senate? Why does the Prime Minister continue to hide GST documents from the Senate? Is it because there could be something to hide? Yes. When the Labor Treasurer was forced to reveal GST documents last week, guess what we saw? We saw an attempt by the board of treasurers, led by the ACT Chief Minister, to set in place a plan to unwind the GST deal. Senator Brockman, Senator O'Sullivan and I are very keen to know what other GST documents Prime Minister Albanese has but will not release to this Senate. Why will he not release them? I hope that tomorrow Western Australian Greens senators will support my motion to ask Senator Wong to come into the chamber and explain what Prime Minister Albanese is hiding. (Time expired) Laverty, Mr Declan 33 13:38 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory In Darwin over the weekend, hundreds of Territorians gathered outside Parliament House following the tragic death of young 20-year-old Declan Laverty while he was at work. They went there to support the family of young Declan but also to call on the Northern Territory government, and others across the community, to do something. Many Territorians have spoken of their frustration with living with crime, but they also went there, as I said, to stand in solidarity with the family of young Declan. This comes in the midst of concerning rates of crime, antisocial behaviour and alcohol-related issues, which we have been dealing with quite significantly, particularly since January this year, beginning of course with Alice Springs. I'm very conscious of the concerns in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin, and I know that the Northern Territory government is very aware of those concerns as well. I'll certainly be in touch with them once I return from the Senate. I'd also like to say to senators that today in the Australian newspaper we saw an article by journalist Liam Mendes. He has heard directly from the family of the accused. There is no doubt there will continue to be a lot of reflection, especially for the family of the accused, a family from the Tiwi Islands. I know they are reflecting very deeply on what has occurred and the tragedy that has taken place for the Laverty family. I'd urge Territorians to remember that, on another level, there is a legal process, a court process, that has to be taken now, and while that is going on of course there must be other issues touched on in terms of concerns around crime. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 33 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I propose there should not be a new body called the Voice. The Voice, if a referendum approves, would constitutionally enshrine differential treatment based on skin colour or on identification with a race. I'm completely opposed to introducing such a divisive, discriminatory concept that is racist. At this stage there has been no detail telling voters how this Voice would be exercised and what obligations would need to be met, nor by whom. Locking the Voice into the Constitution would perpetuate parasitic white and black activists, consultants, academics, bureaucrats and politicians in the Aboriginal industry. It's known that activists want the Voice to have significant influence on creation of laws. It's not known how much consultation would be needed before the laws would be made. It's not known how much it will cost to implement a run. It is clear this detail will not be in the referendum question put to voters. I've travelled widely across remote Queensland and listened to many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, from Deebing Creek in the south, across Cape York and to Saibai Island in the Torres Strait. Few of the people I spoke with or listened to had even heard of the Voice. Last week I met with a delegation of Aboriginal leaders strongly opposing the Voice because these real Aboriginal leaders say it's racist. They fear the Voice will divide the community into two distinct groups: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. When they say, 'In reality we are all Australians,' doesn't proposing the Voice admit that the current 11 Aboriginals in federal parliament and the current National Indigenous Australians Agency are failing to represent Aboriginals? I oppose perpetuating the Aboriginal industry suppressing Australians. Instead of treating people differently because of race and entrenching racism, we need to ensure Aboriginal Australians can access the same opportunities given to all people within our beautiful nation. We are all Australian. We are one nation. National Reconstruction Fund 33 13:42 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Well, hypocrisy has a name, and it's the Labor-Greens alliance. We've heard it here today. The Greens stand up in this chamber and while they're attacking 'corporate welfare and worse', railing against 'corporate welfare', in the same speech they're signing off on a $15 billion— Senator Babet 300706 Billion! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 billion!—slush fund for the Labour government. And that hypocrisy, again, has shone forth in the deal done behind closed doors on the Orwellian named safeguard mechanism. The Reconstruction Fund is Orwellian named, in and of itself. 'Reconstruction' was the recovery after the Civil War. To call manufacturing in Australia in need of reconstruction is highly Orwellian, and this safeguard mechanism is now a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of industries, particularly very important industries like the gas industry of Western Australia—an industry that is over 40 years old and employs many thousands of West Australians. We've seen the hypocrisy shine through in the way that the respective leaders of the Labor Party and the Greens party have approached the safeguard mechanism. According to the leader of the Greens, half of new gas and coal projects are going to face the axe—half of them. According to the Prime Minister: 'That's not right. None of them will.' Well, goodness gracious me. The left hand doesn't know what the other left hand is doing! I think you'll see, as we examine the impact of this bill, that it's going to hurt Australians. (Time expired.) National Banksia Sustainability Awards 34 13:44 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm very pleased to stand here today in the Senate as a North Queenslander. Not only am I very lucky and proud to have the Great Barrier Reef on my doorstep, and all the jobs that the Great Barrier Reef supports; I'm very pleased to say that we are also home to some of the best scientists in the country, if not the world. I'd like to put on record a few recent achievements of our home-grown talent and how their efforts day in, day out are making a difference to the Great Barrier Reef. Late last week the 34th National Banksia Sustainability Awards were held. These awards are about recognising leaders, change makers and innovators who are making a positive impact on the world. The awards are aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. I'm very pleased to advise the Senate that the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, RRRC, have taken out the silverware and returned to Cairns with not one but two awards. They picked up the biodiversity award for their science led approach to combat the highly destructive marine pest that is the crown-of-thorns starfish. It is the innovation of groups like this that has ultimately led to the serious focus and serious investment in the fight against the crown-of-thorns starfish. I'm proud to say that the Albanese Labor government is investing $162 million over the next eight years in the COTS Control Program to suppress outbreaks of the coral-eating predators. The RRRC have also taken out the agricultural and regional development award. They've been doing some incredibly impressive work in the Russell-Mulgrave catchment, just south of Cairns, for a few years now. They've teamed up with James Cook University's TropWATER and worked in very close partnership with canegrowers in the region to achieve sustainable change in farming practices. I'm very pleased to say I had the privilege in February this year of hitting the road and jumping in the water in Far North Queensland with these groups to see the work that they are doing. Congratulations. We're so proud of the work that you do. Tasmania: Timber Industry 34 13:46 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The definition of ecocide: severe harm to nature and mass damage and destruction of ecosystems committed repeatedly over decades. Senators, this is a photograph of what ecocide looks like. This distressing, shocking and bloody infuriating photograph is of an endangered Tasmanian devil burnt to a cinder by a forestry regeneration burn. Over decades, hundreds and thousands of hectares of habitat and precious forests, with their wild animals, has been wantonly destroyed by the Tasmanian government and the so-called Sustainable Timber Tasmania. This photograph was taken by a bushwalker after a burn, ironically, on the International Day of Forests. If you support native forest logging in this country, you are supporting ecocide. For those people out there who have fought for decades to try and protect the Tasmanian devil so it doesn't go the way of the Tasmanian tiger, you have a right to be bloody angry today at the Tasmanian government, the federal government and all senators in here that continue to support native forest logging in this country. We can end it. These forests, these trees, are our first line of defence in our climate emergency, yet we are still clear-felling them and burning them, their habitat and their precious animals every day. When is it going to end? When are we going to wake up to the fact that we are in a species extinction crisis and that these poor Tasmanian devils need our help? They don't need to be burnt to a cinder after a helicopter has thrown napalm out onto a forest. It has got to stop. Australian Law Reform Commission 34 13:48 Senator BAB 300706 Victoria ET (—) (): Christian schools educate almost one-third of Australian schoolchildren, but, thanks to the Australian Law Reform Commission, Christian schools are under threat. The ALRC wants to force religious schools, colleges and universities to teach secular ideas on sex and gender. The ALRC wants to make religious schools abandon beliefs about human sexuality that have been around for thousands of years. In place of those sacred beliefs, they want to turn Christian schools into a mouthpiece for their own woke fads that weren't even in fashion five years ago. They want to convert Christian schools into hypocrisy factories full of people who say one thing but do another. They have Christian schools in their crosshairs, but, make no mistake, their discrimination will hurt Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and other religious schools. The ALRC has decided that religion is just some afterthought for religious schools, but the secular has triumphed over the sacred. What a joke. Imagine forcing the Labor Party to hire staff who openly oppose Labor's platform. Imagine forcing the Liberal Party to hire Adam Bandt. Imagine forcing the Greens to hire a staunch patriot and staunch conservative like me. It doesn't work. We would never tolerate this kind of compulsion in political parties, so why force it on our nation's religious schools? Let's look at the facts. Religious schools exist to foster communities of faith. Their purpose isn't just to educate but to show students how faith speaks to every facet of life, including sexuality. For religious schools, religion is not an afterthought. A Christian school's ethos is not just for sprinkles on top of a secular education. Their beliefs are their heartbeat; it's the very reason these schools exist. Everyone in this place should reject the ALRC's woke bigotry. National Electrical and Communication Association 35 13:50 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales As we all know, Australia is currently facing a skills shortage. To address this, we need organisations with the experience and passion to train our apprentices and tradespeople. I wish to congratulate the National Electrical and Communication Association's apprentices who have just graduated and will now be at the forefront of the electrification of our nation. This class of 66 graduates is the first to complete Certificate III in Electrotechnology at NECA's Chullora Centre of Excellence. The class of 2022-23 had their studies disrupted by COVID. NECA was able to switch to an online delivery model within three days of lockdown occurring, whereas apprentices studying at some other facilities endured delays of up to six months in their course delivery. NECA's Chullora Centre of Excellence currently has more than 350 students completing electrical apprenticeships, 15 per cent of which are female, compared to the national average of two per cent of electricians being women. What make NECA stand out is their completion rates as well as the diversity of their apprentices. The completion rate for apprentices at NECA's Chullora Centre of Excellence is more than 90 per cent, compared to the national average of 55 per cent. This is assisted by NECA's mentoring and support programs, offering a range of services to ensure that apprentices are well supported throughout the completion of their studies. In addition to developing and growing workforces of tomorrow, NECA is crying out for the contractors to get a fair deal from this government. The apprentices of today are the subcontractors of tomorrow. In February this year alone the number of insolvencies nationally already exceeded the whole of last financial year, and we still have months to go. Early Childhood Education 35 13:53 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I am being flooded with messages from early childhood educators. They're understaffed, underresourced and underpaid, but we give them one of the most important jobs in the world to do. They're teaching our children manners, how to read and write and how to do basic sums. They work just as hard as teachers. For people like me who depended on child care to support us as working parents you need to trust the person who's looking after your child. You trust them with your child's education, safety and wellbeing. You trust them to help raise your children as good human beings. I still see the women who looked after my kids around Ulverstone today, and I love to stop them and have a chat. Sometimes we talk about what ratbags my kids were, or that time one of them fell through a glass door, and I apologise to that carer. Sorry to Rebecca for all the trauma that day; it was worse for you than for me or Liam, I'm pretty sure. Early childhood educators are not paid enough for the work they do. You could work at Woolworths or on a spud harvester and be paid better than they are. No wonder we have a shortage of workers. In my patch of Tasmania there is a childcare centre that has 140 children on the waiting list. They can't operate at their licensed maximum capacity because of the lack of staff. The flow-on effect of this is huge. Parents end up having to choose between working and caring for their child. Employers miss out on staff because parents need to stay home, and the loss of income contributes to cost-of-living pressures. It really has a ripple effect. I think the pay for early childhood educators should reflect the work they do, and that's far more than they're getting right now. They give our kids a home away from home, and that shouldn't be undervalued. Australian Capital Territory: Small Business 35 13:54 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The ACT is full of innovative small businesses. Over the past few months, my team and I have visited dozens of small-business owners, entrepreneurs and passionate advocates of innovation in Canberra. I want to share some of their stories, as I believe their names should be known to the legislators in this place. FLINTpro provides carbon estimates for land used at highly variable temporospatial scales. Wildlife Drones produces drones that can track more frequencies simultaneously than anybody else in the market. Geospatial Intelligence's patented technology, Mercury, can do things in the geolocation intelligence space that I didn't know were possible until they showed me. Majura Valley Free Range Eggs are proud to boast the oldest occupied house and the oldest operating farm in the ACT. Aurabox's world-leading software allows for the seamless sharing of medical imaging between doctors and patients. CDFS started out as a small IT house and have since grown to become Australia's leading supplier of digital forensic tools and training. Goterra's insect based waste management system turns waste into fertiliser. Wing chose to base their world-first drone delivery service in Canberra and specifically chose it to work with the regulators here. And Penten's world-class cyber defence and security products were first used by governments in the UK before they managed to win an Australian government contract, despite the company being founded here in Canberra. I could go on. I've only got two minutes. I'm proud to represent an electorate with so many smart, forward-thinking people working to make Canberra a world-leading innovation hub. Medical Workforce 36 13:56 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Rural, regional and remote Australia is often the canary in the coalmine when it comes to health and the challenges that it's currently facing, and right now that could not be a truer statement. So I was delighted this morning to join the National Rural Health Commissioner, Ruth Stewart, to launch the National Rural and Remote Nursing Generalist Framework. The framework has been designed to be utilised by registered nurses across rural and remote Australia to support and sustain our nursing workforce into the future, and I commend the work of peak nursing bodies in leading this development work. The launch comes at a critical time because, as we know, health workforce shortages are a serious issue across our entire health system. Workforce is raised as the single biggest issue currently facing healthcare professionals, but it's out in the country that access to additional workforce was already a challenge and has now become even more acute. To solve the problem for rural, regional and remote Australia will almost definitely solve it for the whole country, because we know that solving a problem in one area alone will only make it worse in another unless we look at the whole picture. We saw this with Labor's changes to the distribution priority areas for overseas trained doctors, which saw GPs redirected into the metropolitan areas in an attempt to solve workforce shortages in the city. Doing so only makes the pressures faced by rural, regional and remote communities worse. These communities are now struggling to retain their doctors or to bring in new ones, because they can't compete with the bright lights of the city. It's clear that, unless we grow the total number of GPs and nurses in Australia, attempts at solutions will only continue to redistribute the problem to other areas, like a giant game of whack-a-mole across the Australian map. We know that immigration is the obvious and immediate short-term answer, but, unless the distribution of those international healthcare workers is well considered, it will be a disaster. In the long term, we need to make sure that we have a multifaceted approach so we attract healthcare professionals to our regions. We must stop making a problem worse in one area to solve another. (Time expired) South Australia: First Nations Voice 36 13:58 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia When you come from the best state in the country, as I do, you are given many, many opportunities to feel proud, and Sunday was no exception, when the great state of South Australia became the first state in our country to legislate a First Nations voice to our parliament. I stood on North Terrace on Sunday with thousands of other South Australians. There was barely a dry eye on North Terrace yesterday. This is a momentous occasion for our state. South Australia led with the right for women to vote. It's leading now on a voice. This is an opportunity for us to do different, to do better, and we know we need to do better, despite the good intent over many, many decades. This is our opportunity to consult, to engage, to make a difference and to close the gap. I am so deeply proud to be South Australian. I am deeply proud of our government, of Attorney-General Kyam Maher, of Premier Peter Malinauskas and, indeed, of every South Australian who has lent their voice in support of the voice and every South Australian who stood in the rain on Sunday backing in the voice. It's a fantastic achievement for our state, and let's get it done at the federal level. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 36 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 36 14:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Minister, last week the Senate agreed, without dissent, to the coalition's second reading amendment to the national health amendment bill requiring the listing of all medicines approved by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Is the government policy to list all medicines approved by the PBAC on the PBS? 14:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ruston for her question. Senator Gallagher ING What was Peter Dutton's record? Was he the worst one? Senator Watt 245759 I think he was. Opposition senators interjecting— The 10000 Order! Senator FARRELL I0N Well, of course, we have seen what the Liberals do when they are in control of the health budget and of course we've seen what leader Dutton did when he was— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X President, a point of order on direct relevance: as you point out, interjections are always disorderly, but you allow some degree of latitude, but what we outrageously have here is the Leader of the Government in the Senate responding to interjections that are really not interjections; they are prompts from the ministers sitting behind him. The coalition was silenced as the minister was answering, and I ask you to draw him to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Birmingham, that is not a point of order, but I am going to remind Minister Farrell of the question. Senator FARRELL I0N Of course, it was the Curtin and Chifley governments that took the first— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Well, it's worth putting it in its historical context. I won't repeat what I said earlier about leader Dutton's performance in this area, but it is worth pointing out that the Curtin and Chifley governments took the steps to make medicines affordable for all Australians post the Second World War. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston 243273 President, on a point of order in relation to relevance, I would ask you if you could reflect on the minister's answer so far to this question, which I believe has gone in no way to my question, which was very specifically targeted to a vote in this chamber, or an agreement in this chamber last week, to say that all medicines that were approved by PBAC would be listed on the PBS. I'd ask you to draw the minister's attention to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston, and I'm sure you noted that I have already directed the minister to your question, and I will direct the minister again. Senator FARRELL I0N We're listing medicines and we're making them cheaper for all Australians. The government is committed to ensuring that Australians have access to affordable medicines by listing medicines recommended by the independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, the PBAC, on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The government has delivered on our election promise to cut the cost of medications for millions and millions of Australians by reducing the PBS co-payment to a maximum of $30 per script. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston 243273 President, again on a matter of relevance: I have not asked about the co-payment for medicines. I clearly asked about the listing of PBAC-approved medicines on the PBS. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston. You did refer to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and I think the minister is being relevant. I will listen carefully to the remainder of his answer to the question. Senator Ruston 243273 On the same point of order, they are two different things. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston. Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N Since 1 July 2022 the government has committed additional funding for 67 new and amended PBS listings. A further 83 items were also approved, where the budget— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Ruston, a first supplementary? 14:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Minister, last week the Senate agreed without dissent to the coalition's second reading amendment to the national health amendment bill, which called on the government to urgently intervene to ensure Fiasp remains permanently available on the PBS for the 15,000 Australians who rely on it beyond the six-month funding cliff. Considering this, when will the government announce to these 15,000 Australians that permanent, ongoing and affordable access to Fiasp on the PBS has been agreed to by the government? 14:05 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I think I indicated when I was asked this question last week that, being a diabetic myself, I do have some familiarity with the drugs that are on the PBS, and of course the drug that you've just mentioned, Fiasp, is a fast acting insulin drug for diabetes—a very important drug. Minister Butler's office was made aware on 22 February 2023— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston 243273 A point of order on relevance again—the question was very specific about the agreement of this chamber for the medicine to be permanently, ongoingly listed. I'm just asking the minister, through you, President, if he could please advise when the 15,000 people who rely on this drug are going to be advised of the decision by this government to actually permanently list it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston. I believe the minister is being relevant, and I will listen to the remainder of his answer. Senator FARRELL I0N I don't know why the opposition keeps asking me questions and then stops me from answering them, but let's see how we go. Minister Butler's office was made aware on 22 February 2023 of Novo Nordisk's intention to delist the drug from the PBS on 1 April 2023. The government appreciates the distress that a delisting— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, a second supplementary? 14:06 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Minister, last week the Senate agreed without dissent to the coalition's second reading amendment to national health amendment bill which called on the government to urgently list Trikafta on the PBS for children aged between six and 11 years old with cystic fibrosis, noting that the PBAC recommended it be listed in November last year. Considering this, when will the government announce the listing to the 500 children aged between six and 11 with cystic fibrosis who will benefit from the affordable access of this life changing medicine? 14:07 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ruston for her question. Trikafta is a drug used to treat cystic fibrosis. The government will expand the listing of that drug on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for the treatment of cystic fibrosis in patients aged between six and eleven years as quickly as possible. The Department of Health and Aged Care is working— The PRE 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston 243273 Can I just seek a point of clarification from the minister? Is he saying that the government hasn't agreed to do this? Is he actually saying that— The PRESIDENT 112096 That is not a point of order, Senator Ruston. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Ruston 243273 the agreement of the chamber is somehow being ignored? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Resume your seat. Resume your seat! Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N I will repeat my answer in case Senator Ruston missed it. The government will expand the listing of the drug on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for the treatment of cystic fibrosis in patients who are aged between six to eleven years as quickly as possible. The Department of Health and Aged Care is working with the company that produces that drug, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, to finalise all necessary listing requirements— (Time expired) Senator Sheldon 168275 How will the Albanese government work with the New South Wales government to deliver meaningful outcomes for the people of New South Wales and, indeed, all of Australia? 14:09 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I congratulate you, Senator Sheldon, on behalf of the rest of your Senate colleagues, for the terrific work that you put in to the wonderful result on the weekend. Over the weekend, the people of New South Wales had their opportunity to have a say. And they spoke with a loud and clear voice as they voted for a fresh start under the terrific leadership of Chris Minns and Labor. The people of New South Wales echoed the messages that we heard last year from the people of South Australia, from the people of Victoria and from the people of Australia when they voted for Labor governments. People voted for Labor governments because Labor governments are focused on tackling the issues that matter to Australian people. People voted for Labor governments who are focused on their needs as opposed to the internal party fights as those opposite continue to do. We welcome the Minns Labor government. We will be working with the Minns government, in the same way we work with all state and territory governments, as we address the cost-of-living challenges people are facing as the result of a decade of Liberal and National neglect. We will support all state and territory governments to deliver support for Australians based on need as opposed to the colour coded spreadsheets that the former Liberal-National government relied on. And we will work with all state and territory governments to make Australians' lives better, because that's exactly what Labor governments do. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a first supplementary? 14:11 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales It's great to hear how the Albanese government will work the Minns government to deliver meaningful outcomes for the people of New South Wales and, more broadly, Australia. Can the minister update the Senate on the measures the Albanese government has already taken to make Australian lives much better? 14:12 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia (—) (): I thank Senator Sheldon, once again, for his very perceptive question about the links between the new Minns government and the Albanese government. The Albanese Labor government has been delivering meaningful outcomes for Australians over the last 12 months. In just 10 months, we've made childcare cheaper, we've made medicines cheaper, we've got an increase in the minimum wage, we've got a pay rise for aged-care workers, we've created 180,000 fee-free TAFE places, we've created 20,000 university places, we've expanded the Commonwealth seniors card, we've extended paid parental leave, we've supported regional first home buyers and we've repaired international relations. We've delivered so much that I can't list it all in just the minutes I have in this answer. But Australians can rest assured— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary? 14:13 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Thank you for the very informative response. Unfortunately, many of the Albanese policies which are designed to tackle the cost-of-living pressures and make Australians' lives better become the subject of political games in this place. What messages does the minister have for those who are putting internal party divisions and political pointscoring ahead of delivering outcomes for Australians? 14:13 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sheldon for his question. I've noticed this issue too, Senator Sheldon. Sadly, many Liberal and National Party members and senators spend their time fighting within their own party. They spend their time seeking to score cheap political points. They spend their time looking for the latest social media video instead of looking at how they can help make Australians' lives better, like the Labor Party does. I've a message to those opposite: cheap political stunts don't help Australians with their cost-of-living challenges. They don't help put a roof over Australian families' heads and they don't make Australian lives better. It's clear from the results in New South Wales, this weekend, Australians—cheap political pointscoring. I call on all of those opposite to stop the political games and work with this government to deliver meaningful change that benefits the Australian people. Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 39 14:14 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan. 14:14 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. In reference to the Greens deal with the Albanese Labor government on the safeguard mechanism announced today, Mr Adam Bandt, the Leader of the Greens Party, said: The Beetaloo gas field will be required from day one to offset all of its emissions—scope one, scope two and scope three—for domestic use. Will all new coal and gas projects require their scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 emissions for domestic use to be offset from day one under the Albanese Labor government's deal with the Greens? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Canavan. I remind you I'm the President. Minister Farrell. 14:15 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thanks to Senator Canavan for his question. After a wasted decade, today is a very good day. We are legislating for a 43 per cent reduction, and today's changes are how we are going to deliver that. The safeguards will be a clear, stable and commonsense framework for reducing emissions. and the only chance in this parliament to reduce emissions of the biggest 215 emitters in this country. We thank businesses right across Australia, and particularly the Greens today, for their constructive dialogue. If the opposition have got some concerns about this particular policy, then they could have— Senator H6X President, again, a point of order on direct relevance. Senator Farrell likes to go through the background part of a brief. These points of order actually give him time to come to the specific question that was asked. So, as he flicks through the pages in front of him, could we please draw him to Senator Canavan's very specific question about whether future projects will have their scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 emissions for domestic use required to be offset? Will they, or won't they? The PRE 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant but I will listen. That question was very detailed. Yes, it had a direct ask at the end, but it was also very detailed. Senator FARRELL I0N The reality is this. At some point it must strike the coalition that when you deal yourself out of the— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham on a point of order? Senator Birmingham H6X Again, President, direct relevance: the question went to a substantive matter of policy, not to whatever the minister wants to say about the opposition but to a substantive question of policy. Please draw him to the policy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I will certainly draw the minister to the question. Senator FARRELL I0N The reality is that at some point you've got to understand, when you deal yourself out of the picture by refusing to negotiate— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham on a point of order? Senator Birmingham H6X President, you did just draw the minister to the question. He is flaunting your ruling, ignoring your ruling, showing disregard. I urge you to please be proactive in reminding him of that or, if need be, sitting him down if he continues to ignore you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I have drawn the minister to the question. Minister, I ask you to direct yourself to the— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Conversations across the chamber are disorderly! I called the minister to the question. I am going to call the minister to answer the question. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. I completely reject the suggestion that I don't respect the chair, because I do. The safeguard framework will help deliver the commitment of scope 1 emissions. Given the cross-jurisdictional nature of scopes 2 and 3 emissions, the government will refer scope 2 and 3 emissions to the Energy and Climate Ministerial Council. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, your first supplementary? 14:19 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland In his statement, Mr Adam Bandt has said that the deal will stop many of the 116 Australian coal and gas projects that are in the pipeline for construction. Is this correct? Based on government analysis, how many projects will be stopped, and how many Australian jobs will this deal cost? 14:20 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Canavan for his first supplementary question. Since you've asked some questions about Mr Bandt's statements, then I suggest you go and ask him about what it was that he intended to say. As far as— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N You keep asking me these questions, I start to answer them, and then you try and stop me from answering them. Australia's oil and gas sector will continue to play an essential role in guaranteeing the energy security of Australia and our regions. As we know on this side, gas is a key enabler for Australia in our region's net zero transition. I might remind you, Senator Canavan, that you used to have a policy of net zero by 2050. You may not have agreed to it, but that was the policy you took to the Australian people. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, your second supplementary? 14:21 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland It's not net zero in 2050; it's net zero today. Right now, 500 Australians have jobs helping to construct the Olive Downs mine near Moranbah in Central Queensland. The mine will also provide 1,000 permanent operations jobs. Will this new mine have to offset all of its emissions from day one? Will any of these jobs be impacted by the Albanese Labor government's deal with the Greens? 14:21 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Again, I reiterate that, once the coalition decide to deal themselves out of the debate, you can't complain. We intend to implement the policies that we took to the last election, including our policy to get to net zero by 2050, which was also your policy. Of course, if you cared so much about these places, you, Senator Canavan, would have pushed your party and the rest of the— The PRES 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Canavan? Senator Canavan 245212 On a point of order on relevance, the question was clearly about the 500 jobs. Those workers deserve an answer, to know if they have a job tonight. It's a question that I'm asking on behalf of them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, I'm aware of the question— Senator Canavan 245212 They deserve an answer, Minister. Will they still have a job after they wake up tomorrow? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, resume your seat. I am going to remind senators that points— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Canavan and Senator Ayres. Senator Canavan 245212 They're all talk. The PRESIDENT 112096 I've just had you on your feet, Senator Canavan. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Canavan 245212 Do they have a job, Don? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, you've just been on your feet with a point of order. As I went to respond, you engaged with other senators in interjections across the chamber. That is disrespectful. I'm also going to remind senators in this place: if you jump on a point of order, make it succinctly; don't make points of debate at the end of it. Minister Farrell, I'll draw you back to the question. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. As you know, I'm a well-known supporter of coal workers, as was very clear. The government supports scientific, independent and evidence based decision-making when it comes to the resources exploration and other commercial developments. The coal industry generates more than $10 billion annually in royalties and provides for over— (Time expired) Tourism Industry 41 14:24 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia My question is for the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Minister Farrell. The government has updated the THRIVE 2030 strategy to invest in and increase the visitor economy in Australia. In this document, there's considerable mention of increasing the First Nations tourism sector, which is welcomed. However, it's important that when we invest in First Nations tourism we ensure that our cultural heritage is protected and First Nations people are beneficiaries of this investment, especially considering the recommendations of the Juukan report. My question is: how will THRIVE 2030 protect First Nations cultural heritage as the First Nations tourism sector grows? 14:24 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cox for her question. I know, particularly based on my frequent discussions with her, just how important this issue is to her and just how important getting this part of our tourism sector right is to the country generally. The revised THRIVE 2030 project was relaunched in Sydney a couple of weeks ago with all of Australia's trade ministers, including, interestingly enough, both the Liberal trade minister and the incoming Labor trade minister. This government is all about improving the lives of Indigenous Australians in particular. As you know, we're promoting the recognition of Indigenous Australians through a voice to parliament. In a sense, everything else flows from that commitment, because what it means is that, as a government, we see the opportunity of not only improving the lives of Indigenous Australians, through greater tourism focused on the Indigenous experience, but also projecting to the world this government's commitment to Indigenous issues. In all of the discussions that I have with companies overseas, we promote Indigenous tourism as a unique aspect of the Australian tourism experience. I'm extremely hopeful that, based on the revised THRIVE 2030, we can build on what we were already doing in this space— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, first supplementary? 14:26 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia How does THRIVE 2030 fit with the government's broader trade strategy and creating economic, social, environmental and cultural opportunities through capacity building and investment growth, particularly in relation to the ratification of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, which was recommendation 2 of the Juukan Gorge report, which your government committed to? 14:27 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia (—) (): I thank Senator Cox for her first supplementary question. The focus of the government, in terms of our trade strategy, has been one of diversification. We've learnt from bitter experience that putting all of your eggs in one basket, whether it be tourism or trade or education, has some real downside risks when there's a change to the economic circumstances of the aspect of the economy that you've devoted your resources to. By promoting Indigenous tourism in this country, and by promoting the experience that people overseas can get by engaging in that Indigenous experience, we think that's part of our overall diversification— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, second supplementary? 14:28 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia How will this government, in the implementation of THRIVE 2030, uphold Australia's obligations under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, such as free, prior and informed consent and, again, the ratification of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage from 2003? 14:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cox for her second supplementary question. I don't think there's a government in this country more committed to raising and promoting the issues of Indigenous tourism in this country. It's not just because it's the right thing to do; there's actually an economic advantage. In the post-pandemic world, every country is trying to get some aspect of their tourism experience to attract tourists back to their country. This offers a real opportunity for Australia to have a unique offering which will achieve all of the— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox? Senator 296215 My question was quite specifically about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and free, prior and informed consent, and I didn't once hear the minister refer to that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Cox. Your question also went to the THRIVE 2030 matter and other matters. Minister, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N We are committed to all of our international obligations, but more particularly— (Time expired) Budget 42 14:30 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister please update the Senate about the impact of unfunded or terminating programs on budget deliberations and how the Albanese government has had to clean up the mess left by the Liberals and Nationals? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for her question. Yes, I can update the chamber on the work we are doing to clean up the mess left behind by the Liberals and Nationals when in government. We all knew that the former coalition government was addicted to spending taxpayers' money like it was Liberal Party money. We heard Senator Rennick outline that in one of his contributions last week. The October budget also uncovered, if people remember, $4.1 billion of holes we had to address in terminating measures, in funding cliffs and in zombie measures, some of which had sat before the parliament since 2016, propping up the budget with a decision taken in 2016 and never moved upon. We've had more time to go through the books. The May budget will deal with more of the spending traps that the coalition deliberately baked into their bottom line, leaving the budget billions of dollars worse off. There are more funding cliffs for government programs: no ongoing funding for My Health Record, no ongoing funding for adult dental health, chronic underinvestment in the key cultural institutions that Australians treasure and are crumbling around us—literally crumbling around us—and no funding for key commitments made by the former government. Remember, the Brisbane Olympics were fifty-fifty, but no provision was made. No provision was made for the Murray Darling Basin Plan. There's underfunding and erosion of capability in key Public Service agencies like the department of agriculture, meaning government can't deliver services. There are drop-offs in funding for the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency. Do you reckon we might need that after December? What about the National Emergency Management Agency? What about the eSafety Commissioner? Do you reckon they might need ongoing funding to keep their programs going? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, first supplementary? 14:32 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia After coming to government, what has the minister discovered about the economic mismanagement of the coalition that confirms the electorate's distrust in the Liberals and Nationals? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We've inherited $1 trillion in debt and an ongoing $50 billion in structural deficits with not enough to show for it. The former government spent money on rorts and waste to bolster their electoral chances with nothing to show for it. Our first budget in October uncovered those unlegislated zombie measures that were banked since 2016 and not going to progress; funding cliffs of programs that were ended purely to improve the forward estimates even though any government would continue with them; failure to provision for necessary funding issues like COVID-19; and, of course, let's remember the big save in their budget on robodebt. Remember when you pursued hundreds of thousands of Australians for debts they didn't owe to make sure your budget looked better than it was, and it backfired against the lives of those Australians but also in the settlement you had to pay to get out of it? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, second supplementary? 14:34 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia What measures is the federal Labor government undertaking to dig the country out of the fiscal hole that the coalition created for ordinary Australians? How is the Albanese Labor government working to protect Australians from pressures related to the cost of living? 14:34 Senat ING Australian Capital Territory or GALLAGHER (—) (): I think the Australian people know the Albanese Labor government is one that can be trusted to be upfront with Australians about the state of their budget. Unlike the Liberals and Nationals, our government will have the difficult conversations with the Australian people about the economic challenges that we face and will make the responsible decisions to ensure a better future. