2023-05-09 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 9 May 2023

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 1 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III 1 12:01 The 112096 PRESIDENT (): At the commencement of business, I wish to acknowledge the coronation of King Charles III on the weekend and extend congratulations to His Majesty on this occasion. I am pleased Australia was represented by a diverse representation of our nation at this event. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:02 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 1 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Sudan 1 12:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I start by extending my thoughts and the thoughts of all those in this place to the people of Sudan and to the Sudanese-Australian community. What is taking place in Sudan is deeply troubling. Hundreds of innocent people have been killed and thousands more injured. Despite the reported ceasefire, heavy fighting continues across Sudan. I reiterate Australia's call for all parties to return to negotiations and agree to a permanent cessation of hostilities. Since the beginning of the crisis, Australia has worked to assist Australians and their families to leave Sudan. Without an embassy in Sudan, we have worked closely with our friends and partners who have a presence on the ground, just as we support our friends and partners in the event of a crisis in our region. I have been in close contact with my counterparts on this effort, including with Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and the UAE. More than 240 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officers have worked on Australia's response: making calls to more than 400 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members in Sudan, as well as hundreds of their concerned family and friends here in Australia; organising departure options; remotely arranging travel for Australians across disrupted cities; engaging diplomatically to push for ceasefires to inform our understanding and our decisions; and working around the clock in our crisis centre. We have deployed additional consular staff to Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus and Egypt to support Australians arriving from Sudan. We've prioritised visa applications for those impacted by the conflict and embedded Australian officials in the United Kingdom's crisis centre as part of our efforts. We facilitated the departure of more than 230 Australians from Sudan via more than 20 flights, ferries and convoys, and more than 130 of these Australians are now in Australia. As part of our contribution to international efforts we sent ADF assets, a DFAT crisis response team and members of the Australian Border Force to assist, and, across two Australian flights, 153 people were evacuated: 57 Australians and their families, as well as 96 foreign nationals from 10 partner countries. So in this Senate I wish to thank on behalf of the government all those officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who have worked as part of the crisis response, as well as members of the Australian Defence Force and Australian Border Force deployed to assist in the evacuation effort. Some Australians remain in Sudan because they have chosen to or because they are not in a position to leave, and they do so for many reasons. Family is often one of those; security is another. We remain in direct contact with registered Australians and their families in Sudan, and I again reiterate my request that those who have not registered should do so. There are still departure options available from Port Sudan; however, any travel routes should of course be assessed carefully, as the situation remains volatile and it remains dangerous. This conflict has exacerbated the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Sudan, which was already suffering high levels of food insecurity, with large numbers of displaced people. In response, the government will provide an initial $6 million in humanitarian assistance; $1 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is still operating in Sudan, which provides much-needed medical supplies, food, water, sanitation, emergency shelter and protection for the most vulnerable; and $5 million to Australia's international partners delivering life-saving humanitarian assistance in the region, and this is of course on top of the flexible core funding that Australia provides to our humanitarian partners and UN agencies. We again call on all parties to the conflict to uphold international law and protect civilians, including health and humanitarian aid workers, and I have no doubt all in this chamber would support that call. The Sudanese people deserve a chance for peace and a pathway to civilian led government. I thank the Senate. 12:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—The coalition join the government in expressing our concerns at the ongoing violence in Sudan, a conflict and a humanitarian crisis which now, in the latest element of this ongoing tragedy, is in its fourth week of more intense conflict and battle. We join the government in calling for the parties, the national army, the Rapid Support Forces and others engaged in the conflict to urgently cease hostilities, to return to negotiations and also to settle arrangements to protect the humanitarian assistance that people across Sudan desperately need and deserve. We also urge them to continue to work to provide safe passage for those who want to leave areas where fighting is taking place, including the capital, Khartoum, and Darfur. More than 100,000 people have reportedly fled Sudan into neighbouring South Sudan, Egypt and Ethiopia, sparking further humanitarian crises in parts of the world already struggling with such challenges. At least 700 are estimated to have been killed, although those estimates may be far too understated. According to humanitarian groups, the majority of those killed have been civilians. The opposition welcomes the government's initial contribution of $6 million in humanitarian assistance, including the provision of $1 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross for immediate relief such as medical supplies, food, water and sanitation, emergency shelter and protection. We welcome also the provision of $5 million to Australia's international partners who are leading the delivery of humanitarian assistance. I join the minister in acknowledging publicly the work of the members of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade consular and crisis management team in their efforts, alongside those of the Australian Defence Force, other officials and NGO supporters, who have all helped to ensure the safe evacuation of Australians who are in Sudan, and indeed nationals of other partner countries who are in Sudan. Their evacuation required intense effort, negotiation and assistance. I also thank on the record the numerous partner nations who helped to provide for the early evacuation of Australians and ensure their safety. Often unheralded, these officials in our consular and crisis management team deal with Australians and their loved ones, often at their very worst and in the most difficult of circumstances, and this event demonstrates yet again the worth of their tireless efforts right around the clock each and every day of the year. The coalition joins with members of the Australian Sudanese community who remain concerned about loved ones still in Sudan and about the future of their country. We urge the Australian government and all nations to continue to provide support to ongoing efforts with partners and allies to evacuate Australian citizens and others who need to leave, and to continue to support efforts towards peaceful resolution. We urge the parties within Sudan and their supporters to use any and every opportunity to pursue a peaceful end to this conflict, including through the current talks occurring in Saudi Arabia. I thank the Senate. 12:10 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia by leave—The outbreak of violence in Sudan has been nothing short of a tragedy. With thousands of people having been killed over the past weeks and millions trapped without access to food, water or electricity, this is an emergence of a humanitarian crisis of the most severe nature. Whilst countries around the world have rushed to evacuate their citizens, the Australian Greens want to extend our solidarity to the people of Sudan left behind, desperately seeking an exit route towards democracy in the nation itself. We also extend our thoughts to the families of the diaspora community here in Australia, painfully waiting to hear news of their families in Sudan. The capital of Sudan, Khartoum, has been the centre of violence and outbreaks of the most horrific nature of conflict in recent weeks, with a 100,000-strong force of the Rapid Support Forces, the relevant paramilitary group to the conflict, fighting for control and power. This follows four years of Sudan's attempt to build a civilian led government arising from decades of military rule. Plans for civilian rule have been jeopardised as ceasefires across the country are repeatedly breached. The two clashing forces have been linked to war crimes across the nation, including ethnic cleansing in regions such as Darfur, the Nuba Mountains and the Blue Nile region. The battle follows on from killings of over 2,000 peaceful protesters in front of military headquarters on 3 June 2019. This is a continual battle that the people of Sudan have been in for democracy in their nation. Sudanese people in the country and across the diaspora have repeated their wish to remove the military dictatorship and to see democracy come to Sudan. They wish to see a reckoning with the reality that many nations through the world have failed to engage as diligently and as continually as they should have in relation to the promotion of democracy in Sudan, and fear now that there is the potential for a broader, more global conflict within the particular region, involving external powers. The Australian Greens join with the government and are pleased to see the actions that have been taken by the government in relation to the provision of humanitarian assistance. But we continue to call on the Australian government broadly and the Australian foreign ministry specifically to engage ahead of time in regions beyond the Asia-Pacific to ensure that Australia's engagement is truly global and we play a full role as a responsible actor in that global community. BUSINESS 3 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 3 12:13 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I seek leave to move a motion to provide for the consideration of the Education and Other Legislation Amendment (Abolishing Indexation and Raising the Minimum Repayment Income for Education and Training Loans) Bill 2022. Leave not granted. Senator FARUQI 250362 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of business, namely a motion to provide for the consideration of the Education and Other Legislation Amendment (Abolishing Indexation and Raising the Minimum Repayment Income for Education and Training Loans) Bill 2022. More than three million Australians will see their student debts swell by a staggering 7.1 per cent on 1 June, and 1 June is approaching fast. The clock is ticking. This parliament needs to act, and it needs to act now. This matter is urgent because in a few short weeks people with an average debt of $24,000 will be hit with a $1,700 increase to their debt. For more than half a million people with debts of around $40,000 their debts will go up by $2,840, and it will be much higher for others. What's about to hit is nothing short of a student debt avalanche, and this is on top of the 3.9 per cent increase last June. The government know the avalanche is coming and know it will hit young people, women and those on lower incomes the hardest, yet they are doing absolutely nothing about it in the budget tonight, and the Greens won't let them get away with doing nothing. People deserve better than to be caught up in a student debt spiral that is out of control. That's why I'm seeking to have the Greens bill, which would abolish indexation and raise minimum repayment income to the median wage, brought on for consideration right now. We can't wait any longer. The clock is ticking. People right now are struggling with the cost of living as it rages on. People right now are living in poverty. They are having to choose between heating and eating, between buying medicine or buying a train ticket, between paying rent or paying back their ballooning study debt. Their study debts are rising faster than they can pay them off. Something needs to be done, and it needs to be done right now. Students were out there in force today in a rally outside parliament demanding action. Some of them are in here right now. I applaud your activism and your courage to fight for the right thing. We have the opportunity to act on student debt before indexation hits on 1 June, and this bill is a clear and immediate step to start tackling the student debt crisis while providing cost-of-living relief as we work towards wiping all student debt and making lifelong education fee-free for all. This bill immediately halts indexation of all study loans, effectively freezing debt levels and saving 3.2 million Australians from being hit by a deeply unfair 7.1 per cent rise in student debt. The bill lifts the current minimum repayment threshold of $48,361 to the median wage, which is $65,000. No-one with a study debt will have to repay a cent of that debt until they're earning above the median wage. The system that asks people to start paying off student debt, which is unfair from the start, when they earn barely above minimum wage is a cruel, unfair and deeply cooked system. These measures are desperately and urgently needed to bring some fairness to this broken student loan system and to provide relief to millions of Australians struggling under the weight of ballooning student debt. Soaring student debt is already locking people out of the housing market and making it harder for them to get personal loans. It's crushing their dreams of further study and causing people to rethink starting a family. It is causing young people enormous financial and mental stress. The growing burden of student debt is having an enormous impact every day on people's lives. It is actually making news every day. At a Senate committee inquiry, overwhelming evidence was heard of why student debt should be frozen, indexation scrapped and the minimum repayment income raised, and young people, students, graduates, women and unions all said that these measures should be taken, yet Labor refused to accept that evidence. Today we can choose to make life easier for millions of people, and senators today can actually show people that they care about changing a deeply unfair system, not just talk about it. Talk is cheap; action is what we need. Or, otherwise, they can be held accountable for their actions. If the Labor government can afford to splurge hundreds of billions of dollars on war machines and stage 3 tax cuts for the billionaires, then these modest measures can surely be affordable. We need action on student debt, and we need that action urgently. So I urge the Senate to listen to the loud and desperate calls of the community, of students and of young people and support the motion so we can make a decision in the interests of the people we serve, not corporations and billionaires. 12:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise to respond to this because I want to put some facts on the table about what is actually driving this. The Greens are moving this motion, a procedural motion to up-end the Senate's procedures, so that they can continue with blocking billions of dollars being invested into Australian housing. That is why they are doing this. They've had this private senators' bill in this parliament since November. They have chosen not to bring it on for debate at the appropriate time. They've chosen this. They had times when they could have debated this bill if they cared about it so much, but no—they want to use it as cover for not debating a $10 billion investment in Australian housing. They are trying to continue to block more investment in affordable housing in this country, and this is cover for it. The government wants to debate the housing bill. We want to debate the housing bill because (a) it was an election commitment and (b) we actually want more affordable housing in this country. But we have the Greens and the Liberals teaming up to oppose more investment in housing. Who would have thought the Greens party would be lining up with the Liberals to oppose more investment in housing? We on this side of the chamber know too many Australians hit by growing rents, too many Australians struggling to buy a home and too many Australians experiencing homelessness. Their solution is to block investment in supply. That's their solution: 'Let's not add to supply.' That's because they want a political stunt. It is so cynical. It is so cynical to pretend you care about people who are struggling with rent and struggling with homelessness and then turn up and vote with the Tories against more investment in housing. Senator Scarr 282997 We're not in London! Senator WONG 00AOU Sorry, we are not in London. They vote with the coalition—with the Liberals and the Nationals—against public investment in housing. Let me say this. This government understands what is happening in housing in this country and the way in which it is turning, frankly, into an intergenerational disadvantage. It is turning into an intergenerational injustice. It is. That is why, after 10 years of inaction by those on that side, we have $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, with houses already under construction and a housing accord with the states. Senator WONG 00AOU They don't like it, do they? You can keep pointing and yelling, but everybody knows you are fighting against money for housing. That's what you're doing, Senator Shoebridge, and no amount of yelling is going to distract from the fact you are voting with the Liberals against more investment in affordable housing. The PRESID 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young, on a point of order? Senator Hanson-Young I0U I would just like to remind the minister to speak through the chair and not to individual senators. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. I will also— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I will also remind all senators in this chamber that, when Senator Faruqi was on her feet, every single senator in this chamber listened in respectful silence. I expect the same for every other speaker that follows after. Senator WONG 00AOU One of the ways in which the federal government, particularly after 10 years of inaction by those opposite, can improve access to housing is to work to improve supply, and that is what we are seeking to do with $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, a housing accord which includes federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes; the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which is helping thousands of Australians into homeownership; a budget which will deliver billions of dollars; $2 million for financing more social and affordable rental housing through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, and significant expansion of eligibility criteria for the Home Guarantee Scheme, as well as a boost to homelessness funding to states and territories. So the Housing Australia Future Fund is not all we are doing. It is one aspect of a multipronged plan and substantial investment to try to deal with this. We actually understand that the Commonwealth can do more to put more supply on the table, and that will have an effect on affordability. I have watched over the years the Greens and the Liberals team up on some things. We watched them previously team up against the carbon price. But this stunt today is to try to give themselves cover for not debating a bill. I mean, really—at least have the courage of your convictions. We keep hearing, 'Oh, they just want to make sure they don't have to vote for it.' If you really believe that this is so bad, if you really think $10 billion of taxpayer funds to provide more housing supply in this country is not worthy, then stand up and have the guts to argue it. But no, what you're trying to do—and I heard Senator McKim today on the radio—is you're trying to find a way to not actually have the argument. We're for more investment in public, social and affordable housing. You're with the Libs, against it. End of story. 12:25 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The coalition will not be supporting this suspension of standing orders because, intrinsically, we believe it is the right of the government of the day to set the legislative agenda for the week, and therefore we will be voting against this. But in doing so I also put on the record that using the procedures and mechanisms of this chamber to try to divert, to delay, just because the government has not been able to reach an agreement with the other party of government that they need in order to get their bill through, is I think also quite an egregious breach of the use of the procedures of this chamber. This is a government that often works with the Greens and the crossbench to breach conventions that have held this place in such good esteem for many, many decades. It is with pride that we have always come into this chamber and said that it's the processes, the procedures and the conventions that we have all upheld that have made this chamber work the way it has. But in recent times we continue to see that being eroded and eroded and eroded for the convenience of those trying to get through whatever it is that they're trying to shove through without going through those appropriate processes. There are many examples I could use of how this has happened, whether it be committee referrals that go to the wrong committees, committee referrals that are denied, OPDs that are not answered, or responses that come back into this chamber that show complete and utter contempt for the procedures of this place. We'll probably see over the coming days a number of those OPDs and FOIs that we've received back, but particularly OPDs, where the ministers have just point blank refused to answer a legitimate question that this chamber has asked and has voted on and required the government to return. They're just refusing to do so. We also continue to see legislation that has not even been consulted on, yet they use their numbers in this place to shove it through. We constantly see legislation brought in here that has absolutely no substance to it at all, and apparently we've just got to trust the government, trust the Greens and trust everyone that it's all going to be fine, that everything's going to be contained in subordinate legislation, so we just have to go through on trust. I think it's time that this place took a very serious look at itself and thought about what its intention really is in terms of doing the most important job that we have here, which is to constantly review everything that comes through this place, instead of doing dirty deals on the side and using the conventions and the mechanisms of this chamber to play games. I fear that, once again, this motion from Senator Faruqi that is before us today is absolutely doing that. In relation to the argument that's going on between the Greens and the Labor Party around the substance of the bill that they're trying not to debate and the bill that they are now seeking to debate, these are both very important issues that this chamber should be able to have the opportunity to prosecute appropriately. But to come in here and ask us to allow you to bring on for debate a bill whose intention we didn't know anything about, to be debated now, giving us five minutes notice—to expect those in this chamber to make sensible contributions about something as important as making sure that the education and the financial commitments that sit around the education of Australians—is I think the most disrespectful thing that you can do to this chamber. In summing up, what we're seeing today is disrespect around the way the conventions of the chamber are being used and the reason they're being used around really important, substantive issues that matter so much, particularly to young Australians. But, at the same time, we sit here looking at a government that doesn't seem to mind trashing the conventions that have stood this parliament and this Senate in such good stead since this parliament was first conceived many years ago. It is really quite a travesty that we are now standing here wasting the time of the Senate on cheap stunts. So I would say to those opposite—all of those opposite, right the way down to the other end of the chamber—why don't we all move back to where we were, where we actually respected the conventions of this place, we respected each other and we respected the right to have a proper process to enable everybody in this place to be able to debate important matters in a respectful and timely way. Can we just stop the stunts and get on with supporting this parliament to deliver the best possible government and alternative government that is possible. 12:30 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria There should be no greater priority for legislation being brought to this Senate than legislation which is going to help lift people out of poverty, which is what Senator Faruqi's bill, the Education and Other Legislation Amendment (Abolishing Indexation and Raising the Minimum Repayment Income for Education and Training Loans) Bill 2022, would do. That's why it is urgent. That's why we should be debating it now, on budget day, particularly given that, on budget day, we have heard all the rumours that there are going to be so many people left behind—students, young people, people with disabilities, people who deserve to be not living in poverty. They are going to be left behind by the budget that the Labor government will bring down tonight. This government is not going to take the action that is needed to allow people to live a dignified life with the income that they need in order to not live in poverty. I am absolutely proud to be here as part of a Greens team that wants to prioritise debating a bill that is going to freeze and abolish indexation on student debt rather than a piece of housing legislation that is totally inadequate to tackle the scale of the crisis. It is totally inappropriate that we should be debating the government's pathetic housing bill today, because it is just not up to the job. We have a housing crisis in Australia. We have a rent crisis. We have skyrocketing rents. The very same young people whose financial circumstances Senator Faruqi is trying address with her bill are looking at a future of never being able to afford to buy a home, of actually not even being able to afford to rent a home. We have young people who are living on the streets, young people who are couch surfing, young people who are living in cars, young people who are having to abandon their studies so that they can work in low-income jobs to be able to pay the rent, having decided that they cannot afford to keep studying. We are absolutely destroying the lives of the young people whose circumstances Senator Faruqi, with her bill, is trying to do something to improve. The housing legislation that the government is trying to bring on for debate today is absolutely inadequate. It's not going to guarantee that any money gets spent. It's basically gambling that $10 billion of money on the stock market, if we had had the same conditions last year going forward. The only guarantee that the government has given is that there are going to be at least 1,200 homes that will be built. That means that 240 houses will be built in Victoria—1,200 homes over the forwards and 240 houses a year. In New South Wales all that we would be guaranteed is 240 houses a year. Think of the tens of thousands of people. Look at the public housing waiting lists that are decades long. Yet this is what the government thinks is adequate. The Greens want the government to come back to the negotiating table and get serious, to propose legislation that actually tackles the scale of the crisis. Meanwhile, if they are not willing to do that, we will continue to ramp up the pressure to get them to come back to the negotiating table so that they can deliver some legislation that is actually going to tackle the scale of the housing crisis. Meanwhile, we think that Senator Faruqi's bill is a much more appropriate bill to be debating today because Senator Faruqi has introduced a bill that would make a meaningful difference to students' lives. We are very disappointed that the Labor Party don't see that they can support the bill. It would help alleviate the financial stress and the hardship that is being faced by those people living below the poverty line. The students who are in the gallery today know what I'm talking about. They would have listened to Senator Wong's contribution and asked: Why does Senator Wong, why does the Labor Party, hate young people, hate students? It is time for the government to take some responsibility for the student debt crisis and support students in their education for a brighter future. As Greens, we are committed to supporting young people for a fairer, better future. Student debt is a significant problem in Australia that affects the lives of millions of people, particularly those living on income support. Those living in poverty, way below the poverty line, are always trying to cope with the threat of being evicted from their houses. They are the people who absolutely need to have measures taken to improve their lives. That is what the Greens are trying to do, and we will defend our right to try to bring on legislation to do that. 12:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Greens really, really want to avoid debate on the housing bill, don't they? It is pretty clear this morning that stunt after stunt, delay after delay, they want to avoid debate on the housing bill and they will come in here and play any trick in the book. We saw it over the last month in the type of language that they're using. We heard the language from Senator Rice just then as well. They are outrageous claims that Senator Rice is making about what the Greens are actually signing up to. The Greens had months to introduce the bill and debate the bill that they are trying to bring on today. They introduced it in November. It has been sitting on the Notice Paper since November. They have had it there waiting for a stunt. It wasn't something they were committed to. They could have used private members' bills when they had the opportunity yet they haven't. They are trying to use the difficult circumstances that many students face as a pawn in this debate. It is an important issue that needs to be addressed, but so is housing. This is what the government promised in the election campaign, and we actually intend on delivering it in government in order to earn the respect and support of the Australian people by being a government that says it will do something, introduces legislation and then gets on with doing it. But in the last month we have learned a fair bit about the Greens. Their stunt today is evidence of a lack of confidence in their housing spokesperson, because he says a lot, he talks a lot and, the more he talks, the more mistakes he makes. It is a real fact that they don't want to have the debate because they have a lack of confidence in their position on this policy. So what have we learned over the last couple of months? The Greens are obviously very nervous about the strategy they have taken. They are having second thoughts, hopefully, about opposing this bill, because it will make such a significant difference. They are not listening to the peak bodies that are supporting our policy, because they will know it will make a difference. They are not supportive; they are not listening to those peak bodies. In the last month, we have seen the Greens' housing spokesperson opposing new developments in his own electorate. There he is, proudly standing with the sign saying: 'No, I oppose this development.' The Greens say we need more housing, yet in their own electorates they are opposing new housing developments. It is classic Greens' hypocrisy, and we're seeing it play out in the national parliament now they have some of these former student politicians elected who haven't graduated beyond student politics. That is still the way they are carrying out. This is a much too important issue to let student politicians loose who haven't graduated. Housing is a serious challenge in this country. In the capital cities and in regional Australia, it is something that needs urgent government attention. That is why Labor took the $10 billion fund, talked about it before the election campaign, took it to the election and won a majority; it was on the back of policies like that. That is why we are going around trying to implement it, because we know it will make a difference for those people who need it the most. Yet it is so unfortunate that the Greens have been led down this path and cannot see the opportunity that it presents us. For the first time in a decade, we have a national government that is providing national leadership on housing. Housing ministers around the country are meeting for the first time. We are working with local governments. Senator Wong spoke about some of the other policies that we are putting in place around housing as well, because we know that this is important. We know that so many people around the country need government support and need that national leadership that we are providing. By opposing this, this is what the Greens are standing in the way of: the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund that will deliver 30,000 new social and affordable homes. They are delaying homes for people in need, homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence, homes for older women and veterans who are at risk of homelessness. They are the real people that are relying on the Housing Australia Future Fund. Once again the Greens are showing that they're happy to put politics first. They're happy to play silly games and play people against each other when there is a real need for us to pass this housing bill now so that we can be a federal government that gets on with the job of delivering affordable housing for those that need it. That's what this government wants to achieve. That's what we are determined to deliver on in government. 12:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Greens want to talk about cancelling HECS debt. Well, let's talk about the HECS debt of students who started their degrees and then were forced to abandon them because of COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Any student who started studying their degree at university before COVID-19 arrived and subsequently was forced to abandon their studies because of an inhumane COVID-19 injection mandate, whether the mandate was at the university or at a placement that they were required to undertake as part of their degree, should have that HECS debt immediately cancelled. When they signed up to their multi-year degrees, there was no requirement for them to take an untested, experimental, gene therapy based injection. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, if you could resume your seat for a moment. The substance of your response needs to focus on the motion put forward by Senator Faruqi, which is to suspend business to debate the bill the Greens want to put forward, so you do need to respond to why you agree or disagree or make other comments around the urgency of that suspension motion. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Thank you. I'm getting to that point right now. Halfway through their degrees, that rule was changed on them, and they had no say over it. Their debt should be cancelled immediately. That's why One Nation will be opposing this motion to suspend standing orders: we want a proper debate. We want a royal commission. We want it dealt with properly so that students who have been kicked out of university, stopped their studies or stopped their placement get a fair say and have their HECS debt cancelled. 12:42 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Senator Rice said 'for all the students in the gallery.' The students in the gallery left a minute after you lot were on your feet, because they could see what a miserable, pathetic stunt this all really was. The Greens party we get to see here, with stunt after stunt— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge. Senator Shoebridge 169119 My point of order is that the member should direct the contribution through the chair and not point and gesticulate at the Greens in the manner in which he is behaving. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Senator Ayres did not refer in particular to any senator, but I will remind him that pointing at senators is inappropriate. Senator AYRES 16913 What a useful contribution that was! I don't want to point to them, but I do want to point out that this is where the students of Australia get to see the real colours of the Greens party. What is this really about? Is it about some of the affordability and other challenges that people face in the higher education sector? Not for a minute is it about any of those things. The government's got a process examining the real issues that sit there in higher education with affordability for students, but what is this really about—apart from some glib, US-style sloganeering about cancelling debt and all the other derivative nonsense that this group of characters carries on about? They are asking the Senate to choose between two things this week. Are we dealing with the HELP related issues or are we dealing with homelessness? Are we going to deal with a scheme that they think should be abolished, in their world, that means that students make a contribution when they earn enough or are we going to deal with people who are sleeping under bridges? This lot over here want to carry on with some student Trotskyite approach. They are trying to play chicken with the legislative process in this place, but what they don't want— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ayres. The time for this debate has expired. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:49]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sterle)

 11 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. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 9 BILLS Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 9

Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023

National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023

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

Second Reading 9 12:52 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I stand today to make a contribution in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill and Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures) No. 1 Bill 2023. At the outset I make it very clear to this chamber that the opposition will be opposing the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. However, we do intend to support the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023. The most relevant thing today in the contribution that I'll make on behalf of the opposition is that we will not be supporting the establishment of the Housing Australia Future Fund. It's probably one of the most egregious examples of financial engineering that we've seen from this or any government, for that matter. Concerningly, this is starting to become a bit of a hallmark of this government, trying to facilitate significant government spending in off-budget items through funds like this. It's clear, like most of their policies so far, that the genesis of the Housing Australia Future Fund has been driven more by the potential headlines it could generate than by achieving the significant and sensible outcomes in housing that they purport to be trying to deliver by this set of legislation. So, despite Labor's promise that they will invest $10 billion in housing, we know that every time someone from the government says that it is simply not true. The commitment is about as tangible as their aspirational targets, and we know that Australians cannot live in aspirational targets. We know that the Albanese Labor government is not proposing in this bill to invest $10 billion in housing. They are not intending to do that at all. What they are doing is setting up a fund of fully borrowed money, $10 billion worth of Commonwealth borrowings, with the hope that the fund will produce sufficient returns to be able to pass those returns on to housing projects. But we know that, with the 10-year government bond rate at the moment approaching four per cent and rising, this $10 billion of borrowings will cost the Commonwealth approximately $400 million every year in interest. That's $400 million every single year. And it's very relevant to the fact that this bill is before the House this week, because we know right now that Australians are doing it really tough due to serious constraints due to the rising cost-of-living pressures that are being overseen by this government. Make no mistake: this inflation we are seeing is domestic inflation. It started here in Canberra and can't be blamed elsewhere. But the pressures that this inflation is inflicting are particularly felt by households trying to pay the mortgage as interest rates continue to rise. Australians will be looking very closely at tonight's budget to see how it will help them with their cost-of-living crisis that is putting serious pressure on their budgets. We know that the increased borrowing contained in this legislation will only add to the inflationary impact and pressures that are on our economy at the moment, which will inevitably lead to ever-higher interest rates. We've seen a very clear message to the government from the Reserve Bank. It is saying to this government that it needs to start doing some of the heavy fiscal lifting to reduce inflation instead of leaving it entirely to the Reserve Bank; otherwise, the job will continue to be left to monetary policy, and, in a minute, monetary policy will run out. We've already seen eight rises under this government. So what is the Albanese government's answer to the pleas from the Reserve Bank to borrow less and to spend less? It's to set up a fund with $10 billion worth of borrowings that we know will likely have $400 million worth of interest costs every year. There are a number of reasons why the opposition will not be supporting this bill. First and foremost, anything that will increase inflation and, therefore, lead to higher mortgage rates cannot, in good conscience, be supported in this place. Second, there is absolutely no certainty that this fund will result in any funding of any housing projects. The disbursements from the fund will be wholly reliant on the financial performance of the fund's investments in equities and other financial products, and that is a very big 'if'—you don't need to go too far back into history to realise what a big if it really is. For example, if this fund had been established last financial year, the Commonwealth would have lost approximately $370 million in addition to the $400 million in interest. That is a total loss of $770 million. It would mean that not even one dollar would be available for social and affordable housing projects. This is not a source of stable, recurrent funding for a government program. Instead, it is an absolutely blatant attempt to try to keep a housing measure from impacting Jim Chalmers' budget bottom line. The International Monetary Fund has already clearly warned the government about the proliferation of these sorts of funds. But you don't need to be an economist from the IMF to be concerned about what this government is trying to do here. It is clear that there is every likelihood that, at the end of this term of government, we could find that we have not delivered a single house as promised, at great cost to the budget's bottom line and to Australian households. The bill also lacks any crucial detail. This is something that has become a bit of a hallmark of this government—to just put in the legislation and worry about the detail later. The government has refused to release the investment mandate and is restricting scrutiny of the key information on the fund's capacity to deliver on its very own commitments by the government. We know that when the government doesn't want us to see something, there is usually a pretty compelling reason why not. This legislation is essentially a shell with all the key aspects of the operations of the fund that are likely to be contained in this investment mandate, which they still haven't made public. That should make every observer of this particular passage of this legislation very, very nervous about this fund. The investment mandate needs to go through public consultation because the sector is very nervous about the way in which the fund is structured. Indeed, the sector has already outlined a number of failures in this bill. There is a failure to define key terms. What is the definition of 'social housing'? What is the definition of 'affordable housing'? What is the definition of 'acute housing'? These are terms that will dictate what this fund will spend potential future returns on—if there are any returns. Stakeholders have also criticised the limit on annual drawdowns. Again, this highlights the lack of funding certainty with no mechanism and performance criteria against which to assess the effectiveness of the grants. Furthermore, the bill prescribes a five-year review time frame, which is completely inadequate given the uncertainty around the funding model. This fund is in absolute contrast to the approach of the former government, and we believe we have a very strong record, which is there for all to see, on supporting homeownership and funding social and affordable housing. Firstly, we established the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation—soon to be renamed Housing Australia—which was a landmark achievement. In establishing this landmark body, the coalition put community housing providers at the centre of what we did. Since its creation, NHFIC has delivered $2.9 billion in low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments to be reinvested in more affordable housing. It also unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings, through the coalition's $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility, to make housing supply more responsive to demand. Over our last three years in government, the coalition's housing policies also supported more than 300,000 Australians