﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-05-11</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Thursday, 11 May 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>1917</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>1917</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>President, I appreciate you giving me the call straight up. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the consideration of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.</para></quote>
<para>We know what's been happening in this chamber this week. We know that what has been happening in this chamber this week is that the partnership between the Greens and the Liberal Party of Australia has ensured that the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill is not debated. It has been, frankly, undignified to see the so-called progressive party teaming up with the National Party and the Liberal Party to filibuster and deny or delay debate because they don't want to debate legislation that is the most significant investment in housing by the Commonwealth government in a decade. And why do they not want to debate it? They don't want to debate it because they don't want to have to vote.</para>
<para>Let's be clear about what this bill represents. This bill represents an election commitment that was clear, unambiguous and transparent to the Australian people. The Labor Party have a mandate for this legislation. We absolutely do. We went to the Australian people with this policy and we said, 'This is what we will deliver.' The legislation went through the House some months ago. It's been in the Senate, but have the Greens and the coalition wanted it debated? No, they don't want it debated. They want to filibuster and delay and ensure that they don't get to a vote, I suspect because—you hear some whispers—the Greens don't actually want to be seen to be on the wrong side of it; they just want to keep playing this out. How cynical! At least have some courage. Either vote for or vote against. But do you know what you're doing? You're filibustering with the coalition on legislation that will deliver 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the first five years and 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence—perhaps listen to that: 4,000 homes for women and kids fleeing domestic violence—and for older women at risk of homelessness.</para>
<para>The joint crossbench, including the Greens, came to the government with concerns, and Minister Collins negotiated in good faith to address every single concern. But you know what? The Greens' spokesperson on housing—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me talk to you about the Greens spokesperson on housing. He's had a taste of the media spotlight. Your spokesperson on housing is now prioritising media attention, from stunts and obstruction, over housing for women and kids fleeing domestic violence. How shameful. This man's ego matters more than women fleeing domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness. This man's ego matters more than women fleeing domestic violence. What sort of party are you?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim. Senator Wong, I have a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This rant from the Leader of the Government in the Senate is well out of order. She is reflecting personally on the motives and impugning the motives of a member of the other place. She is not only wrong; she is very clearly showing that Mr Chandler-Mather is right under the skin of the government. I ask you to require her to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, for the benefit of the chamber, I'd ask you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw for the benefit of the chamber. What I would say to you is this. The question for the Greens is whether a person's ego matters more than the security of having a roof over your head, because that is what we are seeing. You've got an opportunity today, in the next few hours—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjectin g—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's see what you do.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie has given notice that she wishes—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, Senator Wong?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just waiting for them to stop.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, it's a matter for you how you use your time. I'd ask you to proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd invite you to—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd ask for a little decorum at the back end of the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Senator Lambie is deferring her private senator's motion, so you've got a couple of hours to do the right thing. And we'll give you the opportunity to do that because I know—I suspect, I should say—that there are those in your party and in your party room who are concerned about the way in which your spokesperson is handling this, because he is prioritising a bit of media attention and his personal ego over the interests of women and children fleeing violence and of people in this country who are in need of government investment in the housing sector. You may sit there, saying: 'We want more. We want more.' This is the election commitment. You are standing in the way of the biggest investment in housing in a decade—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And you may yell as much as you like, but you are blocking funding for social and affordable housing in this country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's always unfortunate to see lovers having a fight, isn't it, particularly when it plays out publicly—a lovers' tiff between the parties of the current government, between the Labor Party and the Greens; this little stoush that's turning into quite a personal stoush.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, who's going to get the kids!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, is this a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would ask him to withdraw. I would point out who the lovers are this week: you and them.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, that's not a point of order and you know it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The parties of the current government, the Labor Party and the Greens—here they are now having this stoush playing out publicly, a lovers' tiff that's turned into quite a public brawl. You know the government is feeling the pressure on these things, you know government ministers are feeling the pressure, when they start to personalise the debate too. We saw there in Senator Wong's contribution a personalisation of the debate, targeting the Greens' housing spokesman and turning it into a personal debate against a member of the Greens, trying of course to play into whatever divisions might exist within the Australian Greens.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAllister</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is just a policy debate.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it didn't sound like a policy debate; it sounded like a personal attack. It sounded like a big sledge against the Greens. It sounded like the two of you falling out of love with one another. But, of course, we know it will only be temporary and that, no doubt, at some stage there will be some sort of secret deal, bargain et cetera.</para>
<para>The government is seeking to come in here and say this bill should be expedited. The chamber has apparently had enough time to debate something that it's barely debated at all. It has barely had the chance to debate this at all. What is this government doing with the management of its legislative program? Mishandling it terribly would be the answer to that because, before trying to mount the argument that it's time to push this through—that it's time to guillotine this—there should have been some debate of it before you actually got to that point.</para>
<para>This is a new $10 billion fund that the government has struggled to define or defend when it has come under scrutiny. It's meant to be an off-budget fund. That's the way they took it to the election campaign so they could, of course, go through that campaign and say: 'This isn't really money that we're spending. We don't have to account for this money; we're running it off budget.' But when challenged about investment mandates for the fund, in terms of how it will actually be accounted for, do the government make any of that public before this Senate is asked to vote on it? Of course they don't—none of that sort of detail or information is provided in advance. Then, in their desperation to try to negotiate this fund with the Greens or the rest of the crossbench, we learn they start to offer deals that say, 'Regardless of how much this fund earns, we might build this many houses,' or, 'Regardless of how much this fund earns, we might start to spend this much money as a guarantee year on year.' Well, guess what happens if you give those guarantees? It takes the measure on budget. It blows out of the water the entire premise of the policy that the government took to the last election. In their desperation, with an ill-conceived policy, they are now starting to unpick it and demonstrate just how bad Labor is when it comes to managing money. That's what all of this comes back to.</para>
<para>This off-budget fund, about which the government has said, 'We don't have to account for it as spending; we can claim a budget bottom line position without having to account for this,' will end up costing Australians. It will end up hitting the budget bottom line. It will end up deteriorating the government's budget position. It will end up operating completely contrary to what was promised at the election and the approach that they've taken. This is a bill that deserves scrutiny. This is a bill that deserves fair debate.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've been filibustering all week. Get on to debating it—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, you knew coming in here today that Senator Lambie is going to withdraw her private senator's time, providing an extra hour of debate time—but guess what? By pursuing this tactic, you're eating up that time. Rather than having an hour of debating Senator Lambie's bill, we'll instead spend about 45 or 50 minutes debating the motion that you've insisted on moving. Senator Wong, you've created this—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, Mr Deputy President, if Senator Birmingham wishes to give me leave to close the debate so he can get on to the housing debate, I'd be happy to move that motion.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not a point of order, Senator Wong.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Go on, give me leave. I'll move it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a matter of private discussion between the leaders.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a mess of the government's own making. This policy is a mess of its own making; this poor chamber management is a mess of its own making. This lack of time to debate this bill is a mess of its own making, and this lovers' tiff between the Labor Party and the Greens is a mess of their own making which is only going to get worse thanks to the personal tactics Senator Wong has now deployed against the Greens.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You'd expect better of the government if they really wanted to be constructive and work with this chamber to get legislation passed. They've done that before, but, for whatever reason, they've got out on the wrong side of bed this morning and they are tetchy. We just saw that from Senator Wong—personalising things, running the personal arguments, running the politics and not at all talking about the issue. Minister Wong, who moved this motion and says that the government want to get on with debating their bill, spent the entire time talking about the Greens housing spokesperson.</para>