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Hume, I called you twice. I expect you to be silent. Minister Gallaher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING We're doing this work to ensure we can deliver for the Australian people, making room for targeted cost-of-living relief services that the Australian community expects. That's what Australians expect from their government—not a dodgy set of tricks and booby traps hidden in the budget to make your bottom line look better, and all the while the Australian people suffered— (Time expired) Financial Claims Scheme 43 14:35 Senator ROB 266524 Queensland ERTS () (): My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Last week I asked questions about the funding for the deposits guarantee scheme, which was designed to protect the money in the bank accounts of everyday Australians—capped at $250,000 per account, $20 billion per bank and $80 billion total. Minister, when the scheme was brought in, the eligible deposits being protected were $650 billion. According to statement 9 of Budget Paper No. 1 of the October 2022 Labor budget—your budget—eligible deposits are now $1.2 trillion. How can $80 billion possibly protect $1.2 trillion in deposits? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think this question goes to some of the concerns that we're seeing in global financial markets at the moment, and the impact on some banks overseas and some concerns that Senator Roberts is raising about the potential for impact here in Australia. The answer is the same as I gave last week. Senator Rennick 283596 You don't know how to count. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, Senator Rennick. Would you like leave to speak to this question or am I allowed to? You'd like to, would you? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, address your comments to those opposite through the chair. Senator Rennick, resume your seat. Sen 245759 Tell us about your Masters in Applied Finance! Senator GALLAGHER ING I know responding to interjections is disorderly, but Senator Rennick's got verbal diarrhoea, it seems, this question time. He can't keep it in. As I said last week, this is something the government is monitoring closely. In fact, the Treasurer is being briefed twice a day on what's happening overseas, and is also being provided with feedback from regulators and from the banking system here. I think it is very good, and I would think that it's something that this Senate would welcome, that our financial markets and our banking system are well regulated, well led and well capitalised, with good liquidity, and we are not seeing the issues that are being seen overseas. I did undertake, and I'm not sure if we've done this, to provide you with a written response to the question that you raised last week. I'll chase that if it hasn't got to you, as well as anything further I can provide in relation to the answer I've just given. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, your first supplementary? 14:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My constituents, as I expressed last week and in the last question, are concerned. Minister, the protected amount is not indexed and, because of inflation, would need to be increased to $380,000 per account and $115 billion overall just to cover the same amount as the scheme did in 2008. Minister, will you increase the caps on the bank deposit guarantee to make up for inflation since 2008? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In line with the answer I gave last week, of course the government would respond in relation to concerns that were raised about the operation of our banking system and the impact it was having here. We are not seeing that. I think Australians should be reassured that the Australian banking system is resilient and that all of our banks, as I said, are well capitalised and have strong liquidity coverage. The Treasury and regulators are closely monitoring the situation about potential impacts for Australia—and when I say that, I mean very closely monitoring. I can understand that people watching what has happened with Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse would have raised concerns. I can understand that. The response is that since the GFC and since the banking royal commission there are measures in place to ensure the strong performance of our banking system, and we don't have any concerns about it. The P 10000 Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 14:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Reviewing the minister's answers, I have five questions on the guarantee so far. Firstly, the guarantee has not been adjusted for inflation, and so it offers 34 per cent less protection than when it was legislated. Secondly, the guarantee is not funded. There is no money available to implement it. Thirdly, the scheme only covers 7c in the dollar of deposits. Fourthly, the minister has refused to commit to activating the scheme if it was needed. Minister, can you explain why constituents should not conclude, as many have, that the bank deposit guarantee is a fraud and a lie? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't agree with that representation by Senator Roberts at all. I have answered the question in a general sense by saying that, if there were concerns as we saw in the GFC, of course the government, and I presume the parliament, would act. The point I'm trying to make is that at this point we don't have concerns. We do not share the concerns. In fact, we've been given very strong reassurance by the regulators, by the banks themselves and by the systems that have been put in place by this place and the other place to ensure that we have a strong, well regulated, well capitalised banking system to precisely insulate from some of the financial instability that we're seeing elsewhere. Yes, of course, the government would respond if we had to. At this point in time we are assured that that's not the case. Pensions and Benefits 44 14:41 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. The presidents and other representatives from the Western Australian shires of Leonora and Laverton wrote to Prime Minister Albanese earlier this year about the increase in alcohol fuelled violence that is ravaging their community, children not being fed and the increase in violence against women, all following the abolition of the cashless debit card. My very sincere question to you is: have these reports been verified by the Western Australian police, and what information does the government have about the changes in crime rates across these communities? 14:42 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question about an important issue that affects his community in these areas—let's call it the Goldfields areas—of Western Australia. I understand there have been some meetings between the Laverton Shire and the relevant Albanese government minister. I think there have been some discussions with Mr Patrick Hill, President of the Shire of Laverton; Mr Peter Craig from the Shire of Leonora; Phil Marshall, Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of Laverton; Mr Jack Carmody, a Shire of Laverton councillor; and Mr Marty Sealander, chief executive of Pakaanu. I understand those discussions and other positive discussions have been about what support services those community leaders want to see in their community. I understand there has been a willingness by the shire to reinstate the jobs hub. There was, particularly in Laverton, some uncertainty about the long-term funding of the jobs hub because, under the previous government, it was going to run out in June. I think there are some positive signs there. When it comes to the issue of alcohol use in remote and regional— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, a first supplementary? 14:44 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Reports published on the weekend indicate that the number of offences committed in Ceduna has doubled since the cashless debit card was abolished four months ago. Minister, given you didn't quite answer my last question about the police, I ask you in relation to South Australia: have these reports been verified by the South Australian police? What information does the government have about changes in crime rates across the Ceduna community? 14:44 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question about Ceduna. I think the most recent reports that the minister has received from her department indicate there's been a decline in admissions and presentations due to alcohol and drugs or injuries in Ceduna. Senator Ruston 243273 Are you kidding me? Senator FARRELL I0N I'm just telling you. I mean, you asked the question, and I'm giving you a direct answer to the question. You may not like the answer, but, with respect, Senator Ruston, you're no longer in charge of this area. We've got a terrific minister in the person of Amanda Rishworth who, I know, takes a very particular interest in issues in Ceduna, as she does— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, second supplementary? 14:45 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Months later, why hasn't the Prime Minister responded to the correspondence from the representatives of affected West Australian communities, and when will he visit any of the negatively impacted communities? 14:46 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia As I recollect, one of your complaints was that the Prime Minister didn't go to Alice Springs when they were having a range of issues there. My recollection is I saw the Prime Minister and Minister Burney both attending up in Alice Springs. I do note— Senator McGrath 217241 The tennis was in Melbourne, though. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N I do note that the Prime Minister— Senator McGrath 217241 He had time for tennis. Senator Watt 245759 What a mess. Senator McGrath 217241 You want to say something to Sarah, mate? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McGrath and Senator Watt, calling out across the chamber constantly is disorderly. The minister is on his feet answering a question. Minister, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N I think I'm right about this: the Prime Minister has been to Western Australia either nine or 10 times since becoming the Prime Minister of this country, which is a lot more than in the previous 12 months— (Time expired) Housing Affordability 45 14:47 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question without notice is to Minister Farrell representing the Minister for Housing. Minister, reports last week revealed Australia is one of the worst places in the developed world to be a renter. Rents are a staggering 22 per cent higher than they were in 2020, and renters in Australia are projected to pay $10 billion in rent increases this year alone. More people than ever are living in cars, caravans and tents. More and more people are struggling to pay rent and having to make the choice between rent and food, between rent and medication, between rent and childcare fees. Will the government finally do the same thing they did for energy caps and coordinate a national freeze on rent increases and coordinate national tenancy standards? 14:48 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Faruqi for her question. I note her sincere concern about the plight of renters in this country, which the Albanese government shares with you. Of course, this government has been coming to the parliament with solutions to the difficult issue of housing in this country. We know that a lot of people across Australia are struggling right now to find an affordable place to rent. We hear their concerns and we hear your concerns, Senator Faruqi. We are acting to address them. The answer to rental stress is a sustained boost in the supply of homes to rent and a substantial investment in new social and affordable houses. That's what this government is aiming to do, Senator Faruqi. The government struck a national housing accord between all levels of government, investors and industry to build the affordable homes our country desperately needs to boost the supply of new houses. In addition to the accord, we've now passed legislation for the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund through the House of Representatives, although I note not yet the Senate. Our ambitious reform agenda, to deliver more social and affordable homes right across the country, includes the widening of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility with up to $575 million available to invest in more social and affordable— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a first supplementary. 14:50 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, the government is cutting funding for 27,000 affordable National Rental Affordability Scheme homes while proposing a fund that gambles $10 billion on the stock market, which doesn't guarantee a cent to be spent on housing and, last year, would have lost $120 million. Do you accept that currently the government's housing plan will make the crisis worse for renters? 14:51 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Faruqi for her first supplementary question. No, I don't accept that proposition, Senator Faruqi. For instance, the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee was brought forward by three months by this government, and more than 2,000 places have already been taken up, with hundreds of Australian families now in their new homes with Help to Buy, a new program to help Australians get their own home sooner. We're establishing a permanent National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. The interim council has been operating since 1 January this year, and it provides independent expert advice to government but particularly developing a new National Housing and Homelessness Plan. The government has been talking with state and territory housing— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, please, a second supplementary? 14:52 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, the government's own National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation has reported that Australia needs at least $15 billion a year in investment in public community and affordable housing. How does the government justify proposing to spend $368 billion on nuclear Attack class submarines and only a maximum of $500 million on housing? 14:52 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia (—) (): I thank Senator Faruqi for her second supplementary question. With due respect, Senator Faruqi, I think you are conflating two separate issues. One of the obligations, like it or not, that federal government have is to ensure the defence and security of Australia, and the Albanese government takes that issue seriously. That's why we've made some announcements in the last couple of weeks in terms of defence. We are bringing to this parliament a very significant reform package in terms of housing which will, we believe, assist both people getting into their own homes but, more particularly, renters, ensuring that they have an opportunity to rent and there is downward pressure on those rents. Can I say this: that project of this government is much more likely to succeed— (Time expired) Budget 46 14:53 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management and the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. Can the minister explain why funding certainty is important for essential government functions like emergency management and national security and what happens when governments don't plan for the future by providing that certainty? 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you very much, Senator Green. As a Cairns based senator, I know you have provided a lot of support to regional communities experiencing floods and other disasters in your time here. In the ten months that I've been Minister for Emergency Management, I've obviously seen a lot of floods. Every time I visit a different flood or storm impacted community, I hear the same stories over and over again. People keep saying, 'It's always flooded in the past, but never like this,' or they say, 'This exceeds anything we've ever seen before,' or, 'This isn't normal.' This pattern was evident all the way back in 2019 with the Black Summer bushfires when we saw unprecedented fires in Queensland rainforests, the entirety of Kangaroo Island under a bushfire warning and fires across New South Wales and Victoria burning for months. It's been blatantly obvious for a very long time that long-term investment in disaster funding and taking action on climate change has been required. While those of us on this side of the chamber have acknowledged the impacts of climate change for some years, those opposite are still living in the dark ages. These ideological beliefs and climate wars have hamstrung their ability to prepare for natural disasters. The fact is that for nearly a decade the coalition failed to make our country more resilient to the impacts of natural disasters. Despite all the evidence over all those years, they seemed to think that the disasters would stop. In fact, they even came up with a precise date that they thought the natural disasters would stop, and that was 30 June this year. I say that because it's on that date that nearly 25 per cent of the funding for our national disaster agencies runs out. That's right. The former government, under Senator Birmingham and Senator McKenzie, didn't fund their national natural disaster agencies past the end of this financial year. According to the forward estimates, if the coalition had won the election, our national disaster agencies could not have continued operating. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:56 Senator 259819 Queensland GREEN () (): Minister, how is this funding uncertainty impacting on the Commonwealth's ability to support states and territories in responding to the increasing number of natural hazards? 14:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Let me repeat. Under the former government, 25 per cent of the funding for our national disaster agencies runs out on 30 June this year. Despite all of the floods, all of the bushfires and all of the cyclones, they just said: 'It's going to be okay. It's going to stop raining on 30 June 2023, and we won't need that funding beyond that.' What does that funding uncertainty mean? What it means is that if it's not fixed by our government, our network of recovery support officers around the country is impaired, along with our ability to provide payments to disaster impacted communities and any national planning to build national resilience. They're the things that would have occurred had the coalition won the last election. It's almost as if the coalition thought that these events would just stop, everything would be fine, the sun would come out and we'd get precisely the right amount of rainfall in precisely the right areas and we'd never have to worry about natural disasters. This is the economic vandalism we inherited. We're fixing up the mess. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, second supplementary? 14:57 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, how could former governments have better prepared for the increasing number and intensity of natural hazards? 14:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Maybe as a starting point the former government, when it was preparing its budget just before the election, could have thought: 'We've being having a lot of floods lately. We've being having a few bushfires lately. A few cyclones. Maybe we need to make sure that our national natural disaster agency has the funding to continue its operations.' But, no, their budget—Senator Birmingham's and Senator McKenzie's budget for the emergency management department—was actually going to cut 25 per cent of the funding for that agency from 30 June this year. Since our election 10 months ago, the Albanese government has shown that no matter what state or territory you live in, when a natural disaster strikes we will be there with you and we will provide the funding that is needed to respond properly to natural disasters. That's why we've been fixing the neglect of the past decade. We're overhauling the Emergency Response Fund, the $5 billion fund that never built a single project. With our Disaster Ready Fund, we're overhauling disaster funding arrangements. We are fixing the mess that we have been left in so many portfolios, including disaster management. (Time expired) Australian Constitution 47 14:58 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Is it correct that the Keating government released the Solicitor-General's advice provided to the then government's advisory committee ahead of the referendum to establish an Australian republic? Is it also correct that the Gillard government released the Solicitor-General's advice in relation to border protection policies? 14:59 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I don't know the answer to either of those questions, but I'm very happy to make some inquiries and find out what the answers to those two questions are. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, first supplementary? 14:59 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Senator Farrell, I can save you the work and say they did. And given these precedents, including the provision— The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Senator Scarr. Senator Farrell I0N Point of order: if the senator knows the answer, what's the point of asking me the question? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, that is not a point of order. Senator SCARR 282997 Given these precedents, including the provision of the Solicitor-General's advice for the last proposed referendum to change the Australian Constitution, will the Albanese Labor government make the Solicitor-General's advice relating to its proposed constitutional amendment available to the Australian public and the parliamentary select committee that it proposes to establish? 15:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My understanding is the Attorney-General is not proposing to make that advice public. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, a second supplementary? 15:00 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland On what public interest ground is the Albanese Labor government refusing to release the Solicitor-General's advice relating to its proposed constitutional amendment prior to Australians having to cast their votes on it? 15:01 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Scarr for his second supplementary question. I'll ask the Attorney-General to come back with an answer on that question. Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 48 15:02 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to opposition questions without notice asked today. Today there were a lot of important questions asked of the government. It's a day where they've announced a huge deal with the Greens party to establish a massive new carbon tax on job-creating projects in this country, but unfortunately there were no answers given to these very important questions. This dodgy deal that has been done between Labor and the Greens potentially means that all new coal, gas and other mining projects will be required to have all of their emissions offset. That means they'll have to buy carbon credits for all of their emissions. Previously, the government announced they'd only have to buy offsets for the amount of emissions they're reducing—five per cent a year. Now it won't be five per cent next year; it'll be 100 per cent for these projects next year. There is a new mine being built in my area, in Central Queensland, near Moranbah, the Olive Downs mine, and I asked about that particular mine. The acting leader of the Labor Party in the Senate couldn't even tell the 500 people who are working there tonight, who will be going to sleep in a camp away from their families tonight, whether they have a job tonight. Those opposite claim they're the party representing workers, they claim they represent the people who go to work to help this country be strong, and they can't even give them basic answers. They haven't done basic analysis. Maybe the people responding to this motion could provide these answers to workers in this country? Can they provide them answers? Will this Olive Downs mine have to offset 100 per cent of its emissions? And if it has, what analysis, what consultation have they done with the mine to know whether those people will have their jobs or lose their jobs overnight? What have they done? According to Mr Bandt, the Leader of the Australian Greens, who seems to be in charge in this place right now— 15:08 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria He's in charge? Senator Canavan 245212 Yes, it's been confirmed he's in charge. He's in charge of the government. Hardly anyone voted for Mr Bandt in this country, but he's in charge of this place. He's giving more detail than the Labor government at the moment, but he says that one of these projects, the Beetaloo gas field, will be required, from day one, to offset all of its emissions in scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 for domestic use. I particularly want to remind people what that last bit means, 'scope 3 for domestic use'. Scope 3 emissions are the use of the gas, so when you use the gas or the coal and you burn it to create energy and electricity—more than half the world's energy still comes from those sources—that's scope 3 emissions. The deal that the Labor Party have done with the Greens would tax, would penalise, the use of coal and gas in Australia—for domestic use; that's what Mr Bandt said. If you send the coal and gas over to Japan, Korea or China, they're tax free—tax free. How absurd is this, that we're going to penalise the use of our own energy for our own purposes but not other countries'? With this deal that's been announced between Labor and the Greens today, it's a bit like Game of Thrones: winter is coming. And unfortunately, if this deal goes through this place, it's going to be a long, cold, dark winter—many winters to come—in this country, because we're not going to have enough energy for our own use. There are not going to be the gas projects or the coal projects that we need to keep the lights on in this country. We know and the government knows, from the Australian Energy Market Operator, that we are facing massive gas shortages in the next few years. We have a huge problem that the Bass Strait is declining as an oil- and gas-producing field. We need to replace it with new projects, like Narrabri in New South Wales and like, hopefully, the Beetaloo in the Northern Territory. The Greens want to stop it. We know that. But that is going to mean that people have to pay massive amounts for their power. If you think your power bill's bad now, wait until we stop all new coal and gas projects in this country. We still need coal and gas for more than 70 per cent of our electricity needs. Wait until we stop all those and then see what real pain looks like in your power prices. We'll be paying what they're paying in the UK and Europe—in Germany—before you know it, and that will hurt poor people in this nation. The Australian Labor Party is an absolute embarrassment, that they cannot answer questions right now about the impact of these policies. These policies will mean that more than a million Australians who rely on the mining sector for their jobs now face uncertainty. And keep in mind that it's not just coal and gas. It's also lithium mines, nickel mines and copper mines. They're all captured by the safeguard mechanism, too. They use a lot of diesel. Senator Sterle knows this. They don't have a lot of electricity in some of these parts of Australia. They have to use diesel, and they're captured. So, why would we put restraints on mining the very resources we need in order to have batteries, wind turbines and all this other stuff? How stupid are we? They're going to put a massive constraint, basically a big stop sign, on nickel mines, lithium mines—the stuff they claim they want to power the world. This is going to be an absolute disaster in this country, and every power price rise and every blackout is on the heads of Greens and Labor parties who are in charge in this place. 15:07 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I want to clarify the record before I respond. In her first question to Minister Farrell, Senator Ruston stated: 'Last week the Senate agreed, without dissent, to the coalition's second agreeing reading amendment to the national health amendment bill requiring the listing of all medicines approved by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.' This is a mischaracterisation of the government's position. Whilst we did not call a division, the government did not support the second reading amendment, for the reasons Senator McCarthy outlined in her summing-up speech when she stated: 'There are longstanding considered processes for PBS listings through PBAC, not second reading amendments.' I'd like to touch on the question that was asked by Senator O'Sullivan to Minister Farrell about the cashless welfare card. It is extraordinarily well known in this chamber and outside of this chamber that I am a loyal member of the Australian Labor Party but had a bit of a different view on the abolition of the cashless welfare card. I believed that it was not a silver bullet. I honestly believed we could do a lot better. But I made it very clear here in this building on a number of occasions that, from talking to my mates, the Aboriginal leaders in the Kimberley, there were mixed views. I also remember the passionate arguments when the card first started, not in Leonora, Laverton and Kalgoorlie but certainly up in Kununurra and then into Wyndham. I remember the leadership of the Indigenous corporations and communities in Kununurra—my very dear friend Ian Truss, Lawford Benning and Teddy Carlton. And I remember the passion in the speeches. As they made very clear to me, what was happening up in the Kimberley—I'm only talking about the Kimberley; I know it happens all over Australia, and it was not unique to just Aboriginal communities—they were sick of seeing their children being buried. They were sick of seeing their population, their people, being buried way too early, and they wanted change. They wanted something different. Unfortunately, the card didn't deliver what it was hoped it would deliver. It split the community. There's no argument about that. But I do want to say that I think it's disingenuous for a lot of us sitting here in Canberra. This is not to slight Senator O'Sullivan because Senator O'Sullivan works very hard up in the Kimberley; we are cochairs of the Gurama Yani U, the men's shed in Fitzroy Crossing, and I know Senator O'Sullivan's commitment to Indigenous advancement in his previous life working for Minderoo. But I must say that I have worked in Indigenous communities in the Kimberley longer than any other senator in this building. I'm not saying I've got all the answers because I don't. But one thing I hold dearly as I wander through the Kimberley, not only in my role as a senator but in my role I providing preloved furniture to communities in Fitzroy Crossing, is to supply preloved furniture like bedding through Fitzroy Crossing. It is all donated stuff—road trains of the stuff—where my mates in the trucking industry throw a prime mover at me, three trailers, two dollies, and I run all that preloved furniture to the Kimberley to help service those in remote communities through Kununurra, Wyndham, Warmun and Halls Creek. We've even had people coming from Balgo to get hold of this very, very cheap second-hand furniture. We also create opportunities for Indigenous people to get training and employment throughout the Fitzroy Valley and the east Kimberley. But it really does point to one thing. I must say this, and I can't stress this enough: through all my meetings and conversations in the Kimberley for the last 30-odd years as a truck driver—longer, 40 years as a truck driver and as a senator—there is one thing that Aboriginal leaders say to me, whether they're male or female, I'm talking to the women's resource centre or to training and employment service providers or to health providers or to those in the justice system. My Indigenous leaders and my Indigenous friends throughout the Kimberley make it very, very clear to me when I go there that there is one common denominator. They say: 'Glenn, when is someone going to listen to us? When is someone in Canberra or in government actually going to ask us what we want?' I can't think of a more powerful reason to stand up and support the referendum to deliver the Voice so that Indigenous people can actually have their say and they can actually be listened to. I cannot wait for the referendum, and I applaud everyone in the Aboriginal communities that I work in and represent. I will be there alongside you, for you and with you. 15:12 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I too rise to take note of the answers given today. I take the point Senator Sterle made about this issue. It's a fair point that we haven't done a very good job of listening to people when we've sought to make policy in this country over the last 250 years. There are a range of views on how this should be done. When you travel into remote parts of the states we represent, you get a range of views about how that could be improved. I think people do want to see new institutions, and that is the best argument for the Voice, that there should be new institutions to help communities make decisions about their own affairs and their own arrangements. That has always been my view. We're now at a point in time when there is going to be a referendum, and we need to give people comfort that this can be done in a way that is going to preserve institutions that have otherwise served the country well because, of course, you wouldn't seek to introduce new institutions if you thought they were all working well. The reasonable view here would be that Australia has been a very good country, but it has let Indigenous people down too often, chiefly because of this terrible problem of paternalism. That is what these initiatives are about. As someone that wants to recommend a yes vote, I would like to understand exactly what the advice is. I think that's a reasonable proposition. I'm not seeking to make any political points here other than that we want to make sure that this is a safe change for our Constitution. I think it is a reasonable point that there could be cases where the Voice as a new institution or as an institution that's been running for some time would seek legal remedies through the High Court, and that may be reasonable from time to time. The point here is that we wouldn't want to see a situation where things were extraneous to the core function. For me, the question is: are the words that were released last week good enough to ensure that the Voice is effective and has all the power it needs but doesn't bung up the system of government we have and bind up the courts. That's the question. There may be good reasons why the advice can't be released; I don't know. There appear to be precedents for advice being released in connection with referenda, but if there is a good reason then I'll look forward to understanding that when we hit the committee stage of this process. I understand that there is to be a joint committee of the parliament which will look at this constitutional alteration bill—that's what we're talking about at the moment—and we'll have the opportunity at those hearings to ask the department about the wording. If the advice isn't going to be provided in the usual way, then I'm sure the committee can find a way to get a sense of the department's view but also the view of the various legal minds. There are many former High Court justices and other legal people, with much bigger brains than mine, who are offering their view on this wording. People will have to make a decision about whether they are prepared to support or oppose something based on the legal interpretation of various people. These people will be in the department. There will be retired judges and people who are working in the law today, and we will all have to hear from those various minds. I look forward to doing that and then landing on a position. I would repeat myself again: I don't think this is a good place to play politics, but I do think it would help if we could have the advice, or at least some sanitised version of the advice, so that we could be more satisfied that the changes that were made last week are going to be satisfactory. I, personally, have an open mind about these changes, but I don't understand the genesis of them. 15:17 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia There's one thing that my good friend Senator Bragg and I agree on, and that is that the previous government could have done better. They had almost 10 years in government, and we saw what the outcome was. If laughter is medicine, then the track record of those opposite when they were in government must be curing the world, don't we think? I would like to take note of Senator Canavan's question to the minister. He said, 'Winter is coming.' Well, Senator Canavan, winter may be coming, but the Albanese government is manning the walls whilst your party is bickering over who will sit on that throne. We saw the results of the election over the weekend. In case anyone missed it, let me remind them: those opposite lost in New South Wales. They suspended their whip in Victoria and they don't exist in WA, but they also don't participate here. The election outcome is just one way of Australians saying that they've had enough of the decade of delay, denial and destruction and they want to see action. Those opposite sit there asking us what we're doing for workers, what we're doing for Australians out there doing it tough, what we're doing about the housing crisis and what we're doing on climate change. Let me tell you that, with the announcement today, Australia is one step closer to achieving net zero by 2050, with confirmation that we've secured additional parliamentary support for the safeguard mechanism reforms. These are overdue, sensible reforms that ensure Australia's largest emitters are competitive in a decarbonising global economy and are doing their fair share, making a contribution to ensuring that we reach our reduction target. Those opposite have, of course, made themselves irrelevant despite calls across industry for bipartisan support for these reforms. These reforms are our chance, our first chance in a over a decade, to implement transformative climate change action that gets us towards net zero and that has broad support across the economy and the community. We've had extensive consultation with business groups, with industries and with community groups, and this is what they've been crying out for for way too long. These reforms have been carefully designed to cut pollution by our biggest industrial emitters while minimising costs and allowing flexibility of least-cost abatement opportunities to be deployed. The Albanese Labor government recognises that Australians and Australian industries are smart. They will choose the least-cost abatement, and these reforms allow them to do that. Unless the parliament passes the government's safeguard reforms, Australia's 2030 emissions reduction projections will be 35 per cent, not the 43 per cent we legislated. No MP or senator can criticise this government on emissions reduction targets and say that they are not good enough if they come into parliament and vote against policies to achieve emissions reduction. It's important to understand that there are sensible and prudent buffers in the scheme which take into account the possibility of new entrants. We've been hearing from those opposite, who I think are probably suffering from delusions of adequacy. They think they did so well over the last decade and that we haven't been doing enough in the last 18 months. I'd like to highlight and remind those opposite of who it is that the Australian people trusted and put in government. Who elected us to be the adults in charge to fix the mess that your government put us in? We know Scomo doesn't hold a hose. Can any of you hold a hammer to fix this mess? 15:22 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia We know that ensuring continued and improved access to affordable medicines is now more important than ever, with the cost of living continuing to put significant and rising pressure on all Australians. It was great to see the government pass the coalition's amendment to the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill last week, which noted the coalition's strong record of affordable medicines and called on the government to intervene in the removal of Fiasp from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, to urgently list Trikafta for children with cystic fibrosis and to commit to listing on the PBS all medicines that have been recommended by PBAC. It is important to acknowledge the importance of the government's continuing the former coalition government's record on the PBS, which has ensured affordable access to critical medicines for all Australians. The coalition is proud of the fact that, in government, it listed almost 3,000 new or amended medicines on the PBS. This represented an average of around 30 listings or amendments per month, or one each day, at an overall investment of nearly $15 billion. That is a lot of people who were helped to get greater access to medicine. However, we remain concerned by Labor's record on affordable medicines, noting that they had to stop listing new medicines when they were last in government because they couldn't manage the money. We know that Labor went to the election with a promise of cheaper medicines, but it seems they have already broken this promise, because they have decided to remove from the PBS a life-changing diabetes drug, Fiasp, that is relied upon by 15,000 Australians who suffer from type 1 diabetes. The coalition government listed this very important diabetes medicine on the PBS in 2019. The coalition 'understood that Fiasp is an innovative mealtime insulin that improves sugar blood levels at a faster rate than other diabetes medications, resulting in improved quality of life for the people who take it'. But Labor, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, has made the decision to remove affordable access to a life-changing drug that's been relied on by 15,000 Australians with diabetes. The most concerning part is that we know that Minister Butler as the Minister for Health has the ability to intervene but, so far, he has chosen not to. Ministerial discretion to ensure critical medicines, like Fiasp, can remain commercially viable on the PBS and, therefore, affordable to the Australians who rely on them. Minister Butler must explain to the 15,000 Australians with diabetes who rely on Fiasp why he is refusing to exercise that discretion to solve this issue. To add further concern, in November last year the PBAC recommended that the innovative drug Trikafta be added to the PBS for treatment of children, with cystic fibrosis, aged six to 11 years. However, government has, so far, failed to add this life-changing medicine to the PBS, despite the months that have passed since it was recommended. Under the coalition we listed every medicine on the PBS that was recommended by PBAC, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The government must do the right thing by the 500 children with cystic fibrosis who would benefit from affordable access to this life-changing medicine and list this medicine on the PBS. Time and again, this government continue to prove that they are all talk and no action. There is no more critical a time to ensure affordable access to medicines than right now, with the cost of living skyrocketing under this government. Labor continues to prove that they will say one thing to get elected and then turn around and do the opposite when in government. Their broken promises are adding up. They promised cheaper mortgages. That hasn't happened. They promised to lower inflation. We've seen that go up. They promised real wage increases. No, that hasn't happened. To borrow their phrase, 'Right now, everything is going up except for wages.' Question agreed to. Tourism Industry 52 15:27 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Trade and Tourism (Senator Farrell) about THRIVE 2030. I want to thank the minister for giving some of the answers that I asked in my question. I'm pleased to see the government are taking the opportunity to invest in the tourism sector seriously, both after the disruptions of COVID-19 and after the bushfires and floods that we've seen across the country. These, in fact, have hit the tourism industry quite hard. We are slowly seeing recovery, in some aspects. Some borders are opening and starting to welcome people, both domestically and internationally, here to Australia. It's a perfect time for this government to invest in a sector which is, essentially, what THRIVE 2030 is about. As highlighted by the minister, and the reason I asked this question, this strategy relies heavily on First Nations tourism. First Nations people have experiences that cannot be held anywhere else, and Minister Farrell referenced the unique aspects of First Nations culture. In order for us to invest in First Nations tourism and empower First Nations people to share culture and stories with tourists, it's critical that we ensure that First Nations people are the owners of that information—that they operate their own ventures, have control over what can be shared, where they can take people, what's sacred and what they can provide in that experience to people. This is because not everything is appropriate to be shared, particularly around culture. It's only First Nations people that know this information, so it's important, when we talk about the aspect of cultural heritage protection, that it be legislated and in a way that we can protect it. Cultural heritage is at the heart of any First Nations or First Peoples tourism industry. It relies on sacred sites. It relies on songlines, dance, song, art, bush foods, botanicals, medicine and other practices, which are appropriate to share, but it doesn't allow anybody to culturally appropriate it. If we don't legislate it, if we fail to include it in our trade negotiations, it just becomes words on paper. It becomes a strategy where everyone goes to Sydney and all the ministers have a lovely little gathering where they stand up and say how wonderful it is. It doesn't actually protect cultural heritage on the basis of creating a thriving tourism industry that empowers First Nations community. It's also for their health and wellbeing and the connection to country that this provides. We need a good legislative framework in order to do that. In First Nations communities we don't see ourselves as separate to nature. This is why, the week before last, I was at the World Indigenous Tourism Summit. I was talking to people from around the globe about the experience of sustainable tourism and how we can ensure that we are providing economic, environmental, social and cultural factors to protect our cultural heritage, so that the experience at Juukan Gorge—the destruction of the 40,000-year-old rock-shelters in the Pilbara, in my home state—is at the forefront of people's minds. There were international headlines about how tragic this was and how the system failed at all levels to protect First Nations cultural heritage in this country. I had the opportunity to sit on the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, which published a report on this. The report was basically what I asked Minister Farrell about: when are we going to see those minimum standards included in legislation and good regulatory frameworks that allow cultural heritage to be protected in this country? Without cultural heritage being protected, we have nothing to show people when they come here. We have nothing. We have a set of rocks reduced to rubble. We can say, 'That's where it used to be.' We need to fix that. Funnily enough, the interim report's title is Never again. Never again should it happen that we are in this situation. When I asked the question regarding UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the ratification of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage—twice—I didn't get an answer. I look forward to working with this government, though, in continuing to pursue First Nations cultural heritage and tourism in this country. Question agreed to. NOTICES 52 NOTICES Presentation 52 BUSINESS 53 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 53 15:32 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons: (a) Senator Wong for today; and (b) Senator Dodson from 27 to 30 March 2023. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 53 15:33 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Nampijinpa Price for 22 March 2023, for personal reasons; (b) Senators Cadell, Hume and Paterson for 24 March 2023, for personal reasons; (c) Senator Payne from 24 to 30 March 2023, for personal reasons; and (d) Senator Paterson from 27 to 30 March 2023, on account of parliamentary business. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 54 15:33 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Steele-John for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 54 NOTICES Postponement 54 15:34 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. I note no senator has made such a request. BILLS 54 BILLS Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023 54

Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023

Reference to Committee 54 15:34 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Birmingham, I move: That the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 May 2023. Question agreed to. NOTICES 54 NOTICES Withdrawal 54 15:35 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 185. 15:35 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY 10000 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I have to say how terribly disappointed I am that we won't have a chance to vote on this very important motion today. At the beginning of last week I had my hopes set extremely high that, in the interests of transparency and good governance, the Australian Greens and the coalition would be able to work together to extract out of this government, which hates sunlight and transparency, the modelling that underpins the safeguard mechanism. Unfortunately, though, I did smell a rat early on in the piece when I had my motion ready to go, asking for this modelling and saying: 'Hey, Australia, we are not going to deal with this bill until we get this modelling that couldn't be shown to us, first because it was cabinet in confidence. Suddenly, then, the excuse changed to "market sensitivities". Take your pick. Whatever day of the week it is, the government will choose its excuse depending on which way the wind is blowing.' But we couldn't get there with it. We had to have a motion—an alternative one which has now been withdrawn—that enabled the Greens to decide when they bring the bill on. Now they want to bring it on. They've done the deal. Sorry, Australia. You miss out. 15:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY 10000 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 The Greens used this general business notice of motion No. 185 to blackmail a gutless, uncaring government selling out workers. Come on. What was the dirty deal? The Greens talk about transparency. So come on: what was the deal? There are empty platitudes about transparency. Labor is selling out workers again. Labor is selling out manufacturing again. Labor is selling out taxpayers again. Labor is selling out families again. These was just a stunt by the Greens to leverage and put pressure on the Labor Party, and the Labor Party has caved yet again to the tail that is wagging the dog. BILLS 55 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023 55

Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023

First Reading 55 15:37 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023. Question agreed to. Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 55 15:38 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. T he speech read as follows— The need to disconnect. The phrase is so relevant to our lives now—it is becoming a mantra. But why is it so hard? Why do so many of us feel the need to constantly juggle the demands of work, during times which should be aside for care, rest, leisure, family and friends. Evidence from witnesses and submissions to the Senate Inquiry on Work and Care, which I chaired over the past eight months, told us that our constant connection with work has no limits—but has many and varied negative consequences for people's health and relationships. The issue is clear for many of the researchers, workers and organisations who gave evidence to the Inquiry. For too many Australians, 'availability creep' has taken over. We heard the impact for people in insecure jobs, where they are constantly waiting for the phone to vibrate—letting them know when their next shift will be and how much money they are likely to earn this week. If they don't answer, the earnings are foregone, or worse, they may not get offered as many hours the next week—or get offered any more shifts at all. We heard about late night calls, to come in early the next day or to work from a different site, the need to check apps to pick up available shifts or request changes. For these workers availability creep is tied to their job insecurity and rostering practices, where workers are effectively on call and need to remain available in order to secure sufficient paid work to get by. Many of these are not paid an 'on call' allowance or any penalty rates for extra hours they work beyond their contracted 'normal' hours. The inability to disconnect also extends to people in full-time permanent positions, who are constantly checking for texts and emails outside of hours, panicked that they might have missed an important piece of information long after they knocked off for the day. Laptops taken home to enable flexibility, also allow—and in practise, demand—that tasks be done at all hours. Many of us have experienced this. That tug of double consciousness: a child's pressing need pitted against a complex issue on the other end of the phone demanding every neurone we can muster. You do not have to be a carer to feel this tug. It still finds plenty of people who just want some quiet time, an uninterrupted run, a life beyond work. Many workplaces and teams of workers are affected now by a shared culture of availability—feeling that they need to be available to each other outside working time, as well as available to their managers and supervisors. The high level of insecurity in the Australian labour market is a dangerous twin to availability creep: if you feel insecure at work you hesitate to not take a call from work. The pandemic brought into sharp focus just how tethered we are to our devices and how blurred the line has become between work and leisure or family time. So much so that we now, as a nation, find ourselves working large amounts of unpaid overtime: valued at $93 billion across the economy, an average of 4.5 hours per week for every one of us. This means an average loss of $315 per fortnight from our pay. The burden is carried disproportionately by young people who perform the most unpaid overtime and also people in full-time work, so many of whom seem to have lost the ability to switch off after hours. The work we do outside of contracted hours amounts to wage theft. Whether it's answering emails, taking calls or catching up on work over the weekend, it is eating into our leisure and family time to our great detriment. Evidence provided to the Inquiry showed poor sleep, stress, burnout, degraded relationships and distracted carers are just some of the damage caused by unbounded work. This pressure felt by workers, particularly when working remotely, has serious implications for mental and physical health and it increases work related stress. This is an issue that came into sharp focus for many during the pandemic, when so many more of us had to juggle work and care responsibilities at home. This Bill reflects the Greens commitment to see a right to disconnect in employment law. In joining the Greens in a majority Select Committee report, Labor agreed to consider amending the National Employment Standards to create an enforceable right to disconnect. The recommendation says: The committee recommends the Australian Government consider amending the Fair Work Act 2009 to include an enforceable 'right to disconnect' under the National Employment Standards, giving all workers a right to disconnect once their contracted working hours have finished and restricting employers from communicating with workers outside of work hours, except in the event of an emergency or for welfare reasons. This Bill actions that recommendation. If passed, the Bill would create a law to prevent employers from contacting employees once their contracted hours are finished unless they are paid an on-call allowance, or in exceptional circumstances. This amendment would ensure employees are not required to monitor, read or respond to emails, telephone calls or any other kinds of communication from an employer outside of their paid working hours. There is of course an exception in the Bill, which would apply in circumstances where it is an emergency or genuine welfare matter, or if the employee is in receipt of an availability allowance for the period in which the contact is made. The fundamental principle is simple: when your paid hours are done, you can turn your attention elsewhere. You do not have to answer work phone calls, emails or texts about work—unless you're getting paid for it. This restores integrity to the 'wage-effort bargain' of employment relationship theory and practice, such that contracted working hours are paid. The right to disconnect will give workers the freedom to switch off and focus on their personal and family lives. It will promote a healthier work culture that benefits workers and employers. Being in control of their time outside of work, and being able to attend to their personal lives, leisure and rest, will mean workers will come to their paid employment with more energy and focus. The practical enactment of this right will be assisted by a reduction in insecurity in the labour market: without that, this right will be hard to realise for many precarious workers. I urge the government to support this bill. Our current workplace laws were not drafted at a time when everyone had a smartphone in their pocket and a laptop with internet connecting their kitchen table to their worksite. It's time to update our standards in this area, as has been done in France, Spain, Ireland and Canada. Let's bring our workplace laws into the 21st century. Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 56 DOCUMENTS Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023 56

Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023

Order for the Production of Documents 56 15:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 30 March 2023 any correspondence in relation to the Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023 sent or received by: (a) the Therapeutic Goods Administration; (b) the Department of Health; or (c) the Minister for Health and Aged Care and/or his office. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that motion 199 standing in the name of Senator Roberts, an order for the production of documents, Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023, be agreed to.

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

37 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 14 NOES Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Payman, F. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Australian Army: Jervis Bay Incident 57 Order for the Production of Documents 57 14:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: (1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by 11 May 2023, all incident reports, safety evaluations, briefing notes, correspondence and information held by: (a) the Department of Defence; (b) the Minister, or (c) the Minister's office; in relation to the 22 March 2023, Jervis Bay incident involving an MRH-90 helicopter. (2) Information identifying personnel and information in relation to training techniques may be appropriately redacted from the documents. Question agreed to. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 57 Order for the Production of Documents 57 15:47 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I seek leave to move general business notices of motion Nos 202 and 203 together. Leave granted. Senator ASKEW 281558 At the request of Senator Cash, I move the motions: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 202 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on 30 March 2023: (a) legal advice, held by either the Prime Minister and/or his office and/or the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum announced on 23 March 2023; (b) correspondence between the Prime Minister and/or his office and/or the Solicitor-General in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum announced on 23 March 2023; (c) all documents relating to the legal advice provided on the proposed wording for a Voice to Parliament released by the Prime Minister at the Garma Festival, as acknowledged of existence by the Prime Minister in his press conference announcing the proposed wording for the Voice Referendum on 23 March 2023. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 203 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on 30 March 2023: (a) legal advice, held by either the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or the Attorney-General's Department, in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum announced on 23 March 2023; (b) correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or the Solicitor-General in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum announced on 23 March 2023; and (c) all documents relating to the legal advice provided on the proposed wording for a Voice to Parliament released by the Prime Minister at the Garma Festival, as acknowledged of existence by the Prime Minister in his press conference announcing the proposed wording for the Voice referendum on 23 March 2023. 15:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—As Senator Cash well knows, the wording of the proposed constitutional alteration is the product of a cabinet process. The referendum working group provided cabinet with advice as part of the process. So did the Solicitor-General. Consistent with the longstanding practice followed by all governments, cabinet should be able to be conducted in secrecy so as to preserve the freedom of deliberation of that body. It would harm the public interest to undermine the confidentiality of the cabinet process by producing the documents sought by Senator Cash or by producing legal advice. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that notice of motion 202 and 203 moved together, standing in the name of Senator Cash and moved by Senator Askew, regarding the order for the production of documents on the Voice referendum be agreed to.

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

26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Van, D. A. 27 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. 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.

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 59

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

Order for the Production of Documents 59 15:54 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 3 pm on Wednesday, 5 April 2023: (a) all correspondence and/or submissions received by the Treasury on the measures in Schedule 4 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023; (b) all correspondence and/or submissions received by the Treasury on the measures in Schedule 5 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023; and (c) all correspondence and/or submissions received by the Treasury on the measures in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 that are not already captured by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this order and include reference to any of the following: (i) franking credits, (ii) off-market share buy-backs, (iii) dividend imputation, or (iv) franked distributions. 15:55 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I seek leave to make a brief statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McKIM JKM The Greens won't be supporting this order for the production of documents. To date, the Greens have regularly supported motions by the opposition requesting documents in the Treasury space, as spurious as some of those requests have seemed at the time. But let's be clear about what this is. It's an order calling for the release of documents relating to a bill that is currently before a Senate inquiry that has not yet closed for submissions and is yet to hold any hearings. We're going to wait for the Senate inquiry to at least take a couple of steps down the road before we start supporting OPDs like this. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that motion 204, standing in the name of Senator Smith and moved by Senator Askew, an order for production of documents in respect to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:59]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Van, D. A. 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. 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.

Department Of Agriculture, Fisheries And Forestry 60 Order for the Production of Documents 60 16:03 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for production of documents no. 144 was agreed by the Senate on 8 February 2023, requiring the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to table documents regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia, (ii) the order included the requirement to table any correspondence to and from industry organisations regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia, (iii) the Minister sent correspondence to Australian Organic Limited on 14 December 2022, and (iv) the correspondence between Australian Organic Limited has not been tabled; and (b) that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry attend the chamber at 3.30 pm on Tuesday, 28 March 2023, to provide an explanation for no more than 5 minutes of the failure to comply with order for production of documents no. 144 as agreed by the Senate on 8 February 2023, and explain why all documents relating to this matter have not been tabled; (c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and (d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that notice of motion No. 205, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and moved by Senator Askew, regarding attendance by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:08]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

