2023-03-29 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 29 March 2023

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 09:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia President, I seek leave to move a motion, as circulated in the chamber, relating to the consideration of a private senator's bill. Leave not granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as to prevent Senator Birmingham moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. It is the case that as soon as this debate concludes we will move on to the Australian Greens' private senators' time, as scheduled in the normal routine of business. That private senators' time has been respected, notwithstanding the variation of hours motion that was pushed through by the government yesterday. Remarkably though there was another version of the variation of hours motion pushed through by the government yesterday. The initially circulated version also would have reserved private senators' time for opposition business tomorrow morning, during which time the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023 was to be considered. Before it came to be voted on, a second version of the government's hours variation motion came through. Lo and behold, in the second version the opposition's private senators' time got knocked out. So the Greens' private senators' time was preserved for today but the opposition's private senators' time was eliminated for tomorrow. This is not the way in which this Senate chamber should be treated. An important principle of this Senate chamber is that across the chamber there is respect for non-government business having an opportunity to be considered and debated. That respect should be extended to all non-government parties, not just to those whom the government chooses to do deals with. It is one thing for the government to have done its deal on the safeguard legislation with the Greens. Of course, we're waiting to see the full extent of the amendments. The substantial amendments weren't available as we debated the bill through until after 4 am. We still did not get to see the amendments that actually deliver that deal. They also dealt away the usual proceedings and courtesies of private senators' time in this place. Remarkably, despite reasonable approaches from Senator Ruston and the opposition, they have not agreed to reinstate that. It wouldn't have changed the deadline, the hard marker, that actually sees the conclusion of the safeguard legislation. That's already established. The motion before the Senate would not change that deadline. It would simply reinstate the opportunity for Senator Duniam's bill, the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023, to be called on in the normal, ordinary routine of business, at 9 am tomorrow morning, to be considered for the normal, ordinary routine one hour and 10 minutes tomorrow morning as private senators' time ordinarily would be. There is nothing but routine in what the opposition is proposing here. It should not take a suspension of standing orders motion for us to ask for the routine, for us to ask for normal courtesies to be extended. Senator Duniam's bill is a straightforward one. It deserves to be debated. It deserves even more to be debated in the context of the safeguard mechanism that this chamber is considering. Because Senator Duniam's bill will bring greater transparency to electricity price reporting. It will bring greater scrutiny to the way in which energy markets and electricity prices are considered. It's a very important proposal, given the other matters that are before this Senate. So I would urge the Greens, who are about to have their one hour and 10 minutes of private senators' time this morning, to reflect and provide the same— Senator Gallagher ING You're taking their time. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X We're not taking their time. They are still going to get one hour and 10 minutes, Senator Gallagher. That is the one hour and ten minutes guaranteed in the way in which it is established. It's not a hard marker that changes this. The Greens will still get their one hour and ten minutes. We were considerate and actually thought of that before moving this suspension motion. I urge the Greens to show similar courtesy to other non-government parties. The Labor party may not be willing to show those courtesies, but to show similar courtesies to other non-government parties, so we can receive the same opportunity for private senators' time as you are receiving. I would certainly urge those across the crossbench to think about the fact that they ought to provide for this, because at some stage it could happen to them. So indeed, to Senators Lambie and Tyrrell, to Senator David Pocock, to the One Nation senators Hanson and Roberts, I urge all of them to support this motion, because it does nothing but ensure the normal proceedings proceed. 09:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government won't be supporting this suspension. I will work through some reasons why. As we have seen this morning, and we saw it last night, this is the big fight for those opposite. They will do whatever they can to delay getting to safeguards and dealing with that bill. Let's just be very up-front and open about that. We know what you're doing. It's been clear— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, we'll all sit all night. That's why we set up the hours motion the way we did. That's why we sat until 4.15 this morning. This is a tactic to delay getting to safeguards, firstly. You worked out you can eat in half an hour of time, and then we will go to private senators' business and then we'll get to safeguards and then you'll delay through committee stage. I have no doubt that that is how the day— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, there will be questions and there will be delay. Let's be clear on that. My second point is, we put a motion on the table yesterday. We didn't debate it for three hours; we gave plenty of time. No-one from the opposition came and engaged on that motion with us. That's a decision you obviously took. Sena H6X You changed the motion. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, you had no approach to the government about any part of that motion. Now you don't like what's passed, when you didn't engage at all. On the third point— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, on a point of order? Senator Henderson ZN4 The standing orders provide that the comments of all senators must be made through the chair. In raising a point of order I would ask you to ask Senator Gallagher not to reflect on me. Thank you. The 10000 I didn't hear any reflection there, Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson, I'm dealing with your point of order, so please resume your seat. The minister is making general comments. All senators need to listen— The PRESIDENT 112096 respectfully and quietly, thank you, Senator McKenzie. I will note that when your leader was on his feet there was silence on this side of the chamber. The minute the minister got up the noise began. I already had to call the left of the chamber to order several times. I think the minister is directing her comments to the chair. I will listen carefully, and I thank you for your point of order. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, President. I deal with a fair level of interjections from those opposite, so thank you for your protection on that. I had noticed that they had been quite disorderly in my original remarks, but thank you very much for drawing that to their attention. My third point is that if there is good progress today in the committee stage, by the time we get to the end of that today— Senator McKenzie 207825 Who judges that? Senator GALLAGHER ING That is, if we've dealt with some amendments, we are very open to having private senators' time tomorrow. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. Senator GALLAGHER ING Most disorderly. I know we've all been here and we're going to be scratchy today, but I've only got a couple of minutes. If we make good progress—that is, if we are dealing with the amendments and we're not just having a long filibuster from all of those opposite—then we are very open to facilitating private senators' time tomorrow morning. But we are not in a position to make that decision now, because, if we see what we've been advised we will see, you will just take that time tomorrow to delay dealing with safeguards again. So I think it's very reasonable, now that the Senate has expressed a view on the hours motion—which we did when we passed it yesterday—that, if we are able to provide that hour tomorrow and still allow people to put their amendments and have a debate over those amendments, we give you our commitment that we will facilitate that, as a sign of good faith. But we're not at that position yet, because we don't know how today is going to roll. If last night was any kind of measure of how we're going to do that, it's not looking that crash-hot, to be honest. So I would say to those opposite: work with us, even though we accept that you oppose the bill and think the sky is going to fall in and all of what we heard last night. Work with us to facilitate the committee stage, and then there will be no concern at all about private senators' time being facilitated by the government tomorrow. The Senate has taken a view on the motion yesterday that we want to prioritise this bill. We want it put through. We had to put some management around it because we knew that this was not going to be smoothly facilitated through the parliament. No matter how many hours we put on it, we would have been seeing delaying tactics from those opposite. We saw that in the strength of the second reading remarks last night. As I said: engaging with us on the hours motion didn't happen; delaying getting to safeguards today is not a good sign of where we're going to end up; and, if we get to where we need to get to at a reasonable time tonight, then there is no issue. We will absolutely, totally and very happily facilitate private senators' time for the opposition tomorrow. But we also need to make sure that we deal with this bill, that everyone has the opportunity to put their amendments and to have their say, and that we are able to deal with that by 1 pm tomorrow. I think changing the motion in advance of that will put at risk an orderly passage of that bill. 09:13 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia On the matter of the suspension, the Greens will not be supporting the suspension. However— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U If you want support, you should be quiet and listen. Senator Birmingham H6X You said you will not support us. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Well, if you want to work with people, you should show some respect. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I just called order, and you continued to interject. Please continue, Senator Hanson-Young. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Thank you. The Greens will not be able to support the suspension, but I do accept that in this place we do need to be able to provide space for non-government senators to have a debate on issues that are important to them. I would urge the Leader of the Opposition and his frontbench team to consider the offer from the government to help facilitate in an orderly manner the safeguard bill's committee stage over the next 12 hours, and then hopefully we can get to a position where, tomorrow, private senators' time can be reinstated. I think it's absolutely essential to ensure that the Senate does have time for private senators' space and debate. It's a fundamental part of this chamber. But what I've seen over the last 24 hours is delay after delay after delay—tactics to put off the safeguard legislation. This is just like what we saw for the last decade when the coalition was in government—delay after delay after delay on taking action on the climate crisis. We can't continue to put that at risk. That is why we put in place a routine of business in this chamber, and we should stick to that. If there is opportunity to amend it for tomorrow morning, I'm very open to it, and I'm happy to keep talking with the opposition about that. It's why I won't support the suspension now but I am happy to consider the motion later in the day. But I would also point this out to anyone who is listening: if you want to know what the opposition's view is on the world, go back and listen to some of the speeches that were in here at 3 am this morning, because there's not an awful lot of thought or intellect coming from some people on the benches on this side. All they are doing is saying, 'The sky is falling in.' The tinfoil hat brigade is out, and the mouthpiece for the coal and gas industry was in full swing. The lunacy of some of the claims that were being made in the early hours of this morning in some regards would be laughable, but we're talking about the survival of the planet. We're talking about the climate and environment crisis that we are in. We have members from the other side who, rather than taking action, for years—for decades—have held back climate action in this country and are still dragging their knuckles along the ground, hoping that someone is listening. 09:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to support the motion moved by Senator Birmingham. It's a very simple motion. Genuinely, for those of you who believe in democracy and in the orderly running of the chamber, and for those of you who are not members of the government, this is all about you, as Senator Birmingham said. This is not about the opposition. Yes, the motion is in relation to our private senators' time tomorrow, but this is not about the opposition; this is about the proper functioning of this chamber. This is about ensuring that those who are not in government—I was going to say that includes the Australian Greens, but that would be to reject what I just said myself: 'Good God! It is currently the green tail wagging the red dog.' I withdraw that comment. This is actually about the proper functioning of the chamber. There's been a lot of talk today about the fact that we are trying to delay the passage of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023. Let us be very clear. Senator Birmingham's motion has nothing to do with the passage of that bill. We sat until 4.13 am this morning. It is now 9.17 am. We were happy to sit all the way through last night and all the way into this morning to ensure that we all had an adequate opportunity to give a speech in the second reading debate on this. We are more than happy—in fact, I expect there's a good chance that we will be here tomorrow at this time as we proceed through the committee stage. Again, this bill will pass. A deal has been done. But this is an incredibly important bill that deserves to be questioned. But, at the same time, that does not mean that you throw out democracy. That does not mean that you just throw away the Senate Order of Business and say: 'We'll dispose of that. We won't allow those who are not in government an opportunity to actually raise an issue.' It's only a short opportunity—it's only one hour and ten minutes—to raise and properly debate a very important bill that has been put forward by Senator Duniam. I challenge anyone in this place to say that private senators' time is not an important part of a Senate sitting week. For those of us who care about democracy—and I hope that is each and every one of us in this place, but I have to say that, if Senator Birmingham's motion is not supported, those who are voting no may want to question whether or not they do believe that this place should operate in a democratic manner—we do need to see adequate time set aside for private senators' business. Yesterday that appeared to be okay, and then suddenly it all changed. The dirty deal was done, the Greens got what they wanted. It's okay if it's the Greens private senators' time. I challenge the Greens: can you give us your private senators' time today? There you go. Then we will argue if you want to lose your private senators' time tomorrow. Gosh! I bet that wouldn't happen. Why? Because the deal has been done. One of the things the Australian parliament and the Australian Senate do is make and change laws. The government obviously gets its chance to introduce bills. We debate those bills, sometimes not in a timely fashion, unfortunately, or with adequate time, but the opposition and others who are not in government get limited opportunity to bring forward matters that are of importance to them. That is what private senators' time is all about. That is why it is not good enough for the government of the day, in conjunction with the green tail wagging the red dog, to ride roughshod over the processes of the Senate. This is all about good process. This is all about ensuring that those who are not in government—excluding the Australian Greens because, technically, they are in government, given the fact they will jump shortly and they will have an opportunity of one hour and 10 minutes this morning to debate a matter that is of importance to them. I may not agree the matter is of importance, but it's private senators' time, and they have a right to debate their business, just as I would have thought any other person not in government had a right that is about to be denied to them, to ensure the proper functioning of this place. 09:21 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to support the suspension motion and the right of every single senator to have their say, for dissenting voices to be expressed in this chamber. I remind senators on all sides of this chamber that that is supposed to be what the Senate is actually about. It is where the diversity of the views that exist within our democracy have a space and a place to be expressed. What we have heard this morning, in speaking to this suspension motion, is that some voices, some senators, some views are more equal than others under the new regime of the Labor Party and the Greens in government. We accept the deal has been done. The legislation will be passed. We also accept that that means we have to stay up till 4 am to make contributions. Senators from the National Party and the Liberal Party did that last night and were happy to do so because it is important that the views we bring to the debate on this legislation be said, heard and reflected upon so that when the implications of this decision are felt in the communities that we've been sent to represent—are felt in a very real and tangible way in job losses and in skyrocketing energy prices, particularly in rural and regional Australia—it's important that we have done the right thing by our communities and have put it on the record. To come here and have a deal to mean that democracy doesn't matter any more in the Senate, that the Greens can have their special place in the sun but other non-government senators and parties can't, is an absolute flouting of what this chamber was set up to do, which is to provide for our democracy. Behaviour like that is commonplace in the other place. It's a very blunt instrument: I've got the numbers; you don't. We get to do whatever we like. But this has always been the chamber of negotiation. It has always been the chamber of diversity of views and respecting the fact that, no matter how far apart we are on the substantive question, we all have the right and, indeed, the duty to express that in this place. The increasing pattern of behaviour from the government, supported by their coalition partner the Greens, is to shut down dissent and to silence diversity so there really is only one view able to be expressed out of the Australian Senate. We have processes in place to facilitate both the passage of bills and the expression of the diverse views of the Australian people. Minister, your government, enabled by the Greens, has sought to shut those diverse views down when you don't have to. This chamber is now hostage. We've been gagged, we've been dragged and now we're being held to ransom for our views and are being silenced along the way. I am not going to back away, nor is my team going to back away, from bringing very real questions that Minister Farrell couldn't answer about the impact of this deal on rural and regional Australians, on our industries and on the 84 per cent of companies that are actually going to be impacted by the safeguard mechanism. We've got a lot of questions to ask. That is our job. We are all on the journey to net zero, but you're kidding yourself if you think the impact of that decision is going to be felt the same across our country and the same across our communities. Our job on this side of the chamber is to understand the implication of the decision. Holding us hostage—gagging and dragging us, ransoming our right as senators and how this chamber has functioned in my entire 12 years here, no matter who's been in government—is a very concerning precedent and pattern of behaviour from the Labor Party. Senator Duniam 263418 And the Greens. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I find it hypocritical by half, if you actually reflect on their contributions to suspension motions over the last nine years. I don't think our side of politics behaved in this way. We respected the chamber, we respected people's diversity of views and we allowed you the time to do it. 09:26 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Private senators time is not a weapon. It is not to be used to bludgeon people into compliance to vote in a certain way. It is not a weapon. Democracy requires a voice. We are elected to be the voice of our constituents. How can we be shut down? This is the end of democracy if we do not support Senator Birmingham's motion. Everyone on the crossbench needs to realise we could be next. This is a very dangerous precedent, and that's why I will be supporting Senator Birmingham's motion. But I disagree with Senator McKenzie, because I don't think behaviour is always respectful in this place. I don't think it's necessarily genuine. There are far too many stunts. Nonetheless, complying with the Labor Party in using this as a weapon is something we will not condone. We will be voting with Senator Birmingham. 09:27 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Obviously I too stand in support of the suspension moved by Senator Birmingham. The absolute arrogance of those opposite—to think they can come in here and say to us, if we behave ourselves today, we might be able to get some treats tomorrow and have our private senators time—is not the way a respectful democracy operates. It is absolutely shameful that you would be so condescending and so arrogant as to treat this chamber as your toy, your plaything with which you can do as you please. To Senator Gallagher's contribution that if we behave ourselves and we get through the amendments they're going to put forward, then somehow we're going to get a little treat tomorrow and we're going to be allowed to actually take our rightful place in this chamber tomorrow morning for an hour and 10 minutes and discuss a very important piece of legislation put forward by Senator Duniam—as is his right as a non-government senator, to have something that's important to him and important to other people in this chamber debated—I say this is extraordinary stuff. If this is the pattern of behaviour we're going to see going forward from the government around their arrogance, that they will just gag whatever they like, and the ridiculousness of the conversation and the contribution of Senator Gallagher, that somehow we were cutting into time—you guys have put the gag in. You already have the approval of this chamber. You've got the gag in place. It will be completed tomorrow at one o'clock no matter what we debate between now and then. So it seems absolutely ridiculous. Senator Duniam 263418 And you haven't even circulated your amendments. Senator RUSTON 243273 As Senator Duniam just raised, you are saying, 'If we consider your amendments'—it would be good if you let us have a look at your amendments, because it's pretty hard to consider them when we don't even know what they are. I would suggest the reason you're not providing us with those amendments now is that you know they're going to expose the full extent of your dirty deal with the Greens to get this bill through this place. We already know from the conversations we've seen in the papers, the comments by Mr Bandt in the other place, about the fact he's going to shut down 116 coal and gas projects that are in the pipeline, and yet Mr Bowen tells us: 'Oh no, nothing's going to happen here. It's all going to be fine. This is not going to disrupt everything. This is just a nice little tweak that'll mean that we've, all of a sudden, got our emissions targets met in five minutes.' I can tell you that is not the case. The hypocrisy of the Greens to come in here and dictate to us that somehow it's okay for them to have their private senators time this morning, but it's not okay for us to have ours tomorrow—reflect on this. I would actually suggest you reflect on this, because the deal you've done with the devil actually makes you part of the devil's clan in this instance. You've now signed yourself up to saying that it's okay for you to actually take advantage of something, but you will deny the rest of the non-government senators in this place that same privilege. That is absolutely outrageous. We've once again seen, because you have the numbers—and we acknowledge that the numbers exist between the Labor Party and the Greens in their coalition government over there—that you're happy to come in here and trash the processes and protocols of this chamber. With respect to the Greens, I did ask them if they would support us in having an equitable reinstatement of private senators' time. I thought I did it in a respectful way, and I'm disappointed that Senator Hanson-Young would come in here and suggest in some way that I wasn't respectful. I think I've always been respectful in my dealings with you, Senator Hanson-Young. You are in charge of the time in this chamber. You can manage it respectfully, you can manage it by respecting the protocols and the conventions of this place, or you can come in here and you can trash it at your will. But just remember, you will not always be in government and the damage that you do to this place and this institution will be on your head for decades to come. This is a very sad indictment on this government and their preparedness to do whatever it takes to get their way. It is shameful. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [09:36]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. (Teller) 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 6 BILLS Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 6

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020

Second Reading 6 09:39 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia In beginning the debate on the Greens bill to require a vote before our troops are deployed overseas, I want to first acknowledge that we are gathered here, in this place, on the unceded sovereign lands of the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri people, to pay respect to their elders and to acknowledge that that sovereignty, fundamentally, has never been ceded. Though unceded, the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri share with all First Nations people a continued violation of that sovereignty that began at the moment of invasion, at the moment of the beginning of the war for the conquest of this nation. It was a war whose battlefront swept from Western Australia and the massacres of Pinjarra through to the black lines of Tasmania, a war whose massacre sites, whose battle sites, whose internment camps, were then turned into holiday destinations for those who declared themselves the victors. It was a war that sat back and allowed the names of those who participated in it, who perpetrated the massacres, to be elevated to the highest station and to be placed upon the streets and place names that the colonisers then built. This is the first war and the original sin of the colonial Australian nation and, as we begin this debate on matters of war and peace, it is only right to establish this debate in that fundamental foundation. Twenty years on from the war in Iraq and the wars in Afghanistan and 50 years on from the Vietnam War, with the deaths of millions of civilians—overwhelmingly people of colour, dead as a result of wars started by rich white men for the purposes of maintaining rich white power—and with thousands of Australian Defence Force personnel lost, wounded or struggling, to this day, with the impact of war, it is only right that Australians are asking why a Prime Minister alone should continue to be allowed to have the sole power to send our forces overseas without first seeking a vote of this parliament. This question is particularly relevant given that, again and again, we have seen prime ministers join in with US wars because it suited their interests. We have seen, again and again, prime ministers lie to the community about what we were really fighting for and whether there was another way. These are important questions for any democracy. Any democracy should be able to ask them and seek answers to them. Even the most basic commitment to the principle of democracy should lead decision-makers to the conclusion that such a significant decision should be subject to a vote, as it is in so many other nations. But in Australia this decision is kept close by the leaders of the major parties. The Australian government deliberately keeps this decision as far away from the public as possible, to protect those in power from any form of accountability for the decisions they make and the decisions our community have to live with and suffer through. Both parties, over decades, have made use of legal loopholes and flimsy interpretations to wage wars that have led to some of the most severe and devastating humanitarian consequences. In the war in Afghanistan there were over 200,000 killed, including 41 members of the Australian armed forces. There was the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, which claimed the lives of half a million people, displaced 1.2 million—to this day—and created five million orphans. It also took the lives of four ADF personnel and wounded a further 27. The Vietnam War and the illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia resulted in millions of dead in those nations, including 500 ADF personnel. Our ally, the United States, dropped more bombs on the tiny country of Vietnam in that war than it did during the entire Second World War. Each one of these wars has one thing in common—they lacked a clear objective or a strategy, and it was the ordinary people of all nations that suffered. Those responsible for making those decisions were never held accountable nor forced to properly explain or account for their actions. And, particularly in the case of Iraq, the Australian community was united. Ninety-two per cent of the Australian community was united. We marched together, hundreds of thousands in capital cities across this ancient continent as part of the largest human protests in the history of our species, because we knew we were being lied to. We knew that Howard was lying, we knew that Bush was lying, we knew that Blair was lying and we did not want to see our children go and die in their war. Yet, in this country, because of the collusion of both major parties, the power to go to war is held solely by the executive. The people gathered in their righteous might were unable to translate that force into a democratic outcome, because both of you had worked together for decades to make sure that couldn't happen. So we were dragged to war based on a lie and we bore the cost and the people of Iraq bore the cost. ADF personnel and their families to this day are picking up the pieces. They're trying to put their lives back together, while the politicians who sent them to war live lavishly on pensions and are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches about leadership when they themselves refuse to this day to face the effect of the decisions that they made or to be held accountable. I would say to this chamber that, if a mum has to be kept up all night in bed worrying about their child who is to this day deployed in Iraq as part of Operations Okra or Operations Accordion, even though their child isn't old enough to even remember who Saddam Hussein was, then the parliament should be held responsible for sending them there. If mums and dads, family members and friends have to do that stress, bear that burden, every single day, never knowing whether that knock at the door will be the dreaded knock or that phone call will be the dreaded phone call, then the least the politicians who sent them there can do is be willing to vote on that decision, take accountability on that decision, sit on a damn side and declare, 'I thought this was a good idea, and, if you disagree, then you can challenge me,' rather than hiding behind the vagaries created by this executive club. It is time that Australia joined the ranks of so many other democracies and gave the right to vote on whether the parliament should go to war to the actual parliament itself so that the parliament and its members can be held responsible for the decision that they make, so that the Australian people can hold each and every one of them accountable at the ballot box for the decisions they decide to make. If they lie, as they have lied, they can be challenged by their electorates and voted out of office. We live in the 21st century. The challenges of this century are the challenges of climate change. They are the challenges of public health. They are the challenges of ensuring that every human being has access to education, access to health care, access to a roof over their head. They are very different to the challenges of previous times. Yet we see in this place both sides participating in the escalation of tensions, creating a reality in our region where the coming of conflict is more likely. Australia and the Australian community must always work to de-escalate these tensions and, above all, prevent those in positions of power putting Australian people at risk because a war suits their political ends. I know that many in the Labor Party support this reform but are worried about breaking the party line. I know that very many members of the Labor Party support this Greens reform and wish that their members of parliament would act in unity with them and demonstrate the courage that they so dearly wish to see. To those worried about the impact of breaking the party line this morning, I want to ask you a question. Do you really want to give Peter Dutton the unilateral power to declare war? Do you really think that is a good idea? We can fix this right here—here this morning—by supporting this Greens bill today and stop the risk of another illegal war just 20 years after we engaged in the last one. In closing I want to say, because I can hear ticking over, in the minds of those who will now come to speak, a couple of myths that are fed to you from different PMs and deputy PMs' offices and the opposition leader's office. I can hear it right now. They're about to say, 'What about in the case of an urgent, unexpected escalation of tension where our waters might be incurred into?' Let me counter that one, before you even rattle it off from your speaking notes. Our bill makes specific provision for a circumstance in which our territorial waters were incurred into. In that situation no vote of the parliament would be required. This bill deals exclusively with the deployment of ADF personnel beyond our territorial waters. So before you give us that claptrap, I will put that on the record. Thank you. 09:53 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I rise to speak on this private senator's bill, the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020. In doing so, I begin by saying that the tone that the mover of this bill brings to this debate diminishes the Senate and our ability to have a really robust, meaningful, important discussion about matters of national security and national defence. The way that members of this place are spoken to and spoken about in relation to this should be above party politics. I am going to use my time in this chamber to speak in an appropriate tone for the level of debate required for this important matter. The tone coming from that end of the chamber diminishes the debate itself and diminishes the mover of this bill. I want to begin my contribution to this debate, as I'm sure others in the chamber would do, by acknowledging all the Australian Defence Force members who are currently serving overseas and to also acknowledge their families, who have probably spent many nights without their loved ones and hope to see them come home safe and sound. And I acknowledge that nobody in this chamber or in this parliament would seek to send a member of the Australian Defence Force into harm's way without justification, without advice, without the rigour of questions being asked as required. I think we can all acknowledge that respectfully—that we care about these men and women, that they play an incredibly important role in our country and in the defence of our country and that we owe a debt of gratitude to every member of the Defence Force who is deployed overseas currently and who has been deployed overseas in the past. I just want to acknowledge those men and women today. I have a few issues with this bill and this proposal. I think it's fair to say that the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 is a bill that has had many iterations. Since 1985, I think it was, there's been some form of this bill being pushed through debate by members of the Greens or the Democrats. It's something that is discussed from time to time in this place. We've had many parliamentary inquiries, and there is a parliamentary inquiry on foot at the moment about this very issue. So, discussing this is something that I think all parliamentarians take very seriously, as well as looking at it again and again in the context of the geopolitical circumstances that we find ourselves in. We go back and we have a look and consider this with thought, with care. But this is a bill that is not supported by the government, and there are many reasons for that. I want to address one of the underlying premises in this bill, and it goes back to the tone of the debate. There seems to be this underlying premise that the decisions that are made by the executive in relation to the deployment of the Defence Force are made in secret, or that there's no accountability to the parliament—that there's some sort of covert decision-making that we don't talk to the public about. But that's not true. We know that decisions sometimes do need to be made quickly, in the interests of the safety of members of the Australian Defence Force and the safety of others overseas. But I'm on many parliamentary committees in relation to defence, and I know that members of Defence diligently come to parliament and sit in front of estimates for hours and hours on end, answering questions. They are called before many inquiries and committees to provide briefings. They provide private briefings to parliamentarians on matters that we need to understand in our roles. And they are accountable to the executive, and the executive is accountable to the Australian people. We know that. I want to dismiss any idea that there is no accountability for the Defence Force or for the executive regarding the decisions that are made and to note that these decisions are ultimately made publicly. I also acknowledge that on the occasions when there is a change in posture and when deployments do occur—and we saw that in the last term of parliament around the evacuation of people from Afghanistan—I think it's fair to say, whether it's the former government or whether it's our government, that the executive really does try to communicate that as urgently as possible to the Australian public and that they do speak to the media about that so that they can be asked questions. But sometimes there are some sensitivities about making that news public before troops are in a safe position. I just want to put that on the record—that I think the former government made that information public at an appropriate time, when the advice was given to them and when it was safe to do that. That's because the nature of deployment, the nature of sending people into harm's way, the nature of sending people into so-called emergency exits, is usually in unforeseen circumstances or where things need to be dealt with quickly. It's very clear that we need to make sure that the Defence Force has the urgency and the flexibility and the opportunity to take these necessary steps. I think that this bill would prevent that from happening. There are also a number of holes in this bill. As the previous speaker alluded to, there's been some sort of attempt to capture this idea of emergency situations, obviously trying to pre-empt a discussion about the Defence Force needing to be agile and effective. But I was reading the bill this morning. It has a few holes. There is no definition of 'emergency exits'. There is a pretty loose term of what an emergency exit would be. I'd be concerned about that. There's no definition of what it means to be required to serve beyond territorial limits and what that could include. And what was concerning to me was that the process of requiring parliament to sit after a proclamation is made through the bill would require information to be made public, possibly in a window that doesn't serve the purposes of the actual emergency exit. These are technical terms, but I have done my homework—I've read the bill and I've really considered this in the context of how this would take effect or how it would practically be provided. There are some things that have not been thought through about how this would operate. There's been an attempt to try to say that there's no reason why this bill shouldn't be supported. Well, there are plenty of reasons. There are plenty of holes in this bill. I'm also concerned about one of the subsections in this bill which requires that the minister come back to the parliament every month or at the start of every month of a sitting and provide information that includes the number of people deployed. That's information that we might not necessarily want our enemies to understand at that particular time. I think there is certainly an argument that the Minister for Defence at the time, or the Prime Minister in particular, should be asked genuine questions, but I think across the chamber we are respectful that some information at some times needs to be dealt with sensitively. There is no accounting for that in this bill. These are certainly just some of the things I picked up on a first reading. There have been a lot of parliamentary inquiries into previous bills of this nature that have picked up similar issues around unforeseen circumstances. That's because we're dealing with a bill that is about a political agenda of a political party. I know that's something that the Greens might not want to hear, and I'm sure they will be very precious about that, but the truth is that this is something that I know many people in the public have long memories about. They remember previous deployments and how they may or may not have been treated. The Greens political party is seeking to campaign on this issue. Campaigning on the deployment of Defence Force personnel is something that I think is pretty distasteful but this is something that the Greens political party is pushing as a political agenda. I did want to keep the tone of my contribution pretty respectful, but I don't think there is a more self-indulgent, self-righteous, self-interested group in this Senate chamber, who should be so far away from national security decisions it is not funny. These are people who should never, ever be involved in making national security decisions, and they should never, ever be involved in having some sort of balancing power that decides what we do in the defence of our country. That is a pretty broad explanation, but, to make it very clear, this Senate at times has different compositions, and I know that we are subject to the composition of this Senate to pass legislation. Every form of government is. What I would not want to see is a situation where the Greens prevent action being taken because of a political purpose, because of a campaign and in order to seem to hold the executive to account. There are matters where that should happen and does happen, no matter who is sitting on the government benches. There is a purpose to the crossbench, and we respect the crossbench and we respect the composition of the Senate. But what I do not want to see is a situation where we have troops about to be deployed to an emergency situation or to a situation that involves putting people in harm's way and that decision is held up because of the self-interested political purposes of the Greens political party. They should be far removed from national security matters. I think the Australian public would agree with that, and they do. The Greens certainly are not a party of government and they certainly are not a party that takes these issues seriously enough to be part of the decision-making process. They are not members of certain committees in this parliament for very good reason, and that's because only parties of government, I think it's fair to say, take the responsibility of national security seriously in a non-partisan way. We know we have a job to do when we come here. No matter who is in the executive or who the Prime Minister is, we take that role seriously. The members at the end of the chamber in the Greens political party don't take those responsibilities seriously. They should not ever be involved in this decision-making process, and that is something that I'm very, very passionate about. I have a lot of sympathy, certainly, for some of the community members who have personal experience with this and want to come and talk to us about the impacts that deployment has had, but what I would prefer the Senate to be doing is to be discussing matters relating to how we can improve the lives of veterans who have been deployed. I think everyone around this chamber would agree that that is something that we should be talking about and considering. The Albanese government is working really hard to reduce the DVA backlog. We are delivering 10 Veterans and Families Hubs, and we're also making sure that we have additional payments to veterans in the total and permanent incapacity cohort. This is the stuff that we should be talking about when it comes to deployment—how we treat the people who return from oversees with respect and with the care that they deserve. What we shouldn't be doing as a Senate is entertaining the idea that anyone in the Greens political party has any interest in the national security of our country other than their own self-interest and their own political pointscoring. That's what this is about. They can shout and scream and call us names and talk in emotive terms and call people 'warmongers'. The stuff that they do around this is pretty distasteful. They can do all of that, but at the end of the day there's a reason why they're not a party of government—long may that be the case. I do thank other members of this chamber who are engaging in this debate in a respectful way, because our Australian Defence Force members deserve that respect. 10:08 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I want to begin by starting where Senator Green concluded: with the respect for our Defence Force personnel. I want to acknowledge all of those women and men who have worn the uniform of our defence forces, those who do wear the uniform of our defence forces and those who will choose to do so in the future. Each of them voluntarily chooses to stand in defence of our nation, our values and our interests and to do so in the service of our country, selflessly. I acknowledge what they do as individuals, but I also acknowledge very much their families and the support that they provide. I want to acknowledge Senator Green's contribution, which was a very thoughtful and considered contribution on the details and principles of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020. They are important principles in terms of the consideration of national security and defence and strategic matters for our nation. The importance of the way in which we go about consideration of those defence and security issues requires us to bring a calm and considered approach; to be able to handle matters with the utmost of confidence and sensitivity; and to respond in relation to sensitive and difficult matters with information that is sourced from a variety of locations, some of it highly confidential, but all of it important to reaching firm and clear conclusions. I have sat around the National Security Committee of cabinet. It is a solemn responsibility to do so, to find yourself in a situation where you are briefed routinely about activities and threats to our nation; threats to our interests and those of other nations, partners, friends, allies, neighbours; and challenges that we face in the world. Equally, you are briefed about the challenges of natural disasters, peacekeeping operations and a range of different factors, and done so with information sourced from a variety of different countries, platforms, and intelligence means. That solemn responsibility is one where you make critical decisions about the future interests of the nation. I sat there as you made some of those decisions, not in deploying trips to war but certainly in deploying our troops in support of international policing operations and in deploying our AFP officers to undertake those international policing operations. I sat there as a member when we made decisions to deploy our troops in circumstances for the evacuation of Australian personnel, potentially dangerous circumstances and life-threatening circumstances; and through all of those decisions to continue to provide support in places like Iraq, where we have had troops placed for some period of time. Their operations today are very different—still difficult, but different—to the operations from when they were first deployed there. All of those decisions weigh heavily upon you, as they should; as should the sensitive security briefings that are provided; as should the difficult decisions to be made about defence investment, positioning and force posture. All such factors require you to weigh the advice before you, assess the advice that you're receiving and give careful consideration to the actions you're taking. You have to do so mindful of the fact that there are human lives at the end of it. There are the human lives of the Australian Defence Force personnel; there are the lives of their families; there are the lives of the people they serve alongside; there are the lives, of course, of those, where it comes to it, that they fight against; and there are the lives of many civilians and other innocent bystanders in any such situation. Weighing all of those issues is something that I would hope anybody tasked with those responsibilities would undertake. This bill, and the approach that Senator Steele-John takes in his argument, has a fundamental failure in its thesis and application, and that is that it ignores the reality that I, previously as a member of the National Security Committee of cabinet, or those ministers in the current government who serve in the NSC are, under our system of government, ultimately accountable. They are members of the executive because under our system of government they are, first and foremost, members of this parliament. They are members of the executive because, under our system of government, they are part of a government that commands majority support in the House of Representatives. Within this bill and this approach advocated there seems to be a perception that the executive sits over here and the parliament sits over there. And, yes, we talk about the separation of powers, but there is an intrinsic link within our Westminster system of government, an intrinsic link that you do not get to be in executive without the support of the parliament. And you do not get to remain a member of the executive without the support of the parliament. The reason I stand on this side of the chamber and not on the other side is because my party no longer commands the support of the parliament for me to be a member of the executive. And so, when it comes to deployment of troops, the premise that every decision of the executive ought be verified by the parliament is one that does not require the type of legislative intervention or the type of approach that Senator Steele-John advocates for. That's because if the majority of the parliament did not support that deployment, then ultimately the consequence of that would potentially be the fall of that government. Now, that then goes to the argument of: 'But what about scrutiny? What about accountability?' Well that, of course, is precisely what the parliament is for. There is no shortage of scrutiny and accountability when it comes to any of the big decisions that government takes. Through its various important committee structures, through its estimates proceedings, through debates such as the one we're having right now, through question time processes and through a range of other opportunities for senators, this chamber upholds the right to scrutinise, the right to argue and the right to contest—and these are all rights we have to be very conscious of defending. Indeed, the defence of those rights is part of the reason why we have a defence force, to be able to undertake those approaches. The conscious decision that the founders of the Commonwealth of Australia took to put section 68 of the Constitution in place, providing that the command of naval and military forces is vested in the Governor-General and therefore in the executive of government, is one that recognises the direct command is an important principle for the effective operation of our defence forces. The ability of executive government to make decisions in critical times is an important thing. The ability of executive government to make those decisions having been fully informed of all of the available information, evidence and analysis—including that which, for sensitive reasons of national security, sensitive reasons that could jeopardise or threaten the life of military personnel, may not all be able to be made public—means there is a logic there. But none of that logic in terms of the executive government having those powers vested in it means in any way, shape or form that we should overlook the reality that the executive is accountable to this place. For those reasons, the coalition do not support this bill, as we have not supported previous versions of this bill that have been considered and debated over some period of time. We do believe that, consistent with the way our constitution was written and has operated for more than 120 years, the decision to deploy Australian Defence Force personnel should remain at the discretion of the executive. The executive should have that ability to act in a timely manner, and to do so in the best interests of our national security. But, of course, the executive must always remain accountable to this place. Its decisions, whether they be to deploy troops into combat operations or peacekeeping operations or other supportive operations around the world, should nonetheless not be subordinated to the parliament, but of course the executive, in making those decisions should be, must be firmly accountable to the parliament. This bill, having its origins in previous bills, has in various guises been considered by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee before. That committee has upheld in a bipartisan way, as indeed the debate ensuing here in this chamber does today, that the powers ought to remain with the executive. Whilst acknowledging the critical importance of parliamentary debate, the committee has previously stopped short of accepting the requirement for the houses of parliament to approve the deployment of Australian troops. It's acknowledged, in relation to arguments as to why we should maintain the current longstanding constitutional practices, that the disclosure of classified or sensitive intelligence may compromise the operations or the safety of Australian forces or those who they serve alongside. That committee, in its reports and work, has also made the point that if, in order to protect our forces or our allies, classified information had to be withheld from the parliament then those critical decisions about deployment would not be fully informed. That is a point of tension, I appreciate. The parliament itself seeks to resolve that, in part, through the establishment of different committees and procedures for the sharing of classified information. Of course, at critical times in the nation's history and in the history of democratic governments, including Westminster governments, we have even seen the formation of war cabinets or other approaches that really bring the parties of government together to ensure that all are informed. At present, on intelligence and security matters, we do that through the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, which brings together the parties of government to receive the most sensitive of briefings and to understand and engage with our security agencies on the risks we face. We also do it by other means. I acknowledge that Senator Wong, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is routinely generous in offering and providing relevant sensitive security briefings to me, and the government does so for the shadow minister for defence as well, ensuring that we are versed in understanding of some of the difficult and sensitive issues that the government is dealing with. Whilst not all of the intelligence can be shared publicly, it helps to inform our understanding of the decisions that government is making. It's the parliamentary democracy working at its best, recognising real-world realities around what can and cannot be made public but finding means to accommodate those so that executive government can function, make its decisions and be held accountable but, in that accountability process, can also know that all information is being weighed. Senator Steele-John spoke about other nations. In reality, if we take a look across our Five Eyes partners, for example, overwhelmingly similar practices exist. Some have chosen to bring debates to the floor of their parliaments, but that does not remove the right of their executives to make necessary decisions or prevent the executives exercising that right. That's why we should maintain a practice that for more than 120 years has served our defence personnel and has served governments of the day. Governments may not get every decision absolutely right but each of them is, and absolutely must be, accountable to this place. That's the best way to uphold the integrity of our system. 10:23 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I also rise to make a contribution relating to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020, which is before the Senate this morning. As many in this place have articulated, both the government and the opposition are certainly not supporting this bill. Those who have been in and around or observing the Senate for an extended period of time would hardly be surprised to hear a Labor senator, either in opposition or in government, say such words in response to a bill of this nature. This is because the bill is hardly novel to this chamber. In fact, I think it's important that we have a bit of a look at the history. It's become almost a tradition for some to introduce such a bill in this chamber. In many respects the bill that we have before us is a carbon copy of a bill that was introduced by former senator Colin Mason, of the Australian Democrats, back in 1985. It is a carbon copy of a bill that was introduced by Senator McLean, also of the Democrats, in 1998. It is the same bill that was brought to the chamber again in 1993, in 1996 and in 2003 by Senators Bartlett and Stott Despoja and in 2008 by Senator Ludlam. So, it's certainly one that has made the rounds here in the Senate. But the decision to send Australian Defence Force personnel into harm's way is not a decision that's ever taken lightly. As we heard in contributions from my colleague Senator Green and those opposite, we have had a privilege to share part of the ADF's program here in Parliament House through the parliamentary program that's been offered through the Department of Defence. I myself have seen firsthand the dedication of our service men and women of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force and the role they have in advancing our national interests and defending our sovereignty. Just last year I travelled to the Rim of the Pacific Exercise over in Hawaii. That was consistent with previous interactions with our defence personnel. I was struck by the patriotism shown when I and other members of the parliamentary program were there. It's fair to say that the ADF personnel were very generous to the parliamentarians who participated in the exercise, and I want to thank them again for their time and dedication to Australia and its peoples. This dedication is admirable, and it should never be tested without deep consideration. Although I disagree with the provisions of the bill, when it comes to the rationale behind it I can't fault the moral conviction of those who seek to advance it. Here in parliament is certainly a place to have a debate about going to war. We heard from Senator Birmingham. I think it is fair that the parliament should have the debate. But the decision to send our troops to war should rest with the government of the day. Indeed, I appreciate the significance of the decision. Sending Australians to war is not a decision that is taken lightly, because of the appreciation we have for our ADF personnel. But it's also important to note that in the Westminster system of government, as we have here in Australia, it is within the purview of the executive to make decisions regarding the commitment of forces to engagements, be they within our borders or overseas. It is that way because, the way our Constitution is written, the Governor-General, as a representative of His Majesty the King, Commander in Chief of the Australian Defence Force, is constitutionally vested with this responsibility. Such is the effect of section 61 of the Australian Constitution. Acting exclusively on the advice of the Prime Minister and other responsible ministers of the government, the Governor-General gives effect to the decisions of the government of the day, which is responsible to the parliament here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives and through our parliamentary processes, which obviously extend to the Australian people. The Albanese government supports the continuation of current arrangements that govern the deployment of the Australian Defence Force to overseas engagements. We do so because it is essential that decisions of this type are able to be taken swiftly in response to international events. Indeed, we have seen in recent years, with open conflict once more on the European continent, how important it is that there exists a legal framework to support the sudden defence of the national interest in the manner that only the Australian Defence Force can. But whilst this may be so, it would be a mistake to suggest that there is not a role for the parliament at all. On this side of the chamber we also support the notion that such decisions of the executive should be made with the appropriate level of parliamentary and public scrutiny, and it is only with such transparency that the Australian community can have faith that these decisions are made on their behalf and in keeping with their expectations. It is because of this commitment that the Australian Labor Party took to the election a policy to establish an inquiry into our armed-conflict decision-making. This is a policy that has since been acted upon, with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence, Richard Marles, making reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on 28 September last year. I'm a member of this committee, and I note that it has so far received 113 submissions. I also note that the committee is yet to finalise its report to the parliament. It is disappointing that this bill has been brought on for debate before that report has been considered by or tabled in the parliament. I say 'disappointing' because, despite the many iterations of this bill and the frequency with which it appears before the chamber, it retains many, I think, deficiencies that have previously been identified through inquiries and debates. Because of the seriousness of the matters this bill would seek to amend, it is of the utmost importance that this legislation is considered deeply and comprehensively. When dealing with matters that will put Australian lives on the line, nothing should be left to chance. Successive committee inquiries have highlighted that the provisions of this and very similar earlier bills leave too much to chance and fail to address the concerns of unintended consequences arising should its passage through the parliament be allowed. In its 2021 report on this bill, the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade stated that it was left with concerns about how certain provisions of this bill would operate in practice and about unintended or unforeseen consequences. The report stated that concerns exist about the disclosure of classified or sensitive information that was necessary to inform decision-making would be made available for parliamentary debate without compromising Australia or its allies. It also stated that the bill would reduce flexibility needed in Australia's complex and uncertain strategic environment, and I think it's important to note that our environment has only become more complex and uncertain since this report was produced. Lastly and appropriately, the committee noted that the geographical limitations that the bill would place on parliamentary approval of overseas service did not account for the increasingly important conflict that occurs in space and cyberspace. The ALP has always had concerns with previous iterations of this bill placing constraints on the government's capacity and its ability to respond to situations requiring urgency. The urgency required in these situations—situations that we of course hope never, never eventuate—is necessary for the function of committing Australian forces to engagements to sit within the executive. The reasons why the government opposes the bill are consistent with the reasons that Labor has opposed similar bills, dating right back to 1985, and that is another reason why it is disappointing that the bill has come before the chamber today, instead of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade having finalised its report. I would urge senators, once that report is tabled, to obviously have another discussion here in this place and make a contribution and get involved in the processes with that joint standing committee's inquiry. The facts and arguments upon which the government has formed its view of this legislation have not changed—and I'm sure the same is true of other parties around the chamber—except noting that our strategic environment is even more fraught and uncertain than when we previously considered a similar bill. The bill does not address the concerns that have been raised with previous iterations; instead, it appears that proponents of the bill have just hoped that maybe the Senate has changed its mind, or the numbers have shifted. I really want to applaud the moral convictions of those who have put this bill—and Senator Steele-John is rightly very passionate about these issues of concern, and, quite frankly, this is the appropriate place to have these debates. But I really would urge Senator Steele-John to reconsider the consequences of maybe delaying decisions and the role the executive has while ensuring that there is still accountability in this place. The parliament has to have accountability for the executive, regardless of which side of politics is in power. I know there are many convictions that we probably share, but I really do feel that what is important here is ensuring that the government of the day has the right amount of information, has the right time and has the ability to support our men and women in uniform when the time comes. But, before I conclude, I make the point too that it is important that we are mindful that the functions of the executive remain as they have been. No decision made by government is as consequential or important as the decision to deploy the Australian Defence Force into combat, but we must also consider that, in what may be a rapidly changing security situation, the decision to not deploy the ADF also has consequences, as does any delay in decisions being made. Any proposal to alter that decision-making process and who is responsible for it must be subject to scrutiny. This chamber has gone through that scrutiny process on bills many times before. Any changes to our national security arrangements must be deeply considered. As our concerns about unforeseen legal and operational consequences of the bill have not been addressed, the government is not in a position to support this bill. But I do look forward to the report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade being finalised after proper consideration of the 113 submissions before it. 10:35 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 The question is that the bill be read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [10:40]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 14