<para>I would like to point out that the bill has been through the House. It is now before this Senate, and it is up to the Senate to decide how we deal with this piece of legislation and how much time we are going to give to scrutinising this bill. No matter what side of government it is, it is always the case that, when they want their way, they think they have ultimate control. It doesn't matter whether it's the Labor Party or the Liberal Party in government: wake up! There is a Senate crossbench, and you have to be prepared to negotiate, talk and work together.</para>
<para>What we've seen today and, in fact, all week is a lack of respect for this place, a lack of respect for this chamber and a lack of respect for the individual senators who have been elected to this place to stand up for our constituents and the issues that the community wants. No-one in this debate should be wanting to ram through a piece of legislation which has already been proven to be a fake. There is no guaranteed spend on housing in this bill, and that is a problem. Minister Wong has stood here and said that this government has a mandate. Well, you don't have a mandate in the Senate. And you don't have a mandate on a bill that you promised people would build houses, because the bill doesn't do that.</para>
<para>We would like to fix the bill so that it does build houses and that money is spent creating homes for the most desperate people in this country. It is a sick joke that this government continues to pretend that it is dealing with the housing crisis while gambling everything on the stock market. It's a sick joke, and people are seeing it for what it is. If you really care about building houses to help women fleeing domestic violence, build them. Fund them and build them. That is what the Greens would like to see.</para>
<para>The fact that there is no guaranteed spend in this bill means that your promise is hollow. And what about the one-third of Australian households who are renters? There is nothing in this bill for them. What does the Prime Minister say about that? 'Not my problem. Leave that up to the states. We can't do anything. Not my problem.' It is not good enough. We want to work constructively with you, but, if you keep playing these silly games with a winner-takes-all approach, you're not going to get very far.</para>
<para>I'd remind members in this place that this Senate works best when we stick to the issues and stay away from the personal jibes. This place works better when we give decent time for debate and we work together to maximise that, not when we have stunts brought in at nine o'clock, the beginning of the morning, to up-end things. To the government of the day: you have to start to understand that you do not control the Senate. You do not. You have to talk to people. You have to cooperate. That is what the Australian people voted for. They voted for a Senate to scrutinise and work collectively, not to rubberstamp fake and hollow promises from the government of the day.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, I just want to make it quite clear that this bill that I was doing this morning is very important to me and many veterans out there. I did not tell the Labor Party until about eight or 8:30 last night that I could not put this bill up. The reason I cannot put this bill up is that it will fail. It will fail the veterans and what they need for a royal commission, because I haven't got it right. I haven't got that right. I am close and I know you guys know I've been working on it. Senator Scarr is working on it with me. I just haven't been able to get it done in the time. I'm making phone calls and I'm doing everything I can because I know those royal commissioners need every document they can possibly order or want on the table to make those veterans' lives better. I would be standing up this morning and just grandstanding because I still do not have the answer. I will continue and I hope to God I have that by the next sitting and that we can make an agreement so that royal commissioners have every bit of evidence that they need to continue on with this royal commission and to make those recommendations for the future—that they have that in the next three or four weeks. But I apologise. I apologise to those veterans out there. I just don't have that answer this morning. I'm not going to sit here and waste an hour's time when I know I can find that bloody answer; it's there and I will find it. That's my first point.</para>
<para>My second point is this. We got houses built because I got a deal done with your party last time. Those houses have made a significant difference in Tasmania. I will give credit to Peter Gutwein and the Liberal Party in the state down there. They were a little bit slow to get started, but I understand that. That process takes about two years because you've got to get greenfield sites, you've got to get the materials and you've got to have the tradies. I know that and I understand. But we're doing a bloody good job taking the politics out of it. We are doing a good job in Tasmania and we're trying to build them as fast as we can; I know that. But I have to say to my colleagues from Tasmania: we are falling behind because, for every one we've built, we've got nearly bloody 50 more on that waiting list. We can't hold this back. I know this is not perfect, but people out there need roofs over their heads. So, for goodness sake, please, can we just get a starter on this? I really don't want to hold this back any further.</para>
<para>Nothing's ever perfect up here. It's never perfect. But as somebody who knows what it's like to move out of normal housing and know that we didn't have to live in a tent with my mum, which would have absolutely paralysed her—knowing that she couldn't keep a roof over her kids' heads is heartbreaking. We cannot hold this up. We need this to get through. We cannot hold this up another day. So, please, to you people over here who think you have a social conscience: do you really want to keep playing with people's lives? Do you really? Because all I hear about is all these women out there in domestic violence houses.</para>
<para>You have an opportunity to get it started. You have the biggest balance of power in this parliament this time around. You have that. You can keep chipping away. It's no different to what you do with your gas and coal and what you're doing there. You keep getting better at it. You keep reducing on having more gas and coal here and you're doing a great job. But we need a starter. This is something we can keep chipping away at and we can keep doing deals and adding to it. So, please, can we just use a base here and get started today. No more of the politics, no more of the rubbish—I just want roofs over people's heads. That's all I want.</para>
<para>I want to thank the Labor Party for being very constructive. I know that Senator Tyrrell's worked very hard with you guys. I know there have been a lot of hours put into this. We may not get this perfect, but we've got to start. What we do know is that every state has been promised 1,200 houses to get started. Let's get it started because it is going to take quite a few years to get them to start it and get them built. In the meantime we can chip away. We also know there'll be an election by the time they get started on building them. I can tell you now, if people are crying out for houses, they're going to be offered a lot more. But at least get the program started so we can get moving and so I don't have as many people out there, especially our children, without houses. For that next generation, I don't want to see them starting their lives living in a tent, because that's really unfair. We're not acting like adults by doing that to our children of the future. It is as simple as that today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're opposing this suspension of standing orders and, if the suspension is successful, we'll be opposing the motion, by leave. Let's have a look at some of the considerations. The first part of Senator Wong's motion, 1(a), is wrong. But, if it is 'the most significant government investment in social and affordable homes', then it needs proper debate and scrutiny. We haven't had that. The second part, 1(b), is spurious. Again, we need a full debate. Part 1(c), again, is spurious. We need a full debate. Part 1(e) says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">at a time when Australians are facing significant housing pressures, the progress on the bills should be expedited by the Senate.</para></quote>
<para>The Labor budget is inflationary and will hurt housing in this country. Housing prices will escalate because they're bringing in 400,000 new immigrants. Who the hell is going to house them? Plus these bills are littered with wastage and huge increases in bureaucracy. Bureaucrats do not build houses; they frustrate the building of houses. They increase the cost of building houses. We need to let the free market get on with the job, let tradies get on with the job of building houses. Then, at (1)(f), is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">recognising the significance of this legislation, there is a need that these bills be considered today</para></quote>
<para>We need thorough debate on these bills. They're significant. We need to get back to basics.</para>
