2023-05-10 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 10 May 2023

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

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023 1

Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It's great to be able to make a contribution on what I think is a very important piece of legislation, the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023, given the current context of last night's budget and the fact that something we know all Australian households and businesses are struggling with is the cost of power. Lower power prices were indeed a central part of the last election campaign. Every single elected representative in this parliament knows that it's something everyone is struggling with. Indeed, in the last election campaign we saw the Australian Labor Party promise 97 times that they would bring power prices down by $275. It was a very clear and unequivocal promise. There were no terms and conditions applying. There was just a dollar figure put out there amongst other rhetoric around the cost of living going up. But 97 times was this promise made that power prices would go down by $275. I am absolutely confident that many Australians out there, whether they be small-business people or just people who are struggling to pay their household power bills, took that to the bank. They figured: 'That's great. I need power price relief. The Australian Labor Party have promised me that power prices are going to go down by $275.' Now, granted, they said 'by 2025', and we'll come back to that—the trajectory of power prices at this point in time. But it's a promise that, funnily enough, has disappeared from the public debate. Not a single member of the government has, since the election, repeated that promise—not once. It featured pretty heavily in the debate prior to the election just a year ago. But since then it's like it never happened. Not once was that promise made again—instead they are saying, 'Look over here; we'll distract you from the pain you're having, and we will not revisit that promise.' That's why this bill is important. It's important because, if it's passed, it's going to provide a number of benefits to Australians, Australian households and Australian businesses. The chief benefit to Australians is increased transparency and accountability in relation to the energy policies of this government and any future government of the Commonwealth. It's going to place increased scrutiny on the impact of energy policy and what that does to energy prices. And it will allow Australians a more comprehensive ability to fully understand the true extent of the cost-of-living crisis they've been enduring throughout much of their lives to date as a result, sadly, of the hapless policies of this government. I think it's important to allow us to give Australians the ability to see how this government is performing. This bill, in short, is aimed at legislating for new and easily accessible nationally consolidated and regularly updated reports on retail electricity prices across the country. It would require the Productivity Commission, a trusted entity, to compile, on a quarterly basis, a report containing statistics on retail electricity prices and generation in each state and territory. It would also then require the Commonwealth government of the day to table these reports within a period of time after production. That, of course, then puts it on centre stage for consideration by this parliament and by the public—through the media—without any filter or interference. Over recent years, there have been a number of steps to improve the range of information and the detailed statistics available around energy reporting, and there has been some success around exactly what those reports have been able to do. A variety of tools and products have been developed relating to energy prices in Australia, and that is an improvement on what was available previously, which was nothing, other than your own individual power bill. But it doesn't go far enough, and that's why I'm tabling this bill, and that's why I'm hoping that the government and crossbench senators will see their way to supporting this bill, which is a very sensible bill and one that only provides further transparency. It doesn't interfere. It doesn't change the issues we are facing; it just provides a clear, concise report on where things are at. The most similar type of report that exists today is the Australian Energy Market Commission's Residential electricity price trends document. The AEMO maintains an online dashboard which brings together various sets of information around electricity prices around the country, and energy companies sometimes do provide data to that dashboard around their retail prices. The Australian Energy Regulator, or AER, has the Energy Made Easy site. There is also the Victorian government's Energy Compare site, and there are a range of other non-government entities that provide information, but none of these tools bridge that gap. None of these tools that are available now provide exactly what it is we are hoping Australians will be able to benefit from if this legislation passes. For instance, the AEMC's Residential electricity price trends document uses a number of projections for future years, rather than reporting purely on actual past and, importantly, current prices. Also, it's not a mandated publication, so, if it is so desired, you can skip over tabling the information. That was exactly what happened on 1 December 2022, when it was reported that this entity—the AEMC—would not be producing an annual edition for that year and would defer the release of the next report to sometime around the middle of this year, 2023. That is a problem if we are seeking transparency and clarity around exactly where retail electricity prices are in Australia. Online comparison services have limitations too, including that none of them display comprehensive data for every retailer across every state and territory. So there are some tools available, but they don't go far enough, and anyone who points to what's currently in the marketplace as a reason not to support this legislation is fibbing to the Australian public. There is no good reason not to support this legislation. There remains a need for relatively straightforward overall national breakdowns of data to be brought together all in one place and for reporting of that data to be mandated. The need for it has been made more urgent and more pressing by what we've seen over the last nearly 12 months. As I've said already, this government promised to reduce power bills by $275 a pop annually. Instead, it has presided over increases in energy prices, aided by others in the chamber, through misguided policies which will have detrimental impacts to energy prices. As I said before, not once since the election has the government mentioned that promise it made, that Australians took to the bank saying, 'This is great. My power bill will go down by $275. The future prime minister promised me so.' But instead of that we are seeing power prices going up. We don't have to go far to see some examples of this. There are a range of businesses across Australia that are struggling. I look at my local newspaper, the Mercury, which in February reported on a business in southern Tasmania, Oceana Aquatic and Fitness. The owner said he was shocked at his monthly power bill. Last year, in January 2022, his bill was $6,479. Fast forward 12 months, to January 2023, and his power bill had doubled; it was $12,326. That's a shocking increase and something that any legislator, anyone who is concerned about power prices, would be worried about. We've seen other businesses too. Jeff Sadler, the owner and operator of the Quilt and Pillow Factory says electricity is a fundamental part of his business. He hasn't disclosed how much more he's paying, but he says it's significant. He made the point that he's got three options: put up prices, increase sales or lay off staff. So retailers—the people who provide employment to individuals across this country—are struggling just as households are and that will have flow-on impacts for the economy. It would be a helpful tool for legislators too. We did see, in recent times, members of the government unable to tell us what was happening with electricity power prices. I expect Senator Farrell—I'm pleased he's here—would be very keen to support this legislation because it will make our jobs much easier, when we're asked questions in question time about how power prices are going in South Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales, Western Australia or Queensland. It will make it a very simple task for us to be able to report on these things and make decisions on that basis. I would hate for anyone to be perceived as not caring about these things, so this tool will enable all of us to be directly in touch with these issues that are impacting on Australian households and businesses. I'm sure many Australians will welcome whatever help they can get, and there was some help provided in last night's budget. But there's a problem with what was provided. Aside from the obvious inflationary impact of Labor's support for households and businesses when it comes to power bills, that measure to help pay power bills out of the taxpayers' coffers is a concession that the government's policies around energy prices are failing. Power prices aren't going down. If they were, the government wouldn't have to provide this support. This is why reporting on this information is so incredibly important, to understand where power prices are at, not after a rebate but what we're actually paying, because taxpayers paying part of your power bills isn't prices going down. That is not good policy. But we understand the need for support in the aftermath of failed policies from this government. Even after this handout is provided to Australian households and businesses—some of them—on average power prices are going to go up $500 this year alone. That's on top of things like the disastrous safeguard mechanism legislation, which is going to drive up the cost of so many inputs, adding other cost-of-living pressures. To suggest that things are great, or going in the right direction, or that people can breathe a sigh of relief, is totally mischaracterising the situation we have out there. This bill will shine light on exactly what is happening in a consolidated, concise, regular and mandated way. It's something that will help Australians understand exactly what policies of government are doing for the things that hit them at home, in their hip pocket: their power bills, at a time when mortgage repayments are going up, and fuel, food and other life costs are becoming more expensive. Having that front and centre of debate in this place once every quarter—clear, accurate information provided by an entity as well-respected as the Productivity Commission—will be very hard to argue against, with minimal cost and an important contribution to the public debate on this issue. Additionally, it's not just about costs. It's about the sources of energy generation. We will equally ask the Productivity Commission to tell us where energy is being generated from. There is a lot of talk about the need to transition. Let's see exactly how that is going. Let's see how much fossil fuel is being used in energy generation, how much hydro, how much wind and how much solar. It's important to be able to accurately measure the government's progress against their promises and, indeed, for other parties in this place to hold the government to account over their promises. Again, the Productivity Commission would do this in an objective way. They would go out and seek the information from each jurisdiction and they would then go and publish it in the same fashion I have already mentioned—tabled quarterly in this parliament and available for debate. That is something I think we would all benefit from as much as the rest of the Australian population that we represent here. There is nothing wrong with transparency. It was a hallmark of Labor's election pledges. I'm sure they'll welcome this legislation. Maybe today the government speaker on this bill will tell us they are going to vote for it. Maybe, in line with all of the promises they made around lowering power prices and providing transparency on all areas of government, they will tell us they are going to support this. I can assure them there is no sting in the tail. There is no ulterior motive and no hidden agenda in this legislation. It is very straightforward. It is a way of holding governments, plural, to account in the future—this government, which made its promise nearly 100 times before the election, but eerily hasn't said it since, to reduce power prices by $275 a year, but also future governments. When we win the next election we will be held to account for the promises we make and how those impact on power prices. I look forward to being held to account, because we are in the business of solving problems. This is a solution to one of those problems. So I commend this bill to the Senate. I am hopeful that my friends over here in government and I am certainly hopeful that the Greens will find their way to supporting this bill given it provides further transparency around sources of generation and energy cost. The only benefit felt here is going to be by Australian households. It's about transparency, accountability and making sure the government stick to their promises. 09:17 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Transparency—honestly? The only thing that is transparent about the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023 is that you can see straight through it. Last May, the member for Hume, the joker who now pretends to be the opposition Treasury spokesperson, changed the law in order to obscure from Australians in the lead-up to the election the massive price hikes for electricity that they knew were coming down the line and that they were required to disclose. He fiddled the books to make sure that in the lead-up to the election Australians didn't get to see the consequence of a decade of policy failure from the Liberal and National parties, from Mr Morrison, Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott. It is the law of diminishing returns right there, really. A consequence of a decade of complete failure was rising electricity prices, and what was the response of Mr Taylor, who presided over much of this energy sector catastrophe? He fiddled the books and hid it from people. I know it is poor old Senator Duniam's job. He knows that what they are saying and doing now is indefensible. I know that most of the show over there understand that what they did in government was indefensible and that what is going on now is just blowing so much smoke in an effort to try and distract ordinary Australians from the utter catastrophe that they left the Australian energy market in and that the government is now dealing with. I was pleased that Senator Duniam said some things about the budget, and there are some measures in the budget that go to some of these questions. It is a responsible, carefully balanced budget. It is a budget that puts downward pressure on inflation in the economy, particularly in terms of household and business energy prices. It is a budget that provides carefully targeted cost-of-living relief without putting upward pressure on inflation, something that the last government singularly failed to do. And, when we look at what is the biggest opportunity to reindustrialise the Australian economy after a decade of abject failure in industry policy, this budget, with its opportunity to rebuild investment in manufacturing and jobs, really builds on the government's ambition of making Australia a renewable energy superpower. What is the response of the other side to the budget? It's two things really. There's a negative Nigel approach over there. If there's a sensible measure in the budget, they say the sky is falling in. They catastrophise about these issues. They talk Australia down. They diminish and underestimate the capacity of the Australian people. They are always talking the country down. They are always talking down the capacity of the Australian people and Australian institutions to work together to deal with these questions, claiming that measures that are patently deflationary are inflationary. They say it over and over again, in the hope that our putting downward pressure on inflation— Senator Brockman 30484 What's deflationary? Senator AYRES 16913 I may have used the wrong term, Senator Brockman; I think you're right. We are putting downward pressure on inflation, making sure that the small surplus contributes to a lower cost of living, something that those on the other side over there were singularly unable to do, despite nine opportunities to deliver. Then what do they do? They walk in here with this joke: talking about transparency. Honestly, after the patent dishonesty of the last decade, particularly the last three years, do these guys want to talk about transparency? Now, in yesterday's budget there was a small surplus, a modest surplus, carefully delivered by this government working through the excesses of the last government's spending, working through the terminating measures and making sure that the ones that are required to continue are properly funded, not falling off the cliff that was left in the shadow budget run by Mr Morrison and his colleagues. Why is a modest surplus important at this stage? It's important in fiscal terms. It reduces the scale of future deficits. It puts downward pressure on interest payments for Commonwealth debt. It creates a sense of the discipline in government and across the Public Service that the former government were never able to engender. There's a point of order. Sorry, you may have drifted off, Mr Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No, I haven't drifted off. Senator Hughes 273828 A point of order on relevance. We actually have a bill here and it would be nice if Senator Ayres would come back to what we're actually here to discuss. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The custom is that relevance is not necessarily strictly enforced in the second reading debate, and I do note that the proponent of the bill did himself wander. But, Senator Ayres, bear in mind that counsel of Senator Hughes. Senator AYRES 16913 Thank you for your advice, Deputy President, and, no doubt, Senator Hughes's advice. In addition to its fiscal importance, it sends a message about discipline—that is, that every dollar counts; that it's the public's money, not the Liberal and National parties' money; that it's not for rorting for partisan political purposes; that it's for working through, carefully, in the public interest; and, finally, that it's about putting downward pressure on interest rates. It's the largest investment ever made in bulk-billing incentives. It reduces the cost of medicines by up to half for at least six million people. It provides $3 billion of electricity price relief—and I will come back to that question in a moment—by taking up to $500 off their bills. It's going to have a big impact on retail electricity prices. There's an increase in payments for JobSeeker and Youth Allowance by $40 a fortnight. There's $2.7 billion to increase the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance, and, of course, there's a big investment in the single-parent payment. The maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance will increase by 15 per cent. People talk about the cost of housing, and they're right to raise it and to advocate for it, but, in terms of actual action, this is the biggest rise. This is a budget that delivers for people who need it. It delivers for the Australian community at large. It delivers targeted relief for low-income households, and some of that relief puts direct downward pressure on inflation because of what the government is doing in energy price relief. There are two components of that. The first one was in November last year. The AER predicted that energy price rises were going to be in the order of 51 per cent, and the government acted. Price caps, coal and gas, and working with the states and territories delivered downward pressure, particularly on gas prices, for east-coast households and businesses. The second component, announced by the Treasurer last night, is up to $500 for eligible households—$500. All we hear from this lot during question time is heckling about the government's commitments in 2021 on energy price relief. This is $500 delivered through the budget for eligible households. Of course, the policy delivery mechanism for the states and the Commonwealth is complicated, because the jurisdictions have different energy markets in them. But the outcome for eligible households will be very simple: your bill will be up to $500 less than it would have been. What is the position of Mr Dutton and Mr Taylor and the Liberal and National parties on both of these measures? They're against them. They're all for the slogans, but they're against policy substance. These are policies that work. These are policies that put downward pressure on energy prices. And where are those opposite? They're opposed to them. Then there's this newfound enthusiasm for transparency. What is their position here? We have delivered price caps on gas. We have delivered downward pressure on coal. We have delivered $500 for eligible households, downward pressure on electricity, and what are the Liberal and National parties' offering? More reports. Perhaps for Senator Duniam the hope is that Tasmanian households, cold this winter, can collect the Productivity Commission reports and set fire to them. Maybe that is the only way that Mr Dutton and Mr Taylor will contribute to downward pressure on household electricity and gas prices—with more reports. And maybe people can set fire to them to get a short-term, temporary warm glow, because that is all you get from the other side. What is their record? A decade of policy failure in energy—22 policies, and they never landed one—and dishonesty. When push came to shove, when the result of a decade of policy failure should have been there for all Australians to see, what did they do? They covered it up. It was a sordid, sleazy, political, partisan cover-up from the cover-up artists themselves. The Australian people have never seen a shonkier period of government. Mr Morrison made poor old Billy McMahon look good. So patently dishonest and partisan was that government that nobody on the other side ever says Mr Morrison's name again. They don't want to be seen with him. Senator AYRES 16913 You talk, Senator Hughes, about $275. The figure you should use is $500, because that's what this government has delivered. We go out there, we say what we're going to do and then we deliver more. Perhaps the other side would like us to lower our ambitions. Perhaps the other side would like more cynicism, but, after a decade of policy failure, we have a government here that is determined to deliver for the Australian people. In the big opportunities for lower energy prices, investing in the cheapest form of energy—renewables and storage—what do we hear from the backbench over there? It's more nonsense about nuclear to push prices up, more slogans, no substance, more meaningless rhetoric and more press releases, but the Australian government and people have made a choice. 09:33 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise, too, to speak on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. It's always a pleasure to follow Senator Ayres. There's always a bit of colour and light and movement in his speeches. Sadly, that was an insipid defence of what is a pretty insipid budget, particularly when it comes to taxing Australians and then sending a small part of that tax back to them in energy relief. At least Senator Ayres had the guts to actually say the words '$275', because we haven't heard that from the other side pretty much since the election. They promised electricity price reductions of $275, and, instead, we have seen absolutely skyrocketing energy prices right across Australia, particularly on the eastern states. I'll get to my home state of WA in a moment, but particularly on the eastern states those price rises are extraordinary. In Victoria, there was a 31 per cent increase in the new default market offer put out earlier this year. That represents an increase for residential customers of $426 in the next year alone. That's not including the price rises of last year, the first year of this Labor government, which everybody knows were absolutely extraordinary. In regional Queensland, there will be a $432 increase over the next year; in New South Wales, $463; in South Australia, $400; in South-East Queensland, $321. I remind those listening: this is not for the past year; this is for the year coming up. So the 'relief' that this Labor government has put into the budget is, quite frankly, a drop in the bucket when compared to those electricity price hikes that Australians have already seen and know are coming down the train tracks at them, at a very rapid rate. That is on top of the fastest, highest increase in interest rates in Australia's history, to the point where you are seeing average households' mortgages of $500,000 requiring an extra $1,000 extra a month. That is simply extraordinary. As I said in this place a number of times, there are other cost pressures, particularly in regional Australia, where you see the price of petrol and diesel regularly up around and exceeding $2 a litre right across the bush in Western Australia, so the pressure that families are under is simply extraordinary, and not just families but small businesses as well. Those default market offers I was talking about for the 2023-24 year are worse for small business. Victorian small businesses are looking at a 33 per cent increase in the default market offer coming down the pipeline. For an average small business, that will mean an increase of over $1,700 when they are struggling with massive increases in the borrowings they face. Most small businesses are carrying debt, so they will have a massive increase in their cost of energy to keep that small business going. They will have increases, fuelled by inflation, in the cost of labour. They will have increases in all their input costs for their business; all their inputs have gone up. On top of that, we saw a government that did nothing, absolutely nothing, in the budget last night, to put any downward pressure on inflation. They have left all the heavy lifting to the Reserve Bank. In fact, they are pushing money into the economy, which Chris Richardson said late last night is potentially going to drive future interest rate rises. So not only have the government done absolutely nothing to put downward pressure on inflation but they've also put upward pressure on inflation according to senior and respected economists in this country. That will, of course, flow into energy price rises, which is why transparency—sunlight—is the ultimate disinfectant. Transparency of the sort put forward in this bill by Senator Duniam is so important. Information needs to be accessible. It needs to be consolidated in one place where people can understand electricity pricing and the amounts being generated across Australia. This bill would require the Productivity Commission to compile quarterly reports on retail electricity prices as well as the sources from which the electricity is being generated for each state and territory. The relevant minister would then be required to table these reports in parliament. Currently, there is no central repository of energy pricing in Australia. I know that, as Western Australians, we sit outside the national energy market and, as such, all the reporting we see from the national energy market, which I think is slightly ironically named. I have some in front of me and I read them out: Victoria, regional Queensland, New South Wales, South-East Queensland. Well, guess what part of Australia is not covered in that reporting? My home state, Western Australia. Western Australia has its own energy market. And I thank my lucky stars that we do, when I see what's been happening in the eastern states, because we have actually been lucky enough, through our development of a significant gas industry in the 1970s under Sir Charles Court, to provide long-term, low-cost energy to the industries, families and small businesses of Western Australia. That's something to be very proud of. However, we have not been immune from the price rises in the energy sector. Through decisions by this government, such as the increase in the tax on gas out of Western Australia—Western Australia is the gas exporting state—and the increase in tax on gas producers in Western Australia, there will be a flow-on impact to increase prices in that state. We also saw that the policy decisions of late last year in the gas sector put a lot of uncertainty and volatility into that market, which, again, forced up costs and made future investment much more uncertain, which obviously also forces up the price of gas. Major energy buyers, our overseas markets, have been talking about the volatility that this government has put into not only the gas market but the energy sector overall through its heavy-handed regulatory approach. So, in Western Australia we have been relatively lucky in terms of the sheer scale of energy price rises, because we are coming off a lower base, but it certainly hasn't protected us entirely. Again, when you talk to those families and small businesses in Western Australia—and my good friend Senator O'Sullivan would know this as well as I do—those families and small businesses in Western Australia say they are facing a massive increase in the cost of their borrowing, facing a massive increase in the cost of everything they have to buy to keep their businesses running and to keep their families going and are also facing massive increases in the cost of keeping the lights turned on. The trouble for Labor is that they're really out of touch on this issue. They do not know the pressure that this is putting on those families. I'll give you a case in point. Senator Farrell I0N Read the budget! Senator 30484 Senator Farrell, I will give you a case in point from one of your state Labor colleagues. Senator Farrell I0N Downward pressure—read it. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 The Labor Minister for Energy in Western Australia, Bill Johnston, when describing the cost of charging up his EV, said, 'Yes, but remember: electricity is almost free.' The Labor Party is very much out of touch on this; this is a Labor minister for energy saying this—electricity is almost free! Minister Johnston is very out of touch, and this Labor government in Canberra is out of touch about the sheer budget pressure that Australian households and families are under when it comes to increasing costs. Electricity is one of those key items. The mortgage cost increases are much more significant—I understand that—and there is also the pressure of rising interest rates, which, again, this government has done nothing about. They've done nothing about putting any downward pressure on inflation. In his speech, Senator Ayres started talking about deflation—there's not even any downward pressure on inflation, not that we want to get anywhere near deflation—but this budget did nothing to put any downward pressure on inflation. In fact, as I have said and according to Chris Richardson—one of the most respected economists in this country—it actually puts upward pressure on interest rates through the increase in spending that's contained within it. To get back to the bill, we do need to see more transparency and a consolidated place where all Australians can see and understand what is happening in the energy markets. There is great change happening in the energy markets—there's no doubt about that—and a lot of those changes have been a factor in the massive energy costs that we have seen. This bill is only fair to the people of Australia and to the small businesses of Australia, particularly the small businesses of Australia that do have high energy needs. There are small IGAs and supermarkets in my home state of Western Australia and right across Australia that, because of their freezers and because they stay open 24/7, have extraordinarily high energy costs—in the tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those are the businesses that are under extraordinary pressure, and in shedding light on the situation as we move forward with the further changes to the energy grid that are foreshadowed we need to provide as much transparency and openness to the market as we possibly can. Why anyone would oppose this bill is beyond me, and I commend it to the chamber. 09:45 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. The Greens won't be supporting this bill. The purported purpose of this bill has merit, and publishing more information on electricity prices and generation on a more regular basis would be a good thing. But in our view the Productivity Commission is simply the wrong agency for this task. As the Productivity Commission states on its website, it is 'an advisory body. It does not administer government programs or exercise executive power.' It contributes by providing quality, independent advice and information to governments, and the communication of ideas and analysis. We could have a long discussion about the quality and even the independence of the Productivity Commission's work. It's questionable, but that is another matter and I'm not going to go into that today. The point is, what the Productivity Commission does is long-form analysis in preparing in-depth reports. What it doesn't do is provide information to consumers. That is not its job. You would think that the Liberals and Nationals, having been in government for nearly a decade, would have worked out that the Productivity Commission is not the right agency for this task, and if they really cared about transparency around electricity prices they would have made this reform themselves. Of course, instead, they did the exact opposite. They deliberately buried the Australian Energy Regulator's report recommending an increase in power prices before the last election. It is utterly shameless for them to be serving up this bill but, unfortunately, it is what we have come to expect from the climate-denying dinosaurs in the Liberals and Nationals. 09:47 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales What else would we expect? It's just extraordinary. There is nothing controversial about the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. We have claims from those opposite, all across the chamber, that they are all about transparency. But they also claim regularly that renewables are cheap—well, they're free, apparently, like electricity in WA, according to Senator Brockman's contribution. They're cheap and they're going to be so reliable and they're going to power us forward and the whole economy is going to thrive under this great, free, renewable energy. Of course, the transition to it is also going to be cheap, according to those opposite, which is just a fantasy. It is just extraordinary that those opposite, who purport that renewables are going to be such a great contributor, don't actually want the Australian people to see at all—at any stage or at any opportunity—how it is actually coal that keeps the lights on. It's actually coal that keeps Australia's economy powering ahead. In fact, this surplus that we were hearing about from Senator Ayres earlier—the very slim surplus—is off the back of the resources sector, that sector that you guys want to tear down at every opportunity and that the Greens want to remove from the Australian economy as fast as possible. We see different resource taxes being put in place to ensure that there are fewer coal and gas projects going forward to appease the Greens and some of the crossbench. But they don't want anyone to know that their beloved renewables actually contribute very little to the energy grid and that the power for the lights, air-conditioning and heating in the businesses that require energy to function, in our schools and in our hospitals, is actually generated by coal—and in fact all of their little pet projects are also funded by coal. It's the resource sector that funds them. It's the resource sector that provided a surplus, yet those opposite are absolutely determined to ensure that that isn't available to a future Australian economy. I don't understand why there's anything controversial here at all about this bill. It's just about allowing Australians to have more clarity, uniformity and transparency. Do you remember when that was the big word? No, they don't want transparency, because then people would know how much power comes from coal. That's what they're worried about—that Australians will actually see through these claims that renewable energy is cheap, that the transition's going to be cheap and that it's actually going to provide reliable, affordable base-load power. Anyone who has any sense, understanding or intellectual capability can see that that is all not true. All Senator Duniam is trying to ensure—we know productivity is actually the greatest way to ensure that inflation comes down. Inflation will come down as productivity increases. We know that if Australians are able to make affordable choices when it comes to their power then we will see productivity improve, because they'll be able to make informed decisions. But over there, on the other side, the government's not interested in productivity; it's interested in handouts. I thought it was interesting this morning, listening to 2GB—one of the biggest radio stations in Sydney and the highest-rating talkback show across the country—and to what some of the punters, some of the everyday Australians, who listened to the budget last night had to say. Of course, we won't hear it from any of those opposite, but this was a typical Labor budget—take money from hard workers and give it to lazy bludgers. So, once again then, the workers who carry this country get screwed over. There is nothing in this budget for the workers, and I think that's what we could see. It's all about little handouts. But I'll say to those opposite: it's not your money; it's taxpayers' money, and it's taxpayers' money that actually comes from the resources sector. But I feel like we're on a loop at this point in time. We know that the parliament was recalled last year because the government were going to do such great stuff to ensure that energy power bills would come down. But they didn't come down. They've continued to increase, and they're continuing to increase at a much higher rate than anyone expected. The thing is that a $500 handout—temporary bill relief—is going to be welcomed by those families that are eligible. But not all families are eligible. It's not everyone that's going to get this; it's only some. And congratulations to Senator Ayres, who could actually say the figure $275. It's the first time we've heard it from a Labor member since the election. All Australians were promised $275, but it's not all Australians who are eligible for this, because those opposite never govern for all Australians. They only govern for people that vote for them. We know that not all Australians are going to receive $500 in assistance to pay their bills; only some Australians will, and in fact it'll be those Australians who are the working poor, the people that are working, that will miss out. The people that are actually struggling to work and pay their own way, put the roof over their head and feed their family are the ones who won't be eligible for this government assistance, because those opposite don't like the people that work to make this economy better. Those opposite don't like people who work hard to pay for their own retirement. They don't like people who contribute and take personal responsibility and individual responsibility for their family. Those over there don't like those people. They only like those who do what they're told. They only like those who vote for them, and they've certainly never governed for all Australians. There was maybe a little bit of a digression there, but I thought it was important, after Senator Ayres's contribution, to ensure that we discussed the fact that the energy bill relief isn't going to all Australians. It's going to some Australians, and it's going to be in conjunction with states. So we don't even know what it's really going to look like. It's a maximum of $500, but not everyone is going to get $500. It'll depend on what state you live in and what your state government decides to do. And that's where we'll see the rubber hit the road. We know that over the last 12 months, since those opposite came to government, the typical Australian family is $25,000 worse off. We hear from those over there about child care, but there are a lot of families who don't have kids in child care. That might be surprising to those opposite, but there are a lot of Australian families with teenagers, kids who've moved beyond the early learning stage, kids that have moved beyond child care and kids that are actually eating families out of house and home. I've got a couple of boys, and trying to keep up with food for them is absolutely impossible. Not everyone with families uses child care. Some have teenagers. Some have big kids. But the average family is $25,000 worse off under this government, thanks to increased mortgage payments, increased power bills and the increased cost of groceries. And those opposite seem to think some sort of magic pudding exists, that you can hand out all this money, give it to people, increase welfare payments, put all this money out there, but somehow it's not going to have an inflationary impact. Every economist is saying that you have now put it onto the RBA to continue to lift rates. Guess who's going to be paying for that: homeowners—mortgage holders. Mortgage holders are going to be paying more. Small businesses with loans are going to be paying more. These are the families that are going to be the hardest hit, but those opposite don't care; they just don't care about those Australian families. It's only neat little groups that are going to be targeted by their assistance that are going to get any benefit at all, and it will be temporary; it will be a sugar hit, because we know that this will be inflationary. And this is now your budget. You own it. You claim inflation will be down to under four per cent by next year. That's a big drop, real quick, as you inject more money into the economy. We know that's not going to happen, and you will own it. But going to Senator Duniam's bill, I actually don't even know, from Senator Ayres's contribution, whether or not you're supporting it. I mean, it was just bizarre. It's a yes or no, really. That could have helped. It was really just a speech that went around in circles on a whole range of issues but not one about the actual bill. Why would you not give Australians access to transparency? Why would you not give Australians the opportunity to see where their power is coming from? And by putting these sorts of things in place, every government going forward—we know the hubris of Senator Farrell that apparently this Labor government is never going to lose ever, but we know that's not the case; that will happen one day, Senator Farrell—is going to have to table something from the Productivity Commission showing where Australia's energy mix is coming from so that we and the Australian public can see: is this talk about cheaper renewables powering our economy forward, and that we're apparently going to be some renewable energy superpower in a minute and a half—all overnight, according to Senator Ayres, all easy, all coming quick—really true? Australians will be able to see whether you're telling them the truth. And you have this confidence in technology that does not yet exist—that it's all coming down the pipeline and woo-hoo! It's all going to be renewables! It's all going to be cheap, businesses aren't going to suffer, and we're going to have the Tomago smelter in the Hunter kicking along all good, with no problems at all, because wind will be blowing somewhere, or there'll be battery technology that hasn't even been generated yet, that doesn't exist—not possible. But somehow or other it's coming down the pipeline, and those businesses are going to be able to continue. The Australian people deserve to know whether what you're telling them is the truth. They deserve to know that what every government is telling them is the truth and to see where their power's coming from. They're told: 'Don't worry. We're going to close Eraring in 2025. We're going to take 25 per cent of the power out of the New South Wales market that comes from a coal-fired power station. We don't need to worry about it, because coal-fired power stations are not contributing that much to the grid anymore!' But they are. They are the only things that keep the lights on. We're talking about over 70 per cent of power that comes from coal. But those opposite seem to think Australians are just going to go along and not worry about massive coal-fired power generators coming out of the market, to think that somehow they're not going to get rolling blackouts. You see, when you get less supply, you get prices going up. That's the whole supply-and-demand thing that they pretty much covered in Economics 101, on day one. When we have less supply and the same demand, prices are going to go up, and they're going to keep going up, and that little sugar hit of $500 that some families will get—some families, not all—will be long gone. It has already been absorbed. It's not really going to make any difference to the bottom line in anyone's household budget. It's going to be a little sugar hit that's going to contribute to the pressure on inflation. It's going to mean that mortgages go up and, where there are investors in the market—the Greens might be interested in this—that means rents are going to keep going up. That's because, when investors buy houses that renters then rent, if their mortgage payments go up, so do rents. It's just how it works. Then, if that's not allowed to happen or if it just gets too hard for that investor, they sell it. Then it's not in the rental pool anymore either. They put it on the market and they take it out of the rental pool, and that also reduces supply. That means—again, this is day one, economics 101, supply and demand—if there is reduced supply but demand stays the same or goes up, prices go up. That's what happens. Somehow, those opposite were dozing during that first day. Economics can be a bit dry sometimes, but it's important. It's what we look after here. When you take out supply but demand is either the same or going up, prices are going to go up. That's what's happening with power, and that's what Senator Duniam's bill is about—so that Australians can see what's happening and how they can best manage their own family budget at a time when they are under increasing pressure and will continue to be under increasing pressure because this budget is just going to create more inflationary problems. What we know now is that those opposite own it. You own it. You have to tell the Australian people why you are putting pressure on their mortgages, why you're going to put the price of everything up and why inflation is just going to continue to head north. 10:01 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. I want to start by commending my good friend and colleague Senator Duniam for crafting this excellent bill and presenting it before us as a Senate to consider. I commend the bill to this chamber, and I ask that senators take this bill seriously. It's an opportunity for us to get some transparency in an area where we are—excuse the pun—often in the dark when it comes to keeping electricity flowing at a rate that Australians can afford. What we're seeing right now across this country is that Australians are feeling the pinch of increased costs of living, and it's being felt acutely every time they get their electricity bill in the mail. There are different prices across the country. In my home state of Western Australia, our energy prices are among the lowest. I commend governments over there for the work that they have done in addressing that over a long period of time. We used to have the lowest energy prices in the world in Western Australia. Many years ago, Western Australia had the lowest unit price anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, we've fallen a long way back in that regard. Nonetheless, we do have lower electricity costs in WA. But it is still hitting Western Australians particularly hard. As my good friend Senator Brockman was saying, businesses in particular are feeling the pinch because businesses are the highest users of energy—in particular, those that are running things like fridges and freezers, like grocery stores. If you're a big chain—Woolies or Coles, or something like that—you can probably absorb that a little bit more, but, if you're a small retailer, particularly in regional areas, the costs of keeping fridges and freezers running all night is extraordinary. I was up in the flood-ravaged community of Fitzroy Crossing. Big floods went through that area in January. For the small IGA that's operating there, a big part of the cost of delivering their services to that community is their refrigeration and their air conditioning, particularly in a hot place like Fitzroy Crossing. Electricity prices are up and that means that those prices have to be passed on to consumers. This is why people are feeling the significant cost-of-living pressure. This bill is an important bill, and I really wish we would proceed to a decision on it because it would be great if the Productivity Commission were compelled to provide a report to be tabled by the minister in this place, so that Australians could see exactly what those inputs are into the unit prices that Australians are paying. So I commend Senator Duniam for bringing the attention of this chamber to this very thoughtful and sensible private senators' bill. The rationale behind its introduction is straight forward and is aimed purely at creating more accessible, better consolidated public information and reporting on electricity prices and generation in Australia. The bill would require the Productivity Commission to compile quarterly reports on retail electricity prices, as well as the sources from which electricity is being generated for each state and territory. Being able to understand the energy mix—and the cost of that mix—by providing that transparency would shed some light on a situation that is otherwise very opaque. We hear a lot about renewables and how they're the lowest-cost source of energy, and that might be true at a particular time of the day. Solar panels, for example, particularly when the sun is at its apex and shining bright at midday in the middle of summer, lose their efficiency because it's really hot. They don't operate as efficiently as they do during those shoulder periods right in the peak of summer. Of course, in winter, when it's cloudy and the sun is down lower on the horizon, solar panels also don't operate as efficiently as they do in the peak periods around November or March—which is when you've got peak efficiency. At those times, yes, solar is a cheaper form of electricity. But at other times of the year, when the sun's not at that optimum point in the sky, or when there are clouds, it's clearly not efficient because it's not producing electricity. Then you're having to rely on other baseloads sources of power, which is derived from coal, particularly on the east coast. In Western Australia, one of the reasons we've got lower prices is because a big part of our energy mix over there is gas. We've been doing that for a long, long time. The pipeline runs from Dampier, up near Karratha—a long way from Perth—all the way down to Bunbury, south of Perth. There are generators along that pipeline that are able to produce low-cost energy that is obviously fed across the south-west electricity grid. This means that those sources of electricity are relied upon. Having transparency in this place so that Australians, legislators and businesses can see the energy mix and the cost of each of those components would really help us make more informed decisions about the future in this country. It would drive investment into areas of improvement. There's no doubt that storage of renewable energy is going to be a big part of our energy mix. If we wanted to get investment in those areas then, of course, having that transparency and accountability will help drive investment. This bill is aimed at bridging the divide to accountability and transparency that would represent a significant advance on what we currently have. It would also ensure that not just the Albanese government but any future government will be accountable. As Senator Hughes was saying—this lot over here are in their heyday at the moment—they won't be in power forever. They might think they're immortal, but it's not the reality. At some point, we'll gather a bit of steam and we'll be back in power again. There's no doubt about that. So any future government will be accountable in the same measure. This is an important bit of legislation that I really wish the Senate would take a hold of. I'll cut to the chase. This is an important bill. What we need to see is a greater level of transparency. Unfortunately, this government talked a lot about transparency ahead of the election. They talked a lot about it. They crowed about it and said it was necessary. I agree: we need governments that are accountable and we need governments that are transparent in how they operate. But we just know that that's not the pattern that they're actually setting. I'll give you a good point: for example, right now industry and businesses are being 'consulted' on industrial relations. There's this very limited-in-detail consulting paper that's gone out to industry, and they've been asked to provide feedback on it, yet there's no detail. So employers and businesses are being asked to provide feedback on something that they don't have any detail on. I know that, come later this year, when we are debating the bills that will come as a result of that so-called consultation, we're going to hear, 'Oh, they consulted with industry,' and, 'They consulted with business.' We just know it's far from the reality of what has actually gone on. The point that I am making is that there is a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to the so-called transparency and accountability of this government. Energy is a key part of our economy. It's a key part of addressing the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing. Providing some transparency and some light on this issue would be critical, so I encourage senators to think about this bill and support it. We need to see cost-of-living pressures reduced. We need to see energy prices reduced. Granted, there was some funding as a bit of a sugar hit in the budget last night that's going to provide some relief, but let's remember that Australians are actually going to be paying an additional $500 a year even with that support that's been provided to Australians through the budget last night. They are still going to be paying $500 a year more than they were last year. This is impacting Australians. Australians are finding it difficult to pay their bills. Every time they open that envelope and they see the bill and the cost of that, it's a significant issue. So this is a way to reduce that and to provide support to Australians. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The time for this debate has expired. Senator O'Sullivan, you will be in continuance. Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 11

Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022

Second Reading 11 10:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The coalition will be supporting this piece of legislation, the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022. The bill implements 21 of the 33 recommendations of the 2016 Moss review into the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. It also implements recommendations 6.1 and 6.3 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services 2017 inquiry into whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors, and it implements recommendations 10 and 11 of the 2020 inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press. These recommendations have been agreed to by the coalition, and we welcome these changes. The bill itself, though, deals with the Commonwealth government's whistleblower protection and disclosure regime. It is an accountability mechanism. It is important that accountability measures achieve what they are intended to achieve and avoid the unintended consequences that can often result in more harm being done than good. That has always been the contention of the coalition when debating transparency legislation, and that is why, in coming to this particular bill, we are very much in support of making improvements to the Public Interest Disclosure Act in line with the recommendations of the Moss review which are enacted by this bill. The Public Interest Disclosure Act was a creation of the former Rudd-Gillard government, but it actually happened at the very end of its term, and it is a little ironic that the current Attorney-General was also the Attorney-General at that time and brought forward his bill just as the parliament was about to expire, which, I have to say, meant that, at the time, there could be little attention or debate given to it. One may say that, jump forward to 2023, to the approach being taken at this point in time, in this parliament, by the Attorney-General, a pattern of behaviour in relation to very poor judgement is now occurring when it comes to transparency and inquiry of pieces of legislation. These are fundamentally important pieces of legislation that this Attorney-General is responsible for. When this bill was first brought forward, given the timing, little attention to detail or debate could be given to it, but the coalition at the time did welcome and support the transparency measures. Through the committee process, though, the coalition helped to substantially improve the bill. We put forward amendments to tighten and focus the act. Key to those amendments was a requirement that the act be reviewed to understand its impact. And here we are today, debating the bill before the Senate. I am pleased that at that time we pushed—and we pushed very hard—for that statutory requirement for a review. That is actually how the Moss Review came about. Through the course of the Moss review, it became clear that further refining was needed. The Moss review made clear that, despite the good intentions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, there is significant room for improvement in how the legislation itself actually operates. At present, the purpose of the act is not being sufficiently achieved, as the scope is wrong and the procedures too complex, leaving complainants dissatisfied and agencies struggling to implement the regime. Again, by way of comment, this is what happens when you don't enable proper scrutiny and debate in relation to a complex piece of legislation. I now want to quote from the Moss review. It said: The experience of whistleblowers under the PID Act is not a happy one. Few individuals who had made PIDs reported that they felt supported. Some felt that their disclosure had not been adequately investigated or that their agency had not adequately addressed the conduct reported. Many disclosers reported experiencing reprisal as a result of bringing forward their concerns. The review also found: … the bulk of disclosures related to personal employment-related grievances and were better addressed through other processes. Agencies noted also that the PID Act's procedures and mandatory obligations upon individuals are ill-adapted to addressing such disclosures … The review, therefore, concluded: … the current PID Act provisions impair the effective operation of the framework. In this respect, the Review notes that there are two principal challenges: The PID Act's interactions with other procedures for investigating wrongdoing are overly complex. The kinds of disclosable conduct are too broad, rather than being targeted at the most serious integrity risks, such as fraud, serious misconduct or corrupt conduct. The review also found: Most PIDs concern matters that are better understood as personal employment-related grievances, for which the PID Act framework is not well suited. In short, the act is being used for the wrong purposes, and it is doing so badly. It needs to be tightened and focused in order to achieve the purpose that the legislation set out to achieve. The bill before us today is an attempt to correct some of the act's shortcomings. It will now remove personal work related conduct from the PID scheme unless it relates to systemic wrongdoing or reprisal action. It will provide increased flexibility around the handling of disclosures and provide clearer time frames. It will extend protections from reprisals to witnesses and to those who have made, may have made, proposed to make or could make a disclosure. Finally, it will improve information sharing between agencies. It is worth noting that these are the types of limitations the coalition was concerned to try and address when the act was first considered in 2013. Jump forward to 10 years later, and I really do hope a pattern of behaviour is not setting in with the current Attorney-General and a very, very poor judgement in relation to how he treats important pieces of legislation that this parliament deserves to scrutinise properly—because, coming out of the Moss review, what do we see? The issues that the coalition raised at the time have now come into play. They bore out in reality, and we are now finally addressing them as a result of the Moss review. I now go to the coalition's positions on some of the key issues at that time, back in 2013. Section 31 of the act was introduced to give greater clarity to what would be considered disclosable conduct. The coalition was rightly concerned that the definition of disclosable conduct was far too broad and that the act would capture far more than it ought to capture. Section 31 made it specifically clear that policy disagreements did not amount to wrongdoing and could not be captured. The then shadow Attorney-General, George Brandis, said: … the purpose of this legislation is not to provide a platform for people to agitate political grievances or to provide a forum for people to use to tie up political or administrative decision-making merely because they may disagree with the decision that has been made. The purpose of whistleblower protection legislation is, and only is, to protect whistleblowers who disclose wrongdoing. We've seen in the Moss review that the definition remains too broad. While policy disagreements were rightly excluded by the coalition, employment grievances have clogged up the work of the agencies and were never the purpose of the act. Agencies must not ignore issues relating to workplace grievances or conflict. These matters must be addressed, of course, but the frameworks established by the PID Act are not designed for dealing with those matters and should instead be refocused on matters relating to wrongdoing, such as serious misconduct or fraud, as I said previously. Workplace grievances themselves should be resolved through other processes. Finally, the bill makes changes to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act to align the definition of reprisals and detriment with the definitions that will be in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. In conclusion, these are material, mechanical improvements to the operation of an important transparency mechanism, and the coalition supports them. We believe that whistleblowers must be able to make disclosures without fear of recrimination but that, equally, schemes should not be open to abuse by those who seek to cause mischief or achieve a political or industrial outcome through an inappropriate disclosure. Getting the balance right on this legislation—as we said back in 2013 and we say again in 2023—is essential. We welcome these adjustments that correct some of those past flaws, and we note further government amendments that we understand will be moved to address issues identified during the committee inquiry into the bill. Ultimately, it is the hope that those who make disclosures are genuinely protected and that serious matters of misconduct are investigated by our agencies. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:23 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we will be supporting the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill with amendments that we'll address in the committee stage. I say at the beginning that this is a bill about protecting whistleblowers, and, at its core, protecting whistleblowers is about protecting the truth. Without a commitment to truth—which the Greens accept can include open and challenging contests about what is true—democracy simply can't function. That is why this bill is so important. It's also why the bill has been put under close scrutiny by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, which this bill seeks to amend, is one of a number of critical ways we protect whistleblowers in this country. In the 10 years since it was enacted, there have been very significant developments internationally and domestically that have not been incorporated in Australia's whistleblower laws. In that time, there have been whistleblower protections inserted into the Corporations Act that are, in significant ways, superior to those that apply to public sector employees under the PID Act. We've also seen the 2016 report of the Moss review into the PID Act, which sat on the shelf unimplemented by the former government. It is a matter of public record that the former government had the Moss report for six years, with key recommendations about the urgent need to repair and improve our whistleblower protections in this country, and they did nothing. Not only did they do nothing; under the former government a number of whistleblowers who sought the protection of the PID Act and came out and bravely told the truth ended up being prosecuted. To the current government's shame, those prosecutions are continuing, and I'll address that at some further point. What we do have at the moment are public sector whistleblowers with far fewer protections than they deserve. As a result, this parliament has an obligation—it is, I think, an obligation not just on behalf of those whistleblowers but on behalf of the entire country—to address these matters as urgent matters, and I have to say that this bill goes about 20 per cent or, perhaps, 25 per cent of the way there. There are three areas that I'll focus on in this second reading contribution that are directly related to this bill. The first is the inappropriately large carveout proposed under the Public Interest Disclosure Act for personal work related matters. This bill, in the form as tabled, gets it wrong, and I hope we will correct that in the committee stage. The second matter is the absence of one of the critical national reforms we need, which is a national whistleblower commission. The third matter is the inexplicable lack of remedies for whistleblowers who approach the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It's important when we're addressing this point to realise that the government said at the end of last year and in the first part of this year that the amendments in this bill were absolutely urgent. The Attorney said that they needed months of implementation in the public sector before the NACC opened and was, indeed, very critical of the crossbench and the opposition for taking this bill to an inquiry. He was very hot under the collar. He was very heated. He said it was urgent. He said they needed months to implement it. He was very, very angry at the opposition and the crossbench for taking this bill to an inquiry. We took it to an inquiry. The inquiry reported well over a month ago. The inquiry reported in March, in time for the March settings, and the Attorney failed to bring it on. So we will be seeking an explanation from the minister about what happened to the urgency. We were told it was urgent to get it through in March. The committee complied with that. We did everything we could. We shortened our hearing schedules and produced the report, and then the government just did nothing with it for the better part of two months. Where is the urgency, and is it going to be ready in time for the NACC to open its doors? I said at the beginning of this contribution that protecting the truth should be a political project that unites political parties who are serious about democracy. We should all come together here and celebrate when whistleblowers tell the truth about government misbehaviour and corporate misbehaviour. Instead, this parliament has failed to back in key whistleblowers. It has failed to send the biggest signal it can send to people in the public sector about truth-telling. It has failed to make a statement for the end of the prosecution of whistleblowers David McBride and Richard Boyle. That's why, on behalf of the Greens, I move the second reading amendment: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) recognises the need for further reforms to whistleblower laws; and (b) supports ending the current prosecutions of whistleblowers David McBride and Richard Boyle and ensuring that what happened to them does not happen in the future". This is a chance for this parliament, for this chamber, to come together and say,'Yes, we are not just tinkering with the laws. We are making a clear statement that the ongoing criminal prosecution of David McBride for telling the truth about war crimes in Afghanistan is a stain on this government.' It is a stain on the former government and it sends a signal to everybody in the ADF: you better not tell the truth again or this government is going to come after you and try and put you in jail. David McBride should be acknowledged as a truth teller, should be acknowledged as a member of the ADF who was willing to put his career on the line to tell the truth about war crimes, which led to the Brereton report, which identified the war crimes in detail. What has been this government's response and what was the previous government's response? Well, the current Attorney-General is quite happy for David McBride to continue to be prosecuted and to be put in jail for telling the truth about war crimes. We must make a statement here today that that is an obscenity and say to the Attorney, 'Drop the prosecution.' I say the same about Richard Boyle. Richard Boyle saw appalling behaviour in the Australian Tax Office—utterly appalling behaviour. He saw the way in which individuals were being dragged through the courts, losing their financial security. It was happening on an industrial scale in the Australian Tax Office. He tried to get it fixed internally and they refused to address it. Then finally, in desperation, he came out and told the public the truth and he has been backed in by the ATO, investigated by the ATO, and backed in by a committee of this Senate, which said everything he said was right. The ATO has been forced to change its behaviour, and thousands and thousands of people are being protected from ongoing bastardry by the tax office. What did the former government do? It prosecuted him for breaching confidence and is trying to put him in jail. What is the current Attorney doing? Signing off on the continuation of that prosecution. They are quite comfortable with Richard Boyle, a whistleblower from the public sector, being put in jail for saving thousands of Australians from being completely monstered by the tax office. We have a chance now in this debate to support the Greens' second reading amendment and say those prosecutions should end. That is about the most fundamental signal we could send to whistleblowers. Yes, by all means amend the law, but whistleblowers, whether in the tax office or the ADF, the Attorney-General's Department or Home Affairs, are thinking of telling the truth and looking at the legal protections, and they don't seem very good. But then the big meta message sent by the current government is their ongoing prosecution of David McBride and their ongoing prosecution of Mr Boyle. Unless the message is sent to whistleblowers that we're going to protect them and they won't be prosecuted, we can change the law all we like, but whistleblowers are still getting the message from this government as they did from the previous one : if you stick your head above the trenches, we will kick it and we will put you in jail. We have a chance to fix that. I deal now with the inappropriately large carve-out that is proposed in this PID Act for personal work related matters. This was raised by a great majority of engaged stakeholders to the inquiry—the CPSU, the Alliance Against Political Prosecutions, the Uniting Church, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Human Rights Law Centre, Griffith University and Transparency International. I commend them all for the way in which they engaged in the inquiry and for the strength of their submissions. The essence of that concern is that the proposed drafting in sections 29(a) and 29(b) of the bill does not implement recommendation 5 of the Moss report. Moss's recommendation was simple and it was balanced. It said: That the definition of 'disclosable conduct' in the PID Act be amended to exclude conduct solely related to personal employment-related grievances, unless the Authorised Officer considers that it relates to systemic wrongdoing. Other existing legislative frameworks are better adapted to dealing with and resolving personal employment-related grievances. The Greens agree. To the extent a matter is solely related to personal employment related grievances, it shouldn't be dealt with under the PID Act. This bill does not implement that recommendation. The rationale behind that recommendation was that, if a complaint solely relates to that workplace issue then it should be taken under those other mechanisms, not the PID act. The PID act, which contains quite a rigid response structure and strict confidentiality, can actually be a barrier to resolving some of the issues in the workplace. Moss found that too many PID act complaints were simply workplace issues, and therefore the scheme and workplace relations within the public sector would be enhanced by removing the matters that were solely—and I emphasise the word 'solely'—work-related personal concerns. The reason Moss recommended limiting the exclusion to matters that are solely work-related personal concerns is he recognised that once someone blows the whistle, the line between the original public disclosure and any adverse action taken against the whistleblower after that is very hard to separate. The evidence before Moss, like the evidence we got before our inquiry, made it clear that many whistleblowers, once they make their concerns public, very often face reprisals in the workplace. That can include seemingly unrelated disciplinary action, demotions, even dismissals that are purportedly for matters unrelated to their whistleblowing but are in truth intimately connected. There is merit in Moss's balance recommendation, but this bill goes beyond that. The proposed subsections 29(2) and 29(2A) exclude work-related conduct matters from the operation of the PID act. There's no reference to the limitation of 'solely'. It includes such a broad definition in the carve-out that the exclusion far exceeds Moss's much more balanced proposal. While the proposed subsection 29(2) excludes personal work-related matters from the 29(2A) carve-out, where they're taken as reprisal actions against the whistleblower, as multiple submissions to the inquiry pointed out, that's a toothless, meaningless protection. Since the inception of the PID act, guess how many successful prosecutions there have been for reprisal actions? In 10 years of the PID act, with multiple complaints under the act and thousands of disclosures, how many successful prosecutions? Not one—not one successful prosecution for reprisal, because the law doesn't work. Unlike the Corporations Act, where there is a reverse onus, the PID act puts the almost impossible task to the prosecution of proving what's in the mind of the person taking the reprisal action. You have to prove adverse intent, and it doesn't work. For some reason, the Attorney has failed to fix that. Can I address very briefly the need for a whistleblower commission? We can change the law, tinker with the law and make marginal changes here, but when a whistleblower stands up against a multibillion-dollar government agency, the law at the moment means they're on their own. They need someone on their side—not one individual, but an institution. As happens in the Netherlands and in other jurisdictions around the world, they need a whistleblower commission, properly funded, who will be on their side and help take them through the steps of being a whistleblower and give them some balance in what is otherwise a David-and-Goliath fight where we know, from case after case after case, that Goliath keeps winning and shutting down the truth. These amendments are said to be urgent for the NACC to be operating. That is true. So why are there no remedies for the whistleblower protections and the PID act protections in the NACC act? Why is there no remedy to allow for reinstatement? Why is there no remedy to allow compensation to be paid? I'll be asking the minister in the committee deliberations: why the absence of remedies and does that really protect whistleblowers? 10:38 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I acknowledge at the outset the contribution that Senator Shoebridge made through the committee process as we looked at the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022. I think important evidence was gathered during the committee stage. I also commend the officers of the Attorney-General's Department. I am very pleased to see that some amendments have been put forward by the government in relation to that vexed issue of the entwining of personal, work-related conduct with matters which properly form the bases of a public interest disclosure. As was commented on during the committee's deliberations and in the evidence we received, quite often there is a blurring of the two. I say that as someone who had responsibility as a whistleblower officer in a corporate sector organisation with nearly 4,000 employees and with operations across a number of continents and as someone having to deal with the sorts of matters which do arise. Some of these issues are extraordinarily complicated because, as Senator Shoebridge rightly said, sometimes whistleblowers who are raising concerns about what is happening in an organisation do get targeted in terms of their workplace performance, in terms of whether or not they're overlooked for promotions, in terms of allocation of responsibilities and in terms of being counselled with respect to their attitude. The examples I gave during the course of the inquiry—and these are real-life examples—were about executives or senior managers potentially raising issues with respect to cost blow-outs and schedule blow-outs on projects and raising concerns with respect to project governance and then being told that they had the wrong attitude or weren't playing the team game—'Get on the team game'—et cetera. These can be very, very difficult issues, and I'm firmly of the view that, in considering those issues, consideration has to be given to the reality of the situation of the whistleblower themselves. So I am pleased that the Attorney-General's Department has worked on putting forward some amendments, which I do think clarify some of the issues which arose, and commend the government for doing so. As Senator Cash said, the opposition is supporting the legislation. We think there are important changes which are coming through this legislation. There are some other further reforms which I think should be considered as the operation of this legislation is reviewed, and I'll talk about that. At the outset, though, I want to deeply recognise the contribution that whistleblowers make to our civic society in both the public sector and the private sector. They are absolutely vital to identifying misconduct that occurs in both the public sphere and the private sphere. I was personally honoured, in the course of the conduct of the committee inquiry, to hear evidence from Mr James Shelton, who is a quite a legendary whistleblower in the Australian context. Mr Shelton was involved in a case exposing and bringing to the public attention one of the most egregious cases of foreign corruption engaged in by Australian companies in our modern history, and that was the foreign bribery offences committed by Securency and Note Printing Australia in their efforts to generate business, in particular across South-East Asia. Mr Shelton, with another individual called Mr Brian Hood, extraordinarily bravely brought those egregious activities to light. I want to read and put on the record in this place and in honour of Mr Shelton, Mr Hood and other whistleblowers the comments which Her Honour Justice Hollingworth made in relation to one of the cases. We should all reflect on these words of Her Honour Justice Hollingworth in terms of whistleblowers and the important contribution they make to civic society: 13. Before I turn to consider your personal circumstances, I wish to say something about the effect this offending has had on others. The prosecution rely upon the significant adverse effects that all of the foreign bribery offences have had on two "whistle-blowers", James Shelton and Brian Hood. 14. Mr Hood joined NPA as its company secretary, the year after you had left. And I should say she's referring there to those who have pleaded guilty to the offences. When he became aware of the companies' illegal activities, he raised his concerns with the CEO, the NPA board, and a number of RBA officials. His attempts to report what was happening, and to change the corporate culture, were met with hostility and resistance. He was eventually made redundant. 15. Mr Shelton joined Securency in 2007, as the director of business development. When he realised that he was expected to take part in foreign bribery as part of his role, he too became extremely concerned. He raised the matter with the Australian Federal Police in 2008, but they appear to have done little to investigate his reports at that time. Mr Shelton was dismissed in late 2008. 16. As I have noted on earlier occasions, the corporate cultures at both NPA and Securency involved secrecy and a denial of responsibility for any wrongdoing; staff were discouraged from examining too closely the arrangements in relation to overseas agents. Given the corporate cultures in which they were operating, Mr Hood and Mr Shelton both showed tremendous courage in raising their concerns about the foreign bribery activities with appropriate people. In each case, their concerns were dismissed or not followed up on. Their careers suffered as a consequence of their attempts to do the right thing. 17. Unfortunately, given their number, size and complexity, the various foreign bribery court proceedings have lasted for many years longer than anyone might have anticipated, without there having been any public acknowledgement of the very important role played by Brian Hood and James Shelton in exposing what happened within Securency and NPA. I can readily accept that what has happened to them since they raised their concerns has caused both of them considerable personal distress, professional hardship, and financial loss. As we reflect on this legislation, we should reflect upon the courage demonstrated by whistleblowers both in the public sector and in the private sector, and the personal cost that they incur when they blow the whistle on wrongdoing. All of our considerations of these matters should be informed by consideration of that courage on the part of the whistleblowers. In my engagement with Mr Shelton during the course of the inquiry, I raised the issue of how assistance could be provided to whistleblowers in these extraordinary situations. We've just heard from the judge in her sentencing remarks with respect to someone who was actually found guilty of engaging in this inappropriate conduct. Her sentencing remarks talked about the toll that this took on Mr Shelton and Mr Hood. I had an engagement with Mr Shelton with respect to this, in terms of how we can better support whistleblowers in this position. I want to read from the engagement I had with Mr Shelton in that regard: Senator SCARR: Okay, understood. I'll move quickly to my second topic, which is the utility of a whistleblower protection authority. Mr Shelton, in trying to put myself in your shoes—which is very difficult to do—it seems to me that someone in your position as a potential whistleblower is standing at the entrance of an extraordinarily complicated legislative maze. Mr Shelton: Yes. Senator SCARR: You enter that maze, and there are inclusions, exclusions, defined terms, undefined terms and statutory cross-references. It's like you're trying to navigate the maze while solving a cryptic crossword puzzle. At the same time, you've got the personal pressure of what it means for you professionally and financially, and what it means for your family. And, at the same time, you've got the potential threat of reprisal action, right? Mr Shelton: Yes. Senator SCARR: While I was thinking about that situation—and Senator Shoebridge gave the analogy of someone having a map to guide them through a minefield, which is very evocative—I was also thinking about the potential utility of a whistleblower protection authority. It can potentially act as a guide, to provide guidance in navigating that maze. …   …   … Mr Shelton: Indeed, and I agree 100 per cent with what you've just said. Just briefly, for my experience there was no whistleblower protection authority. I had to get legal advice at $600 an hour each time I met the AFP or did a witness statement. This is someone who has blown the whistle on one of the most egregious acts of foreign bribery in Australian corporate history—involving partly government owned agencies—and he's had to go and get his own legal advice at $600 an hour each time he went to court. This is what he said: … I was summonsed to appear as a witness, had to wait out the front of the court and then was cross-examined by QCs for two days. There was no path or guide; I did it all because I was determined to get this result. An independent whistleblower protection authority, which could provide a guide, a way forward and a pathway on what you will experience, what's going to come up and what you will feel, and also provide some support services, would have made the world of difference to me. It's too late for me, but, for others who come after, yes—100 per cent—there needs to be an independent whistleblower protection authority that covers both the private and public sectors. What is the point of putting in all of these protections to help whistleblowers from reprisal actions if they're in a David-and-Goliath battle with a huge agency, which has all the resources that it requires in order to defend itself, and you've got someone like Mr Shelton or Mr Hood, who has to delve into their own pockets to try and continue the good fight in terms of exposing corruption and wrongdoing in this country. They need support. I note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recommended, during the course of the previous government, that a whistleblower protection authority be established. Amongst other things, the committee proposed that the authority would: provide a clearing house for whistleblowers bringing forward public interest disclosures; provide advice and assistance to whistleblowers; support and protect whistleblowers— and that is absolutely needed. And, from my perspective, I think that everything that we can do to provide support to whistleblowers who are identifying and revealing in the public interest corporate wrongdoing is a good for all of society, because we need these episodes of corporate wrongdoing and public-sector wrongdoing to be exposed. And we need them to be exposed as early as possible, because that's in the best interests of the whole of the Australian society. I'm someone who worked for 12 years in an organisation that had interest in South-East Asia and in other jurisdictions around the world. It had high-risk ratings in terms of foreign corrupt practices. I'm pleased to say the company I worked for never went down that path—it was part of our culture. But I saw firsthand the impact of corruption on those societies, and, when we look at Mr Shelton and we look at Mr Hood, we should reflect on the matter that not only did they do a great service to the Australian community they also did a great service to the people in those countries, and South-East Asia, in particular, as some of their leadership were prepared to accept bribes to the direct detriment of the people of those countries. So, not only did Mr Shelton and Mr Hood provide a good service to the people of Australia they also provided a great service to the people in those overseas jurisdictions where that foreign, corrupt activity was taking place, and that needs to be recognised as well. I note that the previous government, in response to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recommendation that a whistleblower protection authority be established, the previous government's, the coalition government's, response was: the Government supports a post-implementation review of whistleblowing protection. This will provide the opportunity to assess the merit and cost case of establishing a one-stop shop Whistleblower Protection Authority when the present reforms have had a reasonable time to operate and further information is available. So, certainly the previous government, the coalition government, of which I was a part, was open-minded to the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority. I think the previous government was right to be open-minded with respect to the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority. From my perspective, I think the establishment of such an authority would provide an invaluable resource to assist whistleblowers who want to do the right thing, as Mr Shelton did and as Mr Hood did, to expose wrongdoing but to provide them with the support they need to navigate an extraordinarily complicated system and to give them some protection against reprisal actions that whistleblowers often suffer. 10:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise in support of the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill, and I thank Senator Scarr and Senator Shoebridge and the many others who have worked on this for much longer than myself. It's great to see the government moving the update to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. These changes are long overdue. Until recently, Australia was falling down the list in the annual Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International. In the most recent report earlier this year, we went from a record low of 18th up to 13th. I believe this improvement is in large part due to the passing of the NACC. It's a significant change, one that I welcome, but it brings us to a crucial missing part of the puzzle, which is the legal protection given to whistleblowers in Australia. Clearly, that is not up to scratch. Some protection is given to whistleblowers in the public sector under the PID Act, which the A-G himself oversaw in 2013. This is obviously a particularly significant piece of legislation for many people in the ACT, many hardworking public servants. But since its legislation in 2013, significant issues have become clear. In 2019, Justice John Griffiths described the act as 'technical, obtuse and intractable'. He went on to say that it: … is largely impenetrable, not only for a lawyer, but even more so for an ordinary member of the public or a person employed in the Commonwealth bureaucracy. And Justice Griffiths was not the first to raise concerns. In 2016, the Moss review of the act made 33 recommendations for changes to the legislation. I welcome the implementation of 21 of those recommendations in this bill. The changes represent real improvements that will assist those who speak out, including those who make disclosures to the NACC. I applaud the Attorney-General for his work on the bill, which seeks to improve the protections that he himself put in place in 2013. But we still have a long way to go. Whistleblowers in Australia are not being properly protected. Instead, they are being prosecuted. They are forced to rely on protection from the offices of parliamentarians to speak out. Andrew Wilkie, Zoe Daniel and I recently used parliamentary privilege to voice concerns raised by whistleblowers. I was able to raise concerns about an oil spill that killed dolphins and has been covered up, Mr Wilkie raised concerns about fraud by the Hillsong Church and Ms Daniel raised concerns about children being kept in solitary confinement. The fact that our offices protect us from the risks experienced by whistleblowers is a sign of the strength of our democracy. The fact that whistleblowers are forced to come to us is a sign of how far we have to go to protect whistleblowers. They should not have to seek parliamentary privilege to do what is in the public interest. When whistleblowers don't speak up, we all suffer. Where there's corruption, maladministration or incompetence, it needs to be called out and dealt with. As legislators, we should all be pushing for the quality of governance that we offer our constituents to be improved. These reforms, which are a good first step, are part of a two-step package. The attorney-general has committed to a second stage of reforms that will substantially improve the protections offered to whistleblowers. Key to these further reforms will be a whistleblower protection authority or commissioner. There will soon be consultation and discussion around the possible establishment of such a body. I welcome this consultation—consultation is a good thing—but I urge the government to act swiftly. We've seen the cost of inaction with the sentencing of Witness K and the Attorney-General's intervention in the case of Bernard Collaery. As we debate this today, the trials of Richard Boyle and David McBride continue. These are two people—two Australians—who made the difficult decision to blow the whistle on very significant issues, and now they are being prosecuted for their decision. We cannot have more cases like Witness K, Bernard Collaery, Richard Boyle and David McBride. We need whistleblower protections that work, and we need them now. I urge the government to expedite this to ensure that we have world-class whistleblower protections here in Australia because we will all benefit from that. 10:59 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I rise today to make a contribution in relation to this legislation on whistleblowers, the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022. It is something that I think is absolutely critical that we get right in this place. It has been a long road to get to this point in this parliament. I want to give a little bit of background. Obviously, there has been legislation in place to provide some kind of processes and some kind of protection for whistleblowers. For example, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 raised this issue of protecting whistleblowers. We also saw amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 to try and protect whistleblowers in the private sector, and I will get to that in a second. I participated in the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry in 2016 and 2017 into whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors. We have seen the Moss review. We have seen a lot of focus on some very high-profile cases where whistleblowers have actually been pursued and persecuted by this government. So, while on the one hand it is great being in here doing what we can to provide the necessary legislative protections for whistleblowers, it is ironic that on the other hand we are still pursuing high-profile whistleblowers like Richard Boyle, who blew the whistle on practices in the Australian Taxation Office, and David McBride, who leaked information which I will get to in a second which has led to disclosures of war crimes and even to the prosecution of Australian Defence Force personnel. Yet he still awaits trial as the government pursues him for blowing the whistle. In this parliament over many governments we have worked very hard to see an end to the persecution of Witness K. We tried to get up a Senate inquiry in the last parliament into matters concerning the disclosures of Witness K, but the crossbench and the Greens were unable to get the support of Labor in opposition at the time, which was very disappointing. I do commend the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, for finally bringing to an end that prosecution of a whistleblower whose name we still don't know but who went through sheer hell in his personal life after he tried to go through processes within the Public Service not to leak information but to blow the whistle on something he felt deeply about. Instead, he was dragged through the court system for many years, presumably because the government wanted to make an example of Witness K. That's exactly what they're doing with Richard Boyle and David McBride. Can we at least acknowledge, senators, that it's great to be acting on whistleblower protections? But, at the same time, we have to end these high-profile prosecutions of people who were essentially blowing the whistle and trying to bring some justice to issues they felt very deeply about. I think the whistleblower protections inquiry has been very important to hone our attention on what needs to be done. That reported at the end of 2017, and it was very comprehensive. It took a number of submissions—over 100—and took evidence in a series of public hearings right around the country. It looked at the current public interest disclosure laws. It looked at previous inquiries and reviews. It looked at international developments and it provided an analysis of international and Australian whistleblower protections. It then looked at what legislation we currently have in place and the inconsistencies in current legislation and in whistleblowing processes and practices and how we might achieve consistency across sectors. It looked at constitutional limitations. It looked at a comparison of whistleblower protections as well as the definition of what would be classified as 'disclosable conduct'. It looked at the differences between current arrangements in that regard in relation to the public sector and the private sector. It then went through a definition of whistleblowers—what do we mean by whistleblowers?—and thresholds for protection, including suspected whistleblowers, protections for those handling disclosures within the public and the private sector, and protections for suppliers and customers. It looked at the anonymity of whistleblowers—provisions and protection for anonymous reporting, the continuity of protection and protections for confidentiality. It then looked at internal regulatory and external reporting channels, reporting channels in current legislation, internal disclosures, regulatory disclosures and external disclosures. It took evidence from members of parliament and advice from the clerks of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It looked at protections, remedies and sanctions for reprisals. We received considerable evidence in regard to that. We also looked at systems in, for example, the US around providing rewards for whistleblowers, bounty systems in other jurisdictions, arguments for a reward system in Australia and arguments against reward systems. And of course we looked at the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority. That was an interesting one. There were a number of very detailed appendixes around case studies. I believe it's helped us get to this point where we are today. Going to the context of this bill, the Greens—as has been already outlined by my colleague Senator Shoebridge—believe it's a positive step to see the government taking action on updating Australia's whistleblower laws, and there is a broad consensus in this place on the need for significant reform. This bill is a beginning. The Moss review from 2016, which was seven years ago, is already significantly out of date, so implementing its recommendations isn't a comprehensive answer to what's needed here. But it's a start, and we commend the government for bringing it forward. But, even with these changes, the laws leave whistleblowers woefully unprotected. And risks, including court costs, are real, as well as career and personal costs. While a comprehensive review of the PID Act is promised, this is what we've been given and what will be applicable for the NACC's first complaints. That's deeply concerning and may significantly hamper the operation of an integrity body. Going forward, a whistleblower commissioner and commission will be needed to ensure that something is standing in the corner of brave whistleblowers in this country. We referred this bill for inquiry because of the significant concerns from the sector that, firstly, it would not deliver the needed changes to protect whistleblowers and, secondly, it would have unintended consequences, because of drafting, that would inappropriately exclude many issues that should be covered. We have significant concerns about the extent of the personal work related conduct carve out, as do most stakeholders in this debate. The carve out is supposed to limit matters that are about bullying or workplace issues being taken to the NACC, but this fails to recognise that most whistleblowing matters include a mix of disclosable content and the consequences of this in a workplace. We recognise that the government's own amendments to this bill that passed in the other place go some way towards addressing these concerns, but not far enough. Beyond this bill and going forward, there is a significant underlying issue, and that is the impact of the overly zealous use of secrecy provisions in laws and how that impacts whistleblowers. This is something that really needs to be addressed in the future, as well as, as I mentioned earlier, ending the ongoing prosecutions of Richard Boyle and David McBride, which are going to undermine public confidence in what we do here. We should actually do as we say and protect whistleblowers, not prosecute them publicly, not drag them through the courts and not make their lives hell in order to send a message to other whistleblowers. Clearly, we need serious reform in this place. And if we're going to do that, we need to drop these cases. I want to give a special shout-out to David McBride. I have been fortunate enough to speak with Mr McBride at a number of public appearances—as I know my colleague Senator Shoebridge has—particularly around the ongoing political persecution of Australian citizen Julian Assange, a Walkley Award winning journalist who is being prosecuted by the US government. They're seeking his extradition for publishing classified documents—documents that disclose war crimes, corruption, fraud and significant bad behaviour. I would like to make that shout-out to David McBride. He has shown a lot of courage. It wouldn't have been an easy thing to do, as I know from my personal relationship with Andrew Wilkie, the member for Clark in the other place, who blew the whistle on the BS around weapons of mass destruction that was used to take us into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq. I remember, at the time, Andrew Wilkie was essentially being threatened with life in jail for espionage or treason for doing something that he felt was morally right. It has actually turned out that he was right: there were no weapons of mass destruction. We were taken to a war that has killed millions and caused massive disruption across the Middle East on the basis of a massive deception. His courage should be applauded, as should David McBride's. I understand David McBride's trial is not going to be held until November this year, and even that's not necessarily set in concrete. It is over four years since charges were brought against David McBride. The trial, when it happens—if it happens—is expected to last for up to three weeks. But this has been hanging over his head since he was arrested at Sydney airport, after returning home from Spain in September 2018. He's accused of leaking classified Defence information to three senior journalists at the ABC—who, by the way, had their offices raided and searched—and also to Fairfax Media newspapers. The material that he leaked formed the basis of the Afghan Files, which led to a 2017 ABC expose revealing allegations of misconduct by Australian special forces in Afghanistan, including possible unlawful killings. As I mentioned earlier, there has now been a conviction in relation to this. The disclosures also led to the much-publicised Federal Police raid on the ABC's offices in 2019. David McBride has pleaded not guilty to five charges, including the unauthorised disclosure of information, theft of Commonwealth property and breaching the Defence Act. As I mentioned earlier, it's just hypocrisy for us, as members of parliament, to be coming in here, passing laws and talking about the need to protect whistleblowers while we are so actively persecuting a high-profile whistleblower who believed deeply that he was doing the right thing. How can it not be in the public interest to be releasing information about possible or probable war crimes by Australian Defence personnel? We can't point the finger at other countries when we treat whistleblowers in this country like that. As Kieran Pender, a lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, said: This case should never have commenced; but it is not too late for the Attorney-General, @Mark DreyfusKCMP, to end it. Rather than prosecuting whistleblowers, the govt should get on with fixing whistleblowing law— Like we're doing today— and ensuring accountability for Australia's wrongdoing in Afghanistan. (Time expired) 11:14 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak on the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill. It's a really important debate that we're having here today, and this is a really important bill with more work needed. I want to thank Senators Shoebridge, Scarr, David Pocock and Whish-Wilson for their comments and I associate myself with many of the points that they've made. As legislators, we have much work to do to make sure that we improve the quality of information available to us as decision-makers. We rely on the efforts of people who bring information to us to expose corruption and malpractice and bring to the attention of us, as senators, things that need to change to improve governance. Whistleblowers have such an important role to play in this. Most importantly, as many of the other senators have said, we must protect and applaud whistleblowers and end the prosecution of people like Bernard Collaery, who has stood up for so long, so bravely, and whom I have had the privilege of meeting and talking at events with. We must also remember and applaud the behaviour of Witness K, David McBride and Richard Boyle. They are all heroes to the project of transparent governance, of response to serious errors in governance, management and activity in many parts of our government. They have brought to the attention of the international community activities that have really reflected on the character of Australian government and action in their attempts to improve the honesty and good practice of what we do and how we do it. So these are extraordinary people. They believed in truth, and we need to learn from their heroism. They've paid a big price. Senator Scarr went through what being a whistleblower does. It's a sacrifice. It's a sacrifice not just personally but often, in many cases, by their families. These experiences take years out of the lives of families and they are years of sacrifice as families support whistleblowers, because whistleblowers have to find places that will keep them afloat while they carry out the very difficult actions of truth-telling. Democracy relies on the disinfecting powers of whistleblowers. They are such an important part of that disinfecting power that we need in our government. I know this, personally, as a current participant in a committee of inquiry into consulting practices in our country, a set of practices that are now drawing on billions of dollars of public money. We are very dependent, as a senate and as a committee, on the bravery of whistleblowers coming forward into public discussion and bringing forward evidence and examples where practice within these very large public bodies and private organisations is very far from perfect—indeed, it ranges into corruption. This bill is a very positive step and we welcome it. And there's more to do. It's a positive thing to see a government taking action on updating these laws. They are well overdue for it and, as we see, there is a broad consensus for reforms that are really quite significant, which this bill makes a really important start on. We've heard how the Moss review, from 2016, is already well out of date, so turning to its recommendations, taking them seriously and turning them into legislation is very important, but it's not enough. We need to do more and, while we commend the government for bringing this forward, we really want to see action much more significantly on a further range of overdue recommendations. Even these changes will leave whistleblowers, those brave heroes, woefully unprotected and risk exposing them, as we've heard, to very significant financial cost as well as personal and family cost. As anyone who's supported a whistleblower knows, it's a really significant personal project that you give many years of your life to, in too many cases. A comprehensive review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act is promised. This is what we've been given. It's not comprehensive enough, and this act will be applicable for the NACC's first complaints. That's really concerning, because we need much stronger machinery that can underpin and support the work of that activity and give that new integrity body the teeth and the processes that it needs. We need a strong national anticorruption body that can act properly and with full force on the matters that come before it. We've heard about the experience of whistleblowers and how important it is that we put someone in their corner, not just their families, partners, kids or community but a whistleblower commissioner and a commission that will ensure that, for people who bring forward issues that are of very significant public importance and that are so important to this parliament, someone is standing with them as they commit their brave acts. We need whistleblowers, we rely on them, and we need to make sure that we give them the support they need. The Greens referred this bill off to an inquiry because of concerns that we had, which are very widely shared across the community by organisations that know of this experience and how we need to change it. We know those concerns go to the issue of how this bill as it is currently drafted will have consequences that are unintended because of drafting that excludes, for example, many issues that should be covered within the bill. We also want to recognise that the bill, as it is before us, does not deliver the protection that whistleblowers really need. As Senator Shoebridge has outlined, we have very real concerns. As Senator Whish-Wilson also pointed out, the question of the extent of the personal work related conduct carve-out is a real issue for us. There are a lot of stakeholders who have drawn attention to the fact that this is supposed to limit matters that are about bullying or workplace issues being taken to the NACC but it fails to recognise the very real experience of so many whistleblowers—that they do suffer personal consequences within their workplace. They're treated differently, and, as a Senator Scarr said, they can be made redundant. They miss out on promotion. They're excluded from all kinds of decision-making. As someone who has lived and worked for many years in very large organisations, I understand that many subtle practices can isolate and pressure a whistleblower, and there is often a set of behaviours and experiences that are intermingled with the activities of being a whistleblower. So we think the carve-out should apply solely to matters that are personal issues, and we need much more clarity around that question. We recognise that the government's own amendments to this bill that passed in the other place go some way towards recognising those concerns—that's a good thing—but we need to go further. Developments in recent years tell us and a lot of experiences tell us that we need to protect whistleblowers better and we need to do better around defining personal workplace issues. There's a lot more that's needed. There is a significant additional underlying issue—that is, the impact of the very, very overzealous use of secrecy provisions in laws that impact on whistleblowers, something that really needs to be addressed in the future. We've heard about the ongoing prosecutions of Richard Boyle and David McBride, which Senator Shoebridge went into. These prosecutions are a real dampener on people coming forward on public sector whistleblowing projects, and serious reform on this issue is really pressing. These truth tellers are being prosecuted, and, more than any law that we pass in this place or any words that we say, it is our actions that will speak to prospective whistleblowers. They look at the fact that great penalties, for example, have been imposed on Richard Boyle and David McBride in practice, and they hesitate. It has a chilling effect on the behaviour of whistleblowers, and we need to do much better at protecting and ending those prosecutions, which are absolutely inappropriate. Everything those brave men have said has been shown to be right. Their prosecutions are continuing under Labor, and it is a travesty. It needs to end. As senators and as people who have just passed a very large budget, we know that there are some very big spends in new areas coming down the pipe in our country. For example, there's $368 billion on submarines. We have a really big challenge in tax collection, keeping that honest and scrupulous and collecting the tax that we know taxpayers want us to manage, collect and treat in a principled and clear way, pursuing those who are avoiding tax or acting unscrupulously or unethically. We know that that kind of big spend has to be made in a way that avoids the perception or actuality of conflicts of interest. We need strong legislation that protects those big spends of billions of dollars so they actually go where they need to go, they get us value for money and they aren't associated with conflicts of interest or unethical practices. This is a really important place where whistleblowers can blow the whistle and make a difference. Whistleblowers have an important impact on the way we govern. They can call out corruption and conflicts of interest, and honest government relies on them. It relies on their heroism and it relies on the sacrifices they personally make. We need to protect them. We need to protect them from bullying and ill treatment, and we need to protect them from all kinds of subtle practices in their workplaces which can deeply affect their lives and make the costs they personally face very large. So we all agree here that whistleblowers are often heroic. I thank Senator Scarr for bringing to our attention the sacrifices of and the role that James Shelton and Brian Hood have played in calling out another important example of corrupt practice in our governance. He quoted the words of the judge reflecting on the 'adverse effects' on the families of those men and the 'tremendous courage' that they showed. That shows to all of us the importance of having strong protections in our whistleblower legislation and ending the inappropriate punitive prosecution of people like Richard Boyle and David McBride. We need to support and honour their efforts, and we need to pass legislation that does the right thing by whistleblowers and enables future whistleblowers to come forward and make the positive difference that they can to the quality of a decision that we as a parliament make and the quality of governance in our country. 11:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate on this bill, the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022. This bill amends the PID Act to implement recommendations from the 2016 review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and other parliamentary inquiries. These amendments will improve protections for disclosers and witnesses, focus the act on integrity wrongdoing and make the act easier to administer. The government has addressed recommendations 1 and 2 of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report in the explanatory memorandum and welcomes its third recommendation that the bill be passed. The government has also moved amendments to make clear that the exclusion of personal work related conduct would not prevent the allocation or investigation of a disclosure which contains both disclosable conduct and personal work related conduct and also moved amendments to require an authorised officer to inform a discloser about other avenues to progress their disclosure where there is no reasonable basis on which it could be considered an internal disclosure. The government is aware of calls for a whistleblower protection authority or commission, and I know those calls have been repeated in the second reading debate, and also for external disclosure processes to be examined. The government has already publicly committed to examining these issues as part of a public consultation process on broader reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act following passage of this bill. The Albanese government is committed to restoring trust and integrity to government, and an effective public sector whistleblowing framework is essential to achieving this. The bill is an important first stage of a process to comprehensively reform the Public Interest Disclosure Act to restore it to a best-practice whistleblowing framework. I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 241710 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge on sheet 1867 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:33]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Dean Smith)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 22 11:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on Sheet ZB203: (Government) (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 25), after subsection 29(2A), insert: (2B) To avoid doubt, if a disclosure includes information that tends to show (or that may tend to show) disclosable conduct, the disclosure is not prevented from being a public interest disclosure only because: (a) the disclosure includes other information; and (b) the other information tends to show (or may tend to show) personal work-related conduct. (2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (after line 4), after subsection 43(4), insert: (4A) To avoid doubt, if a disclosure includes information that tends to show (or that may tend to show) disclosable conduct, there might be a reasonable basis on which the disclosure could be considered to be an internal disclosure even if: (a) the disclosure includes other information; and (b) the other information tends to show (or may tend to show) personal work-related conduct. Note: A disclosure may include information relating to a number of instances of conduct, some of which may be considered disclosable conduct, and some of which may not (for example, because that conduct is personal work-related conduct). Paragraph (4)(a) does not apply if one or more of those instances provide a reasonable basis on which the disclosure could be an internal disclosure under section 26. (3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 11 (after line 33), at the end of paragraph 44A(3)(a), add: (iii) if subparagraph (ii) does not apply—any courses of action that might be available to the discloser under another law or power; and I also table a replacement explanatory memorandum relating to this bill and I table a supplementary memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The amendments on Sheet ZB203 would clarify the operation of the personal work related conduct provisions and insert a notification obligation on authorised officers where they decide not to allocate a disclosure because there is no reasonable basis upon which it could be considered an internal disclosure. I will briefly outline amendments on sheet ZB203. Amendments (1) and (2) relate to personal work related conduct. The government is proposing two amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 to clarify the operation of the personal work related conduct provisions. Disclosures of integrity related wrongdoing are often accompanied by allegations of other personal workplace related conduct. The first two amendments would insert an avoidance of doubt provision to clarify how the framework will operate where a person makes a mixed disclosure that contains elements of both personal work related conduct such as an allegation of bullying, harassment or undue performance management, and integrity related wrongdoing such as fraud, corruption or maladministration. The first amendment will make clear for whistleblowers and agencies that mixed disclosures are not prevented from being a public interest disclosure, only because the disclosure includes information that tends to show personal work related conduct. The second amendment will provide greater clarity for authorised officers in agencies about how to handle mixed disclosures. The amendments will make clear for both whistleblowers and agencies that disclosures of integrity related wrongdoing will not be excluded from the Public Interest Disclosures Act framework only because they also contain a disclosure about personal work related conduct. The existing measures in the bill already have this effect. However, these amendments will put beyond doubt that the personal work related conduct provisions contained in the bill would operate to exclude only personal work related conduct from the PID Act. Importantly, the protections under the PID Act would continue to apply to public interest disclosures which include one or more instances of disclosable conduct, even if the disclosure also includes personal work related conduct. Amendment 3 concerns notification obligations where an authorised officer decides not to allocate a disclosure because there is no reasonable basis on which it could be considered an internal disclosure. The government is proposing an amendment that would apply in circumstances where an authorised officer decides not to allocate the disclosure for investigation under the PID Act because the authorised officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that there is no reasonable basis on which the disclosure could be considered an internal disclosure within the meaning of the act. The amendment would require the authorised officer to notify a discloser of any other course of action that might be available to them under another law or power, such as under the Public Service Act 1999. The amendment would ensure that the authorised officer is required to provide information to a discloser about how else they may take forward their disclosure of wrongdoing, when the authorised officer has decided that there is no reasonable basis on which it could be considered an internal disclosure, and so it cannot be dealt with under the PID Act. 11:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The coalition will be supporting these amendments. Items 1 and 2 are avoidance of doubt provisions. These provisions will make clear that disclosable conduct is not excluded from the PID scheme if a complaint also includes information that is personal work related conduct. The legislative note to item 2 helpfully confirms that a single disclosure which relates to multiple instances of conduct is not excluded if one or more of the instances is disclosable conduct. This is consistent with the coalition government's response to recommendation 5 of the Moss review. Similarly, item 3 would require the decision-maker to tell the discloser what options they may have outside the PID Act, even if it is not immediately clear that the matter should be dealt with under another law or power. We believe that these are sensible amendments, and the coalition, as I said, will be supporting them. 11:41 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens, too, will support these amendments, but we have some questions we'll be asking of the minister about the intent behind the amendments and how they'll actually operate in practice. I acknowledge that the Attorney-General and his department have engaged with the issue and the submissions that came into the inquiry that made it very clear that pretty much no key stakeholder was satisfied that the bill, as initially drafted, actually implemented recommendation 5 of the Moss review and that the carve-out was likely to create significant concerns. One of the concerns that was raised in the committee that hasn't been addressed by the government—and I might put my first question to the minister in this regard—is that the Ombudsman's office made it very clear that having these multiple tests in 29(2A) and 43(4), where disclosure tends to show or may tend to show disclosable conduct, was likely to be contested by whistleblowers, particularly if there was an adverse conclusion from the decision-maker. It was likely to be tested by whistleblowers and then referred to the Ombudsman, seeking the Ombudsman's review of those decisions. Now we have two separate points where that decision could be made. My first question to the minister is: has the department engaged with the Ombudsman's office to try and address the concerns that the Ombudsman's office raised in the inquiry on these points? 11:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Shoebridge. I understand that the government has engaged with the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's office about this matter and that guidance will be provided to whistleblowers to address those issues. 11:43 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Thanks, Minister. My memory of the Ombudsman's evidence was that they expected something like that to occur in relation to the bill as originally drafted. Their concern was that, even with the guidance, there is likely to be a substantial uplift in the work that the Ombudsman's office is required to do. I note that the current budget provides no additional funding for the Ombudsman to do this work. Did the government consider this, and did the government get a resource request from the Ombudsman? That's what they said to the committee. They said very clearly to the committee: 'We're already strapped. We don't have enough resources to do our existing work. This is going to put a whole lot of additional burden on us, with some highly agitated individuals who tend to be quite resource needy because they've got concerns about whistleblowing and it can be complex.' My question is two parts: did the Ombudsman make a resource request and has the government addressed it? 11:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Shoebridge. Certainly, the resourcing issues for the Ombudsman are something the government is considering, and we will continue to engage with the Ombudsman about any resourcing needs they have in relation to this piece of work. 11:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I have to say that those answers don't address the concerns that were raised by the Ombudsman's office. It highlights the concerns the Greens have with the form of this amendment because the proposal that was being put forward by a number of stakeholders was that we adopt the wording in the Moss Review, which is that matters that are solely personal, work-related matters are excluded from the PID act, but you limit the carve-out to just that. It's an easy test. You can see the test readily applied. But the government now has, effectively, a first-stage test under subclauses 29(2A) and 43(4) where it says: (2B) To avoid doubt, if a disclosure includes information that tends to show (or that may tend to show) disclosable conduct, the disclosure is not prevented from being a public interest disclosure … That's likely to be a highly contested definition in circumstances. If it gets through that gateway, there is a separate test that may apply to the same complaint under section 43(4), that says: (4A) To avoid doubt, if a disclosure includes information that tends to show (or that may tend to show) disclosable conduct, there might be a reasonable basis on which the disclosure could be considered to be an internal disclosure even if: (a) the disclosure includes other information; and (b) the other information tends to show (or may tend to show) personal work-related conduct. Each of those steps, the Ombudsman told us, is likely to be contested by a whistleblower or someone who purports to be a whistleblower and has an adverse conclusion against them by the decision-maker. Minister, who is going to be making the decision under 29(2A)? The second part of my question flows from that, which is: who will be making the decision under 43(4)? 11:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I am advised that it will be the authorised officer under the PID scheme for both matters you are referring to. 11:47 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I understand from your earlier answer, Minister, that there will be some guidance given. Is it intended that the Ombudsman's office will draft that guidance for the authorised officers, or is it intended that that will come from the Attorney-General's Department? Again, I come back to the point that all of the concerns raised by the Ombudsman's office now seems to be highlighted by these amendments. I'm not speaking against adopting the amendments—the amendments make it better. They actually narrow the carve-out and allow for mixed matters to still be considered as a PID complaint, and that's a step forward. But the way in which this is drafted highlights the resource concerns within the department from the authorised officer and the process the authorised officer would have to go through, and then the resource concerns that will almost inevitably flow to the Ombudsman in seeking a review of those decisions. Obviously, whether a matter is accepted as a PID or not fundamentally changes the protections that are offered to a public servant or somebody working in an agency. If their complaint is accepted as a PID they have a whole lot of protections. If it is not accepted as a PID then the response that can be taken against them is pretty much at large. So, who is going to be drafting the guidelines, and what, if any, assurances can you give that the Ombudsman's evidence won't come true? 11:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's office will be drafting the guidelines, and that will be undertaken in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department. 11:49 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I thank the minister for that clarification. I said in my contribution to the second reading debate that when the bill was first presented, many months ago, real agitation came from the Attorney-General's office about any suggestion that we have an inquiry. It was a 'How dare we have an inquiry' kind of response that came back from the AG's office. Of course, the inquiry has been essential, because it's highlighted the concerns that have led to these amendments, which I think will go a significant way to improving an identified problem in the bill. But in the course of that communication with the Attorney-General's office the suggestion was made that if we hadn't passed this in March then the Public Service and the public sector wouldn't be ready to implement it by the time the NACC opened its doors. Well, for some reason inexplicable to us in the Greens, the Attorney failed to bring this on in the last session. It was ready to go. The amendments were all drafted. The committee report had been provided. It was all ready to go last month. But for reasons that have never been publicly explained, the government chose not to bring it on. So, my question I suppose is in two parts. The first part is: why was it not brought on, given the purported urgency that had come out of the Attorney's office? Secondly, what preparatory steps are being taken to ensure that it's going to be able to be operationalised by 1 July when the NACC opens its doors? 11:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Obviously a number of different items have been big priorities for this government. This has certainly been a priority, but there's been an awful lot to do across a whole range of portfolios. But we have brought this on as early as we possibly can, while making sure it's done thoroughly. If you believe that this is something we should deal with urgently, then how about we try to get it passed before we reach that marker at 12.15? 11:52 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales It's not clear to me from that answer whether the Attorney is satisfied that the preparatory steps are being put in place for this to commence operating from 1 July, and I think that's a concern, because we were told it was essential for the NACC to be in place and for whistleblowers to have that protection. It's unfortunate, when the direct question has been asked of the minister—is this actually going to be ready and what satisfaction can you give us that this is going to be up and running in the public sector by 1 July? It's an important matter. I agree with the Attorney that it is important that it be in place, and I agree that whistleblowers need protection from 1 July. But my concern, from that answer from the minister, is that there's no commitment to actually have the public sector ready to go on 1 July when the NACC opens its doors. Anyone from the public sector who is hearing that answer from the minister would be troubled that this core issue of preparation hasn't been addressed/ I particularly note that the AG was hot under the collar and the office was hot under the collar months ago that you wouldn't have time to get this ready. Is that really the best response you can give about putting this in place, Minister? 11:53 Senator WA 245759 Queensland TT (—) (): Senator Shoebridge, I can give you an assurance that if we can get this legislation passed then the government will have this system up and running before the commencement of the NACC on 1 July. The only thing that's actually holding us up from getting this underway is passing this legislation. I know there are some people in this chamber who want to do everything possible to prevent this chamber from getting to a vote on setting up a fund that will build 30,000 social and affordable homes. But I would encourage you to get this legislation passed, because it would seem that you think it's quite urgent. So, how about we get that done? 11:54 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The utter effrontery of the minister in making that contribution, having sat and warmed this bill under the backside of the government for a month or more—to make that contribution today. It's a wonder a bolt of lightning didn't come through the skylight and provide the deity's response to that extraordinary proposition from the minister. He literally sat, cooling, doing nothing. We moved heaven and earth to get the inquiry done. We delivered the inquiry in record time. We limited the hearings in the inquiry. We cooperated to get the report done. We delivered it all in March. We got our amendments in in March. We were ready to go in March. And here we are, in mid-May, and the government is saying, 'How dare you ask questions about it?' And the 25 minutes of delay, or the half hour of delay, that we're going to have by asking questions about the bill is the reason for the delay in getting this forward—the effrontery of that. Maybe it was under instructions. Maybe is was from some speaking notes the minister was given. But you shouldn't have done it, because it was unworthy. It was deeply unworthy of the minister to make that contribution. One of the other great concerns the stakeholders have had with this bill is the fact that, under the protections that have been put with the NACC bill and the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act that's now in place, unlike the Public Interest Disclosure Act amendments that are in place, there are no remedies for whistleblowers if the protections in the NACC that mirror the PID Act are breached. So, if adverse action is taken against a whistleblower and the whistleblower's only statutory protections are in the provisions under the NACC Act, a criminal prosecution might be taken for the adverse action. The whistleblower may have been terminated or may have been demoted. A criminal prosecution might be able to be taken under the NACC provisions, but there's nothing the whistleblower can rely upon to get redress. They can't get compensation and they can't get reinstatement. Is that an accurate reading of this bill—that it doesn't put in place those remedies? If that is the case, is the government committed to providing those remedies for whistleblowers who have the purported protection under the protections under the NACC Act but actually nothing to help them, nothing to get them their job back or compensation or any kind of redress if adverse action has been taken against them? And when addressing that, Minister, perhaps you could address the other core problem with those protections under the NACC Bill, which is that, as the Greens understand them, the protections only provide the capacity for criminal prosecutions for adverse action. We know from the evidence before the committee and from our understanding of practice in the public sector that, despite the PID Act having been in place with very similar provisions for a decade, there has not been a single successful criminal prosecution. So Minister, given how ineffectual the provisions in the PID Act have proven over the last 10 years when it comes to adverse conduct without a successful prosecution—given that a criminal prosecution is basically the only kind of remedy that's being proposed under the NACC Act—is it true that this bill doesn't fix that? And what's the government's intent to fix it? 11:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The issue of the remedy will be the subject of the consultation process that is going to happen after we—hopefully—pass this bill and get things started. 11:58 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Regarding the consultation process before the second tranche of changes, are you able to provide an outline of how that will be staged—what the time line will be—particularly the consultation over a proposed whistleblower commissioner? 11:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government's intention is to have a discussion paper released for consultation on those and other matters over the next 12 months, obviously moving as quickly as possible, but that consultation process is expected to get underway in the next 12 months. 11:59 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, I think consultation is important, but obviously, of course, landing this and getting the protections in place are of greater importance. Given there are so many gaps in whistleblower protection, and I reference in particular the contribution that Senator Scarr made in terms of the absence of a whistleblower commission and the absence of any kind of substantive agency with the resources and the capacity to help whistleblowers in what are these otherwise David-and-Goliath battles, if the consultation starts within 12 months, is there a commitment from the government to land the consultation within 12 months and to bring those statutory reforms before the parliament within 12 months so that this time next year whistleblowers will actually have world-class protection? Or is it just a commitment to start the consultation sometime within the next 12 months with an indefinite conclusion? I think Senator Cash's point about trying to rush through complex legislation like this, that has important public interest outcomes, trying to ram through that legislation in the dying days of a parliament, in the last few weeks or months of a parliament, has proven in the case of the PID Act to produce legislation that has problems and doesn't have the kind of thoroughness that's needed. So, is the commitment to land the consultation and bring the amendments within 12 months, or are we going to be repeating history and rushing to try to strap stuff up as this parliament comes to a conclusion? What's the commitment, Minister? 12:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not going to be pre-empting the consultation process by going into any of that. 12:01 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I don't think telling us when the consultation will conclude is pre-empting the consultation process. To suggest so is either a misunderstanding of consultation, either you already have a predetermined outcome and the consultation is a farce and therefore telling us when it's going to end will also determine the outcome, which would be unfortunate in a relatively new government, or it just misunderstands the question I was asking, which is: when will the process come to an end, and when will you be bringing substantive amendments to the House? Telling us when it ends doesn't pre-empt the outcome. Giving us the time frame within which the consultation is intended to operate doesn't predetermine the outcome, and, again, Minister, I'd ask for a good-faith engagement with this, because it's important to many in the public sector and it's important to many key stakeholders. They would like to know what the commitment is for the government to actually fix this and when it's going to happen. 12:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That decision hasn't been made at this point. What has been made is the decision to get this legislation passed to begin this process. I am surprised that you wish to extend the debate on this to the degree that you are, which is clearly all about filibustering. I think we all know what is going on here—neither the Greens nor the coalition want to have a debate or a vote on legislation to build 30,000 social and affordable homes. I think what we're going to see, whether it be this bill or any other bill or any other debate, is it's going to be dragged out as long as possible. I don't know how many questions you have on your list, but I know you will keep adding more, so let's just keep going. And I know we won't get this done by 12.15, because you don't want a debate on housing. It's a shame, because this is an important matter. You say that you care about this, but we actually could have had this passed by 12.15. But that's, of course, not your writing instructions from Mr Chandler-Mather or whoever else is dictating your strategy. It's disappointing that you don't want to have legislation passed for whistleblowers, and it's disappointing that you don't want to have legislation passed for housing. 12:03 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales To give some guidance to the minister, could I suggest the best way of bringing this to a prompt conclusion is to answer the questions— Senator Watt 245759 I did. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 and to provide some actual information in response to the questions, because that would give us the opportunity to say: 'Thank you, Minister. That was very helpful and answered the question.' Unfortunately, in the exchanges we've had to date I haven't been able to say that, because you've made a series of febrile political points rather than address the questions that have been asked of you. That might be your writing instructions, but it's unfortunate because there are stakeholders watching this deeply concerned about whistleblower protections and these are quite legitimate questions that you could provide, if you were adequately briefed or had the interest, adequate responses to. Instead, we're getting those febrile political points—highly agitated and not directed to the questions that have been asked. It's an unfortunate exercise and an unfortunate breach of faith with the many stakeholders concerned about these amendments watching this. I indicate, in relation to a number of the Greens amendments, that the intent was to implement the Moss report as best we could, and to also address the concerns that were raised with us in the course of the inquiry. One organisation that raised concerns was the CPSU. The Labor Party normally listens to the CPSU and genuinely takes its concerns on board, and we too listen and take on board the CPSU's concerns. The CPSU raised concerns, as did other organisations that made submissions, that the bill as presented exempts members of parliament staff, or MOP staff, from having access to the PID Act. We've seen how staff working for members of parliament need more protections, not less. That's been apparent in case after case after case. This workplace can be very tough, particularly for the staff of members of parliament. There seems to me to be a pretty powerful reason to implement the recommendation that first came from the House of Representatives committee in 2009, that MOP staff should have the same kinds of protections and be able to raise a disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosures Act. It was also a key recommendation of the Set the standard report, that also said that parliamentary staff employed under the MOP(S) Act should be included as public officials in section 69 of the PID Act and be permitted to make public interest disclosures. Likewise, it was a recommendation made in the Moss review. So we had the House of Representatives committee in 2009 saying it should happen, the Set the standard report saying it should happen and we had the Moss review saying it should happen: that MOP staff should have these protections. I'm grateful that my party, the Greens, has looked at that material and thinks it's important that we put those protections in place. So we will be moving that amendment in committee to try and put those protections in place, because we've read the 2009 report from the House of Representatives committee, we've read the Set the standard report and we've read the Moss report, and they all say to do this. So, Minister, my question is: given that, will you support the Greens amendment, and, if not, why not? 12:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Shoebridge, the fact that you are simply filibustering debate in order to stop a vote on this bill, in order to stop the commencement of debate on the housing bill, can be made no more plain than the fact that you're not actually talking about the amendments that are currently before the chamber. You've obviously run out of questions to ask about our amendments and you're moving on to amendments that haven't even been put yet, being yours. We will, of course, have the debate about your amendments when we get to them. Clearly, you don't want to talk about our amendments because you don't want to have a vote on anything. And it's a shame, because I agree that there are a lot of people out there who are very concerned about having better whistleblower protections, and that's exactly what this bill is designed to do. We could have had that legislation passed this morning, if you had chosen to. You made a reference to some of my comments being agitated. I am agitated about getting whistleblower protections in place, and I am agitated about building more social and affordable homes, and I'm agitated about the fact that the Greens are in league with the coalition to prevent a debate on housing being built in this country. I am pretty agitated about that because there are a lot of people out there who need homes. And there are two parties in this chamber who are stopping us from even having a debate about that, because they're dragging out the debate on this bill, which is also important. I'm more than happy to address the Greens amendments when we get to them, but how about we pass now these amendments that the government has moved, rather than continue filibustering until we reach the clock at 12.15? 12:09 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, spending a minute and a half only complaining and not addressing the things doesn't get us closer to bringing it to a vote. Answering the question gets us closer to bringing it to a vote. Senator Watt 245759 No. You'll just have another one and another one and another one and another one. We know what you're doing. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 You'll get your chance, Minister. I know you don't like questions, and I can see you don't like these questions—that's very apparent—and you don't like giving the answers. I can see you're agitated. It's unfortunate, but, if you were less agitated and more directed to answering the questions, this would go quicker. I invite the House to consider government amendments (1) to (3). I've said before that we don't oppose those amendments. We think they go some way to addressing the Moss review. I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1889: AMENDMENT TO GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS [SHEET ZB203] (1) Amendment (2), note to subsection 43(4A), after "because that conduct is", insert "solely". This is an amendment to government amendment (2). This amendment seeks to implement recommendation 5 of the Moss review. It does a pretty simple thing. It inserts the word 'solely' into the government amendments to reflect the submissions we received in the inquiry that clarified the language to ensure that only matters that were solely in relation to personal work related conduct should be excluded from the operation of the PID scheme. It will in fact make the amended explanatory memorandum, which references the word 'solely' in the Moss review, actually apply to the bill, which would be nice, wouldn't it? The amended explanatory memorandum can actually relate to the bill. Of course, it's worth confirming that it actually implements recommendation 5 of the Moss review, which expressly recommended that any personal work related conduct carve-out be limited in this way. I commend the amendment to the House. I'm curious on what basis the government would oppose it. 12:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well done, Senator Shoebridge; you've nearly run down the clock. The government does not support this amendment. The addition of 'solely' as proposed would not change the operation of this provision. The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary, as the current drafting of the government amendments achieve the same outcome in a more appropriate and effective manner. 12:12 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Chair, I have amendments (1) to (14) on Sheet 1870 that I wish to have addressed, but I'm more than comfortable, if the House wants, to now consider government amendments (1) to (3) and my amendment on Sheet 1889 separately if that suits. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 The question is that the amendment to government amendment (2), moved by Senator Shoebridge and listed at sheet 1889, be agreed to.  