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 14 10:49 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [10:49]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 25 NOES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move my second reading amendment on sheet 1890: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) is of the opinion that: (i) public funding to Safeguard Mechanism facilities should only be provided where it will support genuine business transformation to decarbonise operations, and (ii) access to the Powering the Regions Fund should be subject to the following restrictions: a. fossil fuel producers should be denied access, b. companies receiving funds must be prevented from using the funds to purchase Australian Carbon Credit Units, and c. companies receiving funds must have a publicly available Corporate Transition Plan that includes measures being taken to reduce emissions and ensure transparency and identifies verifiable and quantifiable key performance indicators which track the success of transition actions, and must complete annual reporting on the implementation of the plan; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) prevent Safeguard Mechanism facilities from surrendering Australian Carbon Credit Units unless there is a high degree of certainty that the abatement that they offer is real, additional and permanent, (ii) implement the Chubb Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units in full as a matter of urgency, and (iii) increase the funding available through the Powering the Regions Fund". Question negatived. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the second reading, as amended, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [10:58]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 25 NOES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 16 11:02 Senator 121628 New South Wales McALLISTER (—) (): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. 11:02 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Well, all I can say is here we go again. Labor and the Greens have again sacrificed Australian prosperity on the altar of climate change. Labor and the Greens have again colluded to make everything that matters more expensive for Australians already struggling with the rising cost of living. Labor and the Greens have again schemed to create more crippling energy shortages in Australia. Labor and the Greens have again acted together to put the brakes on Australia's economic growth and then put it in reverse. Labor has shown it cannot stand against the climate extremism of the Greens. Anthony Albanese, our PM, and Chris Bowen have capitulated to Adam Bandt's hypocrisy. Even if you accept the stupid idea that cutting Australia's human carbon dioxide emissions is necessary, and I certainly don't accept it, restricting gas supply is just about the worst thing you can do. Increasing gas supply is absolutely crucial to shoring up unreliable renewable energy. Even the Europeans understand this. The European Union have reclassified natural gas as a clean, green source of energy because they've learned, at great cost to their economies, they can't rely solely on intermittent wind and solar power. That's why they're firing up gas power plants and even restoring coal power plants. What the Greens and Labor won't tell you is that forcing Australian companies to cut carbon dioxide emissions as part of a global effort is utterly futile. Even if Australia's CO2 were cut to zero overnight, CO2 increases in China alone would negate this cut within a year. This is where Greens hypocrisy is at its very worst. They work to cripple Australia with CO2 cuts but don't condemn China for contributing 30 per cent of the world's human CO2 emissions. They're happy to accept China's solar panels and steel for wind turbines, made with Australian iron and Australian coal, but won't condemn China for its plans to add two billion tonnes to its annual emissions of 12 billion tonnes. The Greens will condemn Australia for buying a few nuclear powered submarines but not China for expanding its arsenal of nuclear weapons. They will criticise Australia over human rights but not China's Communist regime for its much worse human rights violations. Hypocrisy! The Greens' insistence that CO2 is a pollution is a lie. They are lying to us. There would be virtually no life on Earth without carbon dioxide—no plant life, no animal life, no Greens senator and no useless idiots to vote for them. CO2 is a natural part of life, and it's undeniably a scientific fact that human caused CO2 is only about three per cent, if that, of all the CO2 in our atmosphere and oceans. We cannot, and will never be able to, control or change the 97 per cent of CO2 from natural sources. Even one of the Greens' favourite prophets of doom, Tim Flannery—remember that man who said, 'Our dams never be full again,' 'It'll never rain,' and 'We'll be in drought', this same man who they hold up there on his platform—said: If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years … So why all the panic? Why all the scaremongering? Why go on as if you're destroying the planet? That's what it is—scaremongering. You've got nothing to back it up with, not even that holier-than-thou Tim Flannery, who you quote and you hold up there. Those were his words: cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years … So you're prepared to destroy our industries, our jobs, our manufacturing and the cost of living. You're prepared to do that. This is Labor. This is the Greens. This is what people voted for. Well, not until the people of this country start hurting, really hurting, will you understand the impact of all these stupid, bloody policies going through this parliament and maybe change your minds and wake people up in this country. Forcing companies to cut CO2, or otherwise offset them, will only increase their costs, forcing them to cut Australian jobs and eventually take their business somewhere else—but not before they're forced to pass on these enormous costs to Australian consumers. Australian consumers, you are going to pay for it. This legislation is nothing more than a carbon tax in disguise, along with a direct attack on the gas industry, crippling supplies when energy shortages demand we increase then. This makes absolutely no sense. In fact, this attack on the gas industry places the Labor governments' own CO2 reduction targets in jeopardy, because there are no renewables without reliable natural gas supplies. There is no economic hydrogen production without natural gas. There is no fertiliser for our farmers without natural gas. The Greens want to end natural gas production. They want to get rid of it. Their economic and scientific illiteracy is almost as stunning as their hypocrisy, and Labor has rolled over and given in to them. It will be interesting to find out just what else is in this deal Labor has done with their Greens devil. It will be interesting to see what else this legislation will do as it plays out in the economy. It doesn't define what a safeguard mechanism credit actually is or what it's supposedly worth. It invests incredible power in the hands of the minister to personally decide if Australian companies have done enough to meet CO2-reduction demands and to punish those who haven't. There is so much wrong with this legislation, not least that, once again, Labor is ramming it through the Senate with the help of the Greens' rookie senator David Pocock. One Nation puts Australia and Australians first, so we cannot possibly support a bill that worsens our cost-of-living crisis, costs Australian jobs and cripples what is left of Australian industry and manufacturing. I will also add, we need to address the gas that we have off the North West Shelf that is in Commonwealth waters. Deals have been done to allow Western Australia to take 15 per cent of that domestic gas supply which belongs to the Australian people. This is in Commonwealth waters. Now Santos is going to put another gas field off the shores of Darwin, in Commonwealth waters, that we are going to get nothing for. The Labor Party talks about how we're going to fund the $368 billion for the nuclear subs. I'll go on about it again. We have a resource that we can make so much money from for the country, yet no-one is prepared to do it. The Prime Minister said we should get rid of the petroleum resource rent tax. No-one has done anything about it. The coalition did nothing about it. You're giving them an uplift factor of 15 per cent. They're making billions out of it. The fact is that they have over $400 billion in tax credits that belong to the Australian people, but you keep giving them a 15 per cent uplift factor on their investment every year. That has accumulated to the credit of $400 billion. We see about $77 billion or $80 billion worth of gas going out of the country, and we get nothing for it. What fools the people in this place are to not have done anything about it. You're reluctant to do it—why? Have deals been done with these multinational companies? People in Australian companies and businesses are struggling to get the gas supply that they want to run their houses. Now you come up with the policy that you're going to get rid of the gas in Australian homes and replace it with electricity. How the hell are you going to do that, when you can't even get enough electricity now? The plants are shutting down because of reliable supply, which we don't get through solar and wind. Yet you're prepared to get rid of gas and tell everyone they have to go to electricity. At whose cost? Who's going to pay for this? We have one of the most resource-rich countries in the world, and you are not going to deal with this. Why? I don't understand why you're not addressing this. This gas belongs to the Australian people, and we should be getting the money from it. Make them pay for it. Get rid of the PRRT. You could do it tomorrow, but you keep giving them more and more leases. Let's see what you do about Santos. Let's see if you're going to make them pay for the gas. Tell the Australian people. Do you know what? You're not going to. That's my understanding of it. How pathetic you really are. You don't care about the Australian people, people living in the homes. There's not enough housing. Bring in another million-plus people—about 650,000 next year. Disgusting. 11:12 Senator 121628 New South Wales McALLISTER (—) (): It might be worth making some opening remarks. My last contribution, I think, was at around four o'clock this morning, and I elected at that time to keep my remarks brief so as not to detain the Senate. The business before the Senate today is important. Today we are a step closer to reaching net zero by 2050. It's my hope that by the time this debate is concluded we will have established important and enduring arrangements to assist Australia in this transformation. We seek to establish not just the steps that will take us towards meeting the target but also the steps that will ensure that our economy is geared up to take advantage of the economic opportunities that will come with that. The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023, which is before the parliament this morning, will deliver 205 million tonnes of emissions reductions by 2030. That's equivalent to taking two-thirds of Australia's cars off the road. I make this point: these reforms are long overdue. They are sensible reforms, and they are designed to ensure that Australia's largest emitters remain competitive in a global economy that is decarbonising. They follow eight months and three rounds of extensive consultation with industry that covered facilities, consultation with the broader public and consultation in the parliament. This morning, I thank those parliamentarians who have constructively engaged with that process. Regrettably, that is not all of the parliamentarians in this place. The reforms before us deliver the investment certainty that is required for the included businesses. The final changes, the amendments before the parliament today, will strengthen the scheme for strategic industries and for climate. They include providing improved flexibility and support for strategic industries and strengthening accountability, transparency and integrity. I understand that a range of senators have general questions to put, so I don't intend to immediately move the government amendments that have been circulated. But I do indicate to the chamber that I will seek to do so relatively quickly so that the Senate may engage with the substance of what's before them. People understand the history—that the safeguard mechanism was put in place by the previous government, and it was supposedly to keep a lid on the emissions of Australia's biggest emitters. But unfortunately, under the previous government, emissions were increasing. The reforms before us received wide support. That includes support from the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Australian Industry Group. The reason they support them is that these reforms finally deliver the policy certainty that's necessary to allow businesses to make investments—investments in their future competitiveness, investments that will allow them to meet their corporate net zero commitments that most of the carbon facilities already have; 80 per cent of the safeguard facilities and 85 per cent of the safeguard emissions are covered by corporate commitments to net zero. We thank the people who have been involved in the consultation process. We thank the people who drafted submissions—hundreds of submissions. We thank the people who attended the round tables around the country and engaged closely with industry and climate groups. And we thank the people in the parliament who engaged in this in good faith. It is past time that we did this. We have had 10 years without a settled climate policy and as a consequence we have had 10 years without a settled energy policy, and that has real consequences for Australians. The reforms before us protect our climate and they protect our economy. These reforms should have bipartisan support. I look forward to the debate across the chamber. 11:16 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Before I get into my questions and general remarks I want to place on the record my thanks to the staff and attendants of the Senate who so patiently supported the operations of this chamber last night. It was a long debate, concluding at about 4.30, as Senator McAllister, the minister, said. So I very much want to put on record my thanks, including to Hansard and all the other support that we receive in this place. It's an unusual workplace, and it can give rise to unusual settings like that. But it's important to recognise, indeed, the support that we are provided at strange hours of the day. In my consideration of this legislation that's before us I, and on behalf of the coalition, want to commence by re-examining the pathways to where we are today and in doing so acknowledge that it was only a few minutes ago that we received the amendments that we are going to be considering, the amendments that are the fruit of the deal that's been done between Labor and the Greens. I think it's important to acknowledge that for proper debate and scrutiny to occur on these things we need time to deliberate. Now, I am pleased that, as I understand it, the government are going to allow debate on this bill to go on until it's exhausted—that is, until the guillotine falls on the debate of this bill at one o'clock tomorrow, including of course all the intervening items of business that this Senate will consider. But there is a lot to unpack here as a result of this murky deal that's been done. I want to revisit one element of it that concerns me most, and that is what now appears to have been feigned concern from the Australian Greens around the modelling that the Australian government would not provide in relation to this legislation. A public interest immunity claim was lodged by the government in relation to the modelling that the Senate Environment and Communications Committee sought, and they said, 'No, you can't have it.' This modelling, relating to Australian carbon credit units, was cabinet-in-confidence, in the first instance, and then of course the excuse under public interest immunity claims changed to 'market sensitivities' down the track. Whatever the reason might be, they were determined not to provide it to us. Why? We don't know. My hunch is that it shows that a lot of what we're talking about here is not actually underpinned by solid modelling and it's all bunkum. But we'll never know. The most concerning part was not the fact that the Australian government refused to provide transparency, refused to provide the information that I would have thought senators in this place would benefit from seeing to make an informed decision. The people in here are intelligent people, committed to their communities, committed to the people who work and live in their states. They would benefit from this information. Instead, the government have hidden it. They will keep it secret. That's fine. That's what they've done. The most concerning part was this false concern the Australian Greens had in indicating to us that they wanted this modelling too. They put down their own motion, at the same time we put ours down. We said, 'No, you can't deal with this bill until we see the modelling.' I think that's fair. If there's nothing to hide, why hide it? Indeed, they wouldn't reveal it. The Greens put down a similar motion, suggesting, 'Well, we'd love to see it too but we won't stop debate on the bill until we change our minds.' The thing is— Senator Pratt I0T You don't listen to it anyway. You've had years of modelling given to you. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Another worthy interjection from Senator Pratt. I'm grateful for that brilliant intervention. The point is, the Greens weren't ever interested in seeing this modelling. They were interested in buying enough time to do a deal. While this motion was on the books, while we were having our Senate committee, there was a smoke filled room, somewhere in this building, with Greens and Labor senators, their minister and the Greens spokesperson on energy. They were setting down to work out exactly what it was they would be agreeing on, what parts of the economy they would be sacrificing, what jobs they would determine not worthy, which ones they shouldn't be looking after, and what parts of Australia could be sold out in the name of political expediency. The Greens sold out. We know that there are members, elements, of the Greens that aren't happy. I read out in the second reading debate a tweet, from my colleague Senator McKim, which was quite inflammatory, I thought. I won't read it out here again. For those interested, go and have a look at Hansard or perhaps have a trawl through Senator McKim's Twitter feed. I also remarked on former senator Bob Brown's resignation as a foundation life member of the Australian Conservation Foundation. Clearly, the committed environmentalists in this country are looking at what the Australian Greens are doing now and, as I've already said, they're selling out. They're compromising on their values. I made the point that former Senator Brown and I agree on not many things, other than Tasmania's a great place, but one thing I can say of him is he is a man of conviction, and one must respect that. That continues to this day, from well beyond the bounds of this chamber. He continues to let the world know what it is he believes, advocating for it, standing for it and making sure that people understand what real Greens are. He, I believe, is one of those. Sadly, what we see today is not a replication of that. We see a Greens party that has decided, 'Let's do a deal. Let's deal ourselves into the game and get what we can, no matter what the cost.' So murky deals, backroom discussions, a Labor-Greens power-sharing agreement— whatever name you want to give it—that's what we're dealing with here now. We saw an element of that this morning. The Australian government, the Labor Party, decided, 'We're going to punish the coalition for not signing up to our policy, even though at the election we told them we wouldn't and we told the people of Australia we wouldn't,' by denying us the capacity to debate our private senator's bill on Thursday. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, though I think that may be a little too generous. That private senator's bill, I might add, was about developing a mechanism so the people of Australia, across the country, can see what power prices are doing and from what source energy is being generated—renewable, fossil fuels, you name it—every quarter. I'm looking forward to debating that, when we get the chance—if the Australian government sees sense and allows us to do that. I want to come to these amendments that were cooked up in secret as a result of this dirty, dodgy deal. I want to know, from the government, when drafting instructions were first issued for these amendments. When were relevant officials tasked with these amendments? I think that's important to understand. We were given these amendments today—at the commencement of debate, in effect. That's not a long time to thumb through the 16- or 17-page additional explanatory memorandum, to understand the far-reaching impacts these changes will have let alone the bill that we've been looking at. What consultation, what scrutiny, has occurred? I'd love to know who out there in the business community, in the ENGO part of the universe, has had a look at these. I'd love to know. The Senate is being asked to vote on this bill, so I would love to know what level of consultation has occurred and what input occurred into the backroom deal that has been done here. Fundamentally: a date, a time, and by whom and to whom these drafting instructions were issued. As a supplementary question, perhaps, I might also ask, in addition to first drafting instructions, when final drafting instructions were issued and when the amendments we now have before us at the eleventh hour, as part of this sneaky deal—you can clothe it as whatever you like, but that's what it is. You just chucked it on the table today in the hope no-one will notice and it will just rush through this week and we can all forget about it. But I tell you what: the big reminder is going to come in just a few months time, in the depths of winter, when Australian households and businesses are opening their power bills and they're not going to be any less than what they were as a result of this or any other legislation that's been introduced by this government. We've got to remember, colleagues, it was this government that said before the election 97 times that they would reduce power bills by $275. It's also important to remember it's this government that can't actually say that number now at all, even in answer to a question that was asked last week by my good friend Senator O'Sullivan, who's not here now. He asked the minister, 'Can you say the number 275?' He refused to say it. That's how allergic to keeping promises this crowd are. As a result, power prices are going to go up. We have bills like this driving up power prices. Bizarrely, in the same week that we have the bill that we passed yesterday for the National Reconstruction Fund, which is supposed to revitalise our manufacturing sector and create jobs, we're going to strangle the same sector by driving up the cost of doing business. One thing I'll disagree with Senator Hanson on: she said it is a carbon tax in disguise. It's not in disguise; it's in full view. It is a carbon tax. So when were drafting instructions issued first, and when were they were finally issued? 11:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales It's no secret that the government has sought to consult on the implementation of our reforms to the safeguard mechanism. I can step Senator Duniam through the timetable if he needs assistance. In 2021, on 3 December, we announced very publicly we would reform the safeguard mechanism as part of the Powering Australia Plan. On 1 July, when we'd formed a government, we appointed an independent panel to review the integrity of ACCUs. On 8 August 2022, we initiated consultation on the safeguard mechanism reform, and there's a paper that's still available on the website if you would like to review it. On 10 October 2022, we opened consultation on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023. On 30 November 2022, we introduced that bill into the parliament. On 9 January, we released the independent review of ACCUs that was undertaken by Professor Chubb. On 10 January, we released a further paper which outlined the proposed reforms which form the substance of the bill before you. On 27 March, following discussions with a range of stakeholders, we released updated reforms. Those consultations were extensive, as I have indicated in the contribution I made before. They covered businesses, other community stakeholders and parliamentarians, as you would expect them to do. I find it surprising that the opposition objects to a government that is willing to work across the parliament to seek support for reforms. The very great shame, I think, for the opposition is that they dealt themselves out of this process from the very beginning. They said no before they even saw the legislation, which has become the hallmark of the opposition under Mr Dutton. So we're not really going to take lectures about processes of engagement, because this is an opposition that has essentially refused to engage with a very significant economic reform. They have chosen not to engage. They said no. We've taken the responsible route to engage all those stakeholders across the chamber who have an interest and all those stakeholders outside of the parliament. The arrangements that were made very publicly by Minister Bowen on 27 March reflect that very broad consultation. 11:29 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to contribute to this debate on the safeguards mechanism. Coal and gas have taken a huge hit. It's no mistake. You only have to read the papers over the last few days. We have stopped nearly half of the 116 new fossil fuel projects that are currently in the pipeline. By doing what we have, we have ensured that in fact pollution will go down as part of these amendments. We have derailed the Beetaloo and the Barossa projects, and we've negotiated amendments, not dirty deals as the opposition have alluded to—I think that's pretty rich coming from their side—so that we've prevented more public money from being sucked into coal and gas projects in this country, unlike their gas-led recovery that they did during COVID. So I want to be really clear that this is actually a very huge win for the planet, but there's still lots of work to do. Currently there are lots of industry based grant funds that are being given to fossil fuel projects through the climate crisis. This is absolutely unacceptable. Our amendments will ensure that grants under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 are not given to any more coal and gas projects in this country. There is now one less pocket of public money that's going to these greedy corporations to dip into. That should be a good win for the public interest. That's what this place represents. We know that 47 per cent of the current emissions covered by this scheme come from fossil fuel companies. That is no mistake. It's not something we over here at the Greens have made up; it's actually the science. It's important to note that this is the current emissions. This does not actually account for new entrants—the ones that are also in the pipeline, ready to be approved. From the outset, it's already posed that there's a significant problem that the government has identified. The Greens agree that this is a problem in relation to our emissions. In the middle of a climate crisis, the Labor government will still look at these projects, and we over here at the Greens will still fight ferociously for rest of those projects in the pipeline to be shut down. The safeguard mechanism, before the Greens secured these wins, would have allowed that to happen. We have put the handbrake on this, and we're not ashamed to say that. Our amendments include a hard cap on emissions, meaning real pollution will come down and the coal and gas corporations can't buy their way out of the cap with the dodgy offsets. To compliment this change, there will also be a pollution trigger, which will now require new coal and gas projects to be assessed against the hard cap, and they can be stopped based on their impact on the climate. How hard is that? It's not rocket science. If you don't meet the hard cap, you cannot continue. You should not proceed to your final investment decision in these projects. This will be the first time since the safeguard mechanism was established under Tony Abbott that we can have confidence that pollution will actually come down in this country. Abating emissions on site should be a priority for industries across this country that are captured under this mechanism. We understand that reductions can't happen overnight. That is a reality, so some offsets will be needed. However, they should in fact be the last resort. In cases where either emissions cannot be abated on site or there still needs to be a small buffer while there is technology being developed and implemented, this is the only time we should see offsets used. There have been significant concerns raised about the integrity of these dodgy offsets, particularly with the human induced regeneration by the ACCU issue. The Greens have also heard these concerns. We have secured a pause on these credits until they are actually going through an independent audit. We think that's important. This could take up to a quarter of future offsets off the table, which will force companies to cut pollution onsite. That is what it's meant to do. We are in a climate crisis. This is urgent. We're not in a casual walk towards climate action. We should be in a sprint, and that is what was said last week in the IPCC report. Climate action is needed, and it's needed now. Further, companies will have to report on and justify the use of their offsets to ensure this, which will help prevent greenwashing—the greenwashing that we have seen presented to us in this chamber. In the 18 months that I've represented the resources portfolio on behalf of the Australian Greens, I have seen more greenwashing than I have in my lifetime. We have to ensure that we are addressing that. Fracking in the Beetaloo and the development of the Barossa gas field have been derailed. They are now having to justify to their investors why this is still a viable option. Tamboran, who are the proponents for the Beetaloo project, will be forced to offset all of their emissions from day one, adding an estimated $1 billion a year. And Santos, who are the proponents for the Barossa gas field, will be forced to offset all of its CO2 emissions. This is a big day for the Greens movement as we continue to work alongside the government, but it's an even bigger day for traditional owners, First Nations people who never gave their free, prior and informed consent. We have challenged that. They have challenged that in the Beetaloo and in the Barossa gas fields. I've stood in solidarity with some of those traditional owners and campaigners, and what great grassroots campaigns they have run. They have run these against the gas giants in this country, and they've taken the challenge right up to them. I want to congratulate the eight Tiwi clan groups led, by the Munupi clan in the Tiwi Islands. This is a moment they can share in. Last night I had a wonderful conversation because they are now seeing a glimmer of light, another opportunity of hope for them to make sure that land and sea country across this country is not being destroyed by the state capture of the two major parties in this place who continue to fund fossil fuel projects in this country. We know that the Beetaloo and the Barossa gas field are not the only threats to our climate. Traditional owners from Narrabri, Otway and, in my home state, the Scarborough project up on the Burrup Peninsula and the Kimberley are continuing the fight. The Barossa and the Beetaloo are some of the biggest projects that are the closest to production. They have the biggest targets, which is why we focused our negotiations on them. Both of these are climate bombs, and they are equally linked to—funnily enough—the dirty Middle Arm hub that's proposed in Larrakia country in Darwin. The impacts of these projects will flow on to Middle Arm, and we all remember the debate we had about Middle Arm, where the government and the opposition sat together against us trying to ask for information about why Middle Arm was even approved. We remember question time when I asked Minister Watt about the use of petrochemicals in the wording, and the greenwashing that was put up by the Northern Territory and the federal governments. But rest assured the Greens are still here fighting. We're fighting against Scarborough, we're fighting against Narrabri, we're fighting against the Browse Basin, we're fighting against fracking in the Kimberley and we're against so many other projects. We will continue to fight. Indeed, we may have already wiped out some of these with the hard cap, and that is a great move and a great start. I'm so proud of the work that's gone into these negotiations. The opposition can try and paint that up any way you want, but we are proud that we have been able to negotiate these with the government. We know that the people are with us. We are in solidarity with First Nations people across this country. We are in solidarity with climate scientists, our Pacific Island neighbours and the majority of people who should and do believe that we are in a climate crisis. We should be shutting down coal and gas projects across this country and, particularly, not opening up any new ones. This shows that we can work with the government on much needed improvements, and Labor's safeguard is better now because of the work that we have been able to collaborate on. I'm sorry that the opposition is sitting there blank faced, not wanting to hear that. We will keep pushing. We will keep campaigning on the ground with people. We will create a movement that is serious about climate action, and we will continue to deliver. Thank you. 11:40 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (14) on sheet SK147 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 8 and 9), omit "by ensuring that", substitute "by ensuring that each of the following outcomes (the safeguard outcomes) are achieved". (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 12), omit "and". (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 13 and 14), omit paragraph 3(2)(b), substitute: (b) total net safeguard emissions for all of the financial years between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2030 do not exceed a total of 1,233 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence; (c) net safeguard emissions decline to: (i) no more than 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2029; and (ii) zero for any financial year to begin after 30 June 2049; (d) the 5-year rolling average safeguard emissions for each financial year that begins after 30 June 2024 are lower than the past 5-year rolling average safeguard emissions for that financial year; (e) the responsible emitter for each designated large facility has a material incentive to invest in reducing covered emissions from the operation of the facility; (f) the competitiveness of trade-exposed industries is appropriately supported as Australia and its regions seize the opportunities of the move to a global net zero economy. (4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (before line 25), before the definition of associated provisions, insert: 5-year rolling average safeguard emissions, for a financial year, means the amount, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence, that is one fifth of the total amount of safeguard emissions for the 5 previous financial years. (5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 10), after the definition of issue, insert: net safeguard emissions, for a financial year, means the total amount, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence, of net covered emissions from the operation, during the financial year, of all designated large facilities for the financial year. past 5-year rolling average safeguard emissions, for a financial year (the current financial year), means the amount, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence, that is one fifth of the total amount of safeguard emissions for the period of 5 financial years that ended: (a) if the current financial year ends before 1 July 2027—3 years before the start of the current financial year; or (b) otherwise—2 years before the start of the current financial year. (6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (before line 23), before the definition of safeguard mechanism credit unit, insert: safeguard emissions, for a financial year, means the total amount, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence, of covered emissions from the operation, during the financial year, of all designated large facilities for the financial year. (7) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (after line 24), after the definition of safeguard mechanism credit unit, insert: safeguard outcome has the meaning given by subsection 3(2). (8) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 28), after item 10, insert: 10A Section 7 Insert: Secretary means the Secretary of the Department. (9) Schedule 1, item 37, page 21 (lines 11 and 12), omit all the words from and including "unless" to the end of subsection 22XS(1A), substitute: unless the Minister is satisfied that those rules: (a) are consistent with each of the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(b), (c) and (d); and (b) take into account the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(e) and (f). (10) Schedule 1, item 37, page 21 (after line 12), after subsection 22XS(1A), insert: (1B) If the Minister makes safeguard rules, the Minister must publish on the Department's website the Minister's reasons for being satisfied that the safeguard rules: (a) are consistent with each of the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(b), (c) and (d); and (b) take into account the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(e) and (f). (1C) If safeguard rules are in force and the Minister receives advice under subsection 14(1) of the Climate Change Act 2022 that: (a) safeguard emissions, or net safeguard emissions, for a financial year are not declining consistently with a safeguard outcome in paragraph 3(2)(b), (c) or (d) of this Act; and (b) the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve each of those safeguard outcomes; the Minister must: (c) undertake public consultation in relation to whether the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve the safeguard outcomes and the content of any such amendment; and (d) if satisfied that the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve the safeguard outcomes—amend the safeguard rules. (1D) If safeguard rules are in force and the Secretary is satisfied, having regard to: (a) an estimate given to the Secretary under section 15A of the Climate Change Act 2022; or (b) information published under subsection 24(3B) of this Act; or (c) information given to the Secretary, by an agency or authority of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, relating to the likely covered emissions of a designated large facility for a financial year; that the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve each of the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(b), (c) and (d) of this Act, then: (d) the Secretary must advise the Minister that the Secretary is so satisfied; and (e) the Minister must: (i) undertake public consultation in relation to whether the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve the safeguard outcomes and the content of any such amendment; and (ii) if satisfied that the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve the safeguard outcomes—amend the safeguard rules. (1E) Subsections (1C) and (1D) do not limit section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003 (rule-makers should consult before making legislative instruments). (11) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 28), after item 38, insert: 38A After subsection 24(3) Insert: Publication relating to the safeguard mechanism (3A) If the total amount of covered emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of a designated large facility during a financial year is set out in a report under this Act for the financial year, the Regulator must publish on its website by 15 April next following the financial year: (a) that total amount; and (b) the amount of those covered emissions that were carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide; and (c) the baseline emissions number for the facility for the financial year; and (d) if safeguard mechanism credit units have been issued in relation to the facility and the financial year—the number of those units; and (e) if a monitoring period for the facility ended during, or at the end of, the financial year—the following: (i) the net emissions number for the facility for that period; (ii) the number and type of prescribed carbon units (if any) surrendered for the purpose of reducing the net emissions number for the facility for that period; (iii) if any of those units were Australian carbon credit units issued in respect of an eligible offsets project for a reporting period (within the meaning of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011) for the project—the methodology determination (within the meaning of that Act) that applied to the project for that period. (3B) For each financial year between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2030, the Regulator must publish on its website by 15 April next following the financial year: (a) the safeguard emissions for the financial year; and (b) the net safeguard emissions for the financial year; and (c) the 5-year rolling average safeguard emissions for the financial year; and (d) the total safeguard emissions for all of the financial years between 1 July 2020 and the end of the financial year. (4) Subsections (3A) and (3B) do not limit the requirements that may be prescribed by the safeguard rules in relation to the publication of information. 38B Subsection 25(5) Omit "subsection 24(1AF)", substitute "subsection 24(1AF), (3A) or (3B)". (12) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 13), after Part 2, insert: Part 2A — Amendment of the Climate Change Act 2022 Climate Change Act 2022 66A Section 5 Insert: Climate Change Secretary means the Secretary of the Department responsible for the administration of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. designated large facility has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. Environment Ministe r means the Minister who administers the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. expanded designated large facility: a facility is an expandeddesignated large facility for a financial year if: (a) the activity, or series of activities, that constitutes the facility is carried on to a greater extent in the financial year than in earlier financial years; or (b) during the financial year, an activity, or series of activities, is included in the activity, or series of activities, that constitutes the facility for the first time. facility has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. net safeguard emissions, for a financial year, has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. new designated large facility, for a financial year, means a designated large facility for the financial year that was not a designated large facility for any previous financial year. safeguard emissions, for a financial year, has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. safeguard outcome has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. safeguard rules has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. scope 1 emission of greenhouse gas has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. 66B Paragraph 12(1)(d) After "those policies", insert "and in particular whether safeguard emissions and net safeguard emissions are declining consistently with the safeguard outcomes". 66C Part 4 (heading) After "Authority", insert "etc.". 66D At the end of section 13 Add: 66E After subsection 14(1) Insert: (1A) Advice given to the Minister under subsection (1) must include advice about: (a) whether safeguard emissions and net safeguard emissions for the financial year to which the annual climate change statement relates are declining consistently with each of the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(b), (c) and (d) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, taking into account: (i) the impact of any expanded designated large facilities, or new designated large facilities, for the financial year; and (ii) the impact of any expected expanded designated large facilities, or expected new designated large facilities, for future financial years; and (iii) any emissions estimates that are given to the Climate Change Authority under section 15A of this Act; and (b) if safeguard emissions, or net safeguard emissions, for the financial year are not so declining—whether any amendments to the safeguard rules are needed in order to achieve each of those safeguard outcomes. 66F At the end of Part 4 Add: 15A Environment Minister to give Minister, Climate Change Secretary an d Climate Change Authority certain emissions estimates If, in a financial year: (a) the Environment Minister approves, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the taking of an action for the purposes of a controlling provision (within the meaning of that Act); and (b) the Environment Minister is satisfied that the action is likely to result in: (i) an increase, in the financial year or future financial years, of scope 1 emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of a designated large facility for the financial year; or (ii) a new designated large facility for the financial year or a future financial year; and (c) the Environment Minister has been given an estimate of the scope 1 emissions of greenhouse gases from the taking of the action in one or more financial years for which an entity covered by subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) is, or is likely to be, a designated large facility; the Environment Minister must give the estimate to the Minister, the Climate Change Secretary and the Climate Change Authority as soon as practicable after approving the taking of the action. (13) Schedule 1, item 67, page 30 (after line 16), after subitem (3), insert: (3A) Subsection 24(3A) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, as inserted by Part 1 of this Schedule, applies in relation to the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023 and later financial years. (14) Schedule 1, item 67, page 31 (after line 22), at the end of the item, add: (14) The amendments of the Climate Change Act 2022 made by Part 2A of this Schedule apply in relation to the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023 and later financial years. Today the government is moving amendments to amend the objects of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act to specify that net carbon emissions from safeguard facilities decline consistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and that covered emissions decline over time; that each facility has a material incentive to reduce emissions; and that the competitiveness of trade exposed industries is appropriately supported as Australia and its regions seize the opportunities to move to a global net zero economy. These amendments also require public advice from the Climate Change Authority on how emissions are tracking against the carbon budget. Importantly, they add a requirement to make changes to subordinate legislation if the budget is not on track or to take other steps to address that problem. To inform this advice, the environment minister would be required to provide information about emissions from proposed actions that are likely to result in a new facility being covered by the safeguard mechanism or a safeguard facility increasing its emissions after approving the action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This advice would be provided to the Climate Change Authority and to the minister responsible for the Climate Change Act. In the coming weeks, the minister will be releasing associated rules which are required to enable these changes. 11:42 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I appreciate the acknowledgement from the minister that there's a lot more in general that we need to cover with regard to this, despite having moved into the government amendments. It is in relation to those amendments that came to the table not that long ago and that we are still working our way through. Yes, there's been a lot of public commentary. There were a couple of second reading speeches given last night that gave voice to what effect it was that the agreement that's been reached would have. There are a few areas of conflict over the extent to which these amendments would reach, but we'll come to that a little later. I want to go back to the question that I didn't really get an answer to. I asked the minister for a specific date and time about when drafting instructions were issued for the amendments that we now have, that we were provided with not long ago—within the last hour or so—and, of course, the supplementary explanatory memorandum. I'll ask that question again. I'd also be interested to know, in addition to that, when the drafted amendments were first seen by the government and those that they are doing this deal with—the Australian Greens and anyone else on the crossbench. I took great interest in the time line of the path to where we are today and the announcement that was made on 27 March. As you said, Minister, post discussions with a range of stakeholders including, as I understand it, members of the crossbench. What I was interested in is that a series of amendments have been moved that have material effect. They alter what was announced as part of your election package. They change what was taken to the election and they also change what was consulted on around August—8 August was the date you provided—and the consultation on the safeguard mechanism credit scheme on 10 October. They change what was introduced in November. I'm interested, post all of that—and you referenced discussions that culminated in the announcement on 27 March—in what public consultation there was around the detail of what we're talking about here. That's why I'm asking these questions about when instructions were issued for drafting. When were they seen? Who by? This is important in order to understand how much sunlight has been shone on the deal that's been done with the Greens. While we try and get our head around this, I will continue to ask these questions between now and when the Labor Party, in partnership with the Greens, will guillotine debate tomorrow on one of the most serious laws and the impact it will have on the economy. That will all be guillotined. We won't get a chance beyond one o'clock tomorrow to discuss this further, and it will be left to the people of Australia to make a decision about whether this was good or not. I do have to take issue with some of the points that Senator Cox made. I appreciate anyone who comes into this place with strong conviction, but I'll tell you who we stand in the corner of, and that is in the corner of the consumer and the household that's paying more for electricity, for fuel, for food and on their mortgage. The consumer, the household and the business were all promised before the last election that these things would go down, but they're not. We will come to exactly how this legislation is going to put downward pressure, as Senator Farrell has said innumerable times this week, on the cost of living. I'd be interested in how this fits into this narrative the government has got running. How does the safeguard mechanism—and you don't have to answer this now, because we'll have a lot of time to answer this—drive down the cost of living for Australian households? Going back to the questions at hand: when were drafting instructions issued? By whom? When were drafts returned? Who saw them? As a lead-in to us now having a debate in the Senate on amendments that were only circulated for us to consider and to vote on today, perhaps into tomorrow morning— Senator Hughes 273828 Post some extensive second reading speeches. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Yes, post some extensive second reading speeches—you'd think there was a capacity for these things to be considered in a good-faith discussion around this. And yes, we are opposed to what this bill establishes and sets out to do, because it is a new tax. This bill is not going to deliver the environmental outcomes that the government claims it will. It's going to make things worse, because we are part of a thing called the world. When you tax businesses out of existence here in Australia, do you know what they're going to do? Senator DUNIAM 263418 I think Senator Rice might benefit from a bit of education here, because the thing is that if it's more expensive to do business here, like manufacture cement or aluminium or engage in native forestry in this place, you're going to do it somewhere else, in those jurisdictions, those countries, that do not care about the impact on the environment. It's called offshoring. Senator DUNIAM 263418 It counts when it comes to emissions as well, as Senator Cadell says. By tidying up our own backyard and forcing some of these businesses offshore—because I don't believe there are assurances to keep these businesses here and minimise their impact on the environment and work with those businesses to do so—not only are we offshoring the emissions but we're also offshoring their jobs and the economic value to the community. So, again, huge changes were proposed in these last-minute amendments, part of a dodgy deal between this one group of people. They go by different names—Labor, Green—but they're one team. They always are and always will be. That's the kind of thing they do. They team up to shut down the economy and pick on regional Australia. But yes, more detail around those time lines would be very helpful, because we all know this is leading to one thing, and that is economic Armageddon. 11:48 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales It's a curious way to characterise what I consider a very straightforward process of public consultation. I won't go through the time line again, but the government has taken the approach of consulting very, very widely with a very wide range of stakeholders over an extended period of time in arriving at this point. Senator Duniam, you are quite right that the position paper released on 8 August 2022 asked a series of questions and sought feedback on them. The position paper released on 10 January this year similarly sought feedback on a range of more detailed propositions. Consultation on the detail that is before the parliament and the detail that is proposed to be placed into the associated subordinate legislation has been very wideranging indeed. Not only is that not unusual from a government committed to a proper policy process; it's actually necessary. A very large range of people have been engaged in discussions. I am not personally privy to every one of them, but I am conscious that both the department and the minister have been engaged with a range of stakeholders in bringing this together. As to the specific questions around drafting, I'll see what information I can provide to you, but drafting is the end product of a policy process, and the policy process has been very public indeed. 11:50 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland As an Independent member of this Senate, I have to agree with the coalition with regard to this. I'm absolutely disgusted that, less than an hour ago, I was given your amendments to this bill. You have disregarded my position in this place, and it's either incompetence or sheer arrogance that you bring this amendment into the chamber at such a late stage and you intend to guillotine the debate. You have no regard for my position or my colleagues' positions. You have no regard for anyone in this place other than yourself, the Greens and David Pocock. I don't know what deals you've done with Jacqui Lambie or others, if they're supporting this bill, but you have no regard for others. This is not the first time this has happened; it happened with the IR bill as well. I got the final documents to my office on the Wednesday night at 9.30, and it was guillotined and pushed through on the Thursday in this place. I spoke to the Prime Minister about this, saying that I was not happy with not getting information. I'm not getting briefed by the ministers. I have not had one—I'm sorry; I have. Murray Watt came to my office one time to discuss the dairy bill with me, but that's the only one. Labor does not contact my office to give me briefings or to explain their bills to me—nothing. Apart from that, they cut back my staff so that I can't get across all the legislation that's rammed through this place. It's okay for David Pocock. He had the IR bill on the Sunday. He made up his mind he was going to support it on the Sunday. We had no idea till the following Wednesday. This is absolutely atrocious and disgusting of this government. I've been in parliament since 1996. I worked with the coalition government at that time. I've worked here under the Turnbull government and the Morrison government, and this is the worst government I have ever come across to work with in this place, ramming its legislation through. The disdain that those opposite have for other members in this chamber is unbelievable. It's sheer arrogance. I'm here because the people of Queensland voted for me. I have every right to be here and I have every right to be paid the respect to get this legislation in enough time to revise it. The minister talks about consultation with businesses, but I don't agree—I don't believe there has been enough consultation. Labor has just come up with policies. I've spoken to businesses that are not happy with this. Minister, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the amendments on sheet SK147. Amendment (3) reads: (b) total net safeguard emissions for all of the financial years between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2030 do not exceed a total of 1,233 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence; Can you tell me what emissions have been used to date? 11:54 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Hanson, I was listening to your question, but what was the start date that you were seeking to reference? 11:54 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland You've got here in amendment (3) on your sheet SK147 that proposed paragraph (b) of schedule 1 says that for the 'years between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2030' the safeguard emissions 'do not exceed a total of 1,233 million tonnes'. I want to know what your emissions to date have been. 11:55 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales It's a very specific question. I will seek advice on it, and I will come back to you, if I can, at some point in the debate. 11:55 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Thank you. These businesses have the next seven years to find out how many emissions they are able to put out there in running their businesses and companies before they get taxed by you. You're going to increase immigration into the country quite considerably—an article said, 'The highest immigration intake in the history of this nation.' Can you tell me how much a single person emits in carbon emissions in a single year? 11:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales It's highly subjective. Perhaps what I can say is that, when the Australian government considers its emissions projections, one of the things it contemplates is the level of economic activity, and, of course, population size is a feature of projections for economic activity. I might indicate also that I have some advice in relation to your question about the emissions in the period you referenced. It is an approximation, but between 1 July 2020 and 1 July 2023 it is around 420 million tonnes. 11:57 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I will go back to the immigration question so the people of Australia know what you are doing here. You are increasing immigration to the country, and by 2030, it is estimated, around two million or more—that is just people coming to live here to Australia, migrants, let alone the students, tourists and everyone else. For those two million or more people, I tell you: do you have—no, I will ask you. We'll see if you've done your sums. How much emissions will these two million new migrants up to 2030 release in Australia of their CO2? 11:57 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Hanson, I think I have already answered your question by indicating that it's highly dependent, both on the individual but also on the technologies that are in place in the Australian economy at that time. I have also indicated that in preparing our projections for emissions the level of economic activity is contemplated, and that includes population projections. So I think I have probably answered your question, although perhaps not in terms that you would like. 11:58 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland No, Minister, you haven't answered my question. If you are going to penalise these companies from trying to actually—industries and manufacturing, and you have just passed a bill to get industries and manufacturing going in Australia, and that is what you purport. But under this bill you are basically going to penalise them. What I'm saying here is that you are increasing your immigration by nearly two million people into Australia. Forget about the impact that is going to have on housing, hospitals, infrastructure, water and everything else. We are talking about CO2, which this whole bill is purely about. I will tell you something that you don't know. By the immigrants coming into nearly two million people in the country by 2030, you're going to have 45½ million tonnes of CO2 extra into it. Tell me, Minister: is the government going to buy carbon credits for their emissions? 11:59 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm not sure about the source of your information, but I think that the question you're asking fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the policy proposals before the chamber. 