37 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 14 NOES Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 61 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Roads 61 16:10 The 287062 DEPUTY PRESIDENT (): Senator McKenzie has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today. It is shown at item 12 on today's Order of business: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: At a time when the Australian Government should be investing in productivity enhancing infrastructure to help strengthen economic growth, when roads have deteriorated and become potholed due to floods and rain events, and when the road toll is increasing, the Albanese government has cut $9.6 billion from infrastructure program in the October budget. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The D 10000 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:11 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia It is my great pleasure to be able to stand and support this very important motion. Last year, in the Albanese government's first budget, my very great state of Western Australia saw the first budget cuts to infrastructure, the first no doubt of many. They were certainly the first cuts in a long line of budgets because, while we were in government, we had a very proud record of continuing to invest into the infrastructure needs of Western Australia. We've seen some cuts, unfortunately, that have hit Western Australia's infrastructure spending. I think it's a great shame. I do take pride today in standing up and bringing this to the awareness of the Senate. This government likes to talk the talk in Western Australia. They said they were going to put WA first and, to their credit, ran a very WA-centric campaign over there. They didn't have eastern states ads run over in WA, which was a very good move by the Labor Party, I have to say, and something we should take a leaf out of in the next campaign. I'll be making sure that that point is made when we're designing our campaign again. They did make a claim that they were going to put WA first, but what we're seeing is that it's all just talk. They kind of hoodwinked the Western Australian people into supporting them. The Western Australian people, sadly, did put a lot of strength behind their decision. They made a decision to elect the Albanese government, and in Western Australia we lost a lot of Liberal seats. It was on the back of the fact that they ran a campaign that said they were going to put Western Australia first. But what we're saying is that they are not doing that and haven't done that. It's across many areas, and, in particular, in relation to infrastructure they're all talk and no action. All up, infrastructure programs in Western Australia saw cuts over the forward estimates, including $22 million from the Northern Australia Roads Program, $114 million from Roads of Strategic Importance and $1.3 million from the road Black Spot Program. Let's look at some of these cuts and what they represent to the southern suburbs of Perth, where I'm from. My office is down in the southern suburbs, and I live down in the southern suburbs of Perth. There's a $17.8 million cut and a completion delay of one year to the Kwinana and Mitchell freeway barrier upgrades. There's a $1.3 million cut and a project commencement delay of one year to the Leach Highway and Stock Road grade separation project—a very important project to take freight off that very busy intersection and to deal with the grade separation. There's a $3.5 million cut and a project completion delay of two years for the Nicholson Road and Garden Street grade separation in the electorate of Burt. There is a $101 million budget cut from the 2022-23 budget and a cut of $17.8 million in the forward estimates for the Tonkin Highway stage 3 extension in the seat of Canning. And there is a $99.7 million cut from the Pinjarra Heavy Haulage Deviation stage 1 and 2, and the project is delayed for two years. These are significant projects that were necessary, that were committed to by the previous government—because they're needed—and we're seeing this government cutting them. These are just a couple of the projects where the Albanese government has made cuts from the last budget or put delays that directly impact Western Australians, and it is a shame. The Western Australian Labor government are not very good at delivering projects. They keep delaying them. We saw the airport rail link delayed for many, many years. It actually started under the Barnett government and now, two terms in, they've literally just completed that project. It was delayed significantly. And of course that is not to mention the cancelling of the Roe 8 and Roe 9 project. This is important. The freight link to Fremantle is a vital project that has been abandoned by this government. We kept it in the contingent liability when we were in government, and this lot over here have taken it out. It's a real shame, because more than $1.8 billion, I think it was, was earmarked to go into delivering that project, and this Labor government is turning its back on Western Australia. (Time expired) 16:16 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to speak on the matter of public importance raised today by Senator McKenzie. I will start off by correcting the record, because there has been no infrastructure cancelled in Western Australia, regardless of what you might have understood from the previous contribution by Senator O'Sullivan. One of things Senator O'Sullivan didn't talk about in his contribution was that the Liberal and National parties left us with a mess to deal with, after nine years of using infrastructure investment as a political weapon to garner votes, not for funding critical infrastructure for states and territories. The former government spent more time thinking up announcements than addressing the deterioration of the nation's road networks. These are the facts. We now have a motion brought to the Senate by Senator McKenzie, who has the absolute front to raise concerns after nine years of inaction. The only actions they actually did take were making announcement after announcement, sometimes multiple announcements on the same piece of infrastructure—nine years of using the regional grant programs to fund inner-city swimming pools, nine years of drafting and releasing media releases with no real plans and no real evidence or outcomes for Australian communities. It left an infrastructure pipeline full of zombie projects, undercosted commitments and a challenge to manage delivery in the context of rising inflation and supply pressures. That's the real situation, and that's what Senator O'Sullivan, in his contribution, should have been honest about—that the infrastructure pipeline left by the Liberal coalition government after nine years was full of zombie projects and undercosted commitments and was a challenge to manage in the context of rising inflation and supply pressures. There's no better example of the coalition's failures than the hopelessly mismanaged Urban Congestion Fund. Since I became an assistant minister, I have been speaking to the sector and I have lost count of how many times the sector has talked about the fact that it is so pleased that the Urban Congestion Fund has been killed off. It wasn't being used in any fair way. It was being used as the Liberal Party's slush fund. The Urban Congestion Fund was full of imaginary car parks in marginal seats, projects that would require 200 or 300 per cent more investment to deliver, and years of delay. The former Treasurer made a commitment of $260 million to remove a level crossing in his own electorate without even telling the state government about it, and it was hundreds of millions of dollars short of the funding required to do the job. That is exactly how the former government ran infrastructure in this country. It was wholly underfunded. It was only used to get votes or as their own private slush fund. That's the reality. After nine years of inaction, I'm pleased to say to the Senate that the work of the Albanese Labor government has already done— (Time expired) 16:21 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The first point I wanted to make about this matter of public interest that I thought was interesting was Senator McKenzie talking about roads deteriorating and becoming potholed due to floods and rain events. Just before Christmas, I drove across Victoria and South Australia and the Nullarbor. I must admit, it was just post the very significant floods in Victoria. Yes, the roads were terrible and there were roadworks everywhere. It's also what I experienced in northern Queensland after record rains up there this year. The first point I wanted to acknowledge is that climate change has a very big impact on infrastructure and will continue to have a very big impact on infrastructure. The second point I want to make today, in my very brief time, is about the circular economy. I've been pinging away at various estimates, in recent years, to Austroads and Infrastructure Australia asking when the government will step up and start procuring recycled content for use in roads. We spend tens of billions of dollars a year at local, state and federal government levels on roads. While probably not the highest-value use for recycled product, they certainly do provide a home for recycled products. If the government were to buy recycled products for our roads, we would create a market for the recycling industry, which is telling us it can take soft plastics—for example, in the REDCycle scheme—but the reason it hasn't been taking them and recycling them is no-one's buying them. No-one's buying the product they're creating. I'll give you this is an example, which I put to Infrastructure Australia recently. Sustainability Victoria's website has put up one particular project as a case study. Downer Group's soft plastic asphalt road in Craigieburn, in Melbourne's north. As a metric, they talked about recycled content breakdown. Every one kilometre of road, which is two lanes, is paved with plastic and glass modified asphalt. It uses approximately—this is one kilometre—530,000 recycled plastic bags, 170,000 recycled glass bottles, 12,500 used printer cartridges and 130 tonnes of reclaimed asphalt. How's that! That's for one kilometre of road. Now, if we're building thousands of kilometres of road every year and we can use these products, why wouldn't we create a circular economy? If the government steps in and provides a market for the recycling industry, it will give the industry the confidence it needs to invest in upgrading and we can actually take these soft plastics from our supermarkets for our recycling systems kerb side et cetera and we actually have a ready market for it. That's circular economy thinking. Anyway, the Greens have been pinging away on this for some time. We are starting to see more interest from Infrastructure Australia. I just wanted to put it on the Senate's table today because I think it's a very exciting opportunity. 16:24 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania It is my pleasure to rise and speak on this matter of public importance raised in the Senate today by my friend and colleague Senator Bridget McKenzie. I'm very pleased to be speaking here today about the neglect of critical infrastructure funding as a result of the new government's actions. We know infrastructure investment is absolutely critical for economic development, productivity and road safety, and that is why the former coalition government placed such a high priority on investing across the country in the infrastructure that we need for the future. Certainly, in my first few years in this place, being in the government, it felt as if almost every week or every month that we were back at home in Tasmania I was going out and talking about a new roads project around the state, whether that was more funding for the Midland Highway upgrades or funding the South East Traffic Solution through to the Southern Beaches and Sorell—very exciting projects and projects that Tasmania needs to ensure that we have the infrastructure, particularly the roads infrastructure, for a growing population, for our transit corridors and for our tourism industry, to support our economy and our population into the future. It was my great pleasure to be advocating for those projects when we were in government. In contrast, in its first budget last year the Albanese government cut more than $9.6 billion from infrastructure programs across the country, and we know that 36 infrastructure projects have been cancelled entirely and many more have been delayed. Many of the cancelled and delayed projects are dam projects, and there are also huge cuts to road and rail infrastructure programs. I think that's really disappointing, because that is the sort of infrastructure that we need to be investing in in the longer term. It's no surprise that Labor are cutting infrastructure projects, because, as we've seen today, their political strategy is always to do deals with the Greens. They've decided that their strategy for their time in government is to side with the most anti-development, anti-jobs and anti-infrastructure party in Australia. So it's no surprise to see them reducing spending on infrastructure, and it's no wonder that they've decided that one of the ways they're going to try and plug holes in their budget is to cancel infrastructure projects and delay or reprofile infrastructure spending. This is an attitude that is going put at risk really important projects right across the country. At the very least, it is going to delay the completion of road projects which Australians are relying on to make our highways and our road networks safer and more efficient. In my own state of Tasmania, we have seen the Labor government drop tens of millions of dollars in project funding out of the budget across a number of projects which the coalition funded and was building, some of which I referred to in the first few minutes of my speech here today. In government, the coalition made record investments in Tasmanian road and rail infrastructure. More than $4.5 million was committed by the previous government, including funding the largest infrastructure projects in Tasmanian history. The last budget we handed down included $639 million for Tasmanian infrastructure projects. In Labor's first budget, in contrast, $66 million of that has disappeared off the books. That includes funding for projects like the Tasmanian Roads Package, the Hobart to Sorell Corridor, the Freight Capacity Upgrade Program and the Tasman Bridge upgrades. These are incredibly important projects. They are projects that I was certainly very proud to be fighting for in government, and I'm incredibly disappointed to see the funding slipping away under this new government. There is no doubt that when we get another budget in just a few months, in May this year, we are going to see the same tactic repeated. If they want to save a few million dollars to plug a hole in the budget, they'll cut projects and push funding from one year out to the next to get it off the books, and of course, when they have finished cutting infrastructure programs to save some dollars, they will come for Australian workers and slug them with more taxes. This is a government which would prefer to be doing deals with the Greens rather than building infrastructure. Today's dirty deal between Labor and the Greens isn't the first deal they've done which is terrible news for investment in Australia, and I certainly don't think it's going to be the last. We are going to see this again and again and again—Labor and the Greens in a back room, stitching up a deal to attack job-creating investments. What we saw today was the Labor government's agenda being announced in a Greens press conference, and nothing could sum up this government better than that. (Time expired) 16:29 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I do wish to make my contribution to this matter of public importance. Unlike some others, I've got some skin in the game here because I actually know what I'm talking about. From the sins of my previous life I've had to sit through RRAT Senate estimates day in, day out until ridiculous hours of the night, listening to all the same questions being regurgitated year in, year out, day in, day out—you get the drift, Madam Acting Deputy President Polley. But I'll have a crack without a written speech and see how far I can go, and you won't have to hear me parrot party lines because, unlike some of them over on that side, I actually ran my own business. I didn't just come through the system, work for— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator STERLE e68 I said 'some'. I ran my own business, so I know what it is like when you sit there at the end of the table after a hard run to Kununurra or Broome and you're absolutely exhausted. You get home to see the babies, get home to see the wife. It's alright for us blokes on the road because all we had to do was look at the bills because the bills came through the mail. Fiona would go and get the mail, and there'd be the tyre bill and the fuel bill. There'd also be bills for repairs and maintenance from Kenworth or for whatever truck I had at the time. There'd be something like a finger with a piece of ribbon tied on: remember, 30 days or sometimes remember, 45 days. I know what it's like to sit at the end of the table and think: 'Where are we going to get the next dollar? When is that next dollar going to come to pay off our debts—the fuel, the tyres, the repair and maintenance?' That's all the good stuff that goes with being in business, and saying that is very, very easy. Some of my colleagues over there, particularly Senator Scarr who's had a lifetime in business and employing people, understand that you can only spend what you've got. I will rephrase that: there is only so long you can go on spending what you haven't got—until you get caught out. We're talking about roads and infrastructure, and I love roads and infrastructure. I love roads for obvious reasons like because we get to drive big trucks on them to deliver freight all around the nation. We bring it in, we take it out. We talk about our agricultural industry and how wonderful it is, and so we should. We talk about our mining industry and how wonderful that is. The majority of the stuff moving around this nation goes on the back of a truck, and we need good roads. Sadly, in in this nation we don't have good roads. But I do know that, when you start making promises you can't keep, there's going to be a problem. You hear the lines parroted by members of the other side that don't know what they're talking about, but they have to fill 15 minutes or five minutes or 10 minutes. They've got to take one for the team, so they'll ask for notes on something to talk about, and they go to the lowest common denominator. I've been here a while and I've seen the standard of conversations in this chamber deteriorate over the years to the point while I'm embarrassed. We see kids coming through the galleries, we see people sitting here to see how this democracy works, and there's nothing wrong with this good entertaining banter. There's nothing wrong with a fierce defence of my ideas versus your ideas and the other way around. But the standard in this chamber has absolutely deteriorated over the years. You hear all the same things, like 'grubby deals' and 'your green mates', and you think, haven't you got any issues? If you can't make intelligent conversation or an intelligent point in the conversation, tell your whip you're not going to get up and make a goog of yourself. Sit down and leave it to others to put in some good information and put forward some good ideas. I have to take my good friend Senator Sullivan to task. This is the second time today I've been blowing wind up the back of your shirt although I have great respect for you, Senator O'Sullivan. I can't blame you because you're parroting the lines coming from your mate the shadow minister's office, Senator Bridget McKenzie, that Labor slashed $9.6 billion. I had to displeasure of sitting in Senate estimates alongside a number of senators here. Senator McKenzie was asking questions, as was Senator Canavan, and talking about all the projects where Labor slashed funding. I have to tell them that the grown-ups got in. You're not going to like this, but we had Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg running around the nation announcing infrastructure project after infrastructure project after infrastructure project. I'd love to make up stuff, but you have to pay for it. Nothing was slashed. There were unfunded projects, there were projects the state governments hadn't agreed to, there were projects with no plans. Quite rightly, the grown-ups got in and went, "Whoa, hang on, we've got to get infrastructure in this nation, but we've got to have the ability to pay for it and the ability to have contractors that can provide the staff to do it.' And, whether Mr Morrison liked it or not, you've got to get agreement from the state governments and local governments. I don't blame you, Senator O'Sullivan, Senator McKenzie set you up for a fall. 16:34 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to speak in support of this matter. One of the best investments the government can make is in the infrastructure needed to support future prosperity. However, this government has shown its contempt for regional Australia and slashed almost $10 billion from vital nation-building projects. Last week I met with representatives from the Doomadgee and Burke shire councils. These are areas that have been affected by the floods in northern Queensland. They have helicopters flying in supplies at $40,000 per trip because they've been cut off by floods for two months. They desperately need $75 million to raise crossings and bridges outside Burke, Doomadgee and Mount Isa, which will secure their communities' links with the rest of Australia. Labor must prioritise infrastructure as a long-term investment to support regional Australian communities over useless measures like increasing the foreign aid budget by $241 million to more than $4½ billion. This must include projects like the $5.4 billion Hells Gate Dam in North Queensland, which Labor scrapped in the budget. There were substantial benefits from this project: more than 10,000 jobs during construction, contributing about $1.3 billion to the local economy; more than 3,000 ongoing jobs; up to 60,000 hectares of newly irrigated land producing a diverse range of high-value products worth at least $800 million per year; and up to $6 billion per year contributed to the local economy. It is nation-building, wealth-creating projects like these which must be prioritised by the government to give regional areas like North Queensland the chance to thrive. I will continue to keep pushing for the Bradfield Scheme, which will give water security to Australia—but that makes too much sense for the brain-dead politicians in this place. 16:36 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales This government and their New South Wales colleagues are intent on slashing and burning funding in regional New South Wales, my home state. It's no wonder when Labor's own campaign bus can't leave Sydney without getting a flat battery. Not only can they not represent us; they won't even visit us. When the Labor government were elected last year they cut—and I thank Senator Sterle for reminding us—$9.6 billion from infrastructure projects. What does that mean for regional Australia? Across the forward estimates there was $7 billion cut from dams, including from two major dams in New South Wales at Dungowan and Wyangala. These vital water storage projects, which secure the essential water supply for our regional communities, have been gutted. The communities around them are gutted and the ability to plan for the future is destroyed. What is more concerning is that we know that federal Labor and New South Wales Labor don't care about New South Wales regional areas either. These people are all about cost-benefit ratios, or CBRs, and, where there aren't people, they don't stack up. When we put money there, it's called a rort or a waste, but it's like the chicken and the egg. If you don't build the roads and the infrastructure, people can't go there. In COVID we saw people move to the regions. They moved for the lifestyle, they moved for a tree change or they moved for a sea change. They realised they could have a better life outside of cities. But housing supply was tight, the infrastructure wasn't there and they returned to the cities. If you spend this money in regional areas, they will come. We have regions of dreams, not fields of dreams, in our country. Build it and they will come. But the government cut, delay and rip the hearts out of regional communities. It is important to expose the legacy of this federal government after just nine months in office because it's a foretaste of what— Senator Chisholm 39801 Ten months. Senator CADELL 300134 Ten months, sorry—even worse. It's a foretaste of what the people of New South Wales can expect under the new Premier, Chris Minns, and Labor. Of course, we're used to Labor saying one thing before the election and doing something else after the election, and we'll see this in New South Wales. It's not just in infrastructure. We've seen it across all things. I'm sure senators of the Greens party are aware of promises that were made in green areas that haven't come through since the election. We're seeing that in superannuation. We're seeing that in energy prices. Regional Australia doesn't vote for you, because they see through you. It's because Labor doesn't understand our communities. When it comes down to promises, the regions and the bush are expendable to Labor. Regional infrastructure is a cost of doing business. It doesn't just affect National Party seats. It affects Labor Party seats. I'm looking at Hunter, Dan Repacholi's seat. There's a great business waiting to open up in Mandalong Road. The Lake Macquarie council has a Labor mayor. It is unsure whether that funding, which would open up huge potential in that area, will go forward under this budget. So what we see is more of the same: the experience of 10 months under this. We are going to get the same in New South Wales. What does that mean for the Great Western Highway? The Liberals and Nationals understand how critical the Great Western Highway is to upgrade the Central West. Getting that pathway through would open up freight lines, potential businesses and so many other things. It's a project that has been spoken of for decades, with its ability to transform travel for thousands of people and tens of millions of dollars worth of business. But again the Labor campaign bus never made it that far, so they've never seen what it's going to do. The last federal government and the last state government promised to commit to that Great Western Highway tunnel as an essential piece of nation-building, but the weekend's result has ended 20 years of progress on this vital upgrade. Labor has promised to scrap the tunnel and is not prepared to invest in the big infrastructure projects that keep the state going. It's becoming clear day after day that Labor will not build the infrastructure that regional Australia, including regional New South Wales, needs. New South Wales Labor built nothing for 16 years when they were last in office, and, now they have won election, they will go back to doing what they were doing. We've seen this government already slash and burn regional programs and projects all over New South Wales, with a growing list of broken promises. At the last election, the slogan was, 'It won't be easy under Albanese,' who is now Prime Minister. We've seen that, for mortgage holders and superannuants, the statement has been proved right. To the new New South Wales government I say: do the right thing and keep regional New South Wales moving, because at the next state election I think it will be, 'Nobody wins under Chris Minns.' The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 The time for the discussion has expired. MATTERS OF URGENCY 66 MATTERS OF URGENCY Pensions and Benefits 66 16:41 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 The Senate will now consider the proposed matter of urgency which the President has received from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Poverty and homelessness disproportionately affect women and are compounded by gendered violence, with single mothers and their children particularly vulnerable. The upcoming Budget must scrap Stage 3 tax cuts and instead fund measures to support those most at risk, including by raising the rate of income support, investing in social housing, and extending Parenting Payment Single". Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in the ir places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:41 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland At the request of Senator McKim, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Poverty and homelessness disproportionately affect women and are compounded by gendered violence, with single mothers and their children particularly vulnerable. The upcoming Budget must scrap Stage 3 tax cuts and instead fund measures to support those most at risk, including by raising the rate of income support, investing in social housing, and extending Parenting Payment Single. In recent weeks, we've seen reports from ACOSS and analysis by Anti-Poverty Week confirming that poverty and homelessness are disproportionately impacting women and children. This is a crisis, and it demands an urgent response. We know that women make up more than 60 per cent of those relying on the lowest income support payments. We know that women and girls made up more than 60 per cent of clients of homelessness services last year. We know that rental prices are skyrocketing and that the fastest-growing group of people at risk of homelessness is women over the age of 45. Across the country, people are living in tents and cars. And we know that all these risks are compounded for women and children leaving abusive relationships. Women are given an impossible choice: stay in an unsafe home, or leave and put themselves and their kids at the mercy of a system of inadequate support, stretched DV services, housing shortages and punitive income tests. I spoke last week in support of the bill to help close the gender pay gap in workplaces. As I said at the time, that is critical, but it's only one piece of the puzzle. We cannot address economic inequality without looking beyond work and reviewing our approach to income support, to housing and to unpaid care work. The JobSeeker rate is too low. Austudy is too low. Pension rates are too low. Parenting payments are too low. In a wealthy country, there is absolutely no excuse for keeping income support below the poverty line, and there is certainly no excuse for keeping the most vulnerable in poverty while offering tax cuts to the wealthiest Australians. At a forum last week, we heard from single mums struggling to make ends meet. Brave mums Jacinta, Aradia and Angela talked about how, for each of them, their already strained budget was stretched to breaking point once their youngest child turned eight. At a time when it's getting more expensive to feed kids, to meet their public school fees, to pay for sports, and to pay for braces and basic health care, that's when single mums are getting punted from parenting payment single onto the even lower JobSeeker rate, losing around $200 a fortnight. This could mean missing a rental or mortgage payment. For Angela, it meant possibly losing her home and genuine fear that she would not be able to keep a roof over her kids' heads. It could mean putting off their own doctor appointment to make sure the kids can eat. For one mum, her own disability needs took second place to make sure her disabled son could get the help he needed. It could mean putting further study on hold because they need to take on extra shifts to make ends meet. For Jacinta, further study would have helped her get higher-paid work, but she had to defer completing the course for years after the drop in income support made it impossible to continue. I was encouraged to hear Sam Mostyn say that the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce has advised the government to focus on the needs of women in the most precarious situations. They should start by reversing the terrible decision of the Gillard government to cut off parenting payment single when kids turn eight. Doing so would cost $1.4 billion, a fraction of a fraction of the stage 3 tax cuts and the AUKUS spending, but it would be life-changing for 500,000 single mums and their kids. Cost-of-living rises, housing shortages and the ongoing national crisis of gendered violence demand urgent action. The upcoming budget is the government's chance to start turning this around. Raise the rates, restore parenting payment single, invest in housing, fully fund frontline domestic violence services, scrap the stage 3 tax cuts and the billions for submarines, and fund the things that will actually help the people who need it. 16:46 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise in this place to speak against this resolution. The first point we need to note is that there are millions of Australians who are going to benefit from the stage 3 tax cuts. This notion that it's just the billionaires at the top end of town who are going to benefit from the stage 3 tax cuts is simply false. Let me give you some examples. A hairdresser earning $60,000 a year will benefit by $400 every year from the stage 3 tax cuts. A teacher earning $70,000 a year will benefit by $620 each year from these tax cuts. An executive assistant earning $80,000 a year will benefit by $900 each year from these tax cuts. A scientist earning $90,000 a year will benefit by $1,120 each year from the tax cuts. A qualified diesel mechanic earning $100,000 a year would lose more than $1,370 a year if this Greens resolution were accepted. These are ordinary, hardworking Australians who are benefiting from these stage 3 tax cuts. The fact of the matter is that in Australia we have a progressive income tax system, as we should have. The more you earn, the more tax you should pay—absolutely. Let me just give you an insight with respect to how progressive our tax system is. Someone earning $200,000 a year pays eight times more tax than someone earning $50,000 a year. That's appropriate. That's a progressive tax system. Sixty per cent of the personal income tax received by the government is provided by the top 20 per cent of earners. Again, that's a progressive income tax system, as it should be. In fact, the top five per cent of earners contribute 33 per cent of the personal income tax receipts of the federal government. Again, that is a progressive tax system. When you have seven per cent or eight per cent inflation, you need to move the tax thresholds, or else everyone—the hairdresser, the teacher, the executive assistant, the research scientist, the qualified diesel mechanic—will be moving into higher tax thresholds. You have to adjust the tax thresholds. That makes basic common sense. The other point I want to make about this—this is an important point—is that the government went to the last election with a promise that they would stay true to the stage 3 tax cuts which I voted for in this place before the last federal election. The government made that promise. The Greens, through this resolution, are asking the government to break their promise. Where's the integrity in that? The government, at the last election, went to the people and got a mandate, which I acknowledge and respect, on the basis they would deliver those stage 3 tax cuts. The Greens now come into this place and put a resolution that the government should break their promise to the Australian people. Is that integrity? Where's the integrity in that? The same lack of integrity was seen before the last federal election, when the Greens said their plan was fully costed and fully funded. That's what they said to voters in my home state of Queensland—that their plan was fully funded and costed. That's what they said. Do you know what was released after the last federal election? The Parliamentary Budget Office, which monitors election commitments, did a study on the Greens' promises before the last federal election. Were they fully funded and costed? No. And you don't have to take my word for it that the Greens misled the people of Queensland. The Parliamentary Budget Office, in their analysis of the Greens' election commitments—this isn't Senator Scarr; this is the Parliamentary Budget Office—found that the introduction of Greens' policies, which were supposedly fully funded and costed, would result in the headline cash balance in the budget deteriorating by $112 billion. The Greens said—and the Greens don't like hearing about their broken promise and how they misled the people of Queensland—their policies were fully funded and costed, but the Parliamentary Budget Office, here in writing, say the Greens' policies would lead to a deterioration of the cash balance in the budget by $112 billion. That's a broken promise. 16:51 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria It's true that the current rate of homelessness in Australia is too high. We saw in the census data reported last week that almost 123,000 Australians are experiencing homelessness. We also know that women on low incomes in the age group of 55 and older are the most at risk of homelessness and have been for at least the last five years. We know that women and children who are fleeing family and domestic violence don't have enough secure housing. So it is often those who are the most vulnerable that are forced to turn to the street or to live in their cars. We also saw, just a few weeks ago, in the Closing the gap statement that First Nations Australians continue to struggle with long-term and stable housing. Issues of overcrowding, a lack of supply and housing that doesn't meet the needs and requirements of these communities are still problems. Put together, these facts are a concerning snapshot of the current state of homelessness in Australia. Our government wants to ensure that every Australian has the security that comes with having a roof over their head, because when you have stable and secure housing you have a better chance economically and getting a job is way easier when you have a home. Having safe and stable housing is a gateway to better social outcomes across a whole range of life's important measures, and the Albanese government knows that this is the case. That is why we introduced the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. The legislation backs in a long-term funding strategy to build social and affordable housing and homes in Australia. Its $10 billion will deliver tens of thousands of better homes for those who need them—30,000 homes in fact. And 4,000 of these will be allocated to women and children, as I mentioned before, who are most at risk. They are the women who are fleeing family and domestic violence and need a place to call home, and they are women who are over the age of 55 and are living dangerously close to the precipice of homelessness. On top of that, the future fund will build 10,000 homes for frontline workers. There will also be $200 million to improve and repair housing in remote Indigenous communities. These are the people who are at risk of becoming homeless and the people who are homeless. They are the Australians who live on the edge, and they are people that Labor's housing fund will help, if only the Greens in this place would support it. We know that there is a huge demand for social and affordable homes in Australia, but no single level of government can solve these problems on its own. We need to work together—local, state and federal governments. That's why the Albanese government is committing a fund of $67 million to boost states and territories through the National Housing and Homelessness Plan, which will secure hundreds of homelessness support jobs. These are the social workers and housing support workers that we need to attract and retain in the homelessness sector, because often it is only those workers who stand between a young family and that family becoming homeless. At the Australian Services Union, I work with these workers. The jobs they do are vital and important, and they daily work with those most at risk. What they tell me is that they need more housing stock. For them, there's nothing more demoralising than being forced to give someone facing homelessness a tent and sending them on their way. This is just not a story from one location; it is a story I've heard across Australia from many homelessness services for a very long time. So I'm proud of what the government is doing to make housing more secure and affordable for Australians and to tackle the issue of homelessness by getting more homes built more quickly. The Greens political party have been out campaigning against the government's plan to ease this problem, but if the Greens want to see more investment in social and affordable housing, if they really want to achieve something rather than just attempting to wedge the government, then they should support the Housing Australia Future Fund. If they wanted to make a difference, the Greens political party would stop politicising Labor's $10 billion investment and act. I can't imagine standing in the way of this legislation. It's a similar story for the coalition. We have experienced a decade of inaction on homelessness policy and we've seen the problem get worse on the coalition's watch. There was no leadership for the states and no long-term plan. Now, when the Liberal and National parties have a chance to do something about it and support these reforms, they say no. I believe it's time to support the largest contribution to social and affordable housing by a federal government in more than a decade and to celebrate it for the massive reform that it is. The Greens political party and the coalition would do well to put politics aside and remember these lines from a poem by John Howard Payne: Mid pleasures and palaces though we may roam, Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home. 16:56 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The 2021 census showed that the number of women experiencing homelessness increased by 10.1 per cent. We know that one in four women and children fleeing violence are not getting the accommodation support they need. We clearly need more social and affordable housing, which brings us to the Housing Australia Future Fund. Under the current proposal, the government will spend, at best, $500 million a year on new social and affordable housing supply. That's 30,000 social and affordable houses over five years. Translate that to the ACT and that's at best 540 houses. At the same time, the ACT is set to lose over 2,000 National Rental Affordability Scheme properties. That's 2,000 affordable rentals, but don't worry—we're going to get 540 social and affordable homes! Let's compare the $10 billion off-budget fund, which will hopefully return $500 million, to what the government spends subsidising investment properties through generous tax concessions: $23.7 billion in revenue foregone on capital gains tax discounts for individuals such as property investors and for trusts, and tax benefits of around $3.6 billion in 2019-20 through negative gearing. Even the Medical Research Future Fund, at $21 billion, disperses more annually than the HAFF will. Then we have the $250 billion stage 3 tax cuts. My community has made it clear to me that they expect the stage 3 tax cuts to be redesigned to deal with the big issues we face. Australians are sick of these issues being politicised by the major parties at the expense of all of us. Let's make decisions that are good for all Australians and our future. 16:58 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I, too, to rise to speak on the urgency motion moved by Senator McKim. I thank the senator for raising this issue. I'm glad to have the opportunity to talk about the importance of social housing and our government's commitment to it and the opportunity to talk about the urgency of addressing the poverty, homelessness and violence affecting women and how we intend to fund that work. Every Australian deserves the security of having a roof over their head. Too many do not have that security. Too many are battling homelessness. Too many are trapped in unsafe homes because they have no alternative. Too many are suffering extreme rental insecurity. That is exactly why we are working hard to make the biggest single Commonwealth investment in social and affordable housing in a decade. There is no time to waste in getting more housing built, and the urgency of the situation is clear. If senators want to see more investment in social housing, the opportunity is right in front of them. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 is an ambitious bill. The $10 billion fund is how we intend to fund tens of thousands of additional houses for people on low incomes. In its first five years alone, returns from the fund will help deliver 30,000 new social and affordable homes. This is in addition to existing housing and homelessness funding. This is a massive injection that Australians desperately need. We know that women, particularly older women, are at greater risk of experiencing homelessness. That's why this fund will include 4,000 homes for women and children impacted by violence and older women at risk of homelessness. It will also specifically invest $100 million into crisis and transitional housing options for these vulnerable Australians. This is in addition to the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. At the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's recent hearings into the bill, which Senator McKim attended, we heard about the urgency of getting this done from almost everyone who came and submitted to the inquiry. Housing experts who came to our inquiry described the reforms as 'absolutely urgent', 'transformative', 'critical' and a 'timely re-assertion of national leadership on housing'. Further, advocates said we need to 'start building immediately', and this is a 'significant and much needed new investment'. This is actually about certainty, not just for the sector that builds homes but also for the vulnerable Australians who need action right now. Again, this is a new funding stream. It is an additional funding stream. It is for additional social and affordable homes. It is the biggest single investment from the Commonwealth in over a decade. There is no time to waste. We are making this commitment after a decade of disinvestment and disinterest from the opposition. Only this month, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'social housing is a responsibility of state government.' We disagree. That's why we're making the biggest single injection of funds in over a decade. Under the last government, affordable and social housing was smashed. Those opposite refuse to take any responsibility. We are taking action. We are showing leadership rather than passing the buck to the states, and the Greens are siding with those opposite. The Greens are siding with those who refused to make this kind of investment over the last decade. The best way to see immediate action is to vote in favour of the Housing Australia Future Fund. We know that the 'no-alition' is going to stand against this huge investment that the country desperately needs, but the Greens standing against 30,000 additional Commonwealth social and affordable homes is extraordinary. We expect that from the Liberals. We all know that they are the people who turn away from people in need. We know it's in their DNA. They prefer to let people slip through the cracks. If the Greens want to see more people get a home they should support the legislation that is in front of the parliament. Again, this is the single biggest injection of Commonwealth funding into social and affordable housing in a decade. You know, Senator McKim—through you, Acting Deputy President Chandler—that this is the biggest injection of funds in addition to the funding that is already there for social and affordable housing. This is a sustainable long-term model that the sector wants and that people who need a home need, and I urge you to support it. 17:03 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania This is the biggest injection of funds into the stock market from the government that I've seen for some time. I make the point that if you'd made the investment that you're proposing to make last year, then you'd be $120 million down on your investment. The idea that bunging money into the stock market is a good platform on which to build more public housing and more social housing just goes to show how far into the minds of the Labor Party the neoliberal brain worms have eaten. I know this is a radical thought, but perhaps, if you want to build more public or social housing, just build more public or social housing. This is not rocket science. I can say that far too many Australians are living in poverty at the moment, and far too many Australians don't have a home. Both of those massive social problems are the result of political choices that have been made in this country. Over the last 10 years or so those political choices were made by the Liberal-National coalition, but now we have the same—or very similar—political choices and very similar political priorities being expressed by the new Labor government. Of those Australians who are living in poverty and who are homeless, women are disproportionately represented. We know that it is single mums and kids who are particularly vulnerable to things like poverty and homelessness and who pay some of the highest price for poverty and homelessness of any Australians. When this government is proposing to spend a quarter of a trillion dollars on the stage 3 tax cuts, under which 80 per cent of the benefits will go to the top 20 per cent of income earners, and when it is proposing to spend $368 billion on nuclear submarines that will make this country a more dangerous place to live, that's when we see the stark reality of the political choices that the Australian Labor Party is making. I say to Labor members: How are you going to ever again look in the eye of an Australian who needs government help and tell them you can't afford to help them? How are you ever going to be able to do that again? Of course, you won't be able to do it again, because you can afford to help them, but it's just that your choices won't allow you to help them. You are more interested in tax cuts for billionaires and more interested in spending $368 billion on nuclear submarines that not only do we not need but will make this country a more dangerous place to live. The light on the hill has been flickering for some time. It is guttering away, blowing in the breeze of neoliberalism, and arguably has either gone out or is about to go out. How is it possible that we are talking about stage 3 tax cuts for the top end when the Labor Party refuses to raise income support for people who are starving while on JobSeeker? How is it possible that we are living in this country? It is possible because that's the choice that the current government has made. People voted for change. They are not getting it. (Time expired) 17:07 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I thank Senator McKim for moving this urgency motion, but I cannot agree with his proposal to increase taxes on hardworking Australians. The legislated stage 3 tax cuts must proceed. I'll go even further and propose that the government reduce taxes on lower and middle income earners as well. I know those opposite often like to pretend that they can play the role of Robin Hood. I know that they do this with the best of intentions, but in reality, they are just accessories to the crime of theft by taxation. More taxes will not solve any of our nation's social or financial issues. Socialism fails every time and everywhere. It appears to be easier to just blame the rich than it is to work hard, take risks and grow one's wealth. We must not forget that in our nation it is the top 3.6 per cent of owners who disproportionately pay more than 31 per cent of taxation revenue. One does not become wealthy by chance. It requires hard work, dedication and risk—lots of risk. If we want our nation to prosper, we must encourage entrepreneurship. Instead of taking money out of the pockets of Australian families, government should be responsible and get out of the way of hardworking Australians and their families. It could start with policies like income splitting, allowing families to split their incomes, pay less tax and spend more time with their precious children. There would be less reliance on taxpayer subsidies and far more stability in the family home. Increasing welfare is not the answer. Reducing taxation, red tape and green tape—there's your answer. Socialism doesn't work, it's never worked and it will not help anyone. 17:09 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The stage 3 tax cuts are going to cost the budget bottom line $254 billion over the next decade; $254 billion is a lot of money. There is so much that this government could do with $254 million instead of pissing it into the wind with the stage 3 tax cuts. It can be hard to comprehend just how much $254 billion is, so I want to list some of the other things that the government could do with $254 billion instead of giving it in tax cuts to the ultrawealthy. For $88.7 billion we could raise the rate of JobSeeker to $88 a day, above the poverty line, and make a huge difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people across the country—people like the amazing Mike and Liz from Wagga Wagga, who are struggling to raise a family on the inadequate income support rate. Do you know what they were able to do when JobSeeker was raised above the poverty line with the COVID supplement? They were able to get new pyjamas and new jumpers coming into winter. They got their car registered. They didn't have to borrow money. These are the sorts of absolutely basic things that, if you increase the rate of income support, make a massive difference to people's lives. For $69 billion we could raise the rate of youth and student allowance above the poverty line and allow young people like Bella Mitchell-Sears, who was recently in touch with my office, to actually continue studying. She had to quit her university degree last year because the rate of student allowance did not allow her to live. She wanted to keep studying, but instead she had to quit and go out to find a job just in order to keep afloat. For $73 billion we could raise the rate of DSP so that people didn't have to decide whether to pay for their medications, pay to eat or pay the rent. For $90.8 billion we could make child care free for all parents and caregivers. $1.4 billion a year, a fraction of the stage 3 tax cuts, would mean that we could reinstate parenting payment single so that, when kids turn eight, people are still able to survive and keep their families together. $50 billion over the next 10 years would fund hundreds of thousands of affordable homes, actually clear the waiting lists of public housing and actually properly tackle the housing crisis. Yes, the things I've listed do add up to more than $254 billion, but if you add in the $368 billion for nuclear submarines you could actually fund all of this. There is absolutely no doubt— (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283601 The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:16]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 71 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 16 of 2022-2023 71 17:19 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to speak about the report by the Auditor-General on the management of migration to Australia, specifically the family reunion program. This is an important report on the family reunion program, which was tabled in the Senate this morning. The Australian Greens welcome any analysis of Australia's very dysfunctional family reunion visa system. We note that the Auditor-General made six recommendations in this report, all of which the Department of Home Affairs has agreed to. Critically, this was more of a technical report that focused on performance and impact measurement, policy and program design and governance and risk management. What the report didn't address was the elephant in the room, which is quotas and the backlogs and waiting times they create. What Australia needs is a family reunion visa system that is faster, that is fairer and that is more affordable. In February this year, the Greens welcomed the government's decision to scrap ministerial directions 80 and 83. That will provide for the processing of applications for family reunion visas from refugees who arrived in Australia by boat, or at least the more timely processing of those applications. What that means in real terms is that, instead of being kept at the bottom of the family reunion visa queues, people who arrived in Australia by boat to seek asylum now get to move in those queues at the same glacial pace that everyone else gets to move. It is beyond shameful that in some classes of family reunion visas, people are waiting literally for decades to have their visas approved. The current waiting time for, for example, a remaining relative visa is about 50 years. That's 50 years, colleagues—five decades—to wait for a remaining relative visa. Parent visas currently take about 30 years, on average, to process. Or, if you're wealthy and you can afford the $100,000 for two parents to jump the queue, by payment of $50,000 each, you're waiting about five years for a parent visa. These are extraordinary waiting times. Even partner visas can now take over two years to process. In the previous parliament, the Greens initiated a Senate inquiry into Australia's family reunion system. The Labor chair of that committee, in the report drafted by the chair and adopted by the committee, acknowledged the problems inherent in the system and called for a review of Australia's family reunion system to improve efficiencies, to reduce complexities, to substantially reduce waiting times and to provide greater transparency for applicants. The Greens, in our additional comments to the report, made a further 11 practical recommendations that the department could implement to achieve those objectives, but to date, we have not seen the action necessary from the current government. Our family reunion visa system causes social and economic exclusion. It disproportionately impacts women, it disproportionately impacts low-income families and it disproportionately impacts families with children living across multiple countries. We need a family reunion visa system that is faster, fairer and more affordable—one that actually reunites family rather than one that keeps families apart. The question is: what's Labor going to do? The most recent budget provided no comfort at all for people who are waiting for significant reform in this area, and with all signs pointing to an austerity budget looming, the Greens have no confidence that we are going to see the action necessary in this budget. While I'm at it, we should remove discriminatory tests in Australia's visa system, including tests that leave so many people who are disabled at risk of exclusion from our country along with their families. It's time for change. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 72 DOCUMENTS Attorney-General's Department, Goods and Services Tax 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 17:25 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table documents relating to the orders for the production of documents concerning the resignation of the Freedom of Information Commissioner, and the GST. 17:26 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The Greens supported this order for the production of documents because we were deeply troubled by the circumstances in which the commissioner resigned. We were troubled that there was so little transparency from the government about the circumstances of the resignation of the FOI Commissioner, only 12 months into a multi-year appointment, in circumstances where the FOI Commissioner had expressed in budget estimates the efforts he was making to try and resolve an incredible backlog—a growing backlog—of FOI requests and reviews. Some of these, not one or two but dozens and dozens, date back five years. What was clear was the FOI Commissioner had been trying to fix some of that internally in the office, seeking to work with the department and, it would appear, the Attorney-General's Department, the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General's office, and had hit a brick wall. He had absolutely hit a brick wall. This is the Attorney-General who, when in opposition, repeatedly railed against the lack of resourcing for this office, repeatedly said the delays were bad for democracy and repeatedly called for it to be fixed. Now he's in a position to do that and, not quite 12 months into his time as the new Attorney-General, nothing has changed. In fact, things have got worse, because Commissioner Hardiman resigned in frustration about nothing changing. I'm glad that we had the call for papers. I'm concerned about the extent to which that will have been responded to, but I'm hopeful it's a full response. Let's be clear. What's required here is, yes, the return of the documents, but it's for the government to resource the office, to provide the funds for the Freedom of Information Act to actually work. At the moment, starving the office of funds so reviews are five years late—thousands and thousands of reviews are years late—means we have freedom from information, not freedom of information, at a Commonwealth level. We were told by this Attorney-General that he'd come in as a big reformer and fix it, but nothing's changed. In fact, the delays have got worse; they've got longer. The place is in such a shambles that the commissioner resigned in disgust. That's the truth of the matter. Well, there's a solution to this. Fund the office. Fund freedom of information. Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. The now Attorney said, in opposition: 'The funding needs to happen. We need freedom of information.' Well, let's see a direct budget commitment to double the funding of this office, to actually get rid of the backlog—a targeted spend on the backlog—and a commitment that going forward we actually will have freedom of information laws. I say this to former Commissioner Hardiman: Thank you for your efforts. Thank you for trying to fix the thing internally, and, on behalf of the Greens, we're sorry that it didn't work, but we need more public servants of commitment and integrity who are willing to say, when they're hitting roadblock after roadblock from the government of the day, that they're just going to sit there and take a salary and pretend that things can be fixed but are actually going to take a moment of principle and say: 'Do you know what? I won't be part of this,' and call it out in the best way they can. In this case, it was from Mr Hardiman, saying: 'I won't be part of this. I'm resigning. I'm not going to be part of the problem.' So this is an invitation to the Attorney to heed the call of Commissioner Hardiman and to commit to being part of the solution. Question agreed to. BILLS 73 BILLS Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 73

Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023

First Reading 73 17:31 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 73 17:31 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement the government's election commitment to establish a 'Startup Year' program in our universities. What happens in our universities can change the world. They are our ideas factories. And they are playing an ever bigger role in nurturing our startup ideas from concept to commercial application through higher education-based accelerator programs. Startups play an important role in job creation and in commercialising ideas. In 2020, over 3,000 new jobs could be attributed to Australia's eight most successful startups. The Tech Council of Australia estimates new tech startups can contribute 30,000 new jobs and $7 billion in value by 2030. But creating a successful start-up requires know-how. And we need to support the development of the skills needed to drive those businesses and technologies of the future. That's what this bill does. It will extend up to 2,000 income contingent loans each year to eligible students participating in higher education based accelerator programs. These will be programs which build skills in entrepreneurship and connect students with the support, mentorship and facilities they need to develop their startup ideas. The loans will be available to final year undergraduate students, current postgraduate students and recent graduates as a new loan type under our existing Higher Education Loan Program. The amount of assistance will be tied to the maximum student contribution amount for medicine, dentistry and veterinary science set at $11,800 under funding cluster four of the Higher Education Support Act. The bill also provides for guidelines, which will contain further detail on the operation of the loan, including the process of allocating loans and registering eligible accelerator courses under the program. Places will be prioritised for courses which demonstrate greater engagement with, and participation of, under-represented groups. Among them: female entrepreneurs; Indigenous Australians; people with disability; and community based startups which are working on regional and rural issues. Consistent with other HELP loans, Startup Year loans will be paid back through the tax system once an individual's income rises above the compulsory repayment threshold. This means that people pay what they can afford, and they don't pay more if they don't earn more. This removes a significant roadblock to participation in accelerator programs, and will encourage a broader, more diverse range of programs available to a larger cohort of participants. Eligible students will be able to receive a maximum of two Startup Year loans over their lifetime, and students who undertake an accelerator course and who access a Startup Year loan will be able to access a range of student payments, as long as they meet the other eligibility criteria. These measures will help our bright young innovators to generate the game-changing ideas and jobs of the future. The program will start with a pilot program commencing in July 2023, with a full rollout in July 2024. The bill also amends the Higher Education Support Act to list Avondale University as a table B provider. Listing Avondale as a table B provider recognises the university's recent registration as an 'Australian university' by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, and will give Avondale greater access to grants under the Higher Education Support Act, such as research block grants. The bill will also amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to apply current indexation rates to funding for the 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years and insert a new funding cap for the 2025-26 financial year, resulting in an additional appropriation to the ARC of just over $1 billion. It will ensure that the Australian Research Council can continue to support Australia's research sector by funding the highest quality of fundamental and applied research to deliver real cultural, economic, social and environmental benefits for all Australians. The measures in this bill further the government's commitment to supporting our higher education sector, and 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. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 74 Membership 74 Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 74 Reference 74 17:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 relating to a referral to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I move the motion as amended: That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023: The World Health Organization's pandemic treaty, also known as the pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord, with reference to: (a) the conceptual zero draft of the pandemic treaty and any other draft of the pandemic treaty; (b) Australia's input to the drafting and negotiating process for the pandemic treaty; (c) the principles of Australian autonomy in responding to health crises and pandemics; (d) the effect of proposals contained in the pandemic treaty, and (e) any other related manners. As a servant of the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I want to read out the amended motion because I want the provisions in the Hansard: That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023: That will give plenty of time for consideration in detail. The World Health Organization's pandemic treaty, also known as the pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord, with reference to: (a) the conceptual zero draft of the pandemic treaty and any other draft of the pandemic treaty; (b) Australia's input to the drafting and negotiating process for the pandemic treaty; (c) the principles of Australian autonomy in responding to health crises and pandemics; (d) the effect of proposals contained in the pandemic treaty; and (e) any other related matters. I note that when one of the world's most influential people, someone famous for valuing the liberty and sovereignty of human existence, makes a comment about the risks that the United Nations World Health Organization's pandemic treaty poses it's worth listening to. In response to my video of my Senate speech last week criticising the proposed increased health powers of the pandemic treaty, Elon Musk said: Countries should not cede authority to WHO. Regardless of what you think of Elon Musk, he's one of a handful of people invited into the global backrooms of power. He knows better than anyone sitting in this chamber what the world looks like when the press aren't watching. So threatened as a result of this comment was the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Ghebreyesus, that he felt the need to reply to this tweet. Perhaps four million impressions and 1.2 million plays of my speech got his attention. Tedros is a man that no sensible Australian would want anywhere near the health response of this nation, not least because of his prominent role as a terrorist in a violent Marxist political party with a track record of using health care as a political weapon. In his reply to my speech in this chamber three weeks ago, Tedros failed to address the key point that I was making. That key point is that 83 World Health Organization staff were found to have committed rape and sexual exploitation of women in the Congo, some women as young as 13. Who made that finding? The World Health Organization's own investigators. Those investigators went on to say that UNWHO must take any action against their staff and, if they failed to take any action of their staff, it meant the World Health Organization was 'rotten with rapists'. Tedros deliberately ignored that part of my speech, so I can only assume those rapists will remain employed in the UN World Health Organization and free to commit further crimes. The World Health Organization really is rotting from the head. Tedros only replied on the issue of sovereignty, which I briefly mentioned, so now let's discuss sovereignty in detail. Tedros insists countries aren't ceding sovereignty to the World Health Organization and that the pandemic treaty won't change the sovereignty of member states. It is, he promises, simply a device to help countries better guard against the pandemic. Oh, really? As the United Nations World Health Organization's advise already achieves that, why go to all this trouble of a three-year development cycle for a treaty that doesn't change anything? Here's the case that suggests Tedros is deliberately misleading the public about what the World Health Organization are doing. Remember, this is out in the open. All these documents and statements are available on the World Health Organization website. The zero draft—they had to come up with a new number because the first draft was an embarrassment—clearly shows this is not an agreement about passive advice. The pandemic treaty, despite Tedros's lies on Twitter, proposes to hold the same authority as all other United Nations treaties. It is a set of instructions that nations, corporations and individuals scripted, people and organisations who had their own interests at heart, not the health, safety and welfare of the Australian people. Included in the pandemic treaty are the powers to enforce mandatory detention, compulsory vaccination, lockdowns, forced medical procedures, vaccine passports—vaccine prisons, really—closed borders and generally all the worst parts of the gross global COVID deceit and mismanagement. Australia could be locked down and its people medicated without public consent with no democratic mechanism to reprimand violations of civil liberty—none. Every country is different. Bespoke solutions are essential. The World Health Organization cannot maintain 195 bespoke solutions. It would take the bureaucrats easy way out, one size fits. The World Health Organization did not offer the best solution to COVID. Arguably that was Sweden with their business-as-usual approach. Several Indian states went their own way, which is now offering rich data on vaccination and herd immunity. If we'd had an all-powerful Tedros pandemic treaty in place at that time, Sweden and India would have had to comply and the world would not have the information we now have about what worked and what did not work. Perhaps that's the point. If the World Health Organization can require the whole world to follow the same response, how will we know whether the response was the wrong one? We wouldn't know. The United Nations World Health Organization loves to hide the truth. The World Health Organization has a proven record of hiding the truth. As it stands, the only reason that a mob of unelected health bureaucrats based in Geneva is not governing Australia is thanks to a collection of African nations who voted down the first version of the pandemic treaty presented as regulation changes last December. This will not happen again. The 42-member African nations bloc has been offered money, technology, bribes and resources in exchange for their support. Western nations, including Australia, are being sent the bill for this bribing of African nations to the tune of billions of dollars—Australian taxpayers paying bribes. We won't have it. This is how much Western money Africa has been offered to support the pandemic treaty. How many understand that this treaty is not just about pandemic management but a permanent system of healthcare aid to the third world? The pandemic treaty proposes allowing health stakeholders, such as vaccine companies, to sit as voting members to a World Health Organization committee running a pandemic response, with the United Nations World Health Organization declaring potential pandemics—they wouldn't even have to declare a pandemic, just a potential pandemic. Vaccine companies would have the power to order the use of their vaccines around the world, under World Health Organization orders. These would include companies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is the World Health Organization's second-largest donor. In return, the World Health Organization promotes vaccines from pharmaceutical companies that Bill and Melinda Gates own. The Gates Foundation returns a profit from vaccine purchases to an organisation that promotes vaccine use. It's a nice circle. Welcome to cronyism and corruption World Health Organization style, Gates style, big pharma style. In the detail, the World Health Organization has decreed that this policy instrument makes the WHO 'the directing and coordinating authority on global health and the leader of multilateral cooperation in global health governance'. It further insists that it will have powers to control the health response from a global to a regional, national and community level, meaning the World Health Organization—the crooked, corrupt, incompetent and dishonest organisation—will have powers inside every Australian town and suburb, every GP surgery and every state and federal health bureaucrat's desk. That would leave little room to doubt that the intention of this document is to invade the domestic health processes of each country, right down to the local community health centre. Who will really exercise these powers? I'll tell you. The document clearly states that national sovereignty ends where the impact on other countries begins, at which point the United Nations World Health Organization takes over. Who determines what impacts on another country? The World Health Organization, apparently, setting itself up as judge, jury and executioner, with the only right of appeal being the World Health Organization itself. We should ask ourselves: if the World Health Organization declared Sweden to be causing harm to neighbouring countries during the last pandemic, what action would Tedros and the World Health Organization have taken against them? No-one has given an answer to this; indeed, no-one is even curious about these extreme hypothetical powers and what they would look like in even in the most basic real-world scenario. The SWIFT system of processing international financial transactions was used to enforce sanctions against Russia. This is the most likely method of delivering World Health Organization sanctions, and it has been mooted. The treaty will create a monstrous health bureaucracy that binds Australia to funding the health systems of developing nations, even though we can't seem to find the money to build hospitals in our own country. Only today there were reports in the media of mothers-to-be in Gladstone, Queensland having to travel hours to get to a maternity centre. Gladstone is a city of 35,000 people, not a village, and it has a maternity unit that is effectively closed to new deliveries. This is a first world country, or it was. Perhaps, if the treaty comes in, Premier Palaszczuk can apply to the World Health Organization to pay for a new birthing unit. That's sarcasm, by the way. I'd never want them to build any damn thing. Our states have some of the worst health records in half a century and yet we cannot wait to rush in as global saviours of international health and throw what little money we have left behind the World Health Organization. The Zero Draft of the WHO pandemic treaty, accord or instrument—whatever the rebranding—must be referred for a detailed review, including the costing. We need to know exactly what the price tag is going to look like. We need to know exactly how much sovereignty will be ceded to an international body that has proven itself to be politically compromised to China, a nation offering sufficient security concerns that our defence minister decided we needed to sign up to AUKUS, in part to provide protection against China. Under the pandemic treaty, the private medical data of citizens becomes the property of global health bureaucrats and their corporate stakeholders. Your private health data becomes their property. Will this data be deidentified? Not on the current wording, it won't. We all, in this country, will become vulnerable to foreign health rules, procedures and orders, dictates from bureaucrats that Australia cannot vote out of power and from whom we cannot protect ourselves, nor can we hold these bastards accountable. With unending unlimited power, the pandemic treaty will ensure that nations like Australia, which are least likely to be the cause of a global pandemic, are required to bear an unfair burden of cost for the mistakes of other regimes. The pandemic treaty is a political document, not a health document, and it must be treated as such. The treaty dictates how much money Australian governments must spend on pandemic prevention—five per cent of annual health budgets. It cedes sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Geneva and New York. It requires Australia to give away a defined percentage of our GDP on international cooperation and assistance on pandemic prevention. It cedes sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Geneva and New York. Under our Constitution's external affairs powers, the Commonwealth government is empowered to sign away our sovereignty and require the state to make this expenditure. The external affairs powers are being used here in a manner our founding fathers did not envisage. What about the other UN agencies? I imagine they're all eyeing this one up. What a way to extend their power and their funding—their control! Since when did Australia's governments allow the UN World Health Organization to make binding demands on public money and the allocation of funds? One Nation completely opposes the UN World Health Organization being issued with a magic credit card, with Australian taxpayers paying the bill. And what of reviewing the severe risk a unified health response places on national security? Do we want potentially hostile nations knowing exactly how Australia will respond to a pandemic, given that a pandemic might come in the form of a biological weapon? That is what the pandemic treaty demands. Signing this is a violation of national security. We can't wait until the treaty is completed and passed through parliament, a fait accompli, as every other sovereignty-sapping agreement has been. We can't wait until then. We have to hit this now. This is far too important. People's lives are at stake. People's health is at stake. Our nation's sovereignty is at stake. Our negotiating committee—permanently based in Zurich!—needs to receive their instructions from the Australian people, not from the pharmaceutical establishment. At the very least, the pandemic treaty must be submitted for a rigorous, detailed and forensic review to determine exactly what we are agreeing to. This must happen now so the negotiating body understands what the public will accept and what it will not accept. After that, the public must be allowed to decide if it is prepared to cede control of health care, something that has always been proudly under the control of Australia, instead to the international bureaucracy. It's a question so significant that it's worthy of a plebiscite. Yet the best we can do is to come into the Senate chamber and beg for a Senate inquiry. This treaty needs an inquiry now to help our negotiators make good decisions—decisions in the national interest, decisions that everyday Australians struggling with an out-of-control cost of living can afford. I want to make the point that Senator Alex Antic, Senator Pauline Hanson and Senator Ralph Babet are co-sponsors and co-movers of the motion. This work on the United Stations started in my very first speech in the Senate in 2016. It has continued, thoroughly, completely, continually, until now. It will continue, because the United Nations and the World Health Organization are corrupt, dishonest, disgraceful, inhuman entities. I will not shut up on this until we exit from the United Nations. I call on an Aus-exit. After years of Liberal, Labor and the Greens gutlessly ceding sovereignty over many aspects of this country, we will chase and hold accountable governments on this, just as we did on the cash ban and won on that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Before I call you, Senator Babet, I will just remind senators to be diligent in their use of parliamentary language during these debates. Senator Babet. 17:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I thank Senator Malcolm Roberts for this motion. Obviously I rise here in this place today to support the motion. I too spoke in my maiden speech about the ever-encroaching United Nations WHO and all their sister organisations. During the 2020 election campaign, the UAP brought to the people of Australia a serious concern. That concern of course was the ever-encroaching—the ever-growing—power of the WHO. Specifically, we sounded the alarm on the pandemic treaty. We did our best to get our warning out to the public. We allocated significant resources to an education campaign around the proposed treaty, which was swiftly dismissed by the majority of people here in this place and by the legacy media as just another conspiracy theory, just more misinformation, even though our nation was already heavily entangled in the early stages of this treaty via the intergovernmental negotiating body. Just another conspiracy theory, they said. Well, it's now unfolding right before our very eyes. Not a conspiracy theory anymore, is it? It is up to us in this place to ensure that our nation's interests are protected from any agreement which could impact the autonomy of our people and, of course, our nation and our sovereignty. It must be protected. What have the past three years taught us? I'll tell you what they've taught us. They taught us that secrecy and lack of disclosure erodes trust and produces poor outcomes. Like I keep saying in this place over and over again, we need transparency. The Australian people were shielded from the truth when they voted in 2022, and we must do all that we can to ensure that no treaty is signed off until the people have their chance to look at the issue and properly dissect and understand the implications. What have we learnt from the pandemic? We've learnt that transparency and accountability is the best way forward. That's what we learnt from that. As Senator Roberts mentioned, and I'll quote again, even Elon Musk tweeted just last week in response to a speech by Senator Roberts: Countries should not cede authority to WHO I ask all of you here one question: who should control or guide our government response to the next health emergency? Should it be the WHO, an unelected international body with no accountability, or should it be the Australian people? Should it be us, democratically elected here in this place to serve the people? That's a rhetorical question. Of course it should be us. The Department of Health and Aged Care website states: Once the new instrument has been finalised, the Australian Government will make a decision on whether to agree to it. Changes to the International Health Regulations may create new international legal obligations for Australia. I urge everyone here in this place to consider the second sentence carefully. We must understand what the WHO wants to achieve, and we must ask our constituents if they are comfortable letting a foreign, unelected bureaucracy potentially take the wheel next time there is a public health emergency. I was elected to this place because the people of Victoria disapproved of the last pandemic response. Never again can we allow basic inalienable human rights to be tossed to the side. Never again can we threaten livelihoods, close borders, grant indemnity to big pharma or break up families. We must learn from our mistakes and not off-load our responsibility to unaccountable and, in my opinion, easily corruptible foreign bodies. I'll give you some examples. Bill Gates was the second-highest donor to the WHO in 2020-21, the start of the pandemic. Greater even than the United States, Germany was the highest, with US$751 million donated. In addition to this, the Vaccine Alliance, which Bill Gates created in 1999, has donated US$1.5 billion from 2016 to 2020. They also donated $452 million to the WHO in 2020-21. Basically, foundations supported or funded by Bill Gates donated in total over US$1 billion to the WHO in 2020-21. Gates said in 2010, in the now infamous Ted talk, that if we do a good job on vaccines we can reduce the world's population by 1.5 billion or so. I'll be clear and I will say that that comment may have been taken out of context, but it makes you wonder: is he all about promoting vaccines no matter the cost? Senator Roberts 266524 That he makes. Senator BABET 300706 That he makes—vaccines that he makes. Thank you, Senator Roberts. Now, Gates is also quoted as saying—this is what he has said—that he gets a 20-to-one return on any investment he makes on vaccines. Doesn't that make you wonder what he's up to, the guy who funds the WHO? Isn't that enough to make you say, 'Hang on a sec: maybe we should look at this'? I, for one, am opposed to the WHO pandemic treaty, and millions of Australians stand with me. Just like the lyrics to that famous song from the band the Who, 'I'll get on my knees and pray we don't get fooled again.' Thank you. 17:55 Senator CA F49 Tasmania ROL BROWN (—) (): The devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have been felt across the world, including here in Australia. Countries from across the globe are looking to determine how the global health system could better work in future pandemics so that they can better protect their populations, minimise economic effects and see a more effective and equitable global response. This parliament has, since 1996, a long-established significant role in scrutinising treaties prior to binding treaty action being taken by government, led by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, JSCOT. Before Australia can ratify any new international agreement, once negotiated, the JSCOT will consider the agreement, undertake further consultation with stakeholders and members of the public, and make a recommendation to parliament as to whether Australia should ratify the agreement. The proposed new instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response is still being negotiated, and key provisions have not been agreed between countries. There is not yet a final agreement for the parliament to consider. Negotiations on a new instrument are not expected to be concluded until May 2024 at the earliest. We therefore oppose the proposed motion. Let me also take this opportunity to clarify a range of misunderstandings about this proposed instrument. Countries retain sovereignty regarding their public health policies, including public health and safety measures such as border measures and the use of masks and vaccines. This is enshrined in the very first paragraph of the current draft agreement, which enforces the principle that each country retains responsibility and control of its own health policies. It is also enshrined in international law, including the existing International Health Regulations 2005. The WHO has no legal authority to force countries to accept any recommendations The WHO can provide assistance only at the request of a country. Australian law can be changed only by an act of parliament, not by an international treaty or any other international legal instrument. No international instrument can change or affect Australia's constitution. Any changes to Australian law to implement the new instrument would also have to be considered and passed by parliament through the usual processes. Negotiations are currently underway on the new instrument, and nothing has been agreed. In particular, the specific proposals referred to in the motion will be subject to extensive negotiations by member states and have not been agreed. The specific proposals referred to in points (b) and (d) are not being considered for inclusion in the new instrument. While this instrument is being negotiated through the mechanisms of the WHO, negotiations are between countries only. This is an opportunity to pursue Australia's objectives for improvement to global health systems, which include: strengthening the international community's efforts to prevent and respond to future pandemics; allowing Australia to pursue international and regional health priorities while protecting domestic interests and sovereign rights; and protecting the Australian community's health and wellbeing against the threat of future pandemics. Further information on these negotiations is available on the Department of Health and Aged Care website and on the World Health Organization website. The government expects to commence public consultation on the proposed instrument later in the year, once the likely shape of the agreement is better defined. 18:00 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak in support of Senator Roberts's motion to refer the World Health Organization pandemic treaty to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, because his motion goes to the essence of democracy. It goes to what our forefathers have fought for for the last 250 years. I hark back to that great year, 1776, when the great patriots of the USA fought against foreign oppression. I know many of those on the opposite side like to laugh at that, but that was the flame that lit the light of democracy. That was followed by the French Revolution. What makes Western civilisation so great is that it is founded on grassroots movements, not unelected elite bureaucrats out there in Switzerland who make these decisions and then use globally controlled media to influence decisions. While I agree with you, Senator Brown—I don't think that we're going to give up our sovereignty to the WHO on what is binding and non-binding—we do risk being influenced by the so-called vibe. We saw that during the COVID pandemic, when we would religiously follow the orders or proclamations from the WHO without any questioning. We had great big organisations under the umbrella of the 'trusted news initiative' giving commands, and you weren't allowed to question anything. If you did, you were censored. We have seen that come out recently with the Twitter files, where the White House, for example, was influencing social media companies. Anyone who tried to put out a story that might have questioned the safety of the vaccines was immediately barred from social media. That is not right. That was a globally coordinated effort. There were no laws in place to say that any of that was legal. What was in place was a system of influence that has been brought about by the centralised control of wealth. I will give a bit of a prologue here in this country. My first memory of politics is from 1983, when Bob Hawke was elected. Within months of being elected, he went to the High Court in order to overthrow a state government that wanted to build a dam. Put aside the environmental issues of the Franklin dam. The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party used the Constitution to argue that foreign treaties ought to override state powers. That undermined democracy, and it undermined our own Constitution. You cannot tell me that, when Deakin and Barton—the two great protectionists of this party and the first two prime ministers of this country—helped to formulate the Constitution and said that the federal government should have foreign powers, that meant that foreign treaties could override domestic law. That's exactly what the Franklin dam decision did, and that was the start of the unwinding of our sovereignty in this country. In 1985, Paul Keating let foreign banks into this country without any capital controls. That mattered, because for the next 30 years we saw the banks go out on a borrowing spree. They went from having $8 billion in debt in 1985 to having $800 billion in 2007, and all that money went into housing. There were no controls over how much went into manufacturing or industry. If I had my way, for every dollar that we borrowed offshore for housing another dollar would have to go into industry. We have to cut down on foreign debt, because it is another form of influence. Then we had the Button plan, which ultimately destroyed manufacturing in this country. It destroyed the great state of Victoria. That was followed by the Dawkins plan, which brought in and empowered universities. So we basically got rid of our manufacturing industry and replaced it and empowered these Marxists in universities who go around and undermine the working population. To cap it all off, we had superannuation, which basically funded the sale of our infrastructure to unelected officials in superannuation, along with foreign ownership. That superannuation has a centralised all the battlers' wealth in this country. For example, the industry funds use one proxy manager, they own over 20 per cent of all the major top-50 companies in Australia and they vote together with that one proxy vote. What's happened in Australia has also happened overseas. We have wealth managers, like BlackRock and Vanguard, who have controlling interests in NBC and Pfizer. These people who sit on the boards also sit on the NIH, and there are massive conflicts of interest. That is where we get the problem with these treaties and the World Health Organization. As Senator Roberts rightly pointed out, Bill Gates, I think—I stand to be corrected on this—is a massive donor to the World Health Organization. He might be the second-biggest donor. He has enormous influence. He's not accountable to anyone. He, himself, has backflipped on how effective the vaccines are. Yet again, there is no level of accountability. That is the problem with organisations like the World Health Organization. I think they served a purpose after World War II. I think the United Nations was created with the good intentions of trying to find a peaceful solution between countries going to war. But, as we know with the famous Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt leaked conversation, back in 2014, Ban Ki-moon condoned the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Ukraine. So you have to ask yourself why the United Nations isn't trying to strive for peace, rather than interfering domestically with countries' policies. That is the difference. I've got no problems with seeking cooperation between countries. That is very important. We do not want conflicts going on. At the same time, we have to respect a nation's sovereignty. That means the people and the government must listen to its people. This is particularly relevant, because section 477(1)(c) of the Biosecurity Act empowers the health minister to declare an emergency on a recommendation by the World Health Organization. That is already in legislation. That is very, very scary—the fact that we have already legislated, the fact that the health minister can make a unilateral decision based on the recommendation of the World Health Organization. That is why this inquiry is so important. We need to shine a light on the dealings of the bureaucrats. Let's face it, it's the bureaucrats who run—I've often said this. It's the bureaucrats who are a shadow government in this country. It's not us. We turn up here for 19 weeks of the year and we run across the chamber to the bells—like monkeys on a tin can or whatever. No, it's the bureaucrats who have permanent jobs here. They get to go on the junkets over to Switzerland. Occasionally, the other side might get to go. I think I picked up before that there are permanent bureaucrats living in Switzerland who do the deals. So you can imagine how easily influenced they'll be by their colleagues in Switzerland, when they're going out wining and dining and having schapps after a day on the slopes. I must admit—maybe I should try and jag a job, thinking about it like that! What a cushy job that would be. The point is, you can imagine how easy it would be for these bureaucrats to be influenced by these people. Those in Australia would never even know. So much money was spent throughout COVID. We saw the World Health Organization flip-flop. They flip-flopped on masks. They flip-flopped on remdesivir. You have to ask yourself why they flip-flopped. Was it political pressure? Was it the wheelings and dealings of, for example, these wealthy fund managers, like BlackRock, Vanguard and the Gates of the world who have conflicts of interest, trying to push their drugs onto people when they weren't properly tested? I think it's a fantastic idea that we shine a light on the wheelings and dealings of these treaties. I ask everyone to support this motion. 