<para>The $10 billion fund is not Monopoly money; it's taxpayers' money. We need to debate how to spend that wisely and properly, so we will be opposing this. I make the point, in this debate in the Senate, as it happens so often, labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the dishonest and the fearful. People using labels in this parliament, decide for yourselves which of those apply to you. Is it ignorance, dishonesty or fear?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to particularly single out the contribution we just heard from Senator Lambie, who dropped a few truth bombs on this chamber that really needed to be heard by a few people.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's because you conned her.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is about real people who cannot get housing—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson just accused, suggested, made a remark about Senator Lambie that should be withdrawn. Please withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, please withdraw what you shouted across the chamber. I did hear it. It wasn't in good taste.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens and their lack of graciousness are on full display already today.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't make it worse, Senator Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie's contribution brought home the stark reality that too many Australians are experiencing at the moment—that is, a lack of housing; rising rates of homelessness—which we are trying to work with this chamber to fix. It is time for the nonsense around this issue to end. We've had weeks of the performative social media from the Greens. We've had months of the self-indulgent press conferences. The Greens, at some point, have got to realise that we are not in a school debating society here. We are talking about real people's lives and real solutions, to create the housing that so many Australians so desperately need, and today we have an opportunity to fix that. People are hurting.</para>
<para>It is time to debate legislation that will build 30,000 social and affordable homes across Australia. That's what this motion does. It seeks to bring on the debate on a bill that will help build tens of thousands of homes. I've listened to the Greens try to categorise this as being not enough, that it's the only thing being done about housing. That is just more nonsense and misrepresentation from the Greens. Not only will this fund build 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the first five years, the Greens want to vote against 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness. The Greens want to partner with the coalition to, as Senator Lambie is talking about, build homes for veterans.</para>
<para>That is what is at stake here. There's a lot more at stake here than a social media tile or a graphic or a video or whatever other self-fulfilling, self-indulgent social media thing. These are people's real lives. That is in addition to the $2 billion, that Labor is financing, being made available to support social and affordable rental homes. There is up to $575 million available for social and affordable rental homes and $350 million to build a further 10,000 affordable homes. We are pulling every possible lever open to government to build social and affordable homes that the Greens want to jump on Instagram and tell people they care about. We're doing every single one of these things.</para>
<para>It's still not enough for the Greens, because what they're interested in is milking public attention to build up their votes at the expense of people who desperately deserve housing. The Greens should be ashamed of themselves. They should be ashamed of leaving people living in tents so that they, the Greens, can have a social media feed. That is all that matters to the Greens—not the content, not the substance. That is all that actually matters.</para>
<para>Who is coming together today to oppose the biggest investment in public housing that we have seen in this country, in a decade, in addition to everything else? Who's coming together? We have a new coalition emerging between the Greens; Peter Dutton and the Liberal and National parties; and, it would appear, Pauline Hanson and One Nation. Well, give yourselves a pat on the back! What great company you're keeping in order to stop the development of public housing in this country. Oh, you don't want to be with the Greens?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Comments should be directed through the chair. I know it's a highly emotional argument for the Labor Party at the moment, but to be shouting at the Greens in the manner that they are is highly disrespectful.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, to the extent you can, please address your comments through me.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It would seem now that the coalition between the Greens and the opposition is even going to procedural points as well. The Greens want public housing so badly that they will sell their souls and wrap their arms around Peter Dutton, Pauline Hanson and every single member of the opposition. That's how badly they want public housing to happen in this country—to stop the biggest investment in public housing in this country in a decade.</para>
<para>It's not the first time we've seen the Greens say they want housing and then do everything possible to stop it. They've got a long record of doing that at council level in a number of states. Who could forget the Yarra City Council, controlled by the Greens, which knocked back a plan to build 100 new social housing units on council land? They wanted social housing in Melbourne so much that they blocked it! They wanted social housing so much in various Sydney councils that they blocked it! Now they want social housing so badly at the federal level that they're teaming up with Peter Dutton and Pauline Hanson to block it as well.</para>
<para>We know that this hypocrisy disease that surrounds the Greens has, unfortunately, spread to Queensland as a result of the Greens winning federal seats. We have the Greens housing spokesperson, the member for Griffith, out there saying: 'We need more housing! We need more housing! But, you know what? There's a housing development with 1,300 homes, and I'm going to block it.' He is out there leading protests in Griffith to stop housing developments in his electorate, while saying that he wants more public housing. The member for Brisbane is teaming up with him to do it as well. The Greens are hypocrites on this issue. It is time to call it out, and it is time to build more homes.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For the last two minutes I give the call to the coalition.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition will be opposing this suspension. I just want to make it clear—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've just been told by the clerk the time has now expired, so we will have to forgo your contribution, Senator McKenzie. The question will now be put.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [09:36] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>23</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>White, L.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>41</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para><inline font-style="italic">(In division)</inline> Senators, order across the chamber!</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Watt! Senator Whish-Wilson, I have just called for order across the chamber and that is what I expect.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson!</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Stop the count. Senators, I have called order three times and I've called on particular senators to stop the interjections. I'm asking you to respect this chamber. There is a count underway and it is normally done in silence, without interjections. Please continue the count.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>1923</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>1923</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the consideration of private senators' bills not proceed today.</para></quote>
<para>The effect of this motion is that the Senate will proceed immediately to the next item of business, which is the attendance of a minister and, following that, debate on the housing bills.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1923</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1923</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1923</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1923</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUDGET</title>
        <page.no>1923</page.no>
        <type>BUDGET</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration by Estimates Committees</title>
          <page.no>1923</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition has moved a motion in the Senate because apparently they weren't happy with two of the answers to questions on notice that they received. The hypocrisy of this particular proposition is extraordinary.</para>
<para>The first question was a question that Senator Hume asked about comments attributed to the finance minister in the <inline font-style="italic">Canberra Times</inline> in relation to what was called a productivity efficiency component. Those comments are completely consistent with a responsible government cleaning up $1 trillion worth of debt left by a decade of Liberal neglect and dysfunction. In answer, the minister quite rightly said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In relation to the sustainability of the Budget, the Albanese Labor Government inherited a Budget disaster from the previous Liberal government, featuring a trillion dollars in Liberal Party debt, growing inflation, a cost of living crisis and an ugly mess of waste, rackets and rorts that defined the legacy of the wasted decade under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government, a situation with which Senator Hume will be intimately familiar as the Senator was a senior member of the previous Liberal government and a Minister in an economic portfolio.</para></quote>
<para>In addition to that, there is a question here from Senator Paterson that is the subject of this motion. It is about, of all things, the lobbyist register. I remind the Senate—and Senator Farrell says here correctly—that the lobbyist register is a creation of this government. The last time there was a lobbyist register in place, it was a creation of the Rudd and Gillard governments. It was abolished by the previous government. The lobbyist register before that was abolished by the Howard government. These guys have no shame when it comes to the activities of lobbyists and the proper regulation of lobbying here. It's an extraordinary proposition to ask the Senate to get stuck into the government about lobbyist registries and lobbyist regulation that you have abolished every time you've gone anywhere near the government benches.</para>