The committee divided. [12:17]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Dean Smith)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Watt, M. P. White, L. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Progress reported.

 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 29 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Gyngell, Mr Allan, AO 29 12:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise today to pay tribute to Allan Gyngell AO, a friend, colleague and trusted adviser. Allan passed away on 3 May 2023 at the age of 75, and he is missed by many Australians, particularly in the foreign policy community. I want to personally convey my condolences to his family and friends, to his wife, Catherine, and to those in the chamber today: his sons Joe and Christopher; daughters-in-law Chell and Katherine; grandchildren Annie, Maxwell, Heidi and Pippin; and friends Dennis Richardson, Ric Smith and Darren Lim. So many people in this building, in this city and across the country are mourning the loss of Allan Gyngell. He spent his life dedicated to public service. He made enduring contributions to the public and government debate on foreign and security policy for more than half a century. He was an official and unofficial adviser to governments and oppositions for decades, always in the singular service Australia's national interest. In every venture, as a diplomat, adviser, intelligence analyst, think tank director, historian, professor and podcaster, he left a lasting impact on our country and on all who had the privilege of knowing him. Allan had a long and distinguished career in Australian international affairs, beginning in what was then called the Department of External Affairs in 1969 and going on to serve as a diplomat in Rangoon, Singapore and Washington. He led the International Division at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and was the senior international adviser to Prime Minister Paul Keating. He was the founding executive director at the Lowy Institute and from 2000 until 2013 was head of the Office of National Assessments. In 2017 he became the national president of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, a role he performed until March this year. He was also an honorary professor at the Australian National University. He was awarded an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2009 for his services to international relations. Allan Gyngell's contributions to the foreign policy of this nation span decades and many achievements. I want to pause, however, to talk about his earliest years. He joined the foreign service at a time when our country was beginning its long geopolitical realignment towards Asia, and he was motivated to centre Australia's outlook firmly in our region. The way he put it himself was to say: We were the generation who went to university with the Vietnam War hanging over us and it caused you to pay close attention to the region. …   …   … It never occurred to me that I wanted to go anywhere other than Asia. If you wanted to shape the country's future, Asia was where it was going to matter most. This conviction continued over the years and with his postings in the region, and some of his achievements, such as negotiating the 1995 security agreement with Indonesia and advocating for the innovation of APEC to a leaders-level meeting, spoke to this firm belief. More recently, Allan became the definitive historian of Australian foreign policy through his 2017 book Fear of Abandonment, updated and reissued in 2021. He understood the importance of chronicling Australia's history as a foreign policy actor to witness the past choices we have faced as a nation and to understand the context for decisions that were taken, and those that were not taken. He relied on history not as a guide for our future but as a tool to understand how we got here. He described the book as 'prologue, not prediction'. To some, 'fear of abandonment', as a title, might have suggested a gloomy outlook for the country. But, on the contrary, Allan Gyngell viewed this national anxiety as: … the driver of one of the most consistent and commendable aspects of Australia's worldview—its rejection of isolationism; its conviction that Australia needs to be active in the world in order to shape it, and that gathering combinations of allies, friends and ad hoc partners is the best way of doing this. Allan Gyngell was always optimistic for Australia and ambitious for Australia. He always believed in what our statecraft could achieve, but he was never naive. He was also unfailingly humble; he was clear in his values and beliefs. He listened carefully and was open to a persuasive argument and to evidence. He did not believe that foreign policy thinking was limited to the remit of Canberra or politicians around a cabinet table. He cared deeply about engaging the Australian public on foreign policy issues. He started the Lowy Institute poll during his years leading that institution, with the belief that understanding public attitudes over time was essential to crafting foreign policy for the nation. He understood that, for foreign policy to maintain the consent of the Australian people, it must be an accurate reflection of our interests and values, of who we are and of what we want. His last project, the Australia in the World podcast, co-hosted with ANU academic, Darren Lim, sought to grapple honestly with the growing complexity of the world Australia faces. His focus was dialogue, centred around ideas and inquiry, rather than pushing an agenda. He knew that responding to our changing circumstances required all of us—the public and policymakers alike—to understand the world around us. When I spoke at the National Press Club last month, I invited Allan as my guest. I wanted to put on record in his presence my deep appreciation not just for the substance of his contribution but for the manner in which it was made. That day I said he was the finest mind in Australian foreign policy. I also said he had the smallest ego in Australian foreign policy. People laughed, but it was true. I didn't know it would be the last time I saw him. As foreign minister, and when in opposition, you take forward your big ideas through speeches. As I think back on the past six years, I sought his counsel on so many of my speeches. Allan Gyngell wrote as I wished I could. He had the ability to take abstract and dense concepts and explain them with a clarity that was compelling and essential to foreign policy analysis. He truly understood the meaning of speaking truth to power. He had the intellectual and personal courage to call things as he saw them, and I always listened to him, even when we didn't agree. What I particularly valued about Alan was his ability to question, debate, agree and disagree with such respect for opposing views, and for the enormity of Australia's challenges. So, as we confront these challenges, we will miss him. We will miss his commitment to both contestability and respect, and his passing should remind us of how much better we are, and better off we are, if we take his approach. It has been so moving to see the outpouring of tributes in the days since he passed—tributes that all speak to his wisdom, to his intellect and to his thoughtfulness. But one characteristic really does stand out. Each and every recollection remembers his generosity with his time, and this is also my experience. Allan Gyngell always made time: to hear an idea, to review a draft speech—even when it was sent to him late at night, with short time frames—to chair a committee and to have a cup of tea. He made time for everyone, whether you were an intern or a foreign minister. We only wish we had had more time. Allan Gyngell often spoke about a high school teacher fostering his curiosity, sending him off as a teenager to the Australian Institute of International Affairs to listen and to learn, 60 years before he would become the AIIA's national president. He, in turn, encouraged generations of Australians to be curious about our place in the world. He mentored so many of our diplomats, intelligence analysts, academics and writers. Allan Gyngell's legacy lives on in all those whose lives and careers were touched by his leadership and quiet wisdom. I will remember him for his intelligence, his kindness, his wit and his warmth, and also for always finding the time. I close by again offering my deepest condolences to his family and friends, and particularly to his wife, Catherine, who cannot join us today. Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III 31 12:29 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Today, I would like to stand to join the nation, my state of South Australia and the Commonwealth in congratulating His Majesty King Charles III on his coronation, which took place over the weekend. Like so many Australians, I was glued to the TV on Saturday night. It was a momentous and historic occasion, particularly for the majority of us Australians who have only ever lived under the incredible reign of Queen Elizabeth II. The age-old traditions at the heart of the coronation ceremony allowed us not only to look into history and see what had gone before but also to watch modern history play out with the beginning of a new reign, under King Charles and his family. At the heart of the moment, in terms of its impact on those who watched it around the world, there was, I believe, a resonating feeling of great celebration. For 73 years, King Charles, as Prince Charles, had lived as heir to the throne in preparation for the day that he would become King. The world knows King Charles, and I think we can have great confidence in the King because of his dedication to the nation and the Commonwealth throughout his time as heir to the throne. Australians can also have great confidence in the affinity that King Charles has with our country. He has been to our shores no less than 16 times throughout his life so far. King Charles has demonstrated an extraordinary and deep appreciation of the culture, the people and the environment of this country. In 2018, I had the great pleasure of meeting King Charles, who was then Prince Charles, when I was the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. I was able to join him in the Daintree at Mossman Gorge to conduct a roundtable on forestry, where King Charles demonstrated his extraordinary understanding of environmental conservation and rainforest and forest sustainability. I think that experience was absolutely invaluable for all of us who had the opportunity to be there. So it was a very positive moment of celebration for Australia and the Commonwealth as we watched his coronation on Saturday night. I'm sure that, for many in Australia, it was a welcome distraction for those hardworking families who are under significant pressure at the moment, with the greatest pressure no doubt being the cost-of-living pressures that are currently impacting Australian households. It was great to start the week with such a positive celebration because I'm not sure there will be many struggling, hardworking Australians who would be celebrating after last night's budget was handed down. The great challenge for Australia going forward, as has been reiterated time and time again by the shadow Treasurer, is that last night Australians were looking for cost-of-living relief in a budget that was not going to be adding to the pressure of their lives. Instead, last night, we got a big-spending, big-taxing Labor budget. Labor seem to think that they can spend their way out of this cost-of-living crisis. The message to them is: 'It's never worked before, so why would you think it's going to work this time?' This budget doesn't do anything to help hardworking Australian families. We needed a budget that was going to address the biggest issue, and that is reducing inflation. It needed to rein in spending and combat the cost-of-living crisis facing all Australians. Instead, we find that Australian families on average will be $25,000 worse off every year under this Labor government. This government went to the election with the Prime Minister making so many promises to the Australian public. The mechanism through which he could have delivered those promises to Australians about cost of living—cheaper electricity and lower mortgages—was their much-awaited budget last night. Instead of confirming that the Prime Minister and his government would deliver on their election promises, what the budget did last night was just confirm that these are all going to be broken promises. When you look at the cost measures across the board, there is so little in here. Despite a substantial investment in energy prices for low-income Australians, low-income Australian are still going to be paying almost $500 a year more on their energy bills. What happened to the $275 headline figure that Australians were going to have off the bottom of their energy bills that seems to be no longer a commitment of this government? So, despite the commitments around the emergency relief that we were going to be seeing in this budget, I think this budget has to be classically put down as one of the greatest disappointments of all time. When it comes to my portfolio responsibilities, probably the saddest omission from the budget last night is that the drover's dog—he's a very clever dog; he knows lots of things and he could have predicted a budget surplus—also knows that cost-of-living pressures are having a significant impact on the lives of all Australians. We know, from research that we've received, that cost-of-living pressures are the single biggest issue impacting Australians' mental health right now. We did not see anything in the budget last night that acknowledged that mental health pressures are so severe and are increasing in Australia. Peak bodies have recently released information that supports this. Lifeline has reported an 80 per cent increase in calls relating to cost of living. Headspace Australia's recent national survey identified cost of living as one of the top three issues facing young people. And a recent ReachOut survey found that more than 50 per cent of young people in Australia are stressed out by the cost of living. Minister Butler had a round table earlier this year following his disastrous decision to cut the number of Medicare subsidised mental health sessions from 20 to 10,with the intention of finding out from the sector about ways in which we could make sure that we support the mental health of Australians. That round table was in January. We have not heard anything from this government or this minister about implementing anything to improve Australians' access to mental health supports, which is exacerbated by the fact that we are in these extraordinarily challenging times. There has been complete radio silence about an issue that has been so strongly felt by so many Australians. The minister could not possibly have missed the fact that Australians who were relying on those additional 10 Medicare subsidised mental health sessions have been calling out for him to explain the reason they need the additional supports. So, instead of seeing the government last night admit to what has clearly been a bad policy decision, a fundamental mistake in health policy, we saw them double down on it and refuse to acknowledge it and make those changes. I think Australians who are currently suffering from moderate to extreme mental health ill health who were looking to get access to those additional sessions again would have been extremely disappointed that last night there was nothing in the budget to support them. In summary, last night's budget was big on aspiration, which is something this government is particularly good at, but it was really light on the detail, which is, once again, something that has proven to be somewhat of a track record of this government. Once again, the lack of detail leaves us not really knowing what the intention of this government is in relation to helping Australians out with their cost of living. We can only assume from this big-spending, high-taxing budget that this government either doesn't care or doesn't understand that the most important thing they can do to make sure Australian families are getting the cost-of-living relief that they need and that they were promised is to actually address inflation, because it is inflation that is the thief in the night. Inflation is the thing that steals your opportunities through cost of living. It is the thief in the night that steals your qualify of life. Budget 32 12:39 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to give the Australian Greens' budget reply speech in the Senate. Last night's budget was a budget without ambition. It utterly failed to respond to the gravity of our times., to the twin crises of growing economic inequality and the breakdown of the earth's climate and its ecosystems. But this absence of ambition from Treasurer Jim Chalmers should not be confused with a lack of effort. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The lack of ambition from the Treasurer took an awful lot of effort. He meticulously calibrated this budget to maintain the status quo—and any budget that maintains the status quo in this country in the face of the great challenges of our time is not a responsible budget. On the radio this morning, the Prime Minister said that this government needed a responsible budget. It might be that he misspoke, but what he did say was the quiet thing out loud. In doing so, he portrayed the real intent of this budget. This budget was never about what the country needed, and it was never about what the planet needed. This budget was all about what the Labor Party needed. We have the LNP in a death spiral, so Labor is making a play for a decade in government. That's what's going on. In making that play, they don't want to upset the status quo, no matter how unjust or how ecocidal the status quo actually is. So when Labor hands down a budget carefully calibrated to keep big business happy, to keep the wealthy relaxed and comfortable, it makes the task of doing something meaningful to respond to the crises we are in all the more difficult in the future—because every time you don't fight for ground, you lose ground. With the cost-of-living crisis forcing people to live out of their cars, with parts of regional Australia becoming uninsurable thanks to climate change and with a leader of the opposition who doesn't know his Yeppen from his Yeppoon, if the Labor Party won't make progress now, when will they ever make progress? Well, here's the news: they won't. Last night's budget is what the Labor Party of today is. This is as good as it's ever going to get from the Labor Party. Those hoping that a second-term Albanese government will suddenly start to act on the great injustices of our time are clinging to a fool's hope. Labor has a clear strategy. They're cementing themselves as a centre-right party—a party that defends the market power of the monopolists and the rent seekers and a party that defends the wealth of the property class in this country. That means handing down a budget that makes a deliberate choice to fail to lift people out of poverty and continue to provide public subsidies to the corporate psychopaths who are destroying the capacity of this planet to sustain life as we know it in order to line their pockets with obscene profits. Those people and their psychopathic facilitators in this place are chewing up the planet and excreting misery and poison. That is what's going on, and that is what Labor is facilitating. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator McKim, I need to interrupt you. Can you withdraw the statement, 'psychopath'? It's not appropriate parliamentary language. Senator McKIM JKM On a point of order, I have not accused any individual senator of being a psychopath, and I do not believe that I have been out of order, so, no, I won't. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDEN T: Senator McKim, I'm simply asking you to withdraw that unparliamentary language. I will let you know that it was also an issue drawn to my attention by the clerks. I would note that I also consider it unparliamentary language. Senator McKIM JKM I won't withdraw it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 On the point of order, it does concern me. I understand that Senator McKim is quite passionate about these subjects, but it really does concern me when that sort of language is used in the context of a parliamentary debate. There are people all over this country who have chronic mental health issues, and I think we should be very careful when we use that sort of language. I'm sure Senator McKim is extraordinarily intelligent, and he could potentially come up with some other adjectives to make his point and assist the chamber. Senator McKIM JKM I genuinely do not believe that I'm out of order and in contravention of the standing orders. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, could I ask you, please, to perhaps take the matter on notice and come back to me. If it is the view of the President, on advice from the clerks, that in fact I'm out of order I certainly will withdraw that. But my understanding very clearly from the standing orders and numerous previous rulings given by the President is that, if you do not identify somebody specifically, then you are not in contravention of the standing orders. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator McKim, if you say the word 'psychopaths' in this place you are indeed very close to the line. When we look to good order and conduct in this place, it is not always exactly where the line is drawn that we should draw it. It is something we need to be aware of more broadly, in terms of pejorative terms about people in this place or, indeed, terms that affect other people in the broader community. Notwithstanding that point, I note that you have at this point said that you will not withdraw, and on that basis it will be referred to the President, unless you would choose to withdraw now. Senator McKIM JKM I know we're chewing up time that other senators have allocated to them, so, in order to facilitate the order of the Senate, I will withdraw—and I do withdraw. But I will be raising this matter directly with the President because I think the Senate needs some guidance to be formally made by the President in relation to these matters. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Thank you, Senator McKim. Senator McKIM JKM As I was saying, these people who are deliberately destroying the capacity of our planet to sustain life as we know it in order to line their pockets with the most obscene levels of profit are chewing up the planet and excreting misery and poison. In Australia, we are in a situation where millions of Australians are struggling to make ends meet and cannot pay their school fees, pay their rent and put food on the table. Many of them are actually living out of their cars or their tents at the moment, and they'll continue to be living in those circumstances notwithstanding the measures in this budget. For people who are renting or on income support, it is particularly tough. But let's not kid ourselves that this is by accident; it's not. This is a deliberate choice made by those who are in power. Poverty is a political choice, and the failure of last night's budget to change the status quo in any meaningful way is Labor endorsing a choice to leave people in poverty in this country. Instead of investing in essential services and providing meaningful support to those who are most vulnerable, Labor have chosen to retain $254 billion—a quarter of a trillion dollars—in stage 3 tax cuts that overwhelmingly favour the billionaires and the already super wealthy in this country. That's who the big winners are from this budget. The big winners are not the people who most needed help from the government—the people who are living in poverty, the people on income support, the people whose real wages have been going backwards for the last decade, the people who are trying to pay mortgages after 10 consecutive interest rate rises. They're not the winners. The winners of this budget are the super wealthy, and we should all be very clear about that. The government is choosing to hand over $360 billion for nuclear subs—no austerity for the military industrial complex, I might add. That's half a trillion dollars that the government could have chosen to use to lift people out of poverty, address the housing crisis or wipe student debt. But, instead, it is the wealthy and the military industrial complex that are the big winners, while, every single day, people are skipping meals and struggling to pay their power bills or to keep a roof over their heads. It's a fundamental job of government to make sure people have the basics they need to live a life with dignity. But this budget, for many Australians, is going to make things actually worse with $74 billion cut out of the NDIS—$74 billion was removed from the NDIS. There was more spent on subsidising the burning of fossil fuels than in the totality of the government's climate change programs. There is nothing for nature repair, nothing for our oceans and four times as much in tax cuts for the rich than on cost-of-living support for Australians who desperately need it. This budget is a betrayal of the people who Labor promised would not be left behind. 'Nobody left behind,' says Labor. There must be an awful lot of nobodies in this country, because there were plenty of people left behind by this Labor government. Treasurer Chalmers has made a choice to put a surplus ahead of supporting people living in poverty. I want to quickly address the issue of budget repair. This is a mantra of those in power, the neoliberals and the deficit hawks. Let's be clear: budget repair is a garbage excuse to ensure that help is denied to people who need it. Australia does not have a government debt problem. By international standards, our debt is very low, and, by historic standards, our interest rate repayments on debt are very low. We didn't need to pay down the debt; we needed to help people. And a surplus is not an end in itself; you cannot eat a surplus. The government should not be crowing about having banked 82 per cent of the windfall revenues while people are living in cars and tents. So, here's the question: why should we accept a government that is content to leave so many people behind while showering the benefits on the wealthy? The answer is simple: we shouldn't accept it. We deserve better. The Greens are absolutely committed to achieving better. We want to see bold action that looks after our ecosystems and creates a fairer, more just Australia, and we are absolutely willing to take up the fight to deliver those things. Forestry Industry 34 12:52 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Today I rise to talk about a report which was released by Net Zero Australia of its analysis, which recognises how forestry and agriculture can help Australia's fight against climate change. It is great to see my good friend and co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry and Forest Products here in the chamber today, Senator Duniam, who is a very great supporter of forestry, particularly in his home state of Tasmania. I talk about this today because it's important to raise this issue here in the Senate. Forestry does get a bad rap by some in this place, but, thankfully, there are a number of senators who do support the important role that forestry plays not just in terms of the environment but also in terms of jobs and the role it has in many regional communities. Forestry is the economic bedrock for so many regional communities, as I have said countless times in this place. It employs around 80,000 Australians directly and another 100,000 indirectly and contributes $24 billion to the national economy every single year. Jobs in the forestry industry are good jobs. They provide security and decent wages, affording workers and their families the dignity and the respect that they deserve. I've had the pleasure to meet many great people in this industry who are so passionate about the work that they do in terms of timber and paper products. Shortly after his appointment as the minister for forestry, Senator Watt travelled down to my home state in Victoria to visit a great mill there, Australian Sustainable Hardwoods, in Heyfield in the Gippsland region, alongside the local MP Darren Chester. Australian Sustainable Hardwoods is exactly the type of business that we should all be supporting. It supports a very large number of apprentices, and all the management team started out on the shop floor. It's a great role model for many businesses in the sector. The business provides good jobs and has a respectful relationship, not just with the unions but also with the local communities, by sponsoring many local events, as we saw earlier this year with the Heyfield Timber Festival. Unfortunately, there are some at that end of the chamber who like to undermine this great industry and the businesses and communities that rely on businesses like ASH. They want to destroy forestry, destroy these jobs, put many families on the brink and, sadly, destroy many regional communities whose economies are built around the industry. They claim that this destruction is necessary in order to save the planet. They say that, because of climate change, we need to kill off these jobs. But what they don't realise and what they choose to ignore is that the forestry industry needs to be bigger, not smaller, if we are serious about reducing our emissions. This has been confirmed in numerous reports and studies—most recently, in the Net Zero Australia report that I mentioned at the start of my speech. The Net Zero Australia report highlights the important role that the industry plays in fighting against climate change. It makes clear that we need to focus more on planting trees, on creating forest, to meet our emissions goals if we are to get there by 2050. To quote the report: 'Land use, land-use change and forestry account for a net sink of carbon dioxide.' This highlights the climate benefits of expanding the forest state. The Net Zero Australia report adds to what we already know: as trees grow, they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert this into carbon to make wood. This is obviously beneficial to our efforts to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our environment, and that is why we refer to timber as the most sustainable product that we can use, especially when we are building things like homes or other constructions. We desperately need to have a long supply of timber products in this country. Using timber products stores the carbon, and, in sustainably managed forests like Australia's, a new tree is planted for every tree that is chopped down. We need to build an estimated one million homes over the next five years. A strong forestry sector is essential to ensuring these homes are built sustainably and, more broadly, moving us to a much lower carbon economy. Let's consider what would happen if the industry were to be shut down, like those across the chamber are seeking to do. Workplace Relations: Qantas 34 12:57 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales As I speak in this chamber today, just five minutes down the road in the High Court 1,700 illegally sacked Qantas workers, their families and the Transport Workers Union are fighting. They're not just fighting for their jobs; they're fighting for their rights at work. They're fighting for the rights of every working Australian. This case has massive ramifications for every Australian workplace, and, at its very core, this case is about whether a boss—in this case, Alan Joyce, who's presently swinging his arms around this parliament today—has a right to sack workers before they can exercise a workplace right. In 2022 Qantas illegally sacked 1,700 workers in what they refer to as 'a vanishing window of opportunity' to sack 1,700 hardworking Australians before they could begin bargaining for a new wage arrangement. Qantas is arguing in the High Court that, because they could not begin bargaining for another few months, their sacking was not illegal. Let's be clear about what the argument means. It means that it is okay if a female employee tells her employer that they're trying to have a child and their boss turns around and sacks them before they can go on parental leave. That is Qantas's argument. Take another example: if someone tells their employer they intend to take leave to volunteer with the SES or the Rural Fire Service and their employer sacks them in response, again, that would be okay. That is the precedent that Qantas and Alan Joyce are trying to establish—that, if you sack a worker for exercising a workplace right before they are able to take it, it is legal. If the Alan Joyce and Qantas board precedent is approved by the High Court, it would impact every single working family and every single workplace in this country. That is really what is at stake. The Albanese government have intervened against Qantas in this case because we know what's at stake here. You can contrast that with the approach of the former government. You contrast that with former Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations Amanda Stoker, who was rumoured to be parachuted into the seat of Fadden. When Qantas illegally sacked those 1,700 people, she came into this place and said it was their own fault. That's the difference between us and them. We stand for working people; they stand for Alan Joyce and the reckless Qantas board. Unfortunately, others employers have taken the example set by Alan Joyce and the Qantas board. Let's have a look at what has been happening at McDonald's, who couldn't stop stealing $250 million in wages theft from their workers, so some McDonald's stores have gone even further. Some stores settled with the Union for Retail and Fast Food Waters, the SDA, last week for conducting an illegal five-year union-busting campaign. To quote Heather, a supervisor at McDonalds in Murray Bridge, South Australia: 'I was pressured into resigning my union membership. They made me frightened I would lose my position as a supervisor. Then, after I gave into the pressure to give up my SDA membership, my hours were slashed because I raised a workplace safety concern.' Take it from Leisha, a former shift manager, who said she felt pressure to resign her union membership 'every step of my employment'. I'm sure we would love to blame this on a few rotten franchisees. That might work, except for the fact that McDonald's own corporate lawyers tried to defend this conduct in the Federal Court. In fact, a survey of 1,500 McDonald's shift managers found 10 per cent had been instructed to engage in anti-union activity. This is happening in hundreds if not thousands of McDonald's stores around this country. I'm sure if Senator Stoker were here she'd be rigorously defending McDonald's, just as she so loved standing up for the illegal sacking of 1,700 Qantas workers. I can guarantee we will hear deafening silence from those opposite who are still in this chamber about the illegal union-busting wave that is smashing hardworking families around this country. It's this behaviour that is driving the cost-of-living crisis. This is what's underpinning the problem in our workplaces. 13:02 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Last night's budget was quite the let down from my home state. Sadly, Tasmania as a state is going to be much worse off, as indeed, are the people that live there. Tasmanians as individuals, as families, as business operators—they're all going to be worse off despite the glib, throw-away lines that you might hear from the government about what's on offer and how they might notionally benefit from what they served up last night. We've had time to go through the budget papers and look at what the Australian Labor Party, now in government, have delivered for our state. I have to say, it was quite interesting reading. That catchcry that no one would be left behind formed the centrepiece of what they, as an opposition heading into an election, were saying. It was very big in the October budget and it formed part of the narrative around the budget that they delivered last night. There were a multitude of promises made to that effect, and we've canvassed a couple of those earlier today in our previous debate. For the first time since the election, we have had a member of the Australian Labor Party in this parliament say the number '275'. That promise was made 97 times before the election to drop household power bills by $275 a year but was uttered not once since. We had our first reference to it today, courtesy of Senator Ayres from New South Wales. I'm grateful—I'm going to be snipping that Hansard because it is important to show them that they haven't abandoned that promise altogether. I look forward to holding them to account on that. What we've had since those promises were made does not match up at all with the promises that were made—quite the opposite, in fact. This is where I come to Tasmania. The budget delivered last night, that one that was supposed to ensure that no one was left behind, fails so many fronts. Tasmanians are let down every way they turn. On the inflationary impact of their handout for power prices—they've done nothing to reduce power prices. Instead, they're using that finite resource we have, taxpayers' money, to offset the power prices they promised to bring down. That's an indication of failure, and it will have an inflationary impact. In Tasmania, we also know that regional communities in particular are crying out for permanent full-time GP services. Many communities, particularly throughout the electorate of Lyons—which covers most of central Tasmania and the east coast—want permanent full-time primary health care through general practice clinics. It's something they've been calling out for, and it's something their local member, the Labor member for Lyons, Mr Brian Mitchell, knows about. But do you know what? He didn't deliver on that last night. He did nothing for his electorate when it came to the provision of these services. One comes to mind, and that is the GP service in the Central Highlands. I see Senator Tyrrell, a proud Tasmanian, nodding her head. She acknowledges and knows what the Labor government needs to do to support that community that has been crying out for this service. But the opportunity came, and it was lost. The opportunity was missed. Mr Mitchell has failed his electorate by not guaranteeing the provision of these services, and I bet you we will hear nothing from him into the future about what he will do there. It should be his central focus, but it is not. I want to turn to roads. Roads are an important part of our economy. They're also lifesaving. Good roads mean better road safety outcomes. Tasmania has one of the worst road death tolls in the nation, if not, the worst, in recent times. The Australian Labor Party, which says that no-one will be left behind, are leaving the state of Tasmania way behind on terrible substandard roads. Road projects have been scrapped. A claim was made yesterday in question time by the Leader of the Government in the Senate that nothing has been cancelled. They're pretty rubbery words when you consider they've basically pushed all these projects and the funding required for them off into the never-never. That's a problem. They won't be funded. These roads will not be built. Tasmanians miss out. You only have to go as far as Tasmania's peak road user body, the RACT, who today, in a press release, expressed concern about the significant reduction in road funding to Tasmania in last night's federal budget. This is not some Liberal Party talking head; this is the RACT, which represents its road users in Tasmania. I quote the CEO, Mark Mugnaioni, who says: It's extremely concerning that there is a reduction of nearly $350 million in federal funding to Tasmanian land transport infrastructure. We're a small state, but that's a fair lick of cash they're taking out. So no-one's going to be left behind. Oh, hang on, unless perhaps you're in the state of Tasmania. He goes on to say: Now is not the time to cut investment in our road network given Tasmania has the highest road toll of any Australian state. We need more investment, not less. But that well-connected Australian government with hardworking local members like Mr Mitchell missed that call and have taken funding out of it. Finally, Mr Mugnaioni says: We are calling on the Federal Government to urgently explain what road upgrades will be delayed, deferred or cancelled as a result. Again, I expect there will be a deafening silence because they won't want to talk about it, much in the same way they didn't want to talk about their broken promise on power prices, for example. Shameful. But I will tell you something that is of interest. The centrepiece of our budget, and I ask senators to remember that— Senator Urquhart 231199 It is a shame the Premier of Tasmania is happy about that! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator Duniam, resume your seat. Senator Urquhart, as a senior member of this chamber, you should know standing order 197. Such interjections are disorderly. Senator Duniam, you have the call. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Thank you for your protection, Acting Deputy President. I feel much safer now. I'm sure Senator Urquhart is interested in this as a Tasmanian. I wasn't going to mention her by name, but she has invited that reference. We've had $350 million taken out of road funding in Tasmanian. We've had no provisions for essential health services in regional communities. Do you know what the centrepiece was of Labor's budget for Tasmania? It was a stadium on Hobart's waterfront—$240 million to go into a stadium. So they made their decision. A deed is being signed. We've got a team. You know what? That's good news, but there was a point that others in this chamber have made—and I include Senator Tyrrell in this point. All of us in Tasmania have a list of priorities, and we made the point that if you're going to fund the stadium, if you're going to fund the 'nice to haves'— Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Duniam, resume your seat. Members of the frontbench and Whip, you should understand that you have opportunities to speak. There are standing orders that provide for order in the chamber. I would ask you to respect them. You'll have your opportunity if you wish to make a contribution later. Senator DUNIAM 263418 We made the point that if the Australian Labor Party are going to fund the 'nice to haves', the stadium, then they have absolutely no excuse not to fund the must-haves: roads and health—the services Tasmanians are calling out for and demand equality on, not what we've been served up. But instead they take money out of roads and they put it into a stadium. It's interesting, I have to say, that there's barely been a peep out of any Labor federal member of parliament post budget or, indeed, post the stadium announcement. It does say a lot about Labor's priorities in Tasmania. I want to make a couple of quick points in my final couple of minutes. I want us to turn our minds back to 28 November 2022, last year, when Senator Carol Brown, a proud Tasmanian, made some points in a debate on the very issue we were just discussing: the stadium. She made the point that the Premier of Tasmania—a very, very good Premier—wasn't listening. She said: … nearly everyone I've spoken to has indicated that there are other things that the Tasmanian government should be looking at. There are other priorities, and they go to health, hospitals, housing and education … They— and in this she's referring to the Tasmanian state opposition, led by Rebecca White— … have talked about people coming up to them and asking: 'Why can't we put that money to hospitals? Why can't we put that money to housing? We're in desperate need.' Of course, Senator Brown does acknowledge that the Tasmanian government have asked for funding for those things. It's interesting that Senator Brown made those points in November of last year but, only a couple of weeks ago, found herself standing there on the waterfront of Hobart, nodding furiously in the background as the Prime Minister handed over $240 million for the construction of a stadium. It's going to happen. The Australian Labor Party have pulled a swiftie on Tasmanians. They're going to take away our GST as a result of giving us money for a stadium. Not only are they dogging us on health funding and roads but they're giving us a stadium and then making us pay for it by taking away our GST. Yesterday I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate to guarantee we would not lose our GST funding through this. She refused. Not one Labor member has stood up and asked that this be quarantined. So today I challenge any Labor federal member of parliament to seek a guarantee from the federal Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, or the Prime Minister that we will not be worse off under GST because of your commitment to a stadium. It's the wrong thing to do. By taking away our GST— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU I ask you to direct your remarks through the chair. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I beg your pardon, Acting Deputy President. Priorities need to be corrected here, and they need to make sure that they fund our essential services. (Time expired) Macquarie Point Stadium 37 13:13 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I think there's a theme about to happen. Did you catch the white elephant in last night's budget? It's big, it's white, it's costing nearly a billion dollars and it's supposed to live in Hobart, and the federal government wants to fund it. At a time when money is supposed to be really tight, somehow Labor found $240 million to fund a stadium that is going to lose $2 for every dollar it makes. If the federal government wants to burn money, it can do that. The federal government doesn't run a single hospital or a single school. It's an ATM that doles out money, except for once a year when it makes you give some of it back. The federal government funds things. It's what it's there to do. It's not their job to fix Tasmania's healthcare system or build shelter for people sleeping rough. That's the job of the Tasmanian Liberal government. They're the ones choosing to put up money we don't have, to fund a project we don't want. You couldn't make this stuff up; except apparently you can. The Tasmanian government has taken its playbook straight from an episode of Utopia. I'm sure you've seen it. Some of the conversations in the show are almost word-for-word arguments put forward for the stadium, right down to the idea it has to be a stadium with a roof. They were written as jokes, but here they are being presented as real-life reasons for the Tasmanian Liberal government spending close to a billion dollars on a stadium. I know politics can get a bit ridiculous sometimes, but this takes the cake. We're building this stadium because the AFL said we had to. They issued the threat—no stadium; no team—despite the fact we already have two perfectly good stadiums where we play AFL games. Every single thing about this project says that Tasmania has been sold a lemon. And they know it. They've taken us for mugs. The AFL are sitting there, grins on their faces, patting themselves on the back, and they're not even hiding it. Here's what Nathan Buckley said in a radio interview: 'I think the AFL have done remarkably well at playing the game of "We're not sold on this" until everyone else is invested absolutely in it. So, that's another tick, what they've been able to get, selfishly for the game of football.' I mean, that speaks for itself, doesn't it—Tasmania, so desperate to prove themselves in the rah-rah of sport that they've made taxpayers across the country chip in for a project that no-one even wants. Tasmanians are angry—really angry. I just spent three days at Agfest talking to thousands of Tasmanians. The conversations were all different. We talked about health, housing, and how much groceries cost lately. But every single conversation mentioned the stadium. People hate it. They're furious, because this doesn't feel like it's for them anymore. It feels like it's about the AFL and the premier and that we're all just spectators—maybe in the stadium. If the Tasmanian government has found $375 million down the back of the couch, when do we get a say on how to spend it? When do we get to say no? It's not the premier's money; it's our money. It's not his to spend. There's all this 'We can walk and chew gum at the same time,' so let's put this into perspective. We're talking about a stadium that's costing nearly $1 billion. Tasmania's entire health budget is $2.5 billion. What would our healthcare system look like if we put an extra $1 billion there instead? The premier is all in, but he doesn't need to be. We don't have to spend a dollar on this. It's not too late for the premier to walk away from this. The spend doesn't start straightaway. The Tasmanian Liberal government can still decide to invest money where it's truly needed. Some people would call it flip-flopping, but I think it takes courage to say: 'Do you know what? I've heard what the people of Tasmania want. I've listened to what they're saying, and I've changed my mind.' I said in my first speech that the public needs to stop marking politicians down for changing their mind, and I don't think Tasmanians would see this as a betrayal or as walking away from a promise. They would see this as a decision from a strong leader—one who listens. The opposition to this stadium is everywhere. Tasmanians want him to walk away. The only thing stopping the Tasmanian Liberals is the pride of the premier. So I'm asking Jeremy Rockliff: will you do the right thing and walk away from this dud deal? Mobile Black Spot Program 38 13:17 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Before I begin, I want to reiterate the comments that I inadvertently made over the speech of Senator Duniam, which was that Jeremy Rockliff, the Tasmanian premier, is very excited—so excited that he's tweeted that eligible Tasmanian households will receive $250 off their power bill each year for the next two years—even if those opposite aren't excited. Last night's budget detailed the Albanese Labor government's economic plan for Australia. It was a Labor budget through and through—help for those most vulnerable. It looked to the future and endorsed Labor's record of fiscal responsibility: relief, repair and restraint, the values that this Labor government was entrusted with and is delivering on. And today I would like to talk about another Labor initiative that the Albanese government has been hard at work at since its election last year: the continuing work on improving mobile black spots through the Improving Mobile Coverage program. For nine long years the electorate of Braddon in the north-west of Tasmania, my home, was held back, as the former government neglected rural and regional investment. So when Labor, in our election platform, publicly committed to deliver $40 million for improved mobile coverage in specific locations, it was a welcome relief to the people and businesses of Braddon. This funding was confirmed in last year's October budget—delivery on a commitment that was just one part of our more than $2.2 billion commitment to improving regional telecommunications in Australia. In March, the government opened applications for round 3 of the Regional Connectivity Program and another round of the Mobile Black Spot Program, a $160 million combined grants opportunity designed to help those living in rural, regional, remote and First Nations communities stay connected. Let's not forget that in the 2016 priority round of the Mobile Black Spot Program those opposite committed to 125 mobile locations, of which 124 were in Liberal and National seats. And opposition senators in this place have the gall to ask questions about the propriety of the Albanese-Labor government's program to address black spots created and exacerbated under their watch. At the time, the coalition had the benefit of being in government and could have run a competitive process through the department, but they chose not to. Instead, they committed a staggering 99.2 per cent of priority round funding to their own held electorates. So you can imagine my surprise and amusement when the member for Braddon in the other place has been advertising his 'plot your blackspot' campaign, criticising poor network coverage and mobile black spots. Those networks were neglected by the member for Braddon and his government at the time. He complains about poor network coverage, a lack of investment he presided over as a member of the previous government. He claims to be a friend of regional and rural Tasmania. In government, he boasted about having the ear of ministers. Clearly he never spoke to them about the failings of their programs in Braddon. Clearly he never advocated for investment in mobile black spot coverage, yet he has no problem criticising our government. He spins the poor decisions of the previous government into a failing of this one. This is a hallmark of the opposition that he is a shadow minister in and it was a hallmark of a government he claimed to actively lobby. But the people of Braddon know this. People are sick of hypocrisy and spin. People want politicians who just get on with the job. This is what the Albanese-Labor government is doing in delivering on its promises. This starts with programs like the one that addresses mobile black spots. Last night's budget paves the way for the better future that the Albanese-Labor government was elected on. This starts with looking after our regions and supporting the people of Braddon. The budget projected a surplus, a surplus of Labor values. These are values that go right of the heart of addressing the disregard the former government had for Braddon and its people. Budget 39 13:22 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Last night, the budget delivered by the Treasurer was yet another disappointment for people in my home state of Western Australia. After 10 interest rate rises under this government, spiralling cost-of-living pressures and out-of-control inflation not seen for 30 years, the government has been fumbling around, looking for solutions. As we heard last night—and no doubt when the Treasurer was putting together his speech he looked for others to blame—the first thing the Treasurer did was blame the previous government. Then he moved on to blaming the events in Ukraine. The pain of inflation and rising interest rates is spreading across the community to families, renters, small businesses and young Australians trying to save to buy their own home. The reality is that inflation is homegrown. It starts here. It starts here in this place. It starts in Canberra. It's not coming from Vladimir Putin. It's not coming from the war in Ukraine. Inflation is coming from Canberra. I see Senator Ayres smirking at me across the chamber. It comes from this place here. The decisions the government make when they are in power are critical to the future of this nation. Last night, the Treasurer couldn't even bring himself to say a word that's very important to the productivity of this nation—and that is 'infrastructure'. Not once was infrastructure mentioned. Now Labor has announced a razor gang under the guise of an infrastructure review which, frankly, will do nothing but inflict major cuts to vital rail, road, water, hospital, school and other infrastructure projects. The government sneakily ensured the review would conclude after last night's budget was handed down. We all know what this means—that vital infrastructure projects are getting slashed. This will likely include major transport projects in Western Australia. The government must rule out cutting or delaying the much-needed Nicholson Road and Garden Street intersection upgrade that borders the electorates of Tangney and Burt. This is a major bottleneck in that part of the world, and it's impacting significantly on freight getting through to Canning Vale and into that part of the electorate and on people getting to and from their jobs and schools. This is impacting upon the productivity of that part of Perth. The government needs to rule out that they will impact these projects. The previous coalition government committed half of the funding for the project. That's something that the former member for Tangney, Ben Morton, provided, and it was backed by the government. The WA government committed to fund the other half. This project must stay fully funded. This project cannot be delayed. It must go ahead. My local community demands that this project gets underway. Road safety at this intersection will only be improved with this project being completed. Locals know that when you drive through that area—my parents live just 300 or 400 metres from the intersection—just how unsafe it is. It's been designated as one of the biggest blackspot issues and one of the biggest accident areas in the whole of Western Australia. This project must go ahead. The government should also be getting on with planning projects, like the widening of the Kwinana Freeway from Gibbs Road through to Thomas Road further south. This section of the freeway is a major bottleneck. It's important for the future of industries down in that part of the world. In Henderson, where we know the AUKUS project is going to be significant for opportunities in that area, fixing these sorts of infrastructure projects is important, but we didn't hear anything from the Treasurer last night on this important issue. Sadly, we understand that the WA Comprehensive Cancer Centre, an announcement made by the previous government—a $750 million commitment was provided—seems to be at risk as well. This is something that, sadly, Western Australians are desperately needing, yet we're not seeing this government come forward with important projects that are going to make a difference in the lives of the people of Western Australia. The wafer-thin budget surplus that was announced by the Treasurer comes on the back of Western Australians and comes on the back of the resources sector. Labor likes to call this a responsible budget. Well, it's only a responsible budget that serves its own sectional interest. Western Australians are not— (Time expired) Budget 39 13:27 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory This year has seen a windfall in both political and budget capital for the government. As we face the crises of climate, environment and cost-of-living pressures, Australians are looking to the government for leadership. Yet we've seen another budget that's a step in the right direction but is lacking in ambition. While it does some good things, this budget cannot be described as bold and decisive. Voices in my community are calling for ambition, ambition that is backed by experts—if we're willing to listen to those experts. We face a biodiversity crisis, and scientists tell us that we need to invest $2 billion annually if we're going to deal with the extinction crisis. We're seeing nowhere near that amount. We're seeing hardly any new money for the environment. We've got experts telling us what it will take to lift people out of poverty to allow them to get back into the workforce. We've seen a measly increase to JobSeeker and youth allowance. This is a barrier to employment, a barrier to getting people back into the workforce, which we hear both sides of politics saying should be the No. 1 goal. If it is, why would we put barriers in the way of people achieving that? Housing experts tell us that the Housing Australia Future Fund isn't big enough, yet we've got a government pushing forward with a fund that is not up to scratch. There wasn't a huge amount for small businesses in the budget, and it is a continuous challenge for us to better support small businesses, coming out of the pandemic. One thing that really stood out to me was that research and development spending was the lowest on record. It's the lowest R&D spending as a percentage of GDP on record. This should send alarm bells ringing. Labor themselves have a target of three per cent. It's at 0.49 per cent at the moment, and there's a lot of work to do in that space. Finally—I'm running out of time—I think the budget surplus shows that we do need to have a conversation about revenue in this country. We're going to have to have some discussions about tax and to stop being so reliant on income tax. There are plenty of other ways we can shape our tax system to provide the services that Australians want. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The time being 1.30, we will move to senators' statements. Hobart Legacy 40 13:30 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I rise to make a brief contribution about a terrific organisation in the state of Tasmania, Hobart Legacy. Legacy will be known to nearly everyone in this place for the wonderful work they do. I've become acquainted with two legatees, Peter Hodge and Graham Manning, who presented me with a book at chronicling the 100 years of Hobart Legacy authored by Stefan Petrow entitled Look After the Missus and Kids: A History of Hobart Legacy 1923 to 2023. It is a fantastic compilation of the history of a great organisation, and I want to pay tribute to the legatees who provide such essential and amazing support to many in our community that are left behind. Also to the friends of Hobart Legacy, who, on a regular basis, you find around the Hobart community raising funds for the work that Hobart Legacy does. At present, Hobart Legacy cares for around 900 widows and junior legatees. Legatee Manning was able to give me a bit of an outline of the fantastic work that they do in mentoring a number of these young people who sometimes, because of the situation they find themselves in and their background, require extra support. The work that the 70 volunteers they have at Hobart Legacy do for these Legatees is just amazing. It's a huge relief to our government entities that would otherwise be seeking to support them. This work they do is a recognition of the sacrifice that these families have made. I can only commend Hobart Legacy, its members led by legatee Peter Hodge for the work they do. I say thank you and commend them for the work they will continue to do into the future. Australian Constitution 40 13:32 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales As the Australian Greens' new spokesperson for a republic, I want to be unequivocal about our commitment for Australia to become a republic hand in hand with treaty and truth telling. More and more people are waking up to the historic crimes of the British monarchy and wanting to cut ties with them. While nations like Barbados are becoming republics and speaking truth about empire, our Prime Minister is taking us backwards. There was absolutely no need for Prime Minister Albanese to make it a priority to fly to the UK for the Coronation, to bask in the excesses, pomp and pageantry of an institution that is so out of touch with everyday people. The British monarchy is an outdated, colonial and racist institution built on the blood, backs and stolen wealth of brown and black people. If you needed any reminder of this, just look at the Coronation Necklace Queen Camilla wore to the crowning. It features the 22-carat Lahore diamond, stolen wealth from the city I grew up in, just as the Kohinoor diamond adorning the Crown Jewels was stolen from the subcontinent. The wealth looted by the empire from colonised countries knows no bounds. The violent legacies of British colonialism are felt by people in countries all over the globe, including here in Australia—a nation born of dispossession and violence. We must forge a new path, one that reckons with this past and makes reparations, one that moves us forward on justice for first nations. It's time to cut ties with the British monarchy, it is time for democracy—not monarchy—and it is time to abolish the monarchy. Budget 41 13:34 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Last night we witnessed the great Australian deception. The backbone of our country, our farmers who produce what we eat and we wear, our resource miners who keep our economy running and our regional, rural and remote communities, along with middle Australia, were cast aside. In his budget address, the Treasurer did not even utter the following words: 'road'—no mention of roads in the budget; 'rail'—no mention of rail in the budget; 'dam'—no mention of dams in the budget; 'bridge'—no mention of bridges in the budget; 'agriculture'—no mention of agriculture in the budget. It didn't mention infrastructure, farming and mining. Those words—roads, rail, dams, bridges, agriculture, infrastructure, farming and mining—were not mentioned at all in last night's budget. So, if anything shows you the priorities of this Labor government, it was the lack of those words in that budget, because they do not understand how our economy works. They do not understand that unless you grow the economy, unless you support business, unless you support those who are willing to put their livelihoods on the line, then you will not grow the Australian economy and you will not take an axe to inflation. Last night's budget showed Labor's priorities, but, more importantly, it showed their lack of priorities. Australia needed a budget that reduces inflation and reins in spending to bring down the cost of living for all, but instead we got a typical Labor budget with high taxing and high spending. It's a budget that leaves all Australian families off by about $25,000 a year. Shame, Labor, shame. Budget 41 13:36 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia It was a proud moment last night as a Labor senator watching the Treasurer hand down our second budget. It's truly a Labor budget, doing what we can for those who need it most and creating more opportunities for Australians. This budget is responsible, this budget is practical and this budget is sensible. I'm really proud of our commitments to women's equality, with this budget ensuring women are front and centre with measures like cheaper child care, expanding flexible paid parental leave and investing in women's safety. As a Western Australian, I'm proud of what this budget is delivering for my home state. That is, $110.5 million for energy bill relief that will be matched by the McGowan government and cheaper medicines, allowing more than 620,000 Western Australians to buy two months' worth of medicines for the price of a single prescription. Given that this is a commonsense budget, it's no surprise that the 'no-alition' on the other side are already opposing it. This morning I heard Senator Hughes relating comments that frame our budget as taking money from hard workers to give to lazy bludgers. This is absolutely disgusting language, and it's really disappointing that those opposite are airing comments that characterise vulnerable Australians in such a demeaning way. This budget has struck the right balance of providing relief for the most vulnerable Australians, and I want to say to those opposite: single mothers are not bludgers, pensioners are not bludgers, students investing in their futures are not bludgers. Those opposite are always quick to turn their backs on the most vulnerable, but the Albanese government is committed to a better future and making sure no-one is left behind. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 41 13:38 Senator HANS BK6 Queensland ON (—) (): Never in the history of this country has so much money been wasted on a referendum Australia shouldn't even be having. There is no question this referendum is bitterly dividing Australia and dividing Indigenous Australia too. There is no doubt this will be the most expensive referendum exercise ever. In this week's budget, this government is blowing more than $364 million on this unnecessary, divisive and racist referendum. Add it to the $75 million in the October budget and this means taxpayers are forking out more than $400 million for the Prime Minister's personal vanity project. The last referendum in 1999 cost approximately $67 million. Adjusted for inflation, today it would have cost about $124 million. There's every reason to believe the extra money is being banked to fund the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, which, in their arrogance, Labor will legislate even when the Australian people reject it. That's why the 'no' vote must be overwhelming and send a clear message to Labor that Australians will not permit them to create a voice. The money includes more than $10 million to increase mental health supports for Aborigines during the referendum period—typical Labor hypocrisy. They've halved the mental health support for everyone else at a time when nearly all Australians are struggling with the legacy of pandemic lockdowns, the cost of living and the housing crisis. We won't ever get a straight answer from this government about why this racist referendum is costing more than three times what it should. That's because this government has never considered itself accountable to the Australian people, and never will. Budget 42 13:39 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Last night's budget took me back to a time when I was younger and I worked hard for a few years and bought myself a little sports car. Looking back, I think it would be considered a bit of a hairdresser car now, but at the time I was pretty pleased with it. I came back from Sydney—I don't know why I'd gone down there—walked along the street to the car, and there was glass on the ground around it. The windows had been smashed, the car had been gone through and things had been stolen. Others had pilfered something I'd worked very hard for. That's what the budget was last night. On Friday I'm going back to the Hunter, where we mine coal, build things and do things—just like in regional Queensland, where Senators Hanson and Roberts are from, where they mine things, make things and do things. In Western Australia they mine things, make things and do things. Those people have worked to make this surplus. Those people have run to create an Australia that has a good economy, a growing economy, that can deliver these windfall gains. What have we got back? Not a thing. The regions have been pickpocketed like my car was pilfered. There's glass on the ground as we sprint towards ending these people's jobs and crawl towards replacing the energy that they make. There is a massive disparity in Australia, and it is this. If we go back to last year and the regional ministerial statement of the last government, we see there were 381 pages on what we'd do for regional Australia. Yesterday there were 81. If you don't live near a capital city, you don't count under this government. And that is sad, because it is the regions that deliver this country's wealth. We are in such a blind philosophical rush to shut down these people. They deserve more; they aren't getting it. You tax them $1,500 more and give them nothing. Budget 42 13:41 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'm incredibly proud of the budget we've announced, in particular for First Nations Australians, with the portfolio areas that I have as Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health. We have invested in a range of measures to improve health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, including a landmark $238.5 million to improve First Nations cancer outcomes through building capability and growing the healthcare workforce. We've invested $28.2 million to support the delivery of 30 dialysis units for First Nations peoples in regional and remote Australia with end-stage kidney disease. Ti Tree, Harts Range and Borroloola in the Northern Territory, two places in South Australia and a place in Western Australia have already been announced in terms of those 30 dialysis units. We've allocated $16.7 million to promote increased uptake of health assessments by First Nations peoples, which have reduced since the start of COVID-19. This will assist more First Nations people to receive essential support for the management of chronic and mental health conditions. We've provided $1.4 million to expand the delivery of the Strong Born program to provide information about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We're also addressing the social determinants of health through better housing, education, jobs, food security and community safety in the cities, regions and the bush. This includes $150 million over four years to support First Nations water infrastructure and provide safe and reliable water for remote and regional communities. And $111.7 million will be provided under a new one-year partnership with the Northern Territory government to accelerate the building of new remote housing. First Nations Australians 42 13:43 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Today I want to use my two minutes to talk about the ongoing Senate inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women and children, which was first established in 2021. Since its establishment the committee has carefully considered how to move through this process with much care. It's not your average committee inquiry and nor should it be. We have moved slowly so we can take the necessary steps to ensure that families and communities feel that they have a safe space for this much-needed and difficult yarn. Two weeks ago members of this inquiry sat down for a day and a half of hearings in Perth, on Whadjuk Noongar country, where we heard from families right across my home state of Western Australia about their experiences of racism, police neglect, lack of support services, and under-reporting in the media. We closed the hearings with a yarning circle and smoking ceremony. In particular, I want to highlight the case of one young child, whose mother was the victim of family and domestic violence. In this instance, when police were called to the scene, she was treated as the criminal. In fact, she was arrested, alongside her father, whilst her abuser left free. Her abuser abducted her child, and police ignored the victim's father's concerns about the baby's safety. Shortly after, the baby was found in a roadhouse some 900 kilometres away, after being tortured, and tragically died shortly after. This is one of the tragic and heartbreaking stories we heard as part of this inquiry's proceedings. I want to thank each of the families for taking the time to come together and talk to the committee. I recognise that it is not easy to relive such horrific events, but it's so important that we, as senators, hear these stories firsthand and connect with these families so that we can all fight for better outcomes for First Nations women and children. I want to acknowledge my committee members—the chair, Senator Scarr; the deputy chair, Senator Green; Senator Shoebridge; and Senator McLachlan—who joined us for this. Gender and Sexual Orientation 43 13:46 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria A society is ultimately judged on how it nurtures and cares for its most vulnerable—its children and its elderly—so how will our society be judged if we persist in allowing our children to be used as props in drag queen shows? A small group of men who want to caricature women in a highly sexualised fashion must not be allowed to corrupt the innocence of children. If drag queens want to perform for adults at stage shows or local pub bingo nights, good luck to them, but the insistence that drag queens must be able to gain an audience with children is where a line must be drawn. No civilised society agrees to sexualise or confuse its children. We are still, at this moment, a civilised society, so it is still within our power to say no to the sexualisation of our children. I am absolutely committed to joining parents, grandparents and all civic-minded community members in opposing drag story times being promoted around our country. The civilised majority will not kneel to a vocal minority of fringe activists who want to push adult concepts of sex, gender and trans ideology onto kids. We will not be manipulated by hypocritical rhetoric about diversity or inclusion. Sexualising children is not diversity. Putting kids alongside drag queens is not inclusion. We say no to drag queen story time not because we are bigots but because we are civilised and we want to remain so. Do what you want around other adults, but I simply say this: leave the kids alone. Billich, Mr Charles 43 13:48 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales One of Australia's most recognised artists—and my friend—Charles Billich, and his wife, Christa, are great contributors not only to art but to the social and society part of life. However, the champagne fuelled parties at the Sydney gallery are neither a reflection of how Billich's life started nor a true measure of the battles he's still fighting. At just 21 years of age in his homeland of Yugoslavia, with Tito's secret police hunting him, Billich was jailed for two years. Just three years later he travelled to Australia via Austria. However, when communism crumbled and Croatia was born, Billich returned to the town of his birth, Lovran, to celebrate and invest in its development. However, all was not as it seemed. After investing in a new gallery, renovating the space and filling it, the deal he believed existed—that it would be rent free for 10 years—was reneged upon, and his art collection was seized in lieu of payment. So began Billich's efforts to see the return of his artworks. He's always been prepared to pay for it, but he and Christa just want the works returned. Thanks to the hard work and support of filmmaker and friend Steve Ravic, it looked like a resolution was in sight after at least 15 years. But it now looks like the municipality of Lovran and its mayor, Simonic, are reneging on a mutually amicable resolution that was in the process of being finalised. In fact, it now appears that those artworks are set to be auctioned. This continues to echo the shameful treatment that Charles Billich has endured for over 15 years while he has tried to resolve this matter, and the Municipality of Lovran has gotten away with manipulating the circumstances and deceitfully carrying out actions against Billich. I'd like to acknowledge Steve Ravik and the work that he has done, and we certainly hope that these artworks are returned to their rightful owner in the very near future. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 43 13:50 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The government wants pharmacists to dispense 60 days worth of medication at a time instead of 30 days worth. It means patients with chronic illnesses don't have to go to the GP as often, and they'll save time and money. It sounds good, but the Pharmacy Guild isn't so sure. They say this could force smaller pharmacies to close on weekends, cut staff and, potentially, close down altogether. The government says this simply isn't true. They're in a stalemate, and it's starting to get ugly, so I've got a solution for them. The government should commit to two years of transitional support payments for pharmacies while this change comes into effect. Any pharmacist who is losing money as a result of this policy can apply to be reimbursed the difference by submitting their income history from the previous year and their income for this year. If there's a serious difference, then the government tops them up to what they were in 2022. After two years we review the change to prescriptions. If the government is paying out to every pharmacist in the country, the policy is a stinker. If nobody is receiving any payments because they're not actually losing any money, then we're all clear. If the pharmacists are right, this policy would see them no worse off—guaranteed. If the government is right, this policy wouldn't cost them anything—guaranteed. Pharmacists do important work. In regional areas, we rely on them to plug the gap when you need health advice. I give a shout-out to my local pharmacist, Alec. Love you! I rely on him quite a bit. This policy will help people save time and money, but you can't make these changes without having a safety net in place. Two years of transitional payment isn't going to bankrupt the country, and we can't afford for regional pharmacists to go under because, in the end, it will be the patients who lose out. Budget 44 13:52 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise today to speak about inflation, which was not addressed in the budget that was handed down last night. You don't solve inflation by having an expansionary, stimulatory budget, and that's what we saw last night—a typical Labor big-taxing, big-spending budget. What do we know about inflation? I often quote from my book on basic economics, which I keep in this chamber, and I know those opposite enjoy it when I do. It says: '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. And inflation is not only a hidden tax; it's also a broad-based tax. It siphons off wealth across the whole range of incomes and wealth, from the richest to the poorest.' That is basic economics, and what we saw last night from the Labor government was a typical Labor budget—big spending, big taxing. It will do nothing to solve the cost-of-living crisis that Australian families are facing all over this country. You do not spend your way out of an inflation cost-of-living crisis. It doesn't work that way. The budget last night will contribute to inflation. In an Australian Financial Review article that was put up recently, economists are already predicting that there is going to be another interest rate rise directly flowing from last night's budget because of its expansionary impact—an injection of $21 billion this year into a red-hot economy facing inflation. It's the wrong budget at the wrong time. Qantas 44 13:54 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I would like to do something different today. I would like to quote from an article in yesterday's Australian Financial Review by Joe Aston titled 'Rear window: How low will Joyce go'. I will go word for word with his words, not mine: The decision by Qantas in recent days to banish TheAustralian Financial Review from its lounges and inflight Wi-Fi network is only what we've come to expect from our national carrier remade in the image of Alan Joyce. It is, of course, the second such wobbly he's chucked in 10 years. In 2014, Joyce yanked all Qantas advertising from TheSydney Morning Herald and TheAge … It's an incredibly petty act that actually bears out what we've been saying all along about the corrosion of Joyce's leadership. …   …   … Remember, the most important thing to Joyce isn't money. He's made $130 million, so he doesn't need any more of that. The most important thing in the world to Joyce now is what other people think of him. In his mind, clearly, he has constructed a heroic image of himself as the saviour of Qantas. He truly believes this. Indeed, he may be incapable of believing anything else. This is why Joyce makes statements that come across as comically self-unaware. He cannot express gratitude for the Australian government handing Qantas $2.7 billion during the pandemic. He even goes as far as claiming Qantas "ended up getting very little government support". He is unable to acknowledge that taxpayers helped rescue Qantas because it is incompatible with his conviction that he alone rescued Qantas. …   …   … All of this delusion is enabled by Joyce's chairman, Richard Goyder, from whom Joyce garners sympathy by playing the vulnerable teenager. Goyder is fully signed up to all of Joyce's narratives. The duo exhibit all the dynamics of an enmeshed family. It is frankly creepy. I have a lot more to say about this, and I will. I do wish that the new CEO can bring this once proud Australian icon back to its former greatness, because he's destroyed it. Budget 44 13:56 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria In this budget, the Albanese government has shown yet again that it does not care about refugees. It cares even less about the human rights of people seeking asylum. Never underestimate the capacity of the Labor Party to disappoint. In no policy area is this statement more true than in regard to refugee and immigration policy. While claiming that this budget won't leave anyone behind, there is absolutely nothing in there for people seeking asylum—not a single mention. I welcome the targeted support measures that will positively support people seeking asylum and support refugees, but the Albanese government continues the Morrison government's punitive approach to, and disgracefully poor social supports for, people seeking asylum. These limited measures aren't anywhere near Labor's election commitments and don't go nearly far enough to tackle the unfair, unjust, unequal and frankly violent system that this colonial government enforces on people seeking safety. The Albanese government will spend a staggering $6 billion over the next four years to maintain a cruel and dehumanising immigration detention system, with a lot of this money going to private security and prison companies who have no regard for human rights and torture people who are simply trying to keep themselves and their families alive. If this Labor government wants to show it has any integrity and respect for human rights, it will commit to its election promises to increase our humanitarian intake, expand social support services and close the violent, torturous and shockingly expensive immigration detention— (Time expired) Budget 45 13:58 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Last night, the Albanese Labor government delivered a budget that sets stronger foundations for a better future. Treasurer Jim Chalmers presented to the Australian people a budget that provided cost-of-living relief, delivered historic investment to Medicare and the care economy, broadened opportunities, laid the foundations for growth and strengthened our budget. In addition to that, what we have seen this week is that, instead of supporting the budget, those opposite—the Liberals, the Nationals and, sadly, the Australian Greens—have all decided to justify an unjustifiable opposition to the Albanese government's Housing Australia Future Fund. The absolute hypocrisy of those opposite, especially those on the crossbench—they come into this place and argue that we need to do more for social and affordable housing, but they continue to oppose this $10 billion fund, the single biggest investment by any federal government in social and affordable housing in a decade. It is hardly surprising that the coalition is in this position, but I'm disappointed the Australian Greens, who love to stand in this place to use clips on their social media, are now the ones who are blocking this reform from being passed. You would have thought that they would be supportive of this investment to help thousands of vulnerable Australians. But what we find with the Australian Greens—particularly their spokesperson in the other place, who is opposed to 1,300 new affordable homes and social housing in his own electorate. He's running a campaign with the support of local Greens councillors in Sydney and Brisbane who are opposed to affordable housing. It is shameful that the Australian Greens are blocking this key reform to help thousands of vulnerable Australians to have a roof over their heads. Debate adjourned. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 45 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 45 14:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. With energy bills up $500, even taking into account Labor's limited temporary payments, and the average family $25,000 worse off under this budget, hasn't Labor let Australia down by failing to deliver a budget that gets the cost of living down for all Australians? 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hume for the question and for the opportunity to talk about what a strong, responsible budget we have handed down. In answer to the figures that Senator Hume has read out, I don't trust those figures because I've just worked through this budget and all the dodgy budgeting that went into their years in government—the hidden funding cliffs, the underresourcing, the failing to account. A significant part of the investments we are making in this budget is to deal with funding that just terminated and was never accounted for in their budget. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 Interjections are disorderly. Senator Watt was interjecting from the moment the question was asked. I would ask if you could bring him into order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Henderson. I'm very glad that you noted that interjections are disorderly because there were interjections across the chamber. I remind all senators that interjections are disorderly, as Senator Henderson has reminded everyone. When questions are asked and ministers are on their feet, I expect all senators in this place to respect the silence that's required. Senator GALLAGHER ING This budget takes pressure off families while not adding to pressure on inflation. We have done our job in finely and carefully calibrating this budget so that we don't add to inflation but so we are able to provide sensible cost-of-living relief for those that need support the most, while at the same time making historic investments in bulk-billing in Medicare, tripling the Medicare bulk-billing incentive to make it easier for parents of children, for concession card holders and for pensioners to ensure that when they need to see a doctor they get that consultation bulk-billed. That's what you get under an Labor government: not dodgy budgeting and failing to account but fiscal discipline, investments where they need to be made, cleaning up the mess of nine years of your administration and putting the budget on a more sustainable, more resilient footing so that we can make room for the things that we know Australians depend on and expect from their government. That is the approach we took in this budget. I am very proud of this budget—very proud indeed—because we have had to balance a range of competing pressures to land a document that is right for the current economic challenges and circumstances we face. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a first supplementary question? 14:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Why has the government removed the objective to tackle inflation from the federal budget papers? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Did you get past the glossy, Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 No. Senator GALLAGHER ING Right. It's run throughout all of the budget papers. It was in the Treasurer's speech to the parliament when the budget was introduced last night. It is filtered through every single document. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. I'm asking for order across the chamber once again. Order on my left and my right! Senator GALLAGHER ING The Treasurer and I have been talking about the inflation challenge since we came to government. The largest increase in inflation happened in the March quarter of last year under your administration when you poured $8.6 billion into the economy in six months. That wasn't inflationary then, according to you. We have a very carefully calibrated budget that looks to repair the budget over time, put it on a more sustainable footing, make the investments we need and ensure that we can support those people who are doing it really tough across the country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a second supplementary? 14:05 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria After three quarters of inflation with a seven in front of it, why did the government deliver a budget with $185 billion in increased spending that will add to inflationary pressures and—as Chris Richardson, S&P, Goldman Sachs and UBS have all said—force the RBA to raise interest rates? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, I don't accept the number that Senator Hume has used in her question, for a start. I don't know where it came from and I don't know who on the opposition's benches got the calculator operating to come up with that figure. But I would say that we've taken our advice from the Treasury. You see the inflation forecasts in the budget papers, if you get to that point, in Budget Paper 1. You can see what the Treasury, who advises us, is saying about this budget and its impact on inflation—six per cent in the 2022-23 year, declining to 3.25 per cent next year and declining back into the target range in the year after that. Let's go with what the budget books say, hey? In terms of economists, yes, you will get a range of views from economists. I just sat next to one at a lunch, and they said their view is that the budget is neutral. In fact, that's what a lot of the major banks are saying—that at worst case it's neutral. There will be opinions, but we are very confident with what we are doing. (Time expired) Budget 46 14:06 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister update the Senate on the budget that the Treasurer delivered last night and how it delivers for all Australians? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Payman for that question. I appreciate it. The budget the Treasurer delivered last night does many things. It responds to the immediate challenges and sets Australia up for the future as well as forecasting a surplus and providing relief for the most vulnerable. Helping the vulnerable and delivering a forecasted surplus aren't really experiences familiar to the coalition, are they? They never managed it during their nine whole years in government. They got the mugs printed, but they didn't actually deliver it. We remember all the photos. It was nine years of financial mismanagement, nine years of bad budgeting, gaps in the budget, fiscal cliffs and booby traps that have taken us two budgets to uncover. We've inherited it all, and we've dug the budget out of that hole in order to deliver a forecasted surplus. We've cleaned up the mess left behind. We've managed to deliver for Australians, particularly those who need it the most and those who had been left behind under the former government. The budget builds stronger foundations for a better future by delivering cost-of-living relief that doesn't drive up inflation: a historic $5.7 billion investment to strengthen Medicare and investing in a strong and more secure economy through significant investments in renewable energy, in skills, and in modernising and growing Australia's industrial capabilities and of course broadening opportunity, including advancing women's economic opportunity. We don't see women as an add-on, as something you look at once you've finalised the budget. Women have been front and centre of our decision-making, and we are absolutely determined to ensure that we seize the economic opportunities that come from a country that treats women equally. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a first supplementary? 14:09 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Can the minister outline how the government's responsible economic management allows it to make significant investments in Medicare to benefit all Australians? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I can, Senator Payman. Thank you very much for the question. I think a very key part of this budget is how much, with the upgrades to revenue, we have put back to budget repair: 87 per cent over the last two budgets in revenue upgrades to the budget, compared with about 40 per cent under the previous administration. This shows how serious we are around fiscal repair, ensuring that we avoid borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt and paying the interest on that debt. To do so, we have ensured that we are putting the budget on a more sustainable footing, which allows us to make critical investments in things like Medicare—things that people value; tripling the bulk-billing incentive—putting a range of measures in place to ensure people can have their healthcare needs looked after, including those with chronic disease. In terms of the bulk-billing incentive, 11.6 million Australians will benefit from that measure alone. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a second supplementary? 14:10 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Thank God the adults are back in charge. Can the minister provide further information on how the government is delivering cost-of-living relief through its $14.6 billion in responsible and targeted cost-of-living relief? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The cost-of-living package is a key part of the budget. We've been clear, as we've been dealing with the inflation challenge, accepting that we needed to provide targeted and calibrated cost-of-living relief across the forward estimates, that we have targeted that carefully. The $14.6 billion cost-of-living package over four years allows us to make those investments into energy bill relief for five million households and one million small businesses—which, I will remind people, those opposite voted against in December, when we recalled the parliament; more affordable health care; cheaper medicines; support for those who need it most, including extending parenting payment single for single parents who have children between the ages of eight and 14; $4.9 billion to increase the rate of eligible working-age and student payments, which will benefit 1.1 million Australians; and the largest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years. (Time expired) Budget 47 14:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Is it the government's assessment that Labor's budget makes future interest rate increases more likely or less likely? Is fiscal policy working complementally to monetary policy? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We have been very clear in the lead-up to the budget and in the decisions taken, which are outlined in the budget paper, that we see dealing with the inflation challenge in the economy as a priority. As to decisions the Reserve Bank may make, we don't foreshadow those. We leave that for the independent bank to make those decisions. We never try and get ahead and say what we think it should do, what its decisions will be. It is independent of government for important reasons, and I think that was something the opposition has previously accepted. In terms of the inflation forecast— Senator Birmingham H6X Surely you've done an assessment? Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm trying to answer your question, Senator Birmingham, if you would stop peppering me. You can see the inflation forecasts in the budget. The forecasts are outlined in the budget. You can see, when it comes to energy bill relief—the package you voted against, the caps that you voted against and the relief that you voted against—that it actually has a downward pressure on inflation of three-quarters of a per cent. And the other measures that we are taking, carefully calibrated over four years, do not have a negative impact on inflation. That is the advice the government has and that is represented in the budget papers. It might be an uncomfortable truth for those opposite to actually find a government that wants to do a number of things in the budget, that actually wants to show a bit of compassion, deal with some of the pressures that people are feeling and be responsible about how we manage the budget. I think that is probably a foreign concept to you. I can see how it is challenging you. But we are able, with the approach we have taken to this budget of returning money back to budget—cleaning up the mess, making investments—to make sure that the measures are carefully targeted not to add to inflation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, your constant interjections are disorderly, and I would ask you to stop. Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary? 14:14 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, contrary to your claims, the Financial Review has reported that 'extra spending is not offset by meaningful cuts to neutralise the fiscal pulse'. Economist Chris Richardson said of the budget, 'I had thought that the Reserve Bank was done and dusted but this has notably raised the chance that they will do another swing of the baseball bat.' Given that the minister is unable to say that future interest rate increases are less likely as a result of Labor's budget, aren't you acknowledging that the Albanese government's fiscal policy settings do not put downward pressure on interest rates? 14:15 S ING Australian Capital Territory enator GALLAGHER (—) (): It is amusing to me that Senator Birmingham is able to ask that question with a straight face, to be honest, after the work that I have done having to clean up the mess of the previous administration, including finding $40 billion in savings in two budgets. And what happened in your last budget? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Order on my left! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payne, I just called the chamber to order. Senator GALLAGHER ING Forty billion dollars in savings that we have identified in just two budgets in less than a year, when in the March budget—zero. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 A point of order—the minister is misleading the Senate. Offsets and saves are very different things. Are they saves or are they offsets? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, that is a debating point. Senator GALLAGHER ING Forty billion dollars in savings—zero in the March budget. You poured cash in in a pre-election cash splash, and there were zero savings. Part of the spending that we are doing in this financial year is to keep the lights on at the agencies and services that you were going to flick off. That's $11½ billion that we've had to make room for, find—unexpected, didn't know it was going to happen—in order to keep services going. That's the legacy of your government. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary? 14:16 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I refer the minister to the remarks of BetaShares Chief Economist, who said the spending in this budget is 'unambiguously expansionary and risks one, if not two, additional interest rate increases,' or Goldman Sachs, who say the budget has created a 'hawkish' outlook for monetary policy risking more interest rate rises, or UBS, who say the budget shows an increasing risk of further rate hikes. Are all of these experts wrong about the Albanese government's budget when they say it will put more pressure on the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates higher for longer? 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank you very much. As I've said in previous answers, the decisions we took in this budget were to ensure that for the spending where we had to spend and where we needed to spend, including in targeted, calibrated cost-of-living relief for vulnerable households in this country, we did it in a way that didn't add to inflation. That is the advice from Treasury. That is what you will see if you make it past the glossy in the budget papers, and I suggest you read it. No doubt we will go through this in estimates. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, I have had a number of discussions. I presume you selectively quote, Senator Birmingham, with due respect. I have had a number of conversations, and, indeed, there are a number of opinions across the economic field, across economists. What a surprise that is! In the ones that I've just had this morning, their view is, in the worst scenario: neutral. That is the assessment of some. You choose to selectively quote others. So be it. We're in a contest here. I understand that. (Time expired) Budget 49 14:18 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, last night's budget left people in poverty. People who are struggling to survive on Centrelink poverty payments have criticised the budget for leaving them in dire straits, and they've been backed in by organisations like ACOSS, the Antipoverty Centre, the Tomorrow Movement and the National Union of Students. The Business Council of Australia said this morning that we have to lift JobSeeker to 90 per cent of the age pension over time. Your handpicked Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee recommended an increase in JobSeeker and other payments of more than six times than what the government delivered last night. When will you listen to this advice and raise the rate of JobSeeker and other income support payments to above the poverty line? 14:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Rice for the question. It's an important question, but I would also say: welcome to the Senate. We have questions here saying we're 'doing too much' and we're 'fuelling inflation', and we have questions here which are saying we're 'not doing enough' and we 'should triple or, indeed, progress it more than that'. I think that makes the point the Treasurer and I have been trying to make for some time, which is that this budget is balancing up a range of decisions based on the economic circumstances of the time. We have high inflation. Our spending has to be calibrated, it has to be careful and it has to be targeted. So when you look at the work that we've done in just this budget—or even if you attach it to the October budget to look at what we've been doing—you'll see that we are making gradual progress towards addressing some of the needs that have been left to us by the failure of those opposite to deliver and towards doing some of the work that we know needs to be done because we're Labor people. You'll see that in this budget. You'll see it in the childcare investments. You'll see it in the cheaper medicines. You'll see it in Medicare. You'll see it in the investment in skills. You'll see it on the growth side of the budget and you'll see it on the compassion side of the budget in relation to social security and payments. There is a significant uptick for single parenting payment. There is an increase to the base rate of JobSeeker. There is the most significant increase to Commonwealth rent assistance ever seen. All of this is working together to make sure that, for those who need an extra helping hand, we are giving them an extra helping hand. These have been difficult decisions to land. Some say it's too much. Others say it's not enough. But I think you can see the genuineness with the approach that the Albanese government has taken when we said we would assess payments and do what we can to adjust them. In every budget we've been doing that work. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rice, first supplementary? 14:21 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, as for your compassion, last night's budget gave people living below the poverty line an increase of just $2.85 a day, which won't even cover the cost of a loaf of bread, but it gave billionaires and politicians almost 10 times as much, with the stage 3 tax cuts giving every one of us here $25 a day, or $9,000 a year. Why do we politicians need $9,000 a year in tax cuts while jobseekers are left on poverty payments? 14:22 Senator G ING Australian Capital Territory ALLAGHER (—) (): I would again say to Senator Rice that the cost-of-living package is targeted and was carefully calibrated so as to be affordable and sustainable going forward and not to add to inflation. It should also be seen in the context of a range of other measures—the energy bill relief, for example, and the efforts that we're putting in for cheaper medicines, urgent care centres and bulk-billing rates so that people on payments can actually access bulk-billed health care. We know that that's a problem. So I don't think you should see one payment in isolation from all of the other work that's being done in this budget. On top of that, we've found $4 billion for the community sector indexation, providing services to people, many of whom are on payments—$4 billion. Do you think that mob would have ever done that? These are the difficult decisions we've taken. It's carefully calibrated, and it's the right thing to do. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rice, second supplementary? 14:23 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Last night's budget sets out a $4 billion surplus. You can't eat a surplus. Why have a surplus when you've still got too many Australians living in tents and cars, trying to survive on one meal a day and not able to afford critical medications? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Being in government means you have to do a range of things. One of them is repairing the budget. We have to repair the budget so that we can ensure that, as needs grow—and we know they are growing—and as pressures on the budget increase, we have room to meet those pressures, be it in climate policy, social services, investments in women or investments in housing. All of those pressures are going to have to be met, so we have to get the budget on a better footing. We have also avoided borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for our services, avoiding interest payments on that debt, which again makes a difference in finding and creating room for those people that we want to invest in and for those programs we want to invest in. In the next financial year, when the payments come in, there is a deficit. The budget is in deficit in four of the forward estimates years. So budget repair remains a challenge. Finding room to do good things for good people is also a priority. (Time expired) Budget 50 14:24 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Farrell. Minister, we know that Labor created the welfare system and has been a champion of strengthening Australia's social security safety net. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government is continuing to strengthen the safety net through measures in the budget to support Australians doing it tough? 14:25 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Smith for her question and the great job she's doing for the people of South Australia. And I can answer her question. This government—but particularly terrific Minister Rishworth—understands that many Australians are doing it tough. We know that households are feeling the pinch as a result of cost-of-living pressures. That's why we sent through this budget to address these pressures, providing responsible, targeted relief as the No. 1 priority in our budget. As the Treasurer announced last night, our $14.6 cost-of-living plan includes help with bills, record investment in Medicare bulk-billing and cheaper medicines. We're also increasing working age, student payment rates and Commonwealth rent assistance. These increases are responsible and targeted to help vulnerable people and strengthen the social safety net. Rates of JobSeeker, youth allowance, partnered parenting payments, Austudy, Abstudy, the youth disability support pension and special benefits will rise by $40 a fortnight. This will benefit around 1.1 million Australians. We're also expanding eligibility for the existing higher rate of JobSeeker to single recipients aged 55 and over who have been on income support for nine or more continuous months, which currently applies from age 60. We will provide additional support for renters, with the largest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years—yes, 30 years. The budget will increase the maximum rates of this payment by 15 per cent. Combined, these changes provide additional support to around two million people. They provide responsible, balanced support to those who need it most. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a first supplementary? 14:27 Senator MA 281603 South Australia RIELLE SMITH () (): Thank you, Minister, and please feel free to call me Marielle. Minister, we know that single parents in our community are doing it really tough. They're doing one of the most challenging but rewarding jobs all on their own, raising their children. How is the Albanese Labor government showing our support for single parents and older Australians by strengthening Australia's social security safety net? 14:27 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I can answer that question because single parents are the family type most likely to experience financial hardship. It can be tough for these parents, who are overwhelmingly women, to balance caring responsibilities and full-time work, study or looking for work. This doesn't end when the child turns eight. With the government's changes announced in the budget, which expand eligibility for single parenting payments to parents with the youngest child under 14, more than 57,000 single parents will be better off by at least $176.90 per fortnight. Similarly, we know that older Australians face barriers when looking for work. Our changes expand access to existing higher rates of JobSeeker for those on payments for nine months or more or those over 55. This acknowledges their circumstances and provides greater financial support while they look for work. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a second supplementary? 14:29 Senator MAR 281603 South Australia IELLE SMITH () (): Minister, how will young people benefit through the strengthening of Australia's social security safety net? 14:29 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I know this is a group of people you have a very deep interest in. Our government understands the unique challenge that young Australians are facing, and we want to ensure that young people are set up to succeed. Students and young people will benefit from Labor's changes to payment rates, with 318,000 young people on income support, including those on youth allowance, receiving an additional $40 per fortnight. Many students and young people will also benefit from the government's increases to Commonwealth rent assistance. For those who already receive the maximum amount, their payment will increase by 15 per cent. This is the vast majority of students and young people who receive rent assistance. For example, a 20-year-old student on youth allowance who rents with flatmates and receives the maximum rate can receive more than an additional $55 per fortnight. Domestic and Family Violence 51 14:30 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Farrell. Does the Albanese Labor government acknowledge the fact that many Australian men are victims of domestic and family violence? 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:30 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland What actual physical, financial or legal support is the Albanese Labor government providing to men who are victims of domestic and family violence? 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia (—) (): I thank Senator Hanson for her question. The government takes the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously. As part of all the things that this government is doing in the social security space, we are ensuring that the issue of domestic violence is front of mind, which ensures that, as a government, we seek to address this issue. We don't seek to sweep the issue under the carpet. We acknowledge the seriousness of the issue. In every way that we can, through a range of projects, we seek to try and deal with the issue. It's a serious social issue. It's an issue that affects so many people. (Time expired) The 10000 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:32 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland You didn't answer the question; maybe you could answer this one. Statistics show that, while a woman dies every six days due to domestic homicide in Australia, a man dies every eight days due to domestic homicide, with the main perpetrators being women. This week's budget includes an additional $326.7 million for women's safety but none for men. Why is the Albanese Labor government not providing support and funding to adult male victims of domestic and family violence, when men make up 25 per cent of all domestic violence victims? 14:32 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia (—) (): I thank Senator Hanson. I thought I answered your first question very, very directly. I don't know if I could have answered it any more directly than I did. The reality of the circumstances, unfortunately, is that women and children are far more likely to be victims of domestic violence. Even the figures that you've just read out to me demonstrate that fact. We don't support domestic violence, whether it's against a man or a woman or a child. We seek to address that serious social and community issue by injecting funds into those communities to try and resolve and reduce the level of domestic— (Time expired) Mining Industry 51 14:33 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, what is the contribution made by Australia's resources sector, including coal and gas, to the budget bottom line? How much revenue does it contribute? 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't have the exact figures at my fingertips, but it is a significant contributor, through company tax and through other taxation arrangements; I don't think anyone is pretending otherwise. In terms of the revenue upgrades that we've seen, and the very welcome revenue upgrades that we've seen to the budget, of which 87 per cent across the last two budgets has been returned for budget repair—of that, about 20 per cent is related to the strong prices that we're getting for commodities. I would say that the other parts, where there is significant contribution to the upward revision in revenue, are because of the strong labour market, the low unemployment rate and the fact that more people are in jobs, which is fantastic, and because we're seeing for the first time in a decade the beginnings of some solid wages growth. We've overturned a policy that the former government had of wage stagnation—determined and deliberate wage stagnation—and we are seeing for the first time good, sustainable wages growth, which is good for working people in this country. We expect— Senator Hume 266499 Are you seeing real wages growth? Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, we will see real wages growth, as foreshadowed in the budget paper, and that is contributing to the revenue upgrades. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, on my left! You have one of your senators on their feet. Senator McDonald. Senator McDonald 123072 On relevance: perhaps the minister could take my question on notice if she doesn't have the answer. Senator Scarr 282997 You said you didn't have it. Senator GALLAGHER ING I said that I didn't have a number for you, but I'm more than happy to find the exact number of how we break down the receipts from company tax, which is essentially what you're asking me to do—to break it down into a subset of a particular industry. I'm happy to do that and come back to the chamber. The point I am making, though, is that, whilst that is a contributor to the revenue improvements that we're seeing in the budget—and we welcome that—there are other factors at play here. One is the fact that we are strongly handling the economy and that we've got low unemployment and strong wages growth, which is also relevant to the budget bottom line. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Are you on your feet, Senator McDonald, for a first supplementary? 14:36 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Yes. Minister, to what extent is the government relying on the continued success of Australia's resource sector, including coal and gas, to fund the additional spending in the budget? How much revenue do you assess is being generated by iron ore, coal, gas and other parts of the mining sector? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It certainly makes a significant contribution to receipts, but I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise. It was the same under the former government as it is under us. We've outlined some proposed changes around PRRT going forward, but we haven't changed any of the revenue arrangements that operated under the former government in relation to taxation of those companies that you talked about. I hope that, with PRRT, we would have your support for those changes when they come through this— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald. Senator McDonald 123072 Again, on relevance: if you don't have the answer here in the chamber, could I ask that you bring the specifics back, please, Senator Gallagher? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, the minister is being relevant. Senator GALLAGHER ING I hope that, when we bring the sensible and modest changes to PRRT that we've worked on together with the relevant companies, we have the support of the opposition in making sure that those changes get through. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator McDonald. Senator McDonald 123072 On relevance: could the minister bring her answer back to the specifics of my question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, you were on your feet a few minutes beforehand, and I said that I believed the minister was being relevant to the question. I believe the minister is still being relevant, and I'll listen carefully to the remainder of her answer. Senator GALLAGHER ING The senator asked what contribution those companies make. I said it was significant. I've answered the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, a second supplementary? 14:38 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Minister, will you thank coal and gas communities in regional Australia, whose success is providing over a million direct and indirect jobs and billions in taxes and royalties and propping up Australia's economy? Will your government commit to supporting these industries rather than penalising them? 14:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm not trying to be negative, but we don't usually go around thanking people for abiding by the law. The budget relies on a whole range of revenue measures. Across the board, I'm very happy to thank every part of the economy that contributes to generating revenue that allows us to provide the services that we need for the Australian people. I'm very happy to do that. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order! Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING I think I've answered the question. I am deeply thankful, as the finance minister, for all the revenue that comes to the budget, I can tell you. If we didn't have that revenue then we would be in a very difficult position about ensuring we were funding— The 10000 Senator McDonald, a point of order? Senator McDonald 123072 On relevance—I'm wondering if you can say 'coal' and 'gas'. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I am addressing a point of order. The minister is being relevant, Senator McDonald. Senator GALLAGHER ING I've completed my answer. I know the game Senator McDonald is trying to play in being divisive, because it's a common tactic. I've already acknowledged the significant contribution that those industries play in generating revenue for the budget. I have done that, Senator McDonald. I hope it makes you happy. Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 53 14:41 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. We are in a black deaths in custody crisis in this country. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody's recommendations clearly outline the importance of Aboriginal legal services and the need for adequate funding for those, as per recommendations 226(g) and 234. Instead, First Nations legal services are breaking under the demand they face, and some have had to shut down to cut their services due to underfunding. My question is: why aren't you funding Aboriginal legal services? 14:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for this important question. The short answer, Senator Thorpe, is that we are funding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. That's because we recognise the importance of funding those legal services as Aboriginal community controlled providers of culturally appropriate legal assistance services. As I think you are aware, the Attorney-General himself has very extensive experience, including in his pre-parliament career in working with those legal services, so I know that he is a strong believer in them. On the funding that we're providing, we are of course continuing funding that already existed under the National Legal Assistance Partnership, which lasts until 2025. Over the life of the agreement, that partnership provides over $440 million over five years in baseline funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. Additionally, those legal services also receive over $11 million over five years in quarantined funding for the Justice Policy Partnership and expensive complex cases and coronial inquiries funding. There's additional funding that we're continuing outside of the partnership, particularly through the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which is providing over $48 million to legal services over a five year period. In fact our last budget, in October, provided $13.5 million over three years from 2022-23 in additional funding to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services to provide culturally appropriate legal assistance for coronial processes and $1 million over three years from 2022-23 to build capacity and support leadership of the peak body for those legal services. We recognise that there remain serious issues here, and it has been concerning to hear about service delivery freezes and closures across some of these legal services. Perhaps I can provide a bit more information about what we're doing on that front following your next question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, a supplementary question? 14:44 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Thank you for your response, Minister. The government claims to be closing the gap, but incarceration rates are going up. Without legal support it is certain many more of our people will be locked up. Why does your government want to lock up more of our people, which will inevitably lead to more deaths in custody? 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Thorpe. I think that is an unfair suggestion to make of the government—a government that is deeply committed to reducing Indigenous incarceration and deeply committed to closing the gap, including making sure that we have a Voice to Parliament to allow and provide First Nations people with an opportunity to provide their views to this parliament about these matters. As I've said, the Attorney-General has been meeting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services for some time, and in those meetings he's heard directly about the positive impact that those legal services can have on Aboriginal people's lives, their families and their communities. As I say, we have been concerned to hear about service delivery freezes and closures across these services, and we understand that funding for the services must match the high demand for services both legal and non-legal. That's why we've commenced an independent review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership, which provides the bulk of these legal services' funding. That will start shortly and be completed by the end of the year. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria The budget contains some funding for family violence prevention services for First Nations survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence. How much of this funding will actually go to Aboriginal legal services? I did give you the heads-up on this one. 14:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Thorpe. I wasn't going to reveal that you'd given us the heads-up, but thank you for doing so. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with a decent answer, and I invite the opposition to give us a heads-up about any questions so that we can provide you with full and frank advice as well. These are serious issues, obviously. As I was saying on the legal services matter, a review of the funding arrangements will start shortly and be completed by the end of the year. That will include an assessment of unmet legal need and demand among disadvantaged groups across regional, rural and remote Australia, and I have no doubt that it will look at some of the issues that you've been raising, including in relation to family and domestic violence. The review will also specifically look at options for alternative funding arrangements for these legal services. The Attorney-General's Department is working closely with states and territories to support the continued provision of frontline services to First Nations people, and I know that the Attorney-General is personally committed to this. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 The question was: how much of the family violence money that was announced last night goes to Aboriginal legal services? So how much of that is going to Aboriginal legal services? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Thorpe. I'll direct the minister to that part of your question. Senator WATT 245759 I'm happy to come back on notice with the specific answer to that question, but the family violence prevention legal services in the Northern Territory also have an important role, and we want to make sure that they're adequately funded. (Time expired) Budget 54 14:47 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I'm really excited to be asking my question today, and I'm excited because I'm the first senator to ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry a question on Australia's agriculture industry. Minister, I've learnt that Australia has never had sustainable and predictable biosecurity funding, and last night's budget marked a historic moment for Australia's agriculture industry, with the Albanese government delivering— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Ciccone, please resume your seat. Order on my left! I can barely hear the question. Senator Ciccone, please continue. Senator CICCONE 281503 That's alright, President. Thank you. The excitement! I can't hold myself! But, as I was saying, last night the Albanese-Labor government marked a historic moment: the first time that the government is investing in our agriculture industry, delivering sustainable funding for biosecurity. So, Minister, could you please explain to the Senate how the budget delivers on the government's election commitment to provide sustainable long-term funding to biosecurity to protect our $90 billion agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries? 14:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, Senator Ciccone, the only thing that I think tops the level of excitement you have in asking that question is my excitement in answering the question. It is good to get a question from a senator about agriculture. It would appear the National Party have completely vacated the field. This morning a new era dawned for Australian agriculture. For the first time ever, Australia has a sustainable biosecurity funding model. This will be a lasting Labor legacy of the Albanese government in the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio, something that not one, not two and not three—all recycled—agriculture ministers from the National Party were ever able to achieve. The Albanese government is locking in higher, ongoing and more predictable biosecurity funding from year to year. We have drawn a line under years of stopgap temporary funding from coalition governments that put our agriculture industry at risk. This decision of the Albanese government in last night's budget will result in more than $1 billion of additional funding for biosecurity, including $845 million to support biosecurity operations across the country, protecting our valuable agricultural industries. Isn't it good that at last we've got a Labor government standing up for our agriculture sector and biosecurity, rather than the mess we inherited from the other side? Now, how will we pay for this? This is a good question. Importers will contribute about 48 per cent of the total cost through their clearance costs, with increased fees and charges expected to take their total contribution to biosecurity costs to almost $390 million from next year. This includes expanded cost recovery to include the biosecurity clearance costs of parcels and non-letter mail. We know the other side didn't want to pass on the costs of these services to industry, and that's why they were on the verge of bankrupting the Department of Agriculture, until we took charge. Taxpayers will contribute about 44 per cent of the total funding, about $350 million, and we'll also introduce a modest new biosecurity protection levy on agriculture producers, which will see them contribute six per cent— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a first supplementary? 