18:09 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia The Greens will be opposing this motion and the attempt to undermine the World Health Organization in the claim that they undermine Australian sovereignty. I think I'm pretty well positioned to talk about sovereignty in this place. The World Health Assembly has decided to create a treaty for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, and this decision was made by consensus. The Greens support this decision. The World Health Organization represents governments from across the world, all of which have had vastly different experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even within Australia, we've had vastly different experiences of the pandemic. I know that my experience as a Western Australian is very different from that of people in New South Wales or Victoria. This treaty will gather their learnings, and the WHO will draft and negotiate the WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This is actually a good thing, because it's important that we learn from the responses of governments right across the world so we can do better next time. Australia needs a plan. We are now the only country in the OECD that does not have a national authority on communicable diseases and their control. The Australian Greens plan for pandemic preparedness in Australia includes establishing a national centre for disease control with $246 million of funding to lead a unified apolitical health approach across the entire country and to ensure that we can deal with the threat of new and emerging diseases; investing $250 million over the next two years into COVID-19 vaccine research; ensuring we can produce enough of our own vaccines onshore for everybody by building and operating publicly owned mRNA vaccine production facilities; and using a boosted foreign aid budget to invest in COVAX to support globally equitable vaccine access. All of these play a critical role in ensuring that Australia is as prepared as possible for the next pandemic. I want to turn to how First Nations communities were impacted by COVID-19. To put it simply, without those lockdowns, which we all absolutely detested, especially in some of our remote communities, COVID-19 could have been absolutely devastating. These lockdowns actually saved lives. These lockdowns helped keep COVID-19 out of already vulnerable communities. I remember, before coming becoming a senator, I was working alongside some of those remote communities in Western Australia who actually moved boulders onto access roads to stop people coming in and spreading COVID-19. Some of these communities don't have access to clean running water and may not have access to health care to treat them if they did get sick from COVID-19. Indeed we know that First Nations people have significantly worse health outcomes than non-First Nations people. The life expectancy in Australia is 83.2 years. We are No. 8 in the world in this regard. For comparison, Hong Kong is No. 1, with a life expectancy of 85.3. Just to put that into context, for a First Nations person here in Australia, our average life expectancy is 71.6 years for men and 75.6 years for women—in fact, I don't have that long to go; about 30 years. It's also been found that the burden of diseases may result in illness but not death, such as mental illness, injuries, arthritis, hearing loss and asthma, which all have a huge impact on other diseases because the immune system is already compromised, especially for First Nations people in their communities. We saw all through this pandemic that if someone had an underlying condition, there were more likely to become sicker and would perhaps have a harder time recovering from COVID-19. First Nations people are getting sicker earlier and for longer. In fact, what those statistics tell us is that we are dying earlier. This is still a shameful reality for our community and for Australia as a whole. It is the result of ongoing oppression that has been going on since colonisation in this country. We are already worse off, and if COVID-19 had been allowed to run rampant in our communities, this would have been catastrophic. We've seen some progress being made, but, as we debated the most recent Closing the Gap report in the first sitting period in March, we know that this is not happening fast enough. Four out of the 18 targets are on track—only four. This in itself is disgusting and disgraceful. The other 14 are either not on track or there is no new data, so we don't even know how we're tracking. That in itself is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. For First Nations people, good health is more than just the absence of disease or illness; it's a holistic concept that includes physical, social, emotional, cultural and spiritual wellbeing both for an individual and for their communities. That's why it's so important to have community led health care because First Nations people understand this. We understand the cultural difference between First Nations people's health and non-First Nations people's health, and that must be taken into consideration to provide adequate health and wellbeing care. This is integral to the success of the Closing the Gap initiatives. We need First Nations people deeply embedded in our approaches as we tackle these issues, from housing to health care to education to incarceration. It is not enough to be in consultation with First Nations people. The solutions need to be First Nations created, led and managed. One element of the pandemic preparedness is to ensure remote communities have access both to clean water and community led health care, and it is about making progress in all of the aspects of Closing the Gap because the healthier our communities are, the better we will be able to face the next pandemic. Thank you. 18:15 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Australia, as a sovereign nation, has the right to exercise its own judgements and decisions when it comes to dealing with healthcare issues in emergencies. Power consolidated in the hands of a few, especially when those few are an international elite, establishes a precedent of subordinating ourselves to globalist institutions like the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and, in the case of this particular motion, the World Health Organization. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic we witnessed Australia's CHOs—chief health officers—and our premiers obediently defer to the advice of the World Health Organization, which pushed for the hardest possible restrictions, including lockdowns, border closures, mask mandates, vaccine mandates and so on, and all without concern for the damage that might be done to the countries upon whose advice they were relying. Much of this advice was not only wrong, but it was also dangerous, and I'm specifically speaking of the advice in relation to lockdowns and mandates. But this didn't prevent WHO's Director-General Tedros from telling the world in 2020: One of the greatest dangers we face now is complacency. … … … There must be a new normal … When millions of people were locked in their homes, Tedros said: The same public health measures we have been advocating since the beginning of the pandemic must remain the backbone of the response in all countries; find every case, isolate every case, test every case, care for every case, trace and quarantine every contact … It's hard to believe in hindsight, but that's what was being said. Anyone who pointed out basic facts was deemed a conspiracy theorist by the WHO, and they encouraged the actions I just described which trampled the most basic rights, liberties and dignity of Australian citizens and citizens throughout the world. Such rights included the rights to freedom of speech, movement and association. And I say freedom of speech because anyone who defied the WHO's supposedly expert advice, including eminent medical professionals, were censored and vilified by the media and big tech at the behest of government and these organisations. The only narrative that was allowed oxygen was that which parroted the WHO. Many Australian healthcare providers were suspended for contradicting what was ultimately the WHO's position on COVID-19 vaccines. Their predictions and observations have turned out to be correct, and we'll see how that narrative is slowly changing. We saw it this weekend when, on Saturday, on the front page of the Weekend Australian, the tragic story of Amy Sedgwick was told. The article explained how a 24-year-old woman's health rapidly deteriorated following her COVID-19 injections, which is thought to have led to her death. Yet the WHO's website to date states: The vaccine is safe and effective for all individuals aged 6 months and above … All efforts should be taken to achieve high vaccine coverage rates in the highest and high priority-use groups. Clearly, we have here a contradiction between what is reality and what is the official advice of the WHO. And it should be obvious to anyone—anyone with a functioning memory—that the story in the Weekend Australian on the weekend would have been considered and deemed dangerous and probably even antivax by the censorship industrial complex known as the mainstream media in this country, which only a year ago parroted the WHO's dangerous lines. The WHO is slowly drip-feeding these stories to normalise the idea that people who pushed against this agenda were wrong, and also that there's no way they could have known at the time. Well, we did know at the time. People did know at the time. Experts did know at the time. There are thousands of stories out there like the tragic one of Amy Sedgwick and her family. If only people in this place had taken the time to listen to them. Nobody did, bar a few. I say that because the rules that Amy Sedgwick followed were precisely the same rules that the WHO sought to have its member governments enforce. Why, then, would we even entertain further involving ourselves with this body? Why would we entertain signing and ratifying a treaty to make further encumbrances on our own sovereign nation? In the early days of the pandemic the WHO refused to investigate the Chinese Communist Party's potential involvement in the development and release of COVID-19, despite the fact that the virus came from China. It was never, ever an issue. Down the road they had a major virology institute, which had labs in which coronaviruses had been experimented on. When they finally did start investigating the CCP, they quickly confirmed that there was no wrongdoing on their part. We've all forgotten it, but that's what happened. Coincidentally, the WHO refused to acknowledge the existence of a little country called Taiwan. This is the body we're dealing with. This is the body we're talking about here—the one that's so vaunted by those opposite in this chamber. One might well be excused for being a tiny bit sceptical about the WHO's supposed independence when it comes to international matters. I believe that government power needs to be at its lowest possible level, and, wherever that power is given, it shouldn't be abused on an extraordinary level. National or federal power is required, but the federal government shouldn't be controlling the lives of communities. This is even more so at an international level. The idea that the WHO should have control over individuals' personal medical choices is an egregious abuse of power. This WHO pandemic treaty represents a further descent into the world of centralised powers that our leaders, our representatives in this place, are failing to prevent. You'll all understand in due course—I assure you of that. Our government departments are walking in lock step with the globalist agenda of the WEF, the UN and the WHO, and we're ceding our national sovereignty bit by bit. It's death by a thousand cuts. There's a lot to discuss with this proposed treaty, but, to choose just one example, article 17 deals with strengthening pandemic and public health literacy. It says the WHO will: conduct regular social listening and analysis to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation, which contribute to design communications and messaging strategies for the public to counteract misinformation— and what else— disinformation … What's the difference? We'll never know. This is what the document says. Presumably, the WHO will define what is deemed to be misinformation and disinformation at some point, and then we'll all know. It even uses the term 'false news'. I'm sure this would be very convenient for the financial contributors to the WHO, who are heavily invested in the development and manufacturing of vaccines. As I stated earlier, much, if not all, of what the WHO considered misinformation ultimately was—guess what—true. It turned out to be true. How about that! Why, then, would the Australian government entertain a treaty which allows the WHO to define what constitutes misinformation and presumably, under the guise of international law, work with social media companies to further censor the people of Australia and those who take a stand? That's what 'design communications and messaging strategies' really means, ultimately. Essentially, the Australian government is lining up to sign an agreement that the WHO is the central body determining how once-sovereign nations prepare for and deal with pandemics. We don't need international solidarity. We need to be establishing ourselves as a sovereign nation with our own response mechanisms in place. Those mechanisms should strike a balance between public health and safety and a fundamental respect for people's dignity and human rights, as well as being genuinely science based. Simply put, the WHO will ensure that the process by which pandemic related products, which obviously means vaccines, are approved by regulatory agencies—in this case, the TGA—will be even speedier. Apparently, the COVID-19 vaccines were not developed and approved quickly enough, despite the lack of long-term safety data of any form. Once again, I can't help but notice how convenient this is for the pharmaceutical investors and manufacturers. Saturday's Weekend Australian presents undeniable proof of why this hastening of the development of these drugs is dangerous. Australia is being led by blind guides who are not listening to the voices of Australian people, or even the dissenting voices of highly qualified experts, but to the voices of international elites whose top priority is not to do what is best for the people of Australia. I support this motion. I commend it. My view is: get out of the WHO. 18:24 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to speak against this motion moved by Senator Roberts, and I want to thank Senator Cox for her contribution and for putting onto the floor of the Senate the perspective of First Nations communities when it comes to spreading disinformation about critical public health responses, because these conspiracy motions, these conspiracy theories from the cooker conspiracy club that occupies the far-right fringes of the Senate chamber, actually cause harm in the real world. I don't know what the credentials are to get into the cooker conspiracy club, but they would probably involve some secret handshake and a genuine disgust of science and evidence. You have to establish that before you get entry into the club. There's a dark and miserable 1970s shagpile on the floor of the cooker conspiracy club, and they wear a variety of strange antiquarian suits or clothing. Who knows what it involves? But at the core of it is a dangerous disbelief in science and, worse still, a political willingness to play with people's lives and play with public health for a narrow sectional political interest. It's actually dangerous, what they're doing. It is dangerous to public health. It's particularly dangerous to First Nations communities, who are especially vulnerable to these public health risks. And it is a reckless abuse of their positions as senators in in place. What the pandemic did highlight, very clearly, was a dangerous lack of preparation around the world for pandemics. When it came to Australia, the pandemic showed how the Commonwealth was not adequately prepared to respond to a global pandemic. As much as we might want to wish pandemics away or hope they could be dealt with by putting up sovereign borders and sealing Australia off from the world, we're in a globally connected world, and if we're going to respond to the threat of a global pandemic then we need to do it in co-operation with the rest of the world and we need some global strategies on how to deal with a pandemic. That means we need organisation and resourcing. To ignore that or to pretend otherwise exposes our community and the rest of the global population to harm. And they're quite happy to do that. The cooker club are quite happy to expose Australians—particularly vulnerable Australians, those with significant health concerns, older Australians—to highly elevated risks from pandemics. They're quite happy to do that, because they think they get some sort of narrow political benefit out of it. I think we saw one of the Victorian senators step up and say how spreading conspiracy theories had been his pathway to getting elected to this Senate. Well, that's a kind of tragic statement, really—that the spreading of conspiracy theories was actually his way of getting elected. He was quite shameless about it. And the far-right fringes of the National Party and the Liberal Party are giving a safe berth to these same conspiracy theorists, because they think there's an electoral advantage in it—a narrow electoral advantage in tearing down public health outcomes, tearing down public confidence in vaccines, which we know have been among the most significant public health victories for the planet in the last century. These senators may not like it. They obviously don't like science. They obviously don't care. But vaccines have been among the most significant public health outcomes, and they're willing, for their narrow political advantage, to tear down public confidence in that. That is almost the definition of venal politics, right there from that lot. Of course, conspiracy theories are now in vogue in the far-right fringes of politics around the world. This is the kind of Trumpian politics they're trying to introduce into Australia. They've never seen an election result they don't agree with that they haven't wanted to tear down through a conspiracy theory. In the United States, they use conspiracy theories to produce appalling public policy outcomes, not least of which is targeted voter suppression. So they create a conspiracy theory about the integrity of the voting system without any factual basis, based on one or two anecdotes, and then they weaponise that politically to do targeted voter suppression in the United States. That's the game plan of the cooker conspiracy club. That's what they do in the United States, and they want to bring that game plan here. They do it on antivax as well, bringing deeply unscientific, non-credible anecdotes to try and tear down public confidence in vaccine efficacy. Of course, one of the things they want us to do is to repeat their conspiracy theories, because if we, in meeting these unscientific fringe conspiracy theories, repeat their conspiracy theories, it produces what's called the backfire effect: if we engage in any way in a place like this—the Senate—with the details of their myths and their conspiracies, that somehow makes them appear more plausible. They want us to repeat the nonsense back at them because that gives their nonsense some kind of credibility. I think we need to be mindful of not doing that—not repeating the nonsense conspiracy theory—and instead resorting to the facts. When it comes to the very sensible moves afoot to get a pandemic treaty, the facts are these. The World Health Assembly's pandemic treaty is designed to establish an intergovernmental negotiating body. The intent is to draft and negotiate a world health convention agreement or some other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The idea is that we cooperate with the rest of the world to come up with a plan for the next pandemic; to prevent it or to be prepared if and when it hits the planet; and to have an integrated response to deal with a global pandemic. They don't want that to happen, because they don't care about vulnerable people. They don't care about the elderly. They don't care about people with an immunosuppressed health response. They don't care. They're willing to play with the lives of vulnerable Australians for their own narrow political advantage, and that is an obscene outcome from the cooker conspiracy club in the Senate. The intent is to adopt the instrument under a longstanding article of the World Health Organization's constitution. Then, of course, once we have a global treaty framework, how to implement it is entirely up to Australia. How we implement a World Health Organization treaty is up to decisions of the Australian government and our state and territory governments. I know that's awkward for the conspiracy theorists to take on board. Perhaps they should read the Constitution they say they care about. I'd suggest Senator Rennick not start his lessons in Australian constitutional law in 1776, because he's probably on the wrong continent, but it's up to him. But, if they read the Australian Constitution and looked at High Court decisions, they would know that entering into a treaty under Australian law in no way incorporates that into Australian domestic law. It just doesn't. That's an awkward constitutional reality for the club. The conspiracy club finds the reality of how our Constitution works politically inconvenient because it doesn't work with their scare campaign. But the Constitution is very clear. The High Court has said repeatedly that the act of the executive government in entering into a treaty—whether it's a World Health Organization treaty or an arms reduction treaty or a treaty on bilateral trade—does not incorporate the treaty into domestic law. It just doesn't. Some people would think that understanding the Constitution would be a prerequisite for a senator before they get up and spout their conspiracy theories, but they're not troubled by that. They're not troubled by evidence. They're not troubled by law. They just want to make people feel uncomfortable and uneasy because they think there's a political advantage in it. But entering a treaty does not incorporate the treaty into Australian law. For any element of a treaty to be incorporated into Australian law, this parliament or a state or territory parliament has to determine to do so, by passing a law or granting a power to a minister. The idea that entering into a treaty is some sort of surrender of sovereignty is just plain nonsense. They know it's nonsense, I think, because I actually give them some credit. They know it's nonsense. They know it's false. They know it's a lie, but we still get ridiculous motions like this. They know they're peddling lies to the Australian public. They know they're deliberately creating unease in people. The AC 252157 Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 Acting Deputy President, it's an interesting debate but I believe it's crossing the line in terms of impugning the motives of other senators. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 I was listening to you, Senator Shoebridge, and you might have accused senators of doing something that would have been perhaps unparliamentary. So I would just ask you to consider that and move on with your comments. I'll be listening carefully. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Thank you, Acting Deputy President. They don't care that the rhetoric they put here is totally contrary to the law and to the Constitution. As I said before, I give them credit: they know it's wrong. They know what they're saying is wrong, but they don't care, because for them a really good conspiracy doesn't have to be grounded in the truth. I was counting the number of conspiracy theories that Senator Rennick had—it's one of the challenges in trying to follow the senator's contributions—and I got up to six. Somehow superannuation was in it. Somehow the Button plan was in it. Bill Gates, of course, featured at some point. The UN was in on it. Somehow or other universities were in on it. Former Minister Dawkins was in on it. I was trying to work out how to weave all the conspiracies together into some coherent whole. That way danger lies, I think—trying to pretend that they think that there's some sort of coherence in it. They just throw out all these individual elements. They throw out all these individual conspiracies and hope that one of them will stick in someone's mind. Maybe it was the UN. Maybe it is superannuation. Maybe it all comes down to the Button plan. Maybe it's the WHO. Maybe it's Bill Gates. Maybe it's banks in general. Maybe it's something that happened in Ottawa in 1917. I don't know. But it is never grounded in any kind of coherence or facts. To do that is the worst abuse of the position of an elected representative. The ACTING D EPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Is this a point of order, Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 It is. It is personal reflection and imputation of motive against my friend and colleague Senator Rennick. Senator Shoebridge was directly speaking about Senator Rennick, and he talked about abuse of process et cetera. He should withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Shoebridge, it is appropriate to use people's proper titles, and we will collectively clarify that it's Senator Rennick. I'd just ask you to reflect on the comments that you made in relation to that senator. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Yes. I apologise for calling Senator Rennick anything other than his name. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Scarr on the point of order? Senator Scarr 282997 Acting Deputy President, I specifically raised in my point of order that Senator Shoebridge should withdraw. If you didn't have an opportunity to hear the comments then perhaps you want to take it on notice, review the Hansard and make a decision—unless Senator Shoebridge would be prepared to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Shoebridge? Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I withdraw it. Of course the Greens oppose this motion. It would be useful to see the coalition actually forming a position on this, opposing this motion and speaking against those kinds of dangerous fringe elements that they otherwise give a safe home to within their parties, because it comes at real cost. Senator Cox made it clear that among the communities that pay the highest cost for these conspiracy theories are First Nations communities. So reflect on the damage you're causing in these motions. I'd ask the coalition to reflect on allowing this to continue to happen week in and week out in this place and on the real cost that's causing on the ground to some of the most vulnerable people in this country. I would have thought it's our job to protect those people, not to expose them to the cooker conspiracy club, which is pushing this motion forward. 18:41 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I acknowledge the extraordinarily important role that the committees of this place play in making sure that we have the most robust process we can have to investigate issues that are of importance to all Australians. I think that the role of the Senate is undermined by the kind of contribution that we just heard from Senator Shoebridge. I think that to come in here and lecture somebody simply because they had a view contrary to that of somebody else in this chamber, to somehow suggest that they're a lesser person and to use derogatory terms to describe them reflects very badly on Senator Shoebridge—more so than on those people who have put forward this motion. I have something to say to Senator Roberts, who obviously feels very strongly about this issue, and to others who have made a contribution about the importance, as they think, of shining light on issues that have significant impact on Australia going forward and particularly on our place in the global environment. I thank you, Senator Roberts, for bringing forward this important issue. I believe that as a Senate we shouldn't be standing in the way of scrutinising very important issues. We are never all going to agree on any issue. That is the beauty of this place. But the minute we start shying away from having a genuine debate and getting the experts in, which is how the committee process works, I think we are letting the Australian public down and not delivering what this chamber has been designed, in the first place, to do. So, Senator Roberts, the coalition will be supporting your reference, because that's exactly what it is. It is a reference. It gives us the ability to go into more detail and investigate the very important concerns that have been raised by everybody in this chamber about the issue that is the matter of substance of this reference. I would also put on the record that coalition governments have never compromised, and will never in the future compromise, the interests of Australia or its sovereignty in anything they do, and we would make sure that we would be very strongly of that view right the way through. We support transparency. This is something that's really quite interesting when you consider the platform on which those opposite were elected to this place. They went out to the election and they trumpeted transparency from the hilltops, but I've got to tell you it is really quite extraordinary that, since we have been in this place, there has been nothing that has been less transparent than this Albanese Labor government. We stand for transparency on this side of the chamber, and for that reason we will be supporting the reference, as we almost always support references. 18:44 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I support this referral because we shouldn't be signing an international treaty with the World Health Organization; we should be getting out of the World Health Organization because of their negligent handling of the coronavirus pandemic. It surprises me that very few people have actually raised in this debate the record of the World Health Organization over the past few years. There's a lot of emotion now in light of lockdowns and vaccine mandates and what have you, but people have forgotten the initial stages of the pandemic and the mistakes—the gross errors of judgement—that the World Health Organization presided over. It's absolutely ridiculous that they haven't—and no-one has—been held to account for those errors and mistakes, which probably cost hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, their lives. In fact, the head of the WHO is still the same person as at the start of the pandemic, even though at the start of the pandemic—we've all forgotten now—the WHO were saying there was nothing to see here; there was no problem. On 14 January 2020, we were starting to learn about this thing called coronavirus, or COVID-19. Governments, including the Australian government at the time, were considering border restrictions against travel to and from China. At that very moment, when this was quite topical and governments were having to make serious decisions about protecting their own citizens, the WHO tweeted out: Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China. That's what they said. There was nothing to see here. There was no airborne transmission, no human-to-human transmission. 'You don't need to close your borders.' In fact, they doubled down on that as, in the weeks to follow, we were discussing a border closure to China. The Australian government was one of the first countries in the world to do that. I think it was almost that decision alone that prevented a wider COVID spread at that time. We made that decision on 29 January 2020, just two weeks after that tweet, but, as late as 3 February 2020, there was a news article, 'WHO chief urges countries not to close borders to foreigners from China'. How does this organisation have any credibility? There are people coming in here and saying: 'We've got to listen to the science. We've got to listen to the WHO; they know it all.' If we'd listened to the WHO in January and February 2020, this country would have had a massive COVID outbreak, because we still would have had flights coming to and from Wuhan. We would have been in the same boat as almost every country in the world. We were very lucky that, for whatever reason, COVID wasn't circulating in a widespread manner here in January and February 2020. It was probably because we didn't go to the military games in Wuhan the year before, in late 2019—Australia and New Zealand were two of the major countries that didn't go. We got lucky there, but we would have been very unlucky if we had listened to the WHO. For those saying that somehow the WHO is sacrosanct and this oracle of science that must never be disagreed with, can you please explain to me whether or not you would have followed the WHO advice in February 2020? Did you agree with the Australian government's very tough and critical decision to close our borders to China at the time? If you did agree with that decision, you were going directly against the advice of the WHO at that time. You can't hold both positions. You can't say the WHO is infallible but at the same time agree and think that we made the right decisions about COVID there. Their advice goes on, of course. Later on, in March 2020, the next month, CNN reported, 'WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick'. Remember that? Hardly anyone remembers now; it's gone in the memory hole, but for months in early 2020, right up until late 2020, the WHO were saying: 'No need for masks. Don't wear masks. They don't do anything.' As it turns out, they were probably right the first time. Later on, the WHO were saying we all had to wear masks and we had to force people to do it. This also shows that there's no such thing as 'the science'. Science evolves. Science changes all the time, including in response to something as severe as a pandemic. It's ridiculous to say that somehow an international treaty by an unelected group of health officials should be the gold standard and should effectively run the response to any kind of pandemic. At first the WHO weren't in favour of lockdowns or border closures, as per most of the health advice. We did have communicable disease plans in this country and many others, and those plans almost invariably said not to lock down a society in the face of an airborne transmissible disease, but we went and did it. Originally the WHO said we shouldn't, and then we did. Then the WHO said we should and we should lock down harder and longer and all the time. Again, what happened to the science here? These last few years have been a complete failure for the scientific community. They did not stick to their original plans. They got spooked by the panic of TikTok videos from China with people falling over in the street. We don't know where those videos came from or how they happened. It never happened anywhere else during the coronavirus pandemic, but we got spooked and the scientists got spooked. We all got panicked. I got scared. Everybody got scared. We were all spooked by it, so the science went out the window, and we all just responded with panic and fear. That's what happened. Allowing a treaty to entrench decision-making in a small group of people who, just like every other human being, are subject to potential paranoia and fear is a recipe for more errors during a pandemic. What we need during a response to any kind of crisis, like a pandemic, is the flexibility and the ability of different countries to do different things, and then we can see what works and what doesn't work. Thank God for the good sense, bravery and courage of the Swedes over the last few years because they did chart a different path under huge pressure, under massive pressure. They were called murderers, pandemic spreaders and variant creators, but they have come out trumps. The Swedish experiment has clearly worked better than almost any other country in the world. They have pretty much the lowest excess deaths over the last few years of any country in the world—lower than ours. Even though we were lucky that we closed borders and didn't get COVID, we ended up three years later with a higher level of excess deaths than Sweden. Again, there are those who are saying they support the science. When I learned science at school, I thought the idea was that we'd have a hypothesis, we'd experiment, we'd look at what happens in the real world and then we'd choose the particular experiment or particular course of action which delivers the best outcomes. Clearly, over the last few years the approach of Sweden has delivered much superior outcomes to those of almost every country in the world. Again, if we entrench the decision-making and power in this group, a particular group of unelected officials who seem completely unaccountable, that will potentially remove the ability to have that level of experimentation and effectively kill science. There won't be science; there will just be one particular hypothesis, and you won't be able to compare it to or contrast it against other approaches, which was a good thing. Likewise, in the United States different states were doing different things. Again, clearly, those states that didn't lock down as severely have ended up with much, much better human outcomes, much better health outcomes and better economic outcomes as well. Before I go, I want to make sure there is some mention of perhaps the greatest failing, the almost criminal failing, of the World Health Organization in the last few years, and that is their gross mismanagement of the investigation into the origins of the coronavirus or COVID-19 pandemic. There was a lot of controversy at the time about where this had come from. There was a lab in this place called Wuhan that was experimenting on coronaviruses, and then a coronavirus pandemic happened in Wuhan. It seemed reasonable to suggest that perhaps this laboratory that was experimenting on coronaviruses in bats may have played some role. But, of course, anyone who suggested that the lab leak theory had any kind of merit was immediately described, as Senator Shoebridge did just then, as a 'cooker' or 'conspiracy theorist' or some other rubbish. In fact, 27 scientists wrote a letter that was published in the Lancet journal, a very respected journal—well, until now, it should be a respected journal. These 27 scientists all wrote a letter in March 2020 claiming that anyone who did support or posit the lab leak theory was a conspiracy theorist. That's what the letter said, that the lab leak theory was a conspiracy theory. In that letter in the Lancet journal, as there is in all articles in medical journals, there was a declaration of interests. The 27 authors said, 'We declare no competing interests.' That's what the scientists said. That letter was incredibly influential in giving cover to the Chinese Communist Party and suppressing any sensible discussion on whether or not a mistake or otherwise from the Chinese Communist Party played a role. It later came out—the letter published in March 2020, and they declared no competing interests—in a headline from the Daily Mail in September 2021 that 26 of the 27 Lancet scientists who trashed the theory that COVID leaked from a Chinese lab have links to Wuhan researchers. We have a senator here today coming in and calling everybody a conspiracy theorist, and we had scientists doing the same three years. It turns out those scientists were directly conflicted and lied about their conflicts of interest. They lied about it in an otherwise respected medical journal. Where's the accountability here? Why doesn't that get mentioned at all? Why are you running a protection racket for scientists who if they're not engaging in criminal activity it should bloody well be a crime to do something like that because it absolutely costs lives doing stuff like that. What is worse than this though, and that's scandal enough, is how the WHO fits in here. One of those 27 scientists who signed it was a guy called Peter Daszak. Peter Daszak was the head of an organisation called EcoHealth Alliance, registered in New York. EcoHealth Alliance had funded coronavirus research in bats in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The WHO selected Peter Daszak to play an influential role, to be one of the scientists, on the inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus. How the hell did that happen? The World Health Organization that we're a member of and we're apparently going to sign a treaty with—where's the accountability? Why aren't we asking questions about this? We fund these guys. We send millions of dollars to the WHO. The Australian government specifically asked WHO to do an inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus. We paid a big price for that in terms of China's unreasonable and illegal trade actions in response to that reasonable request. And then the WHO undermined the government of Australia's position by appointing somebody who had funded work in the Wuhan Institute of Virology to look into whether the Wuhan Institute of Virology had started the coronavirus. That happened, and we're just sitting back and taking it. Don't we have any self-respect? This is the way they're treating us. We're giving them millions of dollars, and they get hundreds of millions of dollars from the Chinese government, and they seem to completely whitewash any kind of link to China or whether this came from there. They're