<para>Why is that? As Senator Farrell's pointed out in his answer—I understand that Senator Paterson, Senator Birmingham and others over there don't like the answer—every time you've got near the government benches you've dispensed with lobbying regulation. And why? Because regulation and clean government are anathema to these characters over there. You only have to look, as Senator Farrell pointed out, at the activities of the member for Fadden. But Senator Farrell could have gone further. If Senator Scarr doesn't like it, he could reflect on the activities of the current member for Hume over the course of the previous government. When he had a problem on his property, a bit of native grass that he wanted to get rid of, what did he do? He walked the little red carpet up to the minister's office and pleaded his case after he'd got the Roundup out and knocked over the native grass to make an enormous personal profit for his company. Remember Jam Land? We all remember it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres, I have Senator Scarr on his feet.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam Acting Deputy President, personal imputations, reflections—it's hard to even pick. There are so many—a cascade of personal reflections and imputations. The senator should withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw, and I point out that there is a yawning gulf between what that side says about governance and what they did in government, and all of them—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres, I have Senator Steele-John on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Steele-John</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are 21 seconds remaining. My point is on relevance. The senator is not being relevant to the question before the chamber. If he could talk about the NDIS, that would be appreciated.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Steele-John, I understand there's no requirement for the minister to be relevant on this particular matter.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What I'm pointing out is that there is such a giant gap between what these characters say about parliamentary accountability and governance and what they do. It's not just about the sad, sorry sight of the flyblown member for Fadden withdrawing after all of the controversy but also about current members of the opposition frontbench and their conduct in office.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the explanation.</para></quote>
<para>I really do feel a little sorry for Senator Ayres this morning. He clearly drew the short straw within the government frontbench. In Senator Farrell's absence, Senator Ayres was the one who had to front up and defend the indefensible. Senator Ayres was the one who had to turn up and provide the humiliating response to this Senate, defending the types of responses that should never be given in relation to questions on notice that have been taken.</para>
<para>There's a time and a place for us to engage in political sledging and in comparisons of track records of your government versus our government and the types of things that do frame part of the political debate in the conduct of our national politics. But that time and place is not in written answers to serious Senate questions on notice. Across the chamber, that time and place is in the ABC studios, in the Sky News studios or on the airwaves of radio and television stations. That time and place is sometimes here when we are debating live the contest of ideas and the battle, indeed, of track records. But it's not when a senator has asked a serious question and is seeking serious information about serious topics.</para>
<para>This debate has come on because we believe as the coalition and the opposition in this place that it is a question of respect versus contempt—respect for the Senate and parliamentary institutions versus contempt for the Senate and parliamentary institutions. Mr Shorten and, through agreeing to table Mr Shorten's response, Senator Farrell and the government as a whole have shown contempt for the Senate and its institutions rather than respect for them.</para>
<para>Senator Ayres talked about a yawning gulf as part of his rhetoric. Let's consider the yawning gulf in the government's rhetoric and in what this Labor Party promised to be in government. The Prime Minister, even as recently as April of this year, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… I'm focused on … running a good Government. A Government that's run by adults. A Government that has good processes in place. A Government that has ministers that are undertaking their tasks and are working hard.</para></quote>
<para>There's nothing mature, nothing adult like, about Mr Shorten's response to a question asked by Senator Hume in relation to comments about efficiency dividends and how they apply, particularly in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.</para>
<para>I cannot imagine a single Australian who cares about either good budget management or good budget processes or a single Australian who cares about the operation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme thinking that Mr Shorten's response, which constitutes an entire paragraph of diatribe against the former Liberal government and has no mention at all in his response of the NDIS or of disability policy, is anything that goes remotely close to answering the question. If he tried to give this response in the House of Representatives, even the Labor Speaker would call it out of order, even the Labor Speaker would sit him down. Yet he dares to try to give this response in writing in the Senate. It is contemptuous. It is a case of this government speaking with one mind, saying they'll be adults, saying they're going to undertake their tasks properly, saying that ministers will be held to account, but in reality they're not. They've said this again and again. Senator Gallagher assured this Senate:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… that we are an orderly, adult, responsible government. We take matters of integrity and honesty very seriously.</para></quote>
<para>Well, if you take matters of integrity and honesty very seriously, why, again, when Senator Paterson asked a very straightforward question about lobbyists that Mr Shorten may have met with, would Mr Shorten provide an answer that goes nowhere close to actually addressing the question?</para>
<para>This is a message to the government. Lift your standards. Show respect to this institution and to this chamber when it comes to responding to these questions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to say to everyone listening to these proceedings—we've got people in the public gallery, and it's great to see people in the public gallery again—that this is one of the worst things I've seen in my time in the Senate since I started, on 1 July 2019. What's happening here, to explain to everyone, is that some courteous relevant questions were put to the government in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, referring to an article which appeared in a newspaper and asking some legitimate questions—for example, with respect to the application of a so-called efficiency dividend to the NDIS et cetera. Courteous questions were put, but the response, on notice, in writing, was a diatribe of discourtesy and sneering contempt. It was absolutely disgraceful.</para>
<para>Every senator who is not sitting on the government benches should be absolutely outraged by this. The Australian people should be outraged by this. Senator Ayres is coming back into the chamber. He did his best to defend the indefensible. I don't think he picked the short straw; I think he rushed forward and grabbed it with both hands. I have heard Senator Ayres in the past talk about others in this chamber, sneer at others in this chamber, saying they're engaging in Trotskyite university pranks. That is exactly what this was, Senator Ayres—sneering diatribe in response to courteous questions, relevant questions, asked about the NDIS. It was sneering, contemptuous and discourteous. It is absolutely unbelievable. I was actually shocked when I saw the answer to the question on notice—sneering, discourteous, contemptuous. It was beneath the contempt of this Senate, surely. Every single senator in this place has the right to put questions on notice. I expect, and I'm sure my colleagues here expect, that those questions will be put in a courteous manner, they'll be relevant and they'll be objective. When they do that, there is a reciprocal obligation on those sitting on the government benches to respond in a courteous fashion to those questions—because we're not just sitting here as individuals; we're sitting here as representatives of the people who elected us. That in itself is the position each and every senator holds. I may disagree with senators in terms of their political ideologies or their views on different policies, but I will always defend the right of every single senator in this place—and I don't care from which party—to put forward their views, their arguments and their perspective without being responded to with sneering, contemptuous discourtesy. And that's what we've seen from the government regarding questions on notice. I can understand that in the heat of the battle people may say things. They may step over the mark. I've done it myself. I plead guilty, your honour.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, you haven't.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I try to be a better person every day, Senator McGrath—I really do. But on occasions you do step over the mark, and then you withdraw to provide comity in the chamber. You do the right thing. But to respond to serious questions in relation to the NDIS with such discourtesy and such sneering contempt is just outrageous. I say to the leadership of the government opposite: it's profoundly disappointing. I think there is cause for deep, deep reflection because, if this happens again and we hear the same tone—the sneering, contemptuous discourtesy—with respect to legitimate questions which are being put forward in a courteous fashion, we will call it out every day of the week and shine a bright light on it. It's absolutely unacceptable. It's unacceptable to this chamber, and it should be unacceptable to every senator sitting in this chamber.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The parliamentary scrutiny of the NDIS provided by the Senate is vital. Asking questions in this place of the government in relation to how they run the NDIS is so important because disabled people do not trust the major parties not to stab them in the back as the Liberal Party did over the decade that they were in power. As the NDIS was rolled out, they systematically and continually excluded disabled people from critical decision-making and attempted, again and again, to cut our plans and supports to make it harder for us to get on the scheme, and as a result so many people went for so long, and still go, without the support that they need. Quite frankly, it was hoped among the disability community that, having wrenched the Liberal Party out by the neck and, God willing, condemned them to the dustbin of history, that period of time in our lives, when we woke up week after week, month after month to headlines about the government of the day making changes to the NDIS in such a way that impacted our lives without consulting disabled people, was over.</para>