14:50 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Minister, thank you very much for that answer. As we know, sadly this government has had to fund the department. Otherwise, it would have been defunded. But could you please explain to the Senate why it is important that all beneficiaries of a strong biosecurity system need to contribute to funding the certainty for that system in order to make sure that our farmers have certainty in the long term? 14:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Ciccone. I'd be delighted to do so. As I say, biosecurity is a shared responsibility. What that means, under our new funding system, is that importers will contribute about 48 per cent of the total cost of biosecurity and taxpayers will contribute about 44 per cent, with producers being asked to pay a modest six per cent of the cost of biosecurity protections that will stop them from adding devastating diseases that will destroy their crops and destroy their livelihoods. As we know, we are not the only people who think biosecurity is a shared responsibility. I note that this view attracted support in the consultation process that we undertook last year. The Cattle Council of Australia, as it was known at the time, said that biosecurity is a shared responsibility and that, for our biosecurity measures to be most effective, all parties must contribute. The National Farmers' Federation said that biosecurity is a shared responsibility and that, as such, all biosecurity beneficiaries, including the community, the economy at large, the agricultural sector and the environment, should invest in biosecurity activities. We will finally have sustainable biosecurity funding. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary? 14:52 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria It is great. Thank you, Senator Sterle. The Australian community and farmers benefit so much from our favourable biosecurity status. Minister, what are the benefits for our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries of a sustainable funding model? 14:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Ciccone. Well, our landmark sustainable funding model for biosecurity will provide certainty and security for the Australian agricultural industry. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 It is a landmark, and it is historic, because it never happened once under the 10 years of coalition government. But you don't have to take my word for it. Today I see that the Australian Fresh Produce Alliance have said that the additional funding is welcome and will strengthen Australia's biosecurity to help ensure that our nation is better protected. In contrast, the Liberal and National parties had nine long years but did nothing to secure permanent, sustainable, long-term funding for biosecurity. But their incompetence on these matters went beyond that. A conga line of incompetent and economically illiterate National Party agricultural ministers left us with funding cliffs in vital frontline areas that would have seen biosecurity funding fall by nearly 20 per cent this year if we hadn't acted. They failed to maintain the integrity of cost recovery. They said they'd introduce a container levy. They backed down under pressure, and then they went out to set up the department to explain it. And let's not forget about the Ruby Princess and all the other biosecurity disasters under that lot. (Time expired) Budget 56 14:53 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, middle-class families with surging mortgage payments, surging grocery bills and surging energy costs have little to celebrate in last night's budget. Labor's budget confirms that cost-of-living continues to go up, gas and electricity bills continue to skyrocket, real wages have not grown, inflation remains stubbornly high, unemployment will rise, and Australians will pay higher taxes. Given that under Labor's budget a family with kids will be around $25,000 worse off, why is Labor making life harder for middle-class Australians? 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Cash for the question, and I completely reject the numbers she has outlined. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle and Senator Cash, interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING I think the opposition have had to dust off the dodgy calculator that they used to put budgets together in the past, to come up with this set of numbers that they keep shouting across the chamber. This budget is a very strong budget for all Australians. We don't seek to divide as they do. We don't seek to carve up the country into a series of demographics and different age groups and different income groups. We make decisions on what is right for the country based on the economic circumstances of the time. That is why the cost-of-living package is targeted. But here are some things in the budget that they did not take into account. We have the fastest wage growth since 2009. Real wages are growing, with a historic lift in wages for aged-care workers. How about that? What about the low unemployment? More people are earning more in more jobs. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Wong! Again, the interjections and the disorder on particularly my left but also on my right are disorderly. The minister is entitled to have her answers heard in silence. I would ask that interjections cease. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING We're building more homes—what about that? What about build to rent? What about the programs that we are doing there? For the first time in a decade the Commonwealth is engaged on housing policy—shock, horror! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. I just called the chamber to order and the minute the minister got to her feet again the disorder continued. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Ruston! Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The work that we did put in place caps on energy prices that they voted against. Look at what it says in the budget paper—a 25 per cent reduction in what people will spend on their energy bills. They voted against it. What about the jobs to be generated in the energy transition to a net zero economy and the investments we are making to drive those opportunities? What about them? They voted no to those as well. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! There are many opportunities across this week for senators to have a say on the budget or any other matter. Question time is not one of them unless you are one of the people that is asking a question. Senator GALLAGHER ING Our investment in child care will start on 1 July. Again, we're helping households across Australia. There are a number of measures in this budget that are targeted to help people— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a first supplementary question? 14:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia On the Today show this morning, Corey from Perth, a mortgage holder with a family, had this message for the Prime Minister regarding last night's budget: 'The government's not listening. They're not caring. They don't. And this budget proves that they don't care if you work. They say, "We're just going to slog you harder," and that's the way they want it.' Given that under Labor's budget a family with kids will be around $25,000 worse off, why is Labor making it harder for Australians like Corey? 14:58 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I haven't had the opportunity to speak with Corey, and I didn't hear what he said on the Today show. But I am happy to go through it, as I did in my previous answer. Our investment in child care will help people on middle incomes. In fact, I think we are being criticised for the fact that it is going to people on what they see as too-high incomes. Our investments in TAFE and our investments in the net zero economy are driving jobs and putting the budget on a more sustainable footing, borrowing less and paying less— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING There are the extensions to Paid Parental Leave. I could go on. There's the energy efficiency fund that's going to be established under Jenny McAllister's leadership. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU It's a robust contest, but this answer has not yet had any period without interjections—not one. I've left it a long time. I would ask you to call them to order. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU And again! The 10000 Order! Senator Ruston! Senator Wong 00AOU 'Sorry, mum'—this is how you're going to treat women? Really? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Ruston, I am going to ask you to withdraw. Senator Ruston 243273 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. The chamber has been disorderly. I appreciate that people have questions to ask, but, when a question is asked, we are all entitled to hear the answer. I'm asking for order in this chamber and for all senators to be respectful of one another. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, President. On wages growth, on jobs growth and on the budget repair strategy that we put in place to ensure that we're borrowing less money and paying less interest on that debt—it's all part of the approach that we've taken in this budget. That benefits all Australians. The tripling of the bulk-billing rate benefits all Australians, making sure the investments in Medicare work for everybody— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a second supplementary? 15:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia On Sydney radio this morning, another working Australian had this message regarding Labor's budget: 'Once again, the workers who carry this country get screwed over. My wages have been going in one direction—backwards. Jim Chalmers has no clue of the day-to-day reality. We're under the pump, we work, we pay full taxes and we get nothing.' Again— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Just a moment, Senator Birmingham, I will come back to you, but I want to deal with other things first. Senator McKenzie, you were out of order. Senator Birmingham H6X I raise a point of order in relation to interjections. You just had Senator Wong, during the previous answer, provide commentary of concern about continuous interjections. We've seen nothing but continuous interjections coming directly from Senator Wong during the bulk of the 23 seconds that Senator Cash has been attempting to ask this question. The PRESIDENT 112096 I am more than willing to pull up individual senators for the behaviour. You would have heard that I did call Senator Wong to order before you stood, and I appreciate your point of order, but I would reiterate that there have been many interjections today, many points of disorder, from a range of senators. I take the point on Senator Wong. I called Senator Wong to order. I would expect, when Senator Cash finishes her question, that all senators in this place will listen to the answer in respectful silence. Senator Cash, I'm going to ask you to start your question again, and I don't want to hear any interjections. Senator CASH I0M On Sydney radio this morning, another working Australian had this message regarding Labor's budget: 'Once again, the workers who carry this country get screwed over. My wages have been going in one direction—backwards. Jim Chalmers has no clue of the day-to-day reality. We're under the pump, we work, we pay full taxes and we get nothing.' Again, why is Labor making life harder for middle-class Australians? 15:04 Senator ING Australian Capital Territory GALLAGHER (—) (): I don't accept that question at all. I don't accept it, and I think if people see the budget in its entirety— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator GALLAGHER ING Why won't you let Goldilocks answer! The PRESIDENT 112096 I have just asked the Senate to listen in respectful silence. Senator Cash was able to ask her question in respectful silence. I'm now asking all of you in here to listen to the answer, whether you agree with it or not, in respectful silence. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Cash's question included a reference to the young man's wages and how he had been feeling the pinch on wages. We agree. That's why we put the industrial relations changes through this parliament, with the more jobs, better pay bill. You opposed it. You opposed improvements to the industrial relations system that would allow workers to have a better crack at wage opportunities through the bargaining system. You've opposed our position on arguing for wages growth on the minimum wage, through our minimum wage cases. You didn't make the commitment to fund the aged-care workers wage claim—15 per cent in this budget found room for it on top of all the other things we had to do. We're absolutely determined to get wages moving, and this budget shows that we will have real wages growth, faster than had previously been expected. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 58 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Taxation 58 15:06 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia In question time on 28 March 2023, I took questions asked of me from Senator Dean Smith on notice—in my capacity, on that day, as Minister representing the Prime Minister—relating to further information regarding the breakdown of expenditure on franking credits. I've now written to Senator Smith to provide additional information, and I table my letter to Senator Smith for the information of all senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 58 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 58 15:06 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of all questions asked by coalition senators of government ministers today. What we saw last night was a typical big spending, big taxing Labor budget. That's what we saw last night—big spending and big taxing. It's expansionary in terms of the spending measures which were undertaken; it's also stimulatory. There is an incoherence at the heart of the budget strategy that was put up by the federal government last night. On the one hand, they acknowledge that inflation is an issue and that there's a cost-of-living crisis in this country. We've got the RBA lifting interest rates on numerous occasions, impacting average families across the whole of Australia. But, on the other hand, they delivered a budget last night where the fiscal strategy is not in keeping with, not complementary to and not consistent with the monetary strategy being adopted by the Reserve Bank of Australia. That goes to the heart of the issue that the Australian economy is facing at the moment. It's not just me saying this. Many of Australia's leading economists are pointing this fact out and are saying that last night's budget will provide a basis for the Reserve Bank of Australia to increase interest rates yet again. There will be a direct line between future interest rate increases and the budget that was delivered by the government last night. It's not just me saying that. Let me quote from some of Australia's leading economists. Chris Richardson, who is probably one of the most well-known economists to the Australian public, said: 'I had thought that the Reserve Bank was done and dusted, but this has notably'—'this' being the budget—'raised the chance that they will do another swing of the baseball bat.' That's from Chris Richardson, one of Australia's leading economists, who says that the budget last night will increase the chance of the Reserve Bank of Australia taking another swing of the baseball bat, which means higher interest rates and higher mortgage payments. That goes to the heart of Senator Cash's question, in which she said that, if you compare the prosperity of an average Australian family before the last federal election with their prosperity today, that average Australian family—mum, dad and two kids—is now worse off by $25,000 a year. Why? Because of the mortgage rate increases, inflation increases—seven per cent inflation—and increases in electricity and power bills. Let me quote from Standard & Poor's Global Ratings—again, this isn't a politician saying this, these are actual participants in the market who are making decisions every day with respect to interest rates. This is what S&P Global Ratings said in their press release in relation to the budget: Further, we expect inflation to be stubbornly higher than the Reserve Bank of Australia's target until fiscal 2026. They also said: … handouts in today's budget may add to inflationary pressures. That's Standard & Poor's drawing a direct link between last night's budget and future interest rate increases and inflation. Andrew Boak, Goldman Sachs' chief economist—again, this is someone who engages in the markets as their profession. That's their expertise. They live and die by how well they engage with the market in relation to issues like this. What does he say? … we assess the budget's near-term boost to household incomes to have an incrementally hawkish read-through for monetary policy That means interest rates are going up. That's what that means. He also says: … more tightening being required— that means interest rates going up— and potentially as soon as next month's board meeting. So, just when Australian households who have gone out and borrowed money to buy that key asset in their family's prosperity, the centrepiece of a family's prosperity, their family home, interest rates are going up again. That's what we are going to see as a result of last night's budget. David Bassanese, who is Chief Economist for Betashares, described the budget as 'unambiguously expansionary'. He was quoted in The Australian today saying the budget consisted of 'smoke and mirrors'. That's how the Chief Economist of Betashares described the budget. Robert Gottliebsen said: 'There's a risk that a shocked Reserve Bank will not cut interest rates and may even be forced to raise them. The blame will sit squarely on the government.' 15:12 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I want to make my contribution today, but for all those Australians sitting out there listening, really, you have to be in here to understand some of the absurdity and some of the craziness that goes on. It's alive and well on that side. I will say this, Mr Deputy President McLachlan, through you: there are some very smart cookies on that side. I counted three of them today, and you're one of them. Seriously, you know your stuff. I can tell you how you tell the smart ones—they're the ones that aren't interjecting. They're the ones that aren't saying anything. They're the ones that know, in all the nine years we have just gone through, about the irresponsible fiscal attitude that was taken, particularly in the last term, by Mr Frydenberg and Mr Morrison. We know for a fact that, even in the infrastructure area, there were billions and billions of dollars announced for infrastructure, knowing darn well that they didn't have the money to pay for it, knowing darn well that we didn't have the contractors to do it, knowing darn well there weren't the tradies to carry out that work. It's quite embarrassing, because I can say this with my hand on my heart, as some of the smarter ones over that side—I identified three—well, one, and the other two we'll keep a secret. One's walking out now so that leaves one more. I have to say this: it's basic, fundamental, fiscal management. You can't spend what you don't have. You can go out and borrow money. We were all brought up in this nation by our parents to start saving, go to work, put your boots on, get out of bed, get a car, pay your board, pay off your car, put some money aside to try to get a mortgage. That's how we learned to deal with debt. We were taught by our parents—debt is something that we'd rather not have, but responsible debt or good debt, if it puts a roof over your head or buys you a car, is nothing to fear. When you get the situation with the incompetence of the Morrison government and Frydenberg in particular, and have that lot screaming that we're not spending enough, or we're spending too much—they can't quite get their story right—this is the embarrassing bit. It depends on who you speak to. When you go to the corner, down the bottom of the garden path here to the concrete gnomes, it gets even crazier. You see, I can deal with money. I understand. When Fiona and I started our own little trucking business, we understood that every single cent—am I keeping you awake, Senator Bragg? I can just about call you number three. When we had to spend the money, it was our money. And if we didn't have the money, we had to make the decision: do we go to the bank to get a loan to buy a new truck, or do we go to the bank to get a loan to repair the diff or the engine that just blew up? Then we had to work out what we did have in the bank, and we had to pay it off. It just amazes me—I can't even comprehend the preselection processes from the other side of the chamber. I really can't. I really don't get it, because some of you have never been in the real world. Some of you are very good at telling people how to spend other people's money. When I sit and listen to the interjections coming from that side, I really do scratch my head. I'm all for interjections when they're witty and intelligent, but some of the stupidity that comes out of that side—how some of them can even open their mouths to start screaming abuse at us for trying to manage the mess that they left us. They left a trillion dollars of debt—and let's not forget the 'back in black' mugs. They've still got a few of them hidden in their offices. Hats off to the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, and the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, for delivering a $4 billion surplus in our second budget in seven months, but, quite clearly, we're being responsible. Of course we'd like to hand out more money, but we've got to pay off the debt. I do have to apologise to some of the poor people that may have been in the gallery listening to the carry-on today. Seriously, it does really make you wonder. I know there's tension within the LNP. I know that, as the other half of the 'no-alition' and the Nats, you, the LNP, really are battling with your mates. I know. I'm not deaf—these ears aren't painted on. I hear the conversations. I know you still blame them from bringing down your government. Whatever the deal that was done with Mr Joyce and Mr Morrison—God only knows; I'd love to know—look at the result it has left you. I know you're divided. I know that you can't stand the sight of each other sometimes. I know in my heart of hearts that there are a number over there who understand business, who understand fiscal responsibility and actually understand that, if you're going to start spending money, you've got to have it in the bank. 15:17 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland This country was built by the battlers and it belongs to the battlers, and last night there was nothing in the budget for the battlers. The working class Australians didn't get an income tax cut. The one thing that the coalition did when it was in government was to always give a low to middle income tax offset to the lower working-class people of Australia. It cost the budget $11 billion a year. We could have gone back to surplus earlier, but we did the right thing by the battlers. We didn't get caught up on honouring the gods of the foreign banks—'Oh, we've got to pay back their debt.' No, no, no, that's not the way the way the world works. The way the world works is that we keep the battlers' heads above the water. We don't want them drowning. The Albanese government are out of control on immigration. Last year's budget forecast that 235,000 people would come into this country in this financial year. We've got 400,000 people coming in. What's that doing? We've got a housing crisis and a rental crisis in this country, and it's kicking Aussie battlers out on the street. They are living in the backs of cars. They're living in the old panel vans. Who can forget the old 1970s saying, 'Don't come a-knocking if this van's a-rocking'? That spirit doesn't live on anymore. Well, it kind of does, but the van's not rocking that much, because they're just freezing out there. Imagine living in a panel van in Canberra in this cold weather. That is not easy. Sorry, Senator Sterle. I know you've got your head down there. I know you're zipped up there. It's all good. I can tell you that we should never turn our backs on the battlers; we know that. What else are we doing? We've got an energy policy from the other side. They're basically importing foreign renewables at the expense of our coalminers and gas workers in Australia. The reason these guys are backing the budget, apart from massive immigration, is that we've had windfall profits from coal and gas companies that are luckily keeping our heads above water. And what do these guys want to do? They want to destroy those industries. Senator O'Neill is from near the Hunter Valley, and what is she doing? Senator O'Neill 140651 The Central Coast! Senator RENNICK 283596 Well, it's close enough. Senator RENNICK 283596 I do know. I used to go mountain-biking up at Ourimbah and Awaba. I know those areas like the back of my hand because I used to ride the tracks. I used to race up there. Let me tell you that the Labor Party has turned its back on the coal miners, the blue-collar workers in this country. I haven't. I'm an openly avowed protectionist. I'm here to protect this country. I'm here to protect the workers and our families. I can tell you, when mum and dad come home from work tonight, there is nothing in the jar for them—nothing. And what about the cost of living? What about rent? What are we going to do? How on earth are you going to find housing for all these immigrants you've got coming in? If they're moving out to the regions, I can live with that. If they're building dams and adding more water, irrigation and food to the supply side of the economy, that's all good. But if they're just going to university, these universities are collecting lots of revenue, as per section 50-50 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, and they don't have to pay any tax on that. Why don't these universities have to pay taxes on foreign students? They add to the demand side of the economy. Why aren't we making the universities in the inner cities, these elite academics, pay tax on the increased demand? We have enormous demand for infrastructure. By all means, if you want to go to Central Queensland University—where I was a couple of weeks ago—to the School of Mining and the School of Manufacturing to do a TAFE degree—where you actually get some real-life skills—and not to one of the inner-city universities where you just get brainwashed with all these new crazy ideas, that's fine. But don't bring people here if all they're going to do is go to uni and then go and work for Uber and deliver ice cream to people who can't be bothered buying ice cream from supermarkets. That's not on. This budget isn't going to do anything for the working-class Australians. 15:22 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I am aware of the literary form of stream of consciousness, and it has its place in literature, but what we just heard from Senator Rennick, despite the fact that he's an elected senator, was just a riff on nothing that makes sense to anybody who has any vision for this country. It was just a rant of dissent and idiocy, in my view. It didn't speak to anything truthful, and that's really the story of today. Yesterday we had a budget, a very important budget. It was delivered after nine long, dark years of the Liberal-National government, which purported to be good with finance. Let's just get the facts on the record: in nine years, they never delivered a surplus. Despite all their crowing, despite all their assertions, the facts tell the truth—they just didn't do it. It's that knowledge that we need to apply to the comments that have been put forward today. My colleague Senator Gallagher, in response to questions from Senator Cash, completely reduced to nothingness this absurd claim, done on a dodgy, broken calculator, that somehow the budget that's going to deliver incredible relief to families is going to cost people $25,000. Those figures are as dodgy as the Liberal government's claims that they would ever deliver a surplus. There is no coherence. There is the myth they created, and there is the reality of what they delivered—an Australia that was in pretty bad shape, an Australia that was anxious, an Australia where businesses couldn't figure out what was going to come at them any day. People are now telling me that they've had a post-traumatic response to what they experienced after nine years of chaos under a Liberal-National government: three leaders, never a surplus in sight, a billion dollars in debt, permanent panic every day, wondering what disaster they would talk about next, and that fearful nature they created for Australia. That is what we saw in the questions today. The first question was hysterical. The second one was 'be afraid—be very afraid—of the Australian Labor Party's budget; it is going to be bad for you,' which is at odds with the fact that this is a budget that is responsibly looking to the future, is investing in Australians, is building our capacity, is making sure that those alongside us who are doing it a bit tough get a little bit of a handout because that is what they need today, and is dealing with the debt that we have because of those bad economic managers on the other side. The third question from Senator McDonald really revealed what they try to do. 'I am standing up for the miners' and 'You need to say thank you for the miners for the money they put in in tax,' she says. Of course we say thank you to the miners for the money they put in tax—20 per cent. I also say thank you to the part-time worker at Woolworths or Coles who paid pay their tax, all the workers of Australia who lifted the revenue of this country since we have come to government by 40 per cent because their wages are going up. There are more jobs, more Australians are working and there is more tax that we can then use to invest in our own country. That is what is really going on. I say to every Australian business owner, every Australian worker in every sector: thank you for doing your bit, and we will very responsibly manage the money that you entrust to this government in your name to benefit the country. This is a budget that is economically responsible. It will absolutely deliver a change in the way our economy is working, moving towards a better and sounder future with a direct reduction of inflation by three-quarters of a per cent in 2023-24. I want to say that again because the myth that this opposition is trying to stitch together in response to an excellent Labor budget is that we are in all sorts of financial crisis. Well, we will have a surplus. There are headwinds. We need to manage our economy responsibly and that is what we do. We made sure that we banked the revenue gains that were somewhat unexpected. We have banked them so we can deliver cost-of-living relief for Australians and invest in a way that will make it possible for Australians to access the services they desperately need, like their local doctor. 15:27 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to take note of all the answers. There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon about inflation. The question is: has this budget done anything to fight inflation? Today's Financial Review, other esteemed publications and people like John Keogh have said that the big fib at the heart of this budget is that it will help the Reserve Bank to reduce inflation, when in fact Labor's policies are tipping a net extra amount, $44 billion, into the economy. He also said in the editorial of the Financial Review that it is a $44 billion stimulus to the economy which starts to feed in during this high-inflation year, and SNP global ratings agree that these handouts will add to inflationary pressure. Given the government has spent over $100 billion since the election, it has decided to run an inflationary fiscal position. That is its right. But it should be honest if that is what it is doing. It is making the Reserve Bank's job much harder. That has been clear. It is unfortunate that a lot of people want to hug the talking points in these debates. But the truth is that the last coalition's budget was inflationary, this one has been significantly inflationary and that is hurting people who are the most impacted by inflation—lower and middle-income earners. So to walk around and argue that this is a deflationary position is not the case. The fact that we saw the Reserve Bank feel that it needed to raise rates only about 10 days ago surprised economists. I think it is a very worrying sign that the government has chosen to plough another $50 billion into the marketplace, into the economy. It is very much a negative for those low- and middle-income earners, who are going to have to contend with higher interest rates because it is very likely, given that the federal government has decided to run at inflationary fiscal position, that the central bank will have to increase interest rates. In fact, Chris Richardson, who is a well-known economist, said, 'I had thought the Reserve Bank was done and dusted but this has notably raised the chance that they will do another swing of the baseball bat.' Another market economist, David Bassanese from BetaShares, said it was 'unambiguously expansionary,' and Cherelle Murphy from Ernst & Young said 'inflation is already running at an annual rate of seven per cent and more than one in every four dollars spent in the Australian economy is by a … government.' The central problem here is that the government has decided to fuel inflation. That is the decision they have taken, but they have not been honest with the Australian people that that is the decision they have taken. I understand why. Politically, it is very difficult to cut spending, and they have a lot of vested interests, lots of mouths to feed and lots of noisy stakeholders. But it is better to be honest about the problem. This has been done before by both parties of government. The Labor government did it in the eighties and we did it in the nineties. Spending was cut and hard decisions were made because there was recognition at the time that that would be the best time to protect low- and middle-income earners. This is not going to be a massive problem for the super-rich people in society. It is mainly going to impact people in the lower- and middle-income bracket. That's the issue that we have today. The government predicted in the budget that they will basically halve inflation over the next 12 months and that we'll see an inflation number with a three in front of it, as opposed to a seven or a six in front. That is a prediction that they've put in the budget, and that is their right. I would say it is very bold to be predicting that inflation will be cut by 50 per cent when they are running a budget strategy like this. They don't seem to be able to say no to many of the rent seekers and blood suckers who are wanting to line up outside their doors and ask for more money. These are the unions and the super funds—all the usual suspects. That is going to be the great test for government now. They've been deceptive and we will ensure that they'll wear that crown of thorns if they fail to cut inflation. Question agreed to. Budget 62 15:32 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator Rice today relating to poverty and the budget. Labor's budget yesterday was a betrayal to the millions who were hoping not to be left behind. We are in the midst of a crushing cost-of-living crisis, a painful housing and rental crisis, a soaring student debt crisis and a climate crisis. Yet the Treasurer's speech didn't even mention climate change, and Labor is spending more on fossil fuel subsidies than on climate change. People are having to make impossible choices between heating or eating, fuel or medicine, paying rent or paying off student debt. Given how tough things are, the choices in this budget should have been easy for Labor. It should have been an easy choice to raise support payments like JobSeeker and Youth Allowance above the poverty line. It should have been an easy choice to make early childhood education and care free. It should have been an easy choice to freeze rent increases. It should have been an easy choice to wipe student debt, or at least stop three million Australians from being hit with a 7.1 per cent increase to their student debt come 1 June. Instead, Labor has not even done the bare minimum. Those on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and Austudy will see a daily increase of only $2.85, and the increase to Commonwealth rent assistance is as little as $1.12 a day. So many will remain in poverty at Labor's choosing. All Labor cares about is bragging rights to a budget surplus. People doing it tough don't care about your meaningless surplus. People don't care that you banked billions in the kitty while they skip meals and live in cars. All the surplus demonstrates is that there was more money sitting there that could have helped people doing it tough, but you chose not to use it. Labor's budget leaves people in poverty while the big corporations and the wealthy win. Shame on you. Question agreed to. Aboriginal Deaths In Custody 63 15:34 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to Aboriginal deaths in custody. I'm aware that Aboriginal legal services receive government funding, including the funding provided in the October budget, but it's clearly not enough. First Nations legal services all over this country have called for emergency funding because they simply cannot meet the demand for legal support with the current funding levels. Factors like—listen hard!—bail laws, inflation rates, COVID, overpolicing and 'tough on crime' measures in our communities have grown the pressure over the years. Since 2018, demand for First Nations legal services has increased by up to 100 per cent, but core government funding has declined in real terms, so don't be gammon when you provide a gammon answer. This is why, in the lead-up to the budget, First Nations legal services around Australia called on the government to deliver a $250 million emergency support package to prevent imminent service freezes and unjust incarceration. Do you want the Voice to tell you that? Is that what you're waiting for? Yet the amount provided was zero. Your and the Attorney-General's verbal appreciation is like whitesplaining, to be honest, that the services that these organisations are providing is worth nothing. It does not result in any actual support for the sector. All your nice words and all your waving the flag for blackfellas means nothing when you're still allowing deaths in custody and incarceration rates to go out of control. We need these services in order to have a chance of equal access to justice in the colonial criminal system that this place set up to kill us, to get rid of us and to incarcerate us. Many of our people who are locked up are on remand; they may never even be sentenced. But you want to take away the lawyers and the black legal services that support them and keep them out of the system. People are being deprived of their freedom and their rights. The Aboriginal Legal Service in Victoria had to implement new client freezes. They're freezing services to our people on the ground in Victoria. On Monday, there'll be a number of other Aboriginal legal services in New South Wales shutting. What do you call that? A voice? Question agreed to. NOTICES 63 NOTICES Presentation 63 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 64 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE Proposed Works 64 15:38 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland In accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act 1974, I present a proposal for works within the Parliamentary Zone relating to the John Gorton Campus Carpark, and I give notice that, on the next sitting day, I shall move: That in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone relating to the John Gorton Campus Carpark. BUSINESS 64 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 64 15:38 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Gallagher for 9 May 2023, on account of ministerial business; and (b) Senator Walsh for 10 and 11 May 2023, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 64 15:39 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence by granted to Senator Paterson for today for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Rearrangement 65 15:39 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That general business order of the day No. 21, Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022, be considered on Thursday 11 May 2023 at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. NOTICES 65 NOTICES Postponement 65 COMMITTEES 65 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 65 15:40 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. CONDOLENCES 65 CONDOLENCES West, Hon. Stewart John 65 15:40 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 29 March 2023 of the Hon. Stewart John West, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Cunningham, New South Wales, from 1977 to 1993. 15:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That the Senate records its sorrow at the death, on 29 March 2023, of the Honourable Stewart John West, former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Minister for Housing and Construction, and Minister for Administrative Services, and former member for Cunningham, 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 another highly respected former Australian Labor Party minister and member of the House of Representatives, the Hon. Stewart John West, at the age of 88, and I convey the government's condolences to his family and his friends. The day after the Senate eulogised John Kerin, we are lamenting the loss of another member of a great generation of Labor ministers. The cabinets of the Hawke government set the standard for executive government in this country, and Stewart West left his own mark when he served among some of the greatest of Labor's ministers. But his contribution extended beyond his ministerial portfolios; he had a hand in policy decisions that left a lasting legacy. Notably, he took a stance on issues of principle, even when it was not convenient or when it came at personal cost. As the Prime Minister has said: He was a politician of unbending principle, one who cherished the privilege of being in Cabinet but who nonetheless prioritised principle over career. Stewart West was born in Forbes in 1934, in the Central West region of New South Wales. The Illawarra became his home, where he was a waterside worker in Port Kembla and, obviously, was involved in industrial and Labor politics. When Rex Connor, the then member for Cunningham, sadly died in office in 1977, Stewart West was elected to replace him, and he would be re-elected to the seat in the '77, '80, '83, '84, '87 and 1990 elections. He served a term on the backbench, before being elevated to the shadow ministry following the 1980 election. He first served as spokesperson on Aboriginal affairs and, in this portfolio, he worked with the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Hayden, to put in place long-term policy proposals focused on Indigenous jobs, housing and health, in contrast to the actions of the Fraser government, which had cut real spending by some $35 million over four years. In late 1980, Stewart West took on the shadow portfolio that he would hold for the majority of Labor's final term in opposition: environmental conservation. Here, he built on the legacy of ministers like Moss Cass, formulating policies that would come to define a new approach from Labor in government. He oversaw development of the environmental policy that Labor took to the 1983 election and that we implemented in the face of significant opposition once Bob Hawke led Labor to victory. At the heart of this policy was Labor's pledge to save the Franklin River in Tasmania. Four decades later, that the Franklin still flows wild and free can be attributed to his courage and foresight. So, too, can the protection of Kakadu. These are substantial achievements which are a magnificent legacy. When Bob Hawke replaced Bill Hayden as leader and led Labor to government in 1983, Stewart West became a cabinet minister, being appointed Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It was another issue that would result in him having a brief hiatus from the cabinet room early in his ministerial career. In the early 1980s, there was passionate debate within the Australian Labor Party and the broader community about uranium. A strong anti-uranium proponent, Stewart West had already endured much anguish as the party thrashed out the issue at its national conference prior to coming to government. When the issue came before cabinet and a decision was taken that he felt was inconsistent with the party's platform, he resigned his cabinet position. At the time, he was the left's sole representative in a cabinet that otherwise comprised of members of the right, centre-left and the independents. In making this decision he prioritised principle over career. However, he did retain his ministry, and Prime Minister Hawke restored him to cabinet the following year. As Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Stewart West articulated the importance of diversity and non-discrimination in Australia's immigration policy. At the time, our refugee and special humanitarian visa intake was under scrutiny, especially as a consequence of the Vietnam War and conflicts in Southeast Asia, as well as the repudiation of the white Australia policy by the Whitlam government. Immigration to Australia from Asia was the subject of political debate. Stewart West took on the falsehoods being peddled in the community by what he rightly described as a prejudiced minority that was being supported regrettably by the then opposition. These falsehoods ranged from the perpetuation of myths that government policies discriminated against people in the UK and Europe to bold-faced anti-Asian racism. He called on the opposition not to lend its support to emerging anti-Asian racism in Australia. Sadly, we know, particularly under the leadership of John Howard, these calls were not heeded. We will never forget it was Mr Howard who called for a reduction in Asian immigration in 1988, saying the pace of Asian immigration was a cause for concern. I am grateful that we on the side of the chamber can count those such as Stewart West amongst our number. He was prepared to clearly articulate the damage done by those who exploit race as a weapon for political advantage. All of us in this place on all sides must always guard against such tactics and recognise the damage those tactics wreak on our community. Following his two years in this portfolio, Stewart West went on to serve as Minister for Housing and Construction and Administrative Services. He did not return to the ministry after the 1990 election and retired from politics prior to the 1993 election. After returning to private life, he maintained his activism on those matters that were close to his heart, including the plight of refugees, continuing to give voice to the compassion he had shown as minister. Stewart West died two days short of his 89th birthday. His life was one of passion and one of principle. He was a champion for the cause and he laid a path for Labor ministers to come. The Prime Minister reflected that he was proud to sit beside Stewart West at our national conferences and proud to stand alongside him to improve the lives of working Australians. We are a better nation as a consequence of the impact of Stewart West at the highest levels of our government. Once again, on behalf of this Labor government, I express our condolences following his passing to his friends and family, especially to his widow, Mary, and to their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. 15:48 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise to associate the opposition with the remarks of Senator Wong in relation to paying tribute to and honouring the life of the Hon. Stewart John West and extend our condolences to his family and loved ones. Born in 1934 in Forbes and attending Wollongong high School, Stewart West would go on to represent greater area of Wollongong as the member for Cunningham for some 16 years in the Australian parliament. Before entering the parliament, he held the position of President of the Waterside Workers' Federation for five years, a position that I can only imagine would be one that would strengthen one's ability to enter into political combat. He served as campaign manager for 10 years for the then member for Cunningham, Rex Connor, who died suddenly in office, leaving Stewart West to be elected as the next representative for the seat of Cunningham in 1977. In his maiden speech, Stewart spoke with passion for his electorate, advocating for capital expenditure grants and employment revitalisation, which he believed his community needed to succeed. Publicly and proudly labelled as one of the few members of Labor's left faction, Stewart was a class of politician who wore his heart on his sleeve. Three years after entering parliament, as Senator Wong said, Stewart was given his first appointment as opposition spokesman for Aboriginal affairs followed by the responsibilities for environmental conversation and then finance and trade under opposition leader Bill Hayden. Stewart had been recognised as being vocal and indeed played a key role in the campaigns to save the Franklin River in Tasmania and preserve Kakadu in the Northern Territory. In one newspaper article a few words described how devoted Stewart was to the responsibilities of his portfolios. During his time as shadow minister for the environment and conservation, the Canberra Times reported on his contribution to a Labor national conference in 1982 that was, as Senator Wong indicated, debating the ALP's position on the future of Australia's uranium industry. The article stated that: Watching West from the press galleries of the House … he has always seemed mild and self-effacing and dutiful but at the ALP conference he did a deal of ranting … In a passionate afternoon Mr West was megapassionate … Following the 1983 election, the megapassionate Stewart West became the only identified member of the left faction of the new Labor government to be appointed to a cabinet position under Prime Minister Bob Hawke as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It was, though, to be a relatively short-lived position initially. A man of principle, Stewart resigned from the appointment eight months in when he opposed the cabinet decision to sell uranium to France. He was subsequently reappointed to the position, though, just five months later by Prime Minister Hawke. For another two terms, Stewart West would remain in the cabinet of the Hawke government as Minister for Housing and Construction and then as Minister for Administrative Services until 1990. In the decade following the Vietnam War and the establishment of communist governments in the region, many residents in South-East Asia became refugees. As immigration minister, Stewart approached his portfolio wholeheartedly, leading an agenda that would welcome these refugees to Australia. Stewart championed the goals of the Hawke government. In one address to the House he stated: Whilst humanitarian considerations dictate that resettlement is still necessary, this Government maintains strongly that solutions must be found to the cause of mass population movements in South East Asia. He didn't just state those words; he would contribute to these solutions, travelling to intergovernmental consultations between the US, Canada and Japan and Australia. He would also visit Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand to stress that resettlement alone was not the answer and there was need for voluntary repatriation and other efforts. Throughout his time in parliament, as Senator Wong acknowledged, Stewart West was principled. He was particularly principled when it came to refugees and matters of migration as well as matters of conservation. Even after his time in parliament, Stewart continued to advocate for the rights of refugees. After the re-election of the Hawke government in 1990, Stewart's principles were further challenged within his party. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq led Stewart to abstain from voting on the Hawke government's resolution on the gulf conflict which would see Australian troops sent to support UN forces against Iraq. In a piece he penned appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald, Stewart wrote: I also fear the US-UN forces will win the war but lose the peace. The post-war problems will exceed the pre-war problems. …   …   … Even now a devastating groundwater should be averted. We need another diplomatic approach … Many would now see the words he wrote as being prescient for future challenges and problems to come. It was clear that Stewart's desires during his time in parliament were of humanitarian and conservation priorities, his passion for his portfolios as strong as that for his community. Stewart retired from the parliament at the 1993 election. I have little doubt—and Senator Wong acknowledged this—that his interests and values would have ensured strong opinions continued to be expressed throughout his life, particularly on the issues near and dear to his heart and no doubt most passionately when he believed that the party he loved and served was straying from the principles he believed it needed to uphold. Lauded as a political giant of the Labor movement, Stewart West was, I'm told, surrounded by family and friends at the time of his passing. On behalf of the opposition and as part of this Senate we extend to Stewart's loved ones—his wife, Mary, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren—our deep and sincere condolences and thank him for his service to our nation. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. MOTIONS 67 MOTIONS Gyngell, Mr Allan, AO 67 15:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) gives thanks for the life and service to the nation of Allan Gyngell AO, who passed away in May 2023; (b) recognises Mr Gyngell's remarkable contribution to Australia's engagement with the world, having offered sage advice, both official and unofficial, to the Australian Government for decades and as the definitive historian of Australian foreign policy; (c) acknowledges Mr Gyngell's long and distinguished career in Australian international affairs, which included: (i) appointments as National President of the Australian Institute of International Affairs 2017-23, and Director-General of the Office of National Assessments 2009-13, as well as the founding Executive Director of the Lowy Institute for International Policy for six years from 2003, and an honorary professor at the Australian National University, and (ii) service as Senior International Adviser to Prime Minister Paul Keating from 1993-96, and previously in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, including as First Assistant Secretary International 1991-93, having begun his foreign policy career as an officer at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, where he served as a diplomat in Rangoon (1970-72), Singapore (1973-76) and Washington (1981-84); (d) notes Mr Gyngell was made an Officer in the Order of Australia in 2009 for his services to international relations; (e) observes Mr Gyngell always promoted respectful and informed national discussion on Australia's foreign policy, and had the intellectual and personal courage to provide frank advice and analysis; (f) values Mr Gyngell's contribution as a mentor to many Australian diplomats and foreign policy analysts, which ensures his legacy lives on in all of those whose lives and careers were touched by his leadership and quiet wisdom; and (g) offers its deepest condolences to Mr Gyngell's family and to his friends. 15:55 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I thank Senator Wong for the accommodation. I wish to associate myself and the coalition with the remarks of Senator Wong in her speech during the senators' statements today. That, of course, is complementary to the motion being moved. We offer our deep and sincere condolences at the passing of Allan Gyngell AO. Remembered as a giant and one of the finest minds in foreign and strategic policy, Allan devoted a lifetime of service to Australia. From his thoughtful, probing, and principled stances throughout his career, whether in postings across Rangoon, Singapore and Washington, his service in Canberra, his service in the office of Prime Minister Keating, or his work as Director-General of the Office of National Assessments, Allan Gyngell always put Australian interests first with a principled approach. Before his appointment to the ONA, he was a founding executive director of the Lowy Institute for international policy, also serving as a found board member of China Matters and, later, an honorary professor at the Australian National University. Most recently, he was the immediate past president of the Australian Institute of International Affairs. His roles as diplomat, senior policy advisor, director-general, founding executive, president, honorary professor and author put into perspective his extraordinary contribution, but that should not be abbreviated to titles. His knowledge and quiet wisdom influenced strategic and foreign relations of Australian governments for decades. In public policy, many participate, some contribute, and a few are both skilled and fortunate enough to be able to make a difference. Allan Gyngell made a difference to Australia's engagement with the world. It is a testament to his skills, his principles and his approach. He has rightly been recognised by many. It is right that this chamber also recognise him and his contribution to our foreign and strategic policy. His vision has left a lasting legacy. We thank Allan Gyngell for his service and pay our respects to his wife, Catherine, his loved ones, his family, his friends and all who knew him. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 68 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 68 15:57 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That the order of 30 March 2023 relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for Budget week be varied to read as follows— (1A) On Wednesday, 10 May 2023: (a) the routine of business from 6 pm be consideration of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills only and, unless determined earlier, the question on the second reading be put immediately; (b) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills only; (c) if consideration of the bills is concluded before 8 pm, the Senate shall return to its routine of business and adjourn at 8 pm; and (d) if consideration of the bills is not concluded before 8 pm, the Senate adjourn without debate at 10 pm, after consideration of the bills has concluded, or on the motion of a minister (whichever is earlier). (2) On Thursday, 11 May 2023: (a) the hours of meeting be 9 am to adjournment; (b) if consideration of the following bills has not concluded by 1 pm, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate: Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023 Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023; (c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (d) the sitting of the Senate be suspended from 5.30 pm till the ringing of the bells (at approximately 8 pm); and (e) on resumption, the routine of business be: (i) Budget statement and documents-party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, (ii) adjournment proposed, and (iii) adjournment. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that government business notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Gallagher be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:02]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 23 AYES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. White, L. Wong, P. 42 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 70 DOCUMENTS SmartCard Scheme 70 Order for the Production of Documents 70 16:05 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria by leave—I amend general business notice of motion No. 224 relating to the SmartCard scheme, and I move the amended motion: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for production of documents no. 184 agreed by the Senate on 21 March 2023, relating to the SmartCard scheme, has not been complied with, and (ii) while the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, in his response of 24 April 2023, referred to commercial sensitivities as justification for not providing the documents ordered, this does not constitute a properly made out public interest immunity claim; and (b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than 2 pm on 8 June 2023, all documents required by the order of 21 March 2023. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 224 as amended by Senator Rice be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 42 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Answers to Questions on Notice 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 16:10 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Birmingham I move general business notice of motion No. 226: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) written questions on notice are an important transparency tool and it is the Government's responsibility to be accountable to the questions submitted by all senators, and to show respect to the Senate in the answers provided, and (ii) answers provided by the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Farrell, to Senate questions on notice nos 1788, regarding lobbying activities, and 1856, regarding efficiency dividends, demonstrate a lack of respect to the Senate; (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to attend the chamber after the consideration of private senators' bills on Thursday, 11 May 2023, to provide a statement of no more than 5 minutes to explain why the answers to Senate questions on notice nos 1788 and 1856 are so disrespectful to the Senate and how this approach is consistent with the Government's commitment to transparency; (c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and (d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 16:10 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Instead of feigning hurt feelings because they didn't like the answer they received to a question on notice, the opposition should practice what they preach: stop wasting the time of the Senate and talk about the real issues that are impacting on Australians, rather than wasting our time. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 226 standing in the name of Senator Birmingham and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 42 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Budget Process Operational Rules 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 16:14 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Hume I move general business notice of motion No. 227: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for production of documents no. 123 was agreed by the Senate on 7 February 2023, requiring the Minister for Finance to table documents relating to the current Budget Process Operational Rules (BPORs), (ii) Minister Gallagher wrote to the President of the Senate on 8 February 2023 stating that "I note that the previous BPORs were released after the 2022-23 October Budget process was completed, in the interests of transparency and accountability. Once the 2023-24 Budget is delivered, the Government will consider further requests for the BPORs", (iii) Minister Gallagher told the Senate on 9 February 2023 that "we did what the Senate asked last time and released them after the budget. I think that's fair and reasonable", (iv) Minister Gallagher told the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee on 14 February 2023 that "My decision is to not release it until the budget process is finished", and (v) the 2023-24 Budget has now been released; and (b) while noting the repeated failure of Minister Gallagher to comply with this order, despite the Senate's previous affirmation of it, and her continued rhetoric about transparency, resolves to: (i) re-affirm its agreement to the order; and (ii) require the Minister to comply with the order as soon as possible, and by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 11 May 2023. 16:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 We're a government that delivers on our commitments, and that is what we have done today in relation to the release of the Budget Process Operational Rules. The finance minister indicated to the Senate, through a letter to the President in February, that the government would be in a position to release the Budget Process Operational Rules after the delivery of the 2023-24 budget. The 2023-24 budget was released last night, and this morning the BPORS were released. That's our commitment delivered. It is worth putting on the record again that those opposite never once released the BPORS following a budget, so this OPD is not only unnecessary but hypocritical at the same time. I suggest that, instead of wasting the Senate's time again, those opposite check for documents on public and accessible government websites before moving unnecessary motions in the Senate. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 227, standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.    