11:59 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland No, you're avoiding the question. It's very relevant. We're talking about carbon emissions in this country, and you're actually pulling it back in many, many areas, especially carbon. So when you're bringing migrants into the country who emit those amounts of emissions you are avoiding the question. You don't know what you're talking about. You haven't done your research therefore the consultation hasn't gone forward. You cannot answer the Australian people with regard to this. Another thing I want to ask you, Minister, is about what Adam Bandt said in a tweet. He said: Fossil fuel shares fell yesterday after the Greens' secured a limit on coal and gas expanding.    … … To those wanting to open new coal and gas mines, your days of wrecking the climate for profit are numbered. Minister, are you aware that there are many millions of Australians who, under superannuation, have shares in coal and gas? Are you proud of the fact that you've destroyed a lot of their future superannuation that they need for the future? 12:01 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks for the question, Senator Hanson. With respect to the statement that you referenced, I would start by thanking the Greens for the constructive way that they have approached discussions. That particular characterisation of the effect of the amendments is not one that we would agree with. I appreciate that this is a talking point, but this was not a part of the government's negotiations. The safeguard reforms actually take into account likely new entrants, and they still deliver 205 million tonnes of abatement. The scheme is actually about ensuring that our biggest emitters can thrive in a net zero world by investing in technology that brings their emissions down. Many of the premises in your question are not entirely accurate, but I thank you for the question. 12:02 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania In the vein of not having any questions answered, and I acknowledge there was a public consultation process on everything except the amendments that we have before us, I'm going to give up on seeking the information I was after there. In relation to some of these things that have been agreed to between the Greens and the Labor Party about imposing this new taxation system on emitters, what I do want to know is how much of what is going to be set up will be done by subordinate legislation? You referenced some in an earlier answer about what's been agreed to. What are we dealing with here that has been agreed to, and what will be dealt with by way of delegated legislation? In the same vein as the complaint Senator Hanson made about the complete disdain for anyone who wasn't part of the negotiation, any party or grouping of senators who did not sign up to a safeguard at the last election has been characterised as saying no. I tell you what, we do say no to higher taxes. We do say no to offshoring emissions. We do say no to driving up the cost of electricity. We do say no to penalising hardworking Australians with bad policy that will not deliver the outcomes the government says it will. I'd be interested to understand how much hidden legislation there will be. Sure, we'll get to have a look at it because it is disallowable by its nature, but if it's part of the agreement, and we're here voting on this legislation today—again, I'd point out the fact that amendments are a very important part of any proper democratic debate on legislation. Notwithstanding the long period of time between when the policy was announced prior to the election, the election and the tabling of the first round of draft laws, a lot has changed. So to point to that front end of the process being very important and minimising this end, which is actually where we make laws—where we are voting on behalf of the people we represent about what is good, what is bad—will it have the effect the government says it will? This is what we're interrogating now. It's also important to understand what of this will be tucked away and hidden in delegated legislation, and what effect those changes might be. Additionally, I'm very interested in this difference of opinion between the government and the Greens over the nature and effect of the agreement that has been reached here. I will interrogate that a bit later on. I just flag that now. I think this is important for the people of Australia, who have obviously heard all the talking points through the various interviews that have been conducted, doorstops by Mr Bandt and others around the success they have had in strangling the fossil fuel sector, but there is a very different take on things from you, Minister, so I would be interested to interrogate that. But the basic question I have here is, what of the changes to what was put on the table originally is going to be found in delegated legislation? Has anything been drafted yet in terms of the delegated legislation? If it has commenced but is not yet completed, what stage are we at? Who is being consulted on that? Is it the same group of people that had the broad conversations you referenced with the culmination of the 27 March announcement? And I would be interested to understand whether the Australian Greens are helping you draft these pieces of delegated legislation, and will there be a public discussion about these things before they are tabled here in the Senate? 12:05 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you for the question, Senator Duniam. As I indicated, the government undertook an extensive process of consultation, including in the earliest parts of this year, following the release of our detailed discussion paper about the approach that we wanted to take. A couple of days ago, on the 27th, Minister Bowen made an announcement about some of the changes that we proposed in response to representations from a range of different stakeholders. There are a number of changes, some of which are being dealt with in the amendment that's before you. It's a single amendment, and I think the impact of that amendment is clear to you. But there are some others that will be dealt with through different means, one of which is that we have made it clear publicly that there will be additional funding available for the manufacturing sector and for trade exposed industries through the Powering the Regions Fund. There will also be a change in the approach and some specific treatment for hard-to-abate value added manufacturing, including a different threshold for manufacturers to qualify for a discount on their decline rate. That reflects the particular characteristics of this sector as a value-adding industry. Those changes would be reflected in the rules rather than the core legislation, and that's consistent with the overall architecture of the legislation before the chamber. The government has also committed to commissioning a review to examine the feasibility of an Australian carbon border adjustment mechanism. That has obviously been the source of some discussion and an area of some interest for the industries we are engaged with. Most of the remaining changes are dealt with through the legislation. I would only say that we have, of course, emphasised that the Chubb review remains an area of focus. The government will continue with implementation of the Chubb review to ensure integrity in the carbon market. I am conscious, Senator Duniam, of trying to provide a balance between what is quite a level of detail that will be contained in the rules and material that we can engage with in the debate this morning. Those are the main points and the ways that we intend to progress them. 12:08 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Thank you for being able to break those things out, Minister. That is interesting, and we will come back to those specific elements that will find their way into delegated legislation later on in the committee stage. What I do want to know is what modelling the government has done on the financial impact on businesses and households of the changes that have been agreed to with the Greens. I note that you did indicate that most of the changes as set out in the proposed amendments to the legislation are clear. Yes, I'm sure they are, once we get through reading the document, which was only provided to us an hour ago. It will become clear. But what is important as we move forward—and we will have to vote on these things no later than one o'clock tomorrow—I want to know: what modelling has been done about the impact on power prices and the cost of fuel and other sources of energy that households and business would have, and inputs to manufacturing processes? I want to know about any modelling that has been done on the way through as part of these discussions, which culminated in the 27 March decision. Any good government would go and model requests from a party like the Greens to understand whether it was good for the economy or bad. In the absence of modelling of these changes, I am very concerned that we've just signed up for an expedient political deal. So, hopefully you'll be able to tell me that modelling has been done and that it's rather thorough, and perhaps you might provide it to us. Additionally, I have one further question on the issue of modelling. Was the modelling that was hidden by the Australian Senate by way of PII claim at any point shown to the Australian Greens as part of the discussions that occurred in the agreement around the announcement on 27 March? Was that modelling that we sought shown to any member of the Australian Greens, any member of their staff or anyone associated with them when it was hidden from the committee of the Senate and indeed the coalition? 12:10 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The issue around modelling has been canvassed in Senate estimates. It's been canvassed in the Senate committee. And I think you know the government's response, which is that general— Senator McALLISTER 121628 Perhaps Senator Hughes would like the call. Senator Hughes 273828 I just want to reiterate the point that Senator Duniam has made: have the Greens been shown the modelling that was refused to the coalition and to Senator Hanson? And why, if the modelling reflects so positively on this legislation, will you not share it with those decision-makers in this Senate? Senator McALLISTER 121628 Look, these issues were canvassed in Senate estimates. They were also canvassed, as I understand it, in the Senate inquiry that took place into the legislation we're now debating. There are two answers. One is that I think Treasury have provided advice that they didn't do modelling on the impact on the overall economy. Modelling was undertaken on the potential for onsite abatement at safeguard facilities and implications for the carbon market. And, as the minister has said and as has been discussed in this place, this is not only cabinet-in-confidence but also price-sensitive information, as the Commonwealth is the largest purchaser of ACCUs. Regarding the question about whether or not the members of the Greens or staff have been shown this modelling, I am advised that the answer is no. 12:12 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'll take the government at their word that they did not share with the Greens the modelling that they so desperately sought originally in this debate and somehow that desire for transparency and understanding what underpinned the government's proposal here suddenly just evaporated. Anyway, I'll let that speak for itself. I just want to unpack the answer around modelling of the impacts of the changes arising out of the agreement with the Greens and others. I would like to understand from your answer—so, Treasury did some analysis of onsite abatement, I think you said? I'm sure you'll have a chance to respond when we come back in the afternoon, because we're about to suspend, I understand. But was any analysis taken by any department or any minister's office—any third party outside of government—around what impact these changes that have been agreed to with the Australian Greens would have on, for example, power prices, fuel costs and inputs into the manufacturing process, such as in industries like the fertiliser manufacturing sector? I think it's important to understand that the government who went through a very lengthy consultation process, publicly, and presented a bill—one that we disagreed with—highlighted the importance of getting it right. I just wonder whether you can indicate to the Senate whether you've gone through the same level of in-depth analysis to assure yourselves of what you're signing up to here to get a bill through isn't going to have a negative impact, given that you've put so much work into making sure that this thing actually works in the way that the Australian government said it should before the election. Again, I disagree with the assessment the government is putting forward here: that it'll improve environmental and economic outcomes. I think it will, in fact, be disastrous on both counts. But, when we come back to the debate a little later on today, I would just like to get an assurance from you that you haven't sold us up the creek with no modelling on the Greens' proposals that you've agreed to. Progress reported. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 31 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Western Australia: Floods 31 12:15 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia With the five minutes I have, I want to put some happiness into what was a dire situation in January this year up at Fitzroy Crossing in the Kimberley in WA. We all know the damage that was done. We know about this once-in-100-year flood. We've seen the wreckage of what once was the bridge across the mighty Fitzroy River. It's gone. We also know that 92 homes have been destroyed. Those of us who work in that part of the world—including you, Acting Deputy President Cox, and Senator O'Sullivan—know that, when we talk about 92 homes, we're talking about a lot of people who have been put out. So I'm happy to say that the state government has been able to access a camp that was donated. That's now being put in place. I'm working with the state government and the people of Fitzroy. What I do, as most people would know, is that I cart second-hand furniture that's been donated up to Fitzroy Crossing and Kununurra. So I'm working closely with the community up there. The end of April will be the time when we can get the furniture up there. I just want to acknowledge that there are some fantastically generous people. I also throw this invitation to Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Cox: if you're around Fitzroy Crossing at the end of April, please pop in, because for me, with this, there has always been no blue, no red and no green. We're all team WA on this sort of stuff. I want to acknowledge some very dear friends of mine. Don Bantock from Bedshed in Osborne Park and Midland and, of course, the greater Bedshed company, particularly through the stores at Joondalup and Cockburn, have donated 120 king- and queen-size mattresses for the people of Fitzroy. Don does this year in, year out, twice a year—and for Kununurra as well. I'd like to acknowledge Sleepeezee. Sleepeezee have donated 100 double mattresses. I'd like to acknowledge some wonderful people I met just recently: Peter and Faye Lynch from Tent City in Victoria Park. They were closing down, and they've donated 100 camper beds, 50 stretcher beds and 50 stackable chairs. I can't thank my dear friend Nick D'Adamo from KEYS Moving Solutions enough. Nick and I have been mates for 40 years now. I started Nick in the transport industry, when I was at the ripe old age of 20 and he was 19. He went on to now own the largest removal company in WA. Nick's been a great partner on our Waste to Wages program up in Kununurra, Wyndham and Warmun. He's also been fantastically supportive of what we do in Fitzroy Crossing. Nick throws one of his removal vans at me, and I run around and pick up the donated furniture. We have a warehouse in Myaree that is Marra Worra Worra's, and we've filled the warehouse with donated furniture, which will be going up at a later date on another run. I'd also like to acknowledge a very, very dear friend of mine, Justin Cardaci of Centurion transport. For us West Aussies, Queenslanders and Northern Territorians, Centurion transport is no stranger, with the massive task that it performs, carting freight throughout this nation. Justin donates to me one of the largest prime movers. I have to be honest: I get a bit sooky. I always end up with a Kenworth. He throws three trailers and two dollies at me. He also gives me a fuel card and says, 'Knock yourself out—whatever you need.' I just want to put some perspective around that. When my mates in the trucking industry—thank you, Justin—throw all this gear at me, not only does it take that prime mover, those three trailers and those two dollies out of their circuit for the eight days that I do the run, but they also give me a fuel card. Think about this. Diesel fuel is at $2.30-plus in WA, and my round trip to Fitzroy and back is no less than 5,000 kilometres. At $2.50 per litre at 5,000 kilometres, as a rule of thumb, the triple road train uses a litre a kilometre. Do the sums very quickly, and you will see there are four zeros in the donation on top of that, plus Justin and Centurion provide the three trailers. They not only do that but also run the three trailers out to the depot with their other drivers and prime movers while we load them all up and run them all back to the depot. They don't let me off that easy; I've still got to hook the road train up. You'd think they'd do that for me now at the age of 63! But they do get the third trailer up to Wubin for me. So I cannot thank them and everyone involved enough for that. I also thank the Motor Trade Association of Western Australia. In Fitzroy Crossing, Fitzroy Motors, as we all know, lost everything in the flooding. They could not get insurance, because they were on the flood plain. The Motor Trade Association, with Stephen Moir and his members, stepped up to the plate, and they have donated thousands of dollars worth of tools, which I'll be taking up as well. So I thank them all for their generous support. Parliamentary Friends of Dementia 31 12:20 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Today I am delighted to talk about Friends of Dementia. We had an event here at Parliament House this morning. It's hard to believe, but that friendship group has been going for 20 years. That's a significant amount of time during which Dementia Australia has been driving education and awareness programs through parliament. So I'm delighted to be the co-convener of that friendship group with Nola Marino. I want to give a big shout-out to Professor Graeme Samuel AC for his leadership as the chair and of course Maree McCabe as the CEO of Dementia Australia. To all the staff who helped put on this showcase around technology today, I say thank you very much. If every single day I get the opportunity to talk about dementia and to raise awareness around dementia, then I will continue to do that. It is quickly becoming the biggest killer of Australians. That's a reality. At the moment, it's the biggest killer of women in this country. It will overtake heart disease. So it's very significant. I've had the experience of having a family member with early-onset dementia. I know how that impacts family, how it impacts the economy and the support that is needed. This week, I say thank you to Senator Marielle Smith. She brought some wonderful speakers to talk to us last night in relation to childhood dementia. There wasn't a dry eye in that room when we heard a mother talking about her two children, her daughter and her son. She showed us a beautiful video of the two children the day after they had received their diagnosis. Her daughter is now 14. She has the body and strength of a 14-year-old, but her mind and capacity are that of an 18-month-old child. She has lost her ability to speak. Then, having gone through this thus far—and she knows what the end will be, because life expectancy is normally only your late teens—this mother will watch her son go down that same path. So part of my responsibility as the co-convener of Friends of Dementia is to raise awareness. Technology is an additive that will help people on that journey to lead a better life. But we have to educate our nurses, our GPs, our ambos and people in accident and emergency services. They are all wonderful professionals, but the reality is that people who are going into residential aged care or providing that care in peoples' homes need to have a greater understanding of what that journey is all about and how confusing it can be. I can tell you that this morning I tried out the new goggles that they have. They're always being updated. It's a wonderful experience to put those goggles and earphones on and to try and navigate a virtual reality of being in a bedroom and trying to find your way to the bathroom. You will see the impact that patterned carpet will have when you're looking through these goggles. This is what people who have dementia experience. You see the floor coming up at you and all these bugs crawling around. When you go into the bathroom—I did manage to get to the bathroom; or I thought I did, but I was actually in the laundry—you need to be able to distinguish between the handbasin and the toilet. Some years ago, I went to Scotland and I went to Stirling University. Over there then, they had a room set up with all the additional things we should be providing to people with dementia who are still living at home. You need to have a glass door for the refrigerator so they can see that. You need to have proper lighting so you're not actually creating shadows. You need to be able to distinguish, as I said, between the toilet and the handbasin. And the colours that you use in that bathroom or mats on the floor—we would see something as a dark coloured mat, but in fact a person with dementia would see that as a hole. We have to continue to raise awareness. I encourage all those who are listening to this and are in the chamber to reach out to Dementia Australia, take that journey and have that experience. It will give you a greater understanding and, I am sure, more empathy. But we need more money in the budget as well. Cashless Debit Card 32 12:25 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Senators statements is a great time to be able to hear from senators and the issues that they really care about. I am following on from two very good presentations here to the Senate. Firstly, Senator Polley, that was an outstanding contribution that you have just made, and I want to commend you for the work that you do in highlighting the impact of dementia and your support for people that are suffering dementia, not just the patients but their families as well. I recently gave a contribution on this subject. Recently a good family friend of mine tragically passed away. I have seen the ravages of dementia on their family and indeed in my own family. So I thank you. Senator Sterle, your work across the Kimberley and your presentation before was outstanding. You didn't do it just to brag about the work that you do. You would be within your rights to do that, because it's commendable work, but you did it to highlight the support that you've received in providing all those mattresses and providing that support to a community that desperately needs support. I commend you for it. For those that don't know, Senator Sterle and I are co-patrons of the men's shed up in Fitzroy Crossing. I think we're going to miss each other by a couple of days. You're up there later in April and I am there maybe at the beginning of that week. We might just miss each other, but maybe I'll see you on the road train, although I might be in the air. Thank you. I want to speak today about the cashless debit card, an issue that is a contested policy space in this place. I want to deal with that here today. We are seeing some big impacts of the abolition of the cashless debit card in communities across Australia where the CDC has been in operation. The government did flag its intention to abolish the cashless debit card as part of their campaign leading up to the election, and they will tell you that they received a mandate from the Australian people to abolish the CDC. I beg to differ, because in the locations where the CDC is in operation the members of parliament comfortably won their seats, and they were all either National or Liberal members of parliament. Putting that aside, the fact is that the Labor Party demonised the cashless debit card as part of their campaign. They wanted to run a lie throughout the campaign, saying that the coalition were going to put aged pensioners onto the CDC. It was an atrocious lie, because it was not something we would do. That's something that I personally would cross the floor on. I would never want to see that happen. The CDC was only ever aimed at supporting people that were vulnerable and needed the assistance. Certainly for aged pensioners, who have paid taxes all their lives and are just going about their lives, there was practically no benefit in the CDC for them, unless they chose to want to be on it themselves. That was a voluntary thing that they could do. The Labor Party ran a scare campaign on this. In order to make that scare campaign true they had to double down on their resistance to the cashless debit card, and they sadly made the decision to take it away from communities that were getting some real benefit. The interesting thing is, while the CDC was in operation, I guess we didn't have the counterfactual. We kept hearing from people saying, 'The cashless debit card doesn't work. It doesn't help.' I'd get up here and say, 'You needed to have gone to the communities, like I have, to have seen what they were like before.' You would see that there has been a change. There were many things thrown back and there was dismissal of that argument. Now we do have the counterfactual. We know what these communities were like. I certainly know. I spent a lot of time across all of the CDC communities. I saw the difference the card made once it was implemented in Kununurra and the East Kimberley. There were varying degrees of success of the program. It worked particularly well in Wyndham, the Northern Goldfields and Ceduna. It was a little marginal in other parts. I'm prepared to admit that in some other places it wasn't implemented as well as it could have been. But it was having a real impact. Now that the CDC has been removed, we've got that counterfactual. We see the devastating impact of its removal, just like we said we would. I think it's a real shame. And, sadly, the government is dismissing those concerns. Its treatment of people who speak up in these communities is very, very disappointing. We've had people like Pat Hill, president of the Shire of Laverton, dismissed by Minister Elliot as being disingenuous when he talks about the difference it has made in his community. This is a member who's lived all his life in that community . He was elected onto the shire in 1992 and has been the shire president for most of those years, elected by his own community. Shire President Hill came to parliament this week with others from around that area—from Leonora as well, and there were councillors here. We had people comment on their appearance here, saying, 'They're just a bunch of whitefellas here.' Marty Sealander's Aboriginal. He was born and bred up that way—Wongutha, I think it is—up in the Northern Goldfields. Yes, he has grey or silver coloured hair now. These visitors were being racially profiled by their appearance. People would say, 'What would they know?' It's Marty Sealander's community. He talked about the impact it was having before and he talked about the impact it's having now that it's gone. Pat Hill was in the papers recently. He said that it's been going downhill since they took the cashless debit card away and it's getting worse and worse. He said the cashless debit card needed to be improved. He wasn't gilding the lily or shying away from the fact that there were some ways it could be improved. I was proud to lead a working group, appointed by Senator Anne Ruston who was the minister at the time, to help bring together the technology providers, the banks and the retailers to work to improve the card, because we'd heard there was some stigma attached to being on the card. You have this card and every time you go to pay for goods there's an inconvenience in how you use that technology. It was a little bit clunky. There was also a bit of a stigma attached, because the card looked a little bit different to the other cards that people normally used. So there was an issue there. We worked hard to make sure we resolved that. We brought the banks together, all of them, the big ones, and the big retailers, Coles, Woolworths and the service stations, BP and Shell, and Australia Post. They'd make up probably 90 per cent of people's transactions. We worked to improve technology. We recognised that it wasn't a perfect solution. They were originally trials, but through that work we were able to see that technology improve. Pat Hill spoke about that, in his paper, up there in the Northern Goldfields. He said that keeping domestic violence and alcohol abuse under control was the aim. Something has to be done, because: 'We won't have anyone living in our town if things keep going the way they are.' This government, sadly, has been tin eared to these communities calling out for it to come back, and I really hope it does for the sake of these communities, for the sake of the East Kimberley and for the sake of the northern Goldfields and Ceduna. The Australian had an article just this weekend saying crime rates were up over summer. Again, it was dismissed by the government saying, 'Oh, it is just because people seasonally come in and out.' Guess what? They come in and out seasonally all the time, and have done for the last four or five years, when we did not see those big spikes. The only difference is that the CDC is not there anymore. I get that it would be egg on your face, but, government, will you please listen to the communities. Listen to the voices of the local people who want to see it returned. Climate Change 34 12:35 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Often in this place I feel the weight of our duty—our duty to our kids, our duty to young people in our community like those sitting up in the gallery, our duty to future generations. We're nearing the end of March and barrelling through 2023, and there are only a few sitting weeks between now and the end of the year. That's one year closer to 2030, one fewer year we have to dramatically reverse our fortunes and prevent 1.5 degrees of warming. Every minute, day and week that we waste in this place tightens the noose around our collective futures. Unfortunately, wasting time is exactly what Labor seems to be doing. The Labor Party have made their priorities clear: keep their heads down, don't rock the boat too much and try to small-target their way to another election win. Climate change, and the impending crisis, is not and never has been one of their priorities. Labor is completely and hopelessly in the thrall of big business. They are addicted to the millions fossil fuel companies pour into their re-election campaigns, enamoured by the sweet six-figure jobs that they stroll in to after politics and terrified of getting on their bad side. No longer championing the Australian people, the Labor Party are now timid receptionists for the CEOs of Woodside and BHP, tasked with making sure that the real concerns and worries of the Australian people never make it past the bosses' doors. It is a pathetic state of affairs when a party that is in government federally and in every single mainland state and territory is still too scared to stick a toe out of line against their bosses at APPEA and the Minerals Council. People say that the Greens negotiated with Labor on the safeguard mechanism, but that's not actually the case. We were negotiating with Santos and Woodside and Glencore and Chevron and every other corporate lobbyist with an all-access pass and ministers on speed dial. While the country burns and drowns, these corporations will bleed the Australian petrostate for every cent that they can. The truth is that the Labor government does not care about reducing emissions. It may care about appearing to care, but we shouldn't confuse virtue signalling with intent. How do we know they don't care about reducing emissions? Because, if they cared about reducing emissions, they would have introduced legislation that actually reduced emissions. Instead, we got a reheated and barely tweaked coalition policy that had literally been designed to fail. Think about that: in the face of looming climate collapse, when the fate of the human race hangs in the balance, Labor's keystone legislative response in the wake of the climate election was to regurgitate a bad plan from a terrible government. We're out of time, yet Labor are acting like we have all the time in the world, that we can keep strolling along to their electoral time line, rather than scientific reality. They will obfuscate, prevaricate and vacillate until the Torres Strait Islands are underwater and our farming land is arid and the Great Barrier Reef is just a story we tell our grandkids. The politics of this situation are clear: Labor will not do what needs to be done to dramatically lower emissions unless we force them to, and I don't just mean the Greens. Our power in parliament is only as great as the movements that support us outside this building. While Labor has the entire fossil fuel industry and its vast infrastructure of wealth and influence behind it, the movement standing behind the Greens is built on people and mass organising—rallies, protests, strikes, civil disobedience. That's why we need to fundamentally change the power of the duopoly and break the stranglehold the fossil fuel industry has on parliament. Our message is that the fight has only started. This isn't a climate war; it's the apocalypse. We have hope because we know that the people know this and they won't stop fighting, either. We promise we will keep fighting, tooth and nail, to drag this parliament into taking climate action. We dragged the safeguard into actual operation—with emissions likely to go down now, rather than up—by taking a guillotine to Labor's 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline. By hook or by crook, we will continue the fight for no new coal and gas. There is no alternative. We fight because we have to do. When I look into the eyes of my grandchildren, Billy and Esther, I know that is the only choice we have. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, Workplace Relations 34 12:40 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Like many in this place, I'm a very strong supporter of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to the parliament. It's pretty simple in my mind. Should Indigenous Australians be recognised in the Constitution? Well, that's a resounding yes. Should Indigenous Australians be consulted on matters that directly impact them? Again, yes. Doing these two straightforward things doesn't diminish anyone else. It doesn't come at anyone else's expense. They're matters of common sense and common decency. Consulting people who are impacted by policy will always result in better informed policies and better informed decision-making. When people have a voice, not only does it deliver better outcomes for those people but it also tends to deliver better outcomes for the community at large. I'm not only talking about the Voice to Parliament; I'm also talking about people—all people—having a voice at work. That means having a say over your pay and conditions. I put a very simple question to all senators in this chamber: should working Australians have a voice at their workplace? I would hope that every person in this place, regardless of political affiliation, would say yes. If we can all agree that all Australians deserve a voice at work, then I'm sure we can also agree that that voice must be heard and respected. A voice that can be silenced or ignored without reason or consequence is no voice at all, and I hope that we would all agree on that very obvious point. I know there are many employers that agree with that proposition, but, unfortunately, there are some that don't. Some have made it very clear through their actions that they have no respect whatsoever for the right of their workforce to have a voice. Take Woodside, one of the largest and most profitable companies in Australia. Eight months ago, a majority of the Woodside workforce at its North West Shelf offshore platforms voted to bargain collectively through the Australian Workers Union and the Maritime Union of Australia. Rather than respect the decision of its workforce, Woodside launched 11 legal challenges, which dragged its workforce through the Fair Work Commission for eight months. Each one of these legal challenges was more ridiculous than the last, and every single challenge was thrown out. Let's take Qantas, which illegally sacked 1,700 people because, as the Federal Court found, Qantas did not want its workforce exercising their workplace voice. Qantas has also been prosecuted by SafeWork for sacking Theo, a cabin cleaner and health and safety rep, because he used his workplace voice to speak out about Qantas's unsafe work practices. Take Aldi, the most profitable supermarket in this country. Unlike Coles and Woolworths, Aldi refuses to commit to safe and sustainable standards for its truck drivers and its supply chain. When Aldi drivers and their union representative spoke out about this, Aldi tried to silence them through the Federal Court. Thankfully, Aldi failed to silence its workforce and the court threw its claim out. Or take Amazon, the wealthiest company on the planet—a company with a reputation around the world of spying on its workforce, as detailed in the Amazon report by UNI Global, and a company that has invested heavily in intimidating its workforce into not having a voice, including in Australia, where they were caught red-handed spying on workers talking to the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Union. Amazon is a world leader in silencing its workforce, but even they have been borrowing a few tricks from the former prime minister, John Howard. I've seen them wheeling out the exact same line that Liberal Party hacks have been wheeling out since the Howard government. The line I'm talking about is how important it is, apparently, to protect the right of people to not join a union, rather than protecting the right of people to join a union. We need to call this ridiculous phrase out for what it is. It's a dog whistle to employers like Amazon, Aldi, Qantas and Woodside to crack down on their workforce's voice. When we talk about people having a right to paid leave, we don't talk about ensuring that people have a right to not have paid leave. When we talk about ensuring that people have a right to superannuation, we don't talk about having a right not to have superannuation—of course, unless you're Senator Bragg. When we talk about people having a right to the minimum wage, we don't talk about ensuring that people have a right not to earn the minimum wage—well, except when those opposite defend the right of gig workers to not get a minimum wage, of course. The way you hear those opposite talk, you'd think there was a crisis in this country of people everywhere being forced to join a union. I shudder to think what that would look like! For starters, according to the ABS, union members earn 32 per cent more than non-union members. That's a gap of $350 per week. Imagine being forced to earn $350 more per week! The last time I checked, our problem isn't that too many Australians are benefiting from highly paid, secure unionised jobs; the problem is that we had a decade of the worst wages and job security decline in the history of this country, thanks in large part of those opposite encouraging companies like Amazon, Qantas and Woodside to vigorously and often illegally engage in union busting. What the data actually tells us is that 34 per cent of non-union employees would join a union if they were able to do so. That was a finding of the Australian Workplace Relations Study just recently. That means there are 3½ million Australians who are being deprived of their desire to join a union and to have a real voice at work. As is often the case, the reality is actually the complete inverse of what those opposite are saying. The concept of protecting the right to not join a union is Orwellian doublespeak. But this complete nonsense is now so deeply ingrained in the psyche of those opposite that they've lost the capacity to think about these issues rationally. Now, I don't want to single out Senator Hume, who I'm sure is a smart and competent person who legitimately believes she's in this place to help working Australians. But her comments to me at the recent public hearing of the cost-of-living committee were astonishing. At this hearing, on 1 March, I asked a panel of major supermarkets a series of questions about the rates of pay that their workforce receive. These are literally the largest private employers in Australia. Senator Hume, who's the chair of the committee, turned around and admonished me because apparently my questions were irrelevant to the cost-of-living inquiry. In her mind—and I'm sure she was being genuine—the question of wages, the question of how much money you take home, is irrelevant to the cost of living. She said they were industrial relations issues and not relevant to the cost of living. It really does boggle the mind, especially considering that Senator Hume is the shadow finance minister. You might think she would appreciate that when you look at a budget, whether a government budget or a household budget, the amount of revenue coming in is pretty relevant. But, over that side, ideology now trumps reality. All they know is that unions are bad; bargaining power is a made-up construct; you can't have a pay rise when inflation is high, because it's inflationary; you can't have a pay rise when inflation is low, because businesses can't afford it; and, as former Senator Stoker told me at estimates last year, if you're getting exploited at work it's your own fault because you made the choice to work there. And don't worry, because the free market will fix everything. That's their post-truth world. Over here in the real world, we actually need to work urgently on how we can restore a voice for people at work. That means ensuring that loopholes that some employers use to get around collective agreements are closed. That means ensuring that unions have right-of-entry powers to enter worksites. That means ensuring that 3½ million Australians who want to join a union but can't will have the ability to do so. We need to get back to protecting the right of people to have a voice at work. We need to get back to protecting the right of people to join a union. Infrastructure 36 12:50 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The former coalition government had an ambitious infrastructure investment agenda. We were delivering a $120 billion, 10-year infrastructure pipeline of projects providing certainty to help industry with workforce planning and investment. We committed to more than 1,200 major land transport infrastructure projects, we completed more than 500, and more than 300 had started construction under the coalition infrastructure investment that was part of our economic strategy, part of our plan to boost overall national productivity. We invested to build infrastructure in areas ignored by state Labor governments—our regions, our congested outer suburbs and across northern Australia. Unfortunately, in their last budget, Labor cut infrastructure investment by $9.6 billion. This was the wrong call at a time of high inflation and high cost of living. Thirty-six infrastructure projects were cancelled and many more were delayed, with funding pushed out way beyond the forward estimates, begging the question of whether they will ever be started. Of course, many of these delayed projects were for regional infrastructure intended to enhance freight efficiency and support delivery of products to ports and markets. Often, as is the nature of rural electorates, they were in coalition seats. Labor also cut road safety programs in the budget, with $60 million stripped from the Black Spot road safety program over the forward estimates and more than $280 million in road safety program funding originally scheduled for this year deferred by the Labor party. They talk a big game when it comes to infrastructure, transport and road safety, but the numbers don't lie. That is the fact out of their first budget in October. These road safety cuts come at a time when road fatalities are continuing to rise and the Australian Automobile Association is calling often the government to urgently act. Last week the minister released the legislation to amend the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, and the bill confirms Labor's intention to shrink the infrastructure priority list. Minister King has made it clear she plans to hollow out or streamline the list of infrastructure projects. I said last week we can expect a further partisan purge of planned road and rail upgrades which were funded under the previous coalition government. The minister was critical of our government's increase in nationally funded projects on the infrastructure list during her speech to the CEDA Infrastructure Conference last Friday. She wants to do less. The minister is softening up the public and industry leaders for further savage cuts to infrastructure projects and, potentially, road safety funding in the upcoming May budget. Further, Minister King's reforms seem designated to shackle Infrastructure Australia to endorsing projects that are proposed by Labor governments around the states. It might suit them, but it's not a good sign for communities wanting to see Commonwealth driving the states to deliver more infrastructure, particularly when it's the Commonwealth taxpayer who is funding the majority of the bill, not the states. They want to see these projects delivered in a timely and cost-effective manner. The further we push these projects out, the more they're going to cost. As we're seeing with some of the regional project funding, they are having to be rescoped or councils are having to give back the money because they cannot afford the increase in costs. Through her consultations with state governments ahead of the October budget, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government delivered significant project cancellations, cuts and delays. In Victoria she agreed with Daniel Andrews that there was $1.1 billion in projects cancelled and a further $1.6 billion in cuts and delays to projects over the forward estimates, right across Melbourne and right across regional Victoria. In New South Wales there were $300 million in projects cancelled and a further $2 billion in cuts and delays to projects across the forward estimates. In Queensland the Palaszczuk government agreed that there would be $2 billion of cuts and delays to road and rail projects, including the $200 million cut to the Sunshine Coast rail project. Here in Canberra there were almost $86 million in cancelled projects, and in Western Australia there were $539 million in cuts and delays to road projects. One of the key critical road projects cut in Western Australia was pushing out the upgrade to the Tanami into the long grass. If you talk to the trucking industry in WA, if you talk to the Kimberley group of councils, which I had the privilege to sit down with this week when they came to Canberra, that is their No. 1 of this government for the upcoming May budget. Instead of kicking out that funding of that upgrade of that critical road, which will make it safer for truckies, require less maintenance so they make more and ensure the freight task into rural and remote areas into the NT and Western Australia is serviced, that is a critical project that needs to be brought forward. We will see if Minister King can convince the Treasurer that this is a critical project, because when they last had the chance they cut it. Continually cutting back on infrastructure will be a handbrake on economic growth and a barrier to driving the national efficiencies that are needed for budget repair and tackling inflation. At the very time the government's budget repair strategy should be to invest in productivity-enhancing capital and to cut back on unnecessary recurrent expenditure, Labor seem determined to do the opposite, dooming our nation to a very long, slow and painful recovery. Labor's lack of infrastructure ambition represents a plan for gridlocked city streets, unsafe regional freight routes and less family time at home for both our transport industry workers and commuters. Indeed, it seems the only infrastructure the government is interested in is the white-elephant projects of state Labor premiers, whether it's the massively underfunded suburban rail loop in Melbourne, for Daniel Andrews, or a $2.5 billion live music venue in Brisbane, for Annastacia Palaszczuk. The coalition also made significant investments in regional airports through the Regional Airports Program and funding to support security and screening infrastructure and operations. There's every indication that these programs will also be cut in the upcoming May budget—no new money. The former coalition government saw the importance to the economy of a bold infrastructure agenda, investing in future growth and tackling decades of underinvestment by state governments on the infrastructure needed to support population growth. We have seen this week the government lean in a forward manner towards increasing our population significantly. You cannot pour hundreds of thousands more people into our capital cities without pouring hundreds of millions of dollars—billions of dollars—into critical road projects to support that population growth. It doesn't make sense. The Productivity Commission handed down a report on infrastructure, and we know that, while the industry is stretched, inflationary pressures are placing tremendous pressures on project delivery. These pressures, combined with a lack of action from the federal government, are leading to project slippage. As I said, we have a 40 per cent rise in the cost of reinforcing steel and structural timber. If the Greens have their way, we won't have Australian timber to use in the construction industry. It will be from overseas. Industry surveys and interviews indicate that the cost of construction materials has risen 24 per cent, on average, over the last 12 months. Labour—the workforce—are seeing wage increases in excess of 17 per cent in the last 12 months. The cost of labour within public infrastructure has grown by that much over the last 12 months. The importance of infrastructure to the Australian economy was highlighted by the Productivity Commission. Thirteen of the 71 recommendations of that report were tangentially or directly related to the infrastructure portfolio or transport. The fact that Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, dismissed that report of hand shows that the government are not really interested in investing in productivity-enhancing infrastructure. They're more interested in cuts and delays which will cost our economy over the future. The Albanese government appears bereft of ambition or vision, lacking the understanding of the contribution that infrastructure can make to our economy and to building a stronger, safer, more sustainable and more prosperous Australia. National Indigenous Australians Agency 37 13:00 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The $4.5 billion per year National Indigenous Australians Agency has been quick to deny it's been developing demands to be made by the Voice to Parliament which were revealed in a letter sent to my office last week. I remind the Senate of what some of these demands were: Aborigines paying only 50 per cent of the rate of income tax; Aboriginal groups owning beaches and national parks and charging the rest of us to use them; 10 per cent of all judges, magistrates, police officers, ADF officers, vice-chancellors and ambassadors being Aboriginal; no entry tests and no fees for Aborigines going to university; 50 per cent discounts for Aborigines going to sport and music events on public land; Aborigines having first claim on all public housing in Australia; a reduced age of eligibility for the age pension for Aborigines; rivers and streams being owned by local Aborigines who will charge the rest of us for water consumption; the same for mining royalties; all new liquor licences to be vetted by the Voice; and the Voice office being the same size and having the same budget as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. As I said, the NIAA has been quick to deny this action list for the Voice, and no wonder. If any of these demands was met, 97 per cent of Australians would be made second-class citizens based solely on race. However, minutes of government organisations' meetings with Aboriginal groups around the country, obtained through a freedom of information request, show these sorts of demands are being discussed. These include exclusive sovereignty for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over lands and waters; the creation of a new Aboriginal state with its own constitution from land under native title; a treaty or treaties recognised in the Australian Constitution; racially exclusive designated seats in parliament, reserved only for Aborigines; Aborigines receiving a fixed percentage of all Australian gross national product; Aborigines being exempted from paying land tax; funding for the Voice to Parliament being generated from percentages of land and water taxes; funding for Aboriginal bodies and programs being linked to reparations for theft of land; creation of a black parliament; a race based rent tax from an open chequebook; race based inherent rights for Aboriginal people in the Australian Constitution; renaming more towns and landmarks after Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; the creation of sovereign wealth exclusively for Aborigines; Australian taxpayers funding the preservation of Aboriginal languages; the Australian flag being changed because it symbolises the injustices of colonisation; statues of explorers being torn down; Aboriginal traditional ways of life being enshrined in the Constitution; the curriculum in all schools being changed for non-Indigenous Australians; Australia being decolonised; and fee-free access for Aborigines to sport and recreation, including free sporting equipment. Like the demands contained in the letter sent to me, many of these would make most Australians second-class citizens in their own country. The $4½ billion NIAA has been actively discussing them with Aboriginal groups for years. These are the dangers of putting a Voice to Parliament in the Constitution. For these and many other reasons, Australians must vote no in Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Labor's racist referendum. I need to also say this here. I've read out a lot of these claims, and a lot of people would identify with some of these demands, because they're already happening—the tearing down of statues and the welcome to country. I am sick to death of hearing about it. I refuse to acknowledge it. A lot of Australians ask me, 'Why should I be welcomed to my own country?' That in itself is ridiculous. With Aboriginal names, we can see the changes that have happened over the years, and they're still changing and wanting change. Flying the Aboriginal flag in this place wasn't put to the Australian people at all. We've just accepted this flag that was brought about in the 1970s, with no authority from the Australian people. To fly it here in this parliament, without the vote from the Australian people, is appalling. I'll tell Australians this: get ready for a very rocky, racist way of life that we will experience if the Voice gets up. Housing Australia Future Fund 38 13:05 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland As a member of the previous opposition, I was very passionate about housing policy in this country. I spoke many times in this chamber about the need to invest in social and affordable housing. That's why, as a member of the Albanese Labor government, I'm so incredibly proud of our policy to deliver the Housing Australia Future Fund to Australians, to make sure that we can have more affordable and social housing and investment in the housing that we really need across the country for vulnerable Australians. But the one thing standing in the way of us delivering the Housing Australia Future Fund is the Greens political party of this country, which is standing in the way of this sensible, important investment. We've seen the politics of this issue on display this week. We know that those opposite, the Liberal-National opposition, have again dealt themselves out of the negotiations. So we are seeking to get agreement to this legislation, but the Greens political party is standing in the way of investment into housing, including social housing, for everyday Australians. Let me explain what this legislation does. It is the single biggest investment in affordable and social housing in more than a decade. That is what the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will do. In addition to the 30,000 social and affordable homes that will be built over the next five years from this fund alone, there is additional funding here for really important things that matter. This is what the Greens are standing in the way of. From this investment we have $200 million for repairs in remote Indigenous communities and Indigenous housing, something that is desperately needed and has been called for by people in those communities for years now. That is the investment that the Greens are standing in the way of. We know that part of this investment includes $100 million for crisis housing for women fleeing domestic violence. I don't know how the Greens have managed to justify standing in the way of $100 million of crisis accommodation funding, but that is what they are saying to the Australian people they don't support. It also includes $30 million for veterans housing. It is incredibly important at this juncture in time, when we do have pressures in our housing system, that we take care of the people that have taken care of us. That $30 million for veterans housing is what the Greens political party are seeking to block when they stand in front of this legislation. But the thing that really is astounding about the position that has been taken by the member for Griffith in the other place, but also by Greens senators in here, in standing in the way of this legislation is that it is supported by the housing and homelessness sector. The Greens are ignoring the pleas of the very people who are dealing with the housing crisis right now. When this announcement was made, there were people who came out and supported it: Anglicare Australia, Mission Australia, St Vincent de Paul, the Australian Council of Social Service and, of course, the Community Housing Industry Association. They all said, when we announced this policy in opposition, that this was an important step forward that needed to be delivered. But now we have the National Shelter, Homelessness Australia, Community Housing Industry Association and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association also calling for this bill to be passed by the Senate. They are pleading with the Greens to put down their political weapons, to stop making their memes for social media and to find something else to campaign on because this is too important to stop. We know that, if you want more funding for affordable and social housing, the worst thing you could do is block more funding for social and affordable housing. That's exactly what the member for Griffith is doing in his calls to his Senate colleagues to stop that. The Greens political party is stopping investment in housing. I don't know what the personal positions of other people in this house are, but I have spoken very personally about the fact that as a young person, having left a domestic violence situation, I was homeless with my mum. I am here to stand up for those people that need housing and don't need homelessness, and the Greens are not. (Time expired) Parliamentary Friends of Dementia, Finance and Public Administration References Committee 39 13:10 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Before I begin my substantive contribution today, can I acknowledge the statement made by Senator Polley earlier in senators' statements in her role as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Dementia on the work that Dementia Australia is doing, particularly the display that they have in the building today relating to technology. At the risk of invoking the ire of the Acting Deputy President, I will hold up a prop, which is the BrainTrack card for Dementia Australia— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Colbeck, you know that's out of order. Senator COLBECK 00AOL I commend the BrainTrack app from Dementia Australia to anyone who's interested. It is a new piece of technology. It has already helped diagnose people with dementia. I think it's a great piece of work by Dementia Australia. I want to endorse the words of Senator Polley and demonstrate clear bipartisanship in support of the work of Dementia Australia, which is really important. The issue that I do want to talk about today, and it was my intention in it taking this position, is in relation to business of the Senate formal motion No. 1, which is a reference to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee. It's in my name and in the names of a number of colleagues. It's in relation to a reference for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative organisations. I think this is very important reference, and I would have preferred to have been able to debate it later, but the fact is that the change in the way the chamber is operating today means that that's not possible, so I take this opportunity now. The first question I ask, rhetorically, is: how did this motion come about? It came about due to some appearances by some of these organisations at Senate estimates prior to Christmas. There was a very concerning performance at Senate estimates. The committee offered some training to those organisations, and I have to say they took that training up and the resultant process was very good. But, at the subsequent Senate estimates, we had ORIC come in and place some information on the table in their opening statement that I think was genuinely very concerning, and that goes to their reporting process. One of the things that we do in estimates is scrutinise the spending of Australian taxpayers' money. This is what the opening statement said: … reporting compliance across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations is unacceptably low, with 28% of corporations who have failed to meet their reporting obligations for two years in a row. How is that acceptable? ORIC works with these organisations to remind them. The reporting obligations are not necessarily burdensome; they're catered to the organisations themselves. They have 371 corporations that are currently being deregistered. But then the opening statement goes on to say, '999 corporations have failed to lodge annual reports for both 2020-21 and 2021-22,' and, '829 corporations have not yet lodged 2021-22 annual reports.' If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is. This is a serious reference, and I don't understand why this can't be dealt with immediately. We have crises in our Indigenous communities. We see it on our televisions every day. I have to say it is beyond me. It is tragic. It is tragic that we appear, because the government doesn't want to have a look at this, to be unable to deal with it. Why can't we be looking at the real problems? I'm not saying the Voice is not real. Don't get me wrong; I think it's a very important debate for this country. But why is it not possible for us to start looking at, dealing with and fixing the problems that are clearly reported in ORIC's opening statement in Indigenous communities across this country? We need to ensure that the taxpayers' money that is being provided to those organisations by Australians is doing the things that it needs to be doing. Why is it not possible to do that? I think it's completely and utterly lamentable that we may be in a position this afternoon, when the vote comes, where we will not be permitted to undertake what I think is a very, very important piece of work for this Senate. Police 40 13:15 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I wish to speak about the ongoing horrors of police violence and brutality in this country. The police are an armed branch of this racist, colonial project who have persecuted First Nations people and queer and trans people of all skin colours since colonisation. They have been carrying out the genocide against First Nations people for 250 years—a genocide which continues to this day. The police don't care about the safety of First Nations people or the safety of trans people. They care far more about upholding colonial systems of control and oppression as they uphold the illegal and violent occupation of land that always was and always will be Aboriginal land. Yet we still march alongside them at pride marches, accept their continually increasing presence in First Nations communities and turn a blind eye to the ongoing brutality and violence committed against marginalised groups. The first pride marches were born out of the Stonewall riots, which were protests against colonial laws that tried to force the queer community into corners. They were led by black, brown and white activists from across the LGBTIQ+ community and were protesting against the ongoing violence being perpetrated by this system. The first Sydney Mardi Gras in 1978 was a march in solidarity with these protests and was met with significant resistance and violence from the New South Wales Police. Despite police intimidation and brutality, the 78ers took to the streets to demand equal rights and to stand united in a show of love and peace for all. Mardi Gras has now become completely corporatised and lost sight of those origins. I stand with those in the queer community who are calling for no cops in Pride. I disagree with the police marching in Pride and do not accept their presence in the name of diversity as they continue to lock up First Nations people, murder our people in custody, steal our children and prosecute queer and trans people. This is a genocide that has never ended in this country. Such behaviour is not welcome in LGBTIQ+ communities. It's not welcome in black and brown communities. It should not be welcome in this country. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up three per cent of the national population, yet we are the most incarcerated people on this planet. This is no accident. The overpolicing of our communities has continued since colonisation, and our people continue to die at the hands of police and corrections—a genocide that never ended. Every change for our community, every win, has come through protest. We would not be where we are today without the courage and commitment of the 78ers and other black and queer activists who have risked their safety to demand equal rights and an end to ongoing systemic violence. The recent antiprotest laws in New South Wales work to silence us and uphold the colonial systems of control and oppression. These laws are a breach of our basic democratic right to protest and our fundamental civil liberties. They aim to uphold existing power structures and silence grassroots activists fighting against this violent and oppressive colonial system. We will not be silenced. Our people have fought for justice since colonisation, and I will continue to fight for an end to the ongoing systemic violence and discrimination perpetrated against First Nations people. (Time expired) Central Bank Digital Currency 40 13:21 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria While Australians are closely watching the Reserve Bank's movements on interest rates each and every month, there is another activity of the Reserve Bank that demands our close inspection. In August of 2022, the RBA quietly announced a year-long study of central bank digital currency. This should concern every single Australian who values freedom. Under the guise of improving efficiency, the RBA study of a centralised digital currency is in fact a study on how to better regulate and control the lives of ordinary Australians. It is a study of how the state can replace cash in free citizens' pockets with a digital currency that is completely controlled by the state. Although similar to the money that you have in your net bank right now, one of the key differences is that this currency is based on blockchain technology and, as such, is programmable. A more accurate way to think about this currency is a digital voucher or a coupon. The state can decide where you can spend your money and what you can spend it on. It can set an expiry date on your money and do a whole lot more. The fact that the CCP is excited by the potential for a central bank digital currency is a huge hint that this is not something that Australia should be pursuing. So why are we contemplating this? The World Economic Forum, under the leadership of the unelected, Bond villainesque Klaus Schwab, have already declared their intention to provide citizens with a carbon allowance. We need to be given a carbon allowance, you see, in order to save the planet—how convenient! A central bank digital currency is the way in which such an allowance could be enforced upon every person on the planet. We are rapidly coming to a time where the state will replace people's cash—money citizens can spend as they wish, when they wish, on whatever they wish—with a digital currency that can be spent only as a state controlled central bank will allow. Why would we contemplate a world in which governments could freeze your spending on certain items because you have potentially reached what they deem is a safe carbon allowance for the planet? Why would we contemplate a world in which the state can determine how you may spend and what you may spend it on at all? If you don't have the freedom to buy and sell as you wish, then you don't have any freedom at all. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that governments, declaring that they must tackle some sort of financial crisis, demand that you spend your money in your account within a certain period of time before it expires. Remember Klaus Schwab promising that in the not-too-distant future we will own nothing and be happy he wasn't joking. Anyone who doubts the World Economic Forum's intentions or the reach of their tentacles into governments around the world has not been paying attention. Klaus Schwab, after all, did say he has penetrated the cabinets—those are his words. A central bank digital currency would allow increasing levels of control over our nation by globalist organisations to program our money to literally disappear if it is not used within a certain time frame, thus ensuring we are unable to save and therefore unable to build generational wealth. A central bank digital currency, as is right now being considered by our very own RBA, is a high-tech way of turning citizens into slaves of the system. Eventually cash may be banned, and there will be no buying or selling without the express permission of the government—no true freedom at all. It was a dark day in 1932 when our nation's currency departed the gold standard. This began a process of reducing our trust in our own currency. CBDCs will make it easier for reserve banks to create and to control money, and it will undermine our trust even further. If my parliamentary colleagues here in this place are serious about representing their electorates, then, rather than merely waving through a very clear globalist agenda that robs people of their freedoms, they should and must oppose the idea of a central bank digital currency with every fibre of their being. Some will say that this a conspiracy theory, but it is not a conspiracy theory. The RBA is very closely examining this right now. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 41 13:25 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate some commentary recently—even as recent as in Senators' statements—on the Voice here and in the other house. I remind senators and members of parliament that words matter and that the commentary and the hysteria being shown towards First Nations people and, in this instance most recently by Senator Hanson, in terms of the NIAA is uncalled for and totally wrong. I think it's really important that here we have an opportunity in the Senate to call for evidence based issues and documents to come forward. A lot of the accusations I've heard in the Senate today are completely disgraceful. I reject outright the words of the senator, for starters. I would say this for the staff who work in the NIAA: you keep doing your job for the people of Australia. We have a significant moment in this country to do what we can to improve the lives of First Nations people. The government is following the path that we took to the election. These kinds of slurs and allegations against the staff of the NIAA are not on and are most unbecoming of a senator in this place. Bring forward your evidence and bring forward your allegations in the appropriate manner instead of casting aspersions against the credibility of those who work in the Public Service for this parliament and for this government. I would say to the Senate: the hysteria that I've heard does not help Australians in this country. I would expect better of senators and parliamentarians—to lead in a manner with the most respect. We do not have to agree, but we can certainly have our conversations in a manner that does not scare everyone else in this country. I remind Senator Hanson that the world will not cave in; the sky will not fall down. I remember having this conversation with you over the closure of the climb at Uluru. I invited you to Uluru when that decision was made. That decision was made by the Uluru-Kata Tjuta Board of Management. It was a comprehensive vote by those board members and the Anangu people to close that climb in 2017, and in 2019, when it did occur, I accept that you went there. I want to remind you that this journey towards the Voice and towards the referendum is also a similar journey. Do not be afraid. The sky will not cave in. We can have conversations here without denigrating people, without rubbishing people, without scaring people and certainly without making allegations that are unfounded and untrue and that cause hate and horror to fester and flow. That's not what this is about. That's not what the Senate should be about. I would remind senators and members of the other house that we have a fair way to go. The Prime Minister said that the referendum will occur between October and December. Let's conduct ourselves in a most dignified way. As I said, we don't have to agree, but we can certainly put our points in a much more appropriate way. COMMITTEES 42 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 42 Report 42 13:30 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's second report of 2023, Department of Defence—Cocos (Keeling) Islands Airfield Upgrade Project and other works. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 It being 1.30 pm, we'll now move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 42 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Save Sorry Business Coalition 42 13:30 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia This week, campaigners for Save Sorry Business have come to the national parliament. The Save Sorry Business campaigners are a small group of people in number, but they are the voice for more than 13,000 Aboriginal policyholders of the failed ACBF/Youpla funeral fund. Senators will recall that the Aboriginal community funeral benefit fund collapsed in March 2022, leaving more than 13,000 Aboriginal people from across our country—some of them elderly and in palliative care—without the financial means to pay for family funerals. The Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund, which was not Aboriginal controlled or run, sold junk funeral insurance plans to Indigenous people across Australia for more than 30 years. Innocent people, choosing to make responsible financial planning decisions for themselves, have been let down by financial regulations and by financial regulators in Australia. Some people have lost not a little bit of money but up to $40,000 of their savings. The Save Sorry Business says: Tens of thousands of people are now living in debt, shame and torment knowing that their children and family members will have to pay for their Sorry Business. Today, I met Vennessa Poelina from Broome. Her story is a terrible one, but I committed to Vennessa—in the same way that I've committed to Veronica Johnson, who I've communicated with on email—that as a Western Australia senator I will stand with them so that they can secure the justice they deserve. Mobile Black Spot Program 42 13:32 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Earlier this afternoon, Senator McKenzie continued to spread mistruths about supposed cuts to road safety spending. I am so tired of the Liberals' and Nationals' attempts to politicise road safety, so I will say once again, in the hope that Senator McKenzie may be listening, that there have been no cuts to the Mobile Black Spot Program, because this government takes road safety seriously. The Albanese government is continuing the precedent of budgeting $110 million towards the black spot program each year. Any unspent funds are simply rolled over into the following year's program, on top of the $110 million allocation. I would hope that, as a former minister within the infrastructure portfolio, Senator McKenzie would know that. In its first budget, in October last year, the Albanese Labor government committed $9.6 billion in infrastructure spending across the country. The black spot program is just one of the fantastic and meaningful infrastructure initiatives funded by the Australian government to curb deaths and trauma on our roads. It is disappointing, but hardly surprising, that Senator McKenzie has chosen to spread fake news instead of working collaboratively in supporting regional communities. Communities have been a political football for the coalition for far too long. The black spot program targets road locations where crashes are occurring. It shouldn't be used as a political football. Sriranganathan, Mr Jonathan 42 13:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Over the weekend, my friend Jonathan Sriranganathan announced he would step down as councillor for Brisbane's Gabba ward. Jono was elected in 2016 as Queensland's first Greens councillor, and the first of Sri Lankan Tamil heritage. He's a musician, rapper, writer and former youth worker. But I've known Jono first and foremost as an activist—shaking up the system, telling it like it is, asking questions that no-one else would dare ask and challenging you to think really deep and hard about so many issues. He is a radical, unwavering voice for the community he serves and for the social, environmental and racial injustices we face—one that refuses to back down, no matter what the hurdles are. I am in awe of Jono's courage to put his security and his body on the line to protect others and for what he believes in. Politics needs more people like that. He achieved so much positive change for a more sustainable and equitable city. But Jono's influence has been much wider than Brisbane. He set an example for what meaningful grassroots engagement is and played a pivotal role in transforming the Queensland Greens into a powerful movement for change. The 2022 'Greenslide' owes so much to him. Jono's departure is a big loss, but thankfully the amazing Trina Massey is stepping in. She will be the first openly queer woman of colour ever to hold public office at any level of government in Queensland. Representation is important, and I can't wait to see Trina in action. I'm looking forward to your next adventures, Jono. Thank you for your extraordinary work. Thank you for being such a good friend and such a staunch ally for people of colour. Please keep asking the hard questions. You truly are one of a kind. Gender and Sexual Orientation: Protests 43 13:36 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Last week a group of brave women in Victoria gathered to protest men using their bathrooms and dominating their sports, and, as sure as night turns to day, the activist media and the leftist political hacks of this nation described it as an 'ugly, evil, harmful gathering', never even seeking to distinguish between the nitwits who showed up in black and the genuine female protesters. This is just emotional manipulation designed once again to shut down debate. If the Left actually cared, they'd consider the reasons for the higher rates of mental health problems, rather than using it as a threat to shut down and silence women. Have they ever entertained the possibility that telling children that they can change their gender might be dangerous to their mental health? These people claim to care about safety but care nothing about the harms being caused to women and children, with increasing reports of women in prisons across the world being sexually abused by men who identify as women. Where's the outrage for them? Where's the outrage from the Left over the biological man who rushed the stage at the Let Women Speak event in New Zealand and threw tomato juice at Kelly-Jay Keen? Where's the outrage from the Left over the church shooting in Nashville, where a radical trans activist shot and murdered, amongst others, a three-year-old girl? Pay close attention to the way in which the term 'harm' is weaponised. The activist state and their allies in the censorship industrial complex are gaslighting you. It's time the sycophants of the Left started to consider the impact this is having on women and on people who are trying to raise their kids, with the activist state trying to divide families and sexualise our children. International Development Assistance 43 13:38 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Australia's official development assistance program is our nation's primary source of financing for Australia's contribution to international development aid. Our ODA funding has the potential to improve the lives of millions of people in developing countries. Our government, the Albanese government, recognises this potential and the impact of a strong ODA program not just to deliver life-saving assistance and economic development but to directly contribute to the stability and resilience of our own nation. That's why under the Albanese government we have already begun rebuilding Australia's official development assistance program. On top of existing funding, we've expanded our Pacific Step-up commitment with an additional $314 million. This is in stark contrast to the previous government, whose failed Pacific Step-up program was funded by gutting funding in every other area. This resulted in more than $11 billion being slashed from our ODA budget, and this contributed, frankly, to the strategic setbacks in the region and the strategic challenges that we've had in competing for influence and contributing to stability. We've also lost specialist skills and knowledge on that as a result of the last government's decision to merge DFAT and Ausaid. I'm really proud of what our ODA funding is now focused on: poverty reduction, education, humanitarian crises, economic and infrastructure development, empowerment of women and ultimately DFAT's capability to deliver life-saving assistance. Immigration 43 13:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Australia is in serious trouble. We have an unprecedented housing and rental crisis. We don't have enough homes for everyone in Australia. Rental vacancy rates are lower than one per cent in our major cities. In my home state of Queensland homelessness has increased 22 per cent in five years. Increasing numbers of Australian families are living in tents and sheds and caravans and on the street, and we have a Labor government which refuses to do something to fix this crisis and which is actually making it so much worse. Today's edition of The Australian newspaper reports that we are experiencing the biggest two-year population surge in our history. The Albanese Labor government is allowing 650,000 new immigrants into Australia this financial year and the next. That is more than the entire populations of Canberra and Darwin combined. Australia cannot accommodate all of these new people. Australia cannot contain these record numbers. Australia is bursting at the seams. Australia is full, and so are our hospitals and schools. We already have a shortfall of almost 700,000 homes for the people who are already here. Labor's pathetic housing future fund, if it even gets up, will make absolutely no difference. 30,000 homes in five years—what a sad joke. Labor is deliberately making the housing crisis even worse. Labor's record high immigration is literally forcing Australian families to live on the streets, and winter is coming. The net zero we must be prioritising in Australia is a net zero immigration, not net zero carbon dioxide. We must stop this flood, or we will all drown. Immigration 44 13:41 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I too was shocked to hear the news this morning that 650,000 new people would be coming to Australia this financial year. That's more than double what we would typically consider a big number of migrants into our country. We typically used to say that 300,000 was a huge amount of migration. I want to be very clear: I support migration. We have a long history of welcoming people from other countries. I myself am the product of that. But we have got to put Australians first. And we don't have enough housing for people who live here today. So why is this Labor government running migration levels at double the amount of what would be a high number, when we do not have enough housing for Australians? This Labor government came to power saying they wanted to increase wages. They wanted to help workers get a better deal. How is that going to happen when we're importing all of this cheap labour from overseas, competing against those that are the poorest in our society and keeping wages under pressure and not keeping up with inflation? Inflation will only get worse if we take in more and more people without having adequate services to provide for them, because we will have more competition for the scarce amount of goods, and that will push up prices and push down real wages. How has this Labor government allowed this to happen? This is totally against what they promised the Australian people. We didn't hear any of this. Did anyone hear Anthony Albanese say that he would double our migration levels in his first year in office? He said he would lower power bills by $275. I heard him say that 97 times. I didn't hear him say once that he would double migration levels in the country. The housing crisis we are all seeing in front of our eyes is a direct result of the mismanagement of our borders by the Labor government. The Labor government has to get in control of our borders and make sure they put Australians first and make sure we decide how many people come to this country and when they come, because it is our nation and we should look after Australians first. Workplace Safety 44 13:44 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales This week we have had a very special guest in this building. Yavuz is the uncle of Burak Dogan, a 30-year-old food delivery rider who was tragically killed on the job on 2 April 2020. Burak is one of the 11 food delivery writers who have been killed since 2017. I'll use the rest of my time to share Yavuz's words: It was one of the most difficult jobs of my life to inform the family of Burak's death. Burak was an engineer. He was a hard working man. He came to study in Australia to improve his English so that he could get a better position at work. He had 6 months to go to finish his study. He was killed by a big truck, very tragically. We had to wrap him up in plastic to keep his body all in one piece. To send it to his family. We have been contacting Uber and the insurance companies. The insurance company said Burak finished his last job 11 minutes after the 15 minutes insurance cover time. So they were not liable for anything. Then Uber made a comment after the investigation finalised. They were not liable for anything because Burak was not working for them at the time of his death. But Uber sent their records of his log ins to the police. They were trying to give him job offers at the time of his death. Most likely he was looking at it when he went under the truck. When he was dying, they sent another message 3 or 4 minutes later. That's the attitude of the company. What we would like to see is justice. We hope Parliament is going to do something about this injustice. This is all the family is asking for. I say this. Stop Uncle Sam's sweatshops killing Australian drivers here. Oil and Gas Exploration 45 13:46 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Today I want to talk about a megafracker that is currently on its way from the US to Australia. This is one of five megafrackers that Tamboran intends to use to frack the Beetaloo basin, against the wishes of traditional owners. GetUp have estimated that it could arrive in late April and be in use by the second half of this year. This is, of course, if Tamboran can gather the extra $1 billion a year they will need to offset their emissions from day one, which has been one of the great wins the Greens have secured for the safeguard mechanism. This megafracker has the capacity to drill for more than four kilometres in multiple directions at once. This is nothing like what we've seen here in Australia. In fact, this piece of machinery has a capacity two to four times that of anything that is currently approved in Australia. This means that the impacts on climate, water, the environment and cultural heritage are greater too. The Northern Territory and federal governments need to complete an independent assessment of the increased risks of this megafracker. There are outstanding recommendations of the Pepper inquiry that have not been implemented, and the use of this machinery will ruin any chance of some of these inquiry recommendations actually being met. The import and use of these rigs must not be permitted in Australia. This sets a dangerous and unacceptable precedent that we cannot afford in the middle of a climate crisis. At this time, we need to be moving away from the fossil fuel industry. Premier of Victoria 45 13:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Something is different in my home state of Victoria this week. There is a sense of calm and order as the Victorian people go about their everyday lives. The media are silent. They don't know what to say. What's different? Our Premier has gone on a little holiday to visit, for the seventh time, his good friends to the north. Premier Andrews has not truly disclosed the purpose of his travel to the People's Republic of China. It has been left to us to speculate on his itinerary. I for one hope that our dear Premier has taken it upon himself to personally investigate the origins of the Wuhan virus or maybe to negotiate the release of the persecuted Uighurs from re-education camps. Maybe he could be standing up for hardworking Australian wine and barley exporters suffering from brutal tariffs. The cynics say he could be looking to rekindle the failed Belt and Road Initiative deal, or maybe he's seeking to prop up our heavily indebted state, projected to reach around $170 billion of debt in just the next few years—more debt than Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania combined. Not one Australian journalist was invited to accompany the Premier, but I'm sure the state run Chinese Communist Party press will do their best to reveal the truth. I believe that the Premier should leave international diplomacy to our federal government. It's not his job, and when it comes to previous experience there is no one more competent at international travel than our own Prime Minister, Anthony 'Airbus' Albanese. The people of Victoria are left to pray that our dear leader will return safely having not sold us out to the communists again. Hunt, Mrs Alison 45 13:49 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise today to acknowledge and remember the life of another great Territorian, Alison Hunt, who was also a family member of my own. Alison, sadly, lost her life to cancer earlier this month. Alison was born in Areyonga, west of Alice Springs, in 1948. After her mother, sadly, passed away, she was adopted by Wilfred and Lucy Swift and their daughters—Alison's sisters—Audrey and Amy. She remained grateful to her family her entire life. She grew up in Areyonga and Hermannsburg enjoying her childhood surrounded by friends and family. Alison was a much loved grandmother and aunty. She had committed her life to Johnny and to her three children: Julieanne, Kathleen and Steven—who, sadly, passed away in 2020. Alison was a real leader in her community and was described by her family as a 'fierce, outspoken woman' who was not afraid to fight for what she believed in. Alison's life was about bringing people together. An excellent communicator, she dedicated her life to helping people understand each other, to closing the gap and to inviting people from all walks of life to understand her culture. Alison was civically engaged her whole life and took a keen interest in politics, understanding the need for the community to work together to improve the lives of all Australians. She was a big supporter of the Country Liberal Party and worked for the CLP leader and former Northern Territory chief minister Marshall Perron. When she passed away, Alison was surrounded by her family, which is exactly how she would have wanted it. She will be remembered and missed by all. Cost of Living, Food Banks 46 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania As interest rates soar, families are struggling to put food on the table. Just about every person who has stopped me on the streets in Lonnie has mentioned how tough things are at the moment. One in two Tasmanians are facing food insecurity right now. One in five Tasmanians are regularly skipping meals and going hungry. And it's only getting worse. Last week I visited Loaves and Fishes in Devonport. They're a food bank who feed 17,000 Tasmanians every single week. They give food to public schools so kids can have a hot, healthy meal. They give food to the Neighbourhood Houses all over the state. They provide food to homeless shelters. Loaves and Fishes help a lot of people across Tasmania, but they're feeling the cost-of-living pressures as much as anybody else. Their electricity prices are through the roof, and that means less money for food. The cost of fuel for food delivery just keeps going up. And guess what? That means less money for food. The cost of each meal they make has skyrocketed from 80c per meal to $4 per meal. This means they're not getting as many meals out the door. As the number of meals they make decreases, the demand for them only increases. They're feeding more people with less money. I'd like to see the Tasmanian and federal governments do more to support food banks like Loaves and Fishes. The work they do is so important, and in the current housing crisis we need them more than ever. We could also be doing a lot more to minimise food waste. If charities, schools and governments work together alongside supermarkets, farmers and restaurants, I think we'd be amazed at what we can do. We need to hit the ground running to make sure support gets to where it's needed most. I don't want to see anyone left without a meal because food bank resources are stretched too thin. If we're not helping people, what are we here for? First Nations Australians 46 13:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Just an hour ago I spoke about police violence. Last weekend, tragically, police violence got completely out of hand in Mareeba, where a First Nations man, Aubrey Donahue, who was just in his 20s, was shot dead by police. My thoughts are with his family and community. I know your pain, your questions, your anger and your desperation. Another one of our young people's lives has been taken at the hands of police—at the hands of this racist system. We all know that police are much more likely to use violence against blakfullas than others, yet they have never, ever been held accountable. The police are supposed to be your friend and helper, yet to our communities police intervention is not helpful at all. Most of the time, they do nothing but cause more harm. Aubrey's community is demanding to know what happened. Why shoot to kill? There are many other ways to de-escalate a situation. We need to hold police accountable and not let them get away without consequences. Blak lives matter. What happened to Aubrey is yet another sign of this country being in a deaths in custody crisis and again underlines the need, after 32 years, to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody so that the underlying factors of this crisis can be addressed. We cannot allow any more lives to be lost. This government can act, but it just won't. Liberal-National Coalition 46 13:55 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise today to speak directly to the many millions of Australians who support the Liberal Party, the National Party, the LNP and the CLP right across Australia. I remind them that sometimes it can be tough. We see wall-to-wall Labor governments across Australia with their alliance partners, the Greens, and we all suffer from the hubris they now represent, the arrogance and the overreach we're seeing from Labor-Green alliance governments right across Australia. I want to remind those supporters of the Liberal Party, the coalition, the National Party, the CLP and the LNP that the tide does turn. I'll take them back to 2007, to the loss of government by the Howard prime ministership. We saw wall-to-wall Labor right across Australia. We saw the same hubris, the same arrogance and the same overreach. Within a very short period of time in WA—Senator Sterle, you'll remember this very well—we saw one of those arrogant, overreaching, hubristic Labor governments go to a sneaky election during the Olympics, and, against all the polling and against all the odds, we saw the Barnett Liberal government be the first domino to fall in a return of Liberal, National, LNP and CLP governments across Australia. I say to those opposite: rumours of our death are greatly exaggerated. I say to all our supporters out there: the Liberal Party will come back, and we will get rid of this arrogant, hubristic government at the next election. Transport Industry 46 13:57 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I wanted to talk about something positive, but I can't let that one go, Senator Brockman. What an absolute crack-up. You got two seats back there in WA the last time I looked—two seats out of 59. Maybe what the Liberal Party of Australia need to do is get on the phone to Paris. Or is it Brussels? Where's the leader of the clan? Maybe you need a clan in every state. Would that fix it? I've got better things to talk about, anyway. I want to talk about today in Canberra— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator STERLE e68 Listen to this, you lot. You might learn something, you ignoramuses! Today, there is a delegation of workers from the transport industry here in Canberra. They are being led by the Transport Workers Union, with state transport organisations and with employers—big employers. They've all come together to tell the story of the danger that we are facing in the transport industry in Australia. It's called the gig economy. So far they've had 38 meetings, and gig economy workers have had the ability to share their stories with members of parliament and with the crossbench. I don't know if anyone from that side has actually taken the opportunity to go and talk to these people who have been injured with no compensation because of the greed of the gig economies. I've got to tell you, they're here and the industry is united. I can't wait till the time when the bill comes through this chamber and you lot over there will be held to account and challenged to stand up with the united transport industry, calling for reform, calling for safety and calling for minimum enforceable standards. I'm going to keep an eye on a lot of you, but I'm going to challenge you, Senator McKenzie, because I want to know where you stand. You are following me around the nation, speaking up a real big fight on how good you lot over there are going to be for transport. When I deliver speeches and when I talk to the road transport industry, I don't have bits of paper in front of me written by someone else. I don't need that. I actually know what I'm talking about. So I really cannot wait to see you squirm under that desk when you follow those major corporations who donate to you and you give the middle finger to the united front of the Australian transport industry—and it ain't the Australian Trucking Association. (Time expired) QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 47 14:00 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Given the higher than expected inflation rate announced today, will the government commit to limiting spending growth below inflation? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bragg for the question and for remembering that there are other people in the chamber, other ministers who can answer questions. I've just been looking at the monthly inflation figures that have been released today and at the rate of 6.8 per cent in the month of February, which is lower than the 7.4 per cent rate reported in January 2023. But I don't think it's any surprise—and I've been saying for some time in this chamber—that one of the significant challenges facing the budget and the decisions we are taking in relation to the budget is how we deal with the inflation challenge, how we provide sensible cost-of-living relief where we can without adding to the inflation challenge across the economy. That requires us to show some restraint—where we've got revenue upgrades, to look at how we bank those upgrades. In October we banked 99 per cent of those upgrades in the first two years, and I think it was 92 per cent over the four years. That gives you an indication of the fiscally responsible way that we will go about making these decisions, and we're doing that against the backdrop of increasing pressures on the budget, whether from defence, from the NDIS, from health, from aged care or from some of the terminating measures—cleaning up the mess that we are also working through and have been talking about in this chamber this week. So, you'll see the budget when it's released, but the question Senator Bragg asked of me is certainly front and centre in the minds of all of us who participate through the ERC process. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, a first supplementary? 14:02 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Following the 10th consecutive interest rate rise, the government has committed $45 billion in off-budget spending. How much of this will be spent in the next financial year? 14:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Those provisions were made in the October budget and have been factored into the figures that were released as part of the economic forecast for the October budget. Obviously in relation to the NRF that has passed the parliament, with Rewiring the Nation, we are moving on that through the Powering the Regions Fund. The Housing Australia Fund hasn't passed the parliament, so we won't be in a position to establish that fund until it passes the parliament. There will be some expenditure, I would imagine, once those funds are up and running. We'll report that in the normal way, as you would expect, once those decisions have been taken. But I would say that the actual provision for those has been factored into the budget and the economic forecasts outlined in October. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, a second supplementary? 14:03 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Minister, did the International Monetary Fund find that off-budget spending items like the National Reconstruction Fund fuel inflation and should be avoided? Why won't the government follow the IMF's advice? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bragg for the question. I don't have the IMF report in front of me, but I think those opposite—well, I don't want to say they've verballed the IMF—have used the IMF report selectively for political purposes. My recollection of the IMF's report is that it talked about being mindful of the impact of establishing funds and being cautious about the use of them, and that's exactly what we were doing. In fact, if we go back and have a look at when you were in government, you established quite a number of those funds in a similar way that we are doing now. We are using them to drive a common good, whether it be in housing, in manufacturing jobs, or in ensuring we've got an energy grid that actually works for the renewable energy future that Australia will have to have. (Time expired) National Reconstruction Fund 48 14:05 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Farrell. Yesterday, members of the government and the crossbench came together to support the passage of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill in this place. It was a great win for manufacturing. Can the minister outline how the passage of the NRF will support Australian manufacturing? 14:05 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia It's good to get some questions, at least from my own side. The other side seem to have given up on me! Honourable senato rs interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N I know you've got a great interest in rebuilding manufacturing in this country. Last night the Senate passed the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill, and this is one of the largest investments in manufacturing in Australia's history. This is the Albanese Labor government's first step in rebuilding Australia's industrial capability—and I was pleased to see Senator Colbeck last night picking up on this very point and making it on a number of occasions—so that we can be a country that makes things again. Australia should be a country that makes things. Australia must be a country that makes things because making things here will help secure Australia's future prosperity and drive sustainable economic growth. The National Reconstruction Fund will leverage Australia's natural and competitive strengths by providing finance to projects in priority areas. It will make investments in projects that will support, diversify and transform Australia's industry. In agriculture, forestry and fisheries, in resources, in transport, in medical science, in renewable and low-emissions technology, in defence capability and enabling capability, the National Reconstruction Fund will revitalise and strengthen our local supply chains to ensure that we have our own industrial and manufacturing capabilities. It will invest in businesses so that they can invest in their workers, developing the skills that we need now and into the future. We got to this point by working together with the crossbench, and I congratulate them because, when the coalition stepped back, the crossbench had to step up. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:07 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister Farrell. Our government actively engaged with the Greens and the crossbench on the legislation, and following this engagement the Senate agreed to a number of amendments to the bill. How will the amendments to the bill help create a stronger future for Australian industry? 14:08 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Stewart once again for her very salient question. The amendments the government made to the bill addressed a number of other important matters that have informed our design of the National Reconstruction Fund from the outset: attracting private sector investment, not crowding it out; achieving Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction target and decarbonisation; creating secure jobs and a skilled and adaptable workforce; enhancing resilience in Australia's supply chains; and, of course, encouraging the commercialisation of Australian innovation and technology. In making these amendments, the government reaffirms that one of the most important outcomes of the National Reconstruction Fund will be the creation of secure, well-paid jobs in key industries that build on our national strengths. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:09 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Labor is actively working with industry and workers to rectify the economic mess left by the former government. How will the passage of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill create secure jobs in this country? 14:09 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you again, Senator Stewart, for your prescient question. When we proposed the National Reconstruction Fund in March 2021, Labor said we were going to do this to rebuild secure work because we know a strong domestic manufacturing industry provides opportunities for Australians to make a meaningful high skilled contribution to our nation's future. Nearly 85 per cent of jobs in manufacturing are full time, and it's a shame that the coalition didn't get this message. They were opposed to creating new jobs in their communities. They were opposed to local manufacturers, just like they were opposed to the car industry in this country. The only jobs they're ever interested in are jobs for their mates. With the passage of the National Reconstruction Fund, the Albanese Labor government will create jobs that communities can be built around, especially in regional, remote and outer suburban Australia. (Time expired) Energy 49 14:10 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The October budget forecast a 56 per cent increase in electricity bills for Australian households over the next two years. Does the government believe the actual increase will be higher or lower than forecast? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We will update the figures in the budget in the normal way, as we do. They were released in October. They will be updated in May. I would remind the chamber of the efforts that we put in place to reduce those unacceptable increases in electricity prices caused by a decade of delay, dysfunction and failure to land 22 energy policies—22. They released them all; didn't land one of them. We are now in a world where those opposite, after creating the problem and then hiding the problem before the election, are standing in the way of any solution to this. Indeed, in December, when we did bring forward— Senator GALLAGHER ING I've already answered your question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, resume your seat. Senator Colbeck? Senator Colbeck 00AOL It's a point of order on direct relevance. Does the government believe the actual increase will be higher or lower? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, the minister is being relevant to your question. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. I answered the question, President, when I— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I did. I answered the question when I said those figures will be updated in the normal way. Senator Colbeck obviously wasn't listening when I directly answered his question when I first got to my feet. But I would also say that the efforts we took, based on those results in the October budget, in recalling the parliament to put downward pressure on those increases was opposed by those opposite. So, the gall of you to come in here and feign concern over electricity prices— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. Senator GAL ING when you opposed the legislation that put in place the parameters— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. Senator GALLAGHER ING that put downward pressure on those prices. Opposition senators interjecting— The 10000 Minister, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, I have called the chamber to order three times and you kept interjecting extremely loudly! That is disrespectful and disorderly. When I call the chamber to order it includes every single person in this place. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, President. I must say I am finding the level of interjections towards me quite confronting this question time. I feel very affronted by it, so thank you for your protection. But the gall of these people— Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Henderson, is that you yelling at me? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, first supplementary? 14:13 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Why did the government break its promise, made on at least 97 occasions prior to the 2022 election, to cut electricity bills by $275? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government is getting on with implementing the powering the nation plan, which we took to the election. The legislation that's currently before the chamber, which was debated into the early hours of this morning and is being debated through the day today, is part of that. That is about dealing with the significant challenges we have in transitioning into the renewable energy superpower that we would like to be, which we will do without your help. The legislation will ensure that we are moving to renewables, that we're rewiring the grid, that we're supporting households with the transition, that we're supporting jobs in the transition, that we're supporting regions in the transition and that it's an orderly transition—or as orderly as it can be after a decade of delay and dysfunction from those opposite. That's what we're doing. We're doing exactly what we said we would do, and, where there are the challenges of the day, like a war in Ukraine that's increased prices around the world, we're dealing with them despite the opposition from those opposite. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, a second supplementary? 14:14 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I'll try again. Why did the government break its promise, which it made on at least 97 occasions prior to the 2022 election, to reduce electricity bills by $275? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Senator Colbeck refers to the Powering Australia plan, which we are implementing. I reject the assertion being put forward by Senator Colbeck, and I would similarly say to those opposite: why did you hide the electricity price increase before the election? What was that about? Was it because you didn't want to tell people? Was it because the member for Hume actually didn't want people to know that under your watch, with all of the energy leaving the system and not enough being replaced, there was going to be a significant increase in electricity prices? When you got confronted with that news, what did the member for Hume do? He hid it until a few days after the election. We are being upfront with the Australian people. Where there are challenges—we've seen them; we saw them in December, and we saw them in the budget—we've responded responsibly and carefully, and all those opposite did was oppose it, just as they oppose everything else we do. Cost of Living: Students 50 14:16 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to Minister Watt, representing the Minister for Education. Every week I hear heartbreaking stories about students struggling to put food on the table, pay for medicine, afford a train or bus ticket, pay bills or pay rent. One 19-year-old Queensland University of Technology student said that she has not eaten fresh fruit and vegetables for at least a month and relies on instant noodles. She struggles to afford period products. At UNSW, hundreds of students are lining up in queues for free food. This is causing intolerable financial stress and mental health impacts for students. Can you look these students in the eye and tell them that you can spare $254 billion for the wealthy and $368 billion for war machines but nothing for them? 14:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Faruqi. I reject the suggestion that our government is doing nothing to assist students or low-income earners generally. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that, for instance, we brought the parliament back to support legislation to support price caps on coal and gas prices and provide energy price relief for low-income earners, including for the very students we're talking about. Of course we, the Albanese government, also delivered cheaper medicines, which started on 1 January this year, which students and many others, including pensioners, would benefit from. As I recall, it was the first reduction in PBS prices, if not ever in Australian history then certainly for a very long time. That is in addition to a much broader range of cost-of-living relief that the government is providing. One of the things that you pointed out, Senator Faruqi, was that many of these students are renters. I certainly remember my renting days as a student, when you don't have a lot of money. As I've pointed out on a number of occasions this week to the Greens, there's a very simple thing that the Greens could do to assist us to meet the need for more social and affordable housing in Australia, and that is to back the Housing Australia Future Fund that our government is putting forward. The hypocrisy of the Greens is yet again on display when it comes to housing. On one hand, they're out there claiming that we need more social and affordable housing, that we need support for renters and that we need more housing for renters, and then, on the other hand, when there's a government that's actually prepared to do something on this topic, what do the Greens do? They say, 'No, it's not good enough.' They vote against it again. It is actually within your power to do something about this—about support for affordable housing—to bring down the cost for students. But, instead, you'd rather have a protest out the front and yell at people. That's not the way to help people. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a first supplementary? 14:19 S 250362 New South Wales enator FARUQI () (): Students are rushing from job to job but still barely making ends meet. Nearly a third of students work more than 20 hours a week. They are telling us that it is impossible to just be a student and enjoy uni life, because they can barely afford to live. Too many students are living in poverty. Will the Labor government assure people there has actually been a change of government and raise the rate of income support payments to at least $88 a day? 14:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Faruqi. I've already listed a range of ways the Albanese government is providing cost-of-living support to support a range of lower-income earners, including students. Some of the fundamental issues that cause student poverty, which is a real issue and has been for a very long time in this country—one of the key causes of that is the extra cost that students are having to pay for accommodation. It is within the Greens' power to do something about this. Maybe, just for once, the Greens could think about being part of the solution to deliver on the things they're complaining about, rather than thinking much more about having a protest out the front where they yell at people and ask for things that can never be delivered by any government in Australian history. We recognise lower-income earners need support—more support than they ever got under the coalition government—and that is exactly what we are doing. In the meantime the Greens should reverse their position and back our Housing Australia Future Fund to deliver the housing that is needed. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, second supplementary? 14:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales On 1 June, millions of Australians will be hit with more debt. Average student debt will balloon by almost $1,700. For others it will soar by $3,000 and even $5,000. This means many more will be going backwards. They can't keep up because student debts are now going up faster than they can be paid off. Will the government intervene urgently to ensure people are not hit with an obscene increase in their student debts on 1 June? 14:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Faruqi. As Senator Faruqi may be aware, Minister Clare, the education minister, has asked his universities and higher education accord team to look at the issue of student debt. It's also important to explain the way that HECS and HELP works. It's not like a home loan or personal loan from a bank, where if interest rates go up your payments go up; it's built on an important principle that people pay what they can afford, and people don't pay more unless they earn more. That is the way the system has always worked. I remember Senator McAllister and I having debates about this when we were university students, about the right way to charge student fees. It's been an issue for a very long time. I'm not sure we were on the same side necessarily, Senator McAllister, on that! But we all grow and change our minds—even people like you and me! These are serious issues. The Greens should help, and the Greens should provide more social and affordable housing, which is what this Labor government is doing. (Time expired) Budget 51 14:22 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister please tell us what key health services have been left with funding that expires on 30 June this year, and what impact that expiry of funding would have on crucial service delivery to Australians that rely on these very services? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for the question and for a rare question on health in this chamber. We know, after almost a decade of cuts and neglect from those opposite, it's never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor. Our government is being upfront with Australians about the state of our health care system because this crisis didn't just spring from thin air or happen overnight. It's the result of decisions made by the former government—a former government whose priority was to cut Medicare. Instead of funding critical health programs, they chose to put hundreds of measures in the budget on a time line to be cut. For example, the My Health Record system, a system that looks after the health records of 23 million Australians, runs out of funding on 30 June this year—no money for My Health Record. For 23 million Australians' health records, they just switched the money off. There is no money for public dental and adult dental services beyond 30 June. Do those opposite honestly think that adults will not have dental problems on 1 July this year? That is really the reason why they would budget for them in this way. We shouldn't be surprised, because the Leader of the Opposition was, I think, voted the worst health minister in 35 years in a poll of 1,100 doctors, because he wanted to put in place a GP tax, he wanted to increase the price of medicine and he even wanted emergency departments to start charging for seeing people. That is what we had under those opposite, and we are getting around to cleaning up the mess that has been left behind. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, first supplementary? 14:25 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia How is the Albanese government different from the former coalition government in its approach to responsible budget management? 14:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We are working through all of these unfunded programs that are ongoing. It has created significant pressure on the budget, which is precisely why they were dealt with in this way: to make the budget look better than it actually was by having ongoing programs terminate and not impact in the later years of the forward estimates. So we are working through those. We also know that health care wasn't a priority for the former government. They stopped the indexation of GP visits for six years, and that is what has led to a lot of the crisis facing primary care. We are seeing GP surgeries close around the country. People are finding it harder to get in, and when they do get in they are paying more for seeing the doctor because of the crisis that was factored in over a long period of time. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, second supplementary? 14:26 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can the minister explain how the Albanese government is making health care more affordable and rebuilding the trust of Australians in the management of our budget? 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for the question, and I can inform the chamber of what we're doing. We are cleaning up the mess and working through carefully and methodically all of the programs that terminate. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I know you hate the fact that we went through line by line. We did go through line by line. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. I'm waiting for order. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING We started that line-by-line work in October, and we are continuing to go through it. As problems emerge, as departments bring forward their terminating programs, we are working through those. We are also implementing our policies we took to the last election, to invest in the health care of Australians. For example, lowering the price of medicines came in on 1 January, making a difference to the cost of living for millions of Australians. The Strengthening Medicare Taskforce has a significant budget to invest in Medicare, and we're getting on with the job of investing in and opening those 50 urgent care centres. This is what you do when you're a government that believes in Medicare and believes in the strength of the health system. Migration 52 14:27 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Senator Wong, in a question time in September 2022, I asked you a question in relation to immigration. In response to the question, you said Labor had increased immigration to 195,000 per year as a consequence of capacity constraints in the economy. Will the minister please explain to the Australian people why Labor has let immigration blow out to a record 650,000 this financial year and the next as reported in the Australian today? 14:28 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can I first thank Senator Hanson for the question, and, if she will permit me, can I say how lovely it is to be back and to thank everyone who sent me good wishes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson? Senator Hanson BK6 The minister asked if I permit her. I don't permit her. I've got only two minutes for an answer, and I want an answer, not about how well— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, resume your seat. I think the minister is going to your question. Senator WONG 00AOU I do endeavour to answer your questions, Senator Hanson. I did want to just acknowledge the work of those behind me, particularly Senator Farrell, who I think did very well in my absence. I think my response to you, Senator Hanson, was referring to the net overseas migration figures. I am advised that the increase in net overseas migration is 304,000 for the year ending September 2022. There is also an increase in planned permanent migration in 2022-23 which, of course, is a commitment from the Jobs and Skills Summit. I'd make the point—and I assume my answer to which you're referring was making the same point—that we obviously do have some capacity constraints in the Australian economy. In fact, ensuring that we have an appropriate level, particularly of permanent migration, is one of the ways we can grow our economy and one of the ways in which we can ensure that some of those capacity constraints driving inflation are dealt with. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm sorry, Senator Rennick? Senator Rennick 283596 Not when they're at university they're not. That's the demand side. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick! Senator WONG 00AOU What I would say to you, Senator Hanson, is that this government, in its approach to net overseas migration, will always be guided by the national interest. There will obviously be a balance of questions that the government has to address, which go to skills shortages but also to some of the issues that we've been discussing for some weeks now, including availability of housing supply, but the government will always make decisions on migration in the national interest. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, a supplementary question? 14:31 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund plan to build 30,000 new homes in the next five years will obviously do nothing to alleviate Australia's housing and rental crisis in light of the fact approximately 700,000 homes are needed. Minister, when will Labor finally commit to making the massive cuts to immigration necessary to reduce demand for housing so that Australians already living here can have a home rather than living in their cars, tents or even on the streets? 14:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Hanson for the question. I would make the point that one of the reasons the government wants to bring forward the Housing Australia Future Fund is to ensure that we can contribute to greater supply. It is, I think, very deeply concerning that in the face of some of what is occurring in the housing sector that we have the no-alition—those opposite, who I know are struggling with the reality of opposition and are very angry, as is evinced by the sorts of interjections we get—simply saying no and the Greens saying it's not enough and, as a consequence, there are people in this country who would be benefited by increasing housing supply, which may be left wanting. Of course, always more can be done, Senator Hanson, and I think we all understand that. And, as I said, these are some of the issues the government will grapple with. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, a second supplementary? 14:32 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland As least I can congratulate you on attempting to answer the question, unlike Senator Farrell who didn't have much to say. On the— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Order! I am not able to hear Senator Hanson's question because of the disorder and noise in the chamber. Senator Hanson, if you wouldn't mind starting the actual question again, please. Senator HANSON BK6 On the Sunrise program this morning, David Koch interviewed a 16-year-old boy named Kailaeb who, with his father, has been forced to live in a tent in a Brisbane Park because they cannot find rental accommodation. What message do you offer homeless teenagers like Kailaeb while your government makes the housing crisis worse with record high immigration? 14:33 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, first, in relation to Senator Farrell. My observation was that Senator Farrell was outstanding while I was away, and I was very grateful for his leadership, as I'm sure all of our colleagues are. Senator Hanson, what I would say is this: if people in this chamber are really concerned about housing, then they would stop their opposition to our housing fund, they would recognise that even if they don't agree with all aspects of government policy— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson. Senator Hanson BK6 A point of order on relevance—we're not talking about the housing and the opposition backing government policy. I asked what her message is to Kailaeb. What message is she going to give to this teenager? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, Minister Wong is being relevant to your question. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU My message is, yes, we do need to increase the supply of housing. This government went to the election with a very clear policy, a set of policies, around increasing the supply of housing—because we on this side of the chamber care about social housing, we care about improving access to decent housing and we care about what is happening in the rental market. And we understand that one of the key ways in which government can do that is to— (Time expired) Budget 54 14:35 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. On Monday, and again today in question time, the minister criticised terminating funding for My Health Record. Given this somewhat pious grandstanding, why didn't the minister address this in Labor's budget last October, for which the minister claimed that she went through every single budget item line by line? 14:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Reynolds for the question. Is this the best that they've got, that the terminating measures that they put in the budget—the only criticism is that we didn't get to the hundreds of terminating measures, the booby traps, the funding cliffs, the zombie measures, that you used to dress up your budget to make it look something that it wasn't. Is the best that you've got that we didn't deal with all of those messes, the entire mess that is the budget, the budget vandals that you had, that it wasn't all fixed in October, that we didn't fix up all your messes in October? An opposition senator interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I'll take that. We didn't because there are so many of them. We dealt with the first bit in October. Just as we did with our spending audit. We did what we could in October and we said we would come back and look at this through the budget in May. And that is what we are doing. But we are also highlighting the fact that those opposite booby trapped the budget, dressed it up before an election, pretended that they were these responsible fiscal managers when, at the very same time, they were hiding pressures. They had zombie measures in from 2016 that they still had in their bottom line, even though they were never going to get through this Senate. There was $4.1 billion of mess in October that we cleaned up, and you will see more of us cleaning up the mess, more of the results of cleaning up the mess, in May, because there was so much mess it couldn't all be done in the first economic update. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, first supplementary? 14:37 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia This Monday, the minister also criticised terminating funding for the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency, adding, 'Do you reckon they might need ongoing funding to keep their programs going?' Remember that, colleagues, because given the minister's grandstanding, yet again, why didn't the minister address this in Labor's budget last October for—remember? What did the minister say? She had gone through the budget line by line! So did you miss this one too in your budget analysis? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I've called order. Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Scarr, I've just called order. Minister, please continue. Senator Gallagher ING Thank you very much, and can I thank Senator Reynolds for highlighting the mess that they left us. I really appreciate it. I've been looking forward to dorothies on terminating measures. I didn't expect to get a dorothy from Senator Reynolds on terminating measures. We went through and made decisions, in the time we could, for October. We were elected in May. We went straight into putting forward the October budget. We did what we could. I think we indicated at the time that there was more work to be done. And there will continue to be work to be done, as we uncover these issues, as agencies bring them forward, through the processes of the budget, and we deal with them. Because that's what responsible governments do. Responsible governments don't have zombie measures propping up their budgets. Responsible governments don't fail to address pressures that are about to hit the budget. Responsible governments do it the way we are doing it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, a second supplementary question? 14:39 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia In light of all of your comments—the dog ate my homework, zombies, booby traps—in light of all of your comments on terminating measures, can you guarantee now, in light of all those comments, that the 2023-24 budget will have no terminating measure, and if not, why not? 14:40 Senat ING Australian Capital Territory or GALLAGHER (—) (): The point I'm making is about ongoing programs that are clearly going to continue. There is a place— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm answering the question that Senator Reynolds asked. There is a place for time-limited measures in a budget. For example, if there's a need to fund something— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds on a point of order? Senator Reynolds 250216 Could I just ask— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, resume you seat. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Those opposite will have to wait to see the budget, but I can tell you that they will see a budget where responsible decisions are being made about programs that are ongoing, where they've been underfunded, where they've been neglected, where they're being used as a way of propping up a budget to pretend that those costs aren't coming. You will see the government working carefully to deal with those. They are a significant pressure on the budget, and they will contribute to significant expenditure in fixing them up. Youpla Group Funeral Benefits Program 55 14:51 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is to the minister acting for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. My question is regarding First Nations people targeted by Youpla funeral insurance. Many now cannot afford to bury their loved ones, many of whom are sitting in morgues. We've had elders sitting in morgues for two months because of the scam insurance company. The Albanese government, through the Minister for Indigenous Australians, committed to providing a resolution to those impacted by this scheme. The October budget did include some money but only affected a small percentage of people, which is now going to run out on 30 November. When will the Labor government end the trauma and suffering of tens of thousands of Aboriginal people who have been ripped off by this scheme? I understand it is not in the May budget. Why not? 14:43 Senator G ING Australian Capital Territory ALLAGHER (—) (): I thank Senator Thorpe for the question about Youpla and the situation that thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families were left in the lurch when the funeral insurance scheme collapsed. We have been working through all the issues around providing support to those that have been affected. As at 17 March 2023 the program has received 220 applications, with 186 of these being approved, and the program has paid out $1.5 million in grants to 170 recipients to support First Nations families in conducting sorry business. There are a small number of applications currently being processed or awaiting payment. The average processing time for an application from lodgement to payment is about six weeks. They are taking six weeks on average as we are dealing with a company that has collapsed and there are significant record-keeping issues. I would say to Senator Thorpe that we are working as fast as we can. We recognise the awful situation many people have found themselves in with the collapse of Youpla, and we are trying to work as hard as we can to make sure that we can resolve it for all of those that have been placed in this terrible position by the failure of this business. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:44 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Thank you, Minister. That's some small, if any, comfort to the elders sitting in morgues right now. There are 170 people you've supported. We've got more than 10,000 to 20,000 people that have been affected. What solutions are you actually pursuing to get elders out of these morgues and ensure that a fair, enduring and culturally appropriate resolution is reached for all of those impacted? 14:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We are working as fast as we can, and we are acutely aware of the need to resolve this as fast as we can. I would say to Senator Thorpe, if there are particular families or individuals that you would like to advocate on behalf of, who are experiencing a situation which we could assist with, then I extend that offer on behalf of the minister responsible. But I can absolutely tell you the government has had a number of conversations about Youpla and the collapse and what it means for those who have passed and their families. That is why we moved as quickly as we could to provide assurance that we would deal with the families involved, including those that had passed away and were in morgues. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:46 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Thank you for the invitation; I will take that up. What do you say to those First Nations people who have lost their hard earned money? We heard today $25,000 is gone from one family. Some of them are now living in debt due to Youpla's collapse—debts that have been enabled and ignored by successive governments for over two decades. 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory That's why the government has sought to put in place arrangements to provide security to those families, acknowledging that we won't necessarily be able to deal with all of the trauma and difficulty and cost associated with the money that has gone into those arrangements. I know that the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services is looking at other issues that led to the spruiking of these arrangements and how it has been marketed. I would say again that I think immediately on coming to government, upon getting the full briefing and understanding of what was happening and the fact that there hadn't been arrangements put in place to deal with it, the priority was to deal particularly with those who had loved ones or family members who had passed and to make sure we put in place a suitable arrangement to deal with that. I would say that the average number of days between an application being lodged and a payment being made is 28 days now. (Time expired) Cybersafety 56 14:48 Senator IWK Victoria WHITE () (): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Watt. We know it is fundamental that our online world is a safe and inclusive environment. The eSafety Commissioner plays a key role in regulating the online world and achieving these objectives. What challenges does the eSafety Commissioner face in supporting the government's objectives? 14:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Sorry, Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 I said the government didn't provide— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Watt— Senator WATT 245759 Sorry; Senator Henderson was just interjecting. I wasn't quite sure what she was saying. The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw you to Senator White's question. Senator WATT 245759 I thank Senator White for the question. Recently, when I was in Darwin, my staff and I were following a Land Cruiser along the Esplanade that had a Do it for Dolly sticker on the back. It reminded me of the harrowing experience of Dolly Everett, which no child should endure, and the work that has been done since then to improve online safety. I do give the former government credit, as does the Prime Minister, for the work they did in this space. Maintaining online safety is a core priority for the Albanese government. That's why we are supporting the eSafety Commissioner, Australia's independent regulator for online safety, particularly as the eSafety Commissioner undertakes critically important work to raise the bar for online safety and hold platforms to account for their actions to keep Australians safe. Whether it is tackling online child sexual exploitation material, combating cyberbullying and harassment, or making dating apps safer, I think we can all agree that the work they do is critical for our society. However, I think senators would be astounded to know that, despite the eSafety Commissioner's important role, eSafety has been operating without funding certainty—thanks to decisions taken by those opposite. Senator Henderson ZN4 That's completely untrue. You're misleading the Senate. Senator Watt 245759 Senator Henderson, are you interjecting? The fact is that eSafety has been relying on non-ongoing or terminating funding— Senator Watt 245759 Senator McGrath, are you interjecting? Honourable senators interjecting— The 10000 Senators, order! Order across the chamber. Senator Wong 00AOU Stand up at the end of question time like everyone else. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong and Senator Henderson! Order across the chamber. Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 I just want to put on the record that Senator Wong did actually invite me to say something on the record about this matter. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, you and every other senator in this place know that it is disorderly to call out across the chamber. Minister Watt. Senator Watt 245759 As I said, I think senators would be astounded to know that eSafety has been operating without funding certainty—thanks to decisions taken by those opposite. The fact is that eSafety has been relying on non-ongoing or terminating funding for years. This was a deliberate design feature of the former Liberal-National Party government's budget policy. Can you believe that eSafety's base funding of $10.3 million has never been increased since eSafety was established in 2015, and that's despite its widening powers every year? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator White, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria We know that funding cliffs were a deliberate design feature of the Liberal-National government's budget strategy. What does the funding profile look like for eSafety going forward? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator White. It is astounding to know that, thanks to funding decisions by the now opposition, after 30 June this year eSafety and the eSafety Commissioner will face a funding cliff. In the coalition's last budget the overall funding for eSafety was forecast to drop from $53.8 million to $23.3 million— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WATT 245759 a more than 50 per cent decrease in funding to the eSafety Commissioner of our country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, I've called you to order. Senator WATT 245759 Like every budget announced in the last government, they went for short-term, non-ongoing measures and never addressed the structural underfunding of key agencies. Did the coalition really think that, once the clock turned over to 1 July this year, all the online exploitation material would just vanish from the internet? Did they really think that all the misuse of dating apps— Senator Henderson ZN4 Last October you did nothing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, I've called you to order about three times. Interjections across the chamber are disorderly and disrespectful. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 These are the funding cliffs that we find littered throughout the budget, even when it comes to important issues like e-safety. It's another mess that Labor has to fix. (Time expired) The 10000 Senator White, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Minister, I guess it's fair to say that Labor has been left to clean up the mess left by those opposite. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support online safety for Australians? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator White. You're right. All week we have highlighted examples of the former government's deliberate design feature of funding cliffs throughout the budget. In my own portfolio of agriculture when it comes to biosecurity, emergency management, eSafety, My Health records—the list goes on and on where this government thought that miraculously the whole world would change on 1 July and important permanent functions were not going to need ongoing funding. This is another example of it. The Albanese government is now undertaking the substantive work to ensure that the Online Safety Act is successfully implemented, together with the eSafety Commissioner. eSafety has been undertaking important work in relation to the basic online safety expectations outlined in the act. Recently they issued a second set of reporting notices to seven digital platforms on the steps they are taking to tackle online child sexual exploitation material. Every day there will be new challenges that emerge, and the Albanese government is committed to continuing the important work to make online activity safer. (Time expired) Infrastructure 58 14:54 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. On 9 February this year the minister categorically ruled out any changes to the diesel fuel rebate in the May budget. Will the minister also categorically rule out further delays to road and rail projects in the upcoming May budget? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator McKenzie. Again, we could have a discussion about the funding cliffs that were littered throughout the budget that was run by yourselves in agriculture and infrastructure departments and things like that when it came to funding. But of course the future of all projects in the infrastructure portfolio will be revealed when the budget is revealed. I know we're about to enter that period where we're going to see scare campaign after scare campaign from the opposition about what may or may not happen in the budget. But we've actually got a government in place now that has responsible budget practices—rather than funding cliffs, rather than booby traps, rather than mirages of back-in-black budgets that turn out to be not so back in black at all. We're not out there preparing coffee cups, unlike some. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 On relevance, the minister has already ruled in and ruled out the diesel fuel rebate previously with respect to the May budget. My specific question was around further cuts and delays to infrastructure projects in the upcoming budget. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, and I believe the minister was being relevant. Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 I can say, to add to the comments I've already made, that the Albanese government is ensuring that infrastructure spending is targeted and aligned with current capacity and resource availability in Australia's construction market. I can also tell you that, unlike certain other people in this chamber and in this parliament, the Albanese government and our ministers will not be using colour coded spreadsheets when it comes to allocating infrastructure funding. You won't be finding reports from the Auditor-General about that kind of activity. What we will actually be doing is allocating infrastructure funding on the basis of need. And do you know what? I know it's a bit of a touchy subject over in that little part of the building. I know it's a touchy subject—colour coded spreadsheets, sports rorts, infrastructure rorts, regional rorts, urban congestion rorts, car park rorts. I mean, there are so many rorts you forget the numbers. But this government actually takes the use of taxpayers' money seriously. We intend to use it transparently and honestly. That means we will fund projects that are not in Labor seats. What an incredible suggestion that would be! What an incredible suggestion, to have a government that is prepared to allocate money on the basis of need rather than on what colour they're coded on a spreadsheet. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:57 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria On 1 March 2023 the minister for infrastructure told the National Press Club that she wanted Infrastructure Australia to 'produce a more refined, more targeted infrastructure priority list'. Will Minister Watt categorically rule out projects being cut from the infrastructure priority list in the upcoming May budget? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator McKenzie, for reminding us of the important institution that is Infrastructure Australia—an institution that was created by a former infrastructure minister of this country, a fellow by the name of Anthony Albanese. The reason Minister Albanese, as he then was, brought in Infrastructure Australia was to overcome the rorts of the infrastructure budget that we'd seen under the Howard government, to bring back independence when it comes to decisions about infrastructure funding. I know it's a touchy— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 On relevance, again: to cuts to the budget for projects, the minister has gone nowhere near the question, either previously or now. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order, perhaps I could make this submission. The senator herself referenced Infrastructure Australia. She can hardly complain when the minister utilises that reference in his response. He's clearly being directly relevant. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X Further to the point of order—and this goes back to the change that was made a number of years ago to the standing orders that shifted from answers to questions having to be relevant to answers to questions having to be directly relevant—I submit that a history lesson on the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, just because Infrastructure Australia was mentioned in a question, is not directly relevant. Direct relevance actually required turning to the substance of the question asked, not picking one or two words out of it for the convenience of the minister. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Thank you, Senator Birmingham. May I suggest to leaders that they allow me to rule on the point of order. Indeed, I was going to remind Senator McKenzie that the minister did reference Infrastructure Australia and was going to draw the minister to the second part of your question. Senator WATT 245759 I can assure Senator McKenzie and all Australian people that they can rely on the Albanese government to make targeted infrastructure investments in a fashion that we haven't been used to over the last 10 years. As I was saying, it was a Labor government that invented Infrastructure Australia to overcome the rorting of infrastructure budgets we'd seen from the Howard government. We've now had to restructure Infrastructure Australia because it had been distorted by the stacking with Liberal Party and Nationals mates under the former government. There's a bit of a pattern here, isn't there? Every time there's a Liberal-National government, it's stacking with mates, it's rorts; every time Labor comes in, we have to clean up the mess, and we're doing it all over again. The 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Can the minister categorically rule out any further cuts and delays to regional Queensland road projects to pay for the Albanese government's $7 billion Olympic Games venue deal with the Queensland Labor Premier? 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator McKenzie. Senator Gallagher has reminded me about the funding that is going to be provided for Olympic infrastructure that is going to be happening in the great city of Brisbane, in the great state of Queensland. Where did that funding first come from, Senator Gallagher? Was there some commitment made by the former government about that? Was it the Liberal-National government that was going to contribute 50-50 funding to the Olympics? Was it just the Liberals who supported Olympic infrastructure funding and not the Nationals, or was it some of the Nationals and not the Liberals? Seriously, work out what page you're on. You are here asking us about funding that your own government committed to do. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Watt, please continue. Senator Canavan 245212 'The Rocky Ring Road is where the funds came from. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, I have just called the chamber to order. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 I am very proud of the fact that I, Senator Chisholm and Senator Green played an instrumental role in making sure that the Rocky Ring Road project is going ahead, and the contractors have actually supported the actions. We had a few people out there in their usual cosplay dress-ups outside the parliament who did absolutely nothing, and a few people who got to work and actually got the job done. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. If the chamber would indulge me, I can indicate lovely news that, whilst Senate question time was occurring, Senator Farrell's third grandchild arrived. Welcome to the world, Leo Farrell Malycha and congratulations to Mary and James. Senator Farrell I0N I thank Senator Wong for those very kind comments. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 59 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Ukraine 59 15:03 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia In question time yesterday I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Van in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, relating to the Australian support for Ukraine. I have written to Senator Van to provide additional information, and I table my letter to Senator Van for the information of all senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 59 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 59 15:03 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. It is absolutely unbelievable, the way that you come in here and just blatantly lie to the Australian people, hiding behind your broken promises and trying to look backwards and rewrite a history that never occurred. It is just extraordinary that you seem to have forgotten that a pandemic occurred. You seem to have forgotten— The D 10000 On a point of order, Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU The senator is experienced enough to know that she has to withdraw that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I didn't hear the comment, but on the advice of the clerk could I ask you for the benefit of the chamber to withdraw. I've had it relayed to me by the clerk that the phrase you used was 'people cannot come in here and lie'. That's a reflection on a group, that people may have come and misled the chamber. So for the benefit of the chamber can I ask you to withdraw. Senator HUGHES 273828 I withdraw. Unlike some of my colleagues here, I will withdraw unequivocally. But I will say that we come in here with a government who hides behind a litany of broken promises, untruths told to the Australian people during the campaign, and come in here unable either to answer a question or, when they do utter a sentence in any form or format, it is constantly heavy on politics, heavy on excuses and very short on a plan. I might point out to those opposite that for Australians who are about to come off their fixed mortgage rates, who are about to require $12,000 to $20,000 a year, depending on the size of their mortgage, when they're looking to this federal government to provide them with some guidance, a plan, cost of living support, all they are hearing from you is petty political point-scoring that is actually based on falsehoods. No-one opposite remembers the pandemic. No-one opposite remembers that our economy came out of the pandemic 3.4 per cent bigger than it was going into it; that the cash rate was 0.35 per cent; that we had lower unemployment coming out of the pandemic than we had going into it; that we had strong GDP growth and in fact we were one of the few economies that maintained an AAA credit rating. So perhaps a history lesson is required, and not even a particularly lengthy history lesson, because it wasn't that long ago. It wasn't until you lot took the helm that the wheels completely and utterly fell off. But instead of putting together a plan, instead of doing some work, there has been a constant cry that 'Government is hard and boo-hoo, we didn't get it right.' The fact that we heard from the finance minister prior to the October budget—for those listening or any of those in the chamber, this government actually has had a budget—so when they talk about budget and issues in the budget, this is their budget that contains the issues, because they have had a budget. It wasn't an economic forecast; it wasn't a statement; it was a budget with lots of budget papers. We all got them delivered to our offices and we went through them, and then we had lots of budget estimates in a follow-up to Labor's budget. But we did hear from the finance minister time and time again—I'm not sure if it was 97 times; we might have to go back and check. During the election we heard 97 times that power prices were going to go down by $275, but we now know that wasn't true and that's not going to happen, to the point that when Senator Farrell was asked 'Can you just say the number 275', he declined. It's not that hard, people. We don't know if the finance minister said it 97 times, but she said an awful lot that she was going through the budget with the treasurer line by line. What does that mean? Does that mean she opened it up and flicked through and had a quick skim? We were told time and again that line by line this was going to be gone through. Is it incompetence? Is it inability to look into detail and understand what's written in the budget papers? How is it now that we have those opposite coming in and talking about mistakes they made in their own budget—mistakes they made when they, the ones in charge on the Treasury benches, could not go through a budget, didn't know how to look at programs, didn't know funding through to the forward estimates? This whole line that you're all wheeling out about fiscal cliffs—we know that none of you sat through economics 1.01 for may be more than half a lecture before it all got too hard, because that is the level of economic comprehension that's demonstrated day by day by those opposite. Terminating measures are a common tool used in a budget by responsible governments. It's just the way they work. I'm sure we will see in the May budget that those opposite may actually be employing similar methods, but, when they do it, it'll be completely different because it's just the way the budget needs to be reported. It's the way budgets are done, and you have had your budget. Your budget was in October. You missed it. You goofed it. You got it wrong. You're not up to it. You can't get across the detail. Do you know who's paying for this? The Australian people. You're not giving them a plan. You're giving them excuses and petty politics, which we saw from your frontbench today. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Walsh, Senator Ciccone—I'm happy to give either of you the call. 15:10 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Senator Ciccone, for your generosity. You are indeed a gentleman. We welcome the opposition's questions about our government's responsible approach to managing the budget, our approach to cleaning up the mess that was left behind by those opposite and our approach to dealing with the trillion dollars of debt that they left behind, with absolutely nothing to show for it. We welcome your questions about our approach to dealing with all of that while we get on with our plans: to build a better, stronger future for all Australians; to support Australians with the cost of living; to deal with the energy mess that was left behind after 10 years of complete denial and delay from those opposite; to build a strong and diverse economy, making more of what we need right here in Australia; and to build an economy that is powered by cheap and clean energy—a decarbonising economy. This week, though—and every week—what we see from those opposite, the former government, is that they are all about saying no: saying no to the good ideas that we took to the election; saying no to the good plans that the Australian people supported at the election; saying no to safeguarding our climate; saying no to safeguarding jobs in regions in transition; saying no to even being part of the conversation about how we do that; saying no to rebuilding Australian manufacturing and making more of what we need right here; saying no to building more social and affordable homes for those in need; saying no to homes for 4,000 women and children escaping family violence—can you believe that the coalition is saying no to that?—saying no to funding for urgent repairs to Indigenous housing; and saying no to capping power prices last year, after they said no to telling the Australian people before the election that prices were indeed about to rise. Right now, the coalition has been reduced to being the party of 'no'—no to being a viable party of government and no to even being a viable opposition. We know from today's figures that inflation is moderating, but it is still high, and it's still tough for Australian families and Australian businesses. We know that it is hard out there for people. That's why our investments are so important: our investments in households, industry, the economy, the future of our country, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE, putting downward pressure on energy prices and getting more renewables into our grid. These measures are not only things that help households and businesses; they are also part of our plan to drive inflation down. We've been talking this week about our plan to strengthen and diversify our economy, to rebuild manufacturing through the National Reconstruction Fund—a plan that is supported by everyone except for the opposition. It's a plan that is all about creating the jobs of the future. It's a plan that's all about making more of what we need right here in Australia. It's a plan that is all about securing our supply chains in critical sectors, like medical manufacturing and defence. It's all about making sure that we grab the job opportunities for the future for regions that are in transition. But who opposes that plan? The coalition—the opposition—opposes that plan. They oppose the jobs of the future. They oppose jobs in regions. They oppose taking advantage of the jobs in renewables and low-emission technologies that we know are the future for our country. They also oppose plans supported by the rest of the parliament to create the safeguard mechanism. This is a plan that industry supports, a plan that industry is keen to play its part in. What people want is certainty. What they want is support. All they're getting from those opposite is, 'No'. 15:15 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Yes, we hear a lot about plans and we see very little action. And yes, we will continue to oppose and say no to bad policy. We heard earlier my colleague Senator Colbeck asking Senator Gallagher about the October budget's forecast—a 56 per cent increase in electricity bills for Australian households over the next two years—and whether the government believes that the actual increase will be higher or lower than that forecast. Senator Gallagher, however, did not simply give an answer to the question, instead informing this chamber that the budget figures would be updated in May and then taking the opportunity to try and lay blame at the feet of anyone else. Telling us that the figures will be released at a later date is not answering the question, but then I don't expect anyone from the other side to answer any questions legitimately. We still do not know whether the government believes that their October budget forecast is in fact accurate. Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions of the Labor government that have contributed to the rising cost of living for Australians now, Senator Gallagher and the Labor government would rather hide the answer from Australians and hide from their responsibilities. This has clearly become the norm for this government—breaking promises and then hiding the details while throwing the blame on everybody else. But this government cannot continue to run from their broken promises. They cannot continue to try to lay the blame at the feet of past governments when their own policies simply do not work. At least 97 times before the election the government promised that it would cut Australians' electricity bills by $275. Of course, they cannot even bring themselves to say the number 275. But not only has the government been unable to deliver on that promise; they have also overseen price increases. They've overseen the contribution of massive pressure and stress on the budgets of Australian families and will continue to do so as they pursue their renewable energy utopia. The reality is that energy prices are predicted to continue to rise at brutal rates that will have real consequences for many everyday Australians come this winter. This is no doubt partly due to the Labor-Greens attack on cheap and reliable energy sources, such as coal, gas and oil, sources of energy that will still be required to back up the Green dream of 100 per cent renewables so that when the wind stops blowing and the sun goes down Australians will still be able to heat their homes and live their lives. While Labor and Minister Gallagher dream of becoming a renewable energy superpower, Australians continue to struggle with the extreme cost of their decisions. The reality is that renewable energy sources like solar and wind are not cheap, they are not reliable, and they are not powering Australians into the future. They are expensive, add extreme costs and pressure to the grid and leave Australians vulnerable to energy poverty and related dangers. Labor needs to acknowledge this cost to the transitioning and be up-front with the Australian people about the pressures that will come with it. Instead, the Labor government continue to lay the blame on everybody else and anything else to avoid taking responsibility for their own failures. As was discussed in great detail in the early hours of this morning, the previous coalition government had reduced emissions by 20 per cent on our 2005 base level and put Australia on track to beat our Paris treaty commitments. The previous coalition government had met and exceeded Australia's Kyoto targets. The previous coalition government had committed to a net zero target by 2050 while working to ensure the energy security of Australians—delivering cheap and reliable base-load power to reach a cleaner future while also ensuring Australia remains strong, prosperous and independent. Can the government please stop providing all these grandiose plans, and can the Australian people see action to reduce their electricity and power prices. 15:20 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I think it's fair to say that the very late sitting we had last night, thanks to those opposite filibustering until four o'clock this morning, is a clear indication of the quality of questions that we have from those opposite. Senator McGrath 217241 Point of order, Deputy President: the coalition was not filibustering last night. I would ask that Senator Ciccone withdraw that outrageous and hurtful allegation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I'm not sure it gets to 'outrageous' or 'hurtful', but I'm sure Senator Ciccone will reflect on his language. Senator CICCONE 281503 As always, Deputy President, I don't intend to hurt anyone, but certainly filibustering is an accurate description. Regardless, my point is the quality of the questions we had today in question time from those opposite. We'd expect it from some others, predominantly those on the crossbench—with the greatest of respect to them—but the quality of the questions that we had from the coalition today was quite outrageous. We had minister after minister providing answers to questions that were put to them, particularly around inflation, the cost of living and spending, but the coalition senators have been ignoring the fact that this government, having been in power for less than one year, has had a hell of a job of trying to fix up the mess of the last decade. It's always important to put the facts on the table. I know those opposite, particularly three of my favourite senators over there, love facts on the table. My first question is: who racked up a trillion dollars of debt and had nothing to show for it? It was the coalition. Who had a spike in power prices just before the last federal election and didn't tell voters about it? It was the coalition. Who spent almost a decade deliberately putting downward pressure on wages growth? It was the coalition. Who also spent almost a decade telling the automotive industry to go away and not invest in domestic manufacturing here in Australia? Senator Chisholm 39801 The coalition. Senator CICC 281503 That's right, Senator Chisholm—the coalition. The Australian people decided: 'We want a change of government. We're going to voting for an Albanese Labor government, which will invest in health, education and jobs and make sure our sovereign capability gets back up to scratch.' Now that the Australian people have made that choice, those opposite come in here, every single day that we sit, and lecture us. They lecture the government while we try to clear up their mess, and they try to pretend that their mess never existed. They're embarrassed about the problems they created. They don't want to take ownership of it. It is the case that we were here till very late this morning—4.15 to be precise—listening to contributions by those opposite on a number of bills that we had before this parliament. A tip for those opposite, particularly the Nationals and Liberal colleagues: being in opposition is hard; I understand that. It is always hard being on the losing side. I get that. I was there for three years, but I learnt a lot. By learning a lot, I'm now on this side of the chamber, with my lovely colleagues, implementing reforms and making changes in the interests of working people. As a senator, I value working with everyone across the chamber, as you would all know. I think it's actually much healthier for democracies, for parliaments, for chambers like this Senate, when we are actually all working together in the national interest, rather than the sort of short-term political point scoring that we see from those opposite. But the coalition makes it very, very difficult. I suspect that when they get up every morning they go to their tactics and say: 'Right; how are we going to say no to Labor's policy reforms? How are we going to say no to making the lives of working people better?' Their tactics must be fascinating, because they're having to deal with not only those in the sensible centre but also those on the fringes who are constantly against the interests of working people. When this government comes into this place and has an approach, how do we work with senators? I hate to say it to those opposite, but the only common sense we're getting at the moment is from the crossbench, who are willing to sit down and work with the government to tackle the cost-of-living issues, to tackle investments in manufacturing and also to invest in the very people that elected us to this great place. 15:25 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland In joining this very illustrative and quite deep philosophical debate, I would like to contribute by observing that the answers given by ministers to the questions asked by my coalition colleagues were characterised by their lack of detail and their lack of information and, quite frankly, by just not answering the questions at all. If anything, question time today was a caricature of the government of Australia that we have at the moment: a government that is tricky, a government that is not fulsome with the truth, if I am allowed to say that— Senator McGRATH 217241 I will take the interjection from Senator Duniam—a government who runs from accountability and runs from transparency. Senator Ciccone touched upon the very important debate that started last night in relation to the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023. It is disappointing—it is actually quite sad—that the journalists and people in this building were not able to hear my contribution at three o'clock this morning, because it was a very good contribution, if I may say so myself. This is what this government is about. They're using the guillotine like mad members of revolutionary fronts. They are guillotining everything because they don't want transparency and they don't want accountability, and they do not want the opposition to be able to use this chamber as the appropriate mechanism by which to analyse and discuss our views on a very, very challenging piece of legislation. It was disappointing that members of the Liberal and National parties were forced to give their speeches beyond the witching hour, and that is sad. It shows the arrogance of this government, who will do dirty deals in the dark, dirty deals behind closed doors, dirty deals done behind closed doors with darkened windows, in relation to the governance of this country but also the management of this chamber. What is particularly disappointing about question time today and the debate last night is that the No. 1 issue in Australia at the moment is the cost of living. The Labor Party and their coalition partners, the Greens, fail to appreciate how the cost of living is hurting Australians. And their solution is not just a new tax, the carbon tax 2.0; it is a giant, throbbing tax, a massive tax that they're going to pick up in their hands and chase after every Australian and every Australian family and whack them over the heads with. What we've seen from this government is that they're giving a giant wedgie to Australians through their secret deals with the Greens, and that is wrong. It is wrong that they would treat Australians so poorly. It is wrong that they would treat this chamber so poorly when it comes to allowing opposition members to question giant wedgies—because that's what the Labor government are doing to Australians: giving everybody a giant wedgie. What they're failing to let us question is the wedgie that is coming with people's power bills. This government promised 97 times before the last election that it would cut your power bills by $275—97 times. It wasn't that the Prime Minister had a verbal burp and accidentally said something. This was a deliberate tactic. They get into power and, instead of cutting your bills by $275, what the October budget showed was that power bills are going to go up by 56 per cent over the coming months. This is the modern Labor Party. They talk about the light on the hill, but guess what: there is no light on the hill, because people can't afford to pay the power bill for the light on the hill. This is how the modern Labor Party have sold out working Australians and businesses across Australia, and this is why we will spend every day, every hour and every minute making sure that you own what happened last night and this morning in this chamber. Question agreed to. Cost of Living: Students 63 15:31 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the cost of living for students. Every week I hear heartbreaking stories about students struggling to put food on the table, to pay for medication, to afford a train or bus ticket or to pay bills. Week after week, students who are already battling to pay their rent are being hit with rent increases from greedy landlords. Students are working multiple jobs, cutting back on necessities and still barely scraping by. We heard about the severe financial stress and the mental and physical toll that these daily pressures are taking on students. One 19-year-old QUT student says she hasn't eaten fresh fruit and vegetables for at least a month and relies on instant noodles. She struggles to afford period products. At UNSW, hundreds of students are lining up in queues for free food. Students are trying their best, but they still can't make ends meet, and this government is effectively telling them, 'We can't afford to support you but you won't believe what we can afford for the wealthy: $254 billion in tax cuts.' This is a government that has turned its back on young people and students. I can't remember a time when the students were doing it this tough, and it should be clear to anyone with a conscience how difficult it is to be a student at this point in time. People are electing Labor governments because they desperately want change, but Labor is looking away. Labor could choose to raise the rate of income support payments to $88 a day and lift students out of poverty. Labor plays a big game on housing, but Labor's housing bill does nothing for renters, and it will see the shortage of affordable and social housing actually grow. Labor could take immediate steps to relieve the burden of student debt by freezing indexation and raising the minimum repayment income. Student debt is already locking people out of the housing market, stopping them from getting married or starting a family, and crushing dreams of further study. Student debt is stopping young people from living the carefree, fun lives that all young people should live. It's stopping them from enjoying university, pursuing hobbies, socialising with friends and just having a good life. Student debt is having a disproportionate impact on women because they earn less and they have more debt. And it will get much worse in June, when student debts are set to be indexed by seven per cent. Millions of Australians will be hit with more debt. They can't keep up, because student debts are now going up faster than they can be paid off. So many people have spoken about rising student debt, and I want to read out some of what they have said: 'I often wonder how long it will take me to pay off my debt. My husband and I are barely able to keep up with the rising cost of living. Abolishing indexation at the very least would help lessen the pressure of living expenses and help me catch up with paying off this burdensome debt.' Another one says: 'I doubt I will be able to keep up with the indexation. Mostly I just feel stupid for believing what I was told as a child—that I needed to go to uni for a good job—only to end up with a debt that goes up by $2,500 a year.' Another one says, 'Now we are seeing nothing but increase, increase, increase. With those increases, they don't understand that it not only affects physical health; it removes resources and access to so much, and it stigmatises low-socioeconomic students.' Despite this, the government is sitting on its hands and saying it won't do anything because the university accords process is underway. Well, that's not good enough. This process and its implementation will take years. People are struggling now, and they need relief now. This government can abolish indexation and raise income support payments. We have a progressive parliament right here that can waive through these measures to support students. Labor is actively choosing not to provide support for those struggling the most but can give $254 billion to the wealthy in tax cuts and commit another $368 billion for nuclear attack submarines. These choices make it clear that, when it comes to substance, we still have a neoliberal government which chooses austerity for people and the planet and abundance for billionaires and the war machine. Be better, Labor. Question agreed to. NOTICES 64 NOTICES Presentation 64 15:36 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for two sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the Telecommunications Amendment (Disclosure of Information for the Purpose of Cyber Security) Regulations 2022 and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for five sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Amendment (Code of Conduct and Banning Orders) Rules 2022. COMMITTEES 64 COMMITTEES National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee 64 Report 64 15:36 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission on proposed recommendations for appointments to the commission. I seek leave to make a statement of not more than three minutes relating to the report. Leave granted. Senator WHITE IWK I rise as the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission to speak about the committee's report on proposed appointments to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The committee was recently established to provide parliamentary oversight of the forthcoming commission. Under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022, one of the committee's roles is to consider the Attorney-General's proposed recommendations for the appointment of commissioner, deputy commissioner and inspector of the commission. On 10 March 2023 the Attorney-General referred to the committee proposed recommendations for the appointment of the Hon. Justice Paul Brereton AM RFD as Commissioner on a full-time basis for a period of five years, Ms Nicole Rose PSM as Deputy Commissioner on a full-time basis for a period of five years, Dr Ben Gauntlett as Deputy Commissioner on a full-time basis for a period of five years and Ms Gail Furness SC as Inspector on a part-time basis for a period of seven years. I'm pleased to report the committee has unanimously approved each of these proposed recommendations. This enables the Attorney-General to recommend each of these appointments to the Governor-General. This is indeed momentous, as these are the inaugural appointments to these positions. Earlier today, the committee wrote to the Attorney-General to inform him of this decision and I am now tabling this report for the benefit of all senators. The committee's task, which was to approve or reject the minister's proposed recommendations for certain appointments, is uncommon among parliamentary committees. I thank committee members for approaching the task thoughtfully. The committee undertook significant due diligence to assure itself of the suitability of the candidates. This included consideration of the qualifications for an appointment that are set out in the act. To allow committee members to properly carry out their due diligence, the committee notified the Attorney-General that it required additional time to consider his proposed recommendations. Considering the government's intention to ensure the commission commences operation by mid-2023, I'm pleased that the committee members worked promptly to conclude their deliberations without using all of the available time. On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank the candidates for putting themselves forward to lead the commission when it is established later this year. This is indeed a momentous task, given the crucial role the commission will perform in Australia's integrity framework. I also wish to thank the Attorney-General and his department for providing information to support the committee's deliberations. The committee looks forward to the commencement of the commission later this year and to providing ongoing oversight in accordance with the act. 15:40 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I seek leave to make a short statement for three minutes—I don't think I'll need that time!—on the same matter. Leave granted. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 I start by thanking all the members of the NACC committee but particularly the chair of the NACC committee, Senator White. Setting up a new committee in a space such as this is not necessarily the easiest process, and there are always matters that need to be ironed out until committees—to use a very poor sporting analogy—find their line and length, particularly when you are in a quite unique relationship, as Senator White pointed out, with a member of the executive—in this case, the Attorney-General. There are a number of committees in this place, but the one that I am closest to, as the chair, is the Privileges Committee. It is so important that these committees act in a collegiate fashion and, more than that, in a nonpartisan fashion. Matters such as privilege, such as the operations and oversight of the Anti-Corruption Commission, will fail if they become partisan playthings. It's very important that such committees operate in a collegiate manner. There were some matters that we discussed internally. I won't talk about what they were; they were more matters of process, and they certainly had nothing to do with the appropriateness of the candidates. But there were some issues that needed to be considered by the committee. That was done in a very timely way, and I think, in the end, we have reached a very positive position, and I think the committee has shown it can work very well together. Like Senator White, I thank all those who put their names forward for positions on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. These roles are going to be vitally important going forward, and they have a huge challenge ahead of them. We thank all those who put their names forward and congratulate those who have been appointed today. 15:42 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I, too, seek leave to make a short statement in relation to that matter. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for three minutes. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 First of all, I thank and commend the chair and the members of the committee for the process we undertook over the last two-and-a-bit weeks. I particularly want to note the leadership of the chair, who, I think, brought the committee to what was ultimately a consensus position to confirm all the appointees to these four important positions in the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It was essential that we had this as a consensus position, because we need to ensure that the NACC is established and starts with as broad political support and consensus as we can have. It's a credit to the committee—at least the other members of the committee, as well as the chair—that we eventually arrived at a consensus position, and that reflects the quality of the candidates who were put forward before the committee. But, as has been touched upon in an earlier contribution, there are lessons to be learned from the process we went through. The committee required an extension of time to enable it to get appropriate information. At times I don't think I was the only member of the committee who was frustrated about the timeliness of the information and the provision of the necessary information for us to do our statutory task, under section 178. But I would note that, from my observation, each member of the committee, regardless of where their politics lies—government, opposition, crossbench—understood we had an important obligation to fulfil under section 178 of the act. I think we worked through those issues together in a collegiate manner to get the information we needed to exercise that function and scrutinise the appointments. But I do want to stress that I think there are lessons to be learnt. I think a mutual respect between the executive and the parliament, when these statutory functions cross between the executive and the parliament, is necessary. At times, I felt that relationship was a little strained in the exercise of the committee's powers and its roles and functions. I hope those lessons have been learnt. I end on this: it was a consensus position amongst all members. Again, I think the chair helped map the pathway to that over the course of two and a bit weeks. I hope that this is an indication that when the NACC opens its doors it has, I hope, unanimous or near unanimous support for its functions, its roles and for the officers who undertake those important functions. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 66 Reference 66 15:45 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to move a motion relating to the government's amendments to the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023, as circulated in the chamber. Leave not granted. Senator DUNIAM 263418 In that case, pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the government's amendments to the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023. I think it is imperative that this chamber focuses in on its role, which is a role to scrutinise the government, its legislation and the dirty, dodgy deals it does with its bedfellows, the Australian Greens. We were promised scrutiny. We were promised transparency. Indeed it was something that the Australian Greens also promised and always talk about—integrity and conduct when it comes to legislating on behalf of the people of Australia, the people that send us here to do our jobs. Sadly, though, we are being denied the opportunity to closely examine amendments to a bill, a hallmark piece of legislation that this government has been talking about and singing from the rafters about. They've been telling everyone it's going to fix every problem every Australian household and business faces when it comes to the cost of energy and when it comes to carbon emissions. But during the debate that we've had over the period of time since the bill was tabled and introduced in the other place, our friends here in the Greens have been cooking up a secret deal with the Australian Labor Party, the government, to make this bill worse in the name of just getting the bill through this week. It's going to drive up power prices. It's going to offshore emissions. It's going to ensure that people are without jobs. This crew here, the Labor-Greens government, the people that run this brave new world of accountability and transparency—I say that with my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek—don't want us to know about it. We got the amendments this morning, just before the debate in the committee stage of the bill commenced. That's outrageous. What contempt for the role of this chamber and the people that occupy it. Why can't we see in detail these amendments and what they mean? Why can't we go out and speak to the business community before we are forced to vote on this bill at the end of this week? Why can't we go out and talk to the environmental groups about what it means? For instance, the Bob Brown Foundation might have a strong view on this. I'd be interested to know what they have to say about this particular set of amendments that were cooked up in a smoke filled room somewhere in the bowels of this building between two parties of government, the Labor Party and the Greens. Why won't you let us do this? I would love to delay this bill to enable such scrutiny to occur because I think it's the very least we owe the Australian people. This is, of course, in response to a government that went to the election promising that they were going to reduce power bills for all of you by $275. That was a promise made 97 times. Despite our best efforts, not a single person on the frontbench, nor any of the backbenchers, will utter that number, because it's a promise they knew they couldn't keep and it's a promise they know this legislation that we are dealing with in this chamber at the moment and these secret, dodgy, dirty amendments that have been made to this bill will not help achieve. They knew they were going to con the Australian people at the election. They knew they weren't going to be able to deliver on this promise. They gave everyone false hope when it came to ensuring they could meet their cost-of-living pressures, balance their own household budgets, keep the heaters and lights on during winter, put food on the table and ensure that the economy could continue to function and businesses could remain competitive. Instead, they've gone and cooked up this dodgy deal—amendments that have been talked about; the minister, in the committee stage on this legislation said, 'We announced the amendments on 27 March, but we're only going to give them to you today as debate in the committee stage is commencing.' I've only just been able to read the supplementary explanatory memorandum. I think it is outrageous that this government would be so arrogant to think: 'Well, do you know what? Stuff you all. You don't need to understand a single thing in the amendments. You don't need to understand the EM. You don't need to know what this means for the people you represent, because they don't deserve it. We're in government. We will rule, and we will tell you what will get through this place, because we've got the numbers with the Greens.' That's what happens, and I should know, as should any Tasmanian senator here. When Labor and the Greens get together, this is what they do. They cook up deals—bad deals—and they send the economy backwards. That will generate bad environmental outcomes, too. This is why people like former senator Bob Brown have been so outspoken about this legislation, and people have been tweeting about how bad it is. So, I say: please, have a shred of decency, Australian Labor Party. Perhaps the Greens will side with us and we can send these amendments off to a committee for examination. Perhaps we can have some transparency, some integrity in this process. Perhaps we could make you guys deliver on the promise you made 97 times to the Australian people ahead of the election. It's what you owe them, and you should deliver on it. 15:51 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I must say, Senator Duniam is the sort of modern face of the Liberal Party—very articulate, presenting a different face to what we saw in the previous government; he wasn't a minister in the previous government. But the reality is that the position of those opposite is still the same. At the end of the day, the reason they are opposed to the safeguard mechanism legislation and are using every trick in the book to try to delay and obfuscate is that they do not believe in taking action on climate change. That's the fundamental principle from those opposite. They do not actually want to pass this legislation, and that is why Senator Duniam is looking for every delaying tactic in the book. The fact of the matter is that by doing what he has done now he is delaying further the ability to get into the committee stage and ask the questions that he wants to ask. So, it is stunt after stunt, filibuster after filibuster, because, at the end of the day, they have learnt nothing from the election last year. They've taken no lessons from that. They've taken no lessons about taking action on climate change, because they are so divided in their own show. We saw the federal election result last year. We saw the New South Wales election result only a couple of days ago, where the Liberal government was defeated. But they still come into this chamber and want to use every delaying tactic they can, every trick in the book, because, at the end of the day, they do not want to see serious action taken on climate change. That is what we took to the election. That is what we intend on delivering in government. People are sick and tired of the games of those opposite. We will not stand for it. I move: That the question be put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be put.    