not held to account. The same people are in the same jobs. That's why I said at the start of this, and it might seem dramatic, that surely we should leave this organisation if this is their record and if these are their actions and this is their complete unaccountability here. They have shown complete almost intransigence in seeking to fix any of the errors that they have made, any of the gross errors of judgement that they have made, if not criminally negligent activity, with regard to the inquiry they operated. Why would we still be involved with them? I think we should have a body that coordinates on pandemics and health responses. I certainly don't think we need to sign massive treaties or anything with them, but yes we should have a body where people can come together and discuss these issues. There are obviously cross-border implications when a pandemic occurs. However, the WHO is just completely discredited. It's totally stuffed up the coronavirus. And if there is not going to be a complete flush out of the people involved in these stuff-ups then we should leave WHO and form some other body. Let's create a new one. We can take our money, along with other like-minded countries, and set up a different body with actual accountability, because where is the accountability? This inquiry will at least give a degree of accountability to the WHO. Maybe we can get them into the inquiry and ask them: Where is our money spent? What's happening to it? Why did you get it so wrong? We could ask these questions. If the government are not going to support this small inquiry in this Senate into the WHO's gross errors of misjudgement in the last few years, what are they planning to do to hold them to account? Where is the accountability? Because any organisation that gets taxpayer funded money from people who work hard in this country every day should be held to account. It should be held to account to parliaments, to elected officials and to others. Even if they have done everything right, they should still be held to account. I'd still support this inquiry even if they've done everything right because we should have an inquiry. There's been a major, major thing that's gone on in the world and the WHO have been central to it. But they clearly have not got everything right. They clearly made massive errors of judgement. Even if they've not been directly involved in a cover up of the Chinese government, they clearly should have known Peter Daszak was doing this stuff. It was clearly and publicly available. He'd spoken about his research on coronaviruses in bats in public fora. The WHO should have known, and yet they appointed a bloke who was irredeemably conflicted to hold the inquiry into the origins of coronavirus. We should not be funding the WHO. We should be getting out of this corrupt organisation and we certainly, at the very least, should be doing an investigation into them. 18:59 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania That's 15 minutes of my life that I'm never going to get back, but I did actually learn one thing from Senator Canavan and that is this: cookers are going to cook. That's what we've learned here this evening. The pandemic that we've been living through for years, and we continue to live through today, is an extremely serious issue. As we continue to grapple with the ongoing challenges of this global pandemic and as large numbers of Australians continue to die of COVID-19, it's critical that we reflect on the lessons we learnt, the mistakes that we've made, the mistakes that we continue to make and the work that still needs to be done. I want to start by acknowledging the incredible efforts of healthcare workers over the last few years. We need to acknowledge and thank the people who work in the health system from the bottom of our hearts, whether they be support workers, doctors, nurses, first responders or all of those other essential workers who do such a terrific and critical job of looking after all of us when accidents befall us or sickness takes us, because they have put their own health and safety at significant risk to look after us, to try to keep us safe and to keep our country running. We owe them a debt of gratitude that can never truly be repaid. We also need to understand and recognise that the pandemic has exposed deep inequalities in our society, particularly in the areas of health care, housing and employment. What the pandemic has revealed ultimately is that we are far more units in an economy than we are human beings to those who govern us. We've seen that time after time when basic protections for people such as income support and health frameworks have been removed in order for the economy to keep on trundling along. We have to address those issues that have been exposed by the pandemic, ripping off some of the bandaids that have covered up some of the gaping chasms in our society and some of the inequalities in our community and economy. We have to commit to addressing those issues and ensuring that everyone has access to the things that they need to stay healthy and to have a good life. We also need to make sure we are prepared for future pandemics because, believe me, colleagues, they will be coming down the line. That's going to mean investing in public health infrastructure, in the research of things like vaccines, in things like testing for particular viruses, in things like ensuring our supply chains are resilient and in ensuring our emergency and pandemic response plans are up to date. Absolutely the Australian Greens support research and review of the ongoing handling of COVID and the lessons that can be learnt for the future. I want to be really clear about something: it really beggars belief that a Labor government isn't working hard to do more to look after people and to create jobs in our society by engaging in a significant retrofitting of public buildings in this country with clean air standards, ensuring adequate ventilation and filtration of our air and ensuring that new builds in this country comply with rigorous standards. One of the most significant things that a government could do in this space at this time is ensure that, to the greatest degree possible, the air that we are all breathing and that we rely on to survive as human beings is clean and virus free. The Greens also support global cooperation in addressing pandemics and public health emergencies, and we believe that the World Health Organization plays a critical role in coordinating international responses to these crises. We do believe that a global pandemic treaty with a focus on prevention, preparedness and response represents an important step forward in our efforts to protect public health on a global scale. What is always amusing—and I'm glad Senator Roberts and Senator Babet are in the chamber—is when we get a little peek behind the curtain of what the cookers and the right-wing conspiracy theorists are actually worried about. Senator Roberts wants to put on his white coat and use the Senate's valuable time and resources to annoy public servants about the illuminati, Agenda 21 and probably the lizard people, and we're not going to have a bar of it. I have to say, Acting Deputy President McGrath, it must be absolutely terrifying— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 On a point of order, Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts 266524 Could you please ask the senator to get back to telling the truth instead of impugning me? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator McKim, if you could not impugn the motives of your fellow senators that would be much appreciated. Senator McKIM JKM As I was saying, it must be pretty terrifying being Senator Roberts because he spends so much time worrying about imaginary threats that he can barely come to grips with some of the massive real challenges facing our society. Last week Senator Roberts was in the chamber carrying on about lab-grown meat, and I was recalling while I was listening to him that during last year's election campaign he defiantly posted on Twitter that he would not 'shut up and eat the bugs'. Despite making some jokes about it at the time, I do want to point out to Senator Roberts through you, Acting Deputy President, that no-one is trying to make Senator Roberts eat the bugs. Eat the bugs, don't eat the bugs—the Australian Greens don't care whether you eat the bugs or not, Senator Roberts. But while we're on the subject of irrelevant rants, I would like to thank Senator Babet for dropping into the Senate in between making real estate deals to warn us that we don't own DVDs anymore. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator McKim, to assist the chamber, perhaps you could withdraw that please because it does reflect on Senator Babet. I would ask you to withdraw it please. Senator McKIM JKM I withdraw. But I do note that Senator Babet did actually say that we don't own DVDs anymore. I want to say Senator Babet can speak for himself. He may or may not own any DVDs—I don't know. I've got plenty at home, Senator Babet. The Lord of the Rings box set on blu-ray looks utterly magnificent, and I commend it to you and to the chamber. Interestingly, as I was coming in here, I found a document stamped 'Top secret One Nation' on the top. I was very surprised because it's a bit like dynamite, and, when I read it, it turns out that this document is actually a list of proposed Senate inquiries that One Nation are going to push for in the future. I thought I'd share some of these potential Senate inquiries that One Nation want to pursue. First on this top-secret document is a Senate inquiry into why one sock seems to go missing when you do the laundry. That would be a critical matter for this chamber to inquire into. The second is a senate inquiry into whether Elvis is alive and perhaps living in a small village in regional Serbia. The third is a barbecue stopper, a senate inquiry into how they just made Maxibons smaller but are still charging the same price for them—Senator Roberts, I look forward to that one. Then there's a Senate inquiry into 'how there are like 14 different streaming services, but you still can't find some movies on any of them'. That should be an absolute beauty, Senator Roberts. This one I think is possibly the most critical of them all, and I do thank Senator Roberts for bringing this one forward: a Senate inquiry into why you need scissors to open a packet of scissors. That one, is an absolute ripper and I look forward— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator O'Sullivan, on a point of order? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 The senator is reading out a list. I'm wondering if he could table that, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 McKim, would you like to table it? Senator McKIM JKM I thank the senator for the invitation, but I don't think it would be fair of me to table a top-secret list of One Nation's proposed Senate inquiries. The last one on the list, which I think actually the Liberal and National senators could be very constructive members of, is an inquiry into the question: why do you have to have a go to get a go? That one is a critical inquiry in Australian politics, and I thank One Nation for bringing these absolutely amazing proposals before the Senate. As I said at the start of my speech, what we've really found out today is that cookers are actually going to cook despite what sensible people in the Senate have got to say. What I want to say in closing is that the COVID-19 pandemic has of course presented us with many challenges, but one of the big opportunities that it has presented us all with is an opportunity to reflect on the state of our society, the state of our government and the state of our economy. It has shown us where we need to improve, where we need to invest, the regulatory frameworks that are missing and those that need to be beefed up. Ultimately, it's given us an opportunity to learn a giant lesson about how we need to change as a society and how politics needs to change in this country to make sure that we do much more to look after people and support people who are ill. I want to give a shout out to everyone who is suffering from long COVID in this country. I want to give a shout out and extend my deepest sympathies, and those of the Australian Greens, to everyone who has lost a loved one, a family member or a friend as a result of COVID-19, because it is cutting a swathe through our community. Life expectancy in this country and globally is plummeting. In fact, global life expectancy is plummeting now at the fastest rate since the great famine of China in the early 1950s. That is the rate at which global life expectancy is currently plummeting, and it is due to this virus; it is due to COVID-19 and the global pandemic that we are all living through and will live through, tragically, for some time yet. What we do know is that it has revealed, amongst many other things, the critical importance of public health infrastructure, the critical importance of a robust and responsive healthcare system, and the absolutely crucial nature of a coordinated and compassionate approach to protecting everyone in our community, but particularly those who are most vulnerable: older people and immunocompromised people. We've also seen the devastating consequences of systemic inequality and economic injustice in this country. We've seen the devastating consequences of a precarious and underpaid workforce and of a lack of investment in the education and training of healthcare professionals. As we move forward, we have to make sure that we learn the lessons of this pandemic: invest in our people; invest in public health infrastructure; give more people permanent, secure work with paid sick leave; invest in healthcare workers; and invest in the social safety net that protects the most vulnerable people in our community. JobSeeker was doubled for a brief and beautiful time during the pandemic—by a Liberal-National government, I might add. My office was flooded with testimonials from people who said that for the first time in years, in some cases, they could actually put food on the table and pay the power bill in the same fortnight. For those who have never laboured under those kind of financial stresses—I actually did labour under them for a brief period when I was younger—they are terrible pressures to have to bear on a day-to-day basis. We should be doing much, much more to ensure that JobSeeker allows people to live a dignified life. We've got to ensure that our economy is resilient and adaptable and that it provides good jobs and fair wages and supports the small businesses and workers who are the lifeblood of our communities. We've got to do it all with a clear-eyed focus on the challenges and the opportunities that lie ahead. This pandemic has actually demonstrated very clearly that everything is interconnected. We are all interconnected. The jobs people do are interconnected. The pastimes people enjoy are interconnected. Our families, our communities, the economy, our society, the environment and the climate are all interconnected. Our fates are intertwined and our actions can have far-reaching consequences, not just on ourselves but on everyone in our communities. Ultimately what the pandemic has shown us is that collectivism will win the day. We have to work together, we have to listen to each other, we have to support each other, we have to love each other and we have to approach our collective future with hope, with determination and with resilience. 19:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the question be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Just so colleagues are aware: because it's past 6.30, if a division is required it will be deferred until tomorrow. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 I will now put the substantive motion, which is the motion moved by Senator Roberts in relation to a reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. A division is required. That will be deferred until tomorrow. Debate adjourned. Finance and Public Administration References Committee 90 Reference 90 19:16 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 relating to a referral to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee. Leave granted. Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 I move the motion as amended: That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 9 June 2023: The administration of the referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, with particular reference to: (a) protections against the potential for foreign actors to seek to influence the outcome or public debate on the referendum question; (b) the detection, mitigation, and obstruction of potential dissemination of misinformation and disinformation, including via social media or technology platforms; (c) the potential application of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme to the referendum and its participants; (d) the potential application and administration of foreign donation laws to the referendum and its participants; (e) the application of authorisation requirements to the referendum and its participants; (f) the ongoing integrity and assurance processes of the Australian Electoral Commission; and (g) any other related matters. The origin of this reference came up during the debate we were having on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 last week. In the committee stage of that debate we were going backwards and forwards with Minister Farrell in relation to many questions about how this upcoming referendum will be conducted and the role of the AEC in that. The minister was answering questions, but there were a lot of questions that he was not able to sufficiently answer. That was surprising because he is not just a minister representing someone from the other place; he is the Special Minister of State. Often, it's understandable for a minister to get advice from someone sitting in the adviser's box, but we saw it a lot last week. I don't want to reflect on Minister Farrell, but it was difficult to get some detailed answers on the conduct of the upcoming referendum. So I asked Minister Farrell to put in motion a mechanism to be able to make the Electoral Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission available to take some very detailed questions about the upcoming referendum. He agreed in the chamber that he would do that. I very much appreciated him agreeing to do that. I then put together the terms of reference that we have in front of us today. I understand the Labor Party will be supporting this reference, and I thank them very much for that. There are some serious questions that need to be asked. I appreciate that there will be a further inquiry into the substantive legislation on the actual question, but this reference goes to the mechanism and, in particular, the role that foreign interference could potentially play in the outcome of the referendum. Senator Paterson was asking some very pertinent questions about the role the AEC will be able to play in the absence of a 'yes' and 'no' campaign. There's no font of wisdom, if you like, to reference on either the 'yes' or 'no' points. Social media platforms won't have those reference points, so it's going to be difficult for them to be able to make a call on whether a position being put out on social media is truth, or untruth, on either the 'yes' or 'no' points. These are very serious points. Senator Farrell said with confidence that the AEC will be able to do that, that the AEC is in a position to be able to make those calls and can be relied on, and that the social media platforms are able to rely on them to be able to make an adjudicated call on what's in or out in this debate. We want to test that. We want to test, with the commissioner, their capacity to be able to do that. It's very important that we get this right. It's very important that this is right, because the government's decision to push ahead on this referendum is—obviously the substantive question is very, very important, but we've got to make sure that the referendum is conducted in a way that is transparent and fair. It's absolutely critical that the processes that we have surrounding this upcoming referendum are very sound indeed. I thank the government for agreeing to—well, we'll see. I'm sure they're going to follow through on the negotiations we've had and that they'll support this reference. A short, sharp and quick inquiry into this point is all that's really required. We very much appreciate that. The risks associated with poorly regulating donation disclosures, in particular, with foreign interference, were the key reasons that the coalition had strongly advocated for the designation of the official 'yes/no' campaign. Having an official 'yes/no' campaign will make things simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of a referendum. There's no special law relating to foreign donations. The AEC's given evidence to parliamentary committees that the donation and disclosure regime remains the most complex part of the Electoral Act. Again, without that official 'yes/no' campaign organisation, there are some very serious and detailed questions that we want to put to the commission as to how they will go about ensuring the integrity of this referendum, particularly in relation to donations and expenditure, so that we can be absolutely confident as a nation that there isn't any foreign interference in Australia's decision. This is Australia's document—the Constitution—and Australians should be the only ones that are influencing the debate in this country on this referendum. It's absolutely critical that we get it right. We want to see the regime in this referendum. For participants who are not regularly involved in elections, we want to ensure that there is a proper regime put in place. An official campaign structure is going to be the best way for regulators to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of the electoral laws for the referendum. Having a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence any audit process for donations or foreign interference is the best way to ensure the integrity of the referendum. This inquiry will go to that. It will look at the detail as to how that could be assured. It's very, very important. The risk of foreign interference is not just something that's thought up in a flurry in the course of a debate on legislation. The Director-General of ASIO, only three weeks ago, told Australians that we're seeing the greatest level of foreign interference in Australia's history right now. This is happening in our country right now. So surely we should look at simple, practical measures that put structure around this process and that help our regulators and agencies manage this referendum. We know that there's been foreign interference in other countries around the world in their elections, in different forums. In Canada, their intelligence agencies have uncovered plots to interfere in their 2021 election in order to create a minority government. Foreign actors may not particularly care about the outcome of the referendum, in terms of whether Australians vote yes or no, but they might be quite interested in sowing discord within the debate to create a little bit of mayhem. That in itself is enough for us to be concerned. There are some serious issues that other colleagues will go into as well, but dealing with this is absolutely critical. A good friend of mine, who happened to be following the debate last week and heard Senator Farrell make the commitment that they would allow this inquiry, contacted me. Jacqueline Martin, I have come to trust as someone to be relied upon with passing on good information. She pointed out to me that this is absolutely critical. I urge the Senate to unanimously get behind this inquiry. Let's get it done in a civil way, as we do in these sorts of inquiries, and let's work it through and get it through as quickly as we can. 19:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 was recently considered by this chamber. That bill, which has now passed both houses, replicates the same restrictions on foreign donations and campaigning that apply to federal elections. That means, thanks to work by a Labor government, the referendum legislation will prohibit referendum entities from receiving gifts of $100 or more from foreign donors. It will prohibit foreign persons and entities from authorising referendum material and will prohibit foreign persons and entities from fund raising or directly incurring referendum expenditure of $1,000 or more in a financial year. As this most recent legislation confirms, it is the Labor Party that leads electoral reform in this country. This includes protecting our democracy from foreign influence and interference. The Albanese government takes the integrity of electoral events, including referendums, very seriously. It's important that Australians can have confidence in the conduct and outcomes of our electoral processes. Our government has an appetite for more electoral reform this term. However, we recognise that electoral reform is best when it is broadly supported across the parliament, as we saw with the recent referendum machinery legislation, and broad, considered, genuine consultation works best for electoral reform. This term, Labor will be focused on lowering the disclosure threshold for donations to a fixed $1,000, reining it in from the current disclosure threshold of $15,200. The Special Minister of State is also committed to delivering a mechanism for pursuing truth in political advertising within Australia's electoral arrangements. Both these issues need careful consideration and are currently before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. When that committee reports back on its review of the 2022 federal election, the Special Minister of State will be keenly considering how we can implement these electoral reforms most effectively. Coming back to the motion at hand, senators will be pleased to know about structures already in place. Currently, the Australian Electoral Commission works with other federal government agencies to ensure that Australian electoral systems are secure and resilient to threats of physical or cyber disruption and foreign interference. In 2018 the AEC established the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce to safeguard the integrity of our elections from threats, including foreign interference. This taskforce is comprised of relevant agencies, across federal government, working together to provide information and advice to the electoral commissioner on matters relating to the integrity of the process of federal elections and referendums. There are a range of federal portfolios that are members of that task force across different departments, including the AEC, Department of Finance, Australian Signals Directorate, Office of National Intelligence and a number of others. The task force is also supported by members of the national intelligence community as required. Members of that task force consult with online media platforms, including prior electoral events, including referenda, and have also established escalation processes for the referral of content in breach of Commonwealth legislation or the social media platform's terms of service. Agencies that participate in the task force are already working to provide appropriate support to protect the integrity of the proposed referendum, including from foreign actors. Senators will be pleased to know that on 26 July last year the Australian Electoral Commissioner released a public media statement confirming that task force agencies did not identify any foreign interference or any other interference that compromised the delivery of the 2022 federal election and would undermine the confidence of the Australian people in the results of the election. The government will continue to work through the members of the task force on risks to the integrity of the referendum, including the threat of foreign interference, to ensure the public can continue to have confidence in the conduct and outcome of this and other electoral events. Senators will also be familiar with the work that was done by the Australian Electoral Commission during the last federal election to counter misinformation and disinformation. Ahead of the last election, in response to an estimates question, the AEC advised the AEC federal election advertising campaign budgeted $615,000, excluding GST, for media placement to deliver disinformation awareness messages to voters via digital media channels across the election period. Further, that the AEC would also undertake a range of proactive media resources and public relations activities to further promote and distribute disinformation awareness messages as part of the Stop and Consider campaign. We anticipate the AEC will build on its capabilities in this area as we head into the upcoming referendum. With that small contribution, I'm happy to indicate that the government will be supporting this motion. 19:31 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The Australian Greens have long supported efforts to minimise foreign influence on our democracy, whether through regulating donations from foreign entities, addressing online disinformation, or calling out investor-state dispute settlement clauses in free trade agreements that stop the Australian government acting in the interests of Australians. We will not oppose the referral proposed by this motion, but we are not convinced there's any justification for a standalone inquiry into foreign interference in the context of the referendum. It is an issue that's much more appropriately dealt with through a broad review of foreign influence over the political process. As I'll set out shortly, many of these issues are already being investigated, and a standalone inquiry risks ad hoc solutions rather than comprehensive ones. The Australian Greens did not oppose the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act, also known as the EFDR act, five years ago once the chilling effect of the original bill on public interest advocacy was defeated. But we did point out at that time that the bill would fail to achieve its ostensible purpose of preventing foreign interference unless it included stronger measures to reduce the corrupting influence of all political donations. Our concerns were confirmed by the fourth-year review of those changes conducted by JSCEM last year. Expert witnesses to the review said the EFDR act was not effectively curtailing foreign influence, given ongoing opportunities for foreign companies and individuals to channel donations through Australian residents or local companies. The then government pointed to anti-avoidance provisions, but Professor Anne Twomey said: … it is not an anti-avoidance issue and it's not a question of the AEC having the ability to do anything; it is simply the way the act operates. I'm sure all of us would think it would be preferable if it didn't operate in that way. But, as I pointed out, the reason it does is constitutional constraints that are a result of earlier High Court decisions; and given that we can't get around them without an amendment to the Constitution, and we have to live with them, the only way I can see of reducing foreign influence is by reducing everybody's influence. The Australian Greens agree: the clearest way to minimise the influence of foreign donations is to limit the influence of all political donations. Experts have said it and experts will keep saying it. But despite these concerns, the then Liberal-chaired committee held: … that the relevant parts of the Act are working effectively … The Australian political system continues to be a successful exemplar democracy, that is looked on with admiration by many others around the world. And no changes were made. The Greens have consistently called for all political donations over $1,000 to be disclosed in real time so that the voters can see who is funding campaigns. And that is in fact Labor's own policy the last time I checked. Yet neither Labor or the Liberals supported the Greens amendments just last week to reduce the donations threshold or to require real-time disclosure of donations during the referendum. It's almost as though the coalition wants to exploit the public's appetite for more transparency and fears around the foreign interference and to point to foreign donations as the bad guy, rather than good old-fashioned domestic donations from corporate mates and lobbyists and the cosy relationship between the big parties and industry. So, what are the issues that this motion wants us to investigate? The motion proposes to ask the Finance and Public Administration Committee to look at measures to protect against foreign actors seeking to influence the outcome or public debate—and remember, this is in relation to the referendum—and the potential application of foreign donation laws to the referendum and its participants. Well, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill that we passed in this place last week included provisions that brought the referendum into line with existing electoral laws, prohibiting the authorisation of materials by foreign campaigners, preventing the giving or receiving of gifts over $100 from foreign entities, and restricting referendum spending by foreign entities. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, or JSCEM, examined the bill and the issues referred to in the motion, including the application of the Foreign Interference Transparency Scheme. The bill was subject to rigorous—some might say ad nauseam—debate in the Senate last week that went to those concerns. The AEC has mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with restrictions on foreign interference, and there is nothing to suggest that those compliance measures will apply any differently to disclosures during the referendum. The motion nonetheless also invites the FPA committee to examine detection, mitigation and obstruction of potential dissemination of disinformation, including via social media. There is already an FPA committee inquiring into foreign influence through social media. That inquiry is ongoing and is due to report in August of this year. It is unclear why any questions that the Liberals seek to have answered about those issues will not already be considered through that inquiry and why a referendum-specific inquiry is required. The JSCEM inquiry into the 2022 election is already examining the broader issues of disinformation in political communications and the need for truth in political advertising. The Greens want to see those measures in place, and we wanted to see those measures in place prior to the referendum. That's why we moved amendments to that effect last week—and sadly got no support from the large parties. But without such laws applying to all political communications, there's no reason to single out communications about the referendum for a separate inquiry. It's standard practice for the minister to invite JSCEM to review the conduct of an election to identify any issues that have arisen. The same should happen with this referendum. As I said at the outset, the Greens support measures to address any undue influence on our democracy, whether that's from foreign actors or big local donors. But I'll repeat the words of Professor Anne Twomey: 'The only way I can see of reducing foreign influence is by reducing everybody's influence.' Now, we will not stand in the way of this inquiry, but it is abundantly clear that we need action on donation reform, not yet another inquiry. We'd rather not waste more time and resources getting the same experts to say the same things. Instead, let's listen to them and make some changes. Unfortunately, the referendum bill debate last week was an exercise in ignoring what the experts have said and delaying action. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters took evidence about the importance of increasing enrolment and engagement in the referendum, particularly for First Nations and other disenfranchised communities. We heard from the Australian Electoral Commission, from land councils, from academics and from advocates. Everyone talked about the need for action to maximise the number of people who could vote. Everyone recommended measures to boost enrolment and voter turnout, including on-the-day enrolment and continuing the secure phone voting—also amendments that the Greens moved last week that did not receive the support of either of the big parties. We've heard over and over from stakeholders that on-the-day enrolment and provisional voting will have a significant impact on the number of people who are able to cast a vote on referendum day. And we heard that the provisional voting measures manage any risk of fraud by ensuring that voters are added to the formal count only after the usual checks are made by the AEC. Finally, we had a JSCEM report that accepted that evidence and recommended measures to increase enrolment. JSCEM supported that change. The Australian Electoral Commission supported that change. The evidence from states and territories who already have on-the-day enrolment supported that change. There was absolutely no rational argument against making that change, which would redress decades of disenfranchisement and give the most number of people the chance to vote in the referendum. Yet both the Labor Party and the coalition refused to make that change. They said it needed more consideration. The JSCEM would consider it, again, at a later date—another inquiry rather than action. Repeated inquiries into constitutional reform and referenda have recommended scrapping or modernising the provisions for preparing the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets. Experts consistently called, across three separate inquiries, for an independent panel to review the text or other measures to ensure that the content was clear and accurate. Yet both the Labor Party and the coalition voted against amendments put forward by my crossbench colleagues to achieve exactly that. What is the point of yet more inquiries when we already know the answers and you just don't like them? This referendum is a historic opportunity to give voice to First Nations communities on decisions that affect them and to put Australia on a path to treaty and to truth telling. It's an opportunity to right past wrongs and the ongoing impacts of colonisation, to actually close the gap and embed self-determination. That's what the focus should be. As I said, the Greens will not oppose this inquiry, but we do question the need for it. The answer to tackling undue influence is strong donations reform across the board. Let's just get on and do it. 19:41 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That the motion be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brown be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that, because there are no divisions after 6.30, this will be deferred until tomorrow. The debate is adjourned accordingly. BILLS 95 BILLS National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 95