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

 42 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 73 BILLS Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023 73

Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023

First Reading 73 16:19 Senator DYU South Australia FAWCETT () (): I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish the Defence Capability Assurance Agency, the Inspector-General of Defence Capability Assurance and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, and for related purposes. Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023. Question agreed to. 16:19 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 73 16:20 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. 16:20 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Defence Strategic Update (DSU) 2020 and the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) 2023 detail the strategic circumstances of this decade—and beyond—which require Australia to take timely, risk-informed decisions to establish the military capability necessary to underpin a national defence strategy. This will require the procurement of a wide scope of advanced technology in a compressed timeframe. Australia cannot afford to waste time or money commencing—or attempting to remediate—projects that will not deliver the required military-response-options to Government. If we are to succeed in this rapid build-up of military capability, Defence and Government must have a high degree of confidence in the veracity and completeness of the information they use to make timely, risk informed decisions. The First Principles Review (2015) in recommending a "Smart buyer" approach, made the assumption that a Test & Evaluation (T&E) capability exists such that Defence can assess "whether risks and interdependencies have been identified and managed". Defence has long had dedicated policies outlining why T&E is important. They define it as a key systems engineering tool to identify risk and inform risk-based decisions, detailing how it should be used in acquisition, sustainment and force generation. Despite the extensive policy and process, Defence has struggled to effectively, objectively and consistently incorporate T&E into decision making across the capability life cycle. In almost every review of Defence procurement there has been a negative assessment of how Defence employs T&E. Consistent themes include difficulties creating and sustaining an experienced workforce; the lag and surge of experience in projects which makes it difficult to apply effective T&E early in the capability life cycle (e.g.: defining requirements); poor coordination between the various stakeholders in Defence T&E (including industry); poor investment in T&E infrastructure; and, a lack of accountability to ensure that Defence consistently uses T&E effectively to identify, report and manage risk. This Bill will enact measures that rectify systemic deficiencies—highlighted in a number of Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and Parliamentary reports—that remain in the current procurement system. It establishes an independent statutory body responsible for assessing the complex risks associated with materiel procurement and sustainment, including but not limited to technical risks pertaining to performance and certification. This body, known as the Defence Capability Assurance Agency (DCAA), will enable the effective and timely acquisition and sustainment of the defence materiel required to underpin a national security strategy. Before detailing the provisions of this Bill, allow me, in response to feedback on the exposure draft, first outline what it is not. Some have expressed concern that the Bill might create a new layer of process and red tape, impeding the timely delivery of equipment to the war fighter. To the contrary, this Bill simply ensures that the basic principles of systems engineering—which are already part of defence materiel policy—are implemented effectively by people who have the necessary qualifications and experience to make a comprehensive assessment of risk which is reported in a timely, unbiased, and transparent manner to decision makers. The Bill is not about outsourcing T&E to industry. Indeed, the Bill highlights the importance of Defence having personnel and entities competent to conduct T&E, building on their recent operational experience. In the aerospace field for example, Defence pays between $1m and $2m for an individual with an operational background to become qualified as a flight test professional and each service—Army, Navy and AirForce—has traditionally maintained specialist T&E units as capability enablers. Across the various defence domains however—including air, land, sea, cyber and more recently, space—the level of investment in training and retaining T&E professionals is not consistent and, in some cases, is non-existent. The Bill creates a framework to close some of these gaps within defence, but also sees value in a partnership with industry as a viable way to maintain depth of expertise in the T&E workforce and the capacity to scale rapidly as circumstances require. Finally, the existence of an independent quality assurance function is not a new concept nor is it an unnecessary overhead. The medical field provides a useful example. If the task at hand is neurosurgery, then an orthopaedic surgeon, although highly competent with qualifications and experience in the same "generic" profession, would not get the nod from either the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons nor the Medical Board to conduct the surgery. Similarly, the Bill makes the point that someone who is highly competent as a maintenance engineer or operational commander is not automatically the best person to assess technical risk in materiel acquisition and sustainment. Because decision makers need to have a high degree of confidence in the veracity and completeness of the information they base their judgement on, the Bill creates an assurance that the people assessing the risk are competent to undertake that particular task. Independent quality assurance is also of particular importance when a large Government organisation operates behind valid layers of secrecy such that their performance and compliance with legislation, regulation or policy is not apparent to the tax-payer or the Parliament. The role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) with Australia's national intelligence community is a well-respected and successful assurance framework which provides a good example. Whether focused on workforce competence or intelligent adherence to approved policy, assurance measures guard against the diminution of task-specific competence and professional practice which occurs over time due to posting cycles, financial pressures and the loss of corporate memory. This problem is not unique to defence, as inquiries into the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia, RAF Nimrod XV230 and the Boeing Max aircraft highlight. Far from introducing red-tape and unnecessary overheads, the key aim of the Bill is to make matériel procurement faster, better and cheaper within a framework that provides assurance that the weapons systems we acquire will do what we expect them to, will be available for use when required and will be effective against extant and emerging threats. Based on the First Principles Review and actions taken by AUKUS partners in respect to risk assessment, the core principles underpinning the DCAA include: Independence. The risk identification function must be independent so that assessment is made without bias or influence (intended or unintended). Independence also ensures that the assessor of risk has a voice (NB not a veto) that is heard at each decision-making level of the capability life cycle. Task-specific competence. Government must ensure personnel with the right training and skills are employed to identify and manage risk. Task-specific competence is a matrix of qualifications and experience that are directly relevant to the task at hand. Transparency. Previous inquiries highlight that risk assessors working within Defence face various barriers (individual or organisational) that influence whether decision-makers actually get to consider their assessments. Given the costs and national security implications, the taxpayer deserves to know that decisions are being made on the basis of accurate understanding of risk. Accountability. The DCAA will be underpinned by an audited and enforceable requirement that Defence engages the Agency to evaluate risk across the capability life cycle. DCAA reports are to be specifically included in briefs provided to project managers, Gate reviews, Defence Investment Committee and the National Security Committee of Cabinet. The DCAA will not duplicate Defence policy relating to T&E but ensure that such policy is implemented consistently and effectively by suitably qualified personnel. Although the DCAA will be responsible for the conduct of T&E, it is not intended that the DCAA will replace T&E entities within Defence where they exist, particularly where T&E intersects with other regulatory frameworks e.g.: airworthiness or seaworthiness. Instead, it is intended that the DCAA will exercise technical control to ensure that existing entities (and those that develop with emerging technology, including where T&E is provided by industry) work to internationally recognised standards for T&E and are supported by Defence with agreed resources. The DCAA will work with Defence to facilitate an agreed framework to develop and sustain a competent T&E workforce and fit-for-purpose T&E infrastructure. At a strategic level the DCAA will use the Integrated Investment Program (IIP) to provide expert advice regarding the scope and scale of T&E investment required to grow and sustain the people and infrastructure required to enable the objectives of the IIP. The DCAA will provide an input to future updates to the IIP. At the individual project level, the DCAA will work with Defence to agree any variations to T&E required as specific materiel solutions are tendered. Where an existing Defence T&E entity is the most suitable for a task, it is intended that the entity would be assigned to the DCAA for the conduct of T&E in support of that task—analogous to a military unit being "force assigned" to Joint Operations Command. This allows the DCAA to ensure that T&E is conducted utilising the most effective and efficient workforce that is competent for the task. Where Defence does not have an existing T&E capability (or capacity) relevant to a domain, the DCAA will provide competent T&E personnel who meet the relevant qualifications and experience requirements to undertake the T&E function for a given phase of acquisition. The DCAA will do this through the engagement of other industry personnel or entities, or where appropriate (e.g.: when required at very short notice) from staff working within the DCAA T&E Centre of Excellence. This Bill provides for an agreement (expected to be long-term in nature) with an Australian industry partner. The industry partner will provide depth of domain expertise to the DCAA and facilitate a consistent, comprehensive approach to T&E across the capability life cycle for all Defence systems and environments via four key functions: Regulatory. The DCAA will regulate the qualifications and professional standards of the Defence or other industry workforce tasked to conduct T&E. This function will be managed by an element of the DCAA known as the Defence Capability Assurance Regulator (DCAR), facilitated by the industry partner. This function is analogous to the regulatory role played by DASA which—among other outcomes—is responsible to oversee scope of delegated authority granted to individuals within the aerospace engineering and maintenance workforce. Whether an individual is operationally under the command of Army, Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Air Force, Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group or is part of industry, DASA has technical control over what an individual is deemed competent to do in respect to an aircraft. As a discrete example, under DASR 66—Military Aircraft Maintenance Licensing, DASA can authorise personnel who hold a Military Aircraft Maintenance License (MAML) to issue Certificates of Release to Service. The DCAR would likewise determine the scope of T&E practice an individual could exercise for the DCAA given their relevant qualifications and experience. A T&E centre of excellence. The industry partner will provide a small but highly experienced workforce with competence in T&E across operational domains (land, air, maritime, space and cyber). This ensures the DCAA is able to quickly deploy competent practitioners to support the conduct of T&E and related activities in any phase of the capability life cycle, particularly the initial phases where Defence has often been found lacking in previous reviews (e.g.: setting of requirements). They would also be responsible for mentoring and supporting the development and application of technical mastery across the T&E workforce in the various domains. This is again analogous to the roles of DASA which include sustaining deep expertise in specific areas e.g.: aerostructures. It is intended that the T&E Centre of Excellence will also engage with emerging practice and technology from allied nations (e.g.: 5-Eyes) and the commercial sector where appropriate (e.g.: aspects of cyber) to facilitate the capability to deal with the scope and depth of T&E forecast by the IIP and ensure best practice. Training. The industry partner would be responsible for the coordination and efficacy of T&E training (e.g.: approving training providers and specific courses). This ensures that the T&E workforce under the technical control of the DCAA (i.e.: DCAA staff, Defence personnel and other industry providers contracted to support T&E) can access training to obtain the required qualifications for their specific role (as determined by the DCAR). Subject to probity measures, the industry partner may also provide an agreed scope of initial training or professional development to Defence or other industry personnel. T&E infrastructure. The DCAA will identify T&E infrastructure (e.g.: weapons and acoustic test ranges or electro-magnetic test facilities such as stirred-mode chambers, or environmental test and virtual test facilities) required as part of procurement or through-life capability management. This may be a new test capability, an expanded scope, or sustainment of existing test capabilities beyond their currently funded life. Drawing on experienced practitioners in the T&E centre of excellence, it is intended that the industry partner will facilitate this analysis from the IIP. It is also intended that the DCAR will oversee compliance of ranges, facilities and related personnel (whether defence or industry) with relevant international standards. Subject to probity, the industry partner may also be contracted to provide or manage T&E infrastructure. Assurance and accountability will be accomplished by a program of audit to ensure that Defence is engaging and resourcing the DCAA (including Defence T&E entities) in a timely manner as well as responding transparently to the subsequent reporting of any identified risks at all levels of decision making. This function will be accomplished by appropriately skilled and security-cleared staff working as part of a small independent assurance office created by this Bill, to be known as the Inspector-General of Defence Capability Assurance (IGDCA), analogous to the IGIS. Finally, the legislation creates a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence (PJCD) which would have amongst other tasks, oversight of the DCAA. A PJCD was a recommendation of two bi-partisan reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) in November 2018 and April 2023. Established along similar lines to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS), the PJCD would have the span of functions outlined in the 2018 and 2023 reports, as well as specific oversight over capability acquisition which would include Australia's involvement in AUKUS, and the operation of the DCAA and the IGDCA. In summary, the DSU2020 and DSR2023 warn that the free world is once again facing the rise of totalitarian powers seeking to use coercive and potentially military measures to impose their will on other nations states. As Australia, along with like-minded partners accelerate our joint efforts to establish the military-response-options required by Government to deter aggression and defend the global rules-based order, we have no time or money to waste. The procurement reforms called for in Chapter 12 of DSR2023 will require effective and timely risk-based decisions which will only be possible if decision makers have a reliable assessment of risk. Despite two decades of internal reform attempts, Defence still struggles to effectively, objectively and consistently maintain a professional T&E workforce of qualified and experienced people, who are appropriately resourced, tasked in a timely manner and whose reports are dealt with in an unbiased and transparent manner. This Bill implements an assurance framework that provides confidence to the men and women of the ADF, their commanders, the Government and the people of Australia that weapons systems we acquire will do what we expect them to, will be available for use when required and effective against extant and emerging threats. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 76 DOCUMENTS Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 76 Order for the Production of Documents 76 16:21 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) a key role of the Senate is scrutiny of government revenue measures, (ii) in April 2023, Senator Bragg requested the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) prepare a costing of Schedule 5 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, including the methodology and assumptions used by the Treasury, (iii) the Treasury has since failed to supply the PBO with the methodology and assumptions used to cost this measure and fulfil the request, (iv) the methodology and assumptions used to cost government revenue measures should be easily disclosable to the PBO and made available to senators in a general anonymised form as part of costing requests, and (v) any sensitive documents or data provided to the PBO can be handled by that office under strict confidentiality provisions and there is no expectation that any confidential taxpayers' data would be disclosed to anyone outside the PBO; (b) orders the Secretary to the Treasury to disclose to the PBO, by no later than midday on 11 May 2023, the methodology and assumptions used to cost Schedule 5 of Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 and subsequently approve the disclosure of such information to Senator Bragg as part of his costing request with any sensitive information redacted to comply with taxpayer privacy considerations; and requires the PBO to advise the Senate of the Secretary's compliance, or otherwise, with this order by no later than midday on 16 May 2023. 16:21 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave, I move to amend the motion in terms circulated in the chamber: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) a key role of the Senate is scrutiny of government revenue measures, (ii) in April 2023, Senator Bragg requested the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) prepare a costing of Schedule 5 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, including the methodology and assumptions used by the Treasury, (iii) the methodology and assumptions used to cost government revenue measures should be easily disclosable to the PBO and made available to senators in a general anonymised form as part of costing requests, and (iv) any sensitive documents or data provided to the PBO can be handled by that office under strict confidentiality provisions and there is no expectation that any confidential taxpayers' data would be disclosed to anyone outside the PBO; (b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on 11 May 2023, the methodology and assumptions used to cost Schedule 5 of Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McKIM JKM If the chamber agrees to our amendment, we will be supporting this motion from Senator Bragg, because we do support open access to information so the Senate can properly do its job in scrutinising legislation before it. But I do want to make it clear that, if the amendment is accepted, the motion would be directed squarely at the Minister representing the Treasurer and not at the Parliamentary Budget Office. We do think the PBO has acted appropriately in not providing the information to Senator Bragg and that the information has to come from the Minister representing the Treasurer and be provided to the Senate. The free flow of protected and sensitive information between government agencies and the PBO is critical in the PBO being able to do the job they do so well in serving MPs. We would not support a motion if we knew it would result in a chilling effect on the flow of information between government agencies and the PBO. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion, as amended, moved by Senator McKim be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 I am now putting the amended motion, so the question is that general business notice of motion No. 223, as moved by Senator Bragg and amended by Senator McKim, be agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to. COMMITTEES 77 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 77 Reference 77 16:23 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of the Senators Colbeck and Cadell, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023: The adequacy and fairness of process and compensation to acquire compulsory access to agricultural land, indigenous land and marine environments for the development of major renewable infrastructure, including wind farms, solar farms and transmission lines, with particular reference to: (a) power imbalance between traditional owners, farmers and fishers with governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their land or fishing grounds; (b) terms and conditions for compulsory access and acquisition; (c) fairness of compensation; (d) options for the development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition; (e) options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries; and (f) any other matter. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe there was an amendment to the motion circulated in the name of Senator David Pocock, which is not being proceeded with. Question agreed to. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 77 Reference 77 16:25 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That the provisions of the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 June 2023. Question agreed to. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 77 Reference 77 16:25 The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm now moving back and recalling business of the Senate No. 2, standing in the names of Senators Colbeck and Cadell and moved by Senator Askew. Senator Duniam 263418 For clarification, we're happy to facilitate the question being re-put, but I did not hear a single voice when you asked for the positions to be declared. We would hope to have heard that, given we're now recommitting, but we'll facilitate that. Senator McKim JKM With the indulgence of the Senate, I can explain what happened. We understood that there was an amendment that was going to be moved to this motion, so we thought the question that the President was putting was in relation to the amendment. I accept what Senator Duniam was saying, and I thank the Senate for its indulgence in allowing this matter to be recommitted. The PRESIDENT 112096 Did you just throw me under the bus? I think I was quite clear in the way that I called it. That's okay; that's my job. The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senators Colbeck and Cadell and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:31]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 79 DOCUMENTS Answers to Estimates Questions on Notice 79 Order for the Production of Documents 79 16:33 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Cash, I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that, as at 9 am on Monday, 8 May 2023, 1,929 questions on notice from the 2022-23 supplementary Budget estimates remain unanswered and are overdue: (i) Prime Minister and Cabinet, 591 questions, (ii) Defence, 408 questions, (iii) Health and Aged Care, 401 questions, (iv) Social Services, 189 questions, (v) Foreign Affairs and Trade, 133 questions, (vi) Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, 52 questions, (vii) Employment and Workplace Relations, 42 questions, (viii) Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, 26 questions, (ix) Finance, 26 questions, (x) Treasury, 25 questions, (xi) Services Australia, 22 questions, (xii) Industry, Science and Resources, 9 questions, and (xiii) Attorney-General's, 4 questions; (b) there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, by no later than 9 am on Thursday, 18 May 2023, the answers to all 1,929 unanswered questions on notice from the 2022-23 supplementary Budget estimates; and (c) the Senate requires the Leader of the Government in the Senate to attend the chamber at the conclusion of formal business on Thursday, 11 May 2023, to provide an explanation, for no more than 10 minutes, of the failure of the Government to comply with timely response to questions on notice, as required under the standing orders.    Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 79 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Budget 79 16:34 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 A letter has been received from Senator McGrath: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: "Australia needed a Budget that reduces inflation and reins in spending to bring cost of living down for all Australians but instead, Labor delivered a high taxing, high spending budget that leaves an Australian family worse off by $25,000." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:35 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I want to read out the words of this MPI again so those listening at home know how important this is: Australia needed a Budget that reduces inflation and reins in spending to bring cost of living down for all Australians but instead, Labor delivered a high taxing, high spending budget that leaves an Australian family worse off by $25,000. Last night was the great disappointment, wasn't it? It's a budget that is going to hurt Australians. Milton Freidman, quite a famous economist, wrote a few books. He said— Senator Scarr 282997 A Nobel Prize winner. Senator McGRATH 217241 Yes, thank you, Senator Scarr. Interestingly, he said that 'inflation is taxation without legislation'. What we saw with the budget last night is a big government budget that is not the solution to our cost-of-living crisis; it is the cause of our cost-of-living crisis. Last night, hundreds of thousands of Australians turned on their TV to watch the budget—there was probably nothing on Netflix—because they wanted to see Treasurer Jim Chalmers, that disciple of Paul Keating, deliver the cost-of-living relief that they desperately need. But, much to their disappointment, all Australia saw was a typical inflationary Labor budget, with more taxes, more reckless spending and more inflation to come. So it's not surprising that they flicked back to Netflix, Stan or Paramount+, because they know how the budget is going to end. Just like they know how the movie's going to end, they know how this budget's going to end. It's going to hurt their purses, wallets and bank accounts. Compared to the coalition's last budget, this budget had $185 billion of extra spending. For those who are hard of hearing, that's billion—not million, not thousand and not hundred. That is $185 billion worth of extra spending. That is $7,400 per person, and that $7,400 has to come from somewhere. Guess where it's going to come from? It's going to come from taxes that are going to be put on you, your income and your business. Basically, if it moves, Labor are going to tax it. If it doesn't move they're going to tax it, and, quite frankly, if it's having a nap, they'll tax it. This is the problem with this Labor government. We know how this movie is going to end. It is going to hurt the Australian people. Their record on economic management is so dismal, so poor, that the Australian people are going to be hurt. With all this extra spending, what has Labor done to support the backbone of our economy, the mining and agriculture sectors? They're particularly important to Senator Scarr and myself, in terms of our state of Queensland. What did Labor do? What did they say about the $185 billion? The Treasurer didn't even mention the word 'rail', the word 'dam', the word 'road', the word 'farmer' or the word 'agriculture'. He's not going to spend his $185 billion—it's not 'his' $185 billion; I'll correct myself and the Hansard. It is $185 billion of Australians' money; it's not the Labor Party's money. They're not going to spend the money on supporting rural, regional and remote Queensland, but, more importantly, this money actually isn't going to help Australian families. It's not going to support Australian families. Treasurer Chalmers, in his 30-minute eulogy last night for the Australian economy, was a constant disappointment. What is interesting is that, for every dollar of revenue imposed in this budget, the government decided to spend $2. So in this budget it is spending twice as fast as it's raising revenue. Try to run your family home on that. Try to run a business like that. But, of course, Labor haven't run businesses and, quite frankly, they're not very good at looking after their own money because they're all a bunch of union hacks who depend on the income from compulsorily acquiring union fees off the workers of Australia. So what we are going to see with this budget is Australian families getting smashed. They might think there's a little bit of a sugar hit, but what we know is that, if you have reckless economic management, which is what we saw last night, that is going to impact upon inflation. That means the cost of living is going to go up. This budget is going to be renowned as a budget that hurt Australia in the years and decades to come. 16:40 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania What a lot of nonsense. It's the same speech that Senator McGrath comes in and gives every time we're in this chamber. His former government have no credibility at all. For over nine years not one surplus did they deliver—not one surplus at all. We've delivered that. What we've done is start to clean up the mess that they left behind, including the $1 trillion debt that the Liberal and Nationals left this country in. That's the reality. That's what the Australian people understand. That's what they made their decision on at the last election—who was going to be able to get us out of the mess that we were in. They very clearly said no to the 'noalition'. Since re-emerging in opposition, they come in here and talk about the cost of living, which we are addressing. The Albanese government's budget eases the cost-of-living pressure on households. Our budget plan will directly reduce inflation in 2023-24. We know that Australians are struggling, something that those opposite failed to acknowledge in nine years when they continued to run down Australia's workers' wages. We saw the debt they kept piling on and piling on. With this budget, instead of being a reasonable opposition that have accepted the election result and acknowledged that they failed on energy policy, what do we see from them? They are voting against things that are going to really ease the cost-of-living pressure on Australians. We hear the opposition come into this place talking about housing. We all know mortgage interest rates have gone up, which they were doing under their government. We have invested $14.6 billion in a cost-of-living package. These measures are expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. We acknowledge Australians are under the pump, so we are carefully recalibrating and redesigning the budget to take the pressure off Australians. We are doing this in a responsible, adult way. The budget priorities are responsible. They're targeted for cost-of-living relief while also investing in the future, securing services Australians rely on and strengthening the nation's finances. Our cost-of-living plan will directly lower price pressures and the CPI in 2023-24 and will not add to the broader inflationary pressure in the economy. We've delivered a responsible budget while still spending so that the government isn't adding to that inflation in our economy. This includes 87 per cent of revenue upgrades in October and May to the budget, compared to those, when they were in government, of an average of only 40 per cent. There's a big difference between 40 per cent and 87 per cent. They've put their heads down. They don't want to hear these things. But Treasury's advice is that fiscal policy is working with monetary policy to tackle inflation in the near term. Australians are paying the price for the coalition's decade of failures. The coalition oversaw a decade of wasted opportunities. They had warped priorities and they left Australians with falling real wages. They had broken supply chains, which made inflation worse. They left $1 trillion—not $1 billion—of debt without an economic dividend to show for it—not one. And they espouse themselves to be the great economic managers between the two major parties! You have been seen for your failings. You have failed. You had 22 energy policies and couldn't land on one policy that was going to address the energy needs of this country. So, now when you're in opposition, you want to oppose everything. You won't support anything that we are doing in trying to restructure the National Reconstruction Fund, the Housing Australia Future Fund, or cleaner and cheaper energy. The coalition are just voting to increase inflation. That's what you're doing. We want inflation to be lower. You want it to be higher, or you would get on board and support the very good policies that are going to assist the housing crisis in this country. We are going to do something about energy. We're delivering real benefits to Australians. My home state of Tasmania will get a— (Time expired) 16:45 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Millions of Australians who voted for change at the last federal election will be disappointed to learn that one of the biggest losers from this federal budget was the environment and our oceans. We know we're in an extinction crisis and this government, with great fanfare, has signed up for big global pushes, like this Aichi zero extinction target. They've signed up to the UN's pledge to protect 30 per cent of our land and sea by 2030, but where's the funding for our threatened species framework in this budget? We know that to properly protect our environment, to stop the loss of threatened species and to restore our environment, we need at least $2 billion a year in funding, based on the US model. What do we get in this budget? Depending on how you dice it, maybe $50 million a year—a few per cent of what is required. I'd like to read the words of Professor Euan Ritchie, one of the many scientists who have been ringing the bell on the need for real government funding to protect our environment. He was surprised when he said that words that can't be found in the Treasurer's 2023 budget speech include 'climate change', 'wildlife', 'threatened species', 'ecosystems', 'extinction', 'biodiversity' and 'nature'. The only mention of 'environment' was actually in relation to the environment of inflation. So much for actions to back up the words from this government in a time of real crisis! Budgets are the most important time for governments, especially new governments, to show the nation what their priorities are, and it's clear as daylight that the environment is not a priority for this government. But it is a priority for the Australian Greens, and we will continue to fight for our environment. We know the government is going to be bringing forward legislation in the next six to nine months, and this is an issue we will continually raise so that in the next budget, in May 2024, we see the environment properly funded. 16:49 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales It's a pleasure to speak about this matter of public importance. I made a statement in an earlier debate that, unfortunately, the government, whilst deciding to run an inflationary fiscal position, has not been prepared to be honest about that for reasons known only to the government. Perhaps there are internal reasons or perhaps they are trying to manage some noisy stakeholders, but the test that they have set for themselves is a test that we will remind them of on a regular basis, and that is not to be overly partisan but just to be honest. If you're saying that inflation is going to halve over the next 12 months, and you've written it into the budget papers, then we hope that you're right. But I'd say it's going to be a challenge to halve inflation when you are running a massively expansionary fiscal policy. That I think is the government's own issue to resolve. Certainly we will be watching very closely what the Reserve Bank does and what the minutes say when they meet every month. The reality is that fiscal and monetary policy should be working in unison. The fact that there was a surprise interest rate rise only 10 days ago or so is a real warning that the Reserve Bank has been prepared to do what is necessary to try to rein in inflation. The Reserve Bank governor has been unfairly pursued by the Labor Party's backbenchers just for doing his job, and his job has been made much harder. Philip Lowe's job has been made so much harder by the Labor Party over these past 10 months. And the job of Philip Lowe, as the Reserve Bank governor, was made so much harder on Tuesday night with the announcement of more spending. And sure, not all the revenue upgrades were spent, but a large proportion was spent. And it is true that in the past too much of the revenue upgrades have been spent. So the key test for a government is: can it bank all of it? I would argue that that was the most appropriate policy position to take in this inflationary environment. That is the bottom line on inflation. We will watch closely as to whether the government is able to achieve its goal which it has written into the budget. The more immediate point, though, is that more taxation has been proposed in this budget and in the lead-up to the budget—a couple of billion dollars on super funds and the end, in some way, of dividend imputation, as well as a range of other things. Eventually some of these taxes are going to cause major problems and distortions, particularly this tax change on imputation. The reason for that is that the government is proposing a new test in the law which says you can pay a frank dividend only if you have a period where you haven't been raising capital. Now, most normal companies have to—guess what?—raise capital. It's called equity, and you need money to run a business. I would have thought that if the law says that if you raise capital you can't pay a frank dividend then people will be either less likely to raise the capital or less likely to pay tax in Australia. I think it is going to be a major change to our capital markets if that particular proposal is adopted The reason this proposal is on the table is that the government is needing to raise taxes, which of course is a breach of a commitment the government gave before the last election, which was not to raise any new taxes. We've seen a few new taxes in the last budget, in October. We've seen a few more taxes in the lead-up to this budget, which were leaked out and put into Budget Paper 2 last night. I would guess that there will be more taxes over the next year and a half or two years of this term. In summary, the position we have is that the government have said that they are wanting to fight inflation, but they're not quite telling the truth about that, because they're running an expansionary budget. They've said they will get inflation down to a bit above three per cent. That is a test we will hold them very closely to, and we will look at any other taxes they propose to try to fill their holes. 16:54 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The MPI before us today is a very flimsy fig leaf for the opposition in terms of their own record in government. It's all very well for those opposite to start talking about cost of living and inflationary pressures that all started under their government and to seek to pin that all home to the Labor Party. The simple fact is that you missed the opportunity to ease cost-of-living pressures for Australians. You had a direct impact on inflationary pressures inside the Australian economy. Let's not forget the so-called fiscal restraint that you claimed to have in trying to demonstrate that you weren't having inflationary pressure on the economy and that you weren't spending as much as you were. For example, let's not forget the so-called 'zombie measures', which Senator Gallagher has so eloquently outlined so often in this chamber, as unfunded measures in our federal budget. When we talk about these issues in this place, those opposite look at us incredulously, as if to say: 'Well, of course we weren't going to de-fund that. Of course we weren't.' The simple fact is either you were or you weren't. The budget papers say you were because the measures weren't there in your bottom line. If you were intending to keep such measures funded, then you can't take credit for the downward pressure on inflation for not funding them. Those opposite can't have their cake and eat it too. Here we have had an excellent finance minister and an excellent Treasurer go through the very hard slog of assessing measures in the budget, leaving no stone unturned in ensuring that we can maximise relief for families while putting downward pressure on inflation. The cost of living in Australia is, as we know, hitting many Australians extremely hard. Inflation, of course, remains our defining economic challenge this year, as it was last year. We know we are riding the waves of not only the global consequences around the war in Ukraine but also the decade of wasted opportunities from the previous government that have put enormous pressure on supply chains here in Australia and in terms of our global networks. Happily, Australians understand that our government has inherited these challenges, not created them. Australians look to the Labor government with purpose, to address these difficult challenges and to take responsibility for them—unlike those opposite. I have to say that it is indeed a struggle for Australians facing rising interest rates and rising costs of living, but the only way to bring this under control is through deliberate budget measures. The RBA has one set of levers, and our government has another. We have the opportunity to relieve cost-of-living pressures through the measures in this budget, and we are glad to do so. This means it's important to prioritise relief where Australians need it most. It means we need to prioritise services and utilities et cetera that Australians really rely on and need: bulk-billing, energy price relief, rent assistance and the expansion of the eligibility for single parents and carers for parenting payments— (Time expired) 16:59 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Everyone's a winner in Treasurer Chalmers's budget unless you understand that inflation is a tax that doesn't require legislation. It's a tax that hurts our most vulnerable. We've got a surplus, for now. There are no tough decisions in this budget. Courage is not the Treasurer's strong point. The unions are happy. The globalists are happy. The big corporates are elated. Productivity-boosting measures are non-existent in this budget. It's all about big government and short-term fixes to large problems, often created by the very government that chooses to ignore them. If we want our country to head in a better direction, increase our standard of living and help the disadvantaged, the solution is not more spending or big government. The solution is cutting red tape and green tape, removing barriers for business and promoting entrepreneurial attitudes. The solution is growing the pie so that everyone can eat. 17:00 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland What are the two words too scary for the Treasurer to mention even once in this budget? They are mining and agriculture. Ladies and gentlemen of Australia, booming mining and agriculture have yet again saved Australia's economy. The budget surplus is due to mining and agricultural exports, not to the Treasurer. Is he keeping it secret because Labor wants to continue to destroy these vital industries? We should be opening more coal mines, not blocking them. We should be building more coal-fired power stations, not blowing them up. And we should be setting our farmers free to feed and clothe the world. Labor's energy relief plan is an admission that net-zero policies cannot lower power prices. Today we have the highest ever amount of wind and solar, yet the Treasurer needs to step in and use taxpayer money to cover up how high they are driving power bills. On inflation, how inflationary will 400,000 new migrants be? Every single one of the 400,000 people arriving this year will need a roof over their head, a home. That's inflation. 17:01 Senator O'SULLIV 283585 Western Australia AN (—) (): I rise to support this matter of public importance brought forward by your good self, Acting Deputy President McGrath. This is a very important motion. It addresses an issue that Australians are facing right now. They're feeling the pain of the rising cost of living across this country right now. It doesn't matter where you are in this country, or what section of the Australian economy you are in. Businesses, individuals and families are feeling the rise of the cost of living. What we saw last night from the Treasurer—who was in fine form, glowing from the self-congratulation from his own side, channelling high-taxing Labor treasurers of years gone by—was a budget that doesn't address cost-of-living issues. Labor's true colours came through indeed. This budget did nothing to address cost-of-living pressures for Australian families. It did nothing to address the cost-of-living burdens being carried by Australians on a daily basis. It's a cost-of-living con job, frankly. That's what we saw. The only person with less sleep this week than the Treasurer was the governor of the Reserve Bank. That's because he knows that if the government continues to overspend, as it has done in its second year, the only way that inflation will be brought under control is by using the levers of the Reserve Bank governor—that is, by raising interest rates. There is enormous pressure on the Reserve Bank now because they're the ones left to carry the can. But guess what? It's the Australians struggling to pay their mortgages that will be left to do the heavy lifting. There was nothing in the budget last night that actually addresses the structural difficulties and challenges, to drive down the cost of living and decrease inflation. There's nothing in that budget. We saw some temporary measures that might help people. There's some energy relief, but that's for this year alone. Prices will still go up by $500. What is the government doing to put downward pressure on the cost of living? Sadly, nothing. We know that this government does not actually have a plan. If they did, we would have seen it last night. We've been saying this for a long time, hoping that when the budget was delivered on the first Tuesday of May there'd be a plan to address this significant issue that Australians are facing. Sadly, we were all left wanting. We're seeing increased spending. Two dollars is going out in expenditure to each dollar coming in in revenue, and what we're seeing is that the Reserve Bank are the ones that are going to have to deal with this and that the Labor Party have no plan to deal with inflation. Labor cannot spend its way out of this cost-of-living crisis. It was the great British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who said that the problem with socialism is that you eventually 'run out of other people's money'. That's what this government is doing. Australian taxpayers, they're spending your money, and they cannot spend their way out of this situation. The budget makes life harder for Australians. The budget confirms that your cost of living goes up. The budget confirms that the gas and electricity prices continue to skyrocket, that real wages have not grown, that inflation remains stubbornly high, that unemployment will rise and that Australians can expect to pay higher taxes. A typical Australian family is expected to be $25,000 a year worse off under this Albanese Labor government. Under Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, every dollar is worth less. That dollar that you've got in your bank account or in your pocket is worth less today because of this government than it was a year ago. The Treasurer is running around, pointing to his wafer-thin budget surplus. But let's face the reality that it is the resources sector—particularly, in my home state of Western Australia, the iron ore sector, which is obviously continuing to get record prices—that is delivering the surplus, and the Treasurer can't take credit for that. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Order! The time for the discussion expired. MATTERS OF URGENCY 84 MATTERS OF URGENCY Budget 84 17:06 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The President has received the following letter from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Labor's second budget is a betrayal of the people promised that no one would be left behind". Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:07 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia At the request of Senator McKim, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Labor's second budget is a betrayal of the people promised that no one would be left behind". I rise to speak on the fact that Labor's budget is a betrayal of too many people who were promised that no-one would be left behind. This budget is the first since the tabling of the report of the Select Committee on Work and Care, which I chaired. This was the government's first chance to address its 33 recommendations. It's report is a majority report. It's senators from Labor worked really hard alongside me to bring those recommendations to this parliament for action. Labor supported them in full, and the committee took evidence from people all around the country. We recommended a comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing the challenges of work and care in this country. It is action that would address the broken parts of our care economy and properly support the workers who make up our workforce, so many of whom are women responsible for others while holding down a job most days of the week. These challenges have only got worse in the months since our report was tabled. The housing crisis has become much worse. The cost-of-living crisis is runaway in our cities and our towns. This budget was a chance to squarely address the challenges that our committee revealed. This was their chance to make sure working carers weren't left behind. So how do we evaluate the budget in terms of that issue of who has been left behind? Let's start with a couple of bright spots. Firstly, the change to the single parenting payment which reverses the Gillard government's act of cruelty 10 years ago that forced so many single parents, mostly mothers, onto JobSeeker when their child turned not 16 not just 8 is a bright spot, for sure. But, incredibly, they were unable, they couldn't bring themselves, to fully fix their mistake of 10 years ago. They've left 15,000 families—parents of 14- and 15-year-olds—on JobSeeker, living in poverty. Just $80 million of that $2.4 billion surplus would have addressed that question and fully fixed their mistake under the Gillard government 10 years ago. Shame! It is a really serious error to have left those families behind. A second bright spot that I want to mention is the allocation of $11 billion to a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers, which our committee recommended and supported. That is also very good. But it's worth reminding ourselves that Labor had to be pushed to meet its obligation on this front. It tried to stretch the 15 per cent pay rise to be paid over two years, but the unions were outraged about this attempt to stall the full wage increase and had to fight to make sure that aged-care workers—overworked, underpaid, with no career structure and leaving in droves from the industry—weren't left behind by this budget. Against those bright spots, where are we on the broader set of recommendations that our committee made? Firstly, our report recommended a pay rise for all care workers, childcare workers and disability workers. They are left waiting and facing a crisis in their workforce. Beyond pay, we recommended a significant investment in 100 new childcare centres, which are desperately needed in childcare deserts across our country—still waiting. We recommended that the government find a pathway towards 52 weeks paid parental leave, the international standard on paid parental leave, which Australian women living in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet have a right to expect—still missing; left behind. There's much more that our inquiry recommended that is missing from this budget, such as free childcare and an increase in benefits that take people out of poverty, not a $2.85 increase in JobSeeker, which is less than a loaf of bread. There's so much more to be done in work and care. Much of it was affordable in a budget but was held back by a fetish about the surplus and Labor's choice to go easy on the tax industry and taxing them properly over the welfare of working carers. These are choices that put submarines before our kids' welfare. These are choices that put the stage 3 tax cuts in front of making childcare free, paying carers what they deserve and lifting our paid parental leave to the international standard. There's so much to be done to reform our workplace relations system. We will be working on that from the Greens' perspective to push further and faster for job security for so many of our workers. This budget has left too many things undone at a time when we could have gone much further, especially for the most vulnerable. We have to stop running our economy on the underpaid work of carers and the overwork of those who hold down jobs while juggling kids and all kinds of care. We must do better. 17:12 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I, too, rise to speak on this urgency motion. It's rare that I stand here to speak on a Greens urgency motion. I agree with the words of the urgency motion that the government has betrayed Australians. They have betrayed Australians, perhaps not in the same way as the Greens would characterise that betrayal. But the betrayal that I see most starkly is the betrayal of refusing to confront the scourge of inflation in this budget and in last year's budget. Inflation is a secret hidden tax on every Australian. Whether you've got $10 in the bank or $1,000 in the bank thousand or $100,000 in the bank, inflation makes you poorer. It reduces the spending power of the money you have. If you are one of those people who needs to spend everything they earn or receive in benefits, inflation is a curse. Make no mistake: inflation is a betrayal. Any government that fails to tackle inflation seriously and leaves all the heavy lifting in the inflation space up to the Reserve Bank is betraying Australians, every Australian, from the poorest to the wealthiest. It is a betrayal of our nation; it is a betrayal of every business in this country. It erodes the buying power of every Australian. It means that, when they go to the shops, their purchasing power is reduced; the basket of goods they can buy is smaller. It means that, when they go to fill up their car at the petrol station in the face of very high petrol costs, they also face inflationary costs. That means the value of the dollar in their pocket is less. That means that, instead of putting in a full tank of fuel, people have to decide whether to put in half a tank of fuel. It leads to massive declines in real wages. This is something I will dwell on because those opposite keep insisting they are the champions of the workers when, in actual fact, the record is very clear and very stark that they are betraying every worker in this country by not tackling the curse of inflation. Throughout the period of the last coalition government, contrary to the myths spread by those opposite, real wages actually grew. Real wages grew until we were hit by a once-in-a-century pandemic. Real wages grew under the coalition government, and what did we see? The Labor government came in and failed to tackle the curse of inflation, and now we see real wages plummeting. The December quarter saw a 4½ per cent decline in real wages in this country—a decline not seen in decades. That is what inflation does, and that is why the failure of this government to tackle the scourge of inflation in this budget is the ultimate betrayal of every Australian family, of every Australian business and of every Australian voter. Let's hear what some serious economists said about this Labor budget. It's not just me or those of us on this side of the chamber saying this. Stephen Anthony, Managing Director at Macroeconomics Advisory, said: 'This was Jim Chalmers chance to really cut. In fact, he's a net spender. Over his two documents so far and his two budgets over the last 12 months, he is making life harder for the RBA and for working Australians because he's not getting to the meat of the problem.' Chris Richardson, from Rich Insight, said: 'If you want to do all the fairness stuff and at the same time keep the Reserve Bank on the bench, I'd say you need to take some tough decisions, and, by and large, we haven't seen those tough decisions. I had thought, after the surprise rate rise from the Reserve Bank last month, that they were done and dusted. I'm less clear now that that's the case.' I have four or five other quotes from economists demonstrating that this government has completely failed to tackle inflation, and that is the ultimate betrayal. 17:17 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I was going to give a different speech, but I actually might give another one in light of the speech we just heard on the Greens' matter of urgency. The comments made before were quite alarming. There is nobody in this room, in this Senate, who does not see that inflation is an important thing for us all to tackle, but those opposite are suggesting that there is no policy initiative other than saying it's important to tackle and that it's the only thing we should be doing. Across the way, they were doing things and saying things for a very long time when they were in government, and, during the federal election, when we started talking about the cost of living, they didn't understand that dealing with the cost of living is about turning around and making sure that you have the capacity to pay for the costs that you're bearing. That's why the important changes that were made by Labor in the industrial relations field and the workplace relations field have been so critically important. But, before the election, those opposite wouldn't even support an increase of $1 an hour to the lowest paid workers in this economy. They refused to turn around and support it, and they still won't break ranks. The former Prime Minister is gone—he is about to go, go, go out of the seat of Cook—and they still won't break ranks. He's made the right decision, but they still hold it to their hearts. The cost of living is about a precept. It's an actual idea about how much money some people are making and how little others are forced to make. Look at the situation with the campaign during the 2022 federal election: the Liberal and National parties refused to commit to funding the aged-care pay order made by the Fair Work Commission. We just did that after this election. So, when they start talking about what needs to change, what they're really saying is that they're still sticking with their old policies—that if people are going to pay for it should be the ones who can least afford it, largely those in feminised industries like the care industry. We've paid and budgeted for that. We've made sure that we've put the money towards that 15 per cent wage increase, which is critical to the Australian economy, to the public and also to giving value back to the aged-care sector. I always think that, when they start talking about inflation and what that means, what they're really saying is that you don't matter, because we know and everybody in here knows that inflation is important. For example, at the Senate estimates in 2021, the former Assistant Minster for Industrial Relations, Senator Stoker said that, if gig workers are earning less than the minimum wage, then that's their choice because they entered into the contract. That's what they think: you can never get paid too little. How do you deal with the cost of living? You can never get paid too little as far as those opposite are concerned. Of course, at the hearing of the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living on 1 March this year, Senator Hume claimed that wages and working conditions are irrelevant to the cost of living. That's what you've got to say when people get up here and start saying, 'What is the importance of tackling inflation?' Actually, they're not about tackling inflation at all, and they're not about tackling the cost of living. They're about turning around and making sure that they look after certain particular interests. The tripling of the bulk-billing incentive for GPs has been critical. Increasing JobSeeker by $40 per fortnight is a step in the right direction. Providing $500 to more than five millions households to help with power bills is a step in the right direction. Increasing Commonwealth rental assistance by 15 per cent is a step in the right direction. Delivering a surplus for the first time in 15 years and reducing the deficit is important because it talks about our capacity for programs in the future—the things that many of us in this place, though not all of us, hold dear. Delivering an extra $2 billion for social and affordable housing is critical. They are critical steps, as are building a national emergency stockpile, making multinational companies pay a fair share of tax, supporting small business with cashflow support and extending the instant asset write-off. And there are a lot more. There are more and more and more. I've only got 37 seconds left, but what I want to say is that part of this important program, going forward, is making sure that we've got money for affordable housing. It's a step forward. That is really critical. Investing an additional $2 billion to enable more social and affordable housing to be built is critical. PowerHousing described it as a 'transformative reform' that will 'enable the housing needs of significantly more Australians to be met'. The Housing Industry Association said, 'We have to put something in place right now.' The National Shelter described it as 'the most critical housing legislation to be brought forward in the past 10 years'— (Time expired) 17:22 Senat 296331 South Australia or GROGAN () (): This really is quite the fascinating debate. I think, if you had sat in this place over the course of the last decade under the coalition government, particularly in those dying years, it would have been pretty easy to forget what good government actually looks like. So we do understand how confused you are when you look at the budget that was delivered yesterday and you see a balanced and sensible budget, but hang around long enough and maybe you'll learn something. Good government is all about pulling the right levers at the right time and making sure we balance all of the various areas of the budget. As the Treasurer said last night, we sought in all decisions to strike a considered and methodical balance. We need to exercise restraint and keep the pressure off inflation, but we also need to help those people out there who are struggling and ensure that vital services like Medicare and NDIS are delivered to those Australians who need them. Labor has delivered a budget that relieves that pressure. We've delivered a budget that is meaningful and that has significant cost-of-living relief for Australian households. Senator Sheldon has given a good list of the kinds of things we have in that budget to assist Australians, including with their power bills and health costs, supporting vulnerable Australians, creating more affordable housing and boosting wages. Regardless of the stunts and the grandstanding that we've seen today in this place, ordinary Australians are relieved to have seen a balanced budget that will genuinely make a difference to their lives. We don't pretend that everything has been fixed here at all. Not in any of the commentary yesterday did we claim that we've reached some sort of utopia. But, on the back of the chaos that we have seen, the challenges within the budget when we came to government and the things that we have had to fix, we have taken that first significant step that will fix the challenges that we've seen in this country over some time. I have been on the Select Committee on the Cost of Living over a number of months, and what became very clear to me in the first raft of hearings for that committee was that the Labor government inherited climbing energy prices due, in large part, to the energy policy chaos from those opposite. We confirmed that with the expert witnesses and the witnesses with lived experience. We also saw quite clearly from the housing experts and the housing peak bodies that the Labor government inherited a dramatic housing supply shortage due, in part, to the inaction of those opposite. On every level, in every function of that committee, we have seen that this crisis—claimed by those around me to have popped up miraculously on 21 May last year—was about long-term structural problems that had been baked into the budget by chaos and inattention and ideological beliefs. One of the things that is really critical and topical today as we desperately try to debate the Housing Affordability Future Fund is where we are going on housing. It's such a critical issue. We need to do more on housing. The Labor government is aiming to do more on housing but we are getting blocked by our colleagues in this place. And who is standing in the way? The Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens. One lot thinks that a $10 billion investment is too small to be worth the effort and so they would rather have nothing. The others think it is too easy to mismanage a $10 billion housing fund. Newsflash—you make be the rorting pinnacle of Australian politics, but we are Labor and we are in government and there will be no mismanagement of that fund. The Housing Australia Future Fund is a critical nation-building fund that will deliver critical housing that we desperately need in this country, and right now we are standing in this chamber with each of the other political parties—the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens party—intending to block $10 billion in housing. 17:27 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland In a cost-of-living crisis, the women in this country demanded and deserved bold action from this new government. Instead, we got more of the same half-measures and more of the spin that we saw in the October budget. One of the most heartbreaking things in the budget last night for me as the Greens spokesperson on women was that the government continues to ignore the calls from front-line domestic and family violence response services for enough funding so that they don't have to turn people away who seek their help. The government is continuing to ignore those calls and the sector has been making those calls for nigh on a year. They have been calling for $1 billion every year so they don't have to turn away people who seek their help. The funding shortfall that was delivered last night will see one in three women not able to get the help that they need. Women, children, people fleeing from violence—one in three of them will not be funded to get the help they need. Those services will be underfunded, and while Labor continues to underfund those domestic and family violence support services, and while victim-survivors continue to be turned away from crisis accommodation or told by the legal help line, 'I'm sorry, we just don't have enough staff to advise you,' one woman is murdered every 10 days in this country. The government has spoken about difficult choices in the lead-up to the budget, but many women are now facing an impossible choice: stay in an unsafe home or leave and put themselves and their kids at risk of homelessness. Women are choosing between violence and homelessness, and this government had the opportunity last night to fix that. Instead, it kept $254 billion in tax cuts to wealthy white blokes while women and children fleeing violence are not going to get the help they need to keep them safe. That was an active choice by this government and I was absolutely gutted to see that they refused to give those front-line prevention and response services the funding they need to save women's lives. What can be more important than that? Now, it is not just the Greens who are saying that, so too do a number of media commentators and all of the fabulous feminist advocates and women's safety advocates, including Renee Carr from Fair Agenda, who says, 'We welcome the $723 million but it still falls short of the $1 billion we need. Many women will be left without the support they need to be safe and recover from violence.' She says, 'We know specialist services can make a life-saving and life-changing difference to women trying to escape violence or recover from sexual assault but they need to be resourced.' Well, you had your chance. How dare you condemn women into poverty, violence and homelessness while dishing out money for submarines, fossil fuels, wealthy white guys and property investors. 17:30 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria The Prime Minister promised his government would leave no-one behind. Yesterday's budget showed the opposite. It left behind: refugees and asylum seekers, those on welfare payments—yes, the small increase is welcome but insufficient—people with disabilities, First Nations people seeking justice, homeless people, people on the public housing waiting list, people on low incomes, renters without rent assistance and students. We're in a cost-of-living crisis which affects struggling families and communities who are battling, yet this government, a Labor government supposedly representing the working class, is more concerned with providing tax cuts to the rich than housing, food and support for those who need it. 17:31 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I wanted to put the words of a young person on the record in this parliament because they are the ones with the most to lose from the budget that doesn't invest in the future or, indeed, the present. Everyone is talking about who wins and loses out of the budget. Let's look at that, and thank you, Taylor Tran, for these words: Young people—you win! Because HECS loans will rise 7.1% in June. You also get $2.85 extra in your pocket in JobSeeker and YouthAllowance to tackle the cost of living crisis and an extra $24 a fortnight to pay your rent. You're welcome, the government promised they wouldn't leave you behind! Women, you win most of all. There is no new funding for access to contraception and abortion—which are two key benchmarks of the national women's health strategy. You didn't need it anyway. People in the arts—you win! A few million will be funnelled into our institutions of art like the National Gallery, and a few more will go into attracting big-budget screen productions into our backyard so you can be employed. Nevermind the fact that it still costs and arm and a leg to study art at a tertiary level under the Job Ready Graduates Package, the Government has not left you behind. So if you can afford to graduate, you win! The environment—you won last night as well! Nevermind the fact we should aim for net zero emissions by 2030. This budget delivers $11 billion for fossil fuel subsidies and breadcrumbs for national parks. Apparently we have a just transition away from fossil fuels without spending any money—just don't ask how. Don't forget stage 3 tax cuts are still on the table, and the research shows the economy is far from flourishing at the moment. So, really, the Labor government's budget hasn't left anyone behind, not at all, not unless you're talking about young people, students, women's health, the environment or the arts. Thank you, Taylor, for speaking truth to power in this debate. 17:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I thank Senator McKim for this motion, which I support. The Albanese-Chalmers government is indeed leaving people behind: It leaves behind everyday Australians struggling to make their mortgage or rental payment, struggling with rising electricity bills and rising grocery bills. This budget leaves agricultural and rural communities behind. This budget leaves small business behind. This budget leaves heavy industry and manufacturing behind. And this budget leaves the mining industry, mining communities and mining workers behind. Last night the Treasurer repeatedly acknowledged the surplus came from increased revenue for the things we export, without once mentioning what the things are. Treasurer, say the name: mining, agriculture. These are paying for increased assistance to Australians in the budget. If the pool is not large enough to help everyone, One Nation has a simple solution—proven: invest in infrastructure, drive business growth and expand the pie so all Australians can save and have more. 17:34 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Last night's budget did not meet the needs of the disability community. Through a combination of its eight per cent cap on the NDIS and so-called effectiveness measures, the Labor Party is ripping over $74 billion out of our NDIS over the decade. Disabled people see this as a stab in the back. It is a broken promise from a government and a minister who promised that they would work in co-design on the big decisions, and it is a massive divergence from the road of reform and review that we were travelling down together in relation to the NDIS. The Greens are incredibly concerned that there was not a single dollar put towards implementing the recommendations of the Disability Royal Commission that will be handed to the government in September. Shame! We are incredibly concerned—and join with the community in fury and frustration—that DSP was not raised across the board. For those on the disability support pension, most of them have been left behind in this budget. The Greens are committed to working with the disability community to push back, to get this cap scrapped and to block any and all cuts. Together, we established our NDIS. Together, we defeated the Morrison government in relation to independent assessments and, together, we will defeat this Labor government if it attempts to cap or to cut our NDIS. 17:36 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Billions to the rich, subsidies to coal and gas, and rhetoric for the rest. The PM said that this would be a Labor budget. Well, I guess we now know what that really means. It seems that Labor have abandoned the economic base of their party just so they can win a petty argument with radio shock jocks over delivering a surplus. Rest easy, debt hawks: your nest is safe with the Labor Party. I hope the victory lap for a Tory campaign slogan was worth it. There were thousands of people in this country who were starving last night and, after the budget, they still will be. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Barbara Pocock at the request of Senator McKim be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:41]
(The President—Senator Lines)