The Senate divided. [15:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. 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. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 28 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:04 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion to suspend as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:04]
(The President—Senator Lines)

27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. 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. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 NOTICES 69 NOTICES Postponement 69 16:06 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. COMMITTEES 69 COMMITTEES Finance and Public Administration References Committee 69 Reference 69 16:07 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I, and also on behalf of Senators Liddle, Nampijinpa Price, McGrath and Thorpe, move: That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting Thursday in November 2023: The role, governance and accountability of key Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative organisations, including land councils and native title bodies such as prescribed bodies corporate, with particular reference to: (a) administrative, operational and governance arrangements to ensure accountability, risk mitigation, and transparency for present and future Traditional Owners, to protect their interests and deliver positive economic and social outcomes; (b) the quality and effectiveness of consultation and engagement with Traditional Owners to ascertain their views, and opportunities for the views of Traditional Owners to be reflected in decisions of the organisations; (c) how these organisations undertake their responsibilities to: (i) negotiate on behalf of Traditional Owners, (ii) manage and maintain an accurate register of members, (iii) conciliate disputes, and (iv) appropriately manage dissenting views; (d) arrangements for commercial and lands trust activities; (e) the extent to which administrative, operational and governance arrangements align with the principles contained in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with specific reference to the principle of free, prior and informed consent and other relevant principles and conventions; (f) the extent to which these organisations are contributing to justice for First Nations people; and (g) any other related matters. 16:07 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator COX 296215 I want to remind all senators that yesterday there were many conversations about the Voice to Parliament. For many First Nations people in this country under 40, this will be the first time they vote in a referendum, and this motion jeopardises the success of this referendum. It undermines the currency of the conversation that we're about to have. These cooked-up terms of reference are being used to overshadow what is the national conversation happening at the moment, using our public funding and Senate resources and procedures, which is not the function of this place. We will not be supporting this vicious attack on our peak organisations and grassroots organisations, and the Greens will be opposing this motion. 16:08 Senator 00AOL Tasmania COLBECK () (): I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Colbeck and other senators, be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Thorpe 280304 This is about dodgy deals that allow fracking in the Beetaloo. That's what it is. The 10000 Senator Thorpe, I am calling you to order, please. Senator Thorpe 280304 Dodgy deals. Even my native title corporate is throwing us under the bus on logging. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber. Order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, I have called order on numerous occasions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price! Senator Thorpe 280304 You're saving the mining companies. That's all you're doing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe! The question is that business of the Senate No. 1, standing in the names of Senator Colbeck and others, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. 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. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 70 DOCUMENTS Department of Education: Startup Year Program 70 Order for the Production of Documents 70 16:15 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that order for production of documents no. 186 relating to consultation on the Startup Year program was agreed by the Senate on 21 March 2023; (b) further notes that the order has only partially been complied with, as the Minister representing the Minister for Education has not tabled: (i) some submissions, on the basis that the authors have not agreed to publication, and (ii) all data collected in the student survey; and (c) also notes that the Minister for Education, in his response of 23 March 2023, has made a claim of public interest immunity (PII) with respect to submissions where the author has not agreed to publication, claiming 'it is not in the public interest to depart from the established practice of allowing stakeholders to make submissions in a consultation process that are not shared beyond the Government of the day', and 'to break this convention would undermine future consultation processes and is not in the public interest'; (d) rejects the PII claim, noting that claims that information has been collected on the condition that it may be treated as confidential at the discretion of the author, and therefore cannot be disclosed, is not in itself a ground for a PII claim and that it must be established that: (i) some specific harm may occur because of the disclosure of the information sought by the order, and (ii) any such specific harm could not be overcome by disclosing information in more general terms such as not disclosing the identity of the author; and (e) orders that the Minister representing the Minister for Education fully comply with the order by no later than midday on Thursday, 30 March 2023, with the exception that all data collected as part of the student survey be deidentified. 16:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 As the senator is aware, the Department of Education has published 24 submissions where the author consented to publication. At the minister's direction, the department has now directly contacted each of the remaining 14 authors. So far two have consented to their submissions being published, and they will be added to the website later today. If the consent of other authors is obtained, their submissions will be published in the same way. It would undermine future consultation processes to publish submissions without their consent. I understand that the minister discussed this with Senator Henderson last week and agreed for the bill to be referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for review. That review will take place next month and is open for submissions now. Like the motion before it, this motion is unnecessary. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Henderson be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:17]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Smith, D. A. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. 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. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Department of Defence 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 16:20 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 5 pm on 28 April 2023, the following documents: (a) any request for advice, data or other communication between the Department of Defence and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, including: (i) data, reports and guidance on marine impacts of nuclear submarines, (ii) data, reports and guidance on marine impacts of infrastructure construction for nuclear submarines, and (iii) any other communication or contact in relation to the above; (b) any request for advice, data or other communication between the Department of Defence and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, including: (i) data, reports and guidance on marine impacts of nuclear submarines, (ii) data, reports and guidance on marine impacts of infrastructure construction for nuclear submarines, and (iii) any other communication or contact in relation to the above; (c) any request for advice, data or other communication between the Department of Defence and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, including: (i) data, reports and guidance on marine impacts of nuclear submarines, (ii) data, reports and guidance on marine impacts of infrastructure construction for nuclear submarines, and (iii) any other communication or contact in relation to the above; and (d) any request for advice, data or other communication between the Department of Defence and the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency, including: (i) data, reports and guidance on marine impacts of nuclear submarines, (ii) data, reports and guidance on marine impacts of infrastructure construction for nuclear submarines, and (iii) any other communication or contact in relation to the above. 16:20 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will be opposing this motion. Disclosure of material of the nature requested by Senator Whish-Wilson would be contrary to Australia's national interests, including for the reasons that it may be prejudicial to the security or defence of the Commonwealth and could prejudice international relations. The nuclear reactors that power submarines are a proven and safe technology. The science and technologies associated with them are highly specialised capabilities that will support classified national security activities across government. Over more than 60 years, the United Kingdom and the United States have operated more than 500 naval nuclear reactors without a single radiological incident. A sophisticated security and safety architecture will surround Australia's nuclear powered submarine program. Australia is unwavering in its commitment to safely and securely stewarding its nuclear powered submarines. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 217, standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:22]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 33 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Department of Finance: Discretionary Payments 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 16:24 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) on 20 March 2023, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 176 in relation to discretionary payments made by the Department of Finance to the Australian Labor Party, and (ii) the Special Minister of State responded on 27 March 2023, but failed to comply with the order and did not raise a public interest immunity claim; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Special Minister of State, by no later than 8 April 2023, all documents in relation to applications or payments made under the Australian Political Parties for Democracy program, the Voter Information Security Enhancement grant program and the Political Party Secretariat training program in the 2021-22 financial year and the 2022-23 financial year to date. 16:24 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRE 112096 Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will be opposing this motion. Payments made under these programs are already publicly disclosed through the normal processes. This information can be found in the relevant annual returns on the publicly available AEC transparency register. I know the Special Minister of State, Minister Farrell, would welcome the opportunity to assist the senator in finding this publicly available information rather than taking up the Senate's time on this occasion. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that General Business Notice of Motion No. 213, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:26]
(The President—Senator Lines)

17 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 74 Reference 74 16:28 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 December 2023: Greenwashing, with particular reference to: (a) the environmental and sustainability claims made by companies in industries including energy, vehicles, household products and appliances, food and drink packaging, cosmetics, clothing and footwear; (b) the impact of misleading environmental and sustainability claims on consumers; (c) domestic and international examples of regulating companies' environmental and sustainability claims; (d) advertising standards in relation to environmental and sustainability claims; (e) legislative options to protect consumers from green washing in Australia; and (f) any other related matters. 16:28 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Judas Iscariot was given 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. This is clearly one of the 30 pieces of silver that the Australian Greens are getting for supporting this ridiculous safeguard mechanism legislation, a stitch-up deal for getting up an inquiry up that they would otherwise oppose. This just further demonstrates exactly what's going on in the dark rooms with darkened windows, filled with smoke, where the Greens and Labor stitch up deals to set up committees like this one. I find it outrageous. We will let it go through, but it's another example of what happens in this brave new world of Labor-Green government. Question agreed to. Public Works Joint Committee 74 Reference 74 16:30 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Airservices Australia—Aviation rescue fire fighting facilities, navigation aids and digital aerodrome services project, Western Sydney International Airport. I table a statement in relation to the work. Question agreed to. BILLS 75 BILLS Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023 75

Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023

First Reading 75 16:31 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to provide for the regulation of activities relating to digital assets and reporting in relation to central bank digital currencies, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator BRAGG 256063 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 75 16:32 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales 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 BRAGG 256063 I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follow s— The Race to Regulate In 2021, Australia gathered steam in our pursuit to become a leading jurisdiction for digital assets. In October 2021, the Senate Select Committee on Australia as a Financial and Technology Centre provided recommendations pertaining to the regulation of cryptocurrency in Australia. Within eight weeks, the former Government agreed in principle to 11 out of 12 recommendations. As far as speed goes for policy, this was an extremely swift adoption. The former Government committed to a complete consultation on the licensing of digital currency exchanges, and a finalised consultation on the custody regime by mid-2022. In a speech to Blockchain Week in Sydney on 21 March 2022, I called for these reforms to be consolidated into a comprehensive legislative package—a Digital Services Act. On that very same day, Treasury launched a public consultation paper seeking feedback on proposals and options on licensing and custody requirements for crypto asset secondary service providers. We did this because we wanted to maintain a sophisticated debate on this topic regardless of what happened at the Federal election. We had gained traction and were well on our way to positioning Australia as a hub for digital assets. But then—the election. We lost the election, and sadly so did our ambitions to become a leading jurisdiction as measured by rules promoting both consumer protection and investment. Since Labor came to power ten months ago, they have barely shown any interest at all in digital assets. The Minister Stephen Jones said on 22 August 2022 that: "our Government is ready to start consultation with stakeholders on a framework for industry and regulators…" Six months later, in February this year, the Government finally released a pamphlet on token mapping, which has started the consultation all over again. The Government wants to start from scratch. The Senate Select Committee I chaired in 2021 was bi-partisan and the Treasury consultation was a non-partisan departmental consultation. Australia is in the midst of a race for consumer protection, capital attraction and innovation. The Albanese Government has commissioned another review rather than responding to the Treasury consultation on crypto markets and custody. At a recent inquiry into their cherry-picked tax changes for digital assets, the Treasury confirmed that the Government is years away from introducing any legislation. By commissioning more departmental reviews, the Government is trying to create the impression that it is doing something when it is not. The Government should get on with the job of producing draft legislation rather than commissioning more reviews. Our competitors are enhancing their regulatory systems while we establish endless reviews. After ten months in the job, the Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones should be prepared to make a decision which doesn't relate to his favourite vested interests. He should release a draft bill now. The draft bill should show how Australian consumers could be protected with capital requirements, key personnel tests, auditing, and disclosure. Jones and Labor are failing Australian consumers. Future failures will be on their heads. The recommendations we put out in October 2021 were largely similar to those put forward in an executive order in March by US President Joe Biden, after we released ours. So there's no argument that our recommendations don't stack up on an international level. Previously describing cryptocurrency as a scam, the Government has outlined no coherent or timely plan in this space. Meanwhile, the world is progressing forward—and we are getting left behind. In June 2022, United States Senators Cynthia Lummis and Kirsten Gillibrand introduced their Responsible Financial Innovation Act, which proposes a comprehensive set of regulations for digital asset markets, subjecting them to oversight by the CFTC and SEC. It is now March 2023, and the roadmap for reform proposed by the previous Government has obviously been abandoned by the new Labor Government. The last several months have shown that as an emerging sector, with 20% of the population owning some form of crypto, and the emergence of Central Bank Digital Currencies issued by states that do not share our liberal-democratic values, the need for consumer protection in this space is urgent. The collapse of the crypto exchange FTX in November last year has shown that measures in this space are urgently needed. In documents revealed under a Freedom of Information request I filed, we now know the Treasury has taken the adverse market conditions created by the FTX collapse as an excuse not to take urgent action. This a race—a race we must win It is a race for capital and investment in this industry and in turn, a race for our country's future and economy. As a result of the Government's failure to progress and deal with these issues, I have taken it upon myself to develop a Private Members Bill—the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023. If the Government will not act, the Parliament must force it to. I may no longer be on the Government benches, but I maintain an interest as the Chair of the Committee that recommended these changes. Waiting is not an option and Australian consumers are exposed to an unregulated market as we speak. This Bill contains a number of elements for the Parliament to consider. As foreshadowed by the 2022 Treasury Consultation Paper, this Bill includes a licensing regime which covers crypto asset secondary service providers. This is divided into three license authorisations: A Digital Asset Exchange authorisation; A Digital Asset Custody authorisation; and A Stablecoin Issuance authorisation. The rationale for this licensing structure is two fold. Firstly, by providing a rules and standards based regime, we give confidence to the consumer that risk exposure is managed, and on par with other financial services and products. Secondly, by providing regulatory certainty, this regime opens the door to greater investment and growth in Australia's crypto ecosystem and virtual economy, in a way that allows the industry to evolve and innovate without short-sighted constraint. We achieve this with the licensee provisions, developed through consultation with industry and the community: minimum capital requirements for digital asset exchanges and digital asset custody services to provide a buffer in downturn scenarios; participant conduct regulation for digital asset exchanges, and appropriate governance pertaining to activity monitoring and procedures. This is to bring the industry out of the wild-west situation it currently resides in; segregation of customer funds, to ensure that your money isn't tied up with corporate funds in the event that a digital currency exchange or custody service declares bankruptcy. Notable recent exchange failures include FTX, ACX.io, My CryptoWallet and Blockchain Global Limited, the last of which collapsed owing $21 million to consumers. Fencing off customer funds is crucial; requirements relating to cybersecurity for digital asset exchanges. Hacks of crypto exchanges constitute one of the greatest threats to consumers of digital assets, and industry standards need to be set in terms of cyber security to lock in consumer protection and confidence; disclosure requirements for digital asset exchanges, to both participants and Government agencies; and record-keeping and reporting by digital asset exchanges. For digital asset custody licensees, requirements also include designation of key persons to be based within Australia, and for proper auditing and disclosure arrangements. Under the Bill, ASIC has the responsibility for administering and enforcing the regime, and will be granted monitoring and investigative authority. It's crucial that this industry comes out of the shadows into the light of day. This Bill provides for a transitionary regime as the industry progresses and is slowly integrated into the established financial services sector. Stablecoins In terms of stablecoins, the Bill details an issuing authorisation for firms. Consider the collapse of algorithmic stablecoin Terra in the United States. Minimum reserve standards must be introduced to ensure that stablecoin issuers provide consumers with at least the minimum standard of consumer protection. It is with this in mind that the Bill contains provisions mandating that licensees hold in reserve the full amount of the face value of liabilities on issue in accounts kept with an ADI in Australia. The Lummis-Gillibrand Bill has been a useful instructor in this regard, and underlines the importance of international collaboration in setting global regulatory standards. Furthermore, the European Union's proposed Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulatory regime has contributed much to the debate, particularly around definitional issues for various digital assets. One of the key issues raised by experts in the space also revolves around managing the risks and potentially the benefits of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). CBDCs As the world moves on Central Bank Digital Currencies, Australia needs to keep up with both the risks and opportunities. In its final report in October 2021, the Committee recommended that Treasury lead a policy review into the viability of a retail Central Bank Digital Currency in Australia. On reflection, given the scale of policy reform recommendations we made, the CBDC recommendation was undercooked. I was wrong to recommend a retail CBDC without deeply considering the privacy and big state implications. There are numerous privacy issues that could outweigh the benefits and we should not have been as positive as we were. I note that the RBA has recently announced use case proposals for CBDCs as part of a live pilot with industry, which I will watch with great interest. The RBA said it was questioning whether there is really a use case for a retail CBDC in Australia, given the evolved nature of our traditional payments industry. I remain unconvinced that a central bank should be running critical economic and security policy like digital payments when their primary role is monetary policy management. As public policy makers, what we need is more information about the risks of CBDCs, and more information about their use. In an article in the South Chinese Morning Post, it was reported that Chinese Central Bank data showed that not only have 4.6 million merchant outlets accepted CBDC payments, but more than 261 million digital wallets have been opened, totaling 83 billion yuan or $12.2 billion US. This is across 23 pilot regions in China. The e-Yuan is currently in its pilot phase, and cross border payments are being trialed with the UAE, Hong Kong and Thailand. It is not currently available in Australia, but under its two-tiered approach, Chinese state-owned banks are primary disseminators of the e-Yuan via digital wallets. In the Bill, we have therefore deemed it necessary to have provisions requiring that all ADIs disclose data to ASIC and the RBA regarding the use of foreign CBDCs in Australia. In doing this, we are following a similar approach to the US, but in an expanded capacity. These Government agencies are also obliged to provide a report on this data to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and the Joint Committee on Intelligence Security. We need to closely analyse the development and expansion of the CBDCs if we are to preempt the risks of currency substitution and privacy breaches. Transparency is part of the solution. It's time to have the debate Prior to the introduction of this Bill, I have engaged in extensive consultation with stakeholders and the public on what a regulatory framework for digital assets should look like. Australians should be free to provide feedback to Parliament on the laws that we make. The Bill I have introduced today is laid out with that abiding dual purpose in mind—consumer protection and innovation. I would welcome all feedback from the community and industry as the Parliament considers this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator BRAGG 256063 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 78 DOCUMENTS South East Trawl Fishery 78 Order for the Production of Documents 78 16:32 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, by no later than 5 pm on 28 April 2023: (a) any meeting notes, consultation documents or communication between the Department for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority in relation to the South East Trawl Fishery structural adjustment package; (b) any data used in decision-making for the reduction in allowable catch for the South East Trawl Fishery; (c) any scientific advice provided in relation to the structural adjustment package; (d) any other correspondence, documentation, or meeting notes pertaining to the implementation and design of the structural adjustment package; and (e) data, scientific assessment and other relevant documentation, including maps, used for the spatial closure of the South East Trawl Fishery. Question agreed to. Great Barrier Reef 78 Order for the Production of Documents 78 16:33 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on 28 April 2023, in relation to the Great Barrier Reef and the next meeting of the UN World Heritage Committee due in September 2023 (including references to in-danger listing), any communication by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade with: (a) the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; (b) the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; and (c) Australian embassies and/or High Commissions representing Australia in World Heritage Committee member countries. Question agreed to. BILLS 78 BILLS Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 78

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023

In Committee 78 16:34 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 The committee is considering the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 and amendments (1) to (14) on sheet SK147, moved by Senator McAllister. 16:34 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I have a series of questions that I'm keen to get some clarity on from the minister, so I'm just flagging that I've a line of questioning here I would love to be able to ask. Often we do each other the courtesy of allowing that. So, Minister, if I can commence with the supplementary explanatory memorandum, which was circulated earlier today. Can I take you to paragraph 3 on page 10, which states: The intent of the updated second object of the NGER Act is to ensure that covered facilities reduce their net emissions … The updated objects now also include what we have described as a hard cap, which is covered by subsection (d). Could you please confirm that the intent of the cap in section 3(2)(d) is for real or gross emissions to be capped at the current five-year average and reduced over time? 16:35 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Waters, for the question. Yes, the intent is that net and gross emissions are reduced. So the government, as you know, has legislated our 2030 targets, and these amendments in this bill before us now apply a proportionate share of those targets to the safeguard sector. This is a budget of 1,233 million tons of emissions from 30 June 2020 to 30 June 2030 and a single year amount of 100 megatons in 2030. These are net targets, which include the use of offsets. We are also committed to reducing gross emissions overall from safeguard facilities tested on a five-year, rolling-average basis, and this bill is crucial to that task of reducing onsite emissions as it creates safeguard mechanism credits. 16:37 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thanks very much, Minister. Just on that rolling five-year average, can you advise me please what will the rolling five-year figure be for the first financial year, and can you please provide an estimate of that amount? 16:37 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Since the safeguard started, total safeguard emissions have risen by around four per cent. The current five-year average of annual emissions is around 140 megatons, noting that emissions have been down somewhat in recent years as a result of the pandemic. 16:37 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Can the minister also please clarify the other parts of that same paragraph, number 3 on page 10 of the supplementary explanatory memorandum, which states that, in order to reduce the aggregate emissions, changes to the rules shouldn't be made to reduce the number of designated facilities? Our understanding of that paragraph, and that's what I am seeking your clarity on, Minister, is that making clear that the thresholds for facilities to be covered by the scheme from 100,000 tonnes shouldn't be raised artificially to remove facilities from the scheme rather than changes to baselines or offsetting to reduce a facility's emissions. Is that correct, and can you provide an explanation of the intent of that paragraph? 16:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales In broad times, yes, that's correct. What we're saying here is that any attempt to adjust coverage thresholds in the legislative rules for the scheme to show a reduction in total emissions from all covered facilities would not be consistent with the object of the act. The object is to reduce emissions from these facilities. It is not to exclude facilities by rule changes when those emissions would still occur in Australia and contribute to our national targets. So any rules that were made for such an improper purpose would not be consistent with the rulemaking test to be implied under the bill. 16:39 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thank you, Minister. I am grateful our interpretation is correct. The proposed section 22XS(1D)(c) states that the information provided to the secretary by an agency or authority of the Commonwealth or a state or territory also needs to be considered. Can I confirm what agencies that will include. Would it include, for example, state based environmental protection agencies, NOPSEMA or Infrastructure Australia? 16:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Yes, NOPSEMA and other Commonwealth agencies and authorities would be covered, as would state based EPAs. The department already engages with a range of Commonwealth, state and territory entities on future projects and their emissions as part of collecting information for the government's inventory and projections. 16:40 Senator W 192970 Queensland ATERS (—) (): Moving topics now, Minister, can you provide a rough time line of when you expect production factors and baselines for international best practices for new entrants to be rolled out? What time frame are we talking about here? 16:40 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Waters. We will consult by mid-2023 on guidelines for how international best-practice values will be set and then consult on the setting of specific factors during the second half of 2023, with the aim of having best-practice values set by the end of 2023. The guidelines will apply to all values and we will work with stakeholders to ensure that we've prioritised necessary values. This will include considering the likely entry of new facilities across safeguard sectors to ensure all values are in place for the required 2023-24 compliance year. 16:41 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Within the confines of those time frames, which ones will you be prioritising, if you're in a position to tell me that? 16:41 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think, Senator Waters, the answer I've provided provides a principle, which is that we would work with stakeholders to identify priorities and, as part of that, we'd consider the likely entry of new facilities across safeguard sectors. 16:41 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland When do you expect new lithium or iron ore projects to come on board and how will you manage the triage process for international best practice standards? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, do you want some time? 16:42 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm just seeking advice on that latter specific question. Thank you for your patience in allowing me to seek advice. I think we expect that there may be iron ore projects coming on in that 2023-24 compliance year, and lithium in the 2024-25 compliance year. That is the advice at this stage, but, as indicated, we would work with stakeholders and it may be that there is other, or different, information available to us. 16:42 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move now to offset methodologies. With the pausing of the human induced regeneration, or HIR, projects, how many existing projects does this affect? 16:42 Senator McALL 121628 New South Wales ISTER (—) (): Thank you very much, Senator Waters. The government, as you know, is committed to implementing recommendation 8 of the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units in full. That would be done by the Clean Energy Regulator, consistent with the review's recommendation that the CER should continue to be responsible for project monitoring, compliance and enforcement. As Professor Chubb noted in his recent statement, 'Where projects do not meet the requirements of the method or of the scheme, the Clean Energy Regulator has the processes and the authority to act, to make adjustments to projects, to restratify CEAs, to pause credits or to cancel projects.' Professor Chubb also noted in that statement that the CER can, and does, use existing provisions to address project noncompliance. The government will direct the Clean Energy Regulator not to issue future credits to human induced regeneration projects until the regulator is satisfied that the project complies with recommendation 8 of the review. The government will also direct the regulator to prioritise the integrity of these projects by appointing independent auditors in relation to human induced regeneration project gateway reviews. That would be under section 215 of the existing act. These checks would ensure that vegetation in the project area is growing as expected and as required by the method and the Carbon Farming Initiative, or CFI, rule. Senator Waters, you asked how many existing projects this affects. It is as many as 371, but we have no reason to believe these projects aren't in compliance with the criteria set out in recommendation 8. In a strict answer to your question, it is 371. 16:45 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thank you very much, Minister. I've got a series of more detailed questions; your head answer there has alluded to some of them. How long do you expect it will take for those projects to meet the higher standards laid down in the Chubb review, noting your commitment to implement rec 8 there? 16:45 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The way the scheme works at the moment is that a registered project—and I hope that I have my terminology entirely correct; I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong—approaches the CER at various points in time to seek crediting based on the activities that have been undertaken. It's anticipated that that compliance check we've been referring to in this most recent of exchanges would occur at that point in time. It's a little dependent, therefore, on the way those project proponents come forward and approach the CER. 16:46 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland When will the updated HIR methodology be completed? 16:46 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think this is a question of terminology but the agreement is to implement recommendation 8 of the Chubb review. That doesn't ask for a revision of the methodology; it provides guidance about how the method should be interpreted. I think you'll know that the recommendation goes through three points: The method should be interpreted as requiring: evidence of a causal relationship between the nominated eligible HIR activity or activities and the dominant suppression mechanism(s) that occurred through the entirety of the baseline period; demonstration that these suppressors are directly addressed by the HIR activity or activities throughout the life of the project; and demonstration that the application of FullCAM is consistent with the guidelines. The process I've described will see those principles applied at the point in time that project proponents come to the Clean Energy Regulator seeking to have their credits allocated. 16:47 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Just to clarify—I think you answered this earlier: does the minister have the power to cancel ineligible projects or is that all up to the CER? 16:48 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think our view would be that the Clean Energy Regulator can and does use existing provisions to address project noncompliance, and that is the approach we would expect. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 Just before I give you the call, Senator Waters: I intend to move around the chamber but we'll stick with you for a little bit longer. 16:48 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thanks very much, Chair; I appreciate that. It is good to get these questions answered. Just to clarify: does the minister technically have the power to do it? 16:48 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Not at an individual project level. 16:48 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland There have been accusations that the CER have misapplied the methodology and that HIR projects are occurring in places where even aged forests never existed or weren't cleared. How will the government ensure the CER is acting to ensure the genuine integrity of ACCUs rather than trying to protect its own reputation if it did, in fact, originally misapply the methodology? 16:49 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Recommendation 8 of the Chubb review sets out some very clear expectations in relation to the CER's work. It provides, I think, helpful guidance about the interpretation of the method and what would be required. It also indicates that the CER should, as soon as feasible, include nominated suppression mechanisms and eligible HIR activities for new and existing projects on the project register. We are confident that the CER is in a position to implement the recommendation and we expect them to do so. 16:50 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Ministerial directions to the CER, I understand, have to be general in nature under the act. How will you ensure an integrity of assessment at the project level, rather than at that higher methodological level? 16:50 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This is a question of governance. We trust the CER to undertake its work. We will of course provide general direction about our expectations, but we have confidence in the CER to implement these recommendations at project level. 16:50 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Can I move now to the Powering the Regions Fund. I note that its specific use for safeguard facilities has been increased from $600 million to $1 billion. How much of this has already been allocated, and to whom have those allocations been provided? 16:51 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I am advised that the safeguard transformation stream will provide dedicated funding for projects that reduce emissions at safeguard facilities that are trade exposed, but that has not started yet, so the answer to your narrow question is none. 16:51 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Will they be large grants or a series of smaller grants, or is that yet to be determined? 16:51 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Perhaps I can provide some background about the safeguard transformation stream. It will provide dedicated funding for projects that reduce emissions at facilities that are trade exposed. It will support projects that reduce emissions covered by the safeguard mechanism, i.e. the eligible facility scope 1 emissions. It's intended to be technology and project neutral. It could support a range of project types like energy efficiency upgrades, shifts to lower carbon processes or fuel switching. Funding through this stream would reduce the capital costs for safeguard facilities to invest in new low-emission technologies and then fast track their adoption. By reducing safeguard facilities covered emissions it can reduce the ongoing cost for trade exposed facilities to meet their falling baselines. As you have alluded to in your question, another $400 million has been announced for industries providing critical inputs to clean energy industries, including steel, cement, lime and aluminium and alumina. There are no program guidelines yet established for these programs. They will be developed in the coming months. The delivery vehicle will also be considered in the context of the budget. 16:53 Senator WATER 192970 Queensland S (—) (): In relation to the delivery vehicle, noting that you've said that will be considered in the context of the budget, I'm interested in whether it's been decided whether ARENA would receive any of this money to distribute, or whether it will be run through the Grants Hub? 16:53 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales You're right that ARENA already plays a very important role in innovation and renewable energy, electrification and energy efficiency, but, as per my earlier answer, it's yet to be determined. 16:53 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Can I clarify whether the purpose will be to drive co-investment in upgrades using existing technologies, or is it more to push the boundaries of commercial deployment? 16:54 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The answer is a mix, dependent on the applicant and the circumstances they are facing. Largely co-investment, but there may be circumstances when another approach is suitable. 16:54 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland This is my final line of questioning. Something like 17 Hunter Valley coalmines are scheduled to close in the next decade, but it's anticipated that the vast majority of them will seek extensions of time but possibly at lower rates of production. Most extensions are controlled actions under the EPBC Act when it's an expansion, but my question pertains to extensions in time. Given that they're extensions in time rather than in scope, and given that they're likely to have lower scope 1 emissions than the 100,000 trigger—even though emissions from the whole project will still be over the trigger—I want to know how those coalmine time extensions will be treated by the pollution trigger under the safeguard mechanism. 16:55 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Waters. If it is already a safeguard facility and an additional action which is likely to result in increased scope 1 emissions is approved under the EPBC Act, the minister responsible for the EPBC Act will notify the minister for climate change, the climate change secretary and the Climate Change Authority of the nature of this change and the quantum relating to the action. That would then allow each of those people or bodies to carry out their functions in relation to compliance with the emissions requirements and the objects of the act. 16:56 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland There is just one point of clarification there. Thank you; I understand that process. But I'm interested in what will happen when the scenario is an extension of time of an existing facility which would emit scope 1 emissions below the threshold, despite applying to a project that is cumulatively above the threshold and ergo is covered by the safeguard mechanism. I don't know how the EPBC Act would treat that, because it's not an expansion in scope; it's an extension of time with a reduced production output. So I'm interested in how those extensions would be treated by the hard cap and by the pollution trigger in the safeguard mechanism. 16:57 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think it's difficult to provide a clear response in relation to that scenario, because it would be a little bit dependent on a number of things, including the nature of any regulatory interactions it had with the state EPA, perhaps, or with the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act. I think that, in the circumstances described in your question, it would be quite dependent on the Minister for the Environment at the time. I'm happy to seek further information for you, but it's quite a specific circumstance, and I'll have to make inquiries. 16:58 Sen 192970 Queensland ator WATERS (—) (): Thank you, Minister. I gratefully take you up on that offer. I understand there'll be interactions with EPBC regulations there, and I don't already know the answer to that, so I would be grateful to you for coming back to me when you've got that information. 16:58 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Before we were interrupted by all of the other proceedings of the Senate, I asked a couple of questions about modelling and particularly about what analysis or modelling had been done on the amendments that had been agreed to by the government, or indeed introduced by the government, as a result of the broad conversations that occurred in the intervening period. Obviously, I remain interested in understanding exactly what level of work and in-depth analysis and modelling has occurred, because, as the minister said, a lot of work went into developing these policies and these laws post election, so it would be horrible to see this whole thing derailed by something that hasn't been analysed properly or thoroughly. 16:59 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Duniam. I think there is an underlying premise in your question: that the amendments before the chamber today substantially depart from the model that was presented earlier. In truth, as we've been very clear about in our public commentary on the process we were going through, we have been willing to take helpful suggestions that strengthen the policy intent and the implementation arrangements for the proposal we took forward. We think that the additional reforms that are before us today in the form of amendments are sensible. They provide arrangements in relation to transparency and certainty in the operation of the mechanism. But the fundamental analysis is as I have already described it to you. There was, as has been discussed at estimates and in the committee process for this bill, some modelling work that was undertaken around opportunities for onsite abatement on facilities. There has also been very broad consultation over a very long period of time with a very broad range of people. I do note that a broad coalition of business leaders and groups support the reforms, principally because they provide policy and investment certainty for large emitters. It's also the case, and it has been widely noted, that around 170 facilities already covered by the safeguard mechanism are already covered by net zero commitments that they have made in response to other drivers in their businesses. That represents 86 per cent of scheme emissions, and a third of the publicly listed companies that are in safeguard facilities use an internal carbon price for investment decisions, with half using a price of more than $100 a tonne. These things are already part of business decision-making, and the feedback that we have has been overwhelmingly supportive of the approach. In part that is because the proposed reforms have been designed to provide sufficient flexibility to moderate and mitigate any cost impact. I point to three features of the scheme: the hybrid approach to setting baselines moderates the initial scheme impact while encouraging production to occur where it's less emissions intensive, which lowers the overall economywide cost; there are flexible compliance options, including borrowing, multi-year monitoring and the use of domestic offsets which will help safeguard facilities meet their obligations at a lower cost; and, as we have just been discussing in relation to the Powering the Regions Fund, assistance will be available to ensure businesses are not competitively disadvantaged. I make this final point: there are costs that arise from inaction, and so, without a credible domestic policy to reduce industrial emissions, Australia's exports may increasingly be subject to import tariffs or to carbon border adjustments imposed by our trade partners. As I think former Treasurer Frydenberg said rather publicly, Australian businesses may also face increased capital costs in an environment where global financial institutions and decision-makers are taking coordinated steps to align investment with the transition to net zero. 17:02 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I appreciate that response, although, whether changes are significant or small, this is a significant piece of legislation which will have significant impacts on the economy. If we are to take the government at their word, it's changing the landscape and providing certainty et cetera. To that end, beyond what had been done for the existing legislation—the consultation and analysis that you referred to—surely the government has sought to understand what impact the changes, be they large or small, will have on business so that they can provide that certainty. We received the amendments this morning with the supplementary explanatory memorandum, so, on that basis, to satisfy myself that what you're saying, that it will be all okay, is correct, I would be interested in knowing what modelling has happened. You referred to the cost of not doing anything. Has there been any analysis or quantification of those costs with regard to sea bans or other important tariffs? Do you have any examples of the costs that might be imposed on any particular industry that you could enlighten us with? 17:04 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales In my answer just now I stepped through the approach that the government has taken. There has been some modelling undertaken internally between the department and the Treasury. There has been a design process which has sought to provide flexibility to mitigate the cost impacts. There has been wide consultation to properly understand businesses' circumstances and the way that the proposal would interact with existing businesses covered by the mechanism. As I've indicated, there are potential costs of inaction, and they were alluded to by a former Treasurer in a government that you were part of. If I have any specific information about that I will provide that to you. But I think it is certainly the case that there is a global move towards investors making quite substantial requirements in relation to decarbonisation, and Australian businesses are not immune from that. 17:05 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I appreciate that. What you did step us through was all of the work to the completion of the bill as it was presented, prior to any changes, and I appreciate that. I've talked about the fact that that appears to be a very in-depth and thorough process. What I was asking about was everything from that point in time to the end product, such as the changes we have here that have been asked about by the Greens. I think you're telling me that, as its the government's opinion that they're not significant departures from what was there, there has been no modelling undertaken. You said there was no capacity to provide information borne out of modelling or analysis around costs to businesses relating to any of the changes to the bill that have brought forward through these negotiations. I'd be interested to have that compare and contrast with the cost of inaction. You referred to former treasurer Frydenberg's contribution to the public debate on this. What are those figures? It should be a like-for-like thing, particularly with the various international agreements we are reaching, the trade arrangements. There must be some capacity for you to step us through what the cost of not doing something is, compared to doing what this bill proposes to do. 17:06 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think I have largely answered most of the questions that you've just put to me again, and I don't think I can add to the answers I've already provided. I will draw your attention to the government's decision to initiate a review to examine CBAM arrangements, and that's precisely because we need this sort of information to make good public policy decisions in the Australian context. 17:07 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Minister, I know Senator Duniam has asked something similar—and you have gone through a time line, so you might be able to do this quickly—but can you confirm when the government commenced consultation on the safeguard mechanism reforms? I know you ran through a time line before. 17:07 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I have run through this before, and I'm not sure what value there is in asking me questions that I've already answered in the committee. 17:07 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I'll consult with Senator Duniam. I want to know if the consultation is continuing, even though the safeguard mechanism crediting bill has already been put through the House of Representatives—and the fact that we only got the amendments this morning. 17:08 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government is in very regular communication with business about a whole range of matters, and I don't expect that to change. 17:08 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Perhaps you could inform us: what are the issues that businesses are raising in these consultations, with particular reference to the safeguard mechanism? 17:08 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales It's simply not possible to run through all of the matters that are canvassed between departments and business. However, I can point you to some of the public information that business has provided. For example, the Business Council of Australia has said: Additional support for trade exposed businesses and workers as well as critical sovereign capabilities is a crucial step that will help save jobs and ensure Australian businesses are competing on the global stage. As designed the Safeguard Mechanism and its baseline targets are tough but achievable … … Australia needs a credible, durable framework to reach its climate targets and grow the economy. The Ai Group says: The treatment of new facilities appears to strike a workable balance, providing pathways for new projects that stack up to go ahead without adding to burdens on existing facilities or threatening national emissions goals. The Investor Group on Climate Change have indicated: The reforms will help to unlock investment in the new and existing industries that will maximise Australia's competitive advantages in a net zero world. They are obviously some of the peak bodies. BP has said: bp reaffirms its support for reforms to the safeguard mechanism to provide incentives for large emitters to reduce their emissions in support of Australia's emission reduction targets. We support the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change and believe ambitious climate policies, like the safeguard mechanism reforms, will be essential to enable the world and Australia to meet these goals. We look forward to working with the government as the reforms are finalised. Rio Tinto says: Rio Tinto supports the use of a reformed Safeguard Mechanism as part of a suite of policy measures to incentivise genuine industrial abatement. The Aluminium Council says: The focus of policy design for Safeguard Mechanism should be on establishing a framework to maintain industry, jobs and competitiveness while also decarbonising, through the period to 2030 and beyond to achieve net zero by 2050. The success of this policy will not be measured in 2030 alone, but in the transformation of Australia's industry in the biggest clean industrial and economic revolution this country has seen. 17:11 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Minister, with regard to specific businesses as opposed to industry associations or groups, have any of the 215 businesses indicated that they cannot achieve the imposed 4.9 per cent annual reduction to the emissions baseline? Specific companies? 17:11 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Implicit in your question, Senator Hughes, is an expectation that all businesses will be required to reduce by 4.9 per cent. We have been through a long process of consultation, and amongst the changes that Minister Bowen announced recently were changes to the threshold that would allow emissions-intensive, trade exposed industries to access a—how shall I characterise it?—less ambitious decline pathway in recognition of their significance and the challenges for those businesses in meeting that pathway. 17:12 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Minister, maybe for my benefit, have any businesses suggested that they will not be able to achieve the emissions reduction that has been set for them, even if it is less than 4.9 per cent? Are they struggling? Have they said to you that they will struggle to achieve that, regardless of what the figure is that you will set for them? 17:13 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I have indicated, the changes announced by Minister Bowen just a couple of days ago were in response to representations particularly from the manufacturing sector. Those changes involve a number of things, the most significant of which, perhaps, is a change to the test that applies to establish whether they are requiring some kind of concession in the targets that are applied to them. It is an example of the consultation process and working through the issues. We are very determined to truly understand the businesses that are covered within the safeguard mechanism. One feature of this mechanism is that it does cover hard-to-abate sectors and it needs to be designed in such a way as to provide incentives for those sectors to start the transformation that's critical for their long-term competitiveness, but also in recognition of the technologies that are available to them at this point in time. 17:14 Senator HUGH 273828 New South Wales ES () (): We might keep moving on. Can I just point out that I did ask for specific businesses rather than sectors or industry groups or associations or anyone representing manufacturing, mining et cetera—any specific businesses. Perhaps you can come back to us if there are any specific businesses that have suggested they will struggle to meet whatever is the imposed figure for them to reduce emissions by. Senator Duniam asked some questions this morning around modelling that had been conducted and commissioned. I noted that you said that Treasury had done no modelling of the economy-wide impact of this policy. Who did what modelling on what, where? So, if Treasury didn't do it on industry-wide or economy-wide—without giving us the modelling, what modelling has been done and by whom? 17:15 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Hughes, I have answered this already on several occasions during this debate. It's also been answered in estimates and it has also been answered during the committee inquiry into this bill. I'm going to repeat it, but I know that you were present in the discussions of this on previous occasions. I'll repeat the answer for you on this occasion, but I do question your motivation in continuing to ask. 17:15 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales If I can just help clarify, I have been in estimates and I've been here, and what we've been told is who hasn't done modelling on what specifically. We still don't know what modelling has been done, by who, on what. Any question we ask, such as: has Treasury done modelling on what the impact is going to be on GDP? Has Treasury done impact on what job losses may occur? Has any modelling been done by anyone—DCCEEW and Treasury? All have said, 'No.' So we've been told what modelling hasn't been done, but I'm trying to understand what modelling has been done, because we have not been told anything in the affirmative, only who hasn't done what. 17:16 Senator McALLISTE 121628 New South Wales R (—) (): Senator, that is incorrect, but I'll tell you again. As I indicated earlier to Senator Duniam, economy-wide modelling was not undertaken. The Treasury and department jointly undertook analysis of the potential for onsite abatement at safeguarded facilities and on implications for the domestic carbon market. 