with the purchase of their home. In particular, under the coalition, first home buyers reached their highest level for nearly 15 years. We assisted more than 60,000 people into a home, through our Home Guarantee Scheme, which helped homebuyers get into the market by bringing down the deposit hurdle from 20 per cent to five per cent. Most recently, there was the Family Home Guarantee, which required a deposit of only two per cent for single parents, 85 per cent of which were single mothers. We also delivered 137,000 HomeBuilder projects. Our First Home Super Saver Scheme helped more than 25,000 people fast-track their savings and deposits through concessions within their superannuation. In summary, we've got a government whose housing policies are in tatters, and first home buyers have dropped month on month under this government, with no action in response. Now they're trying to bring on the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation, which will add to the inflationary pressures already being felt by households around Australia and bring pressure onto the economy, with absolutely no certainty of any returns being generated and being able to be applied to housing. Our message is very clear to the government: a housing fund that will increase inflationary pressure and result in higher interest rates, that has no guarantee of return or the delivery of any housing projects, that's going to cost $400 million a year in interest rates and that's going to move community housing providers to the sidelines is not the way to deliver the positive change that so many Australians are needing right now. We will not be supporting the establishment of this fund. 13:02 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to Labor's housing package. Before getting into the details of Labor's policy, I want to say that housing is totally cooked in this country. The scale of the housing crisis has never been more acute, yet all Labor can offer is an extremely weak plan that will do so little, if anything at all. New homelessness figures released by the ABS show that the number of people without a home rose by 5.2 per cent over the last five years. Of those without a home, 56 per cent are women and children. Women make up the vast majority of the newly homeless. We hear over and over that rising rents and the higher and higher cost of living, combined with lower savings and superannuation, are pushing older women to the brink. Young people's dreams of owning a home have become nightmares. More than 20 per cent of those without a home are First Nations people, despite them making up just 3.8 per cent of the population. It is an absolute disgrace that so many First Nations people don't own a home on their own land. We have a shortage of 640,000 social and affordable homes. Being a renter in Australia has never been more difficult, and there are record low vacancy rates and skyrocketing rents. There are 2.7 million people living in rental stress. Rental prices are a staggering 22 per cent higher than they were in 2020. Renters are predicted to pay $10 billion in rent increases alone, in 2023, at a time when real wages are falling. Virtually no region in Australia is affordable for aged-care workers, early childhood educators and carers, cleaners, nurses and many other frontline, essential workers. People are sleeping and living in cars, in caravans, in tents. They're being forced to couch surf, with rental vacancy rates at their lowest levels ever. Whether they are in regional Australia or live in a capital city, more and more people are struggling to pay rent and having to make the choice between rent and food, between medication and dental care. No-one should be in a situation like this. With interest rates rising, the RBA predicts that 4.5 million households soon won't be earning enough to cover their mortgages and pay for essentials. The housing crisis, of course, is hitting those already marginalised the hardest. Less than one per cent of private rental properties in Australia are affordable for those earning the minimum wage, while people on Centrelink payments are barely able to afford rooms in shared houses, according to a recent Anglican report. More than 70 per cent of the people who come to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre in Melbourne in housing distress were unable to be placed in accommodation, with the broader housing crisis putting more pressure on temporary and emergency housing services. International students are being forced to pitch tents in the living rooms of houses, and students are lining up at food banks. Unstable and unaffordable housing is causing long-term mental health impacts and enormous stress, and it is harming people every single day. The housing and rental crisis does have a human face, and I want to read out a few recent stories from people. Cheryl Rowe, a cleaner in Western Australia, has been forced to live in a camping trailer for the past few months, after her landlord sold her rental. As Cheryl says: 'It's hard every night after work coming home to a tent rather than a home. You're living out of your car. You're living out of supermarket bags. I work full time. I should be able to get a home.' But the hardest part of Cheryl's ordeal was checking her terminally ill husband into hospital after she realised that she couldn't care for him in a home and that a caravan park was her only option. Cassie and her two young sons on the South Coast of New South Wales have been homeless since July, when she became unable to afford their rent. Since then, they have been bouncing between hotels and crisis accommodation, hoping various charities will foot their bills. As Cassie says: 'I just want my boys to grow up happy and healthy and know that they've got somewhere to sleep every night.' Bob, a 79-year-old pensioner in Sydney, was recently served a no-grounds eviction notice. He gets emotional when he thinks about the people he will have to compete against to secure a new place: 'How many people are going to take in a pensioner on very cheap rent? There's not going to be too many offers, I think.' It is absolutely obscene that, in a wealthy country like Australia, people are struggling and suffering like Cheryl, Cassie and Bob. Shamefully, Labor's housing plan will do little if anything for people like Cheryl, Cassie and Bob, and there are many more people facing harrowing circumstances because of a housing system that sees millions being screwed over while banks and property developers make an absolute killing off the misery of others. We have a housing system where it's impossible to get into public housing because there is so little of it. But it's also impossible to get into a rental because rents are just so damn high. We need big, bold, long-term action on housing in this country. We need a minimum of $5 billion invested in social and affordable housing every year, indexed to inflation. We need to invest directly in building hundreds of thousands of well-designed, accessible and sustainable public homes—enough to not just clear the waiting list but also provide affordable housing to the millions who are locked out of the housing market. We need to invest big in First Nations housing. We need to phase out perverse tax incentives that encourage and reward property hoarding, such as negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. We need to stop ignoring renters and treating them like second-class citizens. That's why the Greens are calling for an immediate freeze on rent increases for two years. Renters deserve an immediate relief. They are facing serious financial stress as a result of these soaring rents. We need a pathway towards national tenancy standards that deliver protection from 'no grounds' evictions. The government's plan to deal with the crisis, though, involves very few of these things, though we have forced the government to at least put rent freezes onto the national cabinet's agenda. The boldly named but pathetically inadequate Housing Australia Future Fund legislation won't even touch the sides of the housing crisis in this country. And let's start by being clear about what this legislation does and does not do. It does not invest $10 billion in affordable and social housing, contrary to what Labor repeatedly tells you to think. However, it does invest $10 billion in the stock market via the housing fund. It's the returns, if there are any at all, that will be invested in affordable and social housing projects. Property developers in the private sector will be relied on to deliver these projects. It is completely speculative and a reckless way for a government to deal with something as essential and meaningful as housing, which is a core human right. There could be years where the fund doesn't make a single cent or even years where it loses money. It is hard to know where rock bottom will lie with this neoliberal, market-obsessed Labor government, but I hope we would never leave school funding or hospital funding to a gamble on the stock market, so why on earth would we do it with housing? The big risks associated with the fund are not matched by the rewards—even if the fund were to make a big return, spending on housing is capped at $500 million per year with no indexation. There is no floor and spending with this plan—literally nothing could be invested in social and affordable housing in a given year under this plan. And that cap of $500 million is not even a drop in the ocean. The recent National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation review estimated that an investment of $14.7 billion per year is needed to meet the shortfall of social and affordable housing. This legislation aims to finance the construction of a mere 30,000 social and affordable homes over five years. The benefits of Labor's signature housing policy will be easily outstripped by the growth of a social and affordable homes shortage. Under Labor's plan, we will have a bigger shortage of social and affordable housing in five years time than we do now. That says it all, really. The problem will get worse under this plan. There is a clear, better and more obvious way to solve the housing crisis, and the Greens are calling for the government to invest $5 billion directly in social and affordable housing. If the federal government invested $5 billion each year in partnership with the states, 110,000 public and affordable homes could be built in the next five years—that's four times the amount that Labor is touting. By retaining ownership of the homes, the government could earn money from rental returns over the next decade, and that could be reinvested in building more homes. A number of witnesses to the inquiry into this legislation supported the Greens' view that the government's model of gambling away $10 billion in the Future Fund is deeply flawed. There should be direct investment into social and affordable housing. Doctor John Quiggin, Professor of Economics at the University of Queensland, said that the policy was risky and that capping housing funding at the amount generated by fund returns is 'not a good way to fund public expenditure of any kind and particularly not … social housing'. The Antipoverty Centre described the fund as 'intentionally designed to sound more significant that it is', and called for the provision of social and affordable housing to be directly funded by the government. But if Labor don't want to believe us or the experts, they can listen to what the community has to say. The Greens are a grassroots movement and we have been doorknocking, with hundreds of volunteers across the country, to ask the people about Labor's sham of a housing policy. We have knocked on thousands of doors and spoken to so many people who are copping massive rent and mortgage hikes, asking them what they think about the plan. The message that we got back was crystal clear—people are thoroughly disappointed with Labor's plan. They get it. A vast majority want a more ambitious plan. They want more action. They want real action to tackle the housing crisis that includes direct investment in public and affordable housing and national rent caps. They want us to fight for something better, and we will be doing that. We will be fighting for something better. The Greens want action on housing, not a dud of a policy. We are pushing the government to improve it, and we will be moving several amendments, but it is up to the government to come to the table. People want Labor to go back to the drawing board and come back with a housing plan that actually tackles the housing and rental crisis that we are facing. We want $5 billion in direct investment, as I said earlier. To put this into perspective, $5 billion per year is a drop in the ocean compared to what the government is giving as stage 3 tax cuts to the billionaires or what they are spending on dangerous war machines. It's two per cent of the stage 3 tax cuts. It's about one per cent of what the nuclear subs are going to cost. Safe, secure, affordable and accessible housing is a human right, but decades of neoliberal policy has made speculative assets of what should be homes. The basic human right to shelter now takes a back seat to the market. That is an absolute shame. It is woeful and it is pathetic. The reality is that we do have the money to fix the housing crisis in this country, just as we have the money to lift everyone out of poverty. It is purely a matter of political will. Labor's plan and this bill will make the housing and rental crisis worse. But Labor is really the only obstacle standing in the way of solving the housing crisis. We won't stop fighting on behalf of the millions of people who are in housing stress and who are being left behind. We will not stop fighting, and I hope that Labor can see sense, can come to the table and come up with a plan that actually helps people, not one that puts them into more distress. 13:17 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm very keen to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and the related bills. I wish I had got a chance to speak on this earlier but, unfortunately, the Greens, as we know, pulled a stunt this morning to try to prevent us debating this really important legislation. Here we are. We are finally getting to this bill. I am sure that there will be more stunts during the week, but I'm really proud to be talking about the Housing Australia Future Fund and the significance of this bill in addressing the housing affordability crisis in our country. This is a critical issue facing Australians. It is something that people talk to me about all the time, in regional Australia particularly. For far too long, we have witnessed inaction and delay under the former government when it comes to addressing the housing affordability crisis. We've had a decade of delay and now it is time to get on with fixing this problem. Under the previous government, we saw denial and neglect that exacerbated this crisis, leaving many Australians struggling to find a safe and secure place to call home, but our government has a plan to tackle this issue head-on. The Housing Australia Future Fund is the single most significant investment in social and affordable housing in a decade. The $10 billion fund to invest in 30,000 new social and affordable homes over the next five years is just the beginning. The fund also pledges $200 million for repairs to remote Indigenous housing, $100 million for crisis accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness, and $30 million for veterans' housing. These are essential commitments that would benefit some of our most vulnerable Australians. The debate on this bill is a test for the Greens political party. It is a test because we need to know where they truly stand. Are they going to line up with the Liberal Party, as they are claiming they will do, to block this bill? Are they prepared to vote with the Liberal and National parties, who did nothing on housing affordability for a decade, and vote this bill down? It's a test for the Greens because they need to decide whether they will stop investment in housing or whether they will block this bill and the investment that this bill contains. Do they care more about politics or about actually getting things done? On this side of the chamber, that is what we are here for. We are here to get things done. We took this policy to the election and we got people to vote on it. People in the regions that I am from were incredibly excited about this proposition and about a government that says we need to tackle this issue and we need to get things done. This is the start of that action. Perhaps I'm cynical, but seeking to block funding for affordable and social housing for vulnerable Australians seems to serve only one purpose, and that is politics. I can't see another reason why you would stand in the way of 30,000 new social and affordable homes over the next five years, $200 million for Indigenous housing repairs, $100 million for housing for those experiencing domestic violence and $30 million for veterans' housing. I cannot see a reason other than politics for the Greens political party to block this bill. This is a test for the Greens on housing and whether they'll decide to line up with the Liberal and National parties, whether they choose to vote with the Liberal and National parties, and sit next to them to block this will. The Greens don't have the moral high ground on housing. I won't sit here and be lectured about how desperately people need housing. That is exactly why we are getting on with this bill. Somehow, the Greens seem to believe that because they held a doorknock on Saturday they have the moral high ground on housing. We have been doorknocking too, I can tell you, and the people in Griffith are pretty surprised about who is standing up for housing and who is seeking to block it. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill is urgent legislation. Despite all of the adjectives used by the Greens to describe this bill, they left one really important description out. That is that housing and homelessness peak bodies around the country want this bill passed. Those are the words that they leave out of every description of this bill—that the peak bodies on housing and homelessness want this bill passed. This includes National Shelter. It includes Homelessness Australia. These are the stakeholders that are supporting this bill. It includes the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association, the Community Housing Industry Association and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Those are just some of the peak bodies who wrote a statement around the time of the last sitting calling on the Senate to support this legislation. These are the voices that the Greens are choosing to ignore when they threaten to block this bill. It's not just national peak bodies; it's also local service providers that are calling on us to pass this legislation. Before this legislation came to the Senate, I visited the Cairns Homelessness Services Hub to talk to them about this bill. They wanted us to pass this bill. That's because they are at the coalface of this housing and homelessness crisis and they want to see action taken. It is unremarkable, I think, for the Liberal and National parties to oppose this bill. I think we can agree that they have opposed everything that we have brought to this chamber. They have opposed every single new idea and every policy that the government took to the election. They say, 'No, no, no,' to everything. That's up to them. They don't want to be a constructive opposition. They are just going to ignore everything the voters told them at the election and vote against everything that we bring to this chamber. So it is no surprise that they have opposed everything that we have brought forward to improve Australians' lives. However, the fact that the Greens are deciding to sit with the Liberals and block this bill is particularly concerning, given the magnitude of the housing affordability crisis in this country. The Greens really do need to decide if they are willing to work with the Liberal and National parties to sink this bill or whether they want to start action and get things done. On this side of the chamber, we are ready to deliver housing relief for Australians. The regions that I visit in Queensland are crying out for investment in housing. They have been for years. It is particularly poignant that many members of the Greens are refusing to listen to these regional voices. I'm not surprised that members of the Liberal and National parties are refusing to listen to people in regional Australia. They wear the badge and say that they actually stand up for regional Australians, but they fail to support them when they walk in here. But I am surprised that the Greens are joining with them to ignore the voices of regional Australians who are so desperate for housing. We should be working together to ensure all Australians can have access to safe and affordable housing and we should be doing what we can to show national leadership. That is something our government is doing and has been doing on housing since we were elected. The Greens have called for national leadership. We are showing that national leadership. We don't need the Greens to call on it; we're doing it. We said before the election that we would do it, and we are doing it. Most recently, at the national cabinet, we got all the states and territories to agree to develop reforms to increase housing supply and affordability and to put rental rights front and centre. All states and territories agreed to strengthen renting rights. That's what happens when you have a government committed to this action. That's what happens when you have a government committed to national leadership. That is what happens when you have a government that is listening to peak bodies on housing and homelessness instead of ignoring them. That's exactly what happens. But the Housing Australia Future Fund is not the only thing that our government is doing to address the housing affordability crisis. I know that the parties around this chamber would have you believe that this bill is the only thing the government is doing. We know how important it is to address this housing affordability crisis. Stability and security are essential for the happiness and health of our community. That's why we have an ambitious housing reform agenda to ensure that more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. We said that we won't waste a day in delivering on this agenda, and we haven't. The housing legislation package is a comprehensive suite of measures to get more social and affordable homes on the ground. The legislation implements our government's commitments to establish the Housing Australia Future Fund, to transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation and to establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. This is on top of: our government's commitment to the National Housing Accord, a shared agenda ambition to build one million well-located homes over the next five years; our $350 million of additional Commonwealth funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over the next five years from 2024, which has been matched by the states and the territories; our commitment to widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, made up of $575 million, which we've already done; and our National Housing and Homelessness Plan to set short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia. We've also delivered the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which has already helped more than 2,700 Australians into homeownership, with the majority of those in my home state of Queensland. We are taking action on housing on top of this bill. This is not the only thing that we are doing, but it is a key piece of our reform. This is an important piece of legislation and it's an important test, as I said, for the Greens political party. What's important for people to understand is that you have a government committed to addressing the housing and affordability crisis. We have shown national leadership when it comes to rental reforms. We are working with the states and territories, as you must do in this space, because we can't do it on our own, and we are showing national leadership and delivering on those reforms. We are delivering more investment for social and affordable housing than we have seen for the past decade. The Greens need to understand that sitting with the Liberals, as they plan to do, and blocking this bill won't build any new houses. It will actually stop homes from being built. Moving motions to suspend standing orders won't build more houses for women fleeing domestic violence. It won't build more homes; it will only stop houses being built. Every time the member for Griffith and the member for Melbourne hold a press conference in Parliament House to defend their miserable position, it won't build any more houses. It might get them more hits on social media and it might give them a chance to have in the newspaper, but it won't build a single new house and it won't help a single vulnerable Australian facing homelessness. Maybe that's exactly what the Greens party want: more social media hits, more names in the newspapers, more media conferences, more chances to make their name stand out in the sun. But that doesn't do anything for people facing a housing affordability crisis. This is all about politics for the Greens political party. It has been from the very beginning of our discussion about housing. And no matter the number of press conferences that the member for Griffith or the member for Melbourne attend, no matter the number of times that they try to defend their position, one thing is really simple. Eventually this house will vote on this bill. Eventually the Senate will come to a position of voting on this legislation, no matter the suspension of standing orders, no matter the attempts from the Greens political party to put this off. When we vote on this legislation— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 It being 1.30 pm, I shall now proceed to two-minute statements. Senator Green, you have two minutes remaining, if you wish to be in continuation when the matter returns before the Senate. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 15 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Bagdad Community Singers 15 13:30 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I rise today with a tinge of sadness to pay tribute to the Bagdad Community Singers, a community choir that has spread song throughout southern Tasmania for almost 30 years. The group started as an idea of Chris Fehlberg, who called a public meeting in the southern Tasmanian town of Bagdad in 1994 to assess community interest in forming a singing group. By the following year, the Bagdad Singers had performed songs, skits and stand-up comedy at multiple venues across Tasmania. This included performances at the Bagdad Music Hall, which became the group's meeting location. As their conductor for 19 years, Chris steered the group of up to 30 performers to musicality. Nobody needed to an audition to join and many couldn't read music, but their enthusiasm and Chris's direction meant that learn to sing in well-balanced four-part harmony. As quoted in the April edition of BagdadNews, one member, Kay Harmon, said the Bagdad singers' strong male section was the envy of many other community choirs. When Chris moved to Melbourne, musician and choir director Roslyn Langlois took up the baton. The choir welcomed and embraced a new name: Bagdad Community Singers. Under new leadership, the choir retained its favourite songs and added to its repertoire. Kay commented that 'for six years, Roslyn strove to make us the best we could be'. The COVID pandemic and the aged-care facility lockdowns, coupled with Roslyn's developing Parkinson's disease and the loss of their rehearsal venue, meant that the Bagdad Community Singers had to reinvent itself. The choir to practising in a local gym, and long-term members Nathan and Marilyn shared management and conducting duties over the past few years. But the choir's numbers have dwindled, and the group recently announced that it has sung its final note. Members credit the choir with not only learning to sing and harmonise but also discovering new Tasmanian venues and making lasting friendships. Thank you to each and every one of the Bagdad Community Singers, who entertained audiences at venues throughout Tasmania during the past three decades. Your melodies will be cherished for a long time to come. Housing Australia Future Fund 15 13:32 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia There are some comments from this morning I'd like to talk about. We heard the Liberal Party telling us that Labor's housing plan won't build any housing, which is a ridiculous statement. It is only outstripped by the commentary from the Greens, who have said that the housing crisis is so bad that we shouldn't set up a $10 billion housing fund—go figure. It's just ridiculous. They have sat on their hands for a decade and watched the coalition foster this housing situation that we are now facing. And now, because there is a bill before the house with some serious action on housing, the most significant package we've seen in decades, they want to complain. I am left remembering watching the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens party band together a decade ago to vote against the CPRS. That was a climate crisis that they liked to waffle on about all the time. They ensured, between the three of them—the Liberal Party the Nationals Party and the Greens party—that no action was taken on climate change for a decade. Don't do that again. Don't do that to housing. This is ridiculous, just ridiculous. We have had nothing on housing for a long time, and this is a policy, this is a fund, that will make a fundamental difference to those people out there who are struggling. Everyone in this chamber—everyone in the country, indeed—knows that we have serious housing challenges in front of us and that we must take action. This grandstanding, politicising and monologuing to stop any action on housing is ridiculous. Pensions and Benefits 16 13:34 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria No-one deserves to live in poverty, but you wouldn't know that from Labor's deliberate measures to keep people living well below the poverty line. If the reports this week are true, Labor is planning to increase JobSeeker by $2.85 a day, which is even less than the increase to JobSeeker that former Prime Minister Morrison made last year. It is $500 below the Henderson poverty line. People who are on starvation payments are hurting. They are having to make impossible choices between paying for food, paying the rent and paying for vital medication. But, rather than receiving a substantial increase to their payments—the substantial increase that the government's own hand-picked Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee recommended—they are going to receive a slap in the face. Budgets are about choices, and Labor could choose differently, instead of doubling down, leaving people without the heating, the food or the medicines that they need in order to survive. Labor must increase poverty payments, must increase income support to above the poverty line, to above $88 a day, and must end punitive mutual obligations. And if you need to know how to pay for it, we Greens have some very significant proposals that can help you out. Axe the stage 3 tax cuts. That would free up $254 billion over the next decade. Dump the AUKUS submarines. That would be $364 billion. Increase taxes on the coal, the gas and the oil companies, instead of the pathetic increase to the petroleum resource rent tax that the gas cartel have approved. And stop subsidies to fossil fuels—over $10 billion a year. Budgets are about choices. This government is making the wrong choice, and we call on them to do differently. Boer War Memorial 16 13:36 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia The Boer War was our nation's first expeditionary war. Initially all six colonies provided troops between 1899 and 1900. Then, as a nation, we came together between 1901 and 1902 to support the war effort. In total, 16,000 Australians served in the Boer War, including nearly 1,000 Western Australians, including nurses and bushmen. Today they are recognised and commemorated at a spectacular commemoration memorial in Kings Park in Perth. A total of 598 Australians are recorded on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial, having made the ultimate sacrifice. While we say 'Lest we forget', it is important for us to remember that it means that we remember them all, no matter how long ago they served and sacrificed. I commend the Boer War Memorial Society of Western Australia, which was established by my lovely friend Kevin Bovell and is today run by a small and very dedicated group of volunteers who actively work to preserve the memories and also the stories of Australians who served in this war before time has run out and their stories are lost forever. I thank Kevin and all volunteers for their passion and their commitment. But, unlike others on the Roll of Honour, the 16,000 Australians who served do not yet have a day included in the Department of Veterans' Affairs National Commemorative Program. The society has for many years been campaigning for 31 May, the day the war ended, to be recognised as the Boer War national commemorative day. So I call on the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to remedy this oversight and to ensure that all who served our nation, no matter the century, are remembered and are never forgotten. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. (Time expired) Budget 16 13:38 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I thank Senator Reynolds for her comments on commemoration of the Boer War and also recognise those who served during the Boer War conflict. It is an incredibly important thing for us to remember today in the Senate. I'm here today to talk about today's budget. It is budget day, and tonight's budget does three things. It provides cost-of-living relief that doesn't add to inflation, it creates more opportunities for more Australians and it builds a stronger and more resilient economy in the future—three incredibly important principles. We know that the most important part of this budget will be delivering cost-of-living relief, and the centrepiece of this budget that we'll hear the details of tonight is a $14.6 billion cost-of-living relief package. It's incredibly important that our government is able to deliver cost-of-living relief where it's affordable and responsible. This budget has been carefully calibrated and designed to take the pressure off the cost of living, rather than add to it. More than five million households and one million small businesses will be eligible for energy price relief rebates from 1 July—we've already announced that measure—and, from 1 September, general patients will be able to save up to $180 per script per year for medicines that are able to be prescribed for 60 days, building on our cheaper medicines policy. This is on top of the $2.2 billion Strengthening Medicare package in the budget to make health care more accessible and affordable for all Australians. This is a budget that is in the best Labor tradition—helping the vulnerable with the cost of living. We're also making sure that we create more opportunities for more Australians. We're doing that by making a change to the single parenting payment, raising the age to 14 and increasing payments by an extra $176 per fortnight from 20 September. We're also funding the biggest pay rise ever for aged-care workers. (Time expired) Artificial Intelligence 17 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania AI, or artificial intelligence, is becoming a big part of our lives, but it can also have some negative effects. Here are some reasons why AI can be bad. Firstly, job losses: AI can do tasks that people used to do, which might lead to people losing their jobs. As companies use artificial intelligence to save money and be more efficient, some workers may struggle to find new jobs. Secondly, the bias: AI learns from data, and, if that data has biases, the artificial intelligence system can become biased too. This can make problems like discrimination even worse and unfair to certain groups of people. Thirdly, privacy: artificial intelligence can be used to spy on people and invade their privacy. With facial recognition and data analysis, governments and businesses can track what we do, which can make us feel less free and safe. Fourthly, fake news and deepfakes: AI can create realistic but fake videos and images, known as deepfakes. These can be used to spread false information, harm reputations or cause trouble in society. Fifthly, loss of control: if AI becomes too powerful and smart, it will become hard for humans to control. This could lead to accidents or even danger if AI decides its goals are more important than the ones that human beings believe theirs to be. In summary, while artificial intelligence has many benefits, it can also cause problems like job loss, bias, privacy invasion, fake news and loss of control. We need to be aware of these issues and work together to make AI safe and helpful for everyone. This speech was 100 per cent written by artificial intelligence. Maybe the Prime Minister is onto something, but, maybe by reducing our advisers, he is looking for AI to run the country. Let me tell you this, Prime Minister: if you're getting rid of our advisers and expecting that, it's not long before you're on the chopping block. (Time expired) Budget 17 13:42 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Tonight Australia is expecting its first budget surplus in 15 years, and it's entirely due to the resources sector of this country. Unfortunately, the Labor Party does not want to recognise that and never says thanks to the hardworking men and women in that sector, but today I want to put on record my thanks to the thousands of Australians that spend time away from their family, digging stuff out of the ground and making the wealth for us so that we can fund schools, hospitals and other public services in this country. I thank you very, very much. The figures show that this surplus is built on the backs of those workers that the Labor Party no longer recognises. Last year the Labor Party's first budget predicted a $36 billion deficit for this financial year, while, in fact, resources exports have produced just over $110 billion more than expected last year. If 30 per cent of that extra revenue goes back to the taxpayer through corporate taxes, as it does, that's $33 billion in extra taxes from the resources sector, and the deficit has almost entirely been wiped out thanks to our mining industry. If you look at it in more detail, a lot of it's due to our coal, gas and fossil fuel industries, which the Labor Party wants to shut down. They announced last week that they want a transition authority. They want everybody to transition in mining towns, away from one job to another, even though there's record demand for the products they produce. There has been a $44 billion increase in coal, so that's about another $15 billion in taxes. From that industry, there has been a $40 billion increase in gas imports. So that's around $12 billion to $13 billion extra in taxes from them too. Instead of saying thanks, this Labor Party is putting export controls on the industry, price caps on their product and massive amounts of new red tape—and there will be more to come soon with their environmental protection agency. When is the Labor Party actually going to show some love to the thousands of Australians that rely on a strong mining industry for their job, for their communities and to make sure that they have a future? I won't be holding my breath. Audit and Assurance Industry 17 13:44 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I seek to draw the attention of the chamber today to a matter of national importance, and that's the integrity of the audit and assurance sector. In recent days it's become very clear PwC, PricewaterhouseCoopers, used secret government information that belongs to the Australian people to advise clients how to sidestep new tax laws that were under construction by the previous government in 2015 to 2016. A now-ex PwC tax partner by the name of Mr Peter Collins signed confidentiality agreements and was supposed to be helping the Treasury department and the Australian Taxation Office to make sure that multinationals paid their tax but nonetheless took that information back to PwC and monetised that for PwC's profit. These institutions, PwC and the other assurance companies, are vital to the proper functioning of the markets of this country. Every single one of us with money in superannuation rely on decisions that are made based on the truth that these companies are supposed to tell. Instead, we've had a massive betrayal. I show to you here, in this chamber: this is the compiled 144 pages of the email trail that reveals it was not only Mr Collins but the CEO, Mr Tom Seymour, who resigned yesterday evening, who was involved with the deception of the Australian parliament and the Australian people and with a betrayal of ethical and professional standards that they should be upholding. This is a major cancer on the way that information that is vital to the national interest is being undertaken by those at PwC. We have had a resignation from Mr Seymour overnight as the CEO. He remains a partner. There are many more questions than answers arising from these pages. I will not let this go, in the interests of the nation. (Time expired) Tasmania: Australian Football League 18 13:46 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Last week the AFL finally announced that Tasmania would get licences for AFL men's and women's teams, but what should have been a day of unity and celebration for our state was tarnished. Instead of being able to celebrate our state finally getting AFL men's and women's licences, we were burdened and saddened with the announcement that we would get, on prime waterfront land in Tasmania, a giant new football stadium that the state does not want and does not need. The only reason we're getting this stadium is the AFL's blackmail of Tasmania and the craven collapse of Prime Minister Albanese and Premier Rockliff in front of that blackmail. Those two politicians drove past the cars and the tents of homeless Tasmanians to make an announcement that they were going to put a roof over a billion dollar stadium that we do not need rather than spend money putting a roof over the heads of homeless Tasmanians. To do this in the best of times would have been bad enough, but these are far from the best of times. We are going to see hundreds, potentially thousands, of Tasmanians shiver through a cold winter without a roof over their heads when Prime Minister Albanese and Premier Rockliff are prepared to spend up to a billion dollars building a stadium that Tasmanians do not want or need. It's a betrayal of the highest order. I've got a warning for the Labor and Liberal parties: the people of Tasmania do not want this stadium, they will not let their money be wasted while there are people going cold and hungry, so they should get ready for a fight, because it's not over yet. (Time expired) Coronation Of His Majesty King Charles III 18 13:49 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory On 3 May, an official media release went out on the Prime Minister's letterhead. It announced a whopping $10,000 contribution to Friends of the Western Ground Parrot as a coronation gift to His Majesty the King. The laughable mediocrity of this announcement is symbolic of a deeper problem. The government is running around papering over cracks. There are an estimated 100 to 150 western ground parrots left, and $10,000 is a tiny amount for a huge task. What about the swift parrot, the Regent honeyeater, the glossy black cockatoo and the gang-gang cockatoo? There's a very long list of endangered birds. It's great that the government is investing in critically endangered birds, but throwing a token $10,000 donation at them is one step in a very long marathon. It's good that the government is seeking a return for the sale of Australian gas, but, at less than 0.5 per cent of expected earnings, the return we will get is irresponsibly small. It's good that the government is increasing JobSeeker, but if it's an extra $2.85 a day—a mere fifth of what was recommended—it isn't enough to lift people who rely on the safety net out of poverty. It's good that the government wants to build more houses, but refusing to increase the size of the fund and refusing to remove the annual cap on spending or, at the very least, index payments is inadequate. It's inadequate and it's simply not good enough. The government is doing some good things but seems unwilling to show political courage, the kind of courage that Australians want. Human Rights: Myanmar 18 13:51 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Australia cannot allow the Burma conflict to become the forgotten conflict. A few weeks ago I took myself privately to India, to Delhi, and I thank those people that gave up their time to meet with me so I could understand and see firsthand the geopolitical consequences of Burmese refugees being forced into India as a result of the continued military atrocities and human rights violations that are happening in Burma. This is the time for Australia to step up its contribution, to better support the UNHCR in the north-east region of India, to provide better humanitarian assistance and to fast-track discussions about how we can provide alternative pathways for humanitarian aid, particularly in those regions of Burma that border countries like Thailand and India. The time to act is now. Seventeen thousand people have been arrested, including 381 children, and there are 13,000 people in detention and 17.6 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. The United Nations Security Council has called this a 'perpetual human rights crisis', and the United Nations Human Rights Council has said that the conflict has now 'opened frontlines that had long been at peace'. For refugees from Burma, Australia has had a strong and proud record of providing humanitarian assistance and pathways to our country, and that should not only continue but be increased. In coming weeks I hope to report on more of my discussions, but I'm looking for the Australian government to step up now and do more. United Nations 19 13:53 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people that make up our one Queensland community, I draw the Senate's attention to the United Nations World Health Organization's current attempt at child grooming. This speech is part of my longer essay on this topic, which was published yesterday in the Spectator online. The World Health Organization has orchestrated a framework for health and education policymakers called Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe. Only last month, the World Health Organization tried to expand this agenda worldwide and failed to get the numbers—for now. Not to be outdone, the UN has a complementary framework called the International technical guidance on sexuality education. The preferred framework of the World Health Organization and the UN demands that sex education begin at birth and be under the state's guidance—not the parent's. In their own words, this framework aims to empower children and young people to develop respectful sexual relationships. It says: These skills can help children and young people form respectful and healthy relationships with … romantic or sexual partners. By age four, the child will have knowledge of biological reproduction and sexuality sufficient to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual behaviour and will be taught about consent—under four! By age six, children will be exposed to education on intercourse, masturbation and pornography. By age nine, these will actually be taught, with the intent of achieving an adult knowledge and the assumption these nine-year-olds would have had their first sexual encounter. Well, they will now! By the time children are aged 12, the World Health Organization will have placed all this knowledge into the appropriate political context, thereby destroying our kids' chances of ever having a loving, monogamous relationship. Children are impressionable and in their early, formative years can be scarred for life. Adult sexual content has no place in a child's education in the way these monsters propose. It's time to get out of the perverts' paradise that the UN and its agencies have become. People with Disability 19 13:55 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia No-one should ever be made to feel like their very existence is a burden or like their lives are the reason for the challenges that our country faces. The lead-up to the budget has been horrendous for the disability community. We have heard story after story again and again in the media—never from our own mouths, never in our own words—positioning us as thieves, positioning us as bludgers, positioning us as unsustainable burdens. These words have consequences. The language used by writers and commentators and by the so-called leaders of this country sitting in this place of privilege have consequences. They reinforce the negative stereotypes that so impact on people's lives in devastating ways. Some people in this place claim to be the allies of the disability community but, when push comes to shove, they shove disabled people and our NDIS out of the way, instead prioritising $250 billion worth of tax cuts for billionaires and people who are already rich and $360 billion for nuclear submarines. The budget should be about supporting people in the community the best way we can. Make no mistake: disabled people dislike being harmed indirectly and directly by the sentiments of these statements and will be continuing to push back against any attempt— (Time expired) E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products 19 13:57 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Last week at the National Press Club we saw the Minister for Health and Aged Care get up and declare himself as Australia's new vape tsar. He pledged that he was going to stop kids vaping and getting addicted to these products by banning them for everyone. Senator Green 259819 Wow! Senator HUGHES 273828 Absolutely, Senator Green: wow! Unfortunately, this policy is going to have exactly the opposite effect. It's going to make the black market worse and it's going to lead to even more young people vaping, and this, of course, is very sad. It's sad because there's actually a very simple solution to this: vaping needs to be regulated. It needs to be licensed and it needs to be taxed as a consumer product, because that's what it is. It's an adult consumer product, in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are adult consumer products. We know that the vaping prohibition model has already failed. In fact, since the implementation of the prescription model, we have seen the vaping black market only increase. Of course, this was always going to happen, because when you create a black market you create the conditions for crime syndicates to flourish. And, to nobody's surprise, it turns out that criminal syndicates are more than happy to supply kids with vapes. There is an easy way out of this: we need to regulate it; we need to license it; we need to tax it. Instead, those opposite, who claim to look after the vulnerable, are looking at a further excise on tobacco, which we know is only going to hurt those in the most disadvantaged and lowest socio-economic groups. Workplace Relations 20 13:59 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria The concept of the four-day week has been gaining significant traction globally due to the measurable effects on productivity and quality of life. Recently, Australian Services Union members at Oxfam voted up an enterprise agreement that adopts a four-day working week trial. The six-month pilot will allow Oxfam's 90 permanent full-time employees to opt for 30 hours a week over four days without any loss of pay. The agreement is the first of its kind in Australia, the first to be formalised within an enterprise bargaining agreement and the first to be approved by the Fair Work Commission. It's a landmark achievement, and I congratulate Imogen Sturni and the team at the Victoria private sector branch of the ASU for negotiating this agreement. The four-day week seeks more than just increases in productivity— (Time expired) MINISTRY 20 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 20 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I advise changes to ministerial arrangements. Senator Gallagher will be absent from question time today on account of ministerial business relating to budget. In Senator Gallagher's absence, ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President, party leaders and Independent senators. SHADOW MINISTRY 20 SHADOW MINISTRY Presentation 20 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I advise the Senate that Senator Nampijinpa Price has been appointed shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Paterson as shadow minister for home affairs, Senator Liddle as shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, and Senator Cash as shadow Attorney-General. I seek leave to table the revised shadow ministry list and have it incorporated in Hansard. The document read as follows— QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Housing 22 14:01 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. Has the government modelled the impact of the decision to increase immigration by 715,000 people over the next two years on rental markets in Australia's capital cities? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia When I find the brief I was looking at before in relation to migration, I will respond directly on the NOM that he identifies. But, if I may, I'll go to the rental point. It is odd to get a question about housing in a week where the coalition and the Greens are going to work together to prevent investment in housing supply. Because if Senator Smith were concerned, as his question suggests he is, about rental affordability—he is somebody who I think understands basic supply and demand—he would understand that, if you increase supply, you put downward pressure on prices. So if one cares about rental affordability, how do you square that away, Senator Smith, with your opposition to more investment in the very capital investment that you say matters? The reality is that we have a higher net overseas migration forecast in 2022-23 to reflect a one-off catch-up from the pandemic and the return of international students. I know those opposite recognise the importance of that export service to our economy and to the financial and broader position of our educational institutions. So I would have been surprised—in fact, I have been surprised—at Mr Dutton's position, which seems to suggest we don't want international students to return, which is, of course, an expert earner for Australia, but at the same time is opposing the Housing Australia Future Fund. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a first supplementary? 14:03 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia How does the government reconcile its plan for increased immigration with the comments made by the Reserve Bank of Australia in this month's statement on monetary policy that 'a shortfall in housing supply relative to strong demand from a rising population is expected to result in continued upward pressure on rents, adding to the inflation forecast'? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I suppose the response to that might simply be: How do you reconcile your opposition to more investment in housing with the statement that you've just read out? It is utterly inconsistent. But because Senator Smith and I have served here a long time together, I will take the less political aspect of his question—oh, sorry; now you're going to be in trouble, aren't you, now I have said that?—which goes to the inflation point. It is an important balancing act that the government has had to take through the budget as we look at how you invest in support for the cost of living, given the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing, without adding to inflation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt! Senator WONG 00AOU The expenditure review committee, the Finance Minister and the Treasurer, as well as the Prime Minister, have been very focused on it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I am going to remind you it is incredibly disorderly to call out when you're walking down to the Senate, and I would further ask you to withdraw the comments that you made. Senator Watt 245759 I will. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a second supplementary question? 14:05 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Isn't the government's decision to increase immigration to unprecedented levels just another example of the government's policies working against the Treasurer's statement that inflation remains the primary challenge in our economy? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It's quite disappointing that those opposite, who understand the backlog in terms of net overseas migration caused by the pandemic, are going down this path. It is the case that we are seeing the return of international students. It's an important sector. I remind the Senate that the population is still forecast to be cumulatively lower than pre-pandemic forecasts by June 2023, and 215,000 persons lower in June 2024. In fact, while the net overseas migration figure is higher, the population forecast is lower than was forecast previously. Obviously we understand the importance of making sure we have a sensible debate on migration—we've seen where this has gone at other times in this country. I urge those opposite to recognise that investment in housing is one of the ways we ensure that we assist in the battle against the rising cost of living that global inflation and supply chains constraints have raised— (Time expired) Budget 23 14:07 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on how the government's budget will fix legacy issues Labor inherited from the Liberals and Nationals, and address cost-of-living pressures? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Albanese government is committed to a stronger economy and a fairer society, and the budget will reflect that. We on this side have been working hard to clean up the mess left by the Liberals and Nationals. They failed to manage the budget and they drove up debt. Tonight's budget will be a budget in the best Labor tradition: a budget focused on delivering cost-of-living relief now, including a $14.6 billion package of targeted relief for household energy bills, cheaper medicines, expanded access to the parenting payment, and more. Obviously, much more will be revealed tonight, but I can say that this budget will be delivered in the most responsible way so that it will not drive up inflation. We've also worked to ensure that this budget invests in the future growth of our economy, with cleaner and cheaper energy at the core of that strategy, in sharp contrast to what those opposite delivered. Our budget is built on a foundation of responsible economic management—a stark contrast to those opposite. Tonight's budget will include billions of dollars cleaning up the mess left to us by the Liberals and the Nationals. Unlike those opposite, Labor is not prepared to leave vital government functions unfunded, including biosecurity, disaster management, management of radioactive waste, digital health and online safety. Unlike those opposite, we're not happy to leave national collecting institutions to crumble or ignore the Liberals' chronic underinvestment in our national parks or flood-warning infrastructure. We had to address the previous government's failure to provision a single dollar for the Olympic and Paralympic Games—not a single dollar. I'm hoping the Queenslanders might cheer a government that's backing in Queensland when it comes to the Olympics and Paralympic Games. We are building on the $4.1 billion in the October budget we had to spend to resolve legacy— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, a first supplementary? 14:09 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Could Minister Wong please explain how the government is working to provide targeted, responsible cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Stewart for her supplementary question. I would say this: this senator and all senators are very focused on cost-of-living relief for Australians in a way that is responsible and effective. Our priority is to provide cost-of-living relief without adding inflationary pressure to the economy, so we will include $14.6 billion in tonight's budget in responsible, targeted cost-of-living relief. It builds on—those opposite might remember this—an increase to award wages for aged-care workers, improvements to paid parental leave, and cheaper child care. But, as the Treasurer has flagged, it will forecast a surplus for this year, a deliberate result of the Albanese government's responsible bottom line. Unlike those opposite, we will deal with this responsibly. We won't be wandering around like those opposite did, with the 'Back in Black' mugs. We will deal with this budget responsibly. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Stewart, a further supplementary? 14:10 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Can the minister provide further detail on Labor's continued responsible approach to budgeting, in contrast to the decade of waste and irresponsible spending from the Liberals and Nationals? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would make this point, because those opposite seem to live in some sort of fantasy land where they think they were responsible. Those opposite doubled the debt before the pandemic. Those opposite left Australians with a trillion dollars in debt and nothing to show for it. We on this side—this government—will make decisions to reduce the debt. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU They don't like it, do they? You don't like it. It's very upsetting to know you're fiscally irresponsible. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Order! I'm waiting for silence before I call the minister again. Senator Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU Those opposite doubled the debt before the pandemic. They left us with a trillion dollars in debt and nothing to show for it. What we will see in tonight's budget is $17.8 billion in spending reprioritised, building on the $22 billion in savings and reprioritisation we identified in the October budget. Guess what their savings were in their last budget. Zero. One of the things driving the improvement to revenue is improvement in wages and we all know those opposite are for a low-wage economy. (Time expired) Budget 24 14:12 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. Minister, is it accurate that most working Australian families will receive no energy bill relief in this budget, but will still be hit with the costs of higher inflation and an increased tax bill caused by bracket creep? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for her question, and I would make this point. Obviously, details of the energy price relief plan, which required bilateral discussions with all states and territories, will be demonstrated in some detail in tonight's budget. It does seem strange—just like it did with the housing question—that we get a question from a coalition senator about energy price relief after they voted against it. You voted against it! You voted against the plan that you're now asking questions about. Senator Birmingham H6X Because you weren't going to deliver. Senator WONG 00AOU It's because our policies weren't going to deliver, he says. It's interesting, isn't it? They come in here and they say, 'We're for energy price relief—sort of—but we're going to vote against it, and actually, we've got nothing else on the table to deliver.' There's only one party here, one party of government, that is absolutely clear about the responsibility and opportunity of government to deliver price relief to Australian families. We know that energy prices have risen less than they would have if you had been government. Those opposite irresponsibly voted against price relief for Australian families and we will ensure, between now and the next election, that every time you raise energy prices we will remind everybody who is listening that you voted against it. All of you voted against it, and really, you should go out to the Australian people— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU and you should apologise for your refusal to give some price relief to families who are struggling with higher prices. As always, those opposite are still too focused on the ideology, not on practical outcomes, and their only response to energy price increases was to try and hide them before the last election. Opposition s enators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! When you ask a question and the minister responds, I expect there to be order. I shouldn't have to call 'Order' three or four times to get order. I'm asking you to respect the Senate. Senator Hughes, a first supplementary question. 14:15 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Minister, how many of these same families who are ineligible for Labor's energy bill relief will pay more income tax in 2022-23 as a result of bracket creep and the low- and middle-income tax offset coming to an end? Honourable senat ors interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! Order on both sides. 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm a little confused. I have obviously been focused on Sudan and other issues. Is the senator asking a question about a tax offset that they ended? Senator Watt 245759 I think she is. Senator WONG 00AOU Yes, I think so. From my recollection, the ending of the LMITO was in fact flagged by your government. If you're now going to fund that, I look forward to a budget reply which tells Australians how you will fund that. Senator Hughes, you are asking a question about a policy. If your policy position is to fund that, I look forward to Mr Dutton outlining his plan to fund that, and which government services—which parts of Medicare—he's not going to deliver in order to fund that. We are very focused, in this budget, on ensuring we provide responsible cost-of-living assistance to Australians. Obviously, there is always more that you would do if you could. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, a second supplementary question. 14:17 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Minister, the Albanese government continues to promise energy bill relief for Australians, but, as this latest revelation proves, it rarely delivers and most miss out. Isn't it true that the millions of Australians ineligible for this current package also have no hope of ever seeing Labor's promised $275 cut to their bills? 14:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Hughes, in my state of South Australia, under your refusal to act on energy policy, South Australians would have been paying $530 more. I realise you're not a South Australian senator, but I did see that figure and I thought, 'There you go—that's the actual cost to South Australian families of the opposition of the opposition.' It is the 'no' of the 'no-alition', who, extraordinarily, came in here and voted against price relief for Australians at a time when we knew—because of 10 years of your policies and because of what is happening with Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine—that energy prices were going up. But you voted against it. South Australians would have been $530 worse off if you had succeeded. Assange, Mr Julian Paul 25 14:18 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is to Minister Wong in her capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs. With the helpful ending of the quiet diplomacy strategy from both the Prime Minister and the opposition leader last week, in relation to the ongoing cruel detention of Australian journalist and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and the increasingly united cross-party call for his detention to end, can you please now state clearly on the record what you are doing to ensure Julian Assange is brought home? 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It was interesting to me that my repeating what I'd said, at quite a number of press conferences, was somehow seen as a new thing. I have made it clear, and the Prime Minister has made it clear, that enough is enough. We see no further purpose—we don't believe anything is to be served—in Mr Julian Assange's ongoing incarceration. I know it might suit the Greens to not hear the fact that we've been saying that since we were elected, and before, but we have. I'm also pleased that my high commissioner had the opportunity to visit Mr Assange in Belmarsh prison on 4 April. It was of course the first consular visit to Mr Assange since November 2019, and it was undertaken with his consent. Obviously it was an opportunity to check on his health and welfare, which is consistent with the assistance we provide to Australians who are detained. We will certainly continue at all levels of government to convey our expectations about his treatment, and we will continue to express our view, privately and publicly, that this case has dragged on for long enough and should be brought to a close. Now, Senator Shoebridge, as you would know, these are not legal proceedings to which we are a party. I know there have been some discussions with the parliamentary group today. I hope those were fruitful. We are seeking to do what we can to resolve this, bearing in mind that we are not a party to the legal proceedings that are currently on foot. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, a first supplementary? 14:20 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, the question is not what you can't do; the question is what you are doing. Julian Assange has now been held in brutal conditions in Belmarsh prison for over four years while potential extradition to the US is considered. You've spoken about our close relationship with the UK and the USA before. What are you as minister doing to ensure that our good friends let Julian come home? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, what I would say, as minister and for the Prime Minister, is that we have put our views clearly to the United Kingdom and to the United States. But there was a non sequitur in your question, and that was 'what are you doing to ensure?' We cannot ensure. Senator WONG 00AOU You might like to yell about that. But, just as I cannot ensure and Senator Payne could not ensure that people who are dealing with the legal system of another country— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, it's a fact. I know you want to play politics with this. I want to say this to you. I think it has gone on too long. I don't support what he did, but I think this has gone on too long. I do not believe, and neither does the Australian government believe, that there is anything to be served by his ongoing incarceration, and that view informs our engagement with the two countries concerned. But we are not a party to the proceedings. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, before I ask you for your second supplementary, I remind you not to interject once you've asked your question. So a second supplementary, thank you. 14:22 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Thursday 4 May was World Press Freedom Day, and the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, on that day tweeted: The Albanese Government believes a strong and independent media is vital to democracy and holding governments to account. Journalists should never face the prospect of being charged or even jailed just for doing their jobs. Do you accept, Minister, that Julian Assange is a journalist and should not be facing persecution for telling the truth and doing his job? 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think Australia supports freedom of the press as an important principle in our democracy—full stop. In relation to Mr Assange, I would again say that we do not believe there is anything to be served by his ongoing incarceration, and we have put that view. Infrastructure 26 14:23 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The Albanese Labor government has committed to investing in infrastructure that is nationally significant and delivers for our communities. How is the government working to deliver an infrastructure pipeline that is sustainable, comprises nationally significant projects and aligns to market capacity? 14:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Polley. I really do appreciate that question from Senator Polley, who I know understands the importance of infrastructure to local communities in her state of Tasmania. Before I answer, though, can I also take the opportunity to acknowledge in the gallery Alice Springs mayor Matt Paterson. I've met with Mayor Paterson in Alice Springs, as I know many others have. We welcome you to the chamber. As we all know, the previous government left the infrastructure investment pipeline in a total mess, just like the entire budget that we inherited. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 And, geez, don't they hate being reminded of it! The infrastructure program under the coalition government was full of backed-up projects that were announced without the support of states or territories, were poorly scoped, were underfunded and couldn't be delivered because there weren't the tradespeople to build them. And why? Simply to win votes. The infrastructure program of the coalition government was undeliverable and spiralling out of control, having blown out from 150 projects to almost 800 projects. The previous government got addicted to press releases and neglected the hard work of actually building infrastructure. What do we remember about the last government? It was all announcement, no delivery. It was a government that made investment decisions on the basis of colour-coded spreadsheets. Even now, they still boast about it. One of the things that separates our government from those opposite is that when we make a promise on infrastructure you can actually believe it. That's because, as many Australians have observed— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Henderson! Senator WATT 245759 we now have a government of adults in charge. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! Senator WATT 245759 What a novel suggestion that is. What a change that is from the last rabble that we had, the Liberal Party, unable to run a budget, running the budget into the ground, with the National Party members making wild promises and National Party ministers running around the countryside promising all sorts of infrastructure projects that they didn't fund and didn't have the tradespeople to deliver. The Labor government is going to do a much better job of that. You will hear a lot more about that tonight. I'm looking forward to seeing— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, I called you to order twice and you ignored that. I would ask you to respect the Senate. Senator Polley, a supplementary question? 14:26 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania After a decade of waste and rorts, the Albanese government is cleaning up the mess left by the Liberals and Nationals in the infrastructure portfolio. How is the government demonstrating a commitment to nation-building infrastructure and bringing certainty to the infrastructure sector? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm going to remind senators, particularly on my left, that when a question is being asked I expect you to be quiet. 14:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Polley. The Albanese government is committed to investing in projects that are truly nationally significant and will deliver real benefits to Australians. After a decade of waste and rorts, the Albanese government is getting on with the job of delivering actual projects—not just promises but actual projects—that will benefit communities right across Australia for years to come. We're getting on with the job of delivering important nation-building infrastructure like the Bruce Highway upgrades from Cairns to Townsville to Rockhampton and even all the way down to the outskirts of Brisbane. There's the Kuranda Range road in North Queensland, as well as many others in Senator Polley's home state of Tasmania. To get our infrastructure pipeline back on a stable footing, though, we have already announced a 90-day independent review of the Infrastructure Investment Program that will ensure that we are investing in projects that are truly nationally significant to make sure that freight keeps moving, that people can get home safely and that connections between our cities and our regions are strong. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, a second supplementary question? 14:28 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania For a decade, the Liberals and Nationals used colour-coded spreadsheets and political motives to determine infrastructure investments. What has the government inherited from the coalition in the infrastructure pipeline, and how will the Albanese government clean up the mess left behind? 14:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland And what a mess we did inherit in the infrastructure program. It's an infrastructure program too full of colour-codes in their spreadsheets to actually be delivered, having, as I said, blown out from 150 to almost 800 projects. Let's just remember a couple of the highlights of the Liberal and National parties' infrastructure program. Remember the Inland Rail, which we were promised was going to cost $9.3 billion but which has now blown out to approximately $31 billion, with the potential for costs to rise even further? How about the Urban Congestion Fund, full of imaginary car parks in marginal seats? These were projects that were grossly underfunded and, in some cases, committed without land even being available. The former Treasurer, who's no longer with us, committed $260 million to remove a level crossing next to his own electorate without telling the state government that runs the train line. The funding was also hundreds of millions of dollars short of the actual funding required to do the job. We are adults. We are an adult government and we're going to have an infrastructure program that can be delivered, rather than mythical— (Time expired) Taxation 27 14:29 Senator DAVI 256136 Australian Capital Territory D POCOCK () (): My question is to Senator Wong, the Minister representing the Treasurer. How much petroleum resource rent tax has been paid by LNG projects to date? 14:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Pocock for the question. This is the advice I have to date: PRRT revenue predominantly relates to oil and gas produced in Bass Strait, and no offshore energy project has paid PRRT yet. Most offshore LNG projects are not expected to pay substantial amounts of PRRT before 2030, whilst earning significant revenues from gas resources. The Treasury review—the gas transfer pricing review—highlighted the shortcomings of the PRRT for the offshore LNG industry and the need to adapt the rules for these types of projects. The measure that is contained in the budget and that the Treasurer has announced is intended to address this problem and will require the offshore LNG industry to pay more tax sooner. It will bring forward PRRT payments those projects are expected to pay and additional PRRT payments from those projects not expected to pay under current policy settings—in other words, from those who under current settings are likely to return to government certain tax receipts, whose payments it will bring forward, but it will also ensure that some projects which would not pay under current settings would pay some PRRT. The intention is to ensure a return to the Australian community from the gas resources even when there are low prices. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory After company tax is paid, does the government think that $0 in PRRT is a fair return for Australians? If it isn't, why are you just bringing forward the date they pay rather than actually ensuring that Australians are paid for our own gas that is being exported or sold back to us at export prices? Senator McKim JKM Because it was written by the gas cartel, that's why. 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'll take that interjection because I think this is one of the problems with the debate here: there are people in this chamber who seem to believe that the fact that we have a different policy position is because somehow we're corrupt. I think that's really offensive, actually. It's really offensive because we on this side—I'm sorry, Senator Pocock. Fair enough. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Pocock? Senator David Pocock 256136 Senator McKim will get his question at some stage. I'd really love an answer to mine. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll remind the minister of your question. Thank you. Senator WONG 00AOU The view that the Treasurer has articulated is that this is about ensuring a fair return to the Australian people for the resources they own. It is also about providing certainty to industry and making sure Australia remains a reliable trade and investment partner. There are a range of policy objectives which are all, I would argue, in the national interest and which, in arriving at this position after substantial consultation, the government has to balance. We've sought to do that. I accept that, if you are only thinking about one aspect of those, you might come up with a different— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Given so many Austrians are facing cost-of-living pressures and feeling increased climate impacts, how does the government justify increasing fossil fuel subsidies and not genuinely reforming the PRRT so that we are at least getting a return from the sale of our gas? 14:33 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm happy to have a discussion with you about some of those assertions because I don't believe them to be correct, but I accept that there is a bit of political rhetoric. This government has been very clear about the importance of acting on climate. We have brought forward an ambitious policy on that. You will see in this budget also our commitment to the transition in our economy. You made a number of assertions there about PRRT which I don't accept. We have reformed this measure because we think that is justified. I've explained to you the various policy objectives that have to be balanced in that. But it is not the only thing we are doing in the energy space. We do, as a country, have to transition. We do, as a country, have to reform. We do, as a country, want to be a renewable energy superpower, and we are committed to ensuring we do all we can to deliver that. Emergency Management 28 14:34 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt. Minister, the National Emergency Management Agency's website claims it has boots on the ground across Australia through the network of regional recovery support officers that help recovery and resilience in communities affected by disasters or drought. There are currently, according to the website, 57 regions throughout Australia with locally based regional support officers and there are videos supporting the value of the local knowledge. Do you as minister or does the agency have any plans to relocate these locally based staff from regional areas into city centres or centralised hubs? 14:35 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Davey. I know very well about the great work that our RSOs, as we call them, in the NEMA, the National Emergency Management Agency, undertake, because I have met many of them, right across the country. In fact, just on Friday, I think it was, I was in Tasmania at Agfest, where I also met some of the terrific RSOs that have been doing a great job. I had met them after the floods in Tasmania, as I have in many other places. My view is that we do need to retain a strong regional presence of those RSOs. I know there has been some discussion internally within the National Emergency Management Agency, but the agency and its executive are very clear that my view as minister is that the RSOs do perform an important role, including in regional areas. They are an important conduit of information back to head office, and that's one of the reasons why I support their ongoing use. Obviously there are decisions to be made by the National Emergency Management Agency as to how they use their resources, and that work will go on. But, as I say, I have made it very clear that on a personal level as minister I think that it is important that we retain a regional presence through those RSOs. While I'm on my feet I might also mention that the entire issue of resourcing the National Emergency Management Agency has been a difficult one in the run-up to this budget, because this is yet another area of government where we have inherited funding cliffs. In fact, the former coalition government cared so much about having RSOs and a regional presence and support for our Emergency Management Agency that they were on track to cut funding to the National Emergency Management Agency by around 25 to 30 per cent. That's how much they cared about supporting our RSOs and our agency, and I can assure people that this government takes these issues much more seriously. (Time expired) 14:37 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I'm very interested that you believe in the need to maintain a regional presence. Can you then explain why several of my colleagues, including me, have been contacted by RSOs in their regions who have been told that they will be relocated to city based centres or to centralised hubs within 12 months? Is there any truth in their concerns? 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Davey. As I say, my personal view has been communicated very clearly to the National Emergency Management Agency that I think it is vital that we retain the regional presence of these recovery support officers, because that is where many of the disasters that we've seen over the last couple of years have occurred—they've been in our regions—and we want to ensure that we do have people on the ground. As I say, there is work to be done by NEMA about how best to allocate its resources. One of the reasons they've been forced to do this is the funding cuts that were on track to happen as a result of the budget that we inherited from the former government. So I find it a little hard to listen to National Party senators who all of a sudden are very concerned about resourcing for the National Emergency Management Agency when one of their own was the minister who delivered a budget that was going to cut funding to the National Emergency Management Agency by 25 to 30 per cent. We support regional Australians and we support urban Australians going through disasters. We're not about cutting funding like you lot did. (Time expired) 14:39 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales So, very briefly, Minister, you have said it's your personal view that RSOs should stay in the regions. Will you be having a conversation with the CEO of NEMA to reflect to him your personal view to ensure that regional support officers stay in the regions and aren't re-centralised hundreds of kilometres away from where they are needed and valued? 14:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I've already said in my first answer and my second answer that I have communicated my view about this, and that includes to the coordinator-general of the National Emergency Management Agency, Mr Brendan Moon, someone with an incredible track record in emergency management that we hired to replace another individual, called Mr Shane Stone. Brendan Moon has been doing an outstanding job as the head of the National Emergency Management Agency. Now, unlike the former government— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey? Senator Davey 281697 On a point of order—that was highly disrespectful to a former commissioner. He may not be a member of this parliament, but I think we still need to show respect. The PRESIDENT 112096 I did not hear any particular comments, so I'm going to ask Senator Watt to continue. Senator WATT 245759 I invite you to look at the Hansard, where I said that Mr Moon replaced another individual, by the name of Mr Shane Stone. I'm not sure what's offensive about that. Is it 'individual', 'name'? I'm not quite sure, but anyway. This government has demonstrated from day one that we take the issues around disaster management far more seriously than ever happened under the former government. We actually showed up, we actually turned up, and delivered support to people. We actually cooperated with the states rather than had fights with them. And we are taking seriously the need for funding of the National Emergency Management Agency, unlike a government that was on track to cut funding by 25 to 30 per cent. Australian Defence Force 29 14:41 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to the government's recently announced retention bonus for ADF personnel who have just completed their return-of-service obligations or initial mandatory period of service of four years. I draw the minister's attention to the numerous bonuses offered by both Liberal and Labor governments over the last 25 years. These include retention bonuses for Army specialists, bonuses and increased pay for submariners, and category retention bonuses for the RAAF. Despite all this, the ADF is still struggling to attract and retain personnel. Why will this bonus system work when all others have failed? 14:42 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for the question and acknowledge her many years of contribution both in this place and beyond in relation to matters associated with defence, and in particular her deep concern always for members of the ADF, including veterans. She is right to point out that the ADF has, under governments of both political persuasions, not been able to recruit and retain at the level that we seek. She's right. I don't pretend that there is an easy answer to that, and the government has been seized of this issue. Obviously there has been a lot of work on the DSR as well as AUKUS, and in the context of the budget we're very focused on trying to work through how we might deal with some of these recruitment and retention issues. We note the previous government made some very substantial announcements about increases to the ADF but were not on a pathway to deliver them, and we are looking at a range of ways in which we might seek to do that. I don't come in here, Senator Lambie, and tell you that somehow, magically, all of those challenges associated with recruitment and retention will be resolved by one policy only. I suspect they won't be. I think it will assist, but I think more needs to be done. And I'd make the broader point that it's not just an issue for the ADF. Obviously, there are a lot of sectors of the economy where we have labour shortages. There are a lot of sectors of the economy where skilled staff are hard to both attract and retain, and the— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:44 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania This bonus appears to be available only to persons who have recently completed their return-of-service obligations or their initial mandatory period of service of four years. This means, in a practical sense, that this will only be offered to the most junior ranks across the military. This will be a slap in the face to junior leaders, like corporals and sergeants and their colleagues in the Navy and the RAAF, who are attractive employees to civilian organisations. These are the ones you need to retain. Why doesn't the government want to keep these junior leaders in the military? (Time expired) 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Lambie, in the time while I was seeking to answer your first question, I was provided with a little more information, and I might provide you with that. As part of this year's budget, the government is announcing funding of an ADF continuation bonus. The advice is that this is critical to influencing career decisions when the member is approaching their first opportunity to make a decision to stay in or leave the Australian Defence Force. We obviously have been, as I said, considering a number of the recommendations in the DSR. There were four recommendations relating to recruitment and retention, and the government is developing options to respond to each of those four recommendations. The bonus that we are discussing is the immediate response to the DSR in order to continue to invest in the growth and retention of a highly skilled Defence workforce. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:46 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I'm not sure who's writing the policies, but they got it completely wrong. This bonus is reported to be available to just 3½ thousand Defence personnel out of some 60,000 over three years. That's just over a thousand per year. Defence reported in its 2021-22 annual report that about 11 per cent of its personnel, some 6½ thousand, left the military that year. Why is the government offering a retention bonus to so few of our men and women in the ADF when the problem is so much greater than just a few thousand? 