37 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 17 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 89 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 21 of 2022-23 89 Consideration 89 17:46 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Sometimes, when you're looking at the way in which the Department of Defence and defence procurement is oversighted in this place, there are moments when powerful and loud truths are told. Sometimes there's a document or a moment when you suddenly look under the bonnet and see the way in which this institution, the parliament, fails to oversee what is now a $50 billion a year national expenditure on defence. With the tabling of the performance audit on the Department of Defence's procurement of Hunter class frigates by the Audit Office today, we suddenly lifted up the bonnet and had a look at how it all worked. It was a sorry tale, because, in a project for the Hunter class frigates, which has a current price tag of more than $45 billion, it turns out that, when the Department of Defence entered the contract for a $45 billion project, they got a number of tenders. There were three quite competitive tenders: one from BAE and a couple of others. They said to the government, 'Oh, we're going to do a tender process; don't you worry about it,' and they set out the documentation. Obviously, a core part of a public tender process is checking for value for money. Will this deliver what we want for value? In fact, it's hard to think of a more important element in a public tender process. They said, 'Does it deliver value for money?' That's what they said they test for. They handed the document to the minister, and they handed the document to the secret oversight committee, and they said, 'That's what we are going to do.' Then they went away and signed Australian taxpayers up to a $45 billion project without ever checking for value for money. They never did it. They never assessed the three competitive tenders against each other for value for money. They just signed off on the current project without ever checking, and then they forgot, or they failed, to tell the government that they'd never checked for value for money. They never told the government. I find it even more astounding that nobody in the minister's office checked, nobody in the coalition government checked and nobody in the Labor opposition checked. They have access to secret documents in their secret committee, and they all come together in their secret committee and think they're very important. They see people with brass clips on their shoulders and feel they're in some secret club, and not one of them ever asked whether they assessed a $45 billion project for value for money. Has it delivered value for money? Absolutely not. It's already 18 months delayed. It's already half a billion dollars over budget, which doesn't include the 95 contract variations they've had to enter into to try and make the thing bloody well float. The original contract provided for a frigate that turns out to be inadequately armed and inadequately defended, so they keep tacking things onto it: more missiles, more ammunition and more antisubmarine warfare project material. They keep tacking new things onto it, so now it's so top heavy you can't take it out to sea. If you put it out in a heavy sea, it will tip over and capsize. We're going to have six Hunter class frigates that'll only be able to be put out on the lake at the front of Parliament House. Did I mention it's a $45 billion project? What is clear from the Audit Office is that we've got a bunch of amateurs in there—or a bunch of noddies or a mixture of the two—signing up the Australian public to billions and billions of dollars of expenditure without even doing the most basic due diligence. And if you want a shiver to go down your spine as a young person in this country or as a taxpayer in this country, this is the same bunch of noddies who have just been given a blank cheque for half a trillion dollars or more, where they say they'll be able to deliver some submarines by 2060. Heaven help the Australian public! COMMITTEES 90 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Bills Committee 90 Scrutiny Digest 90 17:51 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest No. 5 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial responses to committee correspondence, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Human Rights Joint Committee 90 Report 90 17:51 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report No. 5 of 2023. Education and Employment Legislation Committee 90 Additional Information 90 17:51 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator Sheldon, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiries into Education and Other Legislation Amendment (Abolishing Indexation and Raising the Minimum Repayment Income for Education and Training Loans) Bill 2022, the provisions of the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the provisions of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 90 Delegated Legislation Monitor 90 17:52 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria I present the Delegated legislation monitor No. 5 of 2023, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 90 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Tabling 90 17:52 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania On behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government I table a ministerial statement concerning the regional budget statement. DOCUMENTS 90 DOCUMENTS Great Barrier Reef 90 Order for the Production of Documents 90 17:53 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Great Barrier Reef. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 91 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Regional Budget Statement 91 17:53 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to take note of the Regional ministerial budget statement 2023-24, released last night. I fully commend the response by the National Party leader and Shadow Minister for Agriculture David Littleproud in fully attacking and disclosing the real truth about Labor's budget deficit for the regions. If you thought the Labor Party had it in for the regions after the October budget, when they slashed over $22 billion of projects, programs and funding, they left absolutely no doubt last night. There were no new rail programs, no new road funding and no new regional grant funding applications, the types of programs that have underpinned small communities' and regional capitals' need for community and social infrastructure. There was no vision in last night's budget for the nine million of us who do not live in capital cities, who actually underpin the wealth of this nation, the nine million of us that grow clean, green product that feeds and sustains us here, domestically, but that we also export to markets around the globe. I know my colleague Senator McDonald will go into the resources sector in more detail shortly, but without the resources sector from the regions, Jim Chalmers would absolutely have no surplus in last night's budget. So it is very much the wealth producing areas of our nation that have copped it in the neck from a Labor Party that only has its eye and concern on those in capital cities and suburbs. There were new suburban programs—no worries, tick, tick, tick—but nothing for rural and regional Australia. We are 30 per cent of the population, 40 per cent of our economic output with zero focus and concern of the Labor Party. Was there a plan to deal with the rural doctor shortage? No. Was there a plan to more broadly deal with the lack of primary health care in regional capitals, rural country towns and, appallingly, in remote Indigenous communities? No. No, there wasn't. Was there one additional childcare place for people in country towns and rural capitals? No. They were talking a big game about childcare affordability, but what if you can't even access a place? The affordability of the place means nothing. This Prime Minister, this government, won the election. We live in a democracy and we respect democratic traditions. He promised to govern for all Australians. For those of us that don't live in capital cities in this country, we ain't feeling it. We are feeling forgotten and neglected. We've seen in the budget an increase in taxes on our trucking industry, on our buses and on heavy vehicles large and small. From the big B-doubles that take cattle from Cloncurry to ports for the live export trade to small delivery vans in regional capitals, every single truck driver will be seeing an increase in the fuel excise to the tune of $1.1 billion over the next three years. That's a tax on every single thing we make and every single thing we produce. The Labor Party like to claim this budget isn't inflationary, yet every decision they seem to make is not putting a downward pressure on inflation. The highlight of hypocrisy last night was the announcement of a tax on Australian farmers—for what? For a biosecurity system. Australian farmers aren't producing the risk to our biosecurity system. They're actually the ones that were yelling the loudest when this government fumbled our response to foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in Indonesia and Bali, when those opposite first came to power. It's Australian farmers who have been begging for a tight, sustainable biosecurity system that makes sure that those who are the risk bearers actually pay for it, who are the passengers that are coming through our airports. They are the importers, the bulk commodity importers, with the shipping containers. I am a former agriculture minister. Varroa mite and brown marmorated stink bug are things I didn't know about before I got that role. The brown marmorated stink bug came in on imported Italian plastic chairs in a shipping container, yet we refuse to charge those that are holding the risk. The bulk commodity importers are not paying it. Who are they slugging? Australian farmers, whose skyrocketing input costs mean that they are price takers. I tell you, John Kerin would absolutely be rolling in his grave, given his love for rural and regional Australia, his adoration for our agriculture industry, to see a Labor Party that, in their first serious budget, does nothing for rural and regional Australia. The Stronger Communities program: gone. The Resilient Regional Leaders program: gone—and the enhanced regional security screening program for regional airports. And heaven forbid we might want to go and see a specialist in a capital city and not have to drive seven hours to get there. Do you know why there's a higher death rate in rural and regional communities? It's because they just choose not to go to the specialist. They can't afford a week off farm or a week away from the kids, so they just don't go to that specialist check-up. So airports are not just important for the import and export of goods. It is about access to health care, access to education, and economic benefits—scrapped. The national freight and supply chain priorities, the Inland Rail Interface Improvement program: we've heard this government scathing about the Inland Rail. I've been on the ground in regional New South Wales in the last couple of weeks. This is a project that is delivering economic benefits right now. This government has nothing good to say about rural and regional Australia. We've had enough of it. Do you know why they don't vote for you? Because you don't back them. You don't back our industries. You don't back our access to services that you all take for granted. If you want to talk about vulnerable people and communities, we know about them, because we represent them. The eight electorates with the lowest median income level in this country are National Party electorates. Those with the highest Indigenous populations are National Party electorates. So, we don't come here with some confected concern, some theoretical ideological approach to making things more sustainable. We actually know what is required. You've had this consistent focus on funding huge stadium projects in capital cities or on funding Daniel Andrews's pet project of the suburban rail loop—$2.2 billion—in Victoria, rather than putting it in to road or rail projects which will lower emissions and take freight trucks off roads and make our roads safer. That's another thing you've done: you've cut the road safety funding. So, the only thing in this budget for us out in the regions is the quiet but succinct and very deeply held acknowledgement that this Labor Party doesn't care about those of us who don't live in capitals, and it's hard to not think that that is a very partisan decision to make. I commend my leader's response in the other place. I condemn Catherine King and her failure to deliver for regional Australia in this budget, and Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese. I look forward to the re-election of a coalition government that will once again reinvest in the heart of our nation: rural and regional Australia. 18:03 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I too rise to take note of the statement by the Minister for Infrastructure, Regional Development and Local Government, the regional budget statement. The problems faced by regional Australians are very close to my heart as a regional Queenslander. Regional Australia gives a lot to this country, providing most of the food to the cities and accounting for over half of the money brought in from tourism. But supporting our regions means listening to the people who live there. It means understanding that scratching the surface of regional Australia reveals dark depths of inequality and poverty, particularly in many smaller communities. People living in regional and remote communities in this country die younger and from preventable causes at rates that are much higher than those of their counterparts in the capital cities. Bridging this divide means acknowledging the unique workforce and inequality problems that undermine prosperity in the regions. I've been travelling around regional Queensland in recent weeks, talking to specialists who work in my community, health specialists who travel into my community, regional doctors and other regional health workers. They tell me that part of attracting to regional Australia a health workforce that is well paid includes making sure that there are good homes and education options for these people and their children, as well as professional development opportunities. Health intervention is welcome, but, without a house to live in or a way to get there, a lot of regions are already struggling to retain the doctors, nurses and medical undergraduates that they need to get the care that people deserve. Right now there is a shortfall of social and affordable housing in regional areas of 227,000. Thirteen hundred is not even going to slice off the top of that. Rather than genuinely engaging with the scale of the housing crisis, this budget has handwaved away the millions of people who are struggling to keep a roof over their head, especially in the regions. Handing out $1.12 a day in rent assistance while rents increase 10 times faster is a fig leaf thrown into a fire. Getting serious about regional Australia means actually providing housing in regional Australia. I was elected by the people of Queensland to represent their best interests. That means actually standing up and fighting for them, particularly the 81,500 people without an affordable home in regional Queensland. Funnily enough, for my colleagues in the room, scrapping stage 3 tax cuts would absolutely be a regional budget measure. Right now 12 out of the bottom 20 electorates that are set to receive the absolute least from stage 3 cuts are rural and regional seats. These tax cuts do nothing for regional Australia. In Queensland, this means towns like Bundaberg, Charleville, Gympie and virtually all of south-western Queensland from Toowoomba to the border will get next to nothing in the stage 3 cuts. Scrapping the stage 3 cuts would be a regional measure. Funding of $40.4 million for schools in Central Australia shows us that the Labor Party knows that public schools aren't properly funded in this country. Plugging the funding shortfall for some schools for only two years does not go anywhere near far enough to put our public education system back on track. Right now, public schools are underfunded across the board. This is felt particularly acutely in regional Australia, where I have spent the bulk of my teaching career, where families without resources to board their kids find themselves in a public school system with dwindling resources and a lack of capacity to really provide for those kids. Teachers should not be stretched to their limits to provide our young people with the basic right to a world-class public education. Right now, the government could untie its hands from the arbitrary 20 per cent cap on funding, and they could lift every public school in this country up to and above the minimum school resource standard. Every budget that we don't do this is another year that cements our education system as amongst the most privatised and underfunded public sectors in the world. Although regional Australia provides for over half of our tourism dollars, this budget has also extended nothing to protecting the environment that brings that money in. Throwing a couple of million dollars towards world heritage properties does absolutely nothing towards genuinely curbing the incoming biodiversity loss we are facing. There has been no attempt in this budget to address the genuine causes of biodiversity loss or to ban native forest logging. It is not true that the government just can't afford better environmental protection. The budget showed us what Labor prioritises, and it is not the environment. We also need to see genuine spending on emergency response capacity. An investment of $200 million per year is completely dwarfed by the billions that we continue to heap onto fossil fuel corporations to allow them to accelerate climate change and the resulting environment damage. The continued acceleration of the climate crisis means that the impacts will grow in their cost and the devastation of natural disasters will increase, and this will impact people in regional communities. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority estimated that, to recover the economic losses caused by natural disasters, Australia must invest $3.5 billion every year just on natural disaster mitigation and resilience. But what did we see in the budget? We saw an investment of $200 million per year. It won't even touch the sides. To realistically prepare regional Australia for insurance costs would involve not opening any new coal or gas projects. This is in line with the scientific consensus of how we avoid climate catastrophe. Resilience and mitigation investment should be drawn from the fossil fuel projects we currently subsidise. As a regional Queenslander and as your Greens representative for regional development, I am here to fight for what the regions need, which is health, housing, a world-class public education, a healthy environment and a sustainable economic future. 18:12 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise to take note of the regional ministerial budget statement given by the minister in the other place. I want to acknowledge a number of the items that Senator McKenzie has already spoken about and also a number of the things that Senator Allman-Payne has spoken about, which is the very real and distinct challenges for regional Australia. We live in a vast continent. Queensland, in particular, is one of the most decentralised states in all the world, yet that does not seem to have been reflected in any way in this budget. It is just devastating to listen to interviews with peak bodies, with industry sectors and with communities across Australia as they have reflected on exactly that. They reflected on things like: the lack of funding for first and last mile road spending; the removal of water projects, particularly in northern Australia, as well as right across the country; and the inability of this government to articulate a food security commitment to agricultural production across Australia. This is something that we do incredibly well, and food security and affordable food with good nutritional content is something that we should remain focused on—not just for people who can afford to go to lovely farmers markets in the cities but for people who live in really remote places where their food is not fresh, the nutritional value has fallen and the prices are eye watering. One of the things that the coalition government committed to was expenditure for a cold store in Alice Springs to try and improve the quality of food that's distributed to different parts of the country. I digress. There is so much to talk about regarding regional Australia. Education is something that Senator Allman-Payne touched on already. I want to go further afield again to the geographically isolated children of the families who work on remote cattle stations and to people in remote mining communities, who do travelling work, whether it's contract work or work in remote communities. These kids and families have really been completely forgotten. They did so much work prior to this election in speaking to Labor ministers about basic support to be able to allow these families to educate their kids. During COVID a lot of parents got firsthand knowledge of what it was like to educate their children. It's hard work, and it's incredibly important work. These kids are missing out. There was no acknowledgement of a number of the issues that were raised with the government and certainly no funding in this budget for them. I think about the forgotten flood, which is what I've taken to calling the floods in Far North Queensland that ran up through the Leichhardt River and devastated some of those communities. Tens of thousands of head of cattle were strung up in trees and washed out to sea, and there were communities where the water went above head level, through homes and through little classrooms, and yet the disaster relief agency has not even heard of some of these places because the government, in their wisdom, decided that they wouldn't mobilise the Army. Instead, these people have been left completely forgotten, unable to apply for assistance because their address doesn't fit the government's formatted 'Five Smith Street' kind of address profile, which is just incredibly frustrating in this day and age. We've talked about the increase of the Medicare, but there is still no acknowledgement or limited acknowledgement of the additional training places that we need for nurses in regional places and for GPs in regional places, so I just wonder how deep we're going to let the regions slide and how much disadvantage we're going to bake in. We had plans to be continuously upgrading services, roads and blackspot programs, but, again, under this government they have just been completely politicised and ripped away. I watched the biosecurity announcement discussion from the agricultural minister. It is really distressing to see that somehow farmers are responsible and not the people who bring in pests and weeds into this country. But it is farmers! Yet, again, in Queensland the state Labor government is pulling biosecurity officers out of regional communities, which means of course that there is no front line, as the minister keeps talking about. The childcare subsidy—what a terrific announcement if it was available to all Australians, which, of course, it's not. In regional Australia there are very limited childcare centres and even more limited childcare workers, which means that this budget package will only apply it to people who live in inner-city areas. Again, it's another tragedy for women and parents who are trying to go back to work to work in these really important sectors, whether it be tourism or agriculture or—and this is the elephant in the room—the resources sector, because this budget has been funded by the strength of the resources sector, not through any action of this Labor government at all. In fact, Labor has done everything it possibly can to attack the resources sector and the communities that keep this country going. Labor is using this resources windfall to hide their reckless spending, which, as economists and commentators over the last 24 hours have described, will only further drive up inflation, will further drive up interest rates and will further drive up the cost of living for Australians right across the country. So, I guess what they say is true: you will always pay more under Labor. As for the resources sector, the finance minister was not able to say the words iron ore, coal or gas. In fact, in the Treasurer's speech, last night, he spoke about 'things' we export and 'key exports'. That was as close as he could come to acknowledging the industries that have paid the bills and allowed him to enjoy the coalition-led surplus that he talked about last night. Iron ore exports earned $121 billion for this nation, coal exports earned $128 billion and gas LNG exports earned $91 billion. That is $464 billion that was brought into this country's accounts, yet this government could not even say that word, could not acknowledge those sectors and those employees—14.5 per cent of GDP. The workforce sector, the income paid to those well-paid jobs, mostly in the regions, is $38.1 billion. The PAYG tax take from those wages has funded much of the government's largesse, yet they could not acknowledge those men and women working in those industries. There was $16.7 billion from oil and gas but not an acknowledgement of them, the industry or the people. Over 40 per cent of the corporate tax take came from oil and gas yet there was no acknowledgement. The Treasurer could not say thank you, could not acknowledge the risk, the hard work and the investment that these businesses have made to access, yes, Australia's resources, but with no acknowledgement of the benefits that they provide to this country. There are 286,000 people directly employed by the resources sector and 1.1 million people indirectly supported but there was no acknowledgement of the resources sector. And guess what? There is no easy replacement for those jobs. The minimum salary in those industries is $150,000 a year, and you are not going to get that polishing solar panels. What is our replacement that we propose to fund this country's fabulous First World lifestyle, particularly if you live in a city? So the regions have definitely got it in the neck. There has been almost no acknowledgement of the important infrastructure that is required, or of the support for education, for health, for other services that are so desperately needed in regional Australia, yet this Labor government has completely sold them out. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Are you seeking leave to continue your remarks? Senator McDONALD 123072 Indeed, I am. Debate interrupted. COMMITTEES 94 COMMITTEES Education and Employment References Committee 94 Membership 94 18:22 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I move: Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into the impact of the Paid Parental Leave scheme on small business Participating member: Senator Faruqi Question agreed to. BILLS 95 BILLS Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 95

Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023

Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

First Reading 95 18:23 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 95 18:24 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech es read as follows— INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF AGED CARE BILL 2023 Today I introduce the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023. A good leader never asks a person to do something they wouldn't. Since being elected to government almost twelve months ago, the Albanese Government has demanded accountability and transparency from the aged care sector. It was a demand almost everyone welcomed, except of course the Coalition, who predictably criticised oversight as being unrealistic and unfair. The Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill reinforces the Albanese Government's commitment to be open and transparent with the Australian public. To hold ourselves to the same high standards we demand of the sector. This Bill will establish an independent Inspector-General of Aged Care, who will monitor and investigate the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of the aged care system. An Inspector-General who will shine a light on uncomfortable, systemic issues and investigate their root cause. An Inspector-General who will report their findings and recommendations to Government, to Parliament, and to the public, to instil greater accountability and transparency across the aged care system, and, in tum, facilitate positive change for older Australians and their families. Through nine years of neglect, the Australian public lost trust of how our most vulnerable Australians were being cared for. This bill is another step to restoring trust. Systemic problems must be thoroughly understood if they are to be effectively corrected. But successive Australian Governments have brought a level of ambivalence, timidity and detachment to its policy and administration. Some changes to the system have been far reaching, others have been incremental. But all have contributed to the ad-hoc and piecemeal development of aged care reflecting the circumstances and concerns of the day. We can list every error or fault in the aged care system until we are blue in the face—and some try—just look at the comments on my Twitter. But pointing out faults does not address the root causes of the problems that are embedded in the structural design of the aged care system. The Royal Commission found that these factors have hindered the smooth administration of the system. They have made it more difficult to provide high quality and safe services. As the needs of older Australians have evolved over time, so too has our aged care system. We are at the precipice of the next great test of our aged-care system, the boomer generation. If we don't address these issues now, we will not be prepared for the greatest challenge our aged care system has faced in the past century. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety highlighted a clear need for independent oversight of the administration and regulation of the aged care system. The Commission recommended that the governance of the aged care system be subject to such ongoing scrutiny. That government bodies responsible for governance, regulatory and pricing roles within the aged care system must be held accountable for their processes, their decisions, and their performance. Aged care is not a single service. It is a large and complex system that includes several agencies and a range of programs and policies designed to care for and support Australians as we age. The Commission saw the Commonwealth having four distinct roles in the governance and administration of the aged care system. The System Governor—the Australian Government and the Department of Health and Aged Care. The policy owner, the market steward, working to ensure equitable access and appropriate policy settings across the system. Designing and driving an aged care system that provides older Australians with access to aged care services and appropriate care. The Quality Regulator—the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, charged with regulation of aged care providers, ensuring they deliver the safe, dignified, and quality care that our mums, dads, grandmas and grandpas all deserve. The Prudential Regulator—an expanding role within the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission which ensures a strong, financially viable, aged care sector that is compliant with prudential obligations, where quality and safety of care is not compromised by financial instability. And the Pricing Authority—whose functions were recently consolidated in the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority, providing independent advice to ensure that aged care funding is driven by the actual cost of delivering care. These four roles comprise the framework that the aged care system operates within. The Inspector-General will be independent from these bodies, but they will each fall within the scope of the Inspector-General's oversight. Importantly, the Inspector-General will not duplicate the functions of existing bodies within the aged care system. The Inspector-General will be empowered to review these government agencies, to consider their actions, their decisions, and their performance. To consider how the programs and grants they administer are meeting their objectives. To consider whether regulatory settings are right and drive compliance with the standards which keep older Australians safe. To ask "Have they got it right?" To question whether these bodies are bringing about positive change, whether the aged care system is getting better as a whole. The Inspector-General will also focus their attention on reviewing existing complaints mechanisms to consider how complaints are handled and provide recommendations to support a continuous improvement model for all complaints processes to make sure people's concerns get a fair hearing. One benchmark against which these bodies will be measured is the implementation of the Royal Commission's recommendations. The Inspector- General will monitor and evaluate the progress of implementation of these recommendations and ask "Is that what the Royal Commissioners envisaged? Is it something better?" And if not, why not? Independence and impartiality are cornerstones for the Inspector-General who will have autonomy and discretion as to how they perform their functions and exercise their powers. The Bill gives the Inspector-General coercive information gathering powers. The powers enable the Inspector-General to compel the production of any information or documents relevant to their functions. The power to compel someone to appear and to answer questions or to enter premises for the purposes of performing their functions. These powers extend to anyone the Inspector-General reasonably believes has information that supports the exercise of their functions. They override secrecy provisions and abrogate privileges. They ensure the Inspector-General can access all the information necessary to investigate systemic issues, to identify and promote best practice and innovation across the aged care sector, and to make recommendations that will bring about real change. The Inspector-General's functions can be seen broadly as Monitoring, Reviewing and Reporting. Monitoring Independent oversight means understanding what is going on across the aged care system. The Bill enables the Inspector-General to use their information gathering powers to monitor decisions, programs, operations and funding under aged care laws to maintain a comprehensive understanding of what is occurring, what trends are emerging, what systemic issues are prevailing, and what insights can be seen from a holistic view. The Bill does not prescribe a framework for how the Inspector-General will monitor the aged care system. It gives the Inspector-General the discretion to apply information gathering powers in the most appropriate manner, to seek the most appropriate information to analyse, and to interpret and report their findings to the public, Government and the Parliament on the health of the aged care system. Reviews The Bill sets out a more prescriptive framework for the Inspector-General to investigate systemic issues through targeted reviews. More prescription to reflect the investigative and resource intensive nature of these reviews. To give assurance to the public and aged care government bodies on the priorities of the Inspector-General, the Bill requires the Inspector-General to publish a workplan each year, outlining the reviews they intend to conduct and when they intend to commence each review. This plan may be varied at the discretion of the Inspector-General. While the Inspector-General will consult on the plan, the Bill gives the Inspector-General discretion to determine what will be reviewed, and when and how they will do so, within the framework outlined in the Bill. We know that deciding what to review is a critical matter for everyone. We have heard already, while consulting on the Bill, that people want to contribute to the workplan. But we need to be smart and targeted and allow the Inspector- General to hear, then focus their resources on the most pressing systemic issues. The Inspector-General will focus reviews on pervasive, systemic problems in aged care. Detailed investigations that dig into the root cause of issues, not just addressing the symptoms on the surface that everyone can see. Looking at the why and how. The Bill does not allow the Inspector-General to review a single case, complaint or breach under an aged care law. Their role focuses on broad, systemic problems. This avoids duplication between the Inspector-General's functions and those of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission or the Commonwealth Ombudsman, as well as minimising confusion as to where complaints should be directed. The review framework focuses on transparency and procedural fairness. When necessary, the Bill allows the Inspector-General to use their information gathering powers to obtain the information they need. This could be documents or data. The Inspector-General may conduct interviews, access premises and interrogate computer systems. The Bill allows the Inspector-General discretion to seek information through submissions from the public, or to target certain people, or sectors of the community or aged care, in order to understand lived experience or seek an opinion or knowledge from specialist sectors or groups. The Bill provides protection from victimisation and immunities to those who provide information or assistance to the Inspector-General's performance of their functions, with strong penalties for those that breach secrecy or protection provisions. The Bill requires the Inspector-General to be transparent and produce a report for each review they conduct, to be tabled in Parliament and published. These investigations will not be conducted in secret, and findings and recommendations will not be hidden from the Australian public. These reports will be fair. Where anything is expressly or impliedly critical of a person, whether it be a government official or a member of the public, that person will receive a fair hearing. They will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond and to present their case. The Inspector-General will consider any responses, any comments on any drafts, and any recommendations where they have asked for one. Reports The Inspector-General will report on more than just their reviews. The Inspector-General may at their discretion report on the outcomes of their ongoing monitoring. Reporting publicly and to Parliament on whether the aged care system is meeting the objectives of the aged care legislation. Whether Australian government bodies are performing in a way that enables an effective aged care system, whether they are driving excellence. The Bill also empowers the Inspector-General to report to the Government, the Parliament and the public on the progress of implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Progress reports from the Inspector-General will occur annually to ensure that aged care reform remains a priority. To ensure that older Australians see the benefit of the reform coming from these recommendations, this Bill requires the Inspector-General to undertake a detailed review and report to the Government, the Parliament and the public by the 5 and 10 year mark. In the hearing for the Royal Commission, both Uncle Brian Campbell and Professor John Pollaers asked the Royal Commissioners essentially the same question. Will anything get done following this Royal Commission? Will anyone be held accountable for its learnings and implementing the recommendations? This Bill makes sure of it. It makes sure the Royal Commission is not just another missed opportunity, another report completed. It makes sure that someone is watching over and making sure things gets done, someone who has the autonomy to say whether those things are effective or not. The Bill I introduce today will steer a course to an aged care system that delivers safe and high quality care and underlines our commitment to hold ourselves accountable. We can't demand accountability from the sector without turning that mirror to ourselves. Reforms like the Inspector General will help avoid a repeat of the previous nine years of malaise and mismanagement from the previous government and uplift the standards of aged care. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF AGED CARE (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL The Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 makes consequential and transitional amendments to Commonwealth laws to support the establishment of the Inspector-General of Aged Care. The Bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 to ensure information can be shared with the Inspector-General for the purpose of carrying out its functions. The Bill also amends the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 to require that a person, having already been investigated by the Inspector- General, can only be investigated by the Commission where it is in the public interest to do so. Finally, the Bill provides for transitional arrangements to move from the interim administrative arrangements within my department to the statutory Inspector-General. Senator AYRES 16913 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023 98

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023

First Reading 98 18:24 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 98 18:24 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Labor has a proud history of improving the lives of Australian children and their families. It was a Labor government that introduced Paid Parental Leave, it was a Labor government that launched the first National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, and it was a Labor government that legislated child support in 1988. The Hawke Government introduced the child support scheme to protect the economic security and wellbeing of children affected by family breakdown. Then Social Services Minister, the Honourable Brian Howe MP, said in parliament at the time, This Bill will make the legal right of children to be supported by both their parents a real right. We will turn what for most children is an empty promise into solid, regular financial support. The Albanese Government is continuing this proud legacy. We are committed to ensuring children of separated parents have financial security. Government has an obligation to make sure the child support scheme is working for parents and children—many depend on it for economic security and stability. Last financial year, $3.7 billion in child support payments were transferred between 1.3 million parents for 1.1 million children. The median income of parents who receive child support is around $33,000. That is less than half of the annual average weekly total earnings of all employees. The majority of parents who receive child support receive a social security payment. These are low-income parents, most of them single mothers, who need and rely on the government supporting them. I am keenly aware of the difficult financial circumstances facing many single parents and I am committed to ensuring these parents receive the financial support that they, and their children, are entitled to. Most parents do the right thing and fulfil their child support obligations. Since its introduction in 1988, the government scheme has transferred over $33 billion in child support payments. But when parents don't pay their child support on time, it has a real and material impact on the financial security of single parents and their children. As a government, we are deeply concerned about the $1.69 billion in child support debt that has accrued over the last 35 years. It is critical that our system is effective at assessing and collecting child support. The Bill I introduce today, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023, will improve debt recovery and help prevent future debts for low-income parents. This Bill is a first step to make the scheme better for parents and children. It implements our commitment, outlined in our response to parliament's family law inquiry, to legislate the child support measures first announced in the 2021-22 MYEFO. From 1 July 2023, the Bill makes three changes to help reduce child support debt. These changes are expected to recover up to $164 million in debt owed to parents and their children. First, the Bill expands the circumstances where Services Australia can deduct child support debts directly from a parent's wages. Known as employer withholding, this is the default method of paying child support. The Government's obvious preference is that child support is paid on time to ensure parents have the financial resources they need to meet the cost of their children on an everyday basis. Employer withholding is an effective and efficient way for the Government to collect child support and administer it to parents. Last financial year, Services Australia used employer withholding to collect $743 million in child support from around 91,000 parents. Currently, Services Australia can only initiate employer withholding in active child support cases—as in, cases where there is an ongoing child support obligation. This Bill will fix that. It will allow Services Australia to use employer withholding to collect child support debts in any case, including those that have ended. For example, the child may have turned 18 and therefore the case ended, but a debt is still owed to the receiving parent. Over two years, this change alone is expected to recover up to $164 million in unpaid child support from around 18,000 parents, with an average debt of nearly $11,000 owing to the receiving parent. A second change will tighten the rules around departure prohibition orders for parents who deliberately and repeatedly avoid their child support obligations. When parents do not pay child support on time, Services Australia has a range of options to enforce payment, including deducting it directly from wages and intercepting tax refunds. Reserved for extreme cases, after other avenues have failed, Services Australia can prevent a parent from leaving Australia by making a departure prohibition order. However, under current rules, Services Australia must issue an exemption if the owing parent provides financial security—like a bond—for their return to Australia by a specified date. Their bond must be returned to them if they return to Australia by the specified date—regardless of whether or not they repay their child support debt. The current rules mean a parent who has the financial resources to provide a bond is able to travel overseas despite actively avoiding their legal obligations to provide financial support to their children. The Bill will stop these parents from exploiting this loophole. It will allow Services Australia to refuse an exemption, even when they offer financial security—unless Services Australia is satisfied the parent has made arrangements to repay their child support debt. While this measure will only impact around 110 parents, this group is responsible for a large debt pool, at an average of $43,500 each. The number of cases may be small, but the detrimental impact on children and single parents is significant. A third change will improve income accuracy for around 150,000 low- income parents each year who are not required to lodge a tax return. While most parents are required to lodge a tax return, for some of the most low-income parents, the Australian Taxation Office does not require a tax assessment. A parent with child support obligations is not required to lodge a tax return if they receive an income support payment and their adjusted taxable income is less than the child support self-support amount, which is $27,508 in 2023. The self-support amount recognises parents not only need to support their children, they need to meet their own living expenses—the self-support amount quarantines part of their income before child support is assessed. If these parents do not lodge a tax return, they must lodge a Return Not Necessary with the ATO and separately advise Services Australia of their actual income for the relevant financial year, so this can be factored into their child support assessment. However, for those who don't provide any income information, Services Australia must use an alternative provisional income in the child support assessment. Currently, Services Australia may apply a provisional income that is two-thirds of the annual male total average weekly earnings—$55,016 in 2023. This default provisional income is twice as high as the self-support amount—the upper income limit that applies if a parent is not required to lodge a tax return. Therefore, it can significantly overestimate the parent's income. An inaccurate estimate can put low-income parents into financial hardship in two ways—it can result in a parent receiving less child support than they should, or it can result in a parent being liable to pay more child support than they are able. The Bill fixes this problem—from 1 July 2023, for a parent who lodges a Return Not Necessary and does not provide Services Australia with income information, Services Australia will create a provisional income that is equal to the self-support amount. This will ensure Services Australia reflects the parent's low income in their child support assessment. This change is expected to benefit up to 150,000 parents each year, with parents who receive child support making up around 70 per cent of this group. The change will prevent future debts by ensuring that for both receiving and paying parents, the rate of child support reflects their financial capacity. This change will work in conjunction with existing provisions in the scheme to ensure child support assessments reflect accurate and contemporary earnings information—parents can advise Services Australia of their actual income at any time and Services Australia access information from the ATO. The changes in this Bill will make a real difference to the lives of single parents and their children. But we also knows there is more work to do to improve the child support scheme to better support families. In the Government's response to the family law inquiry, tabled in January 2023, we agreed to a range of recommendations to improve the operation of the child support scheme over the longer-term. This includes reviewing compliance, with a particular focus on improved collection and enforcement. While most people do the right thing, some people deliberately avoid paying child support to inflict financial control and abuse on their former partners. We also know that in some circumstances the child support system is used as a means of continued financial control and abuse after people have left abusive partners, which results in sustained trauma for victim-survivors. All forms of family and domestic violence are unacceptable. The Albanese Government is committed to ensuring single parents and their children receive the financial support they are entitled to, and that government systems don't exacerbate any abuse, including financial. The Government will also consider interactions between the child support scheme and government payments, like Family Tax Benefit. In 2023, we will establish a Child Support Consultation Group to provide a strong voice to Government on issues impacting families, and commission an evaluation of separated families to understand what can be done to support parents where private collect arrangements have broken down. The Government will also commission new research into the costs facing separated parents, and establish a Child Support Expert Panel to ensure the child support formula reflects the current costs of raising children in Australia. In summary, we in this place have a responsibility to improve the lives of Australian families, and we must work together to strengthen the child support scheme and deliver on its promise that children are financially supported by their parents. The best interests of children will always be paramount to any changes the Albanese Labor Government makes to the child support scheme. I commend the Bill. Debate adjourned. Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 100

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023

Returned from the House of Representatives 100 COMMITTEES 100 COMMITTEES Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum Joint Select Committee, Membership 100 BILLS 100 BILLS Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023, Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023, Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023, National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Information Disclosure, National Interest and Other Measures) Bill 2022, Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023 100

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022

National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023

Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023

Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023

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

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Information Disclosure, National Interest and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023