<para>Indeed, before the election the Labor Party made the promise that they would make no change to the NDIS without consultation and co-design, yet in the budget they broke that promise. A week before the budget, the Prime Minister led every mainland Premier—all of whom are Labor—and the Tasmanian Liberal Premier out into the public to announce a cap on the NDIS. And that cap was followed through with in the budget delivered by this government. The impact of that cap, or that cut, is that $74 billion—colleagues, $74 billion—will be removed from the NDIS funding pot over this decade. That $74 billion is being reported today—and I believe that this is accurate—as the single largest so-called saving in the budget. This is at a time when this government has committed to $368 billion—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>more than $368 billion, I'm reminded by Senator Shoebridge now—nearly upwards of half a trillion dollars—on the AUKUS nuclear submarine project. This is at a time when they are continuing to commit in their budget to $54 billion in stage 3 tax cuts over the decade. These are tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit wealthy men—wealthy white men, I should make the bloody point.</para>
<para>In that budget, the single biggest 'saving' they could find was not scrapping the stage 3 tax cuts. It was not opposing the AUKUS proposal. It was cutting the NDIS. And, just in case disabled people hadn't got the message, just in case we hadn't really understood where the priorities of this government were, they really drove it home by failing to commit a single dollar to the implementation of the recommendations that will come from the historic royal commission into disability abuse, which will be handed down in December. This means that when those recommendations are handed down disabled people will have to continue to wait until the next budget cycle, when—I assume—some form of funding for the recommendations will be provided.</para>
<para>In case that wasn't enough, they also failed to listen to the disability community and raise the rate of the disability support pension across the board, which we have been pleading with the government to do, for so long, because of the expense of being disabled in Australia. Disabled people in this community will not cop this cut. We will not be gaslit by any government or any minister that tries to tell us that a so-called target isn't a cut, particularly not by a mob that, when they were in opposition, made much hay out of the exact same language from the Abbott government in relation to health and education.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I echo and support the comments of my colleague Senator Steele-John—not all of them—but I too say: shame on you, Labor. Hypocrisy, your name is Bill Shorten. If only his hypocrisy and his lies—I use that word very carefully. I'll withdraw that. His statements do not reflect the reality. Let me go through some of the reasons why. Before the election, as Senator Steele-John has so passionately and eloquently highlighted, Bill Shorten—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. Senator Reynolds, use the member's correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Shorten, who was then shadow minister for the NDIS, spent months, if not years, saying that there was no problem with the NDIS. He denied us any bipartisanship to implement significant and sensible changes to the scheme. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has offered that bipartisanship, which has not yet been taken up.</para>
<para>The contempt which Minister Shorten has now for transparency is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. Before the election he was talking about transparency. I agreed with him, so I introduced a monthly NDIS statistics summary in July 2021, to provide great transparency to everybody, not only participants and their families but also members in this place, families and anybody else interested in the NDIS. We produced monthly reports to show what the changes and trends were year-on-year.</para>
<para>Guess what? What was one of the first things Minister Shorten did this year? He removed the monthly reports. No more transparency for everybody who is interested in, engaged with and relies on the NDIS. Even worse, on the website it says that they've stopped providing the monthly reports; they're now putting out quarterly reports. They've gone from monthly to quarterly reports, but guess what? There hasn't been a quarterly report published this year, and the last one was actually in December 2022. So since February this year there has not been any transparency. I think it is no coincidence that the NDIA keeps refusing to appear and is finding every reason under the sun for why it won't appear before the JCPAA to talk about its financial reports. I don't think that is a coincidence. So much for this great man who believes in transparency!</para>
<para>The questions on notice that are the subject of this motion today are not the only ones. I have pages and pages of questions that he has simply refused to answer. When he does, the responses are contemptuous of this parliament and this place. For example, there are still many unanswered questions from March not only for Services Australia, which he is also responsible for, but also for the NDIA. When the minister came in, he launched an 18-month review—which has pretty much put the whole scheme on hold, including a lot of the reforms that we implemented—with almost no transparency. When we ask questions about that in this place, he does not answer. Not only did the minister pause the entire scheme for 18 months, even after 30 reviews of the scheme; he doesn't answer questions. While he put the whole scheme on pause for 18 months, he did actually carry out quite a very long night, or month, of the long knives.</para>
<para>I asked questions in relation to the resignations of the chair, Denis Napthine, and the CEO, Martin Hoffman. These were very important questions in terms of how their resignations came to be and whether the minister had actually suggested to them that they might like to resign. The minister still has not responded to those questions. In fact, one of the responses I got in relation to that was quite gobsmacking in its contempt of this place. I asked a question on the time line, and I got a response that said absolutely nothing. I followed up with questions in March. We still do not have answers. This is such a critically important scheme, the third-largest expenditure of our national budget, and he refuses to answer any questions. Shame on him. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Asking questions and getting good answers to them is incredibly important for the workings of this Senate and the workings of the parliament. It is incredibly important for transparency. It is incredibly important so that the Australian public can have some understanding of the rationale behind decisions that are being made.</para>
<para>This week is budget week. The budget is all about choices. The budget is all about making one decision rather than another decision. Actually having some transparency so that you can work out why these decisions have been made is critical to see whether these are good decisions for the country, or to see, indeed, whether they are decisions that have been made after lobbying by various vested interests. That's why it's important to be asking questions and to be getting good answers to questions. It is very legitimate for the Senate to be taking this time, to be focused on this, to be applying pressure and to be telling this government that it is critical that, when questions are asked, transparent answers are given with the detail that's required.</para>
<para>It's important when you see decisions to rip $74 billion out of the NDIS made in this budget. It is outrageous that it is the community of disabled people here in Australia who are being asked to take the fall. They are the ones that are having to suffer because of the decisions being made in this budget. If there was some good rationale—if you could be shown the government's workings to say: 'This money isn't needed. This is how it's not going to impact on services'—you might be able to trust them. But when you ask questions about it you get zero. You get silence. So it's pretty clear that the reason that $74 billion has been taken out of this budget is that the government has decided, 'The disabled community haven't got much political power, so they will just have to suck it up. This is outrageous, particularly when you put it in the context of other things that the disabled community and disabled people are having to put up with. We have had an absolutely paltry increase to the JobSeeker allowance of $2.85 a day, which won't even buy you a kilogram of potatoes or a loaf of bread.</para>
<para>There was no increase, however, to the disability support pension, despite the recognition that people on the DSP actually need more support, more funding and more resources to be able to live a decent life. There was zero increase to the disability support pension. People on the DSP are still in poverty. In my Senate committee's inquiry into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia and our inquiry into the adequacy of the disability support pension last year, we have heard the most heartbreaking stories from people on the DSP, as well as from people with disabilities who should be on the DSP, of the circumstances they are having to live in—not being able to pay the rent; not being able to afford food, let alone healthy food that's going to help them to stay well; not being able to afford their medications, which is critical. If you're on the DSP, it's for a reason. There are significant health costs. Some are not able to afford to go to see specialists to help them deal with their disability. With this government, these are the choices being made.</para>