National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023

Second Reading 95 19:42 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia We're debating the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill, and we've had a lot of contributions. This is an important infrastructure fund. Thank goodness that the Greens were able to get the amendments we have and the commitment we have from the government to ensure that this money won't be flowing to any fossil fuel companies or to those that want to destroy our native forests. If we are honest about the type of manufacturing, infrastructure and smart jobs of the future that we need in this country, it won't be with the century-old economies such as the fossil fuel industry or knocking down our native forests and in no way adding to the high value of our manufacturing footprint. It is essential that we get smarter about how we support manufacturing in this country, what type of manufacturing we need and where we invest. It has to be those highly skilled jobs that value-add to the products and services that we need. We need to be looking at how we ensure that we have our own supply chains that we can rely on at times when—heaven forbid—we are facing another COVID or other global pandemic. If there was anything that the global pandemic taught us, it was that we've gotten lazy and that the last decade, with its lack of funding, disregard and lack of support for the manufacturing industry—let's be honest, the manufacturing industry was disenfranchised and undermined because the government of the day was too busy looking after their fossil fuel mates. That's what was going on. So, rather than investing in smart manufacturing in this country, which are the real jobs for Australians, we saw the government simply putting their hand in the pocket of taxpayers and handing it over to big coal, gas and, let's be honest, even native forest logging. We need to put an end to that. The Greens' amendment does that. That's fantastic. But what we need to get on with now is how we genuinely support that smart manufacturing around the country, and here is the pitch that we need for South Australia—that is, manufacturing the electric car revolution in this country. I want to see electric cars being built in Adelaide. I want to see a manufacturing community industry in my state that helps to drive the decarbonised economy that we know we desperately need for the future. We are on the brink of climate crisis—it is already here—and we need to get smarter about the things we make. (Quorum formed) 19:48 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. I believe in supporting Australian businesses so they can make things here in Australia. Australian-made means Australian jobs. It's even better if things are made in my home state of Tasmania instead of on the mainland. I also believe in giving Australian businesses the best opportunity to innovate. This not only creates jobs here at home but it also prevents our best and brightest from going overseas to find a more favourable environment to do their important and exciting work. This bill is pretty good, but there are some obvious problems that I think are really important to clean up before this bill is passed. The bill establishes a national reconstruction fund corporation. The functions of the corporation are investing in and liaising with stakeholders about this investment—it's pretty light on the detail here, don't you think? The Minister for Industry and Science has been banging on about how this $15 billion fund will make Australia a global leader in high-value manufacturing. Fun fact: this bill doesn't mention the word 'manufacturing' once. What happens when the government changes its mind or there's a new government? This $15 billion slush fund could be used for anything—maybe even some car parks or a shooting range in the minister's electorate. I think the government should make the purpose of this fund clearer in the legislation. The bill establishes a board. The board will decide the strategies and policies to be followed by the corporation and will ensure the performance of the corporation's functions. The board has four to six members, and these members must have experience or expertise in certain fields. Under the bill's current drafting, you could end up with four lawyers or four bankers deciding how to spend $15 billion. No offence to the lawyers and bankers out there, but I don't think that's a great idea. I would prefer it if it were necessary for there to be board representation across a range of fields, and I'd go one step further and add an area of expertise that is currently missing. We need the board to have representatives who work in the commercialisation of research. Isn't that what this fund is really about? The bill also gives the ministers the power to make an investment mandate, and this legislative instrument would allow the ministers to give directions to the board about investment functions or investment powers. Again, this is pretty broad. At the moment the bill doesn't identify areas for funding. I think that's good. It gives the ministers some flexibility and allows for innovation. But we do need to ensure, to the extent that we can, that there's continuity in these investments, even if there is a change of government. The last thing we want is for a board to set itself on some particular path involving some particular priority area, only for there to be a cabinet reshuffle in 12 months time, with a new minister, and for the new minister to say the board, 'Forget all that other stuff; here's what you need to invest in now.' It shouldn't be that easy to tear up every contract of a $15 billion fund. The areas the fund is supposed to invest in should be set slowly, deliberately and strategically. You want there to be a forward plan for investments. You want there to be some sense of a time line. If the board sees opportunities coming down the pipeline that aren't there right now, it should be able to flag those early so firms know that the fund is taking an active interest in helping them. If this fund is going to be successful, it's not going to be by taking advantage of opportunities that are already there in businesses that are already flourishing; it's going to by using its might to say to the market, 'We've got a gap here and, if you're prepared to take a risk to plug that gap, we're going to back you.' But companies can't have confidence that the message from the fund's board will still be the same 12 months from now if they don't know what the fund's priorities will be 12 months from now. To have confidence and to encourage investment, you need stability and consistency, and you don't get that by giving every minister from here until the end of time the opportunity to completely turn on a dime a $15 billion fund because they had a bright idea in the shower that morning. You can have stability and still be agile. You can still act quickly, but acting consistently is the goal. You get that by having the flexibility to change your pace but the rigidity to keep on the track. That's why we want the board to set its own strategic direction. The board's members are the experts in the room, not the government. There's another issue that I've been talking about, and that's the deal the government did with the Greens in the other place to apparently get them over the line on this bill. The Greens amended the bill so that the fund would not directly finance the logging of native forests. This deal is a broken promise from the Prime Minister to Tasmania, and, no, I'm not just being dramatic. During the election last year, the then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, wrote an open letter to the Tasmanian forest industry. He said that the Liberals were engaging in a scare campaign by saying that Labor would listen to the Greens on forestry. He confirmed he would support native forest harvesting. They're great words when you're trying to win an election, but at the first opportunity Labor folded to the Greens on this one. I won't apologise for pointing that out and for looking after industry in my patch. The Jacqui Lambie Network proudly supports the Tasmanian forestry industry, and we aren't going to tolerate anything that puts it at risk, directly or indirectly. It's in that spirit that I'm foreshadowing an amendment on sheet 1844. The government told me that this amendment won't affect investment in native forest related projects. It's not that I don't trust the government, but I'd like the bill to make this very clear. I want the bill to clearly state that companies who engage in other activities as well as native logging, like Hydrowood in Tasmania, can still receive funding from the fund. Hydrowood is logging native trees, but under the water surface of Lake Pieman on our west coast. Those trees are drowned. They are being salvaged in one of the world's first underwater forestry operations. It's technology we're innovating to salvage product that would otherwise rot in darkness and turn it into manufactured products that are sold to the world. That is the sort of thing that this fund should be able to support with investment, but instead a Tasmanian manufacturer is locked out of the National Reconstruction Fund. Is this really what the Greens intended when they were drafting their amendment, to stop companies like Hydrowood? That's what their amendment does; it stops a company that is salvaging native trees from underneath the lake's surface—trees that would otherwise rot and release carbon into the atmosphere—from being converted into products that sequester carbon for decades. No living trees are logged, no carbon emissions are released and no fossil fuels are extracted, yet no investment is possible. My amendment clarifies that, for the purpose of companies like Hydrowood, investment is possible. The Greens say this amendment would water down the effect of their amendment; the government says this amendment wouldn't. One of them is wrong. If it's the Greens then there is no downside to supporting this amendment. If it's the government then this amendment is a guardrail against companies being prohibited from investment by accident. If the Greens amendment has the potential to extend way beyond what is intended, then that should be fixed so this bill doesn't end up locking out companies doing good work. Finally, the bill appears to be doubling up with some other funds. There is the Medical Research Future Fund, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Medical Research Endowment Account. I asked about this in question time last sitting period, and the response I received wasn't very convincing. At the moment, it looks like these funds in the NRF could be bidding against each other. This blind bidding of one government fund against another could drive up costs. What a waste to the taxpayer this would be. I've expressed my concerns to the government, and I think it's up to them to clean this up. As outlined, I've put forward some reasonable suggestions on how to make this bill better. My proposed suggestions will help strengthen the integrity of the fund and prevent wastage of taxpayer money. I hope the government agrees. 19:56 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As all senators know, the National Reconstruction Fund will set aside $15 billion to help us rebuild an industrial base in our country. It is beyond doubt that our manufacturing sector has declined significantly over recent decades. It would be fantastic to see Australia become a bit more of a country where things are actually made rather than just a hole in the ground or a whole bunch of forests that we export the raw materials from and then they are value-added somewhere else in the world. I can that say for my home state of Tasmania—and we just heard from Senator Tyrrell, and I thank Senator Tyrrell for her contribution and for putting up an amendment for the consideration of the Senate—I've sat and watched our native forests absolutely destroyed for many decades, the overwhelming majority of them to be exported for woodchips and as whole logs. I can see Senator Hughes shaking her head over there on the Liberal benches, but I say to Senator Hughes and anyone else: go and have a look at the woodchip pile on the Burnie wharf. Go and have a look at the stacks of whole logs on the Hobart wharf. They are massive. There are literally tens, and probably in the case of Burnie hundreds of thousands of tonnes of our beautiful native forests. I have seen that Burnie woodchip pile glowing pink from the myrtle woodchips that have been piled on. I see the best logs out of our native forests exported as whole logs to the peeler mills in other countries—exporting jobs and exporting our forests; massive carbon bombs and massive destruction of our landscape for the enrichment of the few and the impoverishment of most of the rest of our beautiful state of Tasmania. Make no mistake: native forest logging does not have a social licence. It is a carbon bomb and it is a mendicant industry that can only survive due to ongoing taxpayer subsidies. Let me tell you one thing, colleagues: if you pulled all the public subsidies out of Australia's native forest logging industry, it would finish the next morning. The next morning it would be over, because it is the taxpayer who is subsidising the profits of the corporations that are driving the destruction of our native forests and the massive emissions of carbon and carbon equivalent gases that that involves. We're very proud in the Australian Greens of the amendments that we have negotiated which make it clear that none of the money— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 97 ADJOURNMENT South Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 97 20:00 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Today I rise to acknowledge a historic moment in this nation's history: the establishment of the inaugural First Nations voice to parliament in my home state of South Australia. Yesterday, during a special sitting of both houses of the South Australian parliament—on a Sunday—the Malinauskas Labour government made history and became the first jurisdiction in this country to pass a bill to enshrine a voice for First Nations people into a parliament—the state parliament of South Australia. The body has been set up to advise the parliament on issues directly affecting them, so those First Nations people can speak directly to decision-makers about the issues that are going to impact them. It was a very, very emotional day, and after the bill had passed both houses, it was carried out onto the steps of the parliament, where it was signed into law. There were a number of people there who were very overcome with the emotion of the event. I was overcome by the unity of the event. There were so many people coming together to celebrate a deeply historical moment. There were tears, there was laughter, there were hugs and there was singing. There were people of all ages there, from tiny babies to very old elders of our community. I was so proud to stand there, to see all of the work of various elements of the community in South Australia coming together to celebrate something they've spent so long looking for and so long fighting for. It has been the result of hard, hard work over many years by the First Nations community in South Australia and those of us non-Indigenous people who choose to walk alongside them. I would like to pay my respects to the South Australian First Nations communities for all that they have done. I'm particularly proud of my good friend Kyam Maher, the South Australian Attorney-General and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who has thrown his life and energy into this for so many years now. The adoption of a First Nations voice to parliament in South Australia represents a major step forward in acknowledging and recognising the significant and unique position of First Nations people in our society. In the words of the South Australian Premier, South Australia has a proud history of welcoming people from other cultures, but the people who provided the great care and custodianship of the land for the past 65,000 years have been left behind. As Kyam Maher went on to say in his address: In decades and centuries gone by, the laws of our state and the colony that preceded it have done so much to deliberately disenfranchise, disempower and disadvantage Aboriginal people. Today we use those laws to do exactly the opposite. South Australia now leads the nation by legislating for a First-Nations Voice … There really wasn't much of a dry eye in the house after the speeches and the symbolism. It was just such a moving situation to stand there, to be part of that celebration and to see what I think is a resolution that will make a fundamental difference. We have seen government after government setting policies that don't gel and that don't achieve the outcomes that they are set up to achieve. This way we get First Nations people, whom the policies are going to affect, providing their feedback, their input and their concerns directly to those people who are developing those policies and who are drafting various legislation. I think this is going to make a fundamental difference. So, obviously later this year we'll get a chance to engage in a referendum on whether we wish to have a First Nations' Voice to Parliament federally, and I would urge everyone to get behind it. This is such an important moment for our nation. (Time expired) Western Australia: Goods and Services Tax 98 20:05 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia The announcement earlier this month by the federal Treasurer that the Commonwealth Grants Commission is currently undertaking a review of the GST distribution has put a shudder through the entire state of Western Australia. Contributing to this concern are the recent comments from the newly elected Premier of New South Wales, Chris Minns, who flagged a showdown with all governments on the current GST deal. Just over a week ago, Mr Minns claimed New South Wales is: entitled to more—and that is an implicit criticism of the current arrangement. It's all up for negotiation in the next few years, and I'm not going to take a backward step from the perspective of taxpayers in the state. Western Australia has not easily forgotten the dark old days when our state was holding onto just 30c in the dollar and when important infrastructure projects could not be properly funded because WA was missing out on its distribution of the GST carve-up. Some said it wouldn't change, that it was just about impossible to do anything about WA missing out on what was rightfully ours—a better GST deal. Well, I remember the member for Burt saying that the then coalition government would not implement any change to the GST formula. In fact, in February 2018, he said, 'Whatever the Productivity Commission does, they'—the government—'will not implement those changes.' 'Trying to get any changes through is almost politically impossible,' he said, 'in the land of pigs might fly.' Well, member for Burt, the pigs did fly. All Western Australians remember that it was the coalition government that delivered for the people of Western Australia, a fair and equitable GST deal. It was a coalition government which ensured that Western Australians receive a minimum of 70c in the dollar of GST revenue, increasing to 75c in 2024-25. Without the sensible and pragmatic intervention of the previous coalition government, WA's GST revenue would have fallen to 16c in the dollar in 2022-23 and 10c in 2023-24—10 cents! Liberal senators from Western Australia are not going to take a backward step in defending our GST share. We will fight lock, stock and barrel to prevent Western Australians from being worse off. Those hard-fought changes must be preserved. President Kennedy once remarked that victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan. Many people claimed to have fixed WA's GST problem. Even the member for Burt claims that. But history will record that it was that WA federal Liberal team who fought to raise the importance of the issue before the member for Cook, and it was the member for Cook, as Treasurer, who changed it and delivered real improvements for Western Australians. I wasn't a senator back then, so I can't claim the credit. I stand here on the shoulders of my colleagues and friends who fought gallantly for the GST fix, in particular Senators Cormann, Cash and Smith and I believe it was Senator Back back then and, of course, Senator Reynolds, who is still here. Western Australians will take a dim view of any federal government which seeks to alter the existing arrangements and delete Western Australia's fair share of the national GST distribution. You only have to ask the question: why is it that the Treasurer has commissioned a review into looking at the GST arrangements? You don't commission a review like this if you aren't intent on changing it. Climate Change 99 20:09 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Tonight I want to speak on the recent IPCC report, specifically about the impacts of climate change on first nations people. First nations people not only in Australia but across the world have cared for country for thousands of years. We've lived in harmony with the land, water, plants, animals and seasons. We used what was available to us to create thriving and vibrant communities which have endured in Australia for over 65,000 years. This is our way of life and it's our culture. It is something that we hold on to closely as a way not only to connect us with our culture, but to connect us with the land and sea and also with our ancestors. This is in our blood, and it is our sovereign birthright. Changing weather patterns, increased extreme weather events and rising sea levels put our culture at risk. We've already seen my brothers and sisters in the Torres Strait Islands having to build makeshift seawalls with coconut husks and driftwood whilst walking along the beach with a bucket to pick up the remains of loved ones that had been exposed due to the rising sea levels. This year First Nations communities have been displaced, forced to flee their country and separated from their communities in Western Australia and in the Northern Territory following catastrophic flood events. The IPCC report found that increasing extreme climate events will impact food and water security and global ecosystems, which will have a greater impact on First Nations people. Further, responses that focus on sectors or risks in isolation, such as building seawalls, can worsen existing equities, especially for Indigenous people and marginalised groups, and decrease ecosystems and biodiversity resilience, and that this can be avoided by flexible, multisectoral, inclusive long-term planning and implementation of adaptation actions with co-benefits to many sectors and systems. We know that climate change is not an isolated issue that only impacts on certain areas, sectors or communities; it is wide-reaching and will impact on all of us, but there are people who will be impacted more and impacted faster than others. Time and time again we've been told that it will be the ones who have contributed the least to climate change that in fact will be impacted the most. This includes first nations people across the world, small island nations and poorer nations. The report states that cooperation and inclusive decision-making with indigenous people and local communities, as well as recognition of the inherent rights of indigenous people, is integral to successful adaptation and mitigation across forests and other ecosystems. Further to that, drawing on diverse knowledges and cultural values, meaningful participation and inclusive engagement processes—including indigenous knowledge, local knowledge and scientific knowledge—facilitates climate resilience development. It in fact builds capacity and allows locally appropriate and socially acceptable solutions. Australia and other richer nations play a vital role in limiting global warming to below 1.5 degrees. The report was really clear: we need to reduce our emissions and move away from fossil fuels like our lives depend on it. We simply cannot keep opening up new fossil fuel projects and continuing to give public money to these giant polluters. It is untenable that, in the face of this report, the Labor government is still happy to look at the 116 coal and gas projects that are in the pipeline. We still have a long fight ahead of us. The climate wars will not be over until we have a government that is not in the pocket of fossil fuel companies, that will take urgent action that is needed and ensure First Nations people are integral to that solution, not left behind to pick up the remains of their loved ones. Thank you. Gender and Sexual Orientation 99 20:13 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I want to acknowledge at the outset the multiple, varied and plural views that we hold in this society. From whatever quarter we come from, from whatever ethnic or cultural background we hold, it is important that we embrace those different views, that we celebrate what makes us different, separate, but also what brings us together. As part of a democracy in this country, as part of one inclusive and tolerant society, we do celebrate those differences. We agree to disagree on the things we can't see fit to meet on and, importantly, acknowledge that people have differences of opinion. That is the beauty of this democracy and this nation of which we are a part. In my home state of Tasmania, there's an issue that's been bubbling away for a period of time now. It's a report from the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute on an issue that is of importance to many in our community—both the faith community and secular households. The report by this entity, the TLRI, is on the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity conversion practices. It's something that's caused a great deal of concern in our community, and unnecessarily so, I say, because this institute has, in my view, gone well beyond its remit by making recommendations about law reform and changes to law which I think would be harmful to our tolerant and pluralistic society—not necessarily just for households that adhere to certain faiths but for parents generally. I think it would undermine everything that is good about our country, because it isn't just about recognising that there are differences and that there are people in our community who have different views, different beliefs and a different way of living; it is, in fact, about vilifying people who disagree with you on those sorts of things. So, as the Tasmanian government considers the report from the TLRI on an important issue that is of great import to many in my community, I think it's important to consider the impact of the recommendations—and there were many that were put forward by the TLRI, 16 in total. There were a number of them, relating to health and psychiatric practices, which I wholeheartedly agree with. The barbaric practices, both health and psychiatric, relating to what's known as gay conversion therapy that have been implemented in the past should be condemned. They should be absolutely outlawed by every jurisdiction in this country. But I think the further recommendations, about reforms to the Anti-Discrimination Act and related laws, are something that we should pause to think about, because it isn't about simply banning particular practices and making sure people feel included. This has a far further-reaching impact, and it is something the people of Tasmania, and indeed the government of Tasmania, should stop and think about before they act on the second tranche of recommendations. As I said before, the first tranche—which are very much about ensuring that those barbaric, outdated practices, which have no place in the world we live in today, never occur again—should be agreed to, and any laws required should be adopted by the Tasmanian parliament. But the second tranche go far further, relating to practices in the households of Christian and other faith based communities. Households that might pray at dinnertime for the future of their children may well find themselves in breach of the law. Parents or teachers of a secular background, who might well seek to unpack the issues that a youth is facing, might, again, find themselves in breach of the law. That is not good. That is bad. That is the law and the state overreaching, in my view, and I urge the Tasmanian government—and I look to colleagues like Lara Alexander in the Tasmanian parliament, who I think has said many good things on these issues—to pause and consider what impact might flow from Tasmanian legislation on these issues. This is an inclusive and tolerant society, and long should it be. But we should not, in place of past discrimination, find ourselves imposing new discrimination. Senate adjourned at 20:18