17:17 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The point is well made about what we don't know, so we'll just move on from that and hope that things aren't as bad as we predict they will be. In a moment, I'll come to some of the comments of some of the groups out there that are expressing fear about this. I'm interested in this issue of modelling around analysis for demand for ACCUs. While we're thinking about that, I'd also be interested in how the carbon price being set here in this legislation compares to the carbon price that Australia's trading partners have as well as the carbon price in other developed nations. On that, I think it's important to put on record some of the comments that have been made by entities like the Australian Pipelines and Gas Association's chief executive, Steve Davies, who said: … there are questions over whether the flow-on effects of any additional restrictions on gas supply will be borne by Australian households and businesses who are already facing major increases to energy bills due to the transition. The CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andrew McKellar, said: The fundamental test for the safeguard mechanism is whether it supplies secure and affordable energy for households and business. He also pointed to the fact that, as he said: AEMO already expects a shortfall which will worsen if new gas production doesn't progress. …   …   … The fact of the matter is that gas will be essential to our energy system in the years ahead. But there is a risk that energy supply will be choked off before alternative sources are available, threatening reliability and driving up electricity prices. I've got a range more that I'm sure I'll be able to put on record before we conclude debate on this bill, but these are the reasons we're asking these questions, seeking certainty. It's not for no reason or for spurious political games. It is because there are entities, individuals, businesses, households and communities who all have concerns about what this could mean. I asked two questions just before, which were about analysis for demand of ACCUs and how our proposed price compares to the price of Australia's trading partners and other developed nations. 17:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I've indicated to you that the department and Treasury jointly undertook analysis on the potential for onsite abatement and implications for the domestic carbon market. We have spoken at length about the fact that that analysis is cabinet-in-confidence. It is also price-sensitive information, because the Commonwealth is the largest purchaser of ACCUs. This is a matter that has been canvassed on many occasions. In relation to trading partners and pricing, I don't know that I have pricing before me but it is the case that many of our trading partners are on a similar journey to us. I will see what I have before me. 17:20 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania In the period while the minister seeks that information, which I think is quite important for Australia to understand, how we stand in this internationally competitive, globally competitive, market when it comes to carbon: Are we pricing ourselves out of the market? Are we making it more expensive for business to operate here because we've set a price higher than others? I thought the minister might be able to tell us that pretty straightforward information, when it comes to our trading partners. Now that you've had a bit of time, you might be able to give me a dollar figure or a couple of examples. I was impressed with your clarity and straightforward ability to answer Senator Waters' questions. Perhaps we might have the same here. 17:21 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm advised that the European price is $145. I was looking for some additional information, which I know is in my folder somewhere—in the depths of it—and it runs through a range of obligations that have been adopted by many of the countries that we trade with. When I find it, I will let you know. 17:21 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I know you will, Minister. I'll happily receive that when it comes through, because it is an important part of the consideration here. We operate as part of a global economy. We have global environmental obligations. I want to make sure what we do fits in and doesn't unfairly penalise us. On that basis, as you look for a bit more of that information, I wonder if you might be able to enlighten the Senate as to how the $75 price cap was determined and what role DCCEEW had in setting that price, and—I think the answer might be yes to this—was there a direct consultation between Treasury and DCCEEW on the setting of the $75 carbon price? On that, we might look to explain the difference between the price outlined in the Powering Australia policy document and where the government has landed with what is proposed here. 17:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I've indicated, the Treasury undertook modelling with the department to understand the likely impact on the carbon market, and that informed a range of features of the design. The current market price, I think, is between $37 for an ACCU. The government considered that $75 represented a reasonable price cap. Business certainly was keen to see some kind of cost containment measure, and this was the figure that was arrived at. 17:24 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Just to clarify, are you saying it's the modelling that is subject to cabinet-in-confidence and contains market sensitive information that informed the price cap and, therefore, you can give us no further information? Is that what I am to believe you're saying? 17:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales There are a range of inputs to this, including the consultation process we went through. We have stepped through that extensively, and other forms of analysis that were put before the government, and ultimately this was a decision of government. 17:24 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania On that basis, it being a decision of government, I wonder if a range of processes, a range of inputs, the consultation—it's a pretty significant decision to reach. What role did DCCEEW have in setting this price? That was the question I asked before. 17:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales DCCEEW provides advice to the minister. 17:25 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'll just accept that. Can we then look to the dollar amount for the penalty for emissions over the baseline, which I understand to be $275 a tonne. How was that figure arrived at? 17:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The existing scheme, which operated under your government, also has a penalty for noncompliance, and it's linked to the standard penalty units that are present in the Commonwealth framework. Essentially, the penalty is a penalty that would be paid for noncompliance. We expect that most businesses will want to comply. The cost containment measure is a far more likely pathway for a business that is seeking to avail itself of ACCUs for compliance than the penalty; however, it is important that a penalty for noncompliance exists. I will note, however, that the safeguard mechanism so far has had 100 per cent compliance. 17:26 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania There are some significant differences between what's in place now and what's proposed here, particularly with regard to penalties, noncompliance and enforced baselines. How is the $275 that's proposed linked to what's in place now? 17:26 Senator 121628 New South Wales McALLISTER (—) (): You might need to clarify the question. What is it that you're seeking to understand? 17:26 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My original question was how the government determined the $275 penalty and has proceeded with that. In your first answer to me you indicated that there are penalties in place now, and I inferred that there was some link between what's in place now and what's proposed. I was seeking to explore that point. 17:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I understand. It's not so much that it's linked to but how it compares with the existing arrangements. Essentially, the bill updates the arrangements for a civil penalty that a facility would incur if its net emissions were higher than permitted. That would be described as an excess emissions situation. As you'd understand, excess emissions could impact our climate outcomes, so the penalty should be proportional both to the length of delay in meeting the requirements and, importantly, the quantity of excess emissions. Previously, the penalty for an excess emissions situation depended only on the duration, not on the relevant quantity. 17:28 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Do you know what the current penalty rate is for noncompliance? 17:28 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales At the time the bill was introduced a penalty unit was $222, and in November 2022 the parliament passed the Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2022, which updated the value of a penalty unit to $275 from 1 January 2023. The maximum civil penalty will be set at one penalty unit per tonne of excess emissions every year. I am trying to seek information—staff very helpfully point out that this is set out in the EM, which says it: differs to the existing penalty that is set in the NGER Regulations, which for a non-individual is 100 penalty units for each day in an excess emissions situation, up to a maximum of 10,000 penalty units. For an individual, the existing penalty is 20 per cent of this amount— noting that no covered facilities are individuals. There needs to be a degree of proportionality between the seriousness of the contravention and the quantum of the penalty; I've explained that. The EM says: The level of the maximum penalty, being set at 1 penalty unit per tonne carbon dioxide equivalent of excess emissions, is intended to be commensurate with the adverse economic impacts of climate change, now and in the future … 17:29 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania If a facility exceeds its baseline and can't access ACCUs—and it certainly won't be in possession of SMCs—they then have to pay a penalty. Does the payment of that penalty extinguish any liability for being over the baseline in perpetuity or is it for that calendar year—or does it not do that at all and they remain in a position where they need to rectify this breach by meeting the baseline? 17:30 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think that question misunderstands the far more likely choice of a business that found itself in that scenario. A business that was unable to meet its baseline and was unable to secure ACCUs in the private market, under the cost containment measure would secure ACCUs from the government at that cost containment cap of $75. 17:30 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania So there is a guarantee that no business will ever be in a situation where they can't access ACCUs under this cost containment measure? 17:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government intends to make available ACCUs at that price, and that will be set out in the rules. 17:31 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'm just trying to understand this. Obviously I agree with you that no businesses want to continue to be in the situation where they are exposed to such a liability, with the penalty being $275 per tonne per year. If they can't access ACCUs in the ordinary way, you're saying there is a facility available through the cost containment measure through the government's ACCUs—if I understand correctly—and on that basis no business will ever face the penalty. Is that right? 17:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I don't wish to speculate on all of the circumstances, but you can imagine a circumstance where a business wilfully did not comply. Under those circumstances—for whatever reason they do not seek to access the cost containment measure—it would be important that a penalty was in place for such noncompliance. 17:32 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania That sounds to me that there's almost an intent component in the assessment of whether a penalty is applied or not. We talked about wilful noncompliance with the baseline. My simple understanding of this is that the business is in breach because it can't meet the baseline—the 4.9 per cent per year through to 2030—and it can't access offsets because the market may not have them available. The new piece of information to my mind is that the government is going to make available capacity to cover any business that can't find them elsewhere, which to my mind says that there will be no-one paying the penalty unless, as you said, they are wilfully in breach, which talks to almost some sort of criminal mental intent. If you could just explain that, I'd be grateful. 17:33 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Duniam, I was trying to provide a plain example of the circumstances that you described and how that might come about. Ultimately a decision about whether to find a business in breach would be a decision for the regulator, and they would step through a series of processes. However, to date compliance with the safeguard mechanism has been 100 per cent. It's not our expectation that covered facilities or covered entities wish to do anything else but comply. All of the design features of the scheme were designed with close consultation with the regulated community to create circumstances where they can comply, and the cost containment measure is part of that, as are the borrowing arrangements that would allow an entity to borrow some of their future entitlements within a five-year period and also the trading arrangements that would allow them to purchase safeguard credits from other participants in the safeguard mechanism. 17:34 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Have Treasury made any estimations—or are they as part of the budget process—of how much revenue might be obtained through this penalty arrangement? 17:34 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The assessment is 'none' because, as I have indicated to you, the historical experience is that there has been 100 per cent compliance. I do have some additional information about how a penalty would be imposed in a more tactical way. It is not an automatic penalty; it is the maximum penalty that can be imposed by a court: … the amount of any penalty imposed for a breach will be decided by the court taking into account relevant matters prescribed by subsection 31(4) of the NGER Act, including 'the nature and extent of the contravention', 'the circumstances in which the contravention took place' and 'whether the person has previously been found by the Court in proceedings under this Act to have engaged in any similar conduct'. 17:35 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania So there's a degree of discretion. Obviously, there's a framework for decision-making for the regulator to view these matters through, and they step through a decision-making process. You're telling me that, if you're in breach and you can't get your offsets, one way or the other, you don't automatically get a penalty. That is an important difference. I wasn't aware of that. Are you projecting no revenue based purely on historical experience or because you believe the framework for decision-making will ameliorate the need to impose penalties in the future? 17:36 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The way that you framed that circumstance doesn't accurately reflect the options that are available to a scheme participant. The cost containment measure means that, if it was not possible for that business, for whatever reason, to find ACCUs in a market environment, they would be able to purchase them from the government. 17:36 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I might have a bit more on that down the track, and I'm sure Senator Hughes will as well. In terms of the industries and sectors that are hard to abate, is there a prescribed list or is there some sort of methodology that sets out a threshold by which they can be included as hard to abate? I'm interested in who is included in the concessions and carve-outs. 17:37 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Perhaps I can answer your question in a slightly different way. The scheme contemplates trade exposed entities that are baseline adjusted. Whether or not an entity qualifies for that second category is dependent on the cost of compliance and what proportion of business revenue—or EBIT for manufacturing businesses—it is. The second pathway was the change to the proposed rules that was announced on Monday as a consequence of the consultation with industry that has been going on for many months. 17:38 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania So trade exposed industries would include cement, I presume. Could you list for me the trade exposed industries we're dealing with, either by facility or by sector/industry? That would be helpful. 17:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm advised that it is listed in the draft rules and is expressed as part of the production variable. 17:39 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Where one can obtain draft rules from? 17:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales They were released in January, along with the consultation paper that describes the effect of those rules. 17:39 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Are you able to table that for me? I don't have a copy here, and we don't have that long. You could read them out if there aren't many. 17:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales They are on the internet. I have googled them on more than one occasion. This is just one page from a quite lengthy document, so I'm not sure that it will really assist you in the way that you hope. 17:40 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I can guess them. I have my staff googling it for me now. Are cement, aluminium and steel included? 17:40 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Cement, aluminium and steel are included. 17:40 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Is fertiliser manufacturing included? 17:40 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Ammonium nitrate is included. 17:40 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania How many more are on that list? 17:40 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales On this page there are 32, but I understand there is more on the following page. It extends to 65 in total. 17:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Thank you for that. I will be in possession of that list shortly, I am sure, which is helpful. I don't know where I was in January—probably on holiday. But we're not now, and we'll be going through this in some detail. So there are 32 industries? 17:41 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I indicated, I failed to turn the page. There are 63 production variables that are indicated as trade exposed in schedule 2. 17:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Thank you for that. So that's the draft rules. Is it projected that any will come on or go off as part of what has been happening to this point? 17:42 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales No. But, as a consequence of the change announced by Minister Bowen earlier in the week, there will be additional information provided to define those trade exposed activities that are defined as manufacturing activities. It's that category that will allow those entities to have access to the differentiated test for whether or not they should be eligible for an adjustment to their baseline. 17:42 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'd be interested to know what the differentiated test actually involves, if you could run me through that. Is the end result, the adjusted baseline, subjective? Is it going to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, or once you meet this test you then get an adjusted baseline which is X per cent as opposed to 4.9 per cent? 17:43 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales You asked two questions, I think, there. Trade exposed baseline adjusted—perhaps I can take you through all of it. It is the subset of trade exposed facilities that can demonstrate that their costs are above a specified threshold. Facilities will have a different framework depending on whether the facility is manufacturing or non-manufacturing, which is why I made reference to the need to make such a determination in the rule. That differential treatment between manufacturing and non-manufacturing reflects stakeholder feedback on the differences between the two in terms of their margins and their capital intensity. For non-manufacturing, the proposed threshold will be based on scheme cost as a percentage of facility revenue. As a I indicated for manufacturing, the proposed threshold will be based on scheme cost as a percentage of facility EBIT. That simply reflects the differences in the way that these businesses are organised. Either way, trade exposed baseline adjusted facilities can apply for a lower baseline decline rate. The policy rationale for that is that these facilities face concentrated impacts under the scheme and present a genuine risk of carbon leakage. So the minimum baseline reduction for non-manufacturing activities will be two per cent, and it will be one per cent for manufacturing. That baseline would be locked in for three years. 17:45 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania You said 'minimum', so there's a chance that after this work is done they might find themselves in receipt of an adjusted baseline decline of somewhere between 4.9 and one or two, and for three years. At what point in time in that three-year cycle do they then engage in a reassessment, for certainty's sake, about what comes after the end of that three-year period on the rate? 17:45 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales There's two questions there. Yes, it is a sliding scale which operates between the standardised expectation of reductions of 4.9 per cent and the minimum of either two or one depending on the category and entity that we're talking about. You asked about the means by which that baseline would be established. Each year the facility would apply, so it would have a forward baseline established for the forward three years, but that would be reassessed the following year, if they wish to. 17:46 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales In my speech on the second reading and also on NRF I have spoken about my concerns around a specific company, Orica, and their ammonium nitrate production. You've just mentioned that ammonium nitrate is now a carve-out. My understanding is, taking some time so there can be conversation, that Orica may have been in discussions with the government and received some sort of carve-out on the understanding that with some grandfathered contracts to 2029 there may be a carve-out in this form, or some other legislation or delegated legislation to come. Could you tell me how that might come about, what form that is in, and how we could give certainty for that investment decision into Gladstone if that is the case? 17:47 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Cadell. I was aware of your interest in Orica. My understanding is that the government has been in discussions with Orica about their particular circumstances and, having reviewed the contractual arrangements that are in place for them, has indicated that it will be possible to grandfather that arrangement due to the existing contractual circumstances and their arrangements with the government. 17:47 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Thank you very much. That will be wonderful for the people of Gladstone as well as Newcastle. Are there many other businesses that are in a similar position in the manufacturing space, or is this pretty much a one-off? 17:48 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The advice I have is that no others have contracts beyond two years, so Orica was in a relatively unique situation. 17:48 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania On further support for the trade exposed industries, you have referenced before, Minister, in providing flexibility and additional support for industry, the target funding of at least $1 billion in funding for the manufacturing sector through the Powering the Regions Fund, including the $400 million for industries providing critical inputs to clean energy industries, including steel, cement, lime, aluminium, alumina, in addition to both the $600 million safeguard transformation stream and other funding pools including the NRF, CEFC and ARENA. Firstly, could you indicate how the quantum of $400 million was arrived at, and also in the case of the $600 million for the safeguard transformation stream? 17:49 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Both of these, of course, are a decision of government. The $600 million was announced in January as a consequence of consultations. As I have indicated on many occasions throughout this debate, we have been in very close consultation with covered sectors. The additional resources, the $400 million announced recently, is again as a consequence of those discussions with stakeholders and their articulation of what would be required to support them through this transition. 17:49 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania On consultation with stakeholders and industry groups, I understand there is at least one manufacturing business that indicated that $600 million wouldn't be enough and that $6 billion was a closer figure for what would be necessary to support a transition. Is the government satisfied that that amount of money is going to adequately support these businesses that are trade exposed to be able to get to where they want to be? 17:50 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Just yesterday this chamber finished debate on the National Reconstruction Fund, which, as I recall, you opposed. The government is very firm in its commitment to establish arrangements to support manufacturing and industrial activity. The safeguard mechanism is part of that. It is about providing the certainty that is necessary for those businesses to make the necessary investments to remain competitive in a world that is decarbonising. The National Reconstruction Fund is part of that. It is about providing resources to ensure that we continue to be a country that makes things—and, frankly, makes more things than we do at the moment. The Powering the Regions Fund, more broadly, is designed to provide support for the transition, and notwithstanding the specific allocations for safeguard facilities, safeguard facilities will also be eligible to apply for the other resources in the Powering the Regions Fund. 17:52 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I referenced one business, Rio, who indicated that $6 billion seemed to be something more adequate than $600 million. If you do your maths, they're indicating that $1 in every $10 required to be spent on the transition is going to be a significant impost on business to be able to make the transition. I wonder whether that sort of feedback, as part of this very broad consultation which has taken in the views of stakeholders, was considered as part of what government looked at as it moved into setting up these funds? If you could indicate to me whether that impost on business—$9 out of every $10 coming from a business to be able to transition, as opposed to $1 out of every $10 being the support from government to get to where the government and the world want them to be—has been factored in and, indeed, whether there is any assurance that a lack of support isn't going to result in a reduction in investment, a loss of jobs, the passing on of costs to consumers. Those sorts of things are what we're concerned about here, and based on the feedback of one significant employer, one significant contributor to our economy, it sounds like there are going to be some big costs. 17:53 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales We have been very grateful for the engagement with Rio Tinto. I do note that Rio Tinto, prior to any obligation imposed by the safeguard mechanism, have their own commitment to net zero by 2050, and that's a commitment that they've made to their shareholders and investors. More broadly, can I just bring a sense of reality to this debate. We have gone through 10 years where the business environment for many of these businesses was terribly uncertain as a consequence of your government's—the previous government's—inability to land a climate policy or an energy policy. I well remember the many Senate inquiries that I attended when these same businesses came before us and said that what they desperately wanted was certainty and that was the thing that would unlock the investment that you're speaking about. For example, I remember when Energy Users Association of Australia said: We have identified five specific areas of concern that have contributed to the current perilous situation being: …   …   … 2. A dysfunctional political environment that has dramatically increased the risk associated with investment. That is what was said when you guys were in charge. The Investor Group on Climate Change, back in 2017, said: Australian institutional investors have a strong appetite for low carbon assets, but policy uncertainty and a lack of scalable deals are major barriers. They said: Despite the recent surge in renewable energy investment, investment is still not coming through institutional investors. And: Yet, the Federal climate change and energy policy landscape provides no investment certainty. The Energy Supply Association in 2015 said: The current uncertainty will itself drive up prices. Banks have put away their cheque books on energy projects. Policy uncertainty has rendered electricity generation projects unbankable. That cost has been masked because lower demand has meant we haven't needed new projects but where new assets are needed, that risk premium will be there and it will push up electricity prices. We are moving in an orderly way to put some certainty into the system after a decade of incompetent management. So, we're happy to have a sensible discussion about how we might best do this—what the best implementation arrangements might be. But I do think we have to have a sense of reality about where we are now and how we got here. 17:55 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Indeed, I do agree that a sense of reality is important. That's why I'm very concerned about the parallel universe in which this deal was struck up, which is why I've been asking these questions. And while I appreciate the gratuitous political points being made about the last 10 years, this is about looking forward. You won the last election. I find myself on this side of the chamber asking questions of the government about their policy—what it's going to do and how much it will drive up power prices. I can run through the record of power prices in the last term if you want, but that actually doesn't assist us in understanding what this legislation is going to do. So, back to reality—the laws that you're seeking to implement, the funds and the huge amounts of taxpayers' money we're seeking to appropriate through the various bits of legislation going through the parliament this week—I want to talk about the two funds we've talked about already, the $400 million and the $600 million. I would be interested to get a sense of how entities would be able to access support through these funds. What sort of process? Who do they speak to? What sort of application form? What thresholds? Any data of that nature would be helpful. And then perhaps I might look to Senator Waters down there. I'm sure she has questions, and I can come back to this. 17:57 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Duniam. I provided answers to these same questions to Senator Waters when she asked me earlier about arrangements for accessing the fund. The short story is that the funds are being established in the context of the forthcoming budget, and the rules and the approach to grants, including the entity that would be responsible for distributing any funds, are under development. 17:57 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I do have just a few follow-up questions, but first I will stick with that last subject matter. I know you said that the delivery mechanism for the Powering the Regions Fund will be decided through the budget process. I accept that. My question is whether you've had any feedback from industry or regulators—or from any quarter, really—that the grants hub for hydrogen hubs and modern manufacturing initiative programs are substandard vehicles for getting projects up and running and whether that's therefore factoring into your decision-making when you decide on the delivery mechanism for the Powering the Regions Fund. 17:58 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Not that I'm aware of, but can I say this: we'd always think carefully about the best way to distribute funds. Sometimes a grants hub is a suitable way of doing it, and you will be aware that the grants hubs across the Commonwealth administer quite a wide range of projects. In this particular case we are simply working through the best arrangements to distribute the resources in the most effective way, given the particular policy task before us. 17:59 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I notice that you were referencing the draft rules before. When will we see the final rules? Do you have a date on that? When will it be registered on the FRL and ready for us all to see? 17:59 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm advised the end of April, Senator. 17:59 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland In relation to the question that I sought some guidance on from you earlier about how the new proposed mechanism will deal with expansions of existing projects that aren't an expansion in scale, as such, but rather a temporal expansion, I'm hoping for an answer, if you've had that advice provided. Essentially, it's whether or not the increased emissions will be treated as within the safeguard mechanism or below the coverage. I just want to know how that will be treated. 18:00 Senator McA 121628 New South Wales LLISTER (—) (): I think the best way of answering this is to refer you to the provisions in the act, which set out the test that the environment minister would apply. It is this: if in a financial year the environment minister approves the taking of an action for the purpose of a controlling provision within the meaning of the act; and the environment minister is satisfied that the action is likely to result in an increase in the financial year or future financial years of scope 1 emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of a designated large facility for the financial year or a new designated large facility for the financial year or a future financial year; and the environment minister has been given an estimate of the scope 1 emissions of greenhouse gases from the taking of the action in one or more financial years, they must give that estimate to the minister, the climate change secretary and the Climate Change Authority as soon as practicable. It's the passing on of that information that then triggers a consideration by the minister, or indeed any of those entities—the minister, the Climate Change Authority or the secretary—of whether any additional action is required. 18:01 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thanks very much, Minister. I think I understand that. I ask one follow-up question to make sure that I'm following you. If the test in the EPBC Act, which you just quoted from, was an increase in scope 1 emissions—it doesn't have to be a significant increase; it's just any increase. Ergo, in my scenario, where I put to you that the time frame for the operating coalmine would be extended and therefore there would be an increase in emissions but it wouldn't itself be above the 100,000 trigger, I interpret what you've just read out as saying that that increase would therefore trigger the need for the environment minister to pass on the number of those projected scope 1 emissions, which will then be treated in the fashion that you've taken us through—namely, it will be checked against the hard cap. Senator Pratt I0T My apologies, Senator Waters, I was being too loud. Senator WATERS 192970 I get that all the time! The CHAIR 287062 We might have to start again, Senator Waters. Senator WATERS 192970 I was on such a roll. Hopefully I can say the same thing again. The CHAIR 287062 You were very articulate. Senator WATERS 192970 I just wanted to confirm that it will be any amount of increase because it's already an existing facility, but the EPBC Act is simply extending the temporal range of the approval for that increase, however big or small it might be, and it will be referred to the climate change minister to be assessed as to whether it will breach the hard cap in the normal fashion? 18:03 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Waters, as I indicated when we last discussed this, I do think it's difficult to give a definitive answer without understanding what the overall profile of the emissions over time of the operation of a facility might be. However, yes, in the main, if this is a covered facility, no matter the scale of the increase, it would engage an obligation to make such a notification. I just make a clarification. I may have misheard this, but just for clarity: the obligation that we're discussing would sit within the Climate Change Act not within the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. 18:04 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thanks, Minister. Yes, that was my error there. I appreciate the clarification, and I'm happy with the answer. 18:04 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I wanted to go not to modelling or internal government deliberations on things but to a general sense of whether the government thinks these laws will put downward pressure on power prices. 18:04 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Power generators are not covered by the safeguard mechanism, or, at least, by the approach considered here. 18:05 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Noting that, obviously things are interlinked and it might not cover power generators, but there are inputs and other impacts. Will this put downward pressure, to coin a phrase, on electricity prices, consistent with everything we heard in question time this week from the acting leader, and last week, consistent with your election policies and every other government member? 18:05 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Of course the government is thinking—always—about the optimal pathway for the developmental electricity system, but the amendments before you and the changes that are proposed here don't cover electricity generators. As has been put to you on many occasions, there is something a little odd about being questioned about our determination to put downward pressure on electricity prices when every single member of your party room voted against concrete measures to reduce electricity prices, put downward pressure on electricity prices, in December last year. 18:06 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania In the real world—where I've been for the last little while—there's been a lot of talk about the agreement reached between the Greens and the Labor Party and the chilling effect that will have—in fact, the direct claim that this will kill off all new coal and gas. Then there's this basic principle around supply and demand, the economics of supply and demand, and when you don't have enough supply you can't meet demand. We need these inputs to be able to generate energy, given the way our energy mix is generated at the moment. To that point, given the arrangement that has been reached here—we've talked about it enough, the rooms in which it was reached. I'm just seeking to understand whether the claims being made by the Greens about killing off all new coal and gas—what that does to supply, bringing on new supply in order to meet demand. We only have to look at the ACCC and AEMO, who tell us the best way and only way to deal with some of these cost pressures we're facing with electricity today, tomorrow and into the future is by bringing on supply. The Greens tell us that supply is not going to be met, that we're killing it off and it's not going to be a part of what happens here, as a part of the arrangements reached under this legislation. Is it still the government's view that this law, this legislation and everything it entails, even though it doesn't cover energy generators but has the impact that we've talked about here, will put downward pressure on electricity prices in this country? 18:08 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The big facilities—Santos and Shell—have very ambitious goals for reducing their own emissions. I think Santos is aiming for net zero by 2040. I think Shell is aiming to halve their emissions by 2030. These entities, these important participants in Australia's energy system, are already on this pathway. I think you should reflect on whether the claims you are making are really aligned with the publicly expressed intentions of the companies that you are talking about. The safeguard reforms take into account the possibility of new entrants and still deliver 205 million tonnes of abatement. We don't accept the assertions that you are making around implications for supply. That is not our expectation. 18:09 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania They're not my assertions. They're the assertions of the Greens and industry leaders. But we'll let the people of Australia be the judge, as time marches on and we see the full impact of your laws in partnership with the Greens. If I could go to the impact on facilities, there is one company—I've got a range here that I want to run through, as a matter of fact. Incitec Pivot is one of our nation's leading suppliers of fertilisers. You'd be familiar with them. They have a number of facilities in Queensland that are going to be impacted by the changes, as I understand it. How many Australian farmers rely on fertiliser products produced by this Incitec Pivot? 18:10 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I don't intend to comment on the individual business decisions of individual businesses. That's really not something I'm in a position to do. 18:10 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'm not asking about individual business decisions. Obviously the laws we make in this place have an impact on the cost of doing business. That's what we've been talking about. You've just told me that I am wrong for suggesting that anything we do here has an impact of that nature. I'm asking about Australian farmers who are relying on this business. I just wonder whether, as part of the broad-ranging consultations that have occurred that you've talked about, whether this sort of thing, with the stakeholders, the NFF or the Queensland equivalent et cetera, might have reached into the consultation process and indicated that the facilities that Incitec Pivot owns, what sort of an impact any changes to the arrangements they operate under would have on the farmers. Hence my question about how many farmers rely on their products. While you consider that, energy and fertiliser make up half of the total operating cost to grow crops like oats, wheat and barley. Has there been any assessment of the financial impact of Labor's changes to the safeguard mechanism on farmers that grow these crops? 18:11 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales You asked me about the fertiliser question and what impact it might have on fertiliser. I guess the answer is—and that's why I am reluctant on to comment on individual facilities—that the impact of these reforms will vary between facilities within these sectors. Some facilities that have a lower emissions-intensive production might receive safeguard mechanism credits. They would be able to sell those to other safeguard facilities. As we have already canvassed at length, trade tailored assessment is available for trade exposed facilities. For the agricultural sector it is perhaps worth noting that the safeguard reforms will result in increased demand for ACCUs, incentivising abatement in the land sector and allowing landowners and farmers to generate another source of income. 18:12 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I know Senator Brockman and perhaps others have some questions around the NFF's concerns around the turbocharging, as the NFF puts it, of demand for carbon abatement on the land. I don't want you to try and guess what businesses are doing. I guess I am using this company as an example. Incitec Pivot has a number of entities in Queensland that will be affected by the changes here. There will be an increase in the cost of what they do. The IMF actually found that a one per cent rise in fertiliser prices increases food commodity prices by 0.45 per cent . Minister, can you indicate whether the government accepts that there's a close correlation between, for example, fertiliser price increases and how much Australians pay for their groceries and, to that end, if there is an increase in the cost of doing business for Incitec Pivot, for them to produce the product that farmers rely on, that that would then be passed on to the consumer? Is that something that has been contemplated and potentially concerns the government? 18:13 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government is in fact very concerned about the affordability of food and groceries. Indeed, in the October budget fruit and vegetable prices were estimated to be eight per cent higher than what they would otherwise have been. It was a consequence of the flooding events at the time. The truth is that climate change is resulting in increased frequency and severity of severe weather events—drought, flooding, fire and storms. These events do disrupt supply chains, impact productivity and increase insurance costs for business and consumers. I raise this because it's an example of the mistaken analysis of looking at only one variable in the costs that are affecting Australian consumers. We are going through a period of change in what's expected from the investment community, in our global market, in our global supply chains and, frankly, in the operating environment, particularly for Australian farmers. We understand and major agricultural producers understand that the transition towards net zero is extremely important because it impacts, more than most sectors, the ongoing capacity of the agricultural sector to produce food and fibre. 18:15 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I appreciate that analysis. Of course, in addition to those increased costs relating to fruit and vegetables that you mentioned, Minister, the ABS indicated that the cost of bread and cereal products has increased by 12.2 per cent over the last year, the cost of meat and seafood has increased by 8.2 per cent and the cost of dairy and related products has increased by 14.9 per cent. So it's across the board, and I accept that there are variables and many inputs. But, just because there are other impacts on the price, including climate induced flooding or drought, that doesn't mean we should then up the price or put pressures on industry elsewhere. I'm going to move off the farming component now, and I might go to some broader questions around facilities, if I may. Of the 215 facilities captured under the mechanism, how many had existing plans to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by 2030? 18:16 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The information I provided to the chamber is that 80 per cent have a commitment to reduce their emissions to net zero by 2050. 18:16 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania So 80 per cent of those 215 facilities have a plan and a commitment to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by 2030? Or is it net zero? 18:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I said net zero by 2050. 18:17 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Then I'll ask my question again. How many of the 215 facilities captured by the safeguard mechanism had existing plans to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by 2030? 18:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales There are obviously some, such as Fortescue, committing to net zero by 2030, but I don't have a complete list of the 2030 commitments for all of the covered facilities. 18:17 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Does the government intend, or did the government at any point intend, to investigate how many of the facilities captured by the safeguard mechanism did have a plan that mirrored, matched, bettered or was close to the government's plans to reduce emissions by the target amount? 18:18 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Our focus is on meeting our national target. As we talked about in this chamber on many occasions, that is because it is the single most significant thing that Australia can do to catalyse the necessary global action that we need to tackle dangerous climate change. We have been through, this afternoon and this morning, the extensive consultation process that has been undertaken, talking with all of these facilities. We examined, in many instances, what businesses were keen to discuss with the department about their plans and their thinking. There is a wealth of information in the public domain. In fact, I was recently, just now, pointed to Incitec Pivot's Climate change report, which talks about their commitment to reducing emissions and the four projects that they are undertaking in Australia and internationally as they seek to deliver material change in their operational emissions. They said: These projects collectively give us a pathway above 42% reduction in the medium term with our current asset portfolio. I mean, business is doing this. And as we've canvassed in a range of different ways over the course of the debate, they are doing so as a consequence of a range of forces, including the investor community. 18:19 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania So, just back on 2030, I seek clarification. Did you say that Incitec Pivot is reaching the 42 per cent reduction by 2030? 18:20 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm reading to you from their media release. They say: These projects collectively give us a pathway above 42% reduction in the medium term with our current asset portfolio. 18:20 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'm not sure what 'medium term' is, but I'll ask one more time on this question around the facilities—there are only 215 of them—whether the government is seeking, or sought before going down this pathway, to understand how many of the 215 facilities caught by the safeguard mechanism had plans to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. 18:20 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Duniam, I have answered your question. I will give it one more go, which is to say that it is undoubtedly the case that the government has engaged deeply and over an extended period of time with the regulated community in relation to this reform. We have talked about the many activities that took place—the round tables, the public consultation, the written consultation, the targeted meetings—because the government does seek to deeply understand the plans and commitments of the businesses that are engaged in the safeguard mechanism. That involved talking to them about their plans. Did the department gather exactly the data you are requesting? Perhaps no. But I don't think you can deny that there has been deep and sustained engagement over a long period of time with the covered businesses. 18:21 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania No, I don't deny what you've said about the deep, sustained, thorough consultation. You made a point there about deeply understanding the businesses. I would have thought, where the businesses had plans that mirrored or matched something similar to what the government was intending to do, that it would be something government might have done. But you've said you've answered. You've told me you don't have that data, or the government perhaps does not have that data. I was just provided with the information that Incitec Pivot said they'd reduce by 25 per cent by 2030. So, that's handy to know. I will just ask: as part of the agreement with the Greens, all new gas fields supplying LNG facilities will need to be fully offset from day one. Does this apply to new wells, or just new projects? I wonder whether there's any clarity there. 18:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Sorry about the delay. I just wanted to pause, because your characterisation of the arrangements was not quite accurate, and I thought it best to give you very specific information. New gas fields supplying existing liquefied natural gas facilities will be treated as new facilities, regardless of their ownership structure. On that basis, they will be given international best practice baselines for the carbon dioxide in their new fields. For these fields' reservoir CO2 emissions, best practice is a zero, given the existence of low-CO2 fields and opportunities for carbon capture and storage. 18:24 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania So, to be clear, Minister, that includes the expansion of existing operations. Is that right? 18:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales What I've indicated is that it is where there is a new gas field. Whether or not the expansion of an existing operation would be understood in those terms is really dependent on the particular circumstances, and it is only for those supplying existing liquefied natural gas facilities. 18:25 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania We might come back with a couple of further questions on that, because I am interested in exactly what might apply—without going into hypotheticals and cameos. I know Senator David Pocock has some questions, so I'll just ask this one, which I suspect you may not be able to answer. I just want to know whether the financial data that was used to model the impact of the safeguard mechanism on individual safeguard facilities was information relating to the facilities, or whether it was information relating to the corporate entities that owned the facilities. 18:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Implicit in your question, I think, is a set of assumptions about inputs and the workings of the modelling. I have on successive occasions given you and also Senator Hughes some indication of what work was done. I've also indicated that it was cabinet-in-confidence and commercially sensitive. I don't intend to have any deeper discussion about the content or the nature of the modelling. 18:26 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania On that, I understand cabinet-in-confidence. We have sought the information. Even offering a private briefing on the way through might have been handy. But it's been put to me that the information used to underpin the modelling was corporate data rather than being reported by facility. I would appreciate it if you could confirm otherwise, but to my mind that might skew the data that underpins the modelling. It's hard to pursue this properly, because we are operating without access to the information. You've explained why, and I'm not going to ask you to table it or go into detail on it. But if an assurance can't be provided that that information, as I've just characterised it, wouldn't result in a skewed outcome—that is, that it is facility as opposed to corporate, which is what I'm told would be a better arrangement—then I think we have some concerns. So I just wonder if you can provide that assurance that the information provided—the financial data—was by facility. I don't want to know what it said or have it tabled; I just want to know that it was by facility, as opposed to a corporate-level piece of information. 