<para>And yet at the same time the choice is being made to go ahead with stage 3 tax cuts. At the same time that we're ripping $74 billion out of the budget from the National Disability Insurance Scheme, there is $254 billion that is being given away to the wealthy. It's being given away in $9,000-a-year tax cuts at the same time as the people on the NDIS are having that money ripped away from them. Every single one of us in this place, every single politician, is going to get a $9,000-a-year tax cut. We're going to get an extra $25 a day in our pockets, compared with the cuts that are being made to people with disability and the cuts that are being made to other people who are struggling to get by. These are the choices that are being made.</para>
<para>We absolutely need to have transparency and accountability to show up how inadequate and how wrong these choices being made are. We need to know the rationale for not increasing payments above the current rates. We need to know the rationale as to why the petroleum resource rent tax is only going to bring in an extra $3 billion when it could bring in an extra $30 billion. That's right. Transparency and accountability are critical.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I like Senator Farrell. He's a good bloke. We don't always agree. I accept that he's overseas right now. Yet his repeated nonresponses are not acceptable. His behaviour is not acceptable, because answering questions is important for accountability. The people that we serve deserve honesty and accountability. There's only one word to describe this government's attitude to Senate estimates, to questions on notice and to orders for the production of documents. That word is 'contempt'. They continue to treat this chamber with contempt. Almost every order by this Senate to produce information is met with contempt from this government, and it is appropriate that we begin to treat appropriately the ministers who treat this Senate with contempt.</para>
<para>We have had explanation after explanation after explanation from ministers. Ministers are all too happy to come into this place and cop a lashing for an hour and continue to refuse to produce the information that this Senate has ordered. The explanations are not good enough. They are intentionally inadequate. It is not good enough that this Senate continues to accept them without any further action. It's time for this Senate to use its constitutionally enshrined powers to hold ministers to account, and that must be through charges of contempt when they continue to disrespect this Senate's orders.</para>
<para>I remind senators that it is this Senate, not the government-dominated privileges committee, that makes the final determination on matters of contempt. If this Senate is not happy with a minister's disobedience of a direct order, then the Senate itself can vote on contempt, which we would do and which should happen. The time for meaningless, hollow blather, in explanation after explanation, is over. Start serving the people or face contempt motions. There are jail cells in the basement. It's time for the executive government to be reminded why they're there. That's not a joke. That is fact. It's time for the government to be reminded why there are jail cells in the basement.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to speak on the answers provided, through Minister Farrell, from Minister Shorten. I have been involved in this place in a couple of capacities for quite a long time now, coming on 13 years, five of them as a senator, and I probably read more answers to questions on notice as a member of staff in my previous life. I have read, literally, many thousands of answers to questions on notice. I cannot recall answers that are as sneeringly contemptuous, as my good friend Senator Scarr described them, as arrogant, as patronising and as hubristic as the answers we are looking at here today.</para>
<para>To give those listening or reading <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> an idea of the questions—you might think they were highly politically charged questions, questions that deserved a political answer in some way. Let me read a couple of the questions to you, just to demonstrate that they are completely reasonable, legitimate, straightforward questions. The first is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">What is the current efficiency dividend rate for your department and any relevant agencies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Are any agencies or another entities within the portfolio exempt from the efficiency dividend; if so, please list them;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Is the efficiency dividend referenced in the Portfolio Budget Statement for your department; if so, where; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Are there any agencies or entities that have an efficiency dividend that is higher or lower than the rate applied to the department; if so, please list them.</para></quote>
<para>That's a fairly straightforward question asking about a technical matter in the budget.</para>
<para>No question deserves such a contemptuous answer, but if you are listening to that question then the answer served up by the minister displays such a level of contempt—not for us, not for the askers of the questions, although there is contempt for that, but for this place, for this chamber. We speak a lot in this chamber about the need for civility, order and maintaining the comity of this chamber. This flies directly in the face of those demands, those requests from the chair, on a regular occurrence. In fact, just this morning the President of the Senate asked that we respect the chamber. These answers do not respect the chamber.</para>
<para>Let's look at the second question under consideration today. It's not a highly politically charged question. It's a very straightforward question that deserves a straightforward answer:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Has the Minister, the Minister's office or the Minister's department met with any representative or employee of Anacta Strategies Pty Ltd in relation to TikTok, either in person, via video conference or phone.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If so, what was the date, time and duration of the meeting.</para></quote>
<para>That's a very straightforward question. All it requires is a very simple answer. It does not require a political attack on us. It does not deserve the contempt displayed of this parliament and its processes that we received from the minister.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Shall I send you some of the answers that your side gave?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Pratt? I believe you're interjecting over there. The contempt displayed in these answers is appalling and you should be ashamed of the way your government is treating—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Brockman, you will ignore the interjections and direct your remarks through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Interjections are always disorderly, Mr Acting Deputy President. Through you, I would say that answers to questions on notice such as this are also, in their own way, disorderly. They are a contempt of this place and demonstrate that this is a government that is arrogant and hubristic but still thinks it's in opposition. These answers that we see are the answers of a political party that is still in the mentality of opposition. At some point, they have to realise they need to start behaving like a government. Sadly, I don't think that realisation will ever come. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know what's happening here: the government are trying to hide their cuts to disability services. They're trying to hide the efficiency dividend cuts through giving virtually useless responses to these questions on notice. They were very cagey about their cuts to the NDIS in Tuesday night's budget. It's coming to light now, thanks to the forensic investigation of Senator Steele-John.</para>
<para>Seventy-four billion dollars is being cut from the NDIS, and you know what? Some of the tiny little bits of sugar that they've sprinkled around to other cohorts of desperate people who deserve far more are not kicking in anytime soon. They have to wait a few months. You know what's kicking in on 1 July? The cuts to the NDIS. As if it weren't insult enough to find $74 billion for some pathetic surplus off the back of people with a disability, those cuts are going to come in virtually straightaway and everybody else's meagre sprinklings of inadequate support have to wait. The priorities of this government continue to surprise and deeply disappoint me and, I'm sure, many people out there in the community.</para>
<para>So we're here today because they weren't properly answering questions on notice about cuts to disability services. That itself is troubling—the lack of transparency and the lack of respect in actually responding to questions that were very reasonable and deserved to be asked and to be answered. But this government hasn't responded properly, and now it's disguising the fact that there's a $74 billion cut to NDIS in the budget.</para>
<para>If you take a look at what else disabled people got served up on Tuesday night, there was a tiny, tiny increase to income support for young people and for people who are seeking work—tiny, $2.85 a day, almost insulting in its uselessness. Sure, every dollar will help, but it is so far below the poverty line. But you know who didn't get that increase? People on the disability support pension. The government didn't even have the decency to increase the DSP, but they certainly had the temerity to cut $74 billion from the NDIS and have that cut kick in from 1 July. It's absolutely shocking. I recall Labor promising that they wouldn't make changes to the NDIS without a co-design process with people with disability. That was an appropriate commitment. But where was that co-design process in cutting $74 billion? It did not happen. As Senator Steele-John has said, the disability community will fight these cuts and the Greens will be there every step or roll of the way.</para>
<para>This budget leaves millions of people behind, including people with disability. Budgets are about choices, and their wafer-thin political surplus is off the back of people with a disability. It's off the back of women who are seeking support in fleeing violence, where frontline services still don't have the funding they need to help everyone who seeks their help. It's off the back of people who deserved far more of an increase in the pathetically inadequate income support that keeps people jobless because they can't afford to get to the job interview, to have a decent shirt to wear or to be job ready.</para>