14:46 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think in my response to the first question I did acknowledge that the problem is greater than the capacity of one measure to respond to it, and, as I said, the DSR did contain a number of recommendations in relation to recruitment and retention. We will work through them, and Defence will provide options to government for them. However, the immediate response was what's been described as a continuation bonus. I'm advised that the eligibility for the bonus includes: permanency; nearing completion of the initial minimum period of service; having completed or will complete a minimum four years of service; agreeing to recommit to three years of full-time service; and not already being in receipt of another bonus for the same commitment reason. I think the senator's question is: why is this continuation bonus narrowly cast? It is for the reasons that I identified in my previous answer. Budget 30 14:47 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to Senator Farrell, the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services outline how the Albanese government is delivering on its commitments in the budget to deliver cost-of-living relief where it can? 14:48 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator O'Neill for her ongoing interest in pushing down the cost of living, particularly for constituents in her great state of New South Wales. The centrepiece of the budget we hand down tonight will be a $14.6 billion cost-of-living relief package that is calibrated in a way that doesn't add to inflation. Senator FARRELL I0N Our economic plan has three parts: relief, repair and restraint. I'll repeat that for Senator Birmingham's benefit: relief, repair and restraint. This includes cost-of-living relief where it's affordable and responsible, and it also focuses on the repairing of our supply chains. We need to show spending restraint to ensure we're getting genuine value for money from investments in our economy and our people so that we can clean up the mess left behind from that lot over there. We've carefully calibrated and designed this budget so that it takes pressure off the cost of living rather than adding to it. This will be a budget in the best Labor tradition. I'll repeat that. This will be a budget in the best Labor tradition, providing help for vulnerable Australians with cost-of-living pressures and having an eye on the future and responsible economic management. Our aim throughout, whether it is the cost-of-living package, our broader investment in energy and other efforts to grow the economy, is to make sure that this budget is part of the solution to high inflation and cost-of-living pressures, not adding to the problem. It is important that as a government we focus on every policy lever available to us to tackle the pressures that are affecting more Australians' ability to make ends meet. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, on a first supplementary? 14:50 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Farrell, for that fulsome response that, I am sure, gives hope to the people of Australia. What measures has the government already taken in the social services portfolio to deliver cost-of-living relief? 14:50 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I once again thank Senator O'Neill. Senator McKenzie 207825 A bit of pizzazz now, Don. Come on! Senator FARRELL I0N I'm trying to be doing that! I'm disappointed you don't think I am, Senator McKenzie! As a government, we have been delivering on our commitment to address cost-of-living relief. We're delivering cheaper medicines and cheaper child care. This will make a huge difference to the costs parents face in accessing quality care for their children. We've also announced a $64 million commitment for place based partnerships to tackle entrenched disadvantage. This will extend to the Stronger Places, Stronger People initiative in the existing 10 communities and will enhance shared decision-making and local solutions in six of these communities. Yesterday the Prime Minister announced changes to the parenting payment single budget measure that will lift eligibility for parents and children up to 14 years of age, and lift the value of the payment by $176— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary? 14:51 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales How is the government working to address ongoing concerns about cost of living beyond the immediate budget? 14:51 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator O'Neill for her second supplementary question. This government will make substantial investments through the budget this year to provide cost-of-living relief, make meaningful improvements to services like Medicare, and make child care cheaper. For single parents, we know there are pockets of disadvantage and communities right around Australia where people continue to struggle to get ahead. These measures will provide structural household budget relief once legislated. I remind the Senate we have also established an expert economic inclusion advisory committee and asked them to give us advice on boosting economic inclusion and tackling disadvantage. I acknowledge Senator Pocock's advocacy alongside the government in establishing this committee. Addressing cost-of-living pressures is consistent with what Labor said we would do before the election—what Labor governments always do. When the Liberal-National governments talk about cost-of-living pressures, we know it has been tough because Australians are paying the price. (Time expired) Macquarie Point Stadium 31 14:52 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the Albanese government's $240 million commitment to a new stadium being built on Hobart's waterfront. I refer the minister to the question of the Tasmanian Labor leader, Rebecca White, in the Tasmanian parliament today about whether the federal government will be excising from GST calculations this commitment from the federal government. Will you, Minister, guarantee that this will not impact on Tasmania's share of the GST? 14:53 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have learned a lot from Senator Duniam across the chamber about Tasmanian politics, because he has explained to me, and as this question goes to, he is from the Tasmanian Liberal Party but he doesn't support the Tasmanian Liberal government on the stadium. Labor supports the Tasmanian Liberal government, and Senator Colbeck does support the Tasmanian Liberal government, so it is an interesting situation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam, on a point of order? Senator Duniam 263418 I rise on a point of order on relevance. Senator Wong is talking about all sorts of political things, not on what matters to Tasmanians—that is, our GST share. It is serious. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, your question did go to a question asked in the state parliament by another party, so I think Senator Wong is entirely within the confines of your question if she continues to answer the question. If she doesn't, I will draw her to the question. Senator Wong. Senator Ayres 16913 Eric wouldn't have made that mistake! Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you, Senator. What I would say is that obviously we are investing in Tasmania not only in the stadium but in health, housing and infrastructure. For example, we announced recently an additional Medicare urgent care clinic, taking the number of Medicare urgent care clinics to be established in the state to four. We've provided funding for two Shepherd centres in Tassie—one in Hobart, and one in Launceston—and we're investing in key infrastructure. Unlike Senator Duniam, I'm afraid to say, I don't watch the Tasmanian parliament. Sorry. I have a lot of regard for Ms White. I don't know what the question was, but I will certainly take on— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham H6X On a point of order: Senator Duniam wasn't asking Senator Wong to have some sort of powers of knowledge as to what was happening in the Tasmanian parliament. He referenced that, but he asked a very specific question as to whether the minister would guarantee that the funding of the stadium in Tasmania would not impact on Tasmania's GST share. Minister Wong is representing the Treasurer in this place. It's a question for the Commonwealth Treasurer quite appropriately, and one that Minister Wong should be able to fairly directly address. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I will draw that part of the question to Senator Wong's attention. Senator WONG 00AOU I still enjoy getting a lecture from Senator Birmingham about directly addressing questions— Senator Watt 245759 Or running a budget. Senator WONG 00AOU Or running a budget; that's true. We all remember that! GST payments, as you know, Senator, are allocated in accordance with a formula, and there is no change, I understand, that either the coalition or the Labor government has proposed to the way GST allocations are being made. But— Senator Birmingham H6X Some projects have been exempted over the years. Senator WONG 00AOU I will get what information I can on the specifics of questions asked by a Labor person in the state parliament of Tasmania to assist you, Senator Duniam. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a first supplementary? 14:57 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Health was mentioned in the primary question, so I again refer to Labor's $240 million commitment to a waterfront stadium, and I ask: can the minister guarantee that tonight's federal budget will include funding for a desperately needed permanent, full-time GP services for Tasmania's Central Highlands community? 14:57 Senator 00AOU South Australia WONG (—) (): I have already indicated that we've recently announced an additional Medicare urgent care clinic for Tasmania which will take the number established in the state to four: Devonport, Launceston and two in Hobart. I would make the point that it is those of us on this side who, in government and in opposition, have always supported Medicare, unlike— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam 263418 My point of order is again on relevance. I asked a very specific question. I didn't ask about urgent care clinics or Medicare. I asked about GP services specifically for the Tasmanian Central Highlands community, and I haven't had a guarantee yet. The PRESIDENT 112096 I do think Senator Wong is being relevant, but I will draw her to— Senator Ruston 243273 She so is not! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! I would remind you to act respectfully and not call out and interject when I am answering a point of order. I will remind her of the specifics of the Highlands region. Senator WONG 00AOU Actually, I did answer the question because I said that, if I'm being asked a question about tonight's budget, the senator will have to wait until the budget is announced. But I would also make the point, and it is— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I'll hold you to that! I'll bet you that won't happen. I would make this point— Senator Farrell I0N It used to happen. Senator 00AOU I'm trying to finish the sentence here! The senator raises Medicare. We know who built Medicare. We know who has always supported Medicare. We know— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a second supplementary? 14:59 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania No guarantee on GST and no guarantee on GP services for the Central Highlands. Can the minister confirm that in last year's Labor budget $248.6 million was ripped out of Tasmanian road projects, yet in this year's budget the government has found $240 million for the Hobart stadium? Given Labor took money from road projects in the state with the worst road death toll in the country to fund a stadium, doesn't that show how out of touch with Tasmania's priorities Labor really is? 15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The advice I have is that, as part of the government's 2022-23 October budget, no projects in Tasmania were cancelled or had funding reduced. The IIP also provided for more than $230 million over 10 years for smaller— Senator McKenzie 207825 A point of order on the advice that Senator Wong— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, that is not a point of order. Senator McKenzie 207825 On relevance? The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant, thank you. Please resume your seat. Senator WONG 00AOU I know the truth hurts sometimes, Senator McKenzie. I don't think the statement that the senator made is correct. I would say this: in terms of the needs of Tasmania, I think the assertion that this senator is making is that he understands them better than Senator Colbeck and better than his Liberal Premier. With that, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 33 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Parliamentary Standards 33 15:01 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I refer to the matter about which the President made a statement on Thursday 30 March 2023. I was not in the chamber when the statement was made by the President, and Senator Hughes withdrew her remarks. In order to maintain the dignity of the chamber, I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Thorpe. I would like to thank Senators Hughes and Thorpe for the gracious way in which they have withdrawn those comments. I would remind all senators to recheck the comments that I made on that day and to act in a respectful way. BUDGET 33 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 33 15:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Minister Farrell, as to why answers to Senate estimates questions on notice Nos 000035, 000037, 000039, 000051, 000053, 000064, 000065, 000066, 000075, 000106, 000517, 000530, 000533, 000535, 000536, 000537, 000538, 000539, 000540, 000543, 000547, 000549, 000550, 000554, 000561, 000562, 000566, 000609, 000610, 000611, 000645 and 000647 have not been provided. 15:03 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ruston for her question. The most recent Senate estimates for the Health and Aged Care portfolio were held on 16 February. From those hearings, there were 981 questions on notice directed to this portfolio. Answers have been tabled for 645 of these questions, and that represents around two-thirds of the questions that were asked. More are expected to be tabled very shortly. There are 336 questions on notice that are outstanding, and these will be tabled in due course. 15:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation provided by the minister. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Ruston, before I give you the call, I'll ask Senator Farrell whether he, by leave, wants to add any further information. Opposition senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I'm not denying Senator Ruston. Senator Farrell was indicating that he may have further information to deliver to the chamber. 15:04 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I did actually stand first, before Senator Ruston. I had a statement that I was going to read and I was simply indicating that I wished to read that statement. However, I will defer to Senator Ruston. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Ruston, you have the call, you have moved the motion to take note. Please proceed. 15:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia We will all look forward with great interest to the statement that Senator Farrell was going to make about the fact that we have overdue questions from the supplementary budget estimates 2022-23. These were very serious questions asked of this government in relation to two of the most important portfolios before government—those of health and aged care. It is pretty extraordinary that this government went to the election saying that it wanted to be elected on a platform of transparency, and yet here we are with these really important questions remaining unanswered. These questions are not a couple of days late, Senator Farrell. They're not a couple of days late. They're not a couple of weeks late. They're not a couple of months late. They are really, really late. As we go into the next round of estimates, we could easily see in the very near future that, if you don't provide these answers, we will have three lots of estimates with questions all outstanding at the same time. To call yourselves a transparent government would have to be the greatest contradiction in terms I have ever heard. You are opaque. This is the kind of track record that we are starting to see from this government in relation to its ability to actually provide the transparency that it promised Australians it would. We've seen it through so many mechanisms by which they've addressed this chamber. I draw attention to an extremely distressing track record and pattern of play that is starting to emerge. It is in relation to the inability to provide any detail whatsoever about legislation and the mechanisms that sit behind legislation when they introduce them into parliament. We see headline after headline after headline, we see legislative instrument and legislation after legislation, all with details completely absent, yet they're expecting us in here to do our job. I would say to those that sit not on the government benches—although sometimes I wonder whether the Greens actually are sitting on the government benches—do your job and make sure you hold this government to account about the transparency and the detail around what they are doing. Stop letting legislation through this place when the details of that legislation are all going to be contained in subordinate legislation where they do not give us any detail. Today we are debating the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation but we don't have the investment mandate details. I say to those in this chamber, please think very seriously before you let this government push things through completely opaquely, giving no detail because they don't want you to know. Human nature would tell you that when somebody is hiding things from you it's usually because they have something to hide. Here we are, six months later, and I still don't have answers to questions that we asked in October. The thing that is probably most distressing is the impact the lack of this information is having more broadly on the wider community. I draw the chamber's attention to the crisis we're seeing in aged care at moment. We know that some pretty ill-considered, opaque, detail-less legislation was shoved through this place—and shame on those at the other end of the chamber who supported the government after we gave you a very clear and cogent reason why you shouldn't be letting this legislation be shoved through. We're now seeing aged-care facilities close down as a result of the fact that this legislation was pushed through here with no possible ability for it to ever be delivered. The royal commission into aged care said that 24/7 nurses should be put in place in our aged-care facilities around Australia by 2024. You have to remember that recommendation was made before COVID and before we had the crisis in healthcare workers that we're seeing at the moment. Despite the fact that the royal commission said 2024, and despite the changing landscape in relation to our care workforce, this government, with the support of those down the other end, forced through a piece of legislation which has now seen many nursing homes close across Australia, which means older Australians, particularly those that live in rural and regional Australia, have been forced out of a place they call home and often have to move many miles away from where they were living—away from their families, from their community and from their loved ones—just because you guys didn't do your job and make these guys be more transparent about the promises that they have made. We heard conversation during question time today in relation to urgent care clinics. They promised that there would be 50 urgent care clinics in place by 30 June this year. We still don't know where most of these urgent care clinics are going to be, other than the few in Tasmania. But, despite knowing where a few of them are going to be, we still don't know: Is there going to be one additional consultation? Is one more person going to be able to get in to see a doctor? Is one more person going to be able to get better, cheaper or easier access in relation to primary care as a result of these clinics? The answer simply has to be no because this government have done nothing at all about the crisis that is before us right now, which is a workforce crisis. We do not have enough workers in our healthcare system at the moment because all the government are doing is running around and making headline promises that don't address the fundamental, underlying problem that is before us. We are now two weeks away from the 12-month anniversary of the election of this Albanese Labor government. I think it is really quite extraordinary that, despite going to the election promising that they were going to strengthen Medicare, going to the election with the catchcry 'It has never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor', we sit here today on the eve of 12 months with not a lot of hope that in the budget tonight there are going to be any measures that will actually put in place the guarantee that they made to the Australian public about the healthcare system and the aged-care system. They are just simply not delivering. The minister, Mark Butler, actually labelled the GP workforce crisis as 'terrifying'. It can't be that terrifying because they seem to have a lack of urgency and a lack of transparency about where they are going to find the unmet demand to backfill this sector so that this terrifying situation, in the minister's words, is addressed. I also want to put on the record how disgusting it is that this government seems to believe that the sacrificing of rural, regional and remote Australia is an acceptable thing to do to mend its budget. Every single action we have seen taken so far has had a perverse additional adverse impact on rural and regional Australia—the irresponsible and reckless changes to the distribution priority areas and the shoving of skilled regional visas to the bottom of the processing pile. We continue to see with the measures that are in this budget that many of them will have a much, much more significant impact in rural, regional and remote Australia than they will in the capital cities. But this government just does not seem to care. The government come in here and ask us to pass legislation, but they refuse to answer questions and they refuse to give us detail about that legislation. So I would say to the Greens and the rest of the crossbench: do your job and make sure that you demand the information that I think every Australian expects us to know before we make the important decisions that are likely to impact on people's lives, livelihoods and wellbeing. In relation to aged care, one of the questions on notice that has still not been answered is how many aged-care homes have closed in the last six months, where they were located and whether this has been broken down into Modified Monash areas. Can the department provide a list of the providers that are likely to close? For some reason, we can't be provided that information. So the question must be: does the government not have this information? Is the government not tracking the potential impact of the decision that it has made, one that has such extraordinary impacts on older Australians? Does it not know or does it just not want to tell us how many aged-care homes have closed? In the case of mental health, one of the questions asked is: has the department been contacted by psychologists or mental health professionals since the decision to revert from 20 Medicare subsidised mental health sessions on 30 December 2022? Has the department been contacted by individuals since that decision to revert from 20 Medicare sessions? Has the minister's office been contacted by psychologists or mental health professionals since the decision was made on health sessions in 2022? Did the department provide advice to the government on the risks associated with the Better Access initiative reverting to 10 sessions? What was that advice? Is the department aware of reports that 70 per cent of general practitioners say that mental health is a top-three priority reason patients attend their practice? Can the department confirm whether they briefed health ministers on the increase in suicide rates? Did the minister consult with Suicide Prevention Australia and Mental Health Australia, the two peak bodies, before the decision was made to slash these really important mental health supports in half? They haven't answered those questions. We know from peak body research that the thing that is most impactful in Australians' lives and their mental health right now is the cost of living. We know that Lifeline has reported an 80 per cent rise in the number of calls relating to cost-of-living pressures, that headspace's recent national survey identified the cost of living as one of the top three issues facing young Australians and that a recent ReachOut survey found that more than 50 per cent of young people in Australia are stressed out by the cost of living. You would have to be blind not to realise that the cost of living is the No. 1 issue facing our country at the moment, with the rampant, homegrown, Albanese government inflation eating into people's quality of life. At a time when that is happening, there are some serious questions to be asked in relation to decisions by this government to slash in half a program that provided mental health supports. At a time when we know that the cost of living is having a massive impact on people's mental health, this government refuses to answer even the most basic of questions about the basis that sat behind their decision, when it happened, to slash these particular programs. Other questions that are before us at the moment that we still have not had answered are: What is the current unmet need for GPs? How many vacant places are there and where are those vacant places in relation to the Modified Monash categories? Can the department provide a Modified Monash Model map highlighting areas where GP shortages are most significant? What new measures has the government put in place to increase the supply and distribution of GPs across the country? How many international medical graduates have moved from MM 5-7 areas to MM 5 areas and below since the decision was made to change the distribution priority areas? As I said, the minister has been out there saying that this is the most terrifying crisis that is before the nation. He made a promise to the Australian public that he was going to fix this upon coming into government, yet a really fundamental set of questions that go to the very nature of the impact of these measures on rural, regional and remote Australia remain unanswered as we stand here today, months and months after they were asked. There is clearly a track record and pattern of behaviour that are starting to emerge here that suggest that this government has no intention whatsoever of caring about the real delivery of those headline promises it made to Australians when it was up for election. They're quite happy to make the headlines—and headlines often sound good. Who wouldn't think strengthening Medicare was a good idea? Who wouldn't think that putting the care back into aged care was a good idea? But they're just headlines unless you put in place the initiatives that are actually going to make a difference, and they're really not worth the paper they're written on if you are not prepared to provide the details around how you're going to go about it so that Australians can actually see how these things are happening. We're already starting to see the wheels fall off, as we've seen with the aged-care promises. The wheels are falling off because older Australians are being pushed out of their aged-care homes—places where they've lived, often for many years—simply because this government was so pig-headed on insisting that the 24/7 nurse requirement was in place, almost without exception or exemption. We're now starting to see the consequences of that announcement, which was something that we all would've aspired to see—that older Australians get the care that they deserve and they warrant in their old age—but shoving them out of their homes simply because you've put in place a requirement for an action that was never deliverable is, I think, one of the most despicable things that a government could do. You were more interested in the headline delivery of a promise that you made at the election than watching the circumstances as they unfolded on the ground and realising that your actions were actually going to have terrible, detrimental impacts on older Australians. Instead of helping older Australians, you've made their lives worse. 15:20 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I take note of the motion moved by Senator Ruston, and I do so in general terms, because what is becoming clearer and clearer when you look at the list of questions that remain unanswered by the government is that that list is getting longer and longer day by day and across portfolios. I know that, when you have a change of government, and ministers are trying to get their feet under the desk and get across their portfolios and their briefs, and department personnel might be changing, it's hard to keep up with all of the chamber's demands for information. However, we are seeing this government's second budget being handed down today, and there is just no excuse for ministers and departments to hold back basic information that this Senate has voted for and that individual members and senators have asked of ministers, departments and, indeed, agencies—because that is what we are here to do. It doesn't really matter what side of politics you come from; the job of the Senate is to scrutinise legislation and hold government and government officials to account. That is our job. It isn't a 'winner takes all' parliament, and I continually am surprised by the lack of acceptance from some within the government that they don't actually have control of this chamber. They don't control the Senate and they never will. The Australian people have voted for diversity in this place for a reason—because it forces all sides of politics to work together, to get better outcomes, to ensure that mistakes are picked up before they're made, to ensure that there is accountability from individual ministers and departments and to ensure that there is basic transparency so that the public, the community and those who are neck-deep in policy development have a good idea of what's really going on. I look at this list of questions, and sometimes it feels like it's just basic the stubbornness of government ministers—some, not all. Some are quite good, but some have a less favourable record than others when it comes to coughing up information. It's as if they've got a Messiah complex: 'I'm in charge. It's my way or the highway. It doesn't really matter if the Senate's asking for things.' Well, it does matter. I know there is a long list of orders for the production of documents. Many orders have passed through this place, and I know the government is becoming more and more frustrated by that. However, unless you start to actually participate in transparency of government and work with the Senate to get across these issues then, you know what? There are going to be more and more of these questions and requests from the parliament. Otherwise, we're being asked to vote on legislation without having all of the information. There are some questions and orders for the production of documents that I've put in to the government that are still outstanding, and there's no excuse except that they just don't want to put the work in. There are decisions made by the previous government that they won't even reveal. I'm sorry—not my problem. We require the information. The government must cough it up. It strikes me that it's not just an individual minister's problem here. This seems to be a recurring attitude and a growing attitude within this government that they don't have to comply with requests of information from this chamber. I don't think that's a very good way of building collaboration, I don't think it's a very good way of enlisting trust and I don't think it's acceptable to think that the Senate can be ignored. Now, we're about to have another round of estimates after this budget, and there will be a whole lot of new areas to inquire into and detail to get into, because we're going to have the new budget, but there are so many questions that remain outstanding from the previous estimates and the estimates before. One particular issue that I'm concerned about is that the government has made promises in relation to streaming services. They went to the election saying that they would put quotas on streaming services, which they should. It's something that I have fought very hard for in this place for a long time. Now, through a Senate committee process, we've asked for the documents that a government department has issued to stakeholders and industry players but is refusing to give that information to the parliament. I'm sorry, but, if the big TV broadcasters and the big tech giants can have access to this information, so should the Australian parliament. Why is the Minister for Communications refusing to give us this information? It's actually out there; stakeholders have been told, 'Here is a private, confidential copy. Please don't tell anybody about it,' yet, when the parliament and the Senate ask for this information so that we can understand what the government is planning, we can be prepared and we can participate in the transparency and accountability process of government, we are denied. So Foxtel, Netflix, Amazon—the big streaming giants—get access to this information, but the parliament doesn't. Who do you govern for, the big tech giants or the Australian people? This is just one example of the arrogance that is seeping into this government's attitude toward how this chamber should be responded to and dealt with. I say to government ministers in this place and to those watching that, once you start sliding into this type of attitude, it's hard to put the brakes on. We saw that with the last government and the arrogance that ended up sweeping through the frontbench, the lack of respect for the chamber, the lack of respect for other voices and the diverse views in this place, the lack of ultimate respect to the taxpayer and the people who vote at election time based on the promises and the policies that are put forward. Once you start thinking you're better than the entire parliament, it is the road to hell. So don't fall foul of the arrogant attitude that Mr Morrison, the former prime minister, fell foul of. It's hard to think that anyone would start appointing themselves to secret ministries, but it all starts somewhere. It starts with refusing to think that you're accountable to the parliament and it ends with the former prime minister, who didn't even think he was accountable to his own cabinet when he started secretly appointing himself. Let's think about how we want government and this parliament to actually deal with and respect the Australian people: the taxpayers and the voters. It has to start with a basic commitment to transparency of government. Once that starts to be negotiated away—just a cover-up over here or denial of this over there—it is the road to hell. The Australian people expect better and deserve better. So, when their representatives come into this place asking for information from the government and their agencies, it needs to be coughed up. It's not up to you as individual ministers to think you can just hide behind delay and cabinet in confidence—the cloak of secrecy that gets dragged over everything. If you want this parliament to work to deliver the things that you have promised, you must work with it. So, with this extraordinary number of outstanding questions and orders for production of documents, it should alarm you that, less than 12 months on, you're already in breach of the basic courtesy of being transparent and upfront not just with the chamber and the parliament but with the Australian people that you purport to represent. Despite the budget being handed down tonight and this being the government's day—and I'm sure that there are lots of goodies in there that you're hoping to spruik and be proud of—I would hope that we are genuinely going to see some relief for people from the enormous pressures of cost of living that everyday people, particularly the most vulnerable and marginalised in our communities, are feeling right now. You can't just promise headlines and then not deliver the policy grit and grunt that come with it, and, in order to ensure that that is there, you're going to have to be transparent with this chamber. If we spend the next two estimates weeks hearing from government ministers and department secretaries that they can't tell us the details of things—well, I'm sorry, don't expect this place to be rubberstamping your legislation. Why is it that government officers and department officials are so often more interested in not answering questions at senate estimates than in giving the information? The whole process of senate estimates is to engender confidence in the government of the day, regardless of the politics and regardless of what side of the chamber you sit on. It's about engendering confidence that the policies that are being put forward, the programs that money is being spent on and the decisions that are being made are sound. Yet, year after year after year, what we are confronted with, particularly from the Senate crossbench perspective, is government officers and department secretaries who spend their entire time trying not to answer questions. Often I find it takes more energy to not answer a question than just to be upfront. I know in this place the politics creeps in and the sport of chamber debate creeps in, but, when it comes to Senate estimates, it is not up to departmental officials to play the sport of politics. They are public servants, and they should be allowed to answer basic questions. They should be directed by their ministers to be as helpful as possible, to be as transparent as possible and to go out of their way to help the Senate understand what they are doing, what they have been directed to do and what they are spending money on. That is their job. Their job is not to be an extension of the political arm of government. They are public servants, not servants of the government. 15:35 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I want to thank Senator Ruston for putting this motion about unanswered questions before the Senate today, because the number of unanswered questions from estimates and other questions on notice is outstanding. These have critical implications for transparency in government, particularly transparency about programs that are failing, that are having huge impacts on Australians. Today, budget day, we're talking about the budget being about choices, about deciding who this government is supporting and who it isn't. It's very clear from the silence on some issues that particular groups of people are not being supported in this budget and not being supported by this government. I also have many unanswered questions in the portfolios that I am responsible for, for the Greens, particularly to the Minister for Social Security, to the Department of Social Security, about our income support system and the absolutely punitive conditions that people who are living on income support are facing when it comes to so-called mutual obligations, which are ridiculous hoops, ridiculous trials, that people have to jump through just to continue to receive payments that are below the poverty line. I've got one unanswered question that is about payment suspensions. These are people who are on income support, who are on JobSeeker, who are having their payments suspended. I asked a question at last estimates about the number of payment suspensions by demographic group and program, the number of individuals subject to payment suspensions, the number of payment suspensions broken down by type of participation failure by program for each month from December 2020 to the present, the number of payment suspensions leading to a payment delay or cancellation, demerit and penalty counts by stage of the targeted compliance framework, and the number of payment-on-hold messages and conversion to payment suspensions. This is critical information, because people are trying to survive on, as I said, below-poverty-line payments and are absolutely struggling to put food on the table, to pay their medical bills, to pay their rent, to get their kids off to school and to put shoes on their kids' feet. There are people in these conditions who are having their payments suspended because they are not fulfilling their mutual obligations. These are the people who can least afford to suddenly have no income coming in. They're people who haven't got big bank accounts to fall back on. There are a lot of people who haven't got family support, haven't got friends they can suddenly borrow $1,000 from. They're people who, if the money's not coming in, don't eat. These people, if their payments are suspended, go hungry. It means they can't afford to pay their rent and are at risk of being evicted. It means they can't go off to the chemist and pay for medication that might be keeping critical medical conditions under control. It has desperate impacts on their mental health, let alone the mental health impacts of knowing there is no money coming in. I have spoken to many people who tell me, when they've been put in this situation, of the damage it does to their mental health—the suicidal ideation. These payment suspensions literally kill people. That is absolutely what happens. Yet the basic data—how many payment suspensions, to whom and why—is not forthcoming. I asked these questions on 20 March—seven weeks ago—and there has been silence since then. What does this say about this government's regard for the people who are surviving on income support payments and are at the mercy of this punitive mutual obligation system? Income support payments are meant to provide much-needed support, and payment suspensions have a devastating impact on the people who rely on them. In addition, payment suspensions can create a cycle of debt and poverty. If a recipient falls behind and can't pay their bills or their rent, they can be forced to turn to credit cards or payday loans to make ends meet, which can lead to a cycle of debt that is incredibly hard to escape. It certainly does not put people in a good spot to take on finding work. It makes it incredibly hard for people to retain financial stability. We've had considerable evidence brought to us in the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, which I chair, for our inquiry into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia. I'd like to read some of the evidence featured in the interim report, which I am going to be tabling this afternoon. Dr Elise Klein, in her evidence to the committee—which is, of course, already published—drew attention to the impact of two particular features, the base rate of payments and mutual obligations. She noted: Two particular features are important to note: the low base rate of payment, which contributes to material deprivation; and the use of mutual obligations and conditionalities that stigmatise and disempower and can lead to the withholding of income. Together they produce hostile conditions that are said to propel people into employment. However, this logic of deterrence completely overlooks that people cannot work, in that they have a disability or illness; that there are not enough jobs, particularly in remote regions of the country; or that people receiving payments are already working, undertaking the critical work of unpaid care, which is essential for the economy and society. Dr Klein also noted: According to ACOSS, of the people receiving unemployed payments, 40 per cent have a disability, 47 per cent are 45 years and older, 20 per cent are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, 10 per cent are First Nations people and 13 per cent are raising a child alone. We see from these numbers the very real ableist, racist and gendered impacts of the government's policy approach on those it subjects to poverty. Critically, instead of understanding the important care obligations people have or the very real situations that stop people from working, people are subjected to payments well below the poverty line…. What is also deplorable is that children are punished through these policies. It is hard to think that this policy-induced poverty could be anything but state violence against our nation's children. When we ask questions about mutual obligations, about these payment suspensions, we don't receive any answers. I also want to read from a document prepared by the Antipoverty Centre, titled 'Compulsory activities do not address employment barriers'. The Antipoverty Centre collected the following stories from people in the welfare system in the days preceding our appearance at the Workforce Australia Select Committee briefing. These stories have been collected from a group of people traumatised by unemployment and the welfare system, who generously volunteered to participate in the protest to be held on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty and to share their stories as an act of resistance to the government manufactured poverty machine that traps so many of us. This is not a cherrypicked sample of the stories we received designed to skew the perception of what is happening. Every person who submitted their story is included below. Employment services purport to address unemployment and constantly fail to do so. You cannot separate unemployment from the person who is unemployed and their whole circumstances. The first story highlights the dire impacts of the threats of payment suspensions. This is information we were seeking from the government, which we have no information about. This is about Jarrad. Jarrad's on JobSeeker and currently has mutual obligation requirements. He says: I have had to struggle with rising costs in living, rent, bills, medications and specialists all on the insufficient funds provided by the government. Due to the renting crisis all I have left after my payment is less than $60 for a fortnight and I'm somehow expected to live on this? Without any additional help from friends and family I would have long since been homeless or dead. I have fought against daily thoughts of suicide and my depression and anxiety has become dangerous because of this constant struggle and stress, I'm living day to day and I often don't know how I'm going to get through the next week and pay for what I need to pay. I am now disabled but not disabled enough to get on DSP and the entire process is a mammoth task with impossible hurdles. I am constantly fighting against your system and getting medical exemptions where I can because I cannot work but all of the systems in place tell me I can, that I have to or I'll lose my payment yet I can barely get out of bed each day, I have to get family and friends to help me do even the most basic of tasks but sure according to my provider I can do many hours a week of work. Please, please for everyone that is struggling, please raise the rate. End mutual obligations, end the privatisation of these systems. Make DSP more accessible. I don't want to die. This is the impact that our punitive income support system is having on people. With these sorts of impacts, you would think that the least the government could do is be transparent about the data and about the number of people that are being impacted by this punitive system. But we know why they don't want to be—because it would be overwhelming evidence that the system is not working, that mutual obligations are not working and that mutual obligations need to be abolished and are keeping people out of employment, in poverty, totally oppressed and totally feeling that they are just a tiny cog in an enormous machine. That's why this information and answering those questions is critical. That's why it is critical that this government is transparent—because then it would be obvious that we need a different way. I want to share another story. This one was shared anonymously, and it highlights the challenges of meeting your so-called mutual obligations if you can't afford a phone or have limited technical abilities. The person says: I've been living in poverty on Centrelink payments—Austudy then Newstart/Jobseeker—since leaving high school almost 9 years back. I have never been able to afford housing that meets my needs as a disabled person with trauma from multiple domestic violence situations from various cohabitors. I can barely afford anywhere to live at all, actually, and the fact that I am once again likely having to find a place to live, with current prices within my greater area STARTING at 70% full Jobseeker payment, is soul-crushing. I spend hundreds of dollars a month on medication and medical equipment I need to live on a day-to-day basis. I can't afford to see specialists for things like my ADHD or autism. I can barely afford basic foods—almost any meat I buy is nearly off, any veg frozen, any snack half-price or made from scratch. Almost all of my money goes directly to rent, bills, food, medical. The paltry leftovers aren't enough to cover keeping my car on the road—I have to ask for help pretty much every year to cover CTP etc. (Also, almost every job I've ever applied for has specifically stated that applicants need a car, so people on Jobseeker are literally priced out of being able to work.) New clothes are cast-offs from friends or from the clearance section at an already-cheap store. I've never been able to buy my own phone—which, by the way, is needed just to access Centrelink payments, and an up-to-date phone with reasonable technical specs is a necessity for the vast majority of jobs I've worked or applied for. The current system of mutual obligations is unfair and punitive, and it often leads to people's payments being suspended through no fault of their own. That's the critical information. That's why we were asking questions about the numbers of people, the suspensions by demographic group and program, the numbers of individuals subject to payment suspensions, the numbers broken down by type of participation and the numbers that lead to a payment delay or cancellation. This is important information to have in the public eye—so it is very clear that our system is broken, that we need to be doing more and that we need to be supporting people who are currently trapped in poverty. By not providing this information, by not acting to abolish these punitive mutual obligations, the government is choosing to leave people in these circumstances. It is a political choice that's being made to leave people in abject poverty and feeling crushed under the punitive mutual obligations. We can do more. This government, clearly, in the budget tonight is not going to be taking action to support people, but we as Greens are going to continue to fight for people until they have justice. Question agreed to. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 40 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Questions Nos 1520 and 1521 40 15:50 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to questions on notice Nos 1520 and 1521, which I asked on 20 March, relating to the impact of rental increases on rates of homelessness and extending funding for homelessness services. 15:51 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'm not certain that the minister's office was forewarned. What I'm hoping is that you could enunciate which questions they were, and we will try to come back you as soon as possible. 15:51 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria They were question Nos 1520 and 1521, and the minister's office was forewarned a good couple of hours ago. I move: That the Senate take note of the government's failure and the minister's failure to provide an answer or explanation to these questions. I've asked about these two questions in particular because they are very pertinent to the discussion that the government put on the Notice Paper about their Housing Affordability Future Fund, their completely inadequate response to the housing crisis. Again, actually having information, having data relating to housing and homelessness, is critical. It shows how inadequate the government's response to the housing crisis is. The questions that I asked were these: what modelling has the department undertaken of the impact of rental increases on the rates of homelessness, and has the government taken a decision in relation to extending funding for homelessness services in relation to the social and community services equal remuneration order? I'll start with the second one. That question was asked on 20 March. I understand from media reports that in fact the government did make a decision, but they haven't bothered to answer my question on notice. It would have been very simple to answer my question on notice, after media reports on 23 March that the government had decided to extend some more funding—just for the next year—in response to the fact that homelessness services are absolutely smashed, with a huge increase in the number of people who are homeless. The figures on census night showed we had 120,000 homeless Australians. So the government made a stopgap effort of providing some extra funding. It would have been nice to have had my question on notice responded to—but no. It really shows just how little consideration this government has for the very legitimate questions from the senators in this place. It seems that they think they're above having to answer basic questions. But these questions are critical. The first question was: what modelling has the department undertaken of the impact of rental increases on rates of homelessness? It's pretty critical to understand what the intersection between homelessness and rent increases is. The housing crisis is affecting millions of people across the country, and this government is not taking the steps to fix it, yet it claims to be taking issues of housing and homelessness seriously. This question goes to the issue of rental affordability, something that you would think that a government that was concerned about it should be on top of. They should have good data at their fingertips. In fact, they should have done some modelling on it. You would think if this government was serious about tackling the housing crisis that that question should have been very quick and very easy to answer, to have come back to me and said: 'Yes, here's the modelling we have done. We understand what impact the skyrocketing rents are having on homelessness, and this is what we are doing about it.' But, no. And the fact that they haven't answered my question seven weeks on leads one to presume that maybe they haven't actually done any modelling. Despite having a crisis in rents—skyrocketing rents—perhaps they actually haven't done any modelling, perhaps they're not even really looking at this issue. They're happy to see rents skyrocket on one side and homelessness skyrocket on the other but are not willing to put two and two together and to show that we need to be doing something about the skyrocketing rents to be tackling homelessness. They could model, for example, what having a rent freeze might do to rates of homelessness. We know that we're not going to be able to tackle the housing crisis and tackle skyrocketing rents unless we actually do something about those skyrocketing rents—a rent freeze? Our request has been for the government to put that on the national cabinet agenda. Yes, I will give them credit for that—after pressure from the Greens, as part of our negotiations over their housing bill, it was on the national cabinet agenda. Now we want to actually see some action from the state and territory governments, led by the federal government, to say we need a rent freeze. You would think that they might have done some modelling on that. I want to just go to how significant this is and the impact of rent on homelessness. Anglicare Australia do an annual rental affordability snapshot. They've just recently released their 2023 report, and they describe the results as 'alarming'. This is despite that in previous years things were looking pretty bleak. But in 2023 things are 'alarming'. I want to quote from this report pretty extensively, because it's critical to the debate that we are having about housing and why the government needs to get serious about it rather than pretending to do something about it, rather than pretending by gambling $10 billion on the stock market and only committing to 240 houses each year per state. That's pretending to do something about it. The Anglicare 2023 Rental Affordability Snapshot noted: This year, there were only 45,895 listings across the country, the lowest number in the history of the Snapshot. Australia's vacancy rate remains at its lowest rate on record, at 0.8 percent. The market for affordable properties is fiercely competitive, with many households on low incomes unable to get a look in to a rental. We have heard reports about people queuing down the street for inspections, competing with dozens or even hundreds of other potential renters. Rents have never been less affordable. Average rents have risen by 11 percent in the last year. Our analysis shows that a mere four rentals were affordable for a single person receiving JobSeeker across Australia. None were affordable for someone on Youth Allowance. Couples out of work, single parents relying on Centrelink, and Australians receiving the Disability Support Pension must all contend with a rental market where 0.2 percent of rentals were affordable. A person on the Age Pension can only afford to rent 0.4 percent of properties, and the percentage of affordable rentals for a person on the minimum wage has dropped to below one percent for the first time. Such dire results have a real impact on people's lives. They show that large numbers of Australians will not be able to land a lease without getting into severe rental stress. This means that people can be forced into unfair choices like skipping meals, foregoing essentials, or turning to payday loans to get by. As our rental crisis becomes a permanent reality, many people can expect to live in these conditions for most of their lives. Our results show that we are in the midst of a crisis that can no longer be ignored by governments. There has never been a more critical time for governments across the country to step up, and ensure that every Australian has a place to call home. You'd think that a basic part of that stepping up would be to actually do the analysis so that you could then take action to do something about it, actually do some modelling and let the Senate know what the results of that modelling are—but no. All we have is the government's current housing bill, and there's not a guaranteed dollar that's going to be spent on housing. If the fund loses money, like it did last year, there'll be no money to be spent on public housing. All they've done is commit to a minimum of 1,200 properties per state over the forward estimates—that's 240 houses a year in my home state of Victoria—when we've got a public housing waiting list that is decades long. Even if the fund comes into effect, we won't see a single house built before the next election, and, at the end of the fund, the waiting list is going to be longer than it is now. We need a rent freeze now. We're seeing the biggest rent increases in 14 years, putting millions of Australians into severe rental stress. Families are sleeping in their cars, workers are unable to afford a home near where they work, people are being evicted from their homes because they can't afford 20 per cent rent increases, and the government are just sitting on their hands. They've got the capacity to intervene and stop the worst of this crisis, yet when you ask them a question about what they're doing there's silence. In the past 12 months rents in capital cities have grown seven times faster than wages. Just as the government coordinated a national response to the COVID-19 health crisis, the federal government should intervene to coordinate an emergency nationwide response to the housing crisis, and that includes a rent freeze. And, at the very beginning of that process, they should actually do the work to see what impact the skyrocketing rent increases are having on homelessness. Under the Greens' plan, National Cabinet would agree on national tenancy standards that would include a two-year emergency rent freeze. This would be followed by ongoing rent caps, an end to no-grounds evictions, minimum standards for rental properties and giving tenants the right to make minor improvements to their homes. With more and more people renting long term we desperately need legislated protections against unfair, arbitrary evictions and skyrocketing rents. The other element of this is that rising house prices and rents mean that people are paying so much of their income on rent that they can't afford the other basic necessities of life, such as food, health care and education. This is especially true for low-income earners and people on income support, who are being forced to spend an absolutely huge proportion of their income on housing, which, of course, is then exacerbating homelessness. More and more people are being forced into homelessness, which has a devastating impact on the people affected and puts a significant burden on the healthcare system and other support services. The evidence we've heard through the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into poverty has been heartbreaking. There are regional towns where every car park along the highway every night has at least half-a-dozen cars with people living in them. People are bringing their kids up living in cars. That's what the reality of the housing crisis means, and yet this government can't even see its way clear to providing basic information to the Senate about what impact rents are having on homelessness. I want to share some more stories from people who have given evidence at the poverty inquiry about people living at the intersection of the housing and cost-of-living crises. There was a man, Brian, who said: My flatmate, Maurice, and I have been living in public housing since 1997 and 2008 … We've had two years of flooding from a neighbour above us, with ten floodings in two years, with human faeces in what was coming down. Len said: The reason I've come here today is to say part of the reason I went on the streets was that I couldn't cope on the money. I could not cope on the money paying private rental, going through what I was going through, the depression and whatever. But what brought me off the streets was permanent affordable housing. And that extra couple of hundred dollars that I was getting on the disability pension gave me a chance. People who are living in poverty also face the issue of discrimination and stigmatisation when it comes to housing. They experience marginalisation and social exclusion, which makes it really difficult—even if there are more affordable houses—for them to secure adequate housing. For example, landlords can refuse to rent to them or may charge them higher rents due to their income level, their background or other factors. The difficulties faced by people living in poverty in finding adequate housing in Australia are really significant and really complex. It is crucial that the government do the work—that it realises that we are in a housing crisis and commits to doing the work that is necessary. We have to have sufficient affordable and secure housing options. We need to ensure access to essential services and facilities and to combat discrimination and stigma. Only then will we be able to ensure that everyone has access to a safe, secure and dignified place to call home. The Greens believe that everyone should be able to afford a home that meets their needs, whether they are renting or buying. We need to tackle these issues head on. Homelessness is a complex issue, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. But we know that there are a range of things that we can do, that governments can do, and that there are choices being made now to not do these things. We need to have much greater investment in affordable housing and much greater funding for emergency accommodation support services; renters facing eviction need access to legal advice and representation; and a national strategy to prevent and end homelessness needs to be established. We need to make sure that everyone has got access to safe and healthy homes. Everyone's got the right to live in a home that's free from harmful toxins, mould and other environmental hazards. And we need to build a fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive society for all. These are the choices that could be being made by this government, that aren't being made by this government, that the Australian Greens will continue to campaign for. 16:06 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I want to provide some clarity to the chamber and to Senator Rice about questions on notice Nos 1520 and 1521. My understanding is that they were transferred from Social Services to Housing and Homelessness, which is the standard administrative procedure. Minister Collins's office has no knowledge of being notified but will table answers tomorrow. I'm happy to have a private conversation to see if we've missed something there, Senator Rice. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 42 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Housing 42 16:07 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Dean Smith today relating to immigration and rental costs. This question goes specifically to the issue that the government has been saying that it intends to focus on in relation to the budget—that is, ensuring it drives down inflation. It also goes to what the government has continuously been doing: saying one thing and doing another. It's a very common theme in my contributions to taking note of answers, I'm sad to say. We've just spent the last hour and 10 minutes debating the fact that this government has spent the last year talking about being open and transparent. They're more opaque than a brick. The contradictions—the speaking out of both sides of their mouths—are really quite outrageous. They come into the chamber and make every excuse under the sun. They deflect the problem to here, blaming the previous government. But in this context, on this particular issue, the government are actually in full control because they control the immigration rates. Senator Wong, in her answer, quite reasonably mentioned the fact that the economy and the immigration system are recovering from COVID-19—quite a reasonable point for Senator Wong to make. But it's this government that is controlling the immigration rate. She can't blame the previous government or anyone else. Has COVID made a contribution to the issues around immigration? Absolutely it did. Is there a process for recovery off the back of that? Of course there is. But there is also another part to what's occurring in the economy, and that's the shortage of housing that exists. Clearly, COVID has contributed to the way people live, to the way that they share accommodation or do not share accommodation—a whole range of those things. But the government is the entity that's controlling immigration into this country and will do so over the next couple of years. A record number of people will be coming into this country—400,000 immigrants this year and 315,000 next year, for a record 715,000 people over the next two years—but it is a number they control. It's got nothing to do with anybody else. It's something that the government controls. Are there tensions in the economy around labour and things of that nature? Of course there are. One of the themes of the previous motion to take note was housing, housing affordability and the capacity for people to get a home, and it is a big deal. But the government controls the immigration rate, and that was the point of Senator Smith's question in relation to where we are right now. The government will want to deflect and talk about the housing bill. It hasn't built a house yet. Mr Albanese said in 2021 that houses would start to come online in the first five years. He gave a guarantee of the number of houses that would come online in the first five years. We are almost a year into government, and they haven't built a house yet. Not one single foundation has been laid at this point in time. It is not a good start in that sense. If it is so urgent, why have we waited a year for the legislation? It comes back to the point of the budget and what the budget's supposed to be saying for the future and the issue facing Australians, which is inflation. The Reserve Bank this month said rent inflation is expected to continue to pick up over the next year or so and to add materially to inflation over the forecast period. What's the Reserve Bank going to do if inflation keeps on going up? We just had a surprise 0.25 per cent—perhaps a shot across the government's bows. Now the government is going to continue to contribute to rising inflation through immigration levels that are going to cause housing inflation, which will feed directly into the numbers. So why is the Reserve Bank saying that? That's the point of Senator Smith's question, and the government controls the answers. They can't try to blame other people in relation to this, because they are the government and they are in charge. (Time expired) 16:12 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria It's quite shameful, really. It's a pretty old playbook to be blaming immigrants and migrants for our housing crisis when you were in government for almost a decade. It's almost like you're reading One Nation's notes. But sure, let's talk about— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Colbeck on a point of order? Senator Colbeck 00AOL That is a reflection on me and what I've said, and it is against standing orders to suggest that what I have said is racist. It is a reflection on me and should be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 I don't think that was a reflection on you, and I do recognise that we have quite a wide-ranging debate during take note, but I will suggest to Senator Stewart that she be cognisant of the question and response that we are taking note of and ensure that her comments are relevant to that. Senator STEWART 299352 We are talking about the impact of immigration on housing. I feel I have been directly relevant. We have inherited an absolute mess of a situation in our nation. Those opposite had almost a decade to do something about it, and all of a sudden they care about putting roofs over people's heads. How shameful and embarrassing to be over there asking these questions of us. Not only are we responding to the housing and rental crisis we've got in this country; we're getting things done. We're making child care cheaper, we're making medicines cheaper, we're delivering 180,000 fee-free TAFE places, we're funding a pay rise for aged-care workers, we're delivering 20,000 new university places and we're providing up to $10,000 for each person who takes up a new energy apprenticeship. We've passed legislation for paid parental leave. We've established 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave specifically for small-business workers to access from 1 August this year. We're advancing the Voice to Parliament. We got to work to repair our international relations. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, has visited 32 countries since her appointment, five of them more than once. We're getting on with the job of governing this country as well as making a real and practical difference to the life of every Australian. Almost every one of the measures we've brought to this place has been voted against by those opposite. It's almost like they actually don't want a better future for all Australians. They want to take us back to the time when they were in power and did nothing. Right now we have a bill before this chamber, the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, which will see a $10 billion investment. The fund will support the government's commitment to delivering 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the next five years. Going directly to the supply issue in response to demand—that's what we're doing. You did nothing. Not only, shamefully, are those opposite going to vote against it; the Greens, who cry about rental affordability and the housing crisis that we've got in this country, are going to team up with the Libs to vote it down. That's because the Greens and the opposition think that they know better than housing experts from across academia, industry and community who have given their views on this housing package. They've described it as 'transformative reform' that will enable the housing needs of more Australians to be met. When asked if the Senate should move quickly to support the package, the Community Housing Industry Association declared it was 'absolutely urgent'. They also said, 'We have to put something in place right now.' The Urban Development Institute said, 'With every day that passes, it is costing them more and more.' The Property Council said, 'The quicker all of these mechanisms are up and running, the better.' National Shelter described it as 'the most critical housing legislation to be brought forward for the past 10 years'. But the Greens and those opposite are teaming up to vote it down because they don't think that this is a better future for Australians. It's an absolute shame and an indictment of them. I hope that at the end of today, or tomorrow—whenever we go to a vote on this bill—those opposite and the Greens will front up to the Australian people and tell them why they don't care about easing the cost-of-living pressures on the Australian people, why they don't care about helping to ease the housing and rental crisis that we've got and why they don't care about the $200 million that is going to the repair and maintenance of remote housing for Indigenous Australians. I hope that you front up to the Australian people when you, the Greens and the opposition, team up to vote this down. Shame on you! 16:18 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I also rise to take note of the answer to the question from Senator Smith regarding immigration and the rental crisis. Despite what we've heard this afternoon, Australians are welcoming people. Despite what we hear from Labor and the Greens and their mates in the socialist media industrial complex, they're not racist people. We're nothing of the sort; we're welcoming people. Immigration has served this country well. I'm proof of that, of course, being the son of an immigrant family. We all know that. But, let's be clear, Australians are not stupid. They're not going to be sold a pup on this one. They understand that there's a time and a place for policy levers to include modest—we love the word 'modest' in this place—increases in immigration. But for the Labor government to be suggesting, at this stage, that something in the order 715,000 new immigrants over the next two years is even remotely reasonable is a nonsense, and there are myriad reasons as to why that is. They include, but are not limited to, the extraordinary pressure it's going to place on our infrastructure and on our housing system, which just can't sustain this sort of target. We heard that there are going to be I think 30,000 new homes built. My maths is pretty poor, but 30,000 into 715,000 doesn't seem to add up. Where are these people going to go? Are we just going to build tents and have those in the middle of cities? This just does not stack up. I know the government likes to sell these decisions in a very simplistic sort of way: 'Don't worry about it. We've got it all under control. It's modest. Don't ask questions. We've got this under control.' But the truth here is that this migration pitch is going to cause problems that I don't think this government are even aware of and are ignoring at their own peril. As I said, the Australian people are not silly, and they don't want this. They particularly don't want it in places like Sydney and Melbourne, where the infrastructure is already heaving under the weight of large population numbers. They don't want this intake, at least until improvements are made in investment in infrastructure, in schooling, and in the road system, education, hospitals and houses. Australians actually want cutting of red tape, lowering of taxes, the bringing back of business, and cutting of power prices, which is one we heard all the way through the last election—$275, was it, that power bills were going to drop by? And what have we seen since then? They've gone straight up. I guess we'd be looking at a different proposition if we were looking at the old Labor Party. Remember the old Labor Party that used to stand for the battlers, used to stand for working people, used to take those sorts of things into account? Now not only have we got a Labor Party that's bursting energy prices all over the country and shattering that $275 promise, which was mentioned 96 times, but we're also seeing a government that's giving us huge inflationary pressures—which this is only going to contribute to, by the way—and higher rents, all at the same time that we're seeing an enormous increase in migration. This shows that the government, the Australian Labor Party, is no longer the party of the battlers and the workers; it's the party of the inner-city elites. We can see that every single day, every time we look at these pictures. And it's all getting very comfortable. They are now turbocharging those cost-of-living pressures that we just talked about. That's what this will do; make no mistake. This isn't going to be some magic wand they can wave. Look at South Australia, at the SQM research, which details the changes in rental costs. The South Australian housing market is relatively stable. We've seen some increases recently, but as at 4 May the increase in house rental prices alone is 11.4 per cent. The increase in rental prices for units is 11.4 per cent. And that's almost the good news, because let's turn to New South Wales and Victoria, where we can see something in the order of a 20 per cent— (Time expired) 16:23 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Today we've heard some really interesting contributions by senators, and particularly some interesting interjections, on the topic of housing and rental affordability. You'd think that this government had been in power for the last decade. Yet those opposite, who were here on the treasury bench for a full decade, wasted an opportunity to really address not just the rental crisis that we're currently facing but the housing market and are now somehow trying to blame Labor for their failures over the last nine years. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's State of the nation's housing 2022-23 report, which was released last month, shows and confirms the need for all government, industry and housing stakeholders to work together in order to improve the housing outcomes for Australians, particularly the most vulnerable Australians. It confirms that the proposed Housing Australia Future Fund that the Labor government is putting forward here in the parliament will in actual fact double the number of new social housing dwellings, adding to the stock each year for at least the five years from the year 2024, when compared to the period between 2006 and 2021. The minister has confirmed that the fund is an absolutely important policy that this government is determined to ensure will pass this parliament. This government will work with those in this parliament to address the housing challenges that we are currently facing. The report is another reminder that too many Australians, particularly those who are vulnerable, are struggling to secure safe and affordable housing. No matter the part of the country, this is a crisis that we're all trying to address. The findings highlight the need to pass legislation that is currently before this parliament and before this Senate to establish the $10 billion fund that we have discussed time and time again. I would just remind senators that this fund will deliver 30,000 new social and affordable dwellings in the first five years. Thirty thousand is nothing to sneeze at. It will create a secure and ongoing pipeline of funding for social and affordable housing over the long term. The last time we saw a significant investment was during the term of the previous Labor government. The Rudd government did see a massive investment in housing. Again, it has taken a Labor government to put real money, real dollars, on the table to address the housing crisis, particularly for those in social housing. It's not those opposite, who claim to pretend to look after those who are most vulnerable in our society, as we've heard from some of the contributions today; it has taken the Albanese Labor government to finally say: 'Enough is enough. We need to address the housing crisis.' We are trying to unlock that $575 million through the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and invest it in social and affordable housing. So far, through the National Housing Accord, we've brought together state and territory governments, the Australian Local Government Association, investors and the construction sector. That sets a shared ambition to build one million new homes over five years from 2024 to help increase supply. We've also recently committed $67 million to boost funding to states and territories over the next year to help tackle homelessness and $91 million over the next three years to combat youth homelessness through the Reconnect program. In addition, we are developing a 10-year national housing and homelessness plan. It's important to put some of these facts on the table in terms of what this government is trying to do in the first 12 months of being elected to government. It was really heartening to see reports that the government had welcomed the support of the Jacqui Lambie Network, and I want to congratulate Senators Lambie and Tyrrell for their support of this very important policy that the government is trying to navigate through the Senate. The changes that were announced will obviously see many people benefit from the fund. These are important steps to making available a minimum of 1,200 dwellings in each state or territory over the first five years from the establishment of this fund, which will also ensure that no state or territory misses out on dwellings under the Albanese government. That is something that should be repeated: 1,200 dwellings. (Time expired) 16:28 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Again we rise and we talk on this question of housing, rents and inflation and how that affects people, and the effects of immigration on that and on the cost of living. I note and am quite worried that, in one of the responses from the government side, it was said to be 'shameful' for us to ask these questions. That's a quote from today. It is 'shameful' for the opposition to ask questions about housing supply and immigration. That is the contempt with which they deal with the Australian people and the opposition—that it is shameful to ask these questions. But here we are: we are hearing that this housing fund, this nebulous $10 billion future fund, will present 30,000 homes over five years. By my maths—not real great at maths; think I got a B—that's about 6,000 a year. That's where I'm going. If we look at the maths of that, they would've lost $365 million last year investing in housing. It's only the investment that would build the housing, so how you build 6,000 homes for minus $365 million is a miracle to me. This answer, this all-wonderful fund, doesn't do that. But, with this government, best in show is not a policymaker. Best in show is not a minister. Best in show is a spin doctor. When we get here and we're talking about the growth of all these policies, what do you get when you have housing going through the roof, the cost of rentals going through the roof, the cost of living going through the roof? The answer under this government is: just add 715,000 more people. I don't know where they come from. Where are we going to build these 30,000 homes? Are they made out of Lego? We probably couldn't even afford that. But this policy comes from cloud-cuckoo-land. We have housing and rents going through the roof, so we'll just add 715,000 more people to rental housing and accommodation. It doesn't make sense, but we're told this is what will happen. This is what we get told time and time again with this government: it's the absolute truth that what they're doing will fix everything. But will it? So many times they sit in here and say, 'This side voted against our energy relief package.' But it went through. If energy prices aren't going down, it's not because of how we voted, they voted or whoever voted; it's because you haven't put the policies in to bring them down. You got your package through. It hasn't worked. Prices are still going up. When looking out there in the world, that's not what the people of Australia want to hear. We're here to make Australia better, not to fight with each other constantly. When I'm talking to Steven at Newcastle go-karting club on the weekend, running up there. Senator Ayres 16913 Poor Steven. Senator CADELL 300134 Poor Steven. His son Logan, a great driver, a real good talent, has got a hell of an engine, which does 107 on the straight. But Steven has to say that his son's racing career might have to go on hold because of housing costs going up. That's his entire future potential of life going away because housing is going up. Adding 715,000 people to the housing market does not bring that down. When we're building the infrastructure to service more housing at that number, putting in a freeze and review of all the infrastructure pipeline doesn't help that matter. That's where the rubber is not meeting the road. There are some very good things being said by this government about what it wants to do, but the legislation does not meet the aspiration. When we're talking about the cost of living, the cost-of-living pressures aren't being put on by the Kremlin; they're coming from Kirribilli. They're not coming from Luhansk; they're coming from the Lodge, and to blame others is wrong. If only there were some mechanism government could have to work out where they were going to spend money for the next 12 months and four years, get some policies and come together one night, maybe a Tuesday in May, and say, 'This is what we'll do to make things better.' Maybe call it a budget night. If that were some time soon, they could have answers. But they don't. They have spin. Even this week, of all institutions, the ABC said numbers about debt and inflation are spin. The people of Australia don't want to know what happened five years ago; they want to know about this week, this month, this year. Can they pay their rents? Can they pay their electricity bills? Can they pay their grocery bills? There might be cost-of-living benefits in this budget, but we're putting up their taxes as well. It is tax and spend, all putting inflationary pressures on this. There are no answers; there is just spin, and people deserve better. Question agreed to. Assange, Mr Julian Paul 46 16:34 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Shoebridge today relating to Julian Assange. Nearly five years ago the only two members of parliament who would meet with Julian Assange's father, John Shipton, were myself and the member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, in the other place. John came to see us to see what we could do in here to help his son Julian Assange, who was at that time in the Ecuadorian embassy and desperately seeking to get out, seeking his freedom. Not long after that, he was incarcerated in a maximum-security prison, Belmarsh prison. It's been a very long road to try to get any senior politician in this parliament to make any statement in support of Julian Assange, so I welcome Senator Wong again today reiterating what the Prime Minister said just last week—that they see the ongoing incarceration of Julian Assange as serving no purpose and that enough is enough, diplomatically saying Julian Assange should be freed. It has been a long road to get to this point, and I welcome the fact of Stephen Smith, our high commissioner in the UK, visiting Mr Assange; Mr Rudd, in the US, raising this with his counterpart; or Senator Wong telling us today that they're raising the freedom of Julian Assange at every level of government with the US administration. I welcome that, and I know millions of Australians will as well. The next questions that we want answered are: what more can this government do? At what point will the gross abuse of power, the injustice, the political persecution of Julian Assange, a Walkley Award winning journalist, an Australian citizen, affect our relationship with our close friends and allies the United States? That's what we would like an answer to. Perhaps an easy place for Senator Wong to start, to show us that she has her heart in this and that she believes in what she is saying, is to put out a simple tweet saying what she said in the Senate today, because I note she has rightly—and I say rightly—pointed out on Twitter, in recent months, the political persecution of two other journalists. One is from the Wall Street Journal, an American, Evan Gershkovich, who is being held by the Russians on espionage charges, the same charges that Julian Assange is being persecuted for by the US administration. She has also raised the plight of political prisoner Cheng Lei, the Australian news anchor for China Global Television Network, who has also been incarcerated, in China. I thank the foreign minister for doing that, but could we have a tweet at least—just one tweet—for the freeing of Julian Assange, a small step to show that this government is serious? She is the foreign minister. She is happy to tweet about other political prisoners but not about Julian Assange. The reason I raise the timing of this is that the US President will be here in just a few weeks time, on 24 October, for the Quad meetings, which Australia is sponsoring in the Sydney Opera House. I know a lot of Australians and, in fact, people all around the world agree with me as I urge the US administration to bring this political persecution to a resolution by the time that President Biden comes to Australia. If we don't get that good news from the Prime Minister when he is standing next to President Biden or delivered in some other way, I call on Australians who care about press freedoms, who care about ending the ongoing political persecution of Julian Assange, to come out and protest when President Biden is here in Australia. Make your voices heard. Make them heard to your members of parliament. Lastly, I would actually like to thank Senator Shoebridge, my colleague, and all the MPs—all 48 of them—who recently signed a joint statement to see the freeing of Julian Assange. We did a press conference on that, here in Australia today. I thank them, because we have come a long way from two people, five years ago, seeking the freedom of Julian Assange. (Time expired) Question agreed to. NOTICES 47 NOTICES Presentation 47 BUSINESS 50 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 50 16:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That general business order of the day No. 37, Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023, be considered on Wednesday 10 May 2023 at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 50 16:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senators Bilyk and Dodson from 9 to 11 May 2023, for personal reasons; and (b) Senator Farrell for 11 May 2023, on account of ministerial business. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 50 16:41 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Hume for today, for parliamentary business. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 50 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 50 CONDOLENCES 51 CONDOLENCES Kerin, Hon. John Charles, AM, AO, FTSE 51 16:42 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 28 March 2023, of the Hon. John Charles Kerin AO, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the divisions of Macarthur, from 1972 to 1975, and Werriwa, from 1978 to 1993. 16:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the Senate records its sorrow at the death, on 28 March 2023, of the Honourable John Charles Kerin AO, former Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Treasurer and Minister for Trade and Overseas Development, and former member for Macarthur and Werriwa, places on record its gratitude of his service to the Parliament and the nation and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement. I rise on behalf of the government to express our condolences following the passing of a great servant of the Australian Labor Party and of the nation, the Hon. John Charles Kerin AO, former minister and member of the House of Representatives, at the age of 85. As I begin, I wish to convey the government's condolences to his family and many friends. I had the opportunity today to meet again with John's beloved wife, June Verrier, and some of John's former staff, and we recounted many happy memories of their time living together, loving together and working together. I also thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for the opportunity to deliver the speech on behalf of the government on this condolence motion. As the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, I thought it was appropriate to pay tribute to one of my most significant predecessors in this portfolio—someone that I and many others regard as the best agriculture minister Australia has ever had. John Kerin combined experience on the land with serious economic credentials and a practical, pragmatic approach to politics. It was a combination that saw him serve as minister for primary industries for almost the entirety of the Hawke government, in cabinets amongst the best this country has ever seen. He thought the two roles were not that far apart, saying, 'Politics is like farming. No-one is forced to do it, but someone has to.' In an outstanding period of economic renewal and reform for Australia, with Labor in government from 1983 to 1996, John Kerin played an important role across a number of key portfolios for the first decade of those governments but particularly in modernising and strengthening the nation's primary industries. His contribution was not limited to his time in office, and he displayed a deep commitment and interest not just in agriculture but to education and learning throughout his life. He was a truly great Australian. John Kerin was born in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales, in Bowral, in 1937. Like my own father and many rural working-class kids of that era, John left school aged 15 to help on the family farm and to earn a living to support his family. His first occupations, as listed in his official parliamentary biography, were axeman, a job he had from the age of 15 and, later, brick setter. From 1961 until 1971 he described himself as a farmer and businessman. It was during this time that John achieved the first of his tertiary qualifications, a Bachelor of Arts from University of New England, from which he graduated in 1967. He would later obtain a Bachelor of Economics from the Australian National University in 1977 and be further awarded honorary doctorates from the University of New England, the University of Western Sydney and the University of Tasmania. Having been energised in the opposition to the Vietnam War and with a personal passion for economics and the environment, he was active in local Labor branches through the 1960s and into the 1970s, serving as an office bearer in Mittagong, Southern Highlands, Wollondilly and Macarthur branches and electorate councils. This led to him taking on Labor preselection and succeeding in becoming a candidate for public office. John Kerin was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1972, representing the division of Macarthur, which, at that time, incorporated those areas of the Southern Highlands with which he was closely connected. This was of course a momentous election for Labor, coinciding with the party's return to office, under Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, for the first time since 1949. In John's first speech to parliament he reflected that whilst politics is about the articulation of many, often parochial, demands and the resolution of conflicting interests, he identified the need to prioritise the national interest and create institutions that could survive and adapt to change. This was significantly far-sighted thinking that would characterise his approach throughout the next two decades. He also reflected on changing attitudes in society, particularly amongst younger voters, with a confident individualism based on mutual concern for others and wider issues in determining quality of life, as well as awareness of science and technology. It was a reflection that would not be misplaced today. Under the leadership of Gough Whitlam, government was quite a ride, and it must have been an exhilarating experience for a freshly minted backbencher. However, the highs and lows of the Whitlam government would come to have an impact on John Kerin personally, as he lost his seat when the government was defeated in December 1975, maintaining Macarthur's then status as a bellwether seat. Fortunately, a second opportunity arose in a most fortuitous way when Gough Whitlam resigned his place as a member of parliament after leading the party to a further defeat at the 1977 election. John Kerin was successful in the ensuing by-election. He returned to the House of Representatives in 1978 as the member for Werriwa. During his time out of parliament he completed his second university degree whilst working as an economist in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. After the 1980 election, he was appointed by Bill Hayden as the opposition spokesperson on primary industry. He would hold this position for the remainder of the parliamentary term. John Kerin brought great personal experience to this role, as an orchardist and chicken farmer. He also brought great scepticism of the political management of farming interests. In particular, he noted how it was the case when Labor had come to government in 1972 that the specialist party that characterises itself as looking after regional interests spent a quarter of a century in power but immediately cried for immediate action in almost every rural field. It reinforced his judgement that, as with so many policy areas, Australia was being let down by short-term, short-sighted thinking, and he embarked upon building a policy agenda that took the opposite approach. When the Hawke government was elected in 1983, John Kerin took a seat at the cabinet table as Minister for Primary Industry. This portfolio would later be expanded to primary industries and energy, in which he would continue to serve until 1991. Like so many ministers of that government, John Kerin embarked on a big reform program. He confronted big challenges but did so, as the current Prime Minister has reflected, with 'experience, care, pragmatism, consultation and an unbreakable sense of humour', even if his then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, had a 'staggering incapacity to understand his jokes'. Through empathy and hard work John Kerin gained much respect, and some of the major decisions that he took or contributed to included the removal of tariffs from imported agricultural products, boosting farm productivity and the establishment of research and development corporations. These reforms have stood the test of time and created the export oriented, research-driven agricultural sector that has benefited ever since. These reforms were not without controversy or pain as the protectionist systems that had been in place for most of the 20th century, such as the reserve price for wool and the centralised wheat marketing board, were overhauled. It was necessary for new thinking and approaches in agricultural policy to match the changes in international economic conditions that were leaving Australia increasingly uncompetitive and isolated. What was required of him over those eight years suited his passion for policy too. He partnered with his colleagues, particularly former senator John Button, to provide opportunities for renewal, replenishment and outward-looking approaches for Australian business and industry. He also recognised that policy changes in agriculture and in the bush generally require different policy answers than those being confronted in the cities, even where they stem from common core issues. Accordingly, he sought to address national problems as they manifested themselves in regional areas in appropriate ways, drawing on the skills of people living in the regions affected. In doing so, he drew upon the valuable expertise within his department and its associated agencies in economics and science, too often undervalued. He also made sure that social services were available in provincial areas in the knowledge that the bush needed a voice in the cabinet room to deliver the social dividend of economic reform to those who needed additional support wherever they were located. In what turned out to be the last months of the Hawke government, John Kerin left the primary industries portfolio only when the Prime Minister called upon him to serve as Treasurer. It was not a role he relished, and following the ascension of Paul Keating to the nation's highest political office in December 1991 John briefly took on ministerial responsibility for transport and communications. He was then appointed Minister for Trade and Overseas Development, a role he held until the 1993 election. In this, he enjoyed the opportunity to represent Australia on the overseas stage and apply his preference for an intellectual approach to policy formulation in a new way, alongside foreign minister Gareth Evans. There was also great synergy with his previous role in primary industries, especially given his part when in that portfolio in monumental Labor government initiatives, such as the establishment of the Cairns Group. John Kerin did not return to the ministry following Labor's win in the 1993 election and retired as a member of parliament at the end of that year. However, his service to the country did not end when he left politics. In many ways it just diversified as he committed himself to so many boards and institutions that it is impossible to name them all. His passion for and knowledge of agriculture naturally dominated many of his appointments, particularly through the leadership positions he took up in the 1990s and 2000s in the sector. Also shining through was his deep commitment to education. He served as chair of the Australian National University's Crawford Fund, as deputy chancellor of the University of Western Sydney and as a member of the Whitlam Institute. He also made his mark through contributions to publications on the Whitlam and Hawke governments. He remained active in the Australian Labor Party as a local party member here in the Australian Capital Territory. His community involvement extended to other roles and organisations, including the Bush Capital Club and the Council of Birds Australia. This was fitting for a man who enjoyed reading and thinking about birds and bushwalking. One of those who recognised the breadth of John Kerin's impact was Professor Andrew Campbell, who is the chief executive of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research in Senator Wong's portfolio. Professor Campbell noted how: Post-politics, John Kerin chaired countless boards and shared generously his valuable time, sharp insights, dry humour and peerless networks. His contribution to the nation was formally recognised in the Order of Australia twice—first through his appointment as a member in 2001 for service to the Australian parliament, particularly in the area of government policy and legislative reform relating to primary industry and trade, and again in 2018 through his appointment as an Officer of the Order of Australia for his distinguished service to primary industry through roles in agricultural research administration, to the minerals and natural resources sector and to science-industry linkages and policy. As John Kerin's successor, as a Labor minister in the agriculture portfolio, I'd also like to briefly add my own personal reflections about his life, legacy and his private engagement with me. He was always generous with his advice, and I know this applied not just to me but to other colleagues as well—some of whom we'll hear from today. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to benefit from his wisdom during my time as agriculture minister. John was a big influencer of my thinking as I took on the role that he once held. As I remarked at the time of his passing, I will miss his early morning and late-night emails full of advice. As was mentioned by another Labor legend of the time, Barry Jones, at John's state funeral, I also said: Since becoming Agriculture Minister, I have been surprised by how often farm leaders have told me that Labor Ministers often make the best Agriculture Ministers. Free of vested interests, solely focussed on doing what's right for farmers, farm workers and for the whole agriculture supply chain. I know that they are thinking of John when they say that. His reform legacy lives on in Australian agriculture and he rightly deserves the title of Australia's best Agriculture Minister. I didn't agree with John on everything, though, and I was alarmed to read the following passage in his valedictory speech to the House of Representatives: I have always drawn the line at dealing with the Senate. It is still a great mystery to me. I met some new ALP senators the other day and I did not know they were there. I once went on a trip with— former Clerk of the Senate— Jim Odgers to London and I did not think he was too bad, but I must say that I have great concerns about the Senate Procedure Office. It is institutional anarchy with an Irish twist. I'm sure things have changed. This goes to show that whilst John Kerin was not wise in everything he said, he was at least a man of principle, and he did appreciate our committee system here in the Senate. John Kerin passed away in March 2023. When the Prime Minister reflected on his life and legacy, he described John Kerin's time as primary industries minister as the greatest and most profound mark that he left. He's proof that it's possible to go from chicken plucker to cabinet minister. The most remarkable thing about John Kerin is that he never lost his passion for agriculture, learning and making a contribution. The government again express our condolences following the passing of the Hon. John Kerin and we, again, convey our sympathies to his family including his wife, June, his daughter, Heidi, and those who knew him well. 16:57 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise to echo the remarks of Minister Watt in relation to the life of John Charles Kerin AO, and to speak on this condolence motion. From the tributes paid following the death of John Kerin in March of this year at the age of 85—including the one we've just heard—it is clear that he is most firmly identified with, and respected for, his time at the helm of the primary industries portfolio—a portfolio that John Kerin held, and clearly loved, throughout the first eight years of the Hawke government. When looking back at political events, it's obvious that John Kerin saw many in his career, and that his career was punctuated by those events that can impact upon many of us in political life. Of course, we can only speculate what might have been if some of those events had been different. By all accounts, it would seem reasonable, given John Kerin's command of the primary industries portfolio—and the respect he earned for his stewardship of that portfolio across the political and industry spectrum—to suggest that, if not for the Keating-Hawke leadership battles, John Kerin may well have remained primary industries minister throughout the whole period of that Labor government such was his command of the portfolio and the respect he earned through it. John Kerin had, he said of himself, a tough farming background. Tough it was and tough, but well and truly capable, it made him. Raised on a struggling farm near Mittagong, in the New South Wales Southern Highlands, John Kerin left school at 15 to join his father in cutting wood, becoming an axeman—as Senator Watt has said—to help the family make ends meet. It was something he did for seven years, then later setting bricks in a kiln and helping on his parents' chicken farm and orchard. The effects of what he saw and felt in the tomato glut, chicken disease and apple rot are all the types of challenges and experiences that farmers feel and felt. Whilst doing this, though, John Kerin set himself ambition and goals, studying hard by correspondence. So, from cutting his teeth on the family farm, John was to go on and qualify as an economist and cut his teeth, critically, at the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, as it is now known—to this day, one of our nation's foremost agencies of economic analysis. His entry into politics came through the seat of Macarthur in the December 1972 election, which saw Gough Whitlam take the reins of government. Events, though—this time the Dismissal and the crises surrounding the Whitlam government—saw him lose his seat at the 1975 election that swept the Whitlam government from office. For many, such a loss could have been the end of a political career, and, had that been the case, it would have been Australia's loss and our farming sector's loss if John Kerin had never returned to the parliament. However, it was another event—Whitlam's retirement from the parliament and from the seat of Werriwa just a few years later, in 1978—that gave John Kerin a vehicle to return to Canberra. So, when Bob Hawke won office in 1983, John Kerin was to become Australia's Minister for Primary Industry, building on his three years as a shadow minister. There have always been and, particularly at that time, were some tensions between the Labor government and farmers who had become more organised through the formation of the National Farmers Federation. John Kerin himself was acutely aware of this tension. He acknowledged that: 'Labor, for the most part, had no profile and no following in the bush.' As minister, he had to confront 40,000 farmers on the steps of Parliament House and, in a separate protest, 25 tonnes of wheat being dumped on the steps of Parliament House as the natural tension escalated over the effect of taxes and charges on farming communities and a perceived lack of government action. For many primary industries ministers, such concerns from within the farming sector would have overwhelmed their capacity to achieve reform, to build respect or to get things done. But, with a reputation for working hard and being forensic in his quest for policy based on hard facts and on evidence, John Kerin was able to succeed and, indeed, expand his portfolio, having energy added to the load. As primary industries minister, John Kerin is renowned for focusing on policies aimed in particular at lifting farm productivity. He brought a genuine focus and true leadership to issues around agricultural research and development, most notably with the passing of the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989. The efforts he brought forward through it, the funding it delivered and the reforms it ultimately helped to achieve have left a lasting legacy of which John Kerin and, today, his family should be very proud. Australia's farmers are more productive, our nation is more prosperous and our food supply is more secure thanks to the leadership of John Kerin, particularly in the areas of agricultural productivity. But, as is so often the case in political life, his career and its hitherto strong focus and trajectory based on primary industries was to be upset by Labor's leadership tensions at the time. Surprising many, John Kerin became Treasurer when Paul Keating's first failed challenge against Bob Hawke saw Keating then move to the backbench. In retrospect, it was a poisoned chalice. He was just two months out from a federal budget, a budget delivered whilst Australia was still in the 'recession we had to have'. Bob Hawke admitted how big a task he had handed John Kerin, in the shadow of Paul Keating as Treasurer, when he said that no-one had been 'thrown into that position under such pressure'. John Kerin, of course, just got about the job. He was no grandstander. Indeed, when the government was announcing a one per cent cut in interest rates, his approach was one of simply issuing a statement—no press conference, no bells and no whistles. Perhaps that approach was ill-suited to the Treasury role, compared with the detailed approach he'd become used to in the primary industries portfolio. John Kerin was moved from that role to Treasury and Communications. Then, following Keating's successful second challenge, he went on to serve as Minister for Trade and Overseas Development. All of these senior and important portfolios reflect the high regard in which John Kerin was held by not only his leaders and his party in government but, indeed, the stakeholders who had to work with him. And in the case of his service as trade minister, it was an opportunity to apply synergies to build on his achievements in agriculture, particularly through the championing of the Cairns Group work, as Senator Watt acknowledged. Paul Keating, on the back of his 1993 win and drive for a fresh approach, ultimately saw John Kerin end his time as a minister, and that year John called time on his political career. In his obituary in the SMH, Malcolm Brown wrote that John Kerin was once touted as a future Labor leader, but while: … he lacked the showmanship and flamboyance of some of his contemporaries … nobody dismissed him as anything other than a solid, reliable, servant of the nation. And although, in 1993, he left parliament and politics, he was far from calling time on his public service. John Kerin was to go on and provide service to many organisations, including the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the CSIRO, the Poultry Cooperative Research Centre, the Australian weed research centre and the Cooperative Research Centre for the Sustainable Development of Tropical Savannas. He was a board member and chair of the Crawford Fund, and, indeed, outside of immediate primary industries or agriculture policy, he also served UNICEF Australia, recognising the reach that food security has right around the world. Appropriately, in 2018 John Kerin was appointed as an officer of the Order of Australia for his distinguished service to primary industry through roles in agricultural research administration, to the minerals and natural resources sector, and to science-industry linkages and policy. Whilst I had the pleasure of meeting John Kerin only a handful of times, it was always clear that his decency, his thoughtfulness, his commitment to evidence based policy and to Australia's best interests shone through time and time again. Today as a Senate we acknowledge and thank him for his service, we thank his family for sharing him with the nation and we pay our respects to his wife, June, and daughter, Heidi. I thank the Senate. 17:07 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise on behalf of the Nationals and also as a former agriculture minister for Australia—the first female to do so—to associate us and myself with the speeches both of the government and, indeed, the fine words of Senator Birmingham on this condolence motion on the death of the Hon. John Charles Kerin AO. John was a forester, a brick setter, a poultry farmer, an academic, an accomplished politician and, importantly, a fierce advocate for Australian agriculture. In short, John Kerin was an old-style Labor man. His passing has no doubt left a profound void in the lives of all those who knew him, and we are all here to offer our condolences, and to support his family and friends. Like many of that generation, he was obliged to leave school at 15 to help his father around the chicken farm and spent most days cutting wood for a living. This rural upbringing ingrained in him the value of hard work and the lived experience of the very real struggles of rural and regional Australians. After the giants who had previously served as agriculture minister, such as Black Jack McEwen and Peter Nixon, from the Victorian National Party, Kerin was one of Australia's best-regarded agriculture ministers. He was fortunate to serve for a long period in the job which enabled him to enact lasting reform measures, particularly with commodity groups, and that is a rare privilege for ministers in our system today. And, indeed, Peter Nixon has actually asked me to pass on to the Senate some of his reflections on the passing of Kerin. He says: 'When I retired, John Kerin succeeded me as minister for primary industry. John was quite pragmatic and spoke to me about the issues he faced. He was level headed, intelligent and was devoted to his work.' And I think those characteristics that Peter Nixon tells us about are also reflected in John's entire work. As the member for Werriwa, he was successor to Gough Whitlam and the predecessor of Mark Latham—two significant leaders of the Labor Party. But most importantly, John served as the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy between 1983 and 1991 and made significant and lasting policy decisions that helped reshape our country's agriculture industry and forever changed our national economy. In his memoir, The Way I Saw It; the Way It Was, Kerin had some wonderful insights into the job of being agriculture minister. On agriculture policymaking he said, 'A decision by private industry not to invest or to resist change can be very powerful.' He also said he was opposed to the 'whatever it takes' approach to politics in the New South Wales Labor right, going on to say, 'I always thought that the best, thoroughly thought-through policies were the best politics. I do not believe in playing politics to gain advantage, or in confusing the public by saying one thing and doing another.' He also said, 'Nor do I believe in the prattling of inane slogans.' I think, as the Anglican ministers say, there's something in that for all of us. During his time as Minister for Primary Industry, John was instrumental in driving significant reforms, particularly in relation to the sugar and wheat industries—and Senator Birmingham told us how Australian wheat growers felt about some of those reforms at the time. He also played a key role in deregulation of that industry, and that had a major impact on the sector and paved the way for increased competition and efficiency. He also was a strong advocate for the interests of Australian farmers in international trade negotiations, as Senator Birmingham outlined; in particular, in relation to the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations. He worked tirelessly to ensure that the interests of Australian farmers were protected and that farmers had access to new and emerging markets. I want to read, as it is budget day, this quote from the late, great John Kerin as Minister for Primary Industries and Energy: Quite frankly, always the best thing that any Government can do for the whole farm sector is in the macro-economic policy area: getting interest rates down and inflation rates down … I heartily agree. I know the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer are in the budget lock-up right now, and I hope that the whip will do the right thing and push that quote under the door so that they can reflect on that very good advice from John Kerin. He also oversaw significant investments in research and development in the agricultural sector. One of his stand-out achievements was as the architect of our modern agricultural research and development system, in that he established the research and development corporations in commodity groups far and wide. It's a system where farmers contribute to research that's going to help them become more efficient and productive and where we, as taxpayers, participate and contribute to making the primary production system more efficient for farmers. This partnership between taxpayers and the farming sector has driven innovation and progress across agricultural commodities in Australia to the point where our overall agriculture sector was worth $90 billion in 2022. Kerin also recognised that innovation was key to driving growth and productivity in the sector and worked to ensure that funding was available for research into new technologies and practices. That included in areas such as plant breeding, soil conservation and animal health. To his wife, June, his daughter, Heidi, and the rest of John's family we offer our deepest sympathies. We thank you for his years of service to our nation and his unwavering dedication to Australian agriculture. Vale, John Kerin. 17:13 Senator AY 16913 New South Wales RES (—) (): It is completely appropriate that the Senate pause for a period to reflect on the life and service of John Kerin. I do want to thank the speakers thus far—the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate—for their thoughtful contributions. It does reflect, I think, the fact that John was widely regarded as a remarkable—we might argue about whether he was the best—contributor in agriculture and across a range of policy areas. He was loved across the parliament, particularly in the Australian Labor Party, for the seriousness of his convictions and the way that he approached the task of politics. As Senator Watt said in his contribution, a number of us have benefited from engaging with John over the years, and I'm one of those people. He was very generous. For a bloke who was very busy in his retirement, he was very generous with his time. He had a thoughtful approach to the challenges that faced modern Labor in this parliament and the parliaments before it. I am very grateful. I came from a background where my family valued farming, agricultural science and education, and John Kerin epitomised those values and drives in a way that is very uncommon in modern politics. I don't intend to traverse all of the details of John's history here—and his later life has been done very well so far—but I want to make a couple of reflections. His intellect and capacity to bring a sharp, well-read policy brain to the problems of the era that he was engaged in had their foundations in his own drive for self-improvement. He didn't do undergraduate study on a university campus. He did it at night-time, studying at night school to finish his high school education and by correspondence to complete his university education—and it was all done after the farm work was done. He worked through the night. His brother gave a very compelling account of the hard work and commitment required for John to get the education that he got, and that drive for self-improvement continued all through his life. He's left a legacy of reform in agriculture. He certainly was a person who could draw the relationship between agriculture policy, trade policy and industry policy, and he knew that reform agenda and issues like no other Australian politician. He was deeply sceptical of the Australian Senate. It would have come as no surprise to him that our condolence motion for him was delayed by a further hour and 40 minutes because of some debates and playing up in the Senate! He would have found that irony pretty rewarding. His book, 450,000 words on agricultural policy, and with him having been an agriculture minister, is available in the Parliamentary Library. It is absolutely worth grabbing. It is a show stopper—possibly a doorstopper—a real page turner. It's absolutely worth grabbing for anybody interested in agricultural politics, research and development, science, industry policy or thinking about their role as a member of parliament or senator. His contribution after his retirement had been immense. I want to express on behalf of all of my colleagues, particularly those from New South Wales, how well loved and deeply respected John was. His state funeral was a remarkable occasion, in the Old Parliament House, and I pass on my respects and condolences to his remarkable family. Vale. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 57 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE COVID-19 57 17:19 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 A letter has been received from Senator Roberts: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: "The need for a Royal Commission into Australia's COVID-19 response." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 17:20 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, One Nation has today advanced a matter of public importance calling for a royal commission into Australia's COVID response. The rush of real science in the last few months makes it clear that COVID-19 has been a tragic and criminal exercise in stakeholder government. The stakeholders have milked COVID for their own personal and corporate benefit, at the expense of everyday Australians, destroying confidence in our health system. For corporations, the objective was profit from the sale of tests, PPE and fake, deadly vaccines that government and private mandates maximised. This profit accrued from fast-tracked TGA approvals that saved pharmaceutical companies billions of dollars and caused a new cost in human suffering, death and injury. Nothing could illustrate this point more than the heartbreaking testimony last week of Deborah Hamilton at the Senate inquiry into Senator Hanson's bill to ban COVID injection mandates. Deborah lost her daughter immediately after her COVID injections, which her employer mandated for her to keep her job. Her employer and their parent company had Vanguard investment fund as a leading shareholder and financier. Vanguard is the leading corporate shareholder in Pfizer. Vanguard mandated vaccines they make a profit from. When predatory billionaires and their trillion-dollar investment funds murder a beautiful, vibrant 21-year-old Australian in their unquenchable thirst for profit, it shows corporate ownership and influence have gone too far. For media the payoff was advertising accepted in return for government's aggressive propaganda-level promotion of the COVID narrative, messaging broadcasts to citizens who were captives in their own homes. Academics took their research grants and delivered the outcomes they were asked to deliver. So much science in the COVID period was delivered with a high degree of confidence, yet in recent months much of the science underpinning our COVID response has been proven to be dodgy, deceitful and dangerous—inhumanly so. Bureaucrats saw the opportunity to spread their power in a way that was previously never allowed. Bureaucrats who were there to oversee drug companies failed in their duties so badly that malfeasance must be a term of reference for a royal commission. We know the TGA did not check the Pfizer clinical trial data. The TGA took Pfizer's word for the trial results, and Pfizer lied repeatedly. When leading international virologists analysed the trial data in a peer reviewed and published paper they found the Pfizer vaccine caused 14 per cent more harm than it saved and should never have been approved. Our politicians—Australians elected to have nothing but the best interests of their constituents at heart—engaged in policy decisions that did more damage to Australians than any foreign enemy has ever achieved. To emphasise why our COVID response cannot be allowed to go without scrutiny, let me review the COVID developments that have come to light in just the last month. One: ivermectin won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2015 and was shown over and over again to be a remarkably effective, safe treatment for early-stage COVID. It would have saved thousands of lives. Ivermectin was never horse paste. It was an obstacle to drug company profits, and our authorities sided with drug companies over the best interests of the people. Two: COVID injections cause eye damage. Stanford University published a study in Nature journal last month using medical data from 4.5 million people showing that retinal vein occlusion, including blindness, significantly increased during the first two weeks after injection and persisted, in the case of Pfizer and Moderna, for two years. Our vaccine approval process was bypassed. It was smashed. Three: Hamburg and Munich universities' investigation of long COVID using mouse and human post-mortem tissue found an accumulation of spike protein in the skull marrow and parts of the brain months after infection or injection, leading to a conclusion that spike protein damages the brain and contributes to long COVID, whether the source is the COVID infection or a vaccine. The TGA has now approved the Moderna injection, which uses spike protein, for permanent use. What the hell are they doing! Four: COVID injections harm menstrual cycles. A study published last month in the British Medical Journal studied three million women in Sweden and concluded the Pfizer vaccine contributed to a 41 per cent increase in menstrual complications. This information was first collated in 2020 and was simply ignored when the fake vaccines were approved. Finally, the World Health Organization took time out from promoting child grooming to declare COVID no longer a global health emergency. Now is the time to take stock, to end all private and government mandates, suspend all hasty approvals and re-examine every fake vaccine and every drug approved using emergency approval. Now is the time to call the royal commission Minister Gallagher promised last year. Now is the time to start the painful-yet-necessary process of taking power from those who misused it and taking liberty from those who manipulated the response for their personal profit. Jail the bastards. We want justice. (Time expired) 17:25 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to speak on the matter of importance raised today by Senator Roberts. All of us in this chamber note that the COVID-19 pandemic caused enormous dislocation, stress, illness and mortality not just in Australia but around the world. It absolutely stretched our health system and our resources to the limit. It asked so much of our talented and committed workforce in the health and aged-care sectors. There were aged-care workers caring for their residents in really difficult scenarios, doctors on COVID wards holding iPads to their patients to say their goodbyes to families and loved ones, and the work of nurses day after day in very difficult circumstances during a very scary time. The challenges of this pandemic, of course, have been beyond our health sector, with our teachers, transport workers and retail workers showing up day after day in the most difficult of circumstances, risking their personal health and safety and that of their families to keep our country, our health system and our economy moving. That includes, of course, early educators, who I spoke about in this place many times during the height of the pandemic. They were sent into work each day without PPE, without the necessary supports needed to provide very-hands-on care to some of our most vulnerable citizens as their parents undertook essential work. The pandemic challenged governments around the world to craft effective public health responses. It threw unprecedented challenges to our scientists, to our health system, to all who worked to develop the vaccine. It presented extremely difficult circumstances for businesses and touched every part of our economy and every part of our society. We said before the last election that, given the enormous dislocation, stress, illness and mortality involved in this pandemic, of course there would need to be a thorough inquiry. The Prime Minister has indicated that the government will undertake, at an appropriate future time, an inquiry into Australia's COVID-19 response that will examine the impact of the pandemic and respective actions of government. That is wholly appropriate. All of us here know that there were serious issues in the response to the pandemic. I raised a number of them myself in this place, including around the preparedness of the aged-care workforce and the availability of masks and PPE, and it is worth noting that across our country many jurisdictions are already undertaking parliamentary reviews. I note that in South Australia just today another review has been launched into the COVID response and the emergency management response. So there is agreement, and I think there is understanding. I think everyone in this chamber agrees that we need to look at the government's response, look at what happened at that time and review that, but the timing also has to be well considered, noting that the pandemic isn't over. COVID is still amongst us. In my community it is certainly running rife at the moment. We are still in this pandemic. COVID is still with us. It presents a heightened risk during the winter months, which we are just about to enter, and our focus at this particular point in time, as we enter winter, has to be about continuing to keep Australians safe in a pandemic in which we are still living. We're also still doing serious work during this high-risk time to make sure our aged-care sector and our aged-care workers are supported and that we are minimising outbreaks in these facilities, including through strong infection prevention and control measures, regular reinforcing of advice to address complacency, and the provision of a range of support services to the sector. We know and have seen over years that the aged-care sector is particularly vulnerable, especially during the winter months. We're also investing $50 million into research into long COVID. This is an issue that has been raised with me by a number of constituents. It led to the recent parliamentary inquiry chaired by Dr Mike Freelander, which made a number of recommendations in its final report on long COVID, informed by over 500 submissions and testimonies from a range of sources. The response to that report is important because there are issues in long COVID too. So, whilst the government agrees that, yes, a review is absolutely and wholly appropriate, the timing of that review, at this particular point in time, is not. But there is absolute agreement on its importance. 17:30 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to speak in support of Senator Roberts's motion on the need for a royal commission into COVID. It is long overdue. I will qualify that by saying that, if there is a royal commission into COVID, all aspects of the management of the COVID pandemic should be looked at properly. I say that because, when I went to the Queensland Supreme Court to listen to the police case put forward by the Queensland police that were stood down because of the mandates, the judge said that he wasn't interested in the biochemistry of the vaccine. If you're not interested in the biochemistry of the vaccine and the biochemistry of the human body, I fail to see how you can do a proper review of what took place. The first thing we need to have a good look at in any royal commission is what genomic sequence was used in the PCR test. Knowing that the virus had 29 proteins of about 1,000 nucleotides each, which part of those nucleotides was actually used in the PCR test to determine a positive COVID case? We still don't know what was used in the PCR test in terms of that part of the sequence. There's a primer, and then there's a probe. What part of that probe was used and amplified—40 times, I might add? The cycle threshold used in Australia was 40 times. Anthony Fauci himself said that anything over 30 is basically considered dead nucleotides. The TGA said that the PCR test couldn't distinguish between a live and dead virus. So how many people tested positive for COVID that didn't actually have COVID? We need to do some serious quality assurance here. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars locking the country down. Before we even got to the vaccine rollout, we caused immense harm through government overreach in locking people out of their homes, states and the country. When they were allowed in, they were locked down for up to two weeks. I'm still getting emails from Queenslanders who have been asked to pay for their two weeks in hotel accommodation, and they can't afford it. They have a $10,000 bill because they were locked down against their will for two weeks. We have to look at why the state government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on these quarantine facilities that were never used. In Queensland, the Wellcamp quarantine facility at Toowoomba has been handed over to Wagners. I can assure you that these guys don't need any free gifts from the government. It's the same in Western Australia, where $600 billion was spent on RATs. All they did was test for antibodies. You could have antibodies, day or night, for all sorts of coronaviruses. We need to have a serious look at this. We need to ask the question: why did three different pharmaceutical companies have a vaccine for a coronavirus in the first two weeks after Joe Biden was elected when, 40 years prior to that, they'd never been able to find a vaccine for a coronavirus? Suddenly, after Joe Biden's election, we have pharmaceutical companies that have a vaccine for a coronavirus that was supposedly going to stop transmission and infection. Did it stop transmission and infection? No. By September 2022, we had 10,000 recorded cases of COVID. When I caught COVID, I didn't bother telling the government. I just stayed home for seven days. This idea that you have to get a test and tell the government every time you catch a virus has never taken place before. Are we going to go forward with rules like that? I don't think so. It's not sustainable to live in a society where we terrify people about a virus. I'm not saying there wasn't a virus; I'm sure there was a virus and a pathogen out there. By all means we should be protecting the vulnerable, but we shouldn't be locking down healthy people, especially those in the working-age population, denying them the right to work and not allowing them to make proper choices, given the risk of the virus for them is very low. I personally dispute whether the vaccine did stop serious infection. I'd actually argue it possibly enhanced it, given that studies show that there was an increase in IgG4, which is a down-regulating antibody, and there was also an increase in the interleukin 10 cytokine. These are all down-regulating proteins in your body, which are designed to stop your immune system from reacting to all this overexposure to viruses. I welcome a royal commission into COVID, but I would hope that it's done with the best intentions and not with the idea of being a political hit job. (Time expired) 17:35 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Disabled people should have always been put first in the planning and response to the pandemic. We should have never seen the kind of delays and the lack of basic understanding about disabled people's needs in emergency health responses that were in fact the reality when COVID broke out, and we must never see them again. There has been plenty of consultation about pandemic response now, and so, from this point forward, there is no excuse that can be found in the halls of government for the failure to centre disabled people in emergency health responses. For disabled people, we know that the Morrison government's response to the pandemic was grossly inadequate. The response to the pandemic largely failed to meet the government's obligations under the UNCRPD. The Morrison government failed to roll out the vaccine to disabled people as a priority community and failed to quickly immunise their family members and their workforce, which are central to supporting them. The government were too slow to provide PPE supplies and too slow to provide RATs to the workforce and to disabled people, increasing our risk of infection and transmission. Disabled people and carers were denied the COVID supplement payment that all other vulnerable people received—that was a measure that was in fact supported by both major parties in this place—not to mention that we didn't receive clear, accessible and consistent information. Disabled people were not consulted or included in planning and rollout processes across the board. It took months, after the government started to respond at all, for an advisory body to be established. Those in residential accommodation settings were often left isolated, distressed and vulnerable. The Morrison government failed to collect adequate data on disabled people contracting the virus or on the deaths associated with the virus. That is a failure which continues to this day under this government, with the absurd reality that, if a person who is disabled contracts or dies from COVID-19 but is not an NDIS participant—I remind the Senate that a vast majority of disabled people are not NDIS participants—then that is not reported anywhere as a disabled person having contracted or died from COVID. We know all this because there have been many reviews and consultations about responses to the pandemic to this point, including hearings of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. There are also current, ongoing reviews being undertaken about the federal government's and the state and territory governments' responses to COVID-19, including their responses specifically in relation to disabled people. In my home state of Western Australia, there is a review underway right now. The Greens will be closely monitoring the outcomes and recommendations of these reviews, as we are closely monitoring the outcomes and recommendations of the reviews that are looking into the detail of the impacts of things such as long COVID. We will be looking particularly to the disability royal commission for its expected recommendations in its report in September. For these reasons, we will not support this motion at this time. 17:40 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I rise to support Senator Roberts' motion on the need for a royal commission into Australia's COVID response, and I hope the government can too, because right now the Labor Party are on the verge of breaking another promise that they made to the Australian people in regard to having an inquiry into COVID. I welcome the comments earlier by Senator Marielle Smith, who said they did still support an inquiry, but we are now two weeks away from a year since the election, since Mr Albanese made this promise to the Australian people, and people are still desperately waiting for this inquiry. I want to put on record exactly when Mr Albanese made this promise, so it's not just me saying that. On 25 January last year, a few months before the election, Mr Albanese spoke at the National Press Club. A report of that speech in the Australian Financial Review said that, when Mr Albanese was asked whether he would have an inquiry—I think the question was a royal commission—into coronavirus, Mr Albanese said it was 'beyond doubt that you will need an assessment'. He went on to say, 'Whether that would be a royal commission or some form of an inquiry, that will need to happen.' That promise was made a year and two months ago, and we haven't had any detail since. There has not been a single reference about what that inquiry would look like. Will it be a royal commission? What will its terms of reference or powers be? Will it be able to inspect the decisions of state governments and state bureaucrats? There's been nothing, absolute radio silence from the government until Senator Roberts—and I give him credit for moving this motion—and through this motion we've heard a statement from a government senator saying they do still support an inquiry. Well, where is it? At the time, Mr Albanese gave the excuse that we couldn't have it right now because we were in the heat of the pandemic. This was early last year. Clearly, we're not in the heat of the pandemic anymore. All of the restrictions have gone. No-one, effectively, is wearing masks anymore. It is time to have a proper inquiry into what went on. In a few hours time, we're going to have a government budget delivered, and that budget will show Australia with crushing levels of debt, largely or significantly accumulated because of the response to the coronavirus pandemic. There was over $300 billion of government spending to support the decisions that were made to lock down, to close borders, to roll out a vaccine in record time—all of this spending added up. The fact that we now have seven or eight per cent inflation in Australia is largely because of that government expenditure and that government spending. This has been the largest single level of government expenditure outside of war, and we are still waiting for a proper inquiry into what the hell happened. Other senators have raised that people who have lost loved ones during the pandemic deserve this inquiry, that people who have been injured by vaccines deserve this inquiry, that people who have suffered through lockdowns deserve this inquiry. But every Australian family suffering to pay their bills right now deserves this inquiry, because the reason we have this inflation is the somewhat, in the end, misguided policy responses to this pandemic. You can only hazard a guess that those who are resisting this, those who are using delaying tactics here to have this inquiry are a little concerned about what it might find out. They are hoping, perhaps, that people will forget or that people will have moved on from their roles and positions by the time this inquiry is announced, and that's not good enough. We need to have this ASAP, because the longer it takes, the less institutional and corporate knowledge will remain in government bureaucracies to actually reveal what the hell happened. We should have had this inquiry announced as soon as the pandemic effectively ended late last year. We've waited long enough. I give credit to Senator Roberts for bringing this motion. I fully support it, and, apparently, the government supports it too. Well, stop the talk, and just get on with it and announce an inquiry ASAP. It should really be a royal commission. We have had royal commissions into robodebt, into pink batts—all of these other types of things. Surely, we can have a royal commission into the largest government response in this country outside of wartime? People deserve that. We've had some Senate inquiries. Last week we had a Senate inquiry into removing vaccines—we've still got vaccine mandates in some areas. They should be hauled in first. I note that Pfizer and Moderna have refused to appear at those Senate inquiries. We are pursuing that, but that's another reason why we should have a royal commission, because all of these companies and all of the government bureaucrats should be held to account and made to explain to the Australian people what the hell happened. (Time expired) 17:45 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria The UAP obviously support the establishment of a royal commission into our COVID-19 response, but we don't just support one; we demand one. It's time. To simply move on from the pandemic as if nothing ever happened—'Don't worry about it'—is an absolute outrage, maybe an even greater outrage than the multiple outrages perpetrated during the pandemic itself. To not forensically examine how the government and public institutions handled the COVID crisis would represent an epic failure of curiosity, a dereliction of public duty, and would heap insult on top of injury to the millions of Australians whose lives were devastated not only by the virus but, more importantly, by the government's response to the virus. University of New South Wales professor of economics Gigi Foster analysed the economic, health and societal impact of government imposed COVID lockdowns and estimated that the cost was 68 times greater than any benefit provided. If she's even half right, we need to investigate that. If it's even partly true, decency alone, let alone duty, demands a full and frank inquiry. Real-world evidence comparing Sweden, where lockdowns were not implemented, with nations like ours, where government panic was the order of the day, showed Sweden actually did better on every relevant data point. Does anyone here remember what happened in my home state of Victoria? Police enforced curfews and rings of steel around Melbourne and arrested a pregnant mother in her home for a Facebook post. To ignore this, to sweep it under the carpet, to insist, 'Nothing to see here,' is just disgraceful. That's what it is; it's disgraceful. I could go on and on with more examples and more evidence that the state and federal governments, first of all driven by fear, then drunk on power, hurt and harmed citizens with their manic COVID response. Investigation—we need to have one. That's to say nothing of vaccine mandates, which threatened free men and women with punitive measures, effectively turning them into second-class citizens, destroying so many livelihoods and breaking up families if they declined a drug that has since proven to be less than effective, let's put it nicely, and in some cases dangerous. Worse, we're now seeing overwhelming evidence of the injuries that were caused by these mandates. Are we not the least bit curious? Do we not care even a little bit? Are we really going to tell Aussies we're uninterested in finding out any truths? We must investigate. We must learn lessons. We must make sure these mistakes are never repeated. A royal commission into Australia's COVID-19 response is not something we should just consider; it is something we should begin at the earliest opportunity. It is the least we can do for the people we represent. I was elected largely on the issue of lockdowns and vaccine mandates, due to the heavy-handed, unscientific nature of what the government did both in my home state of Victoria and around the country, and I made a promise to the people who voted for me that I would always push for an investigation and uncover the truth I'm here today to call on all of you to have an interest in the truth, to say: 'Hey, we're not going to sit back and just push this under the rug.' We're going to find out what happened because we want to do better for our constituents. We don't want to be back in this position one day in the future, especially now that the World Health Organization has come out and said that they want control over our health policy. Let's not let this happen again. Budget 61 17:50 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Dean Smith, which is also shown at item 13 on today's order of business, namely: The only cost of living relief that helps all Australians is getting inflation under control Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:50 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia When the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, gets to his feet at 7.30 this evening and when, as is the custom, Labor members of the House of Representatives get to their feet at the conclusion of the speech, there's only one thing that Australian voters and Australian families need to think about: has Mr Chalmers's second Labor budget delivered a plan to reduce inflation in our country? I say that because it is the inflation challenge which is the very, very most important and the very, very most urgent. I want to quote three people about the perils of inflation. The first person is someone who is well known to all of us: the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The second person is someone who is also very well known to many of us: Ronald Reagan, former President of the United States. Then I want to focus on Peter Costello, former Treasurer of our country. At Senate estimates recently, I had an opportunity to ask the governor about inflation in our country and whether or not Australians had actually forgotten about the corrosiveness of high inflation rates. The governor said in response to my question: 'I don't know whether there's a poor understanding, Senator Smith. I think people have forgotten. For many years, inflation varied between maybe 1½ per cent and 3½ per cent. We all got very exercised if inflation was half a percentage point away from two or 2½. That was the world we were living in. People have really forgotten how corrosive inflation was.' Why is inflation corrosive? It's because it erodes your savings, it entrenches income inequality, making it worse, and it really hurts the poor. I think we've forgotten about that because, as the governor said, it's 30 years since we lived in that world. One of the perils and one of the very, very few downsides of our long run of economic prosperity in this country is that people have forgotten about the corrosiveness of inflation. I can see that Senator Faruqi is very excited to learn what President Reagan might have said about inflation. President Reagan said, 'Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hitman.' That's what the former President of the United States said. I see Senator Faruqi nodding her head in affirmation. President Reagan went on to say: 'We are victims of language. The very word "inflation" leads us to think of just high prices. Then, of course, we resent the person who puts on the price tags, forgetting that he or she is also a victim of inflation. Inflation is not just high prices. It's a reduction in the value of our money, when the money supply is increased but the goods and services available for buying are not.' Those remarks are from former President Reagan. And now, of course, we go to Mr Costello, who would have to be regarded as one of our most successful treasurers, if not our most successful Treasurer. Mr Costello said: As you know we have been budgeting for a surplus, we have been aiming to produce a surplus because that is important to lay down funding for the future, for the expenses that we will have to meet and also it is consistent with good economic policy. He went on to say: We have now eliminated the $96 billion of net debt that Labor left the Australian Government when it left office. Our Budget is in surplus for the 9th time in 10 years:- in 2006-07 a forecast surplus of $10.8 billion. We have established a Future Fund which has begun to save for the future. With these savings the next generation will be able to meet the challenges of their time. Mr Costello's contribution then was very, very important because the bigger the budget surpluses the wiser the economic management. Then we can have a higher degree of confidence that downward pressure is being put on inflation and that governments are doing everything that they can possibly do. No doubt we'll hear in lots of contributions this afternoon about the perils and the corrosiveness of inflation, but to understand it better I encourage people to go to this month's statement on monetary policy to see for themselves what the RBA continues to say about the persistence of inflation in the Australian economy and the ways to beat it. (Time expired) 17:55 Senator PA 300707 Western Australia YMAN () (): Thank you, Senator Dean Smith, for raising this matter. It's a great opportunity for me to explain what the Albanese Labor government is doing to ease cost-of-living pressure on families, who we know are doing it tough at the moment. Since we were elected nearly a year ago, we've been delivering cost-of-living relief. It has been our top priority, and we've been working each and every day. I'm incredibly proud to be part of a government that is delivering cheaper child care for families, expanding paid parental leave, strengthening Medicare, reducing the cost of medicines and getting wages moving. This is a government that understands the pressures that everyday Australians are facing and is taking action, unlike those opposite, who wasted almost a decade in office and still managed to rack up a trillion dollars in debt. The Liberals and Nationals have failed to learn the lessons of the election and have opposed our cost-of-living measures at every step. The centrepiece of the Albanese Labor government's second budget will be $14.6 billion of cost-of-living relief over four years, which will ease pressures on Australians. Our cost-of-living plan will directly lower price pressures and the CPI in 2023 and 2024. This is in addition to $11.3 billion to support a 15 per cent increase to award wages for aged-care workers and improved paid parental leave and cheaper child care beginning on 1 July 2023. The Albanese Labor government is delivering responsible and targeted relief that will not add to broader inflationary pressure in the economy. Inflation has been driven largely by Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and by the former government's economic mismanagement, and we know how important it is to get it under control. Our plan for inflation can be broken down into three parts: relief, restraint and repair. We're delivering targeted relief for Australian households, we're cleaning up the mess left by the Liberals and Nationals through efficient and responsible spending and we're repairing supply constraints through cleaner and cheaper energy, the National Reconstruction Fund and more affordable housing. Speaking of housing, the Albanese government is dedicated to delivering on our promise of more affordable housing and more social housing, and we hope to achieve real change in this space through the Housing Australia Future Fund. The $10 billion fund has passed the House of Representatives, and we now need the Senate to get behind this important bill. The fund will deliver 30,000 new social and affordable homes in its first five years. Anyone—and I mean anyone—who is serious about more affordable housing should support this bill, yet here in the Senate we have an alliance between the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens, who are saying no. The Greens' opposition to our Housing Australia Future Fund is not just working against affordable housing; it's a cynical political tactic as well. They use the housing crisis for their own political gain, peddling reckless and unrealistic policies to those who are struggling, and, when an opportunity comes to deliver change, they say no. Housing experts across academia, industry and community support the fund. PowerHousing Australia described it as a transformative reform. The Community Housing Industry Association declared it was absolutely urgent that the Senate support the package. The Urban Development Institute of Australia said, 'Every day that passes is costing them, the Australian people, more and more.' The Property Council said, 'The quicker all of these mechanisms are up and running the better.' And National Shelter described it as 'the most critical housing legislation to be brought forward for the past 10 years'. Given the state of housing in this country and this broad support, it's beyond disappointing that the Greens are standing with the coalition to stop this bill. The Greens can't be taken seriously on this. They have used the crisis to garner support and even shamelessly fundraise for their own political party. If the Greens were serious about their concerns in the rental market they would be taking action right here in the Senate. Instead, they say whatever will help them win more votes and refuse to take action, making the housing crisis was. We know too well that what happens when the Greens side with the Liberals and Nationals against progressive reform— (Time expired) 18:00 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland What a pathetic motion this is from the LNP. They were in government for nine years, and what happened? Inequality increased, house prices spiralled out of control, the national energy network basically collapsed, and wage stagnation and insecure work became entrenched. And here they are with a motion that boils down to barracking for more cuts to government services and higher interest rates. The unfortunate thing about this motion is that it seems to be precisely the approach that the Labor Party has taken to tonight's budget. Instead of helping renters or people in poverty, the Labor Party is choosing to give more than $254 billion in stage 3 tax cuts to billionaires and the already wealthy. The budget's big winners are very wealthy men. That quarter of a trillion dollars could be used to lift people out of poverty. Labor could solve the housing crisis, not just gamble on the stock market. They could wipe student debt. They have the power to help people, and they are choosing not to. In this cost-of-living crisis they have prioritised a wafer-thin surplus, they've prioritised the already wealthy, they've prioritised fossil fuel subsidies, they've prioritised nuclear submarines, and they're prioritising handouts to property investors. Yet every day in the real world people are skipping meals, they're being forced to choose between paying electricity bills and keeping a roof over their heads, they're choosing between heating and eating, between medicine and rent. That's what's actually happening out there—and I thought a fundamental job of government was to make sure that people had their basic needs met and that they could live life with dignity. This is a budget that delivers for property investors and the already superwealthy. Under Labor the problems that ordinary people are facing will get worse. It's more than disappointing; it's a betrayal. I thought we had an election and changed the government. It seems we didn't get to change the policies. Labor is spruiking its supposed $14.8 billion cost-of-living package, but this budget spends far more than that on tax breaks for wealthy property investors who own multiple properties than it does on any of the cost-of-living promises. We've heard a lot about 'nobody left behind' by this government, but there must be an awful lot of nobodies out there, because this budget leaves plenty of Australians behind. It leaves low-income people behind. It will leave students behind. It will leave renters behind. It will leave disabled people behind. It will look after the top end of town, though—those quarter of a trillion dollars in stage 3 tax cuts baked into the budget. Budgets are about choices, and this government tonight is choosing to back the winners, and it's leaving the rest of Australia behind. For shame. 18:03 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise in support of my good friend Senator Dean Smith's motion in relation to inflation. We should remember that inflation is, in practice, the greatest tax of all. I want to quote from a book that I frequently quote from in this place called Basic Economics. It's very appropriate that I quote from this book following the contribution of the Leader of the Greens in this place. This is what it says in relation to inflation: … inflation is in effect a hidden tax. The money that people have saved is robbed of part of its purchasing power, which is quietly transferred to the government that issues new money. Inflation is not only a hidden tax, it is also a broad-based tax. A government may announce that it will not raise taxes, or will raise taxes only on "the rich"—however that is defined—but, by creating inflation, it in effect transfers some of the wealth of everyone with money, which is to say it siphons off wealth across the whole range of incomes and wealth, from the richest to the poorest. So not only is inflation a hidden tax; it is a regressive tax and it affects the poorest in our community. It affects those in our community who have the fewest options in how they manage their economic affairs. Typically, we're talking about low- and medium-income earners. I want to take issue with some of the contribution Senator Payman made in this debate when she defended the government's proposed housing fund. Let me say this about both the housing fund and the so-called National Reconstruction Fund. The fact of the matter is that the government has successfully passed the legislation for the National Reconstruction Fund and is proposing the housing fund, which will total $25 billion of extra borrowings. The government is actually proposing for the housing fund to borrow $10 billion today and invest that to hopefully generate returns in the future which can be invested in housing. That is the proposition. So, instead of simply paying for housing as we go, year by year, they are proposing to borrow $10 billion, to issue $10 billion worth of bonds or however else they propose to raise this money, go into the market, borrow additional money and then seek to invest it. If you want to know the weakness in that sort of strategy, all you need to do is look at the 2021-22 annual report of the Future Fund. It's the Future Fund which is going to be commissioned with the role of investing the $10 billion. If you look at the results of the Future Fund for the period ending 30 June 2022, you will see the dangers involved in that sort of strategy. In the year ending 30 June 2022, in relation to the Future Fund, because we are in a high-inflation environment, a very difficult environment for investors, the chairman, Peter Costello, said: In a year in which global equities and global bonds fell by more than 10% each and where the Australian stock market fell 6.5%, the return of -1.2% was a pleasing outcome. Not even taking into account inflation, running in Australia at seven per cent, the Future Fund generated a return of minus 1.2 per cent. And it was the same with respect to the other funds which are administered by the Future Fund, including the Medical Research Future Fund, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund, the Future Drought Fund, the Emergency Response Fund and the DisabilityCare Australia Fund. All of them went backwards. Every single one of them went backwards even before you add the inflationary impact. So the government is essentially going to be spending a bucketload of money under this budget and it has to go out and borrow that money. There is a bond issued at the moment, which will be closing on 10 May, tomorrow, to raise $800 million, with an interest rate of 3.25 per cent. You can go onto the Australian Office of Financial Management website and see this. But what horrifies me is that on 21 November 2024 the government is going to have to refinance some $41.3 billion which currently has an interest rate of 0.25 per cent. 18:08 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I am very pleased to follow the good senator from Queensland. It's always lovely to get an economics lecture, to get these books brought out and to get quotes from Economics 101 or Economics for Dummies. Let me bring this out. What's this? I have a book here. What is it? Oh, it's on 10 years of Liberal-National government. What does it say? It says that the Liberal-National government doubled the debt before the pandemic. It says that the Liberal-National government doubled the debt before the pandemic and left taxpayers with $1 trillion of debt when they were kicked out of office. That's what it says. Let me quote a little bit more from this book of Senator Scarr's, 'Economics for Dummies 101': the Liberal and National parties oppose the NRF and the housing fund. I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals and Nationals opposed more manufacturing in regional Australia. I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals and Nationals don't support funding social and affordable housing, because the real economics lesson that Australians learned at the last election is that the Liberals and Nationals are not the economically responsible managers that they tell people they are. Australians know that this inflation crisis that we are dealing with and the real pressures that they are under are a direct result of the previous government's 10 years of messy budgets, rorts, waste and not fessing up to the Australian people about the challenges that we face. That's exactly why, when it comes to our budgets and the way we are treating the economy, the way that we are speaking to Australians, being upfront and honest with them, the Albanese government has a plan for addressing inflation challenges in the economy. It's about relief, repair and restraint—one of those words that wasn't in Senator Scarr's book. The word 'restraint' wasn't in any of the former Liberal-National budgets and it wasn't in any of the colour-coded spreadsheets. Responsible budgets can provide and will provide cost-of-living relief. We've seen this announced already by our government. We've seen measures to deal with cost-of-living relief in the previous budget in October. I want to run through a few of those now, because these are some of the things that the Greens say we're not doing enough of when it comes to cost-of-living relief. The $14.8 billion of cost-of-living relief we are delivering in this budget—we need to deliver that, but we need to do it in a way that does not add to inflation. It's incredibly important that we do that. That's why we're doing things like making sure that we have energy bill relief for thousands of Australians—something that those opposite voted against the last time they had the opportunity. Will they vote against it again? We'll have to see. But you can't stand in here and complain about inflation and the way that it impacts on Australian families and also walk into the Senate and vote against energy bill relief. You can't do those two things, because it says you are not actually fair dinkum about making sure people have money in their pockets to pay their bills. We're making sure that we're making changes to the single parent payment, lifting the age from eight to 14, an incredibly important measure for thousands of families, but particularly for thousands of women in Australia. We know that most families on that single parenting payment are women, and over 50,000 women will be recipients of that change. We are making sure that aged-care workers get a pay rise, a pay rise that they had to fight and scramble for under the last government. Our government is funding this pay rise for some of our hardest workers and making sure that they get the money that they deserve. We're providing skills and training funding for childcare workers to make sure that they are able to meet the demand that we will see in the future. We're delivering cheaper child care, we're delivering cheaper medicines and we're making sure the cost-of-living relief is at the centre of our budget and the centre of our response to this inflation crisis—something that those opposite ever seem to understand, no matter how many economics degrees they have, no matter how many economics books they want to bring into the Senate, no matter how many times they want to quote from learned professors. This is about families, and that's what Labor budgets do. 18:14 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria In the words of Ronald Reagan: When a business or an individual spends more than it makes, it goes bankrupt. When government does it, it sends you the bill. And when government does it for 40 years, the bill comes in two ways: higher taxes and inflation. Make no mistake about it, inflation is a tax and not by accident. Reagan was right. Inflation is bad, obviously. It is just like a slow leak in your fuel tank. You can still drive but you don't get as far. Inflation increases the cost of living, that feeling of dread when you open your power bill—where's my $275? You're making decisions every day about what you're forced to go without. Maintaining a roof over your head costs more. Rents are up. Mortgage repayments are up. Your wallet is empty. Every week you go to the supermarket, you have less in your basket for the same amount of money. Your children know something's up because all of a sudden you're saying no a lot more. So who drilled the hole in your fuel tank? Was it (a) the Reserve Bank; was it (b) the government; or was it (c) both? Well, I'll answer that question for you: it was both. The answer to our inflation woes is for the government to stop wasting money. Low debt is a policy for our youth. Today's public debt is our children's problem tomorrow, and I believe in protecting children. 18:15 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rose in this place before last year's first Labor budget, and I posed a question, channelling that great political drama The West Wing, on whether the Labor Party had a secret plan to fight inflation. The conclusion at that time, and after we saw that first budget handed down, was that they didn't have a plan to fight inflation. Senator McDonald 123072 It remains secret! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 It remains very secret, Senator McDonald. In fact, it remains so secret that, until this day, we see no plan to fight inflation. As Senator Dean Smith said in speaking to this motion, inflation is a scourge. Anyone who has lived through periods of high inflation—whilst I was young, I do remember the high inflation of the 1970s and the effect it had on my family and their farming business—knows just how corrosive, how destructive and how damaging it is. Why is it so corrosive? Because it erodes everyone's buying power. It erodes the value of the money in your pocket, the value of the money in your bank account and the value of the money in your pay packet. It leads to massive declines in real wages. That's what we're seeing. This government—particularly when it was in opposition, admittedly—used to talk a lot about real wage increases. We don't hear them talk about real wage increases anymore, because they have overseen in their first period in government the largest declines in real wages we've seen in decades. The last coalition government actually delivered real wage increases. You might not know that if you just listened to this government, because this government tells big porky pies. They've actually delivered massive declines in real wages, and that is through their inaction on inflation. They have left all the heavy lifting to the Reserve Bank. They have done nothing in terms of the economic levers they control to put downward pressure on inflation. I'm a great believer in the 'bootlegger and Baptist' theory of economics, and I say: why? Why would they have done that when they know how corrosive and damaging inflation is? It is because inflation does have an upside to governments. Inflation means that the real value of government debt is over time eroded, and this comes at the direct expense of taxpayers. So, whilst this government may talk about dealing with inflation through targeted cost-of-living relief, I ask everyone out there who's listening to this whether they feel they have received anything from this government to help them with the cost of living. I suspect the vast, vast majority of those listening to me today would say the government has done absolutely nothing. Things have just got harder, harder and harder, as they've seen their mortgage interest rates skyrocket, the costs of food—groceries, fresh fruit and vegetables, meat and dairy products—skyrocket, the cost of housing go up and the cost of recreation increase. All of these factors are even more highly magnified in rural and regional Australia. I was lucky enough in the last few weeks to spend a few days in Geraldton, to the north of Perth, and a few days in Albany, about 4½ hours south of Perth. In both those places, you see the corrosive and damaging effects of skyrocketing inflation. You see the pressure on people in supermarkets, where suddenly they are having to pay so much more for their bread, so much more for their meat, so much more for their dairy. The added cost of transportation to regional areas piles on top of the already high cost of living in the bush. You didn't see the price of petrol much under $2 a litre in and around Geraldton, particularly in the regional areas an hour or two outside of Geraldton. This is the cost of inflation. This is the cost of this corrosive, hidden tax on the mums and dads, the small businesses and the farming families of this country, who face these cost-of-living pressures every day, and, tonight, the pressure is on this government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 That completes the matter of public importance. COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 66 Report 66 18:20 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Reynolds, the Deputy Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present a report by way of a statement on the draft estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2023-24. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— BUDGET DAY S TATEMENT 9 May 2023 Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit 2023-24 Draft Estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present this statement on the draft budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office—the ANAO—and the Parliamentary Budget Office—the PBO. The Committee is required, under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, to consider the draft budget estimates of the ANAO and the PBO, and to make recommendations to both Houses of Parliament regarding these estimates. The requirement to make a statement to the Parliament in advance of the Budget being handed down by a Government is an important transparency measure. It assists the Parliament and the public in making a judgement on the adequacy of the Budget provided to the ANAO and the PBO through comparison with the requested funding and the Committee's recommendations. For this year's Budget, both the ANAO and the PBO have sought additional funding. The Committee has carefully scrutinised the ANAO's and the PBO's draft Budget estimates and has resolved to endorse them, subject to further review of the costings and final estimates which may be agreed with the Department of Finance. The Committee considers both offices vital in supporting the work of this Parliament and in strengthening integrity and transparency in public administration. The ANAO is also seeking an additional appropriation. In presenting its draft budget estimates to the Committee, the ANAO noted that Machinery of Government changes following the 2022 Federal election—in particular the creation of new departments—will mean that additional costs have been incurred for mandatory financial statement and performance statement audits. Further cost pressures have arisen from the additional audit effort required to remain compliant with audit standard ASA 315, to maintain adequate cybersecurity and data storage, as well as to meet the increased cost of external financial statement auditing capability where it is required to be purchased from the private sector. The total funding request—subject to further refinement with the Department of Finance—is in the order of $14 million over the forward estimates. The Committee acknowledges that the Government faces difficult fiscal circumstances in determining this year's Budget, and also acknowledges that the ANAO received supplementation in the 2021-22 budget. However, the Committee considers that additional funding for the ANAO is critical to maintain mandatory standards in financial statement auditing. Without this funding the ANAO would be forced to reduce its performance auditing budget. In the Committee's view, the Government stands to save much more than it spends by meeting the ANAO's request. A robust audit function is of critical value to Government, driving as it does efficiency and effectiveness throughout the public sector. In that context, the JCPAA endorses the ANAO's budget submission, subject to ordinary parameter changes and any minor adjustments that may be agreed with the Department of Finance. In essence, the Committee recommends that sufficient funding be provided to enable the ANAO to discharge its responsibilities including rebuilding the performance audit program. The PBO's estimated expenses for 2023-24 amount to $9.613 million and it expects to meet the majority of its fiscal requirements from this appropriation. However, since its creation the PBO has had a special appropriation fund designed to help it meet unexpected cost pressures. This fund was initially $6 million but has run down to $1.8 million over the last decade. The PBO is seeking to have the fund replenished to its original level in this year's budget. The Committee regards the fund as an important element of the PBO's operational independence and therefore joins with the Presiding Officers to endorse the proposed appropriation. I thank the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer for their work in support of the Parliament and the JCPAA and Committee members for their thoughtful and detailed consideration of these budget requests. DOCUMENTS 67 DOCUMENTS Consideration 67 COMMITTEES 67 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee 67 Additional Information 67 18:23 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senator Sterle, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee 67 Report 67 18:23 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present a report on its inquiry into general issues around the implementation and performance of the NDIS. Public Works Joint Committee 67 Report 67 18:23 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's third report of 2023, Cocos (Keeling) Islands—West Island, Seawater Reverse Osmosis Plant Project and other works. Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee 67 Government Response to Report 67 18:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I present the government's response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on its inquiry into regulation of the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets for online gambling in Australia, and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The government response read as follows— Australian Government Response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services Inquiry report: Regulation of the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets for online gambling in Australia May 2023 Introduction On 25 March 2021, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the committee) began its inquiry, 'Regulation of the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets for online gambling in Australia' (the inquiry). The inquiry examined the extent of consumer detriment in using credit cards for online gambling, existing consumer protections and regulatory approaches implemented in other jurisdictions to restrict the use of credit cards for gambling. The committee tabled its final report on 19 November 2021. The Australian Government (the Government) welcomes the report and recognises the issues raised in it are of great interest to many Australians. Government work on online gambling protections The Government is committed to implementing the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering (National Framework) in collaboration with the states and territories. This work will include the launch of the National Self-Exclusion Register, to be known as BetStop, which is expected to be operational in the coming months. BetStop will allow individuals to self-exclude themselves from all online and telephone wagering services in a single process. Other measures under the National Framework already implemented in 2023 include consistent gambling messaging and responsible online wagering staff training. On 15 September 2022, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs launched an inquiry into 'Online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm', including the appropriateness of current gambling regulations in light of emerging technologies, payment options and products. The Government will consider the findings of this inquiry when the Committee releases its final report in mid-2023. Response to Recommendations in Main Report The committee made 3 recommendations in its report and the Government supports these recommendations. Responses to the individual recommendations are below: Recommendation 1 The committee recommends the Australian Government prioritise the collection of data on online gambling in A ustralia, including the size and growth of the online gambling market, online gambling with credit, and the extent and nature of the associated harms. The Government supports in principle this recommendation. There is merit in collecting additional data on online gambling in Australia to provide valuable information to Government for policy development. The Government notes the Department of Social Services is considering the outcomes from a pilot study of a National Gambling Monitoring System by the Australian Gambling Research Centre at the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Further, state and territory governments also collect regular data on gambling and gambling harm, including online gambling, in their joint role with the Commonwealth of regulating online wagering providers. The Government will work with state and territory governments to determine feasible options for collecting data on online gambling, including whether data already collected can be leveraged, and what new arrangements may need to be developed, to establish an improved dataset that can provide greater insights into online gambling trends in Australia. This will also support the evaluation of the National Framework. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the Australia n Government develop and implement legislation to ban online gambling service providers of wagering, gaming and other gambling services (but not lotteries) from accepting payment by credit cards, including via digital wallets. Recommendation 3 The committe e recommends that the Australian Government ensure that, in designing and implementing recommendation 2, these measures have no adverse consequences for lotteries, including the activities of not-for-profits, charities and newsagents. The Government supports recommendations 2 and 3. The Government will legislate to prohibit the use of credit card payments for online gambling. This will increase consumer protections for persons at risk of gambling harm. Since the early 2000s, states and territories have prohibited the use of credit cards for gambling at the majority of land-based gambling services, including in casinos, racetracks, TAB outlets and poker machine venues. Extending the ban to interactive gambling services would move towards greater consistency between the online and land-based gambling regulatory regimes. Banning the use of credit cards for online gambling is also consistent with general community sentiment. Research released by the Australian banking peak body, the Australian Banking Association, in December 2020 noted that 81% of Australians thought gambling on credit cards should be restricted or banned. Consumers who wish to gamble online now have more options available to them for using their own money, including debit cards and bank transfers. The wagering and banking industries support a ban on credit cards for online gambling. A number of banks and financial institutions ban or restrict their customers from using credit cards for gambling. The United Kingdom (UK) implemented a ban on the use of credit cards for gambling in 2020. The ban applies to online and land-based gambling (except for lotteries purchased from land-based venues) and was achieved by applying licence conditions to gambling operators. An evaluation report published by the UK Gambling Commission in November 2021 (UK Evaluation) found the ban had achieved positive results to date. The UK Evaluation found that gambling operators successfully implemented the ban and that financial institutions had been able to block credit card use through digital wallets. It also indicated that gamblers were not falling into debt as frequently or as severely following the introduction of the ban. Most consumers (76%) who previously gambled with credit cards did not change their behaviour to gamble with other types of borrowed money. The Government will legislate to prohibit the use of credit card payments for online gambling. Consultation with industry and other interested stakeholders will be undertaken on amendments to enact a ban. The Government will take into account any adverse impact on lotteries, including those offered by not-for-profits, charities and newsagents. The Government will also legislate to provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with enforceable undertakings and remedial directions powers to enforce the credit card prohibition and other online gambling offences. This was a recommendation in ACMA's Report on the Review of Part 2B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001—Credit betting prohibitions (the ACMA report), which was published in August 2021. Improving ACMA's enforcement powers is consistent with the ACMA report and will support the ACMA to address potential consumer harms associated with online gambling. An enforceable undertaking would allow the ACMA to negotiate a legally binding commitment given by a person or entity to act or refrain from acting. A remedial direction would allow the ACMA to provide specific directions to a person or entity to rectify a statutory breach and provide extra assurance around ongoing compliance. Both options are quicker and cheaper than litigation, and would be beneficial for enforcing a ban on credit cards for online gambling, as well as for compliance with existing IGA provisions, including those related to the National Self-Exclusion Register. Providing these additional enforcement options would also align the ACMA's enforcement powers under the IGA with its existing powers under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Spam Act 2003 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992. The Government will consider the other credit betting recommendations in the ACMA report during consultation on the credit card prohibition. Community Affairs References Committee 69 Report 69 18:25 Senato 155410 Victoria r RICE () (): I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to speak briefly to the interim report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia, which was tabled out of sitting last week. I want to thank the senators who have participated in the inquiry so far, particularly my deputy chair, Senator Marielle Smith, and Senators Pratt, Askew and Tyrrell. I proposed this inquiry to the committee soon after the election of the Albanese government, in the middle of last year, because of the increasing evidence that poverty in Australia was a huge and growing problem that successive governments have failed to address. The inquiry was established almost 50 years to the day after the historic Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. We Greens believed it was important to compile this evidence and give voice to people who were living in poverty as to what their experiences were, to bring their voices to the parliament and then to use this evidence as a platform to take action. Poverty is a political choice, and it affects people of all ages, genders, races and backgrounds. The government has the power to lift people out of poverty, but it's a choice that they must make. The evidence presented to the committee so far makes it clear that the simplest, most effective and most urgent step towards alleviating poverty is to increase income support payments for all recipients, regardless of their age, and it should be immediately followed by the development of a national poverty line. I was simultaneously pleased and disappointed by the one recommendation of our report. I was pleased because it was a unanimous recommendation: … that the Australian Government take urgent action so that Australians are not living in poverty, and prioritise policy measures in the upcoming May Budget that specifically target rising inequality and entrenched disadvantage, including through the income support system. But I was disappointed that the government couldn't go further than this and disappointed because it seems that, consistent with this, in tonight's budget the government is not going to be taking the urgent action that is needed that would indeed mean that Australians aren't living in poverty. When I asked Labor senators whether they would be able to support a recommendation to increase JobSeeker, without even being specific about by how much, they couldn't. This was despite having agreed in 2020 to a Senate committee report recommendation to immediately undertake a review of the income support system, to ensure that all eligible income support recipients do not live in poverty. It was up to the Greens to recommend in our additional comments: That the Australian Government immediately lift the base rate of all income support payments to $88 a day, regardless of age. And: That the Australian Government establish a national definition of poverty. It is disappointing that, rather than the lifting to $88 a day, which would be a $40-a-week increase, it seems all we will get in tonight's budget—but we'll wait to see what the Treasurer says in an hour's time—is a paltry increase of $2.85 a day. The committee heard powerful, personal evidence from witnesses with direct experience of poverty in hearings across the country. I'm not going to have time to go through them all. Abigail said that energy prices went up, inflation went up and the DSP did not go up. Peter said that being on income support and having no money is dispiriting, crushing and soul destroying. Jo said she was going to lose a tooth because she couldn't afford to see a dentist. David said that, with his DSP alone, he's left with just $177 for the fortnight after paying rent. He's currently around five weeks in arrears and just waiting for his eviction notice. Witness A said that she's had seven years of pretending to her kids that she's not hungry or that she's already eaten, because she legally cannot disclose the domestic violence they faced. How can you hear these witness testimonies and not be compelled to act? In presenting this interim report tonight, we deliberately wanted this report to be evidence in front of the government, prior to tonight's budget, to show the reasons as to why the government needs to act to lift people out of poverty, why the government needs to lift all income support payments—regardless of age, regardless of which payment—to above the poverty line. I look forward to tonight's budget but sadly think I'm going to be disappointed with that as well. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 70 BUDGET 70 BUDGET Statement and Documents 70 20:30 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table the following documents: The Budget 2023-23—Statement by the Treasurer (Dr Chalmers), dated 9 May 2023. Budget papers— No. 1—Budget strategy and outlook. No. 2—Budget measures. No. 3—Federal financial relations. No. 4—Agency resourcing. Ministerial statements— Regional ministerial Budget statement 2023-24: Working together to build strong and sustainable regions—Statement by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Ms C King) and Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories (Ms McBain), dated 9 May 2023. Women's Budget statement 2023-24—Statement by the Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, and Minister for the Public Service (Senator Gallagher) and the Treasurer (Dr Chalmers), dated 9 May 2023. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the documents. Leave granted. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 I move: That the Senate take note of the statement and documents. Debate adjourned. Proposed Expenditure 71 20:30 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table the following documents: Particulars of proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2024. Particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2024. Particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2024. Particulars of proposed additional expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2023. Particulars of proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2023 [Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023]. Particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2023 [Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023]. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents. Leave granted. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 I move: That— (a) the documents, together with the final budget outcome 2021-22 (see entry no. 30, 28 September 2022) and the advances under the annual Appropriation Acts for 2021-22 (see entry no. 8, 6 February 2023), be referred to committees for examination and report; and (b) consideration of the advances provided under the annual Appropriation Acts be made an order of the day for the day on which committees report on their examination of the additional estimates. Question agreed to. Portfolio Budget Statements 71 20:31 The PRESIDENT 112096 I table portfolio budget statements for 2023-24 for the Department of the Senate, the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Department of Parliamentary Services. Portfolio Budget Statements, Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 71 20:31 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table portfolio budget statements for portfolios and executive departments as listed on the Dynamic Red. The list read as follows — Estimates of proposed additional expenditure for 2022-23—Portfolio additional estimates statements—Portfolios and executive departments— Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio. Attorney-General's portfolio. Defence portfolio. Education portfolio. Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio. Finance portfolio. Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. Health and Aged Care portfolio. Home Affairs portfolio. Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts portfolio. Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Social Services portfolio. Treasury portfolio. Estimates of proposed expenditure for 2023-24—Portfolio budget statements—Portfolios and executive departments— Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio. Attorney-General's portfolio. Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio. Defence portfolio. Department of Veterans' Affairs. Education portfolio. Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio. Finance portfolio. Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. Health and Aged Care portfolio. Home Affairs portfolio. Industry, Science and Resources portfolio. Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts portfolio. Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Social Services portfolio. Treasury portfolio. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Legacy Australia: 100th Anniversary 72 20:32 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia Legacy Australia is celebrating its centenary this year. It is doing so by holding a torch relay beginning on the old battlefields of France and finishing in Melbourne. The relay celebrates 100 years of care for the families of those who have fallen in the service of their country. Legacy was born out of the devastation of the First World War and continues to serve Australian families to this day. If we lived in a better world, the mission of Legacy would have been accomplished by now. But war, and its terrible impact on communities and families, does not seem to want to retreat into the mists of history. As I travel around South Australia, I always take time to spend a moment of reflection at the war memorials that stand sorrowfully at the centre of our regional towns. They are sentinels reminding us of the unimaginable pain that mothers and fathers suffered after losing their beloved sons and daughters. As I have spent a little time serving at the foot of the Hindu Kush, I know the soldier of today asks the same question of themselves as a soldier did 100 years ago: who will look after my family if I fall at the hands of our enemy? It is from these sentiments that Legacy was born. It is these sentiments that continue to sustain its purpose today. Today Legacy supports more than 40,000 partners and children of veterans who gave their lives in service to our nation, as well as those who have returned bearing physical and mental scars. I am proud to be a legatee of the Legacy Club of South Australia and Broken Hill and will be a torch bearer in the relay this Friday, after the flame arrives in Adelaide. I acknowledge the great work of the club in organising this event—in particular, President Rob Eley, Chief Executive Kerryn Smith and Chairman the Hon. Graham Ingerson. Mr Ingerson is a great friend and a former South Australian deputy premier. Graham was awarded legacy as a youth, following the death of his father, and knows firsthand the importance of Legacy's work. I thank him for his unwavering commitment to advancing the organisation. The Legacy flame began its journey on 23 April in Pozieres, France, travelling onto the Menin Gate in Belgium and then to London, where it was welcomed by His Majesty King Charles III prior to its first leg in Albany, Western Australia, last week. The overall journey of the torch relay will include stops at all 45 Legacy clubs around Australia, culminating in Melbourne in October. In all, the torch will travel more than 50,000 kilometres through 100 locations, carried by approximately 1,500 torchbearers, all of whom have connections to Legacy or the defence community. The torch will be welcomed into Adelaide on 11 May for the Edinburgh defence base, before an expected crowd of around 200 guests. The badge of Legacy is a torch and a wreath of laurel. The torch signifies the undying flame of the service and sacrifice of those who gave their lives for their country. The wreath of laurel is a symbol of our remembrance of them. The badge remains a powerful image to the veteran community to this day. I leave senators with a few words from Archibald MacLeish's poem The Young Dead Soldiers Do Not Speak: They say: We have given our lives but until it is finished no one can know what our lives gave. They say: Our deaths are not ours: they are yours, they will mean what you make them. These words capture the great work of Legacy. Palestine: Nakba Anniversary 73 20:36 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Monday 15 May will mark the 75th anniversary of the Nakba, the catastrophe that saw the violent expulsion of approximately three-quarters of all Palestinians from their homes and homelands by Zionist militias and the new Israeli Army during the establishment of the state of Israel. This initial reign of terror started in 1948 but lasted years—and indeed continues to this very day. Many Palestinian cities were attacked and over 500 villages were destroyed. About 15,000 Palestinians were killed in a series of mass atrocities, including dozens of massacres. The Deir Yassin massacre was particularly infamous. Approximately 100 Palestinian men, women and children were murdered by Zionist paramilitaries. By 1949 at least 750,000 Palestinians had been made refugees. Whole Palestinian communities fled the violence or were violently expelled, never to be allowed to return to their homes. But the Nakba is not just about that day. It is about the continued dispossession of the Palestinians, the denial of their human rights and their ongoing targeting by Israel. The Nakba is live every day for the more than seven million refugees displaced during Israel's creation and their descendants still awaiting justice. Every day Palestinians are killed or imprisoned or have their houses destroyed or their land taken by Israeli settlements, and they live under an apartheid system of laws. The Nakba is not a history lesson; it is a lived past and present for the Palestinian people. It is lived every day that they are denied the right of entry to their land. It is lived every day by the people in the Gaza Strip who are kept in an open-air prison camp because Israel and Egypt refuse to open the borders. It is lived every day in the West Bank as Israel's settlements expand and settlers are allowed to behave with impunity. For 75 years the Palestinians have been betrayed by countries in the so-called West that refuse to hold their persecutor, Israel, to account and that give a blank cheque of diplomatic cover to anything the state of Israel does. That extends here to Australia and to this parliament, where there is a bipartisan commitment to the denial of Palestinian rights and a minimisation of the crimes of the Israeli state. This year, for the first time, the United Nations General Assembly will officially commemorate the Nakba, a simple and long-overdue ask, supported by the overwhelming majority of countries that voted to pass the resolution. But guess how Australia voted? It voted no. Disgustingly, the Australian government couldn't bring itself to even acknowledge the existence of the Nakba and support a public event. In December the UN General assembly also voted for the International Court of Justice to provide an opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. Yet again, Australia voted against justice. After a decade under the Liberal's repulsive foreign policy, we expected better, but Australia continues its traditional role as the USA's lackey, running interference to support Israel no matter what crimes it commits. Israel executes journalists, like Shireen Abu Akleh, then tear-gases the funerals—no problem. Teenagers murdered near Jericho and Bethlehem—crickets. Israel occupies and expels worshippers from Al-Aqsa Mosque during Ramadan repeatedly—there is a mild-mannered media statement from Foreign Minister Wong that, of course, leads with the reaffirmation of Israel's rights. Australia still insists it seeks a peaceful resolution in Palestine, but there is no doubt that we are a bad faith actor. We are part of the problem. The people are awake to this duplicity. The people are with Palestinians and their anticolonial struggle for an end to occupation. All around Australia thousands will come to Nakba rallies. Seventy-five years after Nakba, Palestinians and their supporters remain committed to justice, peace and a permanent solution to the crisis caused by Israel, including the right to return for all refugees. Silence in the face of the persecution, dispossession and displacement of Palestinians is not an option. To stay neutral or to use weak both-sides language is to choose the side of the oppressor. There are no two ways about this. We demand justice for Palestine. Defence 73 20:41 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Tonight I want to make a short contribution on the Defence strategic review that was released last month. The government commissioned this review in the first 100 days after its election. It set out an agenda for ambitious but necessary reform to defence's posture and structure. The response to the review from the government sets out a blueprint for Australia's strategic policy, defence planning and resourcing over the coming decades. The government has identified six priority areas for immediate action: the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines through the AUKUS agreement, to improve our deterrence capabilities; the development of the Australian Defence Force's ability to precisely strike targets at a longer range and manufacture munitions in Australia; to improve the ADF's ability to operate from Australia's northern bases; initiatives to improve the growth and retention of a highly skilled defence workforce; lifting our capacity to rapidly translate disruptive new technologies into ADF capabilities in close partnership with Australian industry; and to deepen our diplomatic and defence partnerships with key partners in the Indo-Pacific. I think almost everyone who has been involved in national conversations and debates about defence has welcomed the review and the priority areas from the government. Of course, realising these priorities will require enormous effort. I know that the Albanese government and the Australian people are up for that challenge. We will be guided by a national defence strategy that will set out a comprehensive plan for defence policy, planning, capabilities and resourcing. I think the recommendations from the Defence strategic review reflect our increasingly challenging strategic environment. On the first priority, acquiring nuclear powered submarines, I know from spending time with submariners that there is a lot of anticipation for this new technology, and it really is a key to our ability to project deterrence to where it matters. There is broad acknowledgement that we cannot entirely rely on other nations to deter conflict in our region. We need to acquire the capabilities necessary to be a serious deterrent in our own right. It's also positive to see our diplomatic work recognised as an essential part of our efforts to support the international rules based order. This work needs to be seen as part of an overall effort to stabilise our strategic environment, in addition to the acquisition of capabilities that can deter conflict. Of course, the DSR calls out something that I've discussed in this place on numerous occasions: our sovereign capability and being able to manufacture things right here in Australia. Increasing the capacity of our own defence industrial base will be an important priority of the Albanese government. In recent times, we have all seen how fragile international supply chains can be, and it's not too difficult to understand the impact an international conflict would have on our ability to use the trade routes we usually rely on. That's why developing the sovereign capability to manufacture weapons here in Australia is so important, and I look forward to the government working with industry and people in this place to realise this ambition. I thank former Minister for Defence the Hon. Stephen Smith and former Chief of the Defence Force Sir Angus Houston for their efforts in putting the DSR together. It is an important guiding document that will be essential in navigating these uncertain times. Regional Queensland 74 20:45 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland It was good to get back on the road throughout this parliamentary break and go and see some regional towns in Queensland. It has been a long time since I've been out there, and in the last month I travelled across to the Darling Downs. The first week I went to Warwick, Stanthorpe, Goondiwindi, Dalby and Gatton, then came back to the office for a week and then had another two weeks on the road where I went out to Roma, Charleville, Quilpie, Blackall, Barcaldine, Emerald, Claremont, Charters Towers, Ayr, Townsville, Bowen, Mackay, Gladstone and Rockhampton and finished up in Hervey Bay and Gayndah. Many of the problems people face out in the regions are very similar, despite the geographical distances between many of the towns and the different landscapes, scenery and industries that these towns may rely on. I will summarise some of those problems now. One is a shortage of labour. I know we have very high immigration in this country but, unfortunately, too many people just move into the big cities of Sydney and Melbourne, and they don't really travel out to the bush where there are so many employment opportunities. I was fortunate enough to stop off at the Central Queensland University in both Rockhampton and Gladstone—at the school of manufacturing and the school of mining. There are so many opportunities in those particular areas and in TAFE that are in the mining industry, the agriculture industry and the process management area, if only we could get more people into TAFE and fewer people into university. I think it is time we had a good look at the tertiary education sector in this country and started to focus more on TAFE courses and apprenticeships rather than degrees, because that's where the work is out in the regions. The other thing is that, as usual, there are difficulties with health. Many towns need GPs, and we have the same old issue of closing maternity wards. I know Quilpie is looking for GPs, as are many other towns. Gladstone, a big town of between 60,000 and 70,000 people, has had its maternity ward closed down. I've often touched on this issue in the past. We've had over 30 maternity wards close in the regions over the last three decades under the state Labor government, but to think that a town the size of Gladstone—and it's not just its size. It's an extremely prosperous town. It's basically the manufacturing powerhouse of Queensland, with so many smelters and refineries there. It's going to be the future hub for more development in the region, hydrogen being one of them, and it beggars belief that we cannot get services, particularly obstetricians, in a town like Gladstone. When I went to Goondiwindi, for example, they have three obstetricians and three anaesthetists. You really have to ask yourself why the Queensland government can't sort all that out in terms of keeping the maternity ward open out there. The other thing that really concerned me was that when I was in Mackay there was talk about building a hydro dam upstream at Eungella. That has a World Heritage platypus site. The idea that you are going to build a dam that can provide five gigawatts of power—and that's going to be pumped hydro, which means you lose another 20 per cent when you pump the water uphill, so you're going to have to basically be able to provide six gigawatts of power from the likes of renewable energy. Take wind turbines, for example: they have a 40 per cent capacity, so you would have to provide 15 gigawatts of wind power to basically make sure that you could have enough power if you were going to use the pumped hydro scheme every day to pump the water uphill. To put that into context, Queensland, on average, uses between nine and 10 gigawatts of power every day. So we're looking at building an enormous number of wind turbines—a massive area reclaimed in flooding for these dams. Really, anyone who tries to tell you that renewables are going to be good for the environment is kidding themselves. If you ever get up to Queensland, make sure you go out and explore the Great Dividing Range. We often think about the Great Barrier Reef, but the Great Dividing Range in Queensland is a really beautiful part of the world, and it doesn't get enough credit. I also spoke to some sugarcane farmers. They expressed their normal concerns about the control of pricing by Wilmar. That's always an ongoing issue. We really have to ask ourselves why we ever let our sugar mills get wrapped up in the hands of foreign owners only to have our sugarcane farmers be held to the mercy of foreign conglomerates. Human Rights: Sri Lanka 75 20:50 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria The month of May is the most painful month for the Eelam Tamils. Eelam Tamils have endured 14 years of pain without any form of accountability from the Sri Lankan state, who committed the most heinous genocide on Eelam Tamils. The no-fire zones were bombed continuously without any remorse, and today Tamil Eelam, the homeland of Eelam Tamils, is being taken away by the Sri Lankan genocidal regime. The regime has been committing genocidal actions since 1948, yet it was at its peak in 2009. The peak of the genocide resulted in atrocities of rape, children being killed mercilessly and constant bombing, yet the world was silent. In the month of May, Eelam Tamils will resist yet remember the heroes that fought until the end for their freedom. There has been intergenerational trauma carried down to the Eelam Tamils due to the lack of justice received for the community. Mullivaikkal will be remembered as the land of Tamil Eelam that was burnt to the ground, with thousands being tortured since then. The world must speak up, and the Australian government cannot continue to remain silent on this and must stand with Eelam Tamils when engaging with the genocidal Sri Lankan government. Eelam Tamils fled their own homeland, and now refugees in Australia are in fear of being deported to danger. I met one woman, named Rita, whose story reflects the atrocities experienced by Eelam Tamils in Sri Lanka and the ongoing violence suffered in Australia due to our dehumanising immigration policies. Rita's story is one of many. I will now read some words that she wrote to share. 'During the peak of the genocide in 2009, my husband died in Mullivaikkal, in the so-called no-fire zone. My son was only 13 years old. The Sri Lankan army captured me and my son and put us in a camp for all the Eelam Tamils who were captured. After I was released from the camp, the army and the Sri Lanka police always came to my home to see who was living there, and one day when they came I was sexually assaulted while my son and mother were in the next room. I lived in shame as the Sri Lankan authorities treated me less than an animal and, like an object, tossed me over to the side with added trauma. A month after this, I left my homeland, Tamil Eelam, leaving my son with my mother to try and find a better solution for our family. My son was 16 years old when I left, as I had no choice but to leave. In 2009, when my son was 23 years old, he was studying in Sri Lanka, hoping to come here on a student visa. But, before this could happen, he left with his friends and came here by plane. He left knowing there was no future in Sri Lanka for him. He has been in detention since then, which is now four years. His protection claim is refused. One of the main reasons was that he could not talk about my assault. It was too traumatic to relive those moments, as he was only young when it occurred. He does not have to tell anyone. Now my son has been asked by Serco and Immigration when he would like to go back to Sri Lanka. The only remaining member of my family has been separated from me. Even with the announcement made by the government about people on temporary protection visas and SHEV getting permanent residency, I am unable to celebrate as my son is still in detention and facing deportation back to Sri Lanka where he will face a high danger of persecution.' I want all refugees to be given permanency in this country. Eelam Tamils also want to acknowledge the ongoing genocide against our people. All refugees should be freed and given a new life, and they are certainly welcome here by First Nations people. Holocaust Remembrance Day, Anniversary of the Fall of Saigon 75 20:55 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland During the month of April two incredibly important commemorations occurred in Brisbane in my state of Queensland. The first was the Holocaust Remembrance Day service, which took place on 16 April. We should remember and we should note in this place that this year is the 80th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, which was brutally put down by the Nazi regime, but one reflects a great heroism of those who participated, and pay respect to their courage. It was a very moving service this year, and I was particularly touched by the contribution of a number of young leaders from the Jewish community who made extraordinarily thoughtful presentations. One of those contributors was Ms Hannah Mendels, who is the Queensland director of Betar, which is, I understand, celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. Rather than me express my views with respect to the commemoration, this important remembrance service, let me quote from Hannah's speech on the day. Today is a day of mourning, a day of commemoration for who and what we lost during the Holocaust. As well, it serves as a reminder of what we have been through as are people and what we have overcome. It urges us to be proud of our heritage and wear our Judaism with pride. I like to think of my grandparents not just as survivors but as heroes. Them amongst thousands of others, fighting for our right to be Jewish, fighting for us to be here today, standing together, with our Jewish community honouring their memories. For that I am proud. Well, can I say to you, Hannah, I am sure that the Jewish community is extraordinarily proud of you, of the leadership which you are providing to the youth movement. I can hardly imagine how proud your grandparents would have been to have a granddaughter who gave such a moving speech at that commemoration on 16 April. The second important commemoration took place on 30 April, and was hosted by my dear friends in the Vietnamese community. It commemorated the fall of Saigon to the communists on 13 April 1975. This year is the 48th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. It commemorated the loss of life, the sacrifices made, especially by those members of the armed forces of the Republic of Vietnam, who fought courageously when many of their previous allies and international supporters did not support them in those final years. It also commemorates some 800,000 Vietnamese who lost their lives fleeing Vietnam after the communist takeover. It is a blessing, a true blessing, for this country that so many Vietnamese found a home in Australia. Our Australian-Vietnamese community is now an outstanding chapter in our history of Australia and makes such a wonderful contribution on so many levels, so I was extremely proud to take the opportunity to commemorate this very significant anniversary, tragic anniversary, with our wonderful Australian-Vietnamese community. I'm sure the best respect I can pay to our Australian Vietnamese community is to tell the story of one of the Australian soldiers who fought in Vietnam and who passed away this year. At the outset, I would like to thank my good friend Aunty Peggy Tidyman for bringing this matter to my attention. Mr Richard 'Dickie' Bligh passed away this year, having courageously served his nation and fought for the freedom of the Vietnamese against the communists in that tragic war. Richard Bligh was a proud Wakka Wakka man who was born in Kingaroy. He spent a time living in Mitchell in my home state of Queensland, and he married Carol Fogarty from Barcaldine. He and Carol had three children, Sally, Janelle and Terrence. Terrence actually followed his father in the Australian Army. Rather than me saying some words about Dickie Bligh, it's probably best if I quote from some of his comrades in what they said about him. One of those comrades was a former Governor-General, Major General the Hon. Michael Jeffrey, who was his commanding officer in Vietnam and a long-time friend. This is what the former Governor-General said about Richard 'Dickie' Bligh: … Corporal Richard "Dickie" Bligh was "one of my best junior battlefield leaders in Vietnam" and a friend to this day. "In the trauma of war, we all learned that it was not the colour of one's skin that mattered, it was the colour of one's heart … One of his comrades at the funeral, which was held in Perth on 30 March 2023, also told some stories which gave an insight into the regard in which he was held by his fellow soldiers. Dickie—Richard Bligh—was a forward scout, so he served in one of the most dangerous positions you could possibly serve in that conflict. He was deeply respected and deeply regarded. I think this story reflects better than any how deeply regarded he was. In the Australian War Memorial there was a photo of Corporal Joe Danyluk with an Aboriginal soldier taken on the Long Hai Hills taken in February 1970. Both of these soldiers were from 6th Platoon. This story is in the words of one of the veterans that served with Dickie Bligh. This veteran had gone to the Australian War Memorial and seen the photo: When Corporal Danyluk saw this, he was incensed— He was incensed, because what he saw was a photograph of a corporal, who was identified, but the actual caption of the photograph was the corporal with an Aboriginal soldier, so it didn't actually give Dickie's name. He rang the Australian War Memorial and told them there was not just an Aboriginal soldier, that was Lance Corporal Richard 'Dickie' Bligh. Suffice to say, the caption was rectified and the Australian War Memorial duly apologised. This typifies the respect and esteem held by his fellow soldiers. Your past will always be remembered, and at your reunions and get-togethers your mates and fellow soldiers will have many stories to tell. Rest easy, old mate. That's a quote from one of those who served with Richard 'Dickie' Bligh. I pay tribute to Richard 'Dickie' Bligh. I pay tribute to his family. I acknowledge their deep loss and their sorry business, and I pay tribute in this year, which we note is the 50th anniversary of the return of Australian soldiers from Vietnam. I pay tribute to all those who served in Vietnam. Tasmanian Honour Roll for Women 77 21:03 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Throughout history women have been quietly going about their work. They have been the gatherers, the caregivers, the cheer squad, the homemakers, the breadwinners. Women play many roles. Every single day we are surrounded by amazing, inspiring women, who without fear or favour and without seeking recognition, do things that are ordinary to them but all add up to something extraordinary. Like precious diamonds, women are forged under pressure. For years, women have worked hard, campaigned for their rights and have earnt their seat at the table, even in the political arena like this one. Recent research has shown that women are nearly always the carriers of the mental load, the term given to the myriad of decisions that need to be made that relate to the management of a household. Women don't often seek out accolades; they just get on with the task of what needs to be done, whether that's at home, at work, or in the community. They see a need and they fill it. This is why initiatives like the Tasmanian Honour Roll of Women are so important for recognising the women in our lives who are undertaking the quiet pursuit of the extraordinary. The Tasmanian Honour Roll of Women was created in 2005 by the Tasmanian government to honour Tasmanian women who have made an outstanding contribution to the state. And I'm proud to note that my late mother, Elaine Bushby, was listed on the Honour Roll in 2017 for community service throughout her life. The honour roll encourages the community to learn and discover the achievements of the women in their lives and honour their historical and contemporary contributions to Tasmania, ensuring these achievements are given full recognition and not forgotten with the passage of time. The 2023 recipients of the Tasmanian honour roll were announced at the annual function in Launceston recently, where 35 women and one organisation were inducted. And what an inspiring afternoon it was. The event was hosted by Southern Cross news anchor Kim Millar, and it was made extra special by the attendance of the Tasmanian Minister for Women, Jo Palmer, who, before her election as the member for Rosevears, was the previous long-term MC of the event. Hearing the inspiring women's stories was incredible and, while they were all wildly different, none were less deserving. Every single one of them left me in awe at the depth of talent in my home state of Tasmania—like the story of the late Gwendoline Hesketh MBE, who was awarded for her work leading a team providing relief in postwar Europe and for her outstanding commitment to the Girl Guides movement. Gwen, as she was known, joined the Girl Guides in 1924 and became captain of Launceston's St Aidan's Guide company, before moving to the rank of commandant. Following the outbreak of World War II, Gwen was asked to help train members of the Australian Women's Land Army and Civil Evacuation Committee. She undertook a gruelling nine-day commando course in the Welsh mountains to prove her fitness for the job, which included harsh physical training, semistarvation and sleep deprivation. She joined the Girl Guides International Service, where she was deployed to Germany and where she acted as liaison officer between the British occupation authorities and voluntary bodies in the field. Though recalled several times, Gwen refused to return home. When the Girl Guides International Service wound up in 1951, Gwen was the last Australian to leave. Women like Gwen have been serving their communities for decades, and it's through community and business organisations like Girl Guides that have opened them up to the opportunity. Several of the 2023 Tasmanian Honour Roll of Women inductees have served their communities through local government, the closest level of government to the communities in which they serve. One of the 2023 recipients was Dr Mary Duniam, who may well be known to some in this chamber following her elevation as the first female mayor of the Waratah-Wynyard Council last year. Her son—my colleague Senator Jonathan Duniam—has spoken of her achievements in this place previously, but I'm very happy to repeat them. Dr Duniam was first elected to the council in 2005 and was elected deputy mayor in 2014. Being involved in local government led Dr Duniam to undertake a research project into female civic leadership in Tasmania. She is actively involved in her community: she is a representative on the Tasmanian Women's Council, chair of the Australian Local Government Women's Association in Tasmania, deputy patron of Surf Life Saving Tasmania, and a current member of the Rural Clinical School Community Advisory Board. What a list of accolades! Another civic leader worthy of attention who was inducted to the honour roll this year is the West Tamar mayor, Christina Holmdahl, who was elected to that council in 2009 and is the current mayor. She is also the president of the Local Government Association of Tasmania. Christina was born to Polish parents in a refugee camp in Germany and emigrated with them to Australia in 1949. The family lived in camps in Victoria and Tasmania before settling in North Hobart. She started her career in television film journalism at TVT-6 in Hobart before working for the Tasmanian Government Film Unit, where she produced content on issues impacting Australia. When Christina retired to Clarence Point in Northern Tasmania, an issue that concerned her greatly was the state of the West Tamar Highway, a road she travelled daily. She joined the Northern Ratepayers Association, which successfully lobbied the state government to fix the Supply River section of the highway. Christina remains a vocal lobbyist for continued improvement of the highway, and has secured state government funding from the current Tasmanian Liberal government. I'm pleased to say that improvement works are now underway in preparation for construction of the new Legana school. Christina is an active volunteer in the arts and small-business community and was the inaugural chair of the Festival of Golden Words, now the Tamar Valley Writers Festival. Her skill with words has led to great outcomes for the West Tamar community and has led to the region becoming one of the fastest-growing areas of Launceston and northern Tasmania. The Tamar Valley Writers Festival has produced some inspiring leaders among this crop of inductees, with outgoing festival director Mary Machen also among the 2023 inductees. Mary has also been inspired by creative talent and is a wordsmith at heart, beginning her writing career as a cadet journalist at the Examiner newspaper in Launceston, the third-oldest newspaper in Australia. In 2009 she took on the role of arts and cultural writer with the paper, and had always felt passionate about volunteering and giving back to a sector of the community she felt was often undervalued—the arts. Her first board role was with Tasmania's premier food festival, Festivale, which recently had a bumper 2023 event with its triumphant return to City Park following a COVID-interrupted hiatus. Mary served on the board of Festivale from 2003 to 2009, and since then has also held roles on the boards of Junction Arts Festival, the QVMAG Arts Foundation and the QVMAG Friends and has been a co-convenor of the Friends of Theatre North and judge for the Theatre Council of Tasmania awards. Mary's passion for words has been a thread that has pulled throughout her life, and culminated in her role as president and festival director of the Tamar Valley Writers Festival, which she stepped down from in 2022. The Tamar Valley Writers Festival has come to be recognised as one of Australia's premier literary festivals, and while Mary was at the helm, a crowd of more than 3,500 people attended the 2019 iteration of the event. The Tasmanian Honour Roll of Women is about ordinary people doing extraordinary things, and no-one illustrates that more than Barbara Baker. Hospice-care nurse Barb completed her nursing training at Launceston's St Vincent's hospital, where she realised that end-of-life nursing was an area where she could make a difference. Over 30 years she developed a strong passion for palliative care, and was a founding member of Philip Oakden Hospice, which opened in 1993. Barb was one of the nurses at the hospice who cared for my father in the last weeks of his life, just months after it opened. When the hospice closed in 2007, northern Tasmania was left with no public palliative care beds. Barb has been tireless in her advocacy for the need for public palliative care beds and the hospice model for years, and lobbied local, state and federal politicians for 15 years for funding to re-establish a hospice in Launceston. All of Barb's work finally paid off when, during last year's election campaign, Barb was successful in securing bipartisan funding for a new hospice at the Launceston General Hospital. Work on developing that hospice is part of the Tasmanian Liberal government's LGH masterplan, which is currently underway. Every single one of the 35 women inducted to the Tasmanian honour roll is deserving of the title, but it is only a small fraction of the women who are out there every day creating tangible and positive outcomes for their community. Tonight I have highlighted just a few. I take this opportunity to recognise each one of them and thank them for their hard work in making their communities a better place. We are indebted to you for your work. Thank you. Senate adjourned at 21:13