18:28 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory In the interests of the committee's time, I might just make a few remarks and briefly foreshadow amendments that will be circulated later, for when we get to them, and then I have a proper question at the end if that's alright. I've been a senator in this place for a short time, but, like all senators, I am conscious of history, and one thing that seems very clear to me is that this parliament will be judged on the way that it approaches climate change. We know that there is no time to waste, not just because the scientists are urging us and warning us, as we saw in the recent IPCC report, but because we are starting to live with the impacts. We are seeing the impacts across the country. Our farmers are feeling the impacts. Their profits are down 20 per cent since the year 2000 due to climate change. This is here. This is 1.1 degrees of warming that we're living with, and the consequences of moving beyond 1.5 degrees of warming are stark. We know that there are tipping points for cascading climate breakdown, and failure to take action is morally irresponsible. This week, as a parliament, we are taking a significant step in the right direction. But, to be clear: the reform is far from perfect. We're a long way away from the ideal climate policy in Australia. Economists, including the Productivity Commission, tell us the most efficient way to encourage climate action is to put an economy wide price on carbon, as many other countries have done. This mechanism only covers the 215 heaviest emitters, as we have heard. We must ensure that we keep that in mind because it is very clear that this mechanism is not in line with the goal of 1.5 degrees of warming. It's a start, but our ambition is not enough. Furthermore, the whole mechanism is built on offsets, which we know should only be used as a last resort. In this policy, they're available without restriction. As has been noted, the only other country which allows unrestricted offsets is Kazakhstan. But politics is all about compromise and getting things in place. This reform, while far from perfect, is a substantial step in the right direction. The reform will put downward pressure on emissions from the industrial sector, and that alone is the big change. Finally, businesses will have better incentives to invest in new technologies and decarbonise. For too long in this country the business community has been ahead of government on the issue of climate change. The businesses I speak to want to decarbonise to give themselves the edge in a competitive international environment. Many of our major trading partners are moving away from fossil fuels and starting to look for low- or no-carbon products. It's up to us here in this place and those in the other to create a regulatory environment that will encourage the success of future industries like green steel and green aluminium. We need to incentivise decarbonisation so the businesses we want to form part of our future are able to decarbonise and remain here in Australia. I welcome the government's commitment to provide an additional $400 million from the Powering the Regions Fund to assist strategic industries like steel, cement and aluminium to decarbonise. But the reality is that the billion-dollar total is a drop in the ocean when it comes to the capital cost of technology transition and decarbonisation. We have seen the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and a similar measure in the EU provide a huge boost for sustainable manufacturing. I call on the government to do more in the upcoming budget to support the businesses and industries that will drive future economic growth. Businesses are not the only ones calling for action on climate. People around the country want us to take a step forward—a step that will result in actual reductions in emissions. They are clearly frustrated with the politics of climate change and want to get on with the job of making our future safe. My sense is that they want to step forward—a step in the right direction, even if it does not go far enough. This policy, despite its flaws, is a significant step in the right direction. Our heaviest emitters will reduce their net emissions by more than 200 million tonnes between now and 2030. Total emissions will come down. New fossil fuel projects will find it more difficult to set up, extract our resources and send them—along with hefty profits—overseas, while they continue to damage our climate, the climate that we share. And on the back of this new green industries will develop. I would like to acknowledge Minister Bowen and his office for their work on the safeguard mechanism. Throughout discussions and negotiations with the minister there was much we did not agree on, but it was clear where the minister stood, and I thank him for the way he approached our conversations. Ultimately, a point was reached where I'm satisfied that the reform is a substantial step in the right direction, but we need to move a lot faster. This is just a step. I call on the government to have more ambition as they formulate the many pieces of climate policy we will need to make up for the decades of inaction, so we can protect the people and places we love. There is so much work to do, from fuel efficiency standards to electrification across households and businesses, and the setting of a far more ambitious 2035 emissions reduction target. But before we get to the safeguard mechanism before us, and I believe that this reform can be improved, I plan to move a series of amendments. As I said, to save the Senate's time I will foreshadow them now. Amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1903 revised circulated in my name improve the way that offsets are used under the reform. Offsets are a very necessary part of this but should be reserved for hard-to-abate industries. They should only be used as a last resort, and this amendment will make sure that is the case. Amendment (3) on sheet 1903 removes the price cap on ACCUs and limits the risk to taxpayers should the cap be breached. If we're going to have a market mechanism, I don't see a reason to put a ceiling on the price. If you're going to use the market to try and fix this, then it really doesn't make sense to cap it and, in doing so, potentially expose the Commonwealth and taxpayers to a liability should the Commonwealth run out of ACCUs. The amendments on sheet 1915 discount the value of offsets if more than 50 per cent of compliance with baseline is achieved through offsetting. This will drive onsite abatement and bring forward investment in decarbonisation. If we're not going to have a hard cap on ACCUs there is provision in the regulation-making powers for the minister to discount ACCUs, referred to as the four-fifths rule, and I really believe this would be a valuable tool in imposing a carbon mitigation hierarchy which is well-established and acknowledged around the world. It makes sense for Australia to have one of them embedded in this legislation. The amendments on sheet 1907 extend standing to allow third parties to challenge issues in the carbon market. This is simply an accountability measure that will improve the integrity of the carbon market. There has been much conjecture about certain methodologies. This whole reform hinges on integrity in offsets. It makes sense to me that people should be able to go through the process of challenging projects should they think that there are issues. For me, the most significant detractor from this bill is the unlimited access to offsets. I have concerns that it is shifting a huge amount of emissions reduction onto the land sector rather than abating them on site. 18:38 Sena 123072 Queensland tor McDONALD () (): Minister, I've just been up at a Dairy Australia function where they felt caught by surprise by the amendments to this legislation around human induced regeneration. Have you identified the number of projects that are currently registered that would be affected by this legislation? 18:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator McDonald, I answered this question earlier in the debate. The number of projects associated with human induced regeneration is 371. There is no reason to believe—well, perhaps I'll start with what the commitment is here. We have committed to the Chubb review. The Chubb review's recommendation 8 makes a series of recommendations about how the human induced regeneration method should be interpreted by the CER when it's evaluating projects and evaluating credits to be assigned as a consequence of activities within projects. Our expectation is that the Clean Energy Regulator will adopt that and apply those recommendations as set out by Professor Chubb. It is true that 371 is the maximum number of projects that may be implicated. But, in truth, we have no reason to think that these projects are not already in compliance, and we expect how this will be implemented is that when they go to the Clean Energy Regulator to seek their credits it would be at that point that the Clean Energy Regulator would seek to implement the recommendations around interpretation of the method suggested by Professor Chubb. 18:40 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I believe Senator Brockman has more questions, in this regard, so perhaps I won't dwell on it. I want to return to the resources sector. I listened carefully when you spoke earlier about not disclosing the detail of the modelling. However, I've had consultation with a number of the 215 emitters who tell me that whilst they have a program to reduce emissions over the medium turn they will not meet the targets by 2030. When they've raised this in consultation with the department, they've been told they will just have to pay the penalty. Has there been modelling done by the department that would provide information on the budgetary impact of that? 18:41 Senato 121628 New South Wales r McALLISTER (—) (): I don't believe the dialogue, as you characterise it, is a fair characterisation of the many interactions that have occurred between the department and stakeholders over a very long period of time and by multiple means. However, if people have concerns I would always be open to you making a referral, and my door is always open to stakeholders. I was asked this same question, I think, by one of your colleagues. The answer I provided is that the government does not anticipate a revenue stream, of any kind, arising from businesses paying the penalty. Historically, the level of compliance within the safeguard mechanism was 100 per cent. 18:42 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland If the modelling would imply that the compliance will be 100 per cent, there are resources companies that have identified that the technology is not yet available to them to allow them to make the transition, particularly from diesel, from new motors, that would allow them to comply with the— Senator McDONALD 123072 I'm sorry, if you're listening to something, I don't want to interrupt you. Should I give you a second? What I was asking, Minister, is that resources projects have advised me that they are on a pathway to emissions reduction, net zero, but that the technology that would allow them to convert from diesel to new motors won't be available to them by the 2030 time frame. One of those emitters told me that it would be a $50 million penalty that they expect the safeguard mechanism will cost them. I'm trying to understand, in the extensive consultation that has happened between the department and resource companies, if there is an understanding of the cost impact across the 215 big emitters, given that we have companies that have themselves modelled the costs that they will incur. 18:45 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator McDonald. I do appreciate you referring to the plans that some of these businesses have in place. I think one of the things that a mature debate might recognise is that many of these businesses are thinking very carefully about their own transition to net zero. The Minerals Council of Australia, of course, regularly issue a progress report on how the sector is moving and they are very thoughtful about the technologies that would be necessary to get there. For example, the Minerals Council's most recent report indicated: The mining industry recognises the need to reduce emissions globally, nationally and at the sites and facilities driving Australia's resources industry. They go on to say: Achievement of both the 2030 target and the 2050 net zero target will require close consultation … with … stakeholders. That is a welcome and positive engagement from the government's perspective and, I suspect, from the community's perspective as well. The safeguard mechanism is deliberately designed to minimise the costs associated with implementation, and it provides flexibility for that reason. We've had a very big debate in recent months around the nature of the government's reforms to the safeguard mechanism, where various people have expressed views about that flexibility. But, for the reasons you describe, there are limitations on the technology available this decade for some of the covered facilities. In addition to that, in some instances the necessary investment to make it a reduction may well be somewhat lumpy. It might be something that you do at a certain point in time. The design of the compliance arrangements allows for borrowing. It allows for banking. It allows for a business that makes a large investment now to reduce its emissions below the baseline that's required of it—in, say, this financial year—to create credits and sell them to another provider. Of course, it allows for the purchase of ACCUs which has been the subject of quite some public discussion. All of these design features are there to provide flexibility and to allow optimal progression towards net zero whilst maintaining an incentive to get on that journey. Many of the businesses that are covered already have a public commitment to net zero by 2050, and many of them have interim targets as well. We talked quite a bit about the modelling and analysis that has been undertaken. I would say to you that the most important feature of the policy development around this has been a very extended engagement and consultation process with business. It has run over a very long period of time. It has been supported by a Senate inquiry process. It has been supported by public consultation and the issuing of discussion papers. We have engaged deeply to understand how these impacts might bear on individual businesses and on sectors. We've done our best to strike a balance. Many stakeholders have told us that we've done so. We're providing the certainty that business needs to make necessary investments, but also getting us on the path to meet our commitments to the international community. 18:49 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Minister, I won't continue pressing you because my sense is that you're not going to be able to provide me with the number for the 215 companies that have identified that they don't have the technology available before 2030 to meet the emissions reductions that are modelled—the 4.9 per cent each year. Consequently, I think I'm going to have to find another way to identify that information. I have one company that has identified $50 million. If we extrapolate that across the 215, that is going to be a significant impost on those businesses. If the government doesn't know what that number is, I am concerned, because that is going to be money that would otherwise go into jobs, emissions reduction and other investments. I think the gap in the government's understanding of the impact of this tax is a gap that should be understood and appreciated by both the tax department and this department and certainly by the business community more broadly. Minister, how did the government determine the priority industries that would qualify for funding? For example, the government has picked out cement and aluminium. If they're part of the energy transition, why would iron ore, met coal, copper and nickel—all of which the World Bank says are essential—not have also been included in that list? 18:51 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Critical minerals are of course the subject of a separate process and a separate strategy for government. The sectors that you're referring to now are essentially judged to be critical to the clean energy transformation for the manufacturing sector. Retaining this capability for these hard-to-abate sectors is, in our judgement and based on the feedback we received through the consultation, essential. It was on that basis that we made adjustments to the scheme design and some of the financial arrangements, as announced by the minister earlier on. 18:52 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales This bill has made it abundantly clear that the Labor Party still functions as the political wing of the coal and gas industry. Labor's first draft of this bill actually allowed carbon pollution to rise and unlimited dodgy offsets to flood the market. It was literally insupportable. It's clear that billion-dollar multinational fossil fuel companies, like Woodside, Santos, Adani, the Minerals Council and Chevron, write the climate policies of both major parties. Coal and gas corporations remain the puppeteers of both Labor and the coalition, and, unfortunately, as we saw from the first draft of this bill, Labor is a very willing puppet. Despite all the promises of the climate election, despite climate scientists, experts and every credible international organisation telling us we need to keep all new coal and gas in the ground as a bare minimum to save our burning planet, Labor is still refusing to deliver a national climate policy that seriously addresses the science and meets the reality of the climate emergency. The Greens negotiated long and hard on this bill because we knew, and we know, that we can't wait another moment for climate action. We know how important it is to take immediate action to keep every single tonne of coal and gas in the ground that we can. That's why we kept going back; that's why we kept fighting. When we look at where we've landed, what does this actually mean for those of us—the millions of Australians—who care about, voted for and demand the climate action that the science is telling us we need? It shows we've got our work cut out for us. It shows we need to break up the weird, toxic marriage between the fossil fuel industry and the Commonwealth government. We need to stop the revolving door of major party donors, who literally switch their seats in this place for seats in the boardrooms of some of the most polluting companies in the world. It's no wonder that climate politics are so cooked, when the chefs are paid and run by the fossil fuel industry. But there is good news. In the face of all of those forces, in the face of decades of climate-action obstruction, and despite Labor continuing to act as the political wing of the fossil fuel industry, the Greens have secured some genuine wins that will make pollution go down in a serious way. Because coal and gas have taken a huge hit with what has been negotiated by the Greens team. I want to give credit to Adam Bandt and his team for taking that hard road, for continuing to go to the negotiating table despite what at many times seemed to be a no from the fossil fuel industry delivered by the Albanese Government. Here are some of the key wins the Greens have secured: a legislated hard cap on emissions, which means that emissions will ratchet down and actual pollution must decrease, not just the offset. That will effectively knock off around half of Labor's 116 coal and gas projects. That's a huge blow to the worst polluting projects and will make a real difference to the climate. And here's a big reason to celebrate: we have derailed the Beetaloo and Barossa gasfields. I pay tribute to those First Nations communities and activists. I pay tribute to Senator Dorinda Cox, who has campaigned long and hard against those projects. We're not done, but the future sure is looking brighter. The Greens have secured a pollution trigger, a carbon trigger, which will force the government to assess the climate impact of all new coal and gas projects. A climate trigger has been a key demand of the environment movement for years now, and we've knocked off most of the dodgy list class of assets. Our changes could take about a quarter of future offsets out of circulation. That means companies have to commit to more actual pollution reduction, and the cost of those offsets, the cost of doing nothing, will go up. Crucially, new gasfields will have to be net zero from day one. That means opening up new gas is increasingly not viable financially. We know that's not enough. We know that all new coal and gas needs to stay in the ground if we're going to keep this planet liveable and deliver a secure future for our kids and their kids. We have work cut out for us to break up the toxic marriage between the fossil fuel industry and the major parties in this place. The fact we had to fight Labor tooth and nail to secure these wins is more than frustrating, but it also shows what we can win. We don't win that alone here in parliament. We win that because there are millions of Australians behind us demanding this action. The fight is not over, but today we take hope from the fact that we have stopped many of the 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline from going ahead. We take hope from the fact that carbon pollution for the first time will be compelled to go down. We take hope from the fact that we have derailed the Beetaloo and Barossa gasfields. We can also take heart from the fact that the share price of several large coal and gas corporations took a hit straight off the back of the announcement of what the Greens have achieved. The safeguard mechanism, this bill, which regulates Australia's 215 biggest polluters, will now have a hard cap on emissions thanks to the work of the Greens, meaning real pollution must actually come down and the coal and gas corporations can't just keep paying their way out with dodgy offsets. These are big steps towards a future with no coal and gas, but let's be clear, this is the start of an ongoing fight. Every single coal and gas project that gets approved, if any do, every single one will be approved by Labor, because the only thing stopping us implementing policy that meets the science, that keeps all new coal and gas projects in the ground, the only thing that is stopping that is the lack of Labor's ambition. I again give credit to those millions of Australians who voted for more. We are here to continue to deliver more. We will support this bill because we know it's going to make a meaningful difference, but by no means is this the end of the struggle. 18:59 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I was going to ask a question, but I feel that I do need to respond to some of that in addressing this bill. I mean, really, we have the Greens standing up in this place, talking proudly about having depressed the share price of great Australian companies like Woodside. I find it shocking that they would stand up in this place and say that. These are people who have just done a deal with the Labor government, a government that they describe as a corrupt ecocidal petrostate. This is the deal that you've done, Senator Shoebridge, and then you stand up in here and you talk about how wonderful it is that you depressed the share price of a great Western Australian company, a company that is in the super funds of hundreds of thousands of Australians, particularly Western Australians, and a company that employs thousands of Western Australians and, with secondary flow-on effects, employs probably tens of thousands. It supplies gas to DomGas of Western Australia, which provides energy and heat for industrial uses right across my home state of Western Australia. WA is also the highest domestic gas user in Australia, so it provides heating, it provides gas for stoves and it provides gas for hot water. This is a great Western Australian company. It doesn't deserve to be treated with contempt by this place, by this Labor government in alliance with the Greens. Again, I can't get pass this: Senator McKim described the government they just did a deal with as a 'corrupt ecocidal petrostate'. This is the kind of alliance in government that we have between the Labor Party and the Greens. I do have some substantive questions for the minister, but I will leave it there for now. 19:01 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Following on from my comments earlier, one of my big concerns is the reliance on the land sector and offsetting. I have had concerns raised with me by farmers. Some farmers, who do have carbon projects generating ACCUs, are saying that they would prefer not to have to sell their ACCUs to fossil fuel companies who are making their lives harder and risking their family farming operations. And, earlier today, the National Farmers Federation put out a media release titled Safeguard mechanism needs to be safe for agriculture,and to quote the CEO, Tony Mahar: The safeguard mechanism will turbo charge demand for offsets, and with few other options on the table, emitters will look to farmland. Agriculture is a truly hard to abate sector, unlike fossil fuels. We have alternatives for them, particularly new fossil fuel projects—there is no real argument for them. Farmers who wish to offset their own emissions, or 'inset' their emissions, are concerned about competing with fossil fuel companies for offsets, offsets that will most likely come from the land sector. We've seen farmers having to compete with fossil fuel companies for water during drought. They simply don't have the same budgets and the same access to capital. What reassurance can the government give that farmers will not suffer in the long-term as a result of the high offset prices due to huge demand from fossil fuel companies? 19:03 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks for your question, Senator Pocock. The situation you describe is an interesting one, isn't it, because implicit in the way that you ask the question is an acknowledgement that the land sector potentially, in a low-carbon world, is a source of real value. It offers enormous potential to store carbon, and, once a value is attached to that, that's potentially a source of value for landowners and landholders that can provide social, economic and environmental benefits to regional communities and to the landholders themselves. There are co-benefits as well. Soil carbon projects obviously have a carbon benefit, but they also improve soil health and potentially agricultural productivity. We've got lots of people operating in that way now around the country, doing interesting work and I think advocating in really interesting ways for sustainable farming. But you're right that it's not without tensions, and we ought to pay attention to the way that change impacts on regional communities. This was something that was considered by Professor Chubb in his review, and that review recommended that the government continue to support regional communities to participate in and to benefit from the creation of ACCUs. The government is working on implementing that recommendation. As a first step the government will implement a $20 million carbon farming outreach program. This program will support farmers and other land managers to access independent trusted advice to empower them to make informed decisions about whether and how to participate in carbon markets. This will ensure that farmers can make the decisions that are right for them and right for their businesses. 19:05 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Minister, if we could turn back to our last topic, I asked a question about how the government determined the priority industries which would qualify for funding. I identified some other transition materials—iron ore, met coal, nickel and copper—none of which are on the critical minerals list, which is surprising to many because I believe many of those should be listed, but they're not. How did you pick out cement and aluminium to be priority industries which would qualify for funding? 19:06 Senator 121628 New South Wales McALLISTER (—) (): Senator McDonald, I'll return to the broad idea that I've put to this chamber on many occasions over the last hours, which is that this has been a very detailed process of engagement and discussion with businesses. There were some particular issues that were identified through the course of the consultation, and they have led the government to create a separate stream of funding for the manufacturing sector, as you've described. However, for clarity, all safeguard mechanism participants will be broadly eligible to participate in the Powering the Regions Fund allocations overall, subject to other eligibility criteria. There is also the original $600 million for decarbonisation, and that is available to a broad range of safeguard participants. 19:07 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland That is good news, Minister, and I'm sure that all the resource companies will have taken that on board and will be examining the other guidelines that you just referred to. Are those guidelines for application for the priority industry funding or for the $600 million decarbonisation fund available? 19:08 S 121628 New South Wales enator McALLISTER (—) (): I have answered this already. The government is developing the funding allocation approach, including the delivering entity for both the $600 million fund and the $400 million fund, as part of the budget. For clarity, I can run through with you again the eligibility for both of those because I want to make sure that we are both talking about the same thing, so I would like to just run through it with you specifically. There are two streams, and I'll give them their proper names so that we can talk about the same things. The safeguard transformation stream will provide dedicated funding for projects that reduce emissions at safeguard facilities that are trade exposed. That stream will support projects that reduce emissions covered by the safeguard mechanism, specifically, and eligible facilities' scope 1 emissions. It is intended to be technology and project neutral and can support a range of project types like energy efficiency upgrades, shifts to lower-carbon processes and fuel switching. The second stream, which I think is the one you were originally asking about, is a $400 million stream of funding that's been announced for industries providing critical inputs to clean energy industries, and, as I indicated now, the program guidelines will be developed for both of these programs in the coming months. 19:10 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I've asked you a couple of times about how it was identified that cement and aluminium were in. You're saying to me that those other important transition elements like copper and nickel, iron ore and met coal would be able to apply under the developing guidelines for the $400 million fund. Can I clarify that that is correct, that I have understood that correctly. 19:10 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Almost correctly. The $600 million fund is the safeguard transformation stream. That is funding that will reduce emissions at safeguard facilities that are trade exposed. The definition of a trade exposed activity is defined by what are called 'production variables', and they exist in the draft rules that have been published alongside this legislation. 19:11 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland So many questions so little time. In determining the hard cap on emissions, has there been a calculation of how long the safeguard mechanism facilities currently covered will operate for? I'm wondering if that means no new entry for hard-to-abate industries unless facilities close. 19:11 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The safeguard mechanism makes an assessment about the likely emissions in the case of no intervention and seeks to apply our 43 per cent obligation to the covered entities. In establishing the baseline reduction requirements, the government gave consideration to expected increases in production, including the possibility of new entrants. That's not specific to particular kinds of facilities or particular kinds of activities. It's true across the board. 19:12 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, one of the things we heard during the Senate committee from a number of people, including the Australian Workers Union national secretary, Daniel Walton, who we've heard a lot about during the Committee of the Whole so far, was that there was a need for a carbon border adjustment mechanism. My understanding is that the government has committed to consultation on a CBAM. I'm interested to know what is a realistic time line for the implementation of a CBAM, should the consultation show that this is something that has widespread support. 19:13 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I was seeking clarity about some of the particulars of the review. You're right. The government has committed to initiating a review of CBAM arrangements, with particular focus on cement and steel, although not exclusively on those things. I am advised that we would expect a 12- to 18-month process to examine that issue. 19:14 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia On the same issue, of the CBAMs, how does the government not, by going down this path—I'm not saying you've committed to it, but we know that overseas jurisdictions are seriously considering it. How does it not turn into a modern form of tariff? 19:14 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I imagine that these are questions that could be contemplated as part of a review. 19:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Could I just change to another topic? I've got a discrete set of questions in relation to lithium mining. Just so I have absolute clarity, will lithium miners be impacted by the changes to the safeguard mechanism? I'm happy for you to seek advice. 19:15 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The sort of entry point for a facility to become a covered facility is 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalent in a year. That is the same as the arrangements that were in place under the previous government. So, it depends on the particular nature of the operation, and I'm advised that there are a number of facilities that are covered at the moment. 19:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So, the answer is that yes; they could be covered. I understand that. Can I get you to guarantee, though, that no lithium miner will be worse off under the changes? 19:16 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Amongst the many virtues of proceeding down this reform path is our ability to provide certainty for a range of entities that seek to make investments in Australia. Anyone who is making an investment at the moment I think already understands that they will be required, whether as a consequence of international markets or their investor community or of regulatory arrangements or some other pressure, to move to low-carbon arrangements. What the implementation of these reforms will do is give anyone who is seeking to make a decision some measure of certainty about what the government of Australia expects of them in contributing to our transformation to a low-carbon economy. 19:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you for that answer. Based on that answer, a lithium miner could be worse off. They would at least have knowledge of what the government wants them to do and certainty in that regard. In terms of their ability to undertake this process if they're impacted, they could be worse off than they currently are. 19:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Cash, I'm not going to speculate about hypotheticals. It's just not possible for me to respond to a hypothetical of this nature. 19:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm a bit concerned that lithium miners in Australia are considered to be hypothetical situations. They'd be very interested to know that. In terms of lithium mining itself, some companies are being provided with a subsidy, a grant or support through other measures provided by the federal government. Certainly when we were in government we wanted to increase the mining and processing of critical minerals, such as lithium, obviously, which supports Australia's energy transition. In terms of whether they're worse off or not, if they're currently receiving the grants, the subsidies or support but they are impacted by these changes—so, they've been given this grant, subsidy or support to undertake the mining and processing of the critical minerals—is there some way to ensure that they are no worse off as a result of being impacted by the changes? 19:18 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Throughout the course of the debate I have provided information to the chamber about a range of financial supports that will be available to safeguard participants. I have also indicated that the program guidelines for those funds are under development in the context of the budget. 19:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you for raising the rules. Will there be an exemption in the rules for critical mineral processors if they are supporting our energy transition? 19:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales It's a quite general question. I suppose there are a range of characteristics, in scheme design, which seek to respond to the individual circumstances of particular activities. In particular, on Monday the minister indicated his intention to establish a distinct test for manufacturing entities, so as to assess whether or not they would be eligible for an adjusted baseline. To the extent that people are engaged with activity associated with manufacturing, there are some very particular arrangements. But I think your question is very general in nature. 19:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Sorry, I'm a little confused as to how critical mineral processes is general in nature. I do have a very specific question. It might be that you need to come back to the chamber on it, and I'm happy for the advisers to take it away. In the terms of companies that process lithium spodumene concentrate to lithium hydroxide—this is of concern to some of the companies—can you guarantee that they will not be adversely impacted by these changes? So it's quite specific: lithium spodumene concentrate to lithium dioxide. 19:21 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Indeed, it is very specific. I will see what can be provided. 19:21 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I want to go back to Senator David Pocock's earlier question about the comments, particularly, from the National Farmers Federation around the impact of turbocharged offset markets. I'll put to one side the ACCUs, and I believe Senator Davey has some questions about those. In terms of the overall impact on agricultural land—you talked about the opportunities in carbon farming and I accept that some in the industry are exploring those ideas—is there any mechanism in this bill to control or oversight the purchase of farmland by the entities covered under the safeguard mechanism? 19:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think that this is outside the scope of the legislation before us. But I'm advised that, at the moment, under arrangements established by the previous government, there is a process where the agriculture minister considers the impact where a human induced regeneration project is established in such a way as to occupy more than 30 per cent—is the benchmark—of a piece of agricultural land of a farm. 19:24 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I could be wrong, but my understanding is that will be captured if a carbon unit is involved. But if a mining company or a big oil and gas company buys up a piece of farm agricultural land and uses it as a direct offset, is there anything in this legislation or other government bills in planning that would capture that? 19:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think, Senator Brockman, I'd refer you to some of the advice I provided Senator Pocock. We are conscious that the development of a market for carbon and carbon sequestration presents an opportunity for landholders. You're quite right that landholders may choose to realise that in different ways, and you contemplate the possibility of sale as one of those options. I think the Chubb review gave some consideration to this, and recommended that the government continue to support individuals and communities in their engagement with that process. We're working through how to implement that. I made reference to a specific program that provides individual advice. I understand the broader question that I think you're alluding to. That is something that the government is alive to, but this bill is not a place where this is being pursued. 19:25 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I think why it's important that we should be alive to this and, quite frankly, why it should be covered in this bill, is that farmland has been valued on the basis of agricultural production for thousands of years. That has been the baseline of what farmland is worth. Here's a piece of land; how much agricultural produce can I sustainably draw from this land? We've also got a long-term process in the agricultural sector where efficiency gains and modernising and different agricultural methodologies have meant that being able to purchase your next-door neighbour has been essential to agricultural survival in the long term. I'll ask you the question, Minister: this completely changes the economic dynamics and valuation of agricultural land. By saying what you just said you're effectively agreeing with that. 19:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I was listening reflectively to your contribution and trying to indicate that I was engaging in a serious way with what you're putting to me. I suppose part of the thing that might influence your thinking on this is that the enhanced carbon sequestration on a property is not incompatible with continuing agricultural production. In fact, there are plenty of places where that is taking place right now. It's also not the only alternative use for agricultural land. If we think about some of the pressures on agricultural land, they are widespread and diverse. It is an ongoing and general question that a country ought to be thinking about carefully. I think you're assuming that these things are mutually exclusive. In many examples they are not. 19:27 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia With due respect, I'm not assuming that they're mutually exclusive, but they've been done on the basis that evaluation of carbon is an adjunct to an existing agricultural enterprise. This risks taking that equation and completely wiping it out on the back of companies wishing to survive having to achieve certain obligations, not being able to do it within the timeframes required through technological means, and therefore being left with no option, if there is no technological solution, the only meaningful, viable, realistic option for them is to buy up agricultural land and lock it up. That has flow-on impact on communities right across regional Australia. It has flow-on impact on agricultural industries as agricultural industries are made smaller and their economies of scale decline and the chance of those industries folding altogether becomes much, much more realistic. This is not a hypothetical. This is happening in regional WA at the moment, where large entities are buying up agricultural land effectively to lock it up. 19:29 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think I see the scenario that you are pointing to. I don't know that there is evidence of this happening at the moment. There is a review scheduled for 2026 for the arrangements that are proposed here. These are matters that could be considered and would be raised by senators who had concerns at that time. 19:30 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I'm happy to share the call with somebody else. This will be my last question for now. Did you have any submissions on this bill that asked for this issue to be addressed? 19:30 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The officials are checking on the submissions, but I indicated some clicks back that this was a matter that was contemplated as part of the Chubb review, and Professor Chubb made recommendations about this. The implementation of the Chubb review goes to this question. There are also other pathways in the specific context of the legislation before us for these issues to be raised as part of any review. 19:31 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Minister, when was the regulatory impact statement undertaken? 19:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm advised that the bill creates a framework, and it would be the rulemaking under that framework that had the regulatory impact. 19:32 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland This regulatory framework has been identified by the 250 large emitters as having financial imposts upon them. They have been able to identify that based on the framework that's been identified to this date. With what I've been told so far, just as a back-of-the-envelope calculation, we are talking at least hundreds of millions of dollars, and your answer is that there has not been a regulatory impact statement undertaken? 19:32 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm merely pointing you to the requirements that are placed on governments, or that governments place on themselves. It is the rulemaking process that would engage the requirement for such an assessment. 19:33 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The 215 high emitters that have been identified are some of the biggest taxpayers and employers in Australia. They ensure that Australians have well-paid jobs. But you're telling me that the government has not done a broad framework of modelling of any description to identify the cost to Australian industry and potentially the cost to Australian jobs? I want to clarify this because I think this is a very serious matter for Australia. 19:33 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This is essentially the same question that was asked of me by Senator Duniam. It was then asked of me by Senator Hughes. The nature of the analysis that's been undertaken in support of the bill has also been canvassed in Senate estimates. It was canvassed in the Senate committee that examined this legislation. I don't have anything further to the answers that I've already provided the chamber. 19:34 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I will finish on this statement, then. I think there is an exceptional flaw in the modelling of this proposal and this policy if I can tell you that this will have, at a bare minimum, hundreds of millions of dollars of impost in taxes from our most-successful and highest-tax-paying industries and employers, and the government has not done any modelling. I think this is a massive flaw in this policy, and I can only imagine the views of the government in opposition on how they would have held us to task for having failed to have done this. I appreciate that you believe you've said something to Senator Duniam and Senator Hughes, but I think that industry and people who rely on these companies will be pretty shocked to discover that there has not been specific modelling around this framework that identified a cost to Australia and Australian businesses. 19:35 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator McDonald, I have indicated in answers to previous questions the nature of the analysis that has been undertaken. Your characterisation is incorrect, and I will point out again that the process of developing this policy has been done in very close consultation with a very wide range of stakeholders over an extended period of time. 19:35 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Minister, I presume you were listening to Senator Shoebridge's contribution earlier this evening. In his contribution he talked about the hard cap, if I understood what he was saying, and the connection to another point that he made, which was that 58 projects were not going to proceed based on the implementation of the hard cap. I think I have what he said right, and you can correct me if you think I might be wrong. I'm wondering if you have a list of the 58 projects that might not proceed under this. 19:36 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you for the question. We are grateful for the Greens' willingness to negotiate, to discuss and to provide ideas about how to strengthen the policy that we took to the election. With respect to Senator Shoebridge and his colleagues, we do not accept that characterisation of the effect of the policy, so I will run through the amendment that we do in fact propose. It is that net emissions, which include offsets, by implication, must not exceed 1,233 million tonnes between '21-22 and '29-30 and that aggregate emissions must reduce over time. It does not change the elemental design feature of the proposal we put forward, which is to allow for entrants and also to allow for expansion of production of existing covered entities. With respect to colleagues, we don't consider that characterisation accurate. 19:38 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I take it that there's not a list of 58 that you have. 19:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I should also say that the arrangements we propose set out a set of obligations on the Climate Change Authority and the secretary of the department of climate change and on the minister to contemplate what actions might be necessary, should it seem that that objective to have a decline in emissions over time would not be met. Nothing about those arrangements suggests the cancellation of a particular project or a particular facility. 19:39 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia There are 215 facilities currently captured under the safeguard mechanism, as I understand it, and about 30 per cent, 66 facilities or projects, are across Western Australia, my home state. Thirty per cent is a big chunk, considering we good Western Australians make up 6.9 per cent of the population. Can you guarantee that, because of the changes that have been implemented as part of this bill and the amendments that have been agreed to with the Greens, there won't be projects, particularly in Western Australia, that would have been viable but will no longer be viable? Can you guarantee that that is not the case? 19:40 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Sorry, Senator, I just had a moment of having been awake for quite a long time. Let me pause and gather my thoughts. The bill anticipates establishing a baseline for each of the covered facilities and then establishing a decline rate for them which, in the ordinary course of things, would be 4.9 per cent annually but under certain circumstances might be reduced. We canvassed these in discussions with other colleagues. The proposed decline rate includes explicit consideration of emissions from new developments consistent with the way that we treat those in our emissions projections that are already produced by government each year. New developments include new facilities, backfill projects and expansions. As I tried to indicate to you in my earlier answer, the arrangements that are being put in place today don't alter that. What they do is establish a requirement that, on occasions when the environment minister makes an approval that will increase the emissions from a covered facility, that information is automatically transferred to the secretary of the department of climate change, to the minister and to the Climate Change Authority. That transfer of information, as you would probably understand, would occur in many instances anyway. This formalises it as a requirement on the minister for the environment. Under certain circumstances, if the Climate Change Authority or the secretary of the department considers that, on receipt of that information, we are at risk of not meeting the objects of the act, which are to reduce emissions, they must make that analysis available to the minister, who must then set in train some steps to try and remedy it. Those steps could be a change to the overall rule or they could be some other step that the minister considers necessary to achieve the objects of the act. Nothing about that alters the way that the minister for the environment would provide approvals. Nothing about that provides a capacity for the minister for climate change to stop or halt a project. I think it's important to be quite clear about that. 19:43 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland As a follow on to that line of questioning, did the government flag with overseas trading partners the likelihood of a number of new offshore developments not proceeding due to safeguard mechanism imposts, thus threatening future contracts and supply? 19:43 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales We haven't, because that's not our expectation. 19:43 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I want to come back to the issue of land use conflicts and the concerns raised by the National Farmers Federation. Minister, in one of your answers to Senator Brockman earlier, you mentioned the ministerial veto for projects whereby human induced regeneration may exceed 30 per cent of the farm. As you rightly pointed out, we brought the ministerial veto in when we were in government, in response to industry concerns. Do I take it from your answer that there will be no change to the 30 per cent ministerial veto in that legislation? 19:44 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Davey, may I ask you just to clarify the pointy part of your question? I heard the preamble. I'm just not quite sure what you are asking. 19:45 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales The concern that has been put to me by industry is about that ministerial veto of 30 per cent. I understand it's under another minister, but the concern is that that will now be removed to enable large-scale human induced regeneration offsets to satisfy the demands that will be created by this safeguard mechanism. 19:45 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Davey, that is not the subject of the legislation before us. I also indicate that we've had some discussion with a number of senators—and I thank you all for your questions and your engagement—about the concerns as they are expressed. I think it's important to be clear about what the position of the National Farmers Federation is. They have, as you've indicated, raised questions about the interaction between the safeguard mechanism and farms, but they have said: We need to find the balance between delivering carbon offsets and meeting our global food and fibre demands. Importantly, this also means supporting farmers to make informed business decisions about their participation in carbon markets. That's why we're calling for greater investment in on-ground extension services. I think that's a very constructive approach from the NFF. As I've indicated to other senators, a first step in our thinking about the recommendations that came to us from Professor Chubb is the implementation of arrangements for on-ground advice. That program was funded, I think, in the last budget. 19:47 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that you've mentioned the Chubb review a couple of times tonight, and I'm glad you have, because I have real concerns about the deal struck with the Greens relating to the Australian carbon credit units and human induced regeneration. As you've quite rightly pointed out, farmers very much understand that the climate is changing. They live the reality every day. From droughts to flooding rains they manage their lands. Every farmer wants to find the balance. Commodity group after commodity group is working towards net zero. They know it's not only good for the planet but also really good for their market access. That's why farmers have actually embraced the exchange of human induced regeneration projects within reason, within a percentage of their land, as ACCUs. But now we see the risk through this backroom deal that you've done with the Greens to get their flawed policy through this place. When the Greens announced their deal with the government, Adam Bandt said: The agreement will significantly improve the integrity of ACCUs with a freeze on the most dubious offset class (Human Induced Regeneration) until they are subject to an independent audit. However, as you've mentioned, we've already had the Chubb review, and in Minister Bowen's press release he did not mention anything about a freeze. So who do we believe, Minister? Do we believe the Greens or do we believe that the ACCUs will not change? 19:49 Senator McALLIS 121628 New South Wales TER (—) (): Thanks very much, Senator Davey. I have canvassed this reasonably extensively earlier in the day. The commitment we've provided over the last few days is very specific and relates very directly to the Chubb review. It relates even more specifically to recommendation 8 from Professor Chubb. That recommendation essentially makes a set of observations about how the test associated with the human-induced regeneration method ought to be applied. We have made clear that we expect that method and that interpretation to be considered in issuing any new credits to projects established under the human-induced regeneration method. We expect that the way that would happen would be in the ordinary process by which project proponents approach the Clean Energy Regulator and seek to have their credits allocated on the basis of activities undertaken under the project. I hope that makes it clear. We wouldn't characterise it in quite the same way as you've described just now. 19:50 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Minister, there've been a lot of questions and concern today from those opposite about the impact of our reforms on the business community. I understand that there's actually been considerable support for the government's safeguard mechanism policy design from business advocates and that there's considerable support on the record. For example, from the BCA, Jennifer Westacott said about these safeguard reforms: … my message to all involved is let's pass this bill. She also said: … let's get it done, let's get some momentum so that we can get this big investment change happening … There were similar comments and similar endorsement from Andrew McKellar of ACCI. He said: The business community has been very clear in its support for reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism. This is the best way to secure the planning, investment and innovation that will underpin the decarbonisation of our economy without sacrificing reliability or affordability. There was also considerable support on the record from the Australian Industry Group, the AIG. Mr Willox said: While debate over the detail of the reformed Safeguard Mechanism will continue, the crediting Bill before Parliament is essential policy infrastructure and it is strongly in everyone's interest to pass it. Mr Willox also said: It is time for the Parliament to come to a workable agreement on the current package of Safeguard Mechanism reforms so that the private and public sectors can get on with the transition to a net zero emissions economy. I note further the comments that were actually made just yesterday, I think—I think yesterday was 28 March, it's been a bit of a time-space vortex in here recently, but I think these comments were made yesterday—from Manufacturing Australia on 28 March and those comments take into account all of the debate that's been happening over the last few days. Manufacturing Australia said: These changes are sensible and pragmatic. It's now vital that we get the details and the implementation right, to enable the multi-decade investments that are needed to underpin low emissions manufacturing. It's great, of course, to hear that support from our manufacturing sector as recently as yesterday that the changes are sensible and they're pragmatic, and it's vital that we continue now with the implementation phase and get that right so that industry can get on with the long-term investment that they need to transform to low-emissions manufacturing. Of course, it's not just in the manufacturing sector that we have seen this support from business and from industry. I have also seen comments that I wanted your reaction to, Minister. Glencore CEO Gary Nagle said: We are committed to reducing our total emissions (Scope 1, 2 and 3) by 15% by 2026 and 50% by 2035, both on 2019 levels. Post 2035, our ambition is to achieve net zero total emissions by 2050, with a supportive policy environment. We have heard today figures about just how many of the businesses that are covered by the reformed safeguard mechanism already have those net zero total emissions targets by 2050, and Glencore is clearly one of those. Their website explains it really well. The website says: We aim to be a net zero total emissions company by 2050. This means we're not only reducing the direct emissions from our own operations (Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions), but also those created from the use of our products (Scope 3). It's fantastic to see the great ambition there from Glencore, the support that they have for the safeguard mechanism and their desire to see a supportive policy environment that gives them the certainty that they need for their business to go forward. We have also had on the record support from the Minerals Council of Australia. Ms Constable said to the Senate inquiry back in February, speaking about where the mining industry is at with reducing emissions: The mining industry recognises that there is a very big task that is required to reduce emissions, and we have been on that path for a long time. The minerals industry has signed onto net zero by 2050. Again, they are already well on the way and looking for the certainty and stability of the types of reforms that the government is putting forward this week in the Senate. She went on to say that they have made that target. Then she went on to say: We have not been sitting on our hands waiting for policy change. We have been making that change over time. In 2020, the Minerals Council of Australia and its members released our first climate action plan. Since that time we have reported on an annual rolling basis our activities across the industry. It has been measured and, as I said, it has been recorded. MCA members have around about 39 separate activities that go from fuel switching—changing out of current energy sources to new energy sources—autonomous operations, renewable energy, battery storage, digitisation, a whole range of issues on site and in our headquarters, so across all of our operations. That is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing. It is a hard task, but every member is taking action. It is tremendous to see that level of support from the business community for these safeguard reforms. The BCA's Jennifer Westacott has said, 'Let's get on and pass this bill.' ACCI said, 'The business community has been very clear in its support for reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism,' and that it's the way forward for decarbonising our economy. The AiG said that of course there will be implementation questions and of course there will be detailed questions, but that this is 'essential policy infrastructure'. They say that it is time for the parliament to come to a workable agreement, which is what we're here to do, of course, this week in the parliament. Again, of course, as recently as yesterday, in taking on board all of the debates that have been happening in and around the parliament, we see that Manufacturing Australia have said that these changes are 'sensible and pragmatic'. That's what we aim to be as we get on with the job of delivering net zero by 2050 and reducing our emissions over the next several years to 2030 as well. Minister, what type of support does the proposed safeguard mechanism have from the business community? The Senate transcript was published up to 20:00 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.