<para>This is a budget that just so deeply disappoints and leaves so many Australians behind. I thought that was meant to be the tagline. Well, you're not doing what you said on the tin, and I'm afraid people are going to notice. You can't really get away with it. When you have a wafer-thin surplus and inadequate provision for people who really need it, but you're failing to cut $254 billion of unnecessary tax perks to mostly wealthy white men, people are going to notice. Budgets indicate what your priorities are. Nuclear submarines—billions of dollars. Fossil fuel subsidies—$41 billion over the forwards. Billions of dollars in perks to property investors and moguls that are part of the problem and part of why housing is so unaffordable—$254 billion to wealthy white blokes who already have enough money and certainly don't need any more support. That's who is getting benefit from this budget, and yet you're hiding the fact that you're cutting $74 billion from the NDIS. I thought we had a change of government. We expected a change of policy and a change of approach. Do better.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At its core, what we're discussing here are two elements. The first is another broken promise from Labor, which I will come to shortly. Secondly, it is a breach of the separation of powers, because the executive should be accountable to parliament. I will deal with both of those issues in turn. One of the characteristics of this government has been its propensity to make promises, from quite outlandish ones to quite sensible ones, particularly before the election, when they were attempting to garner the support of the Australian people, and then they break the promises.</para>
<para>We should not forget that the Prime Minister said that if you make a promise and a commitment you have to stick to it. Ironically, he also broke that promise. Remember, they promised to cut electricity bills by $275. Labor and Prime Minister Albanese said that 97 times before the last election. They promised cheaper mortgages. We have had 10 interest rises impacting on people's mortgages since the election—another broken promise. Remember the promise of no changes to super? Broken. Lower inflation—broken. They weren't going to touch people's franking credits—broken. They said industrywide bargaining was not part of their policy in relation to industrial relations—broken. They said they'd do their bit to assist real wage increases, and they broke that promise also. They said they weren't about raising taxes, and they broke that one numerous times. They said they would cut the cost of consultants and contractors, and they broke that promise.</para>
<para>The promise we're discussing here this morning is the promise that they would be an accountable and transparent government. They have broken that promise. No doubt Minister Shorten and his staff, sitting in the blue carpet wing of this building, think this is all a bit of a laugh. They're probably sitting there, watching the screen, giggling away at opposition senators and minor party senators raising our concerns about the approach of the government. They probably do think it's a big laugh. It's not.</para>
<para>Quite sad and quite juvenile are the answers that were given. They're not even the answers you'd expect from a first-year politics student or indeed from one of the students who occasionally come into the gallery upstairs here, whether they are from year 6, year 7 or later in high school. It appears that the minister's office have maybe gone to Wikipedia or used ChatGPT to find answers, thinking: 'How can we snub our noses at the Senate? How can we disrespect the Senate?' With their answers to the questions asked by my colleagues, they have actually snubbed their noses at the people who are affected by the issues.</para>
<para>You have heard from colleagues with a range of political views across this chamber about their concerns with how the NDIS is operating and has operated. We do disagree along that particular spectrum, but we all want answers from the government. We got an answer to a question on notice—in particular, the one that was asked by my colleague Senator Jane Hume—that is just so rude, so patronising. It's just wrong that any parliament, that any elected body, would be treated in such a manner by members of the executive in relation to answers that are put on notice.</para>
<para>For those that don't understand, a question on notice is like a take-home exam. You get the question and you've got a period in which to answer it. For questions on notice you've got up to two weeks, sometimes four weeks—whatever it is—but the government is always late with its answers. You're not doing it on the run. It is an opportunity for the opposition to ask serious questions and for serious answers to be given. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to add my voice on this issue and echo the statements made by my colleagues who've spoken on this very important matter. There are very few times when we agree with the opposition, but we agree with their commentary around this. It's particularly relevant that coming out of this budget we all had some hope. We had some hope that with a new government there'd be change and new policy, as Senator Waters outlined. But we learned that $74 billion would be cut from the NDIS. That is beyond acceptable for those disabled people across Australia, the ones that my colleague here from Western Australia, Senator Steele-John, does so much amazing work with. Thank you for your work, Senator Steele-John.</para>
<para>So much for Labor stating that no-one will be left behind. When you have that in your campaign slogan, when that is your mantra, you actually have to walk that on. You have to continue to do that and not leave people behind. When you deliver your budget and set your priorities you are not to leave people behind, and that includes disabled people in this country. It's shameful that members of this government sit in this chamber and hold their heads high when they're doing this to disabled people, who do not trust the major parties of this country because of the experience they've had over the last decade. They continue to be stabbed in the back by the Liberals, who did it for a decade, and now Labor, who have picked up the mantle and continue to do this to disabled people across this country.</para>
<para>I want to talk specifically about the double disadvantage of First Nations people in this country who are disabled. The First Peoples Disability Network of Australia have done some incredible work in fighting for the NDIS to be better supported for First Nations people across this country. They estimate there are actually 60,000 First Nations people who should—'should' is the operative word here—be in the NDIS, but in reality there are far fewer disabled people getting the support that they deserve, and there are many reasons why. They include spending years on long waiting lists to access NDIS's assessment process. There are lots of First Nations people who live in rural and remote areas, meaning that sometimes they actually can't get that access. It is only available to those who have the means and capacity to travel hundreds of kilometres to access these services. You might need to have a car. You might also need to have someone else drive that car, depending on what your disability is. You've got to pay for fuel, have the time to drive for hours and pay for accommodation if you can't make the trip in one day. These costs add up very quickly, meaning it simply isn't feasible for many First Nations people. Let's not forget, everyone, that we are in a cost-of-living crisis; yet we expect people First Nations people with disabilities who live in rural and remote areas to travel to those services.</para>
<para>I'm sure people in this chamber don't need a geography lesson, but Australia is actually vast, and it's a very spread-out nation. That's especially true for my home state of Western Australia. In a previous life, before I entered this workplace, I worked for a place in the Goldfields. It is quite a remote part of Western Australia, and the nearest service centre is approximately 600 kilometres from Perth. Imagine a First Nations disabled person, whose first language might not be English, having to travel to get services under the NDIS. Not only are there cultural insensitivities in mainstream disability services; there are simply not enough of them. The measly $1 million sugar hit, the little sprinkles that have been given out—I'm going to borrow Senator Waters's description—are not enough for those potential 60,000 First Nations people on the NDIS. This is a big slap in the face for disabled people, and for my people in particular.</para>
<para>Asking questions on notice in this place is important. It's part of a healthy and transparent democracy. Significant changes have been announced in the budget. We need those answers to be able to relate those questions to our constituents. Labor promised 'no big changes without co-design'. Co-design means you involve people, not just rip $74 billion out of the budget for the NDIS. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a very serious issue that we are discussing today in the Senate. It's an issue of contempt of this place. Very serious, sincere questions have been put to the minister, or ministers in this case, and we've had a very contemptuous response to those questions, which were put on notice by Senator Hume and Senator Paterson.</para>
<para>I try always to be very measured in my language and in the way that I approach debates. I don't try to conflate or overstate the seriousness of an issue, but I have to say that this is quite genuinely one of the most serious issues of contempt that I have seen in this place. I've only been here for 3½ years or so, but this is already the most contemptuous issue that I've seen.</para>
<para>Normally we see some confected outrage in debates and on issues. The contributions that have been made by my colleagues on this side and, indeed, by my colleagues in the Greens party present some very serious issues, because the questions that were asked go to very important points that matter for our national security or, in the case of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to people who need the services of the NDIS. It is very disappointing that the questions, the very sincere questions that were put, have been answered in such a contemptuous way.</para>
<para>Sometimes I feel sorry for ministers who have to come in and have the job of defending the indefensible, but I don't feel sorry for Senator Ayres in this instance. I feel he was discourteous to the Senate in the answer that he provided in responding on behalf of the minister today. He was given a tough job to do, but he could have dealt with it in a less contemptuous way. It is a poor reflection on the good order of this chamber, because as Senator Brockman said in his contribution, when these issues come up it's a matter of being discourteous or disrespectful not just to the questioner, the senator who is asking the question, but to this chamber. The good working nature of this chamber is important. We have a role to play. We are not here as individuals. We are here representing our communities. I am here, having been duly elected by the people of Western Australia, to come in here and ask questions.</para>