Assent 100 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 100 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Social Security (Administration) (Declinable Transactions and BasicsCard Bank Account) Determination 2023 100 Disallowance 100 18:25 Senator 155410 Victoria RICE () (): I move: That the Social Security (Administration) (Declinable Transactions and BasicsCard Bank Account) Determination 2023, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed [F2023L00189]. Labor government promises—we had some last night in the budget. The government promised that no-one was going to be left behind, and yet we have so many people that are being left trapped in poverty. On compulsory income management, we've got another huge broken promise from the Labor Party. The Labor Party have made so many promises when it comes to compulsory income management. When they were in opposition they promised to repeal the cashless debit card. They ran an aggressive scare campaign against compulsory income management that went out to pensioners, telling them that they might be subject to it in future. They had petitions. They had sign-ups. They were using compulsory income management to try and win votes. But, despite this unfounded scare campaign, those of us who knew the damage that compulsory income management was doing welcomed the fact that, finally, Labor were actually taking a stand. In their scare campaign, they were actually acknowledging that compulsory income management was a bad thing and it didn't work. It was so good to finally hear them come out like that. In April last year, there were comments about this by the Labor social services spokesperson, Linda Burney. When she was asked what Labor would do about the BasicsCard, she confirmed it would be voluntary: … our fundamental principle on the BasicsCard and the cashless debit card, it should be a voluntary basis. If people want to be on those sorts of income management, then that's their decision. It's not up to Labor or anyone else to tell them what to do. At the moment it's compulsion and that's not Labor's position. Hear, hear, Linda Burney—from April last year. On the same day, it was reported on the ABC that, if federal Labor were to win the election in the following month, they would make the controversial BasicsCard optional within their first term of government, making a commitment that any broad based income management should be voluntary. We never imagined how short term and cynical the Labor government's approach to compulsory income management would prove to be. Rather than seeing an end to compulsory income management, what we've seen is a rebranding. After a long campaign led by community groups to get rid of the cashless debit card, we've had a change of government, but what else have we had? We've had a change of colour and a change of brand on the compulsory income management card. We've gone from the cashless debit card to the SmartCard. It's a different name, with different colours on the card, but what has changed in the policy? This regulation that we are seeking to disallow is part of setting up the framework for not just the ongoing cashless debit card but legislation, currently before the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, that would actually allow the expansion of the cashless debit card, with no sunset clause, and allow the cashless debit card to be expanded into more geographic areas than it has been, without having to come back to parliament. Compared to the old cashless debit legislation, where there was a sunset clause, this will have no sunset clause. This regulation is part of setting up that framework to allow that to occur. This regulation is a disallowable instrument that would establish the framework for the smart card by specifying the bank account, terms and conditions and blocked entities under the smart card. This instrument includes provisions that will enable the new enhanced income management regime to operate. So basically this regulation, as I've said, is part of setting up this framework for an expanded cashless debit card. It's an expanded framework. Labor have betrayed their pledge to voters at the last election. Under the Labor government, there are more than 20,000 people still trapped under compulsory income management. We need a voluntary system that genuinely supports people, rather than setting up a framework that continues compulsory income management, that allows compulsory income management to be expanded and that allows compulsory income management to go on indeterminately into the future. Why does this matter? It's because we know from direct accounts, academic experts, community groups and countless reports that compulsory income management is harmful. There have been many inquiries into compulsory income management over the years. One person who submitted to an inquiry explained: … it was a struggle before to make it through fortnight to fortnight, but it's been even harder since I've been on the card. Because it's so much harder to budget not physically having the money in your hand, like being able to see I've got this much left. You've got to add bloody credit on your phone. You've got to have a phone that you can get on the internet and check the bank account each time. That's more money you've got to bloody spend just to check to see how much money I'm spending each time. Another person said: … I have difficulty with my eyes … I've been getting the start of cataracts and I find it hard to even see things and you've got to check your balance all the time on my phone with this stupid Indue thing and half the time I can't see it. But I'm of the old school where I can manage my money better without going through this Indue crap. …   …   … I've had so many hassles with it. A First Nations woman reported: Electricity and certain basics—you can't pay your bills with it. I feel like a kid not being able to pay my power bill with BasicsCard and need to call Centrelink to ask them to transfer my money for me. A single mother forced to survive under compulsory income management outlined how compulsory income management made her life worse. She said: I survive on cash, everything I own is from garage sales or op shops. Most of my food comes from the farmers market or roadside stalls. I cannot afford to buy new things from shops, nor can I afford a lot of store-bought items. I'm not alone it's the only way single mothers can afford to live and feed their children on what is the lowest paid yet most important job. We have at this point a decade and a half of evidence that compulsory income management doesn't work. Since the Howard government first launched the Northern Territory intervention in 2007, we have had community members, academics and parliamentary inquiries repeatedly telling us—over and over and over again—that the government should stop imposing compulsory income management. Associate Professor Elise Klein, OAM, said recently, 'The government and its agencies have never been able to show a credible evidence base to support compulsory income management.' Indeed the peer-reviewed evidence base has continually shown that compulsory income management causes more harm than good. Regardless of peer-reviewed research showing the harms associated with CIM, the government continues to implement CIM regimes, the current bill included, based on ideology. This body of peer-reviewed research demonstrates numerous and inbuilt issues with CIM, including the exacerbation of financial hardship, the experience of stigma and discrimination, and evidence of disproportionate targeting of Indigenous communities. One example includes research published from the ARC centre of excellence the Life Course Centre, which examined compulsory income management in the Northern Territory. This research showed a correlation with negative impacts on children, including a reduction in birth weight and school attendance. The research implications were significant and drew attention to several possible explanations for the reduction of birth weight, including how income management increased stress on mothers, disrupted existing financial arrangements within households and created confusion as to how to access funds. There have been independent studies, inquiries into bills, inquiries by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and academic reports, and still the government isn't listening. We had hoped that this Labor government would listen, yet they are not listening. This regulation that we're seeking to disallow, I remind you, is setting up a framework to allow the expansion and the extension of compulsory income management. This isn't evidence based policy. It's ideology and it's not even Labor ideology. It's ideology that Labor is implementing because they're too scared of the right-wing shock jocks who will attack them if they deviate from Liberal policies. Of course, at the same time as we've got the Labor government implementing these Liberal policies, they've been failing to act on what would genuinely make a difference. Why is it perceived that people have a problem with managing their income? It's because they haven't got enough. We need to increase income support. The people forced to endure compulsory income management are the people relying on income support payments that are way below the poverty line, so the harm of compulsory income management is compounding the government's failure to lift payment rates. Witness what happened last night. Not only is the government expanding compulsory income management but, rather than lifting income support rates above the poverty line, we had the paltry increase of $2.85 per day. They manage hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the ultrawealthy but they only managed to find $2.85 a day for people living below the poverty line. Here's a list of what $2.85 won't buy you. It won't buy you a carton of eggs at $4.60; a two-litre bottle of milk at $3.10; a five-pack of instant noodles at $3.95; a kilo of onions at $3.50; or a kilo of potatoes at $3.80. The increase in the budget is an order of magnitude short of what's needed, but the government has got the audacity to say that people need harsh punitive measures controlling their lives rather than a guaranteed livable income that ensures people aren't living in poverty. As we debate this disallowance and the impact of compulsory income management on people relying on income support, it's a stark reminder that poverty is a political choice. Of course the Labor Party is desperate to talk about anything other than how they are leaving people behind in poverty. When I asked the question of the Minister for Finance today, I got no answers to my questions as to why we couldn't lift income support above the poverty line. We got lots of words about balance and targeted measures and compassion, but the reality is that this government is leaving people in poverty and is expanding punitive measures that will only help to trap them in that poverty. That's why they are arguing that somehow they need to stick with the stage 3 tax cuts that are going to give $9,000 a year to every one of us in this place—that's $25 a day compared with the $2.85 a day that's been given to people on income support. The Labor Party are arguing, I understand, that this disallowance shouldn't proceed because it's got unintended consequences. They say that it's going to harm people who have voluntarily gone onto income management, and that, therefore, we should withdraw it. I ask the Labor Party to look at the figures. As of December 2022, there were more than 20,000 people in the Northern Territory on income management. Of those, just under 2,000 were on voluntary income management. The vast majority of people who are going to be impacted by expanding this regime of compulsory income management are those 18,000 people in the Northern Territory—the remainder of those 20,000 people that are on compulsory income management in one form or another. Let me say very clearly to the Labor Party: if you came to this parliament with a good bill and appropriate regulations which genuinely fulfilled your promise to the people at the last election and which genuinely were implementing voluntary income management, you would find a very different reception from us, but, at this stage, all we have is promises. The Labor Party have shown that their promises aren't really worth the air time, or the paper they're written on. You need more than promises that things are going to get better. What we are told with the bill, which is going to solidify, put in place and expanded compulsory income management, is the minister has no intention of doing that. But that is what that bill allows. I ask the Labor Party government to listen to those impacted by your policies. If you pay attention to what people with direct experience are saying, you will make better legislation. But if you keep bowling up with centre-right proposals that are clearly designed to garner Liberal support, we will not allow you to maintain the pretence that this is progressive legislation. It's harmful, it's damaging and it's against the principles that you set out in opposition. The choice to bind up voluntary income management with a program that harms 10 times as many people through compulsory income management, despite all of the evidence, is a deliberate and cynical choice by the Labor Party. Voters across the country deserve better. 18:40 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I put on the record that coalition senators will not be supporting this disallowance motion as moved by Senator Rice. We do support the government's transition in respect of people having to go off the BasicsCard. We've long been saying, even in government, that the BasicsCard is old and clunky technology that is limiting for card holders. It impacts upon the ability for commerce and to engage with merchants. It's very limited in terms of the number of merchants that accept the BasicsCard compared to the cashless debit card, which was based on the Visa card platform. Essentially, it's ubiquitous, and can be used at merchants all across Australia. There are a million merchants that accept Visa in Australia, whereas the BasicsCard has something like 16,000 merchants was very limiting for individuals that were on it. So in that sense we support the individuals on income management that are on the BasicsCard to move on to improved technology. We are, of course, disappointed with the abolition of the cashless debit card because we know it was having a profound impact upon the communities where it was in operation. For those in the Northern Territory that had already transitioned off the BasicsCard and who went voluntarily onto the cashless debit card, they were experiencing the benefits, but for those in other communities that had the cashless debit card and now no longer have that in place, those communities are different. We've heard from communities across the Northern Goldfields in my home state of Western Australia who have been calling for it to be returned because they know what the community was like before the cashless debit card came in—there was a spate of suicides, a spate of dysfunction within the community—and then the difference when the cashless debit card was put in. It was in operation for a number of years and had a solid impact within the community. By no means was it a silver bullet—no one says that it was or that it would be—but it was having an impact in places like Wyndham in the East Kimberley. The school there, on a Monday morning, used to have to provide additional food for children for their breakfast program, because kids were going hungry. Come Monday morning, having had not much to eat over the weekend, the square meals in some of these communities was provided by the school. They would come on a Monday morning and the school would have to provide extra food on the Monday compared to Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Because of the cashless debit card, they found that they were not having to provide as much food on a Monday. These communities saw what difference it made in their community and now they're seeing a bit of a return. They're hoping it doesn't go all the back to what it used to be like, but the signs are that it will. I was in Kununurra only a week ago, and you could already see the dysfunction and you could hear from a community disappointed at its abolition. But we do support the fact that people are able to move off the BasicsCard and onto an improved technology. I want to point out that the government likes to talk about this new SmartCard, this new technology, this new enhanced card, as if it is something new, but the reality is that it's not. It's actually just the cashless debit card, as Senator Rice correctly pointed out. It's just rebadged. It's the cashless debit card with a different colour. Senator Cadell 300134 It's a prettier plastic. Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Maybe it's a prettier plastic. That's right, Senator Cadell. It's no different. In fact, if you go onto the Department of Social Service's website—I'm happy to table this if required—there's a comparison between the BasicsCard and the new SmartCard, and it lists differences between the two. It also lists with it the enhanced income management and cashless debit card and SmartCard, and lumps them altogether because they are exactly the same card. They are exactly the same feature. Communities making this transition off the BasicsCard are provided with information about the benefits of the new card, such as product level blocking. That was an enhancement of the cashless debit card that we put in place when we were in government. So, while we're not supporting the disallowance and we're supportive of the government's transition in this regard, we do call on the government to put the cashless debit card back in place and respond to the needs of communities that are calling for the cashless debit card to be reinstated. Do it because it's a matter of life and urgency in these communities. If there's a backflip you can make in relation to an election commitment, granted it was an election commitment to abolish it, it's one that we'll support you to make. It is absolutely necessary. In fact, you should make it available to other communities that would like to see it as well. 18:46 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you for that contribution, Senator O'Sullivan, and for outlining the opposition's position in relation to this. It is correct to say that the regulation, which is the subject of this proposed disallowance, is part of the government implementing its election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card. It is a necessary step in that process and is utterly consistent with the government's approach to this. At the end of her contribution, Senator Rice finally made it clear what this is actually really about. It's about Greens party partisanship. The government won't be supporting this motion. The determination that's the subject of the disallowance allows for the establishment and maintenance of existing BasicsCards bank accounts, which are central to the operation of enhanced income management. It allows bank accounts to be created for enhanced IM participants, restrictions to be put in place and the purchase of excluded goods and services. It allows merchants who sell excluded goods and services to be blocked and sets out how money can be transferred between enhanced IM accounts and when those accounts can be closed. The determination names Indue and the Traditional Credit Union as the entities that can provide accounts for enhanced income management and the terms and conditions for using those accounts. The determination by enabling enhanced income management ensures participants who are previously on the cashless debit card and people who wish to volunteer in previous trial sites and new referrals from the Family Responsibilities Commission in the Cape York region are not issued a BasicsCard. The determination is made by the secretary of the Department of Social Services under section 123SU and subsection 123SV2 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The act provides that the qualified portion of payments must be paid into a BasicsCard account. What would disallowance mean? If the Senate voted for this stunt, what would ensue? If the instrument is disallowed, BasicsCard bank accounts will cease to exist, and there will be no legislative authority for the Commonwealth government to pay the qualified portion of payments to individuals subject to enhanced income management. This means payment recipients on both the existing BasicsCard and those who volunteered and transitioned onto the SmartCard would not be able to have payments received into those accounts, some of the most vulnerable people in Australia. The result would be that people would be unable to receive between 50 to 90 per cent of their social security payments, and depending on their specific eligibility for enhanced income management, between 50 to 90 per cent of a person's payment is restricted for spending on excluded goods and excluded services that can cause harm. So, it has an impact on real people—real people. The truth is, if this was endorsed by the Senate, where would real people be left? People can't eat Greens party memes. Social media posts don't put shoes on kids' feet. Irresponsible posturing can't help families, either. It is utterly astounding, but probably not surprising, because ordinary people are just a backdrop for Greens party stunts these days. It's been put to me that the Greens party might not understand what it is. But I think they do understand. People are just a backdrop for social media posts. People are just a backdrop for stunts and slogans—an utterly callous disregard for the interests of the people they claim to be concerned about: real people with real problems who need the government's support. I'm happy to engage. I have engaged from time to time with Senator Rice in Senate estimates about the real challenges that exist in this policy area. I'm very happy to continue to do that. There are serious questions there that will continue to be examined year after year, and I suspect there is a lot more work that all of us have to do. But spare us the stunts, particularly when they are so harmful. The approach on this issue matches completely the approach the Greens party have taken thus far this week on housing, making false claims, like the one that was just repeated over there, that the outcome of the Senate passing the HAFF Bill, the housing bill, would be 1,200 homes in every state. They know that's dishonest, but they continue to say it. Why? Because it looks good on the social media post. The Greens political party's job is not to deal with the substance; it's to try to denigrate the government whatever it costs, whatever it takes, no matter how dishonest the proposition. There is an enormous gap between what they say and what they do. You only have to look at what they say nationally in here about housing and how much they care about it and what they do when they go back home. It is a complete yawning gulf, because when they go back home they are opposed to housing development. When they go back home there isn't a social housing development that these characters haven't opposed. Say it's transition housing. You'll find Greens party councillors and Mr Chandler-Mather, or whatever his name is, out there opposing those developments every single time. Show me one that's been supported. What is the government's plan here? The housing bill will support 30,000 homes. Regarding the government's build-to-rent initiative, with tax and depreciation enhanced for build-to-rent projects, the industry says this will build 150,000 homes. And we are expanding eligibility for construction schemes—the National Housing Finance Corporation, an extended guarantee of $2 billion, which means more community housing providers building more homes. And there will be a 15 per cent increase—the biggest increase in our history—to Commonwealth rent assistance. That's what the government's bringing to the table in terms of housing: cooperation with the states, trying to drive more homes at an unprecedented level, right when what's really going on out there is enormous capacity constraints, enormous challenges for the government. And what is the choice in front of the Greens political party this week? It's not about making it better. It's: Will there be 30,000 additional homes or will there not? Are we 30,000 more homes or 30,000 less homes? And, if you are queueing for a rental, as you see so many young people have to do; if you are homeless; if you are in the queue for public housing; if you are finding rent unaffordable, if the Greens political party vote against this proposition this week then you know that the outcome of what they do this week will mean 30,000 less homes for ordinary Australians. It will never trouble you! Ordinary people can't shelter under slogans. You can't house your kids in a Greens party meme. This is utter hypocrisy. They think all of this this week is clever politics. It's a sort of student politician, Trotskyite, clever politics. This is a manoeuvre where they feel they have to draw at least some line, and they pick a fight with the government. You can imagine the discussion in their party room about how clever this is. But, on this disallowance and on the housing bill, there are real people involved and there are real consequences of what it is that you are proposing to do. If the Senate turned around, if the coalition didn't do what Senator O'Sullivan has said they will do, if the Senate endorsed the proposition on the disallowance that Senator Rice has moved, there would be profound negative consequences tomorrow for ordinary people who need the government's support. If, this week, the Greens political party doesn't do the right thing on the housing bill, more people will be homeless. If the Greens party doesn't do the right thing on the housing bill, there will be less housing stock, which will have an impact on prices in terms of rent and prices in terms of housing cost, and it will be directly your responsibility for getting in the way of 30,000 homes. You might not like the government's approach. You might want to argue for more, and, honestly, go your hardest. That's a good thing. I don't mind there being some tension around the place about policy propositions and arguments for more ambition. There's plenty of that within the Labor movement and the community more broadly. But what I do think is utterly reprehensible is when there is a chance to do something for ordinary people and you knock it over and ordinary people suffer, young people suffer, all for the sake of a social media post, a bit of sponsored digital advertising and a warm inner glow for people who are always going to live in comfortable homes. 18:58 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak in very strong support of my colleague's disallowance motion this evening. I think most of us who have spent some time in this chamber will remember that, under the previous government, when Labor campaigned to abolish the cashless debit card last year in this very place we passed a bill to do exactly that. What the Labor government did not make such a fuss over was that the cashless debit card would remain in the Northern Territory and it was simply going to be rebranded and reintroduced as what essentially is the cashless debit card known by another name, and that new name is the SmartCard. The SmartCard will be reintroduced under the same guise of what the cashless debit card did. It's just a different name. It's just a different colour. It's like getting a Christmas present at Christmas time and just re-gifting it, wrapping it up in something different and giving the same gift to people, because that's exactly what this Labor government are doing to black people in the Northern Territory, as Senator Rice has already stated. This government absolutely want you to believe that they're simply improving the technology, but this is far from the case. It's sneaky. It is downright dangerous that this framework will actually expand the minister's power to roll out compulsory income management yet again into our First Nations communities in new areas in the Territory. And it's not just in the Northern Territory but also in other areas right across this country. It is operation by stealth. It is dishonesty by this Labor government, who made promises. They pledged to voters during the election period. They campaigned to abolish the cashless debit card. Shame on you that you would do that and mislead our people to believe in that. Obviously it doesn't count as fulfilling an election promise when you're just reintroducing it under another name. It's what you call 'different' and 'upgrading of technology'. This regulation that we are moving to disallow today seeks to establish an actual framework for the SmartCard, and it includes a bank account, terms and conditions and blocked entities. So this regulation feeds into the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023, which we expect to come to this place in due course. Rest assured that I and Senator Rice, the community affairs committee chair, and the other Greens who sit here in this block will be fighting this bill to make sure people understand that it was the opposition—the coalition—that dug the graves and it's these fellas who are just loading up the bodies and lowering them in. That's what's happening in this country right now to people in the Northern Territory, and it's a disaster. Last night we saw a budget handed down that left some of the most vulnerable people behind. Senator Ayres wants to talk about housing in the Northern Territory and other places and people being left behind. I don't know if he's visited any of the tin shacks in the Northern Territory and other places in northern Australia. In my home state of Western Australia, remote housing is not even up to scratch, so maybe they could start there. Failure to end compulsory income management is another disappointing move by a so-called progressive government. We hoped for much more when this government came into power, but we were deeply disappointed. Under Labor, 20,000 people are still going to be trapped under the compulsory income management system. We need a voluntary system that genuinely supports people. How hard is it for people to understand that it is support that people need, not restriction and not compulsory management. They're all your words. The principle of self-determination is what is important here. The current Minister for Indigenous Australians stated, as Senator Rice already said, 'Our fundamental principle on the BasicsCard and the cashless debit card is to be on a voluntary basis.' What happened to that? Did it disappear into thin air all of a sudden because we got a bit of pressure? We copped a bit of media flak from the right-wing and from those sitting opposite. The minister said, 'If people want to be on those sorts of income management, it's their decision. It's not up to Labor or anyone else to tell them what to do.' At the moment it's compulsion. That's not Labor's position. That's a pretty big swing. That's a pretty big shift, Labor, that you would now change your minds and put this back in train and put it back in a regulation in a way that is going to harm people. So the opposition and the government team up and pull a swiftie. While they were in opposition, this government also said 'voluntary basis', and it's something that we over here on the Greens, as Senator Ayres has already pointed out, absolutely support. We welcome a bill that will actually make it voluntary and provide that right across this country on a voluntary basis. We would gladly pass a bill that makes income management voluntary when it is consistent with both the rights and the needs of people on this card, especially First Nations people. Understand how disproportionately this affects First Nations people in this country. People like Senator O'Sullivan want to talk about being in the Goldfileds and what is happening there. People will disproportionately be affected because we are the welfare recipients. It's the gift that keeps giving in this country to my people. It's the legacy of colonialism in this country that keeps giving, keeps restricting, keeps stripping away rights of First Nations people in this country. Advocacy groups have been crying out for years. My predecessor, Rachel Siewert, former senator for Western Australia, worked on this for many years here in this chamber, particularly around the Northern Territory Intervention. We have heard all the stories swirling about how when compulsory income management comes in it will solve the crime rate. It will solve all the issues. It will solve the black problem of this nation. It will not. I can honestly say there are many reports, many inquiries, that have talked about the impacts of compulsory income management, both in this place and in other parliaments across the country. Advocacy groups, charities and policy think tanks have all sat around having the talk-fest that people love to have about this. But when First Nations groups invite governments to sit in the dirt and tell them income management will be harmful, will disproportionately affect our people, they all of a sudden become deaf. So I will remind the government of the 2018 report from the National Audit Office that found a five-year trial on the cashless debit trial cost the government $170 million, and there was absolutely no evidence provided in that report that the cashless debit card worked. In short, compulsory income management is a bad policy, one of the worst. It is unnecessarily restrictive. It prevents people from buying things they need. The amount of cash that can be withdrawn is still limited. People don't get enough money to get these payments in the first place. We have heard about the dismal amount that people are getting out of last night's budget but, on top of that, they can't buy items at garage sales, they can't go to op-shops, they can't go on Facebook's marketplace and they can't go to food markets, which all generally sell cheaper products and produce that help people to manage their finances. It's what these programs are supposed to be doing. They're supposed to be helping people. We don't build a system that impacts on people's quality of life and say, 'Uh-oh, well, we're done,' and walk away but this is what is happening when we continue to pursue this pipe dream of compulsory income management, particularly in First Nations communities. The APO NT said: The bill continues the trend of making income management, and in particular compulsory income management, a permanent feature of social services in Australia, without adequate consultation. The legislative effect of the Bill is the opposite of the Albanese Government's pre-election statements that the income management should only occur on a voluntary basis. This is what advocacy groups say. Central Land Council has come into opposition, saying: How many times do we have to say it until the government listens to our voices? Since Income Management was introduced in 2007 as part of the Commonwealth Government's Intervention in the NT we have said no. A different card, a different colour—it's all for the same purpose: to control our lives. We are not guinea pigs. The CLC calls on the government to end all forms of compulsory income management now. I could stand here all day and read the endless quotes that I have printed out in front of me from individuals and organisations that clearly state why income management is a bad policy. But, for the sake of the chamber, I am going to leave it there and urge members of this place, on both sides of the chamber, who support compulsory income management to read the submissions that have been provided as part of this inquiry that clearly outline and articulate very well the specific harm that will come from compulsory income management and that has already occurred in some of these communities. It really puzzles me as I stand here tonight in this chamber and begs the question that, in the year of the Voice, why this Labor government is not only walking back its election promises and has done a complete backflip on its position from opposition but also ignoring the clear voices of strong First Nations people who don't want compulsory income management in their communities. It's shameful. You cannot say you're giving the right to self-determination and a voice to parliament to people and, with your other hand, take it away from them. But that's exactly what's happening. Compulsory income management doesn't help people manage their finances better. In fact, it punishes them for being on welfare payments, pushing them further away from financial freedom. We know that compulsory income management becomes this glossy document that gets wheeled out with social media clips about racist stereotypes, dog-whistling to the racists in this country who want to perpetuate and continue those stereotypes against First Nations people. People need support. They need support to live a dignified life in this country. Compulsory income management fails to actually address the underlying issue of poverty. That's especially true for people who are living in remote Australia. I urge this Labor government to start listening to the voices of those key First Nations organisations that have called for an end to compulsory income management and to work with those communities to provide housing. There's a start. You want to talk about housing? Start there. Let's have education, employment and other much-needed community based and culturally appropriate programs and services that help to address the issues that are happening in First Nations communities across this country. How about looking at intergenerational poverty, because some people are not just poor in their pockets but poor in their minds? The healing of trauma and the unacceptable rate of mental health and suicide in our communities—how about you start there first instead of continuing down this line of compulsory income management? 19:13 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise with such pride to follow amazing contributions from my colleagues Senator Janet Rice and Senator Dorinda Cox following the long years of former senator Rachel Siewert's opposition to this punitive, insulting and ineffective cashless debit card, which is what we have before us by another name. The Greens have opposed this paternalistic and, frankly, racist policy ever since it was first introduced in this place as part of the Northern Territory intervention in 2007. As a Queensland senator, it first came to my particular attention when it was rolled out in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg as so-called trial sites and wreaked havoc on so many people's lives, people who were already on the bread line, people who, frankly, because they had so little money to live on, knew exactly how to use it to get by. People who don't have a lot of money are the best money managers that you will find. They have to be because they have no other choice. I remember meeting with community organisations, including the Say No Seven, a really strong community based group that had formed to support each other to oppose this ridiculous and insulting cashless management approach to them and their lives. I stand in awe of their strength and determination. I'm sure they were celebrating when the pre-election commitment from the now government was made that they would get rid of compulsory income management and that it could be kept as a voluntary scheme: if people wanted to sign up to it, well, that would be up to individuals to choose to do that. I'm sure they were celebrating that. I'm sure so many communities that felt inappropriately controlled, dictated to by their government, welcomed that announcement. I share their incredulity. But here we are with an instrument—and this is exactly why we are seeking to disallow it—that doesn't dispose of compulsory income management. It doesn't do what you said you were going to do. It actually just preserves this really bad policy and calls it a different name. Please don't do that! I'm sure you're across the evidence of how ineffective and punitive this policy was, and I've got a few really moving quotes from community members and experts that I'll share with the chamber in the course of my contribution, so perhaps if people are new to this debate they will realise that this is in fact really terrible policy. But here we are again. I thought we'd killed this dreadful beast, and it's been thrown another lifeline by this government, who don't even have the courage to name it for what it is and instead are trying to say, 'Oh, it's just a technology improvement.' You can change the name and the colour of the card, but it's still the same policy. And that is absolutely heartbreaking. It's a betrayal of the pledge that you and your relevant minister made before the election. Just to give a bit of a history recap, when the cashless debit card was first introduced it applied only to First Nations communities. It was effectively a racist policy. The coalition government, rather than fixing the racism underlying this terrible policy, decided to simply apply it to some white communities as well. So now it wasn't racist policy; it was just bad policy. And now many of those trial sites have been concluded, including the ones in Queensland, and I welcome that. But we still have compulsory income management in many First Nations communities, and the bill we passed earlier and this particular instrument doesn't stop that. So, we're back to just having plain old racist policy that is still bad policy. I want to honour the words Senator Cox just shared. When we're talking about having a Voice, how dare you continue to have these policies that apply to First Nations communities and claim that it's to try to help people? You can't dictate what people can do with their meagre money and also claim that you're trying to help them. It doesn't work. The evidence is so clear. The cashless debit card doesn't give anyone a job. It doesn't give anyone financial management skills. Moreover, it fails to recognise that they already have financial management skills and, frankly, that they already have the right to decide what they can do with their own money. That brings me to the point about poverty that Senator Rice spoke so eloquently about in her contribution. Rather than talking about controlling people and what they can do with their meagre amounts of money and where they can spend it and what this card is called and whether you've got to go to a separate special machine and hope the power hasn't gone down or that there hasn't been some other tech fault, so that you can actually pay for your meal, we should be talking about raising the rate of income support so that people aren't having to make these terrible decisions between paying the rent and buying an extra blanket for the bed. It's exactly why this cashless debit card is so ineffective—because the cash economy can be really helpful in making ends meet. When I spoke to the community in Hervey Bay and Bundy, they said, 'Look, we go to the fruit and veggie markets, and they only take cash.' They certainly don't take what was then the Indue card, because they had to have some special machine. You had to stand in a separate line to use that special machine at some of the outlets that service it, so you already felt like a complete leper, for want of a better word. But often you couldn't use that card at second-hand clothing stores, at fruit and veggie markets, or at the uniform shop at the school to try to get a second-hand skirt or shirt for your kid at school. It was actually inhibiting people's ability to live on the meagre amount of income support that they were getting. It was making things worse. That was the evidence that we heard from the community time and time again. That's why this was such a bad policy and that's why everyone was so pleased when in opposition the Labor Party said they would get rid of this compulsory income management. And yet what we have before us is an instrument that will give the minister the power to roll out compulsory income management in new areas. It effectively allows the cashless debit card to apply nationally in a compulsory sense, despite the promises that were made before the election that that was the end of compulsory income management. Now, if that was not your intent—good, but change the law so that future governments can't use the same instruments and that same bill that was passed to roll it out in a compulsory sense. We've got no confidence when these instruments are giving you the ability to continue to expand compulsory income management when you said you were going to get rid of it. It is a betrayal of the pledge that you made to people before the last election. I understand that there are more than 20,000 people that are still on compulsory income management. Many of those are in First Nations communities. Most of them are in the Northern Territory. I know there are people in this place that are really passionate about justice for First Nations communities in the territories, and that's what's particularly heartbreaking about this policy—it's the Labor Party thumbing its nose at those within their own ranks who care deeply about this issue. I've talked about how this has institutionalised paternalism. I've talked about how it doesn't work, how it doesn't create jobs and how it doesn't give people skills to manage money or recognise that they already have those skills. I've talked about how it is incredibly discriminatory. Those are just the views that our party holds and that the community has shared with us, but I want to share with you some views of First Nations organisations and other academics who are also saying what we are saying. Firstly, APO NT, Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, have said: 'APO NT reminds the government of our support for the repeal of the cashless debit card. We note that while this has allowed some participants to exit income management or voluntarily opt-in to income management, this is not the case for the majority of NT participants who remain on compulsory income management. Therefore, Aboriginal people in the NT have suffered the longest under this regime and this bill and the instrument does nothing to change this.' It continues: 'Despite the Albanese government's stated intentions of consultation or the stated long-term aim that income management is on a voluntary basis, it's important to view the practical and legislative effect. The bill'—and, of course, we're talking about the bill with which this instrument is associated—'continues the trend of making income management and, in particular, compulsory income management a permanent feature of social services in Australia without adequate consultation. The legislative effect of the bill is the opposite of the Albanese government's pre-election statement that income management should only occur on a voluntary basis.' In a similar vein, the Central Land Council said: 'Our full council recently met at Spotted Tiger. At this meeting our council reiterated that they do not support compulsory income management and they made the statement: how many times do we have to say it until the government listens to our voices? Since income management was introduced in 2007 as part of the Commonwealth government's intervention in the Northern Territory, we have said no. A different card, a different colour. It's all for the same purpose—to control our lives. We are not guinea pigs. The CLC calls on the government to end all forms of compulsory income management now.' It's pretty powerful stuff. Unfortunately, it seems to be falling on deaf ears. The Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation made similar remarks. They said: Compulsory income management was imposed on ALPA's member communities in 2007 as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response. That's better known as the Intervention. They continued: When it was forced upon our communities they were subjected to the discriminatory and false assumptions that they were alcoholics, family violence offenders and problem gamblers. As the ALPA's chairman has stated: 'The wellbeing of Indigenous Australians depends on them having self-agency, choice and control over their lives. Hence, the ALPA board believes that, regardless of what design a future income management program takes, participation in the program must always be voluntary.' I'm sensing a bit of a common theme here. We thought the government had listened, but, sadly, the bill and the instrument before us indicate otherwise. There were some really learned academics that contributed to this policy space. Professor Matthew Gray and Dr J. Robert Bray shared this: The evaluation data does not provide evidence of income management having improved the outcomes that it was intending to have an impact upon. Indeed, rather than promoting independence and the building of skills and capabilities, New Income Management in the Northern Territory appears to have encouraged increasing dependence upon the welfare system, and the tools which were envisaged as providing them with the skills to manage have rather become instruments which relieve them of the burden of management. Professor Elise Klein, who Senator Rice has already quoted from, is a well-known expert in this field. She said: 'The government and its agencies have never been able to show a credible evidence base to support compulsory income management. Indeed, the peer reviewed evidence base has continually shown that compulsory income management causes more harm than good. Regardless of peer reviewed research showing the harms associated with compulsory income management, the government continues to implement compulsory income management regimes based on ideology.' Economic Justice Australia said: 'The government has made commitments to ending compulsory income management in recognition that it is not effective. The government's intentions are irrelevant if the legislation it proposes permanently entrenches compulsory income management by another name. The absence of a sunset clause enables compulsory income management to continue indefinitely without any time frame for transitioning to alternatives.' I don't have much time left, but I do want to share what the Northern Territory Council of Social Service said. They said: 'NTCOSS maintains its position, supported by an evaluation into income management, that compulsory income management is a failed policy that unfairly targets and negatively impacts Aboriginal people, and it has not delivered the intended outcomes. NTCOSS notes the intention of the Commonwealth to undertake extensive consultation with communities, First Nations leaders and other stakeholders on the long-term future of the regimes, but, as previously stated, NTCOSS supports calls from organisations, including the Tangentyere Council, that withdrawing compulsory income management must be a considered process, designed and informed by consultations with ACCHOs and community leaders. However, with extensive feedback and evidence from Aboriginal communities, leaders and organisations clearly and compellingly articulating that compulsory income management does not work, the need for consultation has to be addressed.' The evidence is perfectly clear. This is precisely why this instrument must be disallowed, and I'm very proud that the Greens will continue to push for that. 19:28 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I move: That the question be put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Rice be agreed to. Question negatived. ADJOURNMENT 110 ADJOURNMENT Workplace Relations 110 19:30 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria I'm going to talk about the four-day working week trial that I started to talk about yesterday. I'm incredibly pleased to say that the speech I'm about to give has been drafted for me by Nellie Halpen, who is an intern from the Australian National University and who has been working in my office as part of the program with parliament. Nellie has been helping and learning in our office but also doing a fantastic project and research on superannuation and the early release program under the previous government. I look forward to the results of her research, particularly about the effect on women. But I am grateful to her for putting together this speech, which is about the four-day working week trial. We talked about that in the Select Committee on Work and Care, but, most recently, I understood from my former union that the concept of a four-day working week has been certainly gaining significant traction globally due to the measurable effects on productivity and quality of life. Just recently, the Australian Services Union members at Oxfam Australia voted up an enterprise agreement that adopts a four-day working week trial. This six-month pilot will allow Oxfam's 90 permanent full-time employees to opt for 30 weekly hours over four days without any loss of pay. This agreement is the first of its kind in Australia, the first to be formalised with 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 Victorian Private Sector Branch of the Australian Services Union for negotiating this agreement. Having negotiated many agreements myself, I know how hard it is to get something new in an agreement. The four-day working week seeks more than just increases in productivity. So far, trials have demonstrated that workers who participated in these schemes experience holistic benefits from higher wellbeing to less burn-out. As a person with a lifelong interest in improving conditions for workers, it's important to me that the government continues to protect worker wellbeing through considering the merits of the four-day working week and closely observing the outcome of the Oxfam ASU trial and others like it. As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Care, I heard substantial evidence that supports the idea that a four-day working week can make work more flexible for women and families. Industries where work is relatively inflexible such as health and education are ideal candidates for four-day working week trials. These industries are also dominated by women. Further, we know that seven in every ten primary carers are women. The Oxfam ASU agreement and previous four-day working week trials acknowledged that caring responsibilities still mainly fall to women and that, in fact, we can provide them with more flexibility. The widespread push for a four-day working week appears promising. There will be challenges in applying this change to workplace law across all sectors of the economy. However, the Oxfam ASU trial is paving the way forward and is demonstrating again the potential benefits that can be yielded from a four-day working week. I look forward to seeing the results of the Oxfam ASU four-day working week pilot and commend them in their efforts to embrace 21st century workforce changes. If we're going to ever address the challenges that people face balancing work and care we need innovative solutions. We cannot be stuck in the past, because work is not stuck in the past and families are not stuck in the past. Talking of not being stuck in the past, can I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the election of a progressive Victorian Labor woman Mary Doyle to the seat of Aston on 1 April in a once-in-a-100-year election victory. Mary Doyle, the new member for Aston, has a long history of fighting for workplace change. She will no doubt be the advocate for working people of Aston that they deserve and have gone without for so long. I congratulate Mary and the team that ran the stunning campaign to elect a genuine local with an unwavering commitment to this area. I look forward to working with her for many years to come. Budget 111 19:35 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I was interested to read Robert Gottliebsen's article in the Australian. In his time as a journalist, he's seen nearly half a century of budgets handed down by Treasurers on both sides of politics, first in 1974. He's a wealth of wisdom when it comes to politics and certainly when it comes to issues of the economy and the budget. His article is titled, 'I've seen 49 budgets, Chalmers' one is quite unique'. He writes: … given the big spending of the government, I believe the balance of probability is that inflation will not fall as expected in the budget and there's a risk that a shocked Reserve Bank will not cut rates and may even be forced to raise them. The blame will sit squarely on government spending. If interest rates don't fall as anticipated, or even rise, consumer spending will be restrained and some of the government projections will be disrupted. It may be forced to raise taxes. Higher income and asset rich people, watch out. This is the high wire act that the Treasurer is performing with the economy and, therefore, with Australian families. After less than a year of Labor in office, government spending will increase by $185 billion. What this budget needed was a budget that reduced inflation and reined in spending to combat the cost-of-living crisis facing all Australians. Instead, Labor is trying to spend its way out of the cost-of-living crisis. Instead of making life easier for families, this budget only makes life harder for Australian families to the tune of $25,000 per year. That's what Australian families are going to be facing. This is for small businesses, self-funded retirees and mortgage holders. The costs of running their businesses, running their families and managing their budgets are going up. The other coming challenge to the budget and, therefore, for the government is the Commonwealth payment to the states and territories, the GST distribution. Right now, on this issue, the Treasurer is being all things to all people, but soon the bell will toll. The new New South Wales government is at the starting gate, waiting to get its hands on WA's GST distribution, a hard-fought gain by many on this side of politics. I pay particular credit to my WA colleagues who, at the time—I wasn't here, so it was pre my time—fought extremely hard for that outcome. If New South Wales is at the starting gate, you can bet your bottom dollar that Victoria and South Australia won't be far behind in putting their hands out for more. The Treasurer must commit to protecting the existing GST arrangements for Western Australians, for Western Australia. We haven't heard that as yet. Western Australia will not countenance our state being worse off than it was before the GST distribution was fixed. It should be remembered that without the changes made by the previous coalition government, we would have had a ludicrous situation where Western Australia's GST revenue share would have fallen to 16c in the dollar in 2022-23 and 10c—that's right—in this next year. The small budget surplus announced yesterday comes off the back of a hardworking resources industry in this country from states like Western Australia. It's an industry that allowed Australia to sail through the global financial crisis. It was the same industry that made sure Australia's economy didn't suffer, comparable to other Western countries during the COVID pandemic. It's a credit to those industries that saw their workplaces continue throughout the COVID pandemic. There were still flights going out. They were flying people in and out of those mine sites, delivering for Australians. The government likes to talk about being responsible. Senator Ayres was speaking about earlier this morning. However, when it comes to my state of Western Australia, they are anything but responsible. All those new MPs elected on the other side are silently standing by. We haven't heard one Western Australian on that side of the chamber, both here and in the other place, calling for this to be locked in, calling for this to be enshrined and asking the government to make sure that there is no change to Western Australia's GST. (Time expired) Living School Lismore, Budget 111 19:40 Senator 169119 New South Wales SHOEBRIDGE () (): Empowering young people to build a future they believe in is incredibly important, especially in the face of a government increasingly committed to producing a surplus, which is overtaking action to help struggling communities escape from poverty. This past weekend I was made aware of a wonderful example of this in Lismore in the Northern Rivers. The Living School is an independent school in Lismore. Last year, Lismore and the Northern Rivers were hit by the biggest floods in modern Australian history, and the school was flooded not once but twice. True to their ethos of creating a sustainable and socially-just future, the school has bounced back, with pontoon classrooms and old train carriages for learning rooms. In May, head middle school teacher Emma Wilson piloted a sustainability symposium with her kids and kids from other grades. In this symposium, students were taught design thinking strategies to solve practical real-world problems, empowering them to increase sustainability on their school campus and in the broader community. One of the student projects was called 'loss stuffing'. This idea proposes lost-and-found clothing to be collected and repurposed into soft toys. A portion of the toys will be donated to children's charities and the other portion will be sold to the general public, to make it a self-funding project. It's a lovely, practical and imaginative idea that came from the students. Thinking critically and living sustainably are more important now than ever. I commend the work and the creativity of the students and teachers at the Living School in Lismore for their efforts to make this a reality and for their efforts to come out of the floods stronger, more together, with brighter ideas. Twelve months ago this country voted for change. Instead, the Albanese government's first big budget has left millions behind. Funding for the NDIS has been cut, and the government will earn more from indebted students than coal and gas royalties. The Australia Institute recently released data showing the much-hyped petroleum resource rent tax, which is supposed to provide fair returns to the Australian people for the exploitation of our—the public's—natural resources. It turns out it will only raise $2.7 billion next year. Labor is actually going to take more money from people paying off their student debts than it will be taking from some of the largest multinational fossil fuel companies in the world for their resource rent tax. Under Labor's budget, taxes on tobacco will be a whopping five times more than the PRRT. How is it fair that we are taking so little in tax from global multinationals who are trashing our environment and so much more from mainly poorer people who are addicted to tobacco? The $2.85-a day increase in JobSeeker, which was trumpeted by the government and the $8 to $16 a week increase in rental assistance go nowhere near breaking people out of poverty. It doesn't touch the sides of increasing rent and food prices; it is literally a fraction of what is needed. We're told now isn't the time for bold spending in programs that address poverty, the cost-of-living and the climate crisis. We are told there's a surplus this year, but there are deficits forecast for coming years, so now is not the time. When will be the time? Will it be when deficits increase? Will it be closer to the election, when we know governments get even more frightened, less ambitious? How badly do people have to be suffering for Labor to make the structural decisions that will help them and their kids instead of helping the big end of town? We have had a decade of brutal right-wing governments who shamelessly delivered for their billionaire mates. What we need now is a bloody lot more than a marginally progressive Labor Party that embarrassingly hands out crumbs. The fact is the right in politics acts with purpose. In this budget is anything to go by, Labor does haven't a separate agenda. Unless we change this pattern, our country will keep ratcheting more and more to the right. Meanwhile, the political lock-stop on funding war and weapons is fully intact between the Labor and coalition. Remember when the coalition suggested we fund nuclear subs by cutting the NDIS? People were horrified. But that's literally what Labor has done in this budget. Next year, for the first time, defence spending will exceed $50 billion. This ongoing increase, largely for subs, is being funded by $74.5 billion in cuts to the NDIS over the next decade. Labor is literally delivering the coalition's plan to cut the NDIS to fund the nuclear submarine program. Choices. This budget was about choices, and they're the choices Labor made. World Asthma Day 112 19:45 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak about asthma and the 2.7 million Australians sufferers. World Asthma Day was on 2 May. It's an annual global awareness day for asthma led by the Global Initiative for Asthma. One in nine people in Australia suffer from asthma. This is amongst the highest rates of the condition in the world. Asthma affects people of all ages, from adolescence to adulthood, and it can appear at all ages and stages of life. The most common type of allergy that overlaps with asthma is allergic rhinitis, also known as hayfever. So spring is a trigger for asthma. And we all know that Canberra is almost the capital of hayfever in the country, so it's only relevant for me to be talking about it here today in the Senate. The cooler months also trigger asthma, with more wood smoke and pollutants in the air. About 80 per cent of people with asthma also have hayfever. Both create sensitivities in your airways. Asthma creates sensitive lungs, while hayfever is in the nose. For most sufferers, the symptoms of asthma include wheezing, shortness of breath, coughing and tightness of the chest—this is because the airways are narrowed temporarily. Your nose is interconnected, so hayfever can trigger asthma. Treating hayfever well is one of the best ways to improve your asthma condition. People with asthma often experience their symptoms at night, early in the morning or after activities. It can be a vicious cycle and can have lifelong complications. Not being able to engage in high-intensity exercise can have life altering consequences. Most people with asthma can live a normal life with correct diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of the condition, and that's the key: to have a proper and accurate diagnosis. An asthma plan can be set out in a document that will take advantage of medication that is available and also treat other symptoms, ensuring that you can lead the fullest life that you can. That's why your GP and other medical professions are so important to ensure that you have a good action plan. There is no definite reason as to why people suffer from asthma, but we do know research is so important for this condition, and we know that there is a genetic factor in play. Most often people with asthma have a family history of asthma, eczema or hayfever. Australia's world-leading researchers are continuing to investigate the causes and treatments for the prevention of asthma. It's believed that environmental factors also play a key role. Exposure to tobacco smoke, especially as a young child or as a baby, and obesity are all triggers for developing asthma. The rest of the world also suffer from this condition. In fact, the majority of the burden of asthma morbidity and mortality occurs in low- and middle-income countries. In parts of the world suffering from poor healthcare access, this leads to higher rates of conditions and people suffering with asthma. But I recently met with Asthma Australia and the branch in Tasmania. The Tasmanian branch is undertaking a project to discover how Tasmanians are actually living with asthma. Through the asthma discovery survey, Asthma Australia is seeking to know what life is like for Tasmanians experiencing breathing problems and asthma across the state. This will build a more detailed and consumer based picture of local community responses to asthma care, and that will help my fellow Tasmanians. The aim of the project is to have a better understanding of the experience of people living with asthma in Tasmania—to determine the current gaps, identified problems, challenges and potential solutions—gathering insights into what is needed and how best we can resolve and help people living with this condition. The better health outcomes that we have for more Tasmanians is a better outcome for Australians generally and it is better for our economy. But what we need to do is learn to ensure that people are diagnosed and that they are able to understand and fully implement their action plan to address their asthma condition. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 19:50