<para>Of course, as others have remarked, sometimes in the heat of battle in a debate on policy or issues there can be a bit of political to-and-fro, but this was a question that was put on notice. As Senator McGrath remarked, when a question is put on notice there is a due date, which is usually more than two weeks away. That gives the minister the chance to seek advice from his departments and his agencies to assert regard to the substance of the answer that is required by the question. I will read out the question in relation to the NDIS:</para>
<quote><para class="block">a. what is the current efficiency dividend rate for your department and any relevant agencies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">b. are any agencies or another entities within the portfolio exempt from the efficiency dividend; if so, please list them;</para></quote>
<para>And it goes on with very straightforward questions requiring just a factual response. But in return, Minister Farrell, in his response, provided a very political answer that didn't mention the budget, any efficiency dividend, finances, or even the NDIS. This was a question of the NDIS minister. It didn't even go there or have anything to do with the agency. It's a very disrespectful— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>These non-answers are embarrassing responses, showing not just contempt for the Senate but, worse still, contempt for the disability community. This is a government that made the promise of co-design on the NDIS. 'Nothing about us without us' was the promise that was made. And then, in this budget, they deliver $74 billion in cuts to the NDIS—secret cuts hidden in footnotes. Nothing about us without us? Well, this budget is a disgraceful portrayal of the disability community. I think it's important in this debate to put some of the words of those extraordinary activists and campaigners from within the disability community about what the NDIS means and why this betrayal cuts to the bone. In particular, I want to put the words on of El Gibbs—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Shoebridge, I'm afraid that the time for this debate has expired. I will now put the question that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham to take note be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No. I just seek leave of the house to table four paragraphs of contribution from El Gibbs, a disability activist from my home state on this matter.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It hasn't been distributed, so leave has not been granted.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to distribute it. I'll seek leave again.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll let you deal with the clerks later.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1932</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>1932</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r6970" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6971" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6972" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>1932</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased in the very short time that I have to finish my contribution by again explaining to those watching that what we have seen in this chamber every single day this week is the Greens political party teaming up with the Liberal Party, the National Party and, today, One Nation to block and filibuster this bill to make sure that we don't vote on affordable and social housing. This is a bill that will provide 30,000 homes, affordable and social housing, something that we know people desperately need. This is what we have seen every single day this week—teaming up to stop this bill with the Liberal and National parties. That's what we've seen from the Greens.</para>
<para>The only thing, in continuing to play these political games, that can be said about the Greens political party is that they have come in here and are betraying the very real people that they supposedly come here to represent, because that is the only explanation of what they are doing and the behaviour they are displaying in this chamber and throughout this house in blocking this important legislation. In doing so, they are sitting with the very people who made sure that for over a decade we had no investment in affordable and social housing.</para>
<para>It is clear where they stand. It is clear that the Greens party want to make sure that in sitting with the Liberal and National parties we block this bill. But in doing that, they are also standing in the way of 30,000 affordable and social homes, funding for domestic violence homes, funding for families that are leaving domestic violence, $100 million of Indigenous remote housing repairs, and housing for veterans. Those are the people that the Greens Party are turning their backs on, and they're choosing to make sure that this is an issue where it is very clear where the Labor Party stands. They don't want to even go to a vote on this bill. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to put some facts on the record in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and what is being proposed. There is a lot being said about this bill, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, in the public sphere, but it is important that everyone understands what is actually proposed in this bill. What is proposed is that the government goes out today and borrows $10 billion, then gives that $10 billion to the Future Fund to invest—not in housing, but just to invest. It could invest in shares—Australian shares, international shares, government bonds here and overseas et cetera—and then the return from those investments, up to a particular cap, would be invested in housing. Does anyone see any problem with that?</para>
<para>The obvious problem is what happens after you borrow $10 billion at, say, four per cent interest, because we're in a high inflationary environment, then the Future Fund tries to invest that money to generate a return. There will only be money going into housing, and all of the laudable goals which have been referred to by the Labor Party, if that fund generates a positive return. In a high inflationary, economically difficult environment, one would have thought the risk that that return won't be generated to enable investment in social housing is heightened. Thus, you could get the perverse outcome that, when social housing is most needed, your investment in the housing fund, in shares, bonds et cetera, is low and doesn't produce the return to enable you to invest in the social housing you desperately need at that point in time. That's the perversity, from a policy perspective, of what's being proposed.</para>
<para>The government has the option now to, say, borrow—everything the government does now is based on borrowings—$500 million today, rather than $10 billion, issue that money in grants and get houses start being built today. They could do that now. But what they're proposing is to borrow $10 billion, give it to the Future Fund to invest in shares, international equities, domestic equities, bonds et cetera, and then only the return from that investment will go into housing. Why? Why are they proposing this?</para>
<para>If you want to know the dangers of it, all you need to do is look at the Future Fund's annual report 2021-22. The Future Fund is the fund which will be investing this $10 billion in shares, international equities et cetera. What happened to the returns in the Future Fund in the period up to 30 June 2022? All you need to do is have a look at the report from the chairman in the foreword. This is what he says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In a year in which global equities and global bonds fell by more than 10% each and where the Australian stock market fell 6.5%, the return of -1.2% was a pleasing outcome.</para></quote>
<para>In the period up to 30 June 2022, if that $10 billion had been borrowed by the government and given to the Future Fund, which then went out and invested it in domestic shares, international shares, bonds et cetera, its pleasing outcome would have been a minus 1.2 per cent return, not even taking into account inflation. It would have gone backwards, and, at the same time, you would have had to pay interest on the borrowings. No houses. Increased debt. Increased interest payments. None of those laudable goals achieved. That's why those opposite are opposing this piece of legislation.</para>
<para>With due respect, I've heard the Greens put forward the same argument with respect to the non sequitur that goes to the heart of what is being proposed. You're borrowing $10 billion today to invest it in shares, in a very difficult economic environment, and only if it generates a return will anything be invested in housing. That doesn't make sense. Look at the minus 1.2 per cent for the Future Fund for 30 June 2022. The Future Fund also invests in other future funds in relation to a range of areas. What were those results? The Medical Research Future Fund delivered a return of 0.1 per cent per annum in 2021-22. Say there's a bond issue that finished yesterday at 3.25 per cent interest. If you borrow $10 billion at 3.25 per cent interest, that's $325 million interest a year and then you generate a 0.1 per cent return on the $10 billion, which doesn't go anywhere near to covering your interest and so there's nothing that goes into housing. You're actually going backwards. The pool of funds to invest is going backwards; it's diminishing.</para>
<para>The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund returned negative 0.2 per cent for the year. The Future Drought Fund and the Emergency Response Fund delivered returns of negative 0.2 per cent per annum and negative 0.1 per cent per annum. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund delivered an annual return of negative 0.4 per cent. So they all went backwards. Every single fund which the Future Fund managed, for the period up to 30 June 2022, went backwards. They had a negative return. Plus, you've got to pay the interest on the $10 billion of debt which you borrowed up-front. Does it make sense to you?</para>
<para>Instead of borrowing $10 billion, you could arguably borrow $500 million today, and invest that $500 million directly into housing. Isn't that a better idea? And yet those opposite are wedded to this proposal of the $10 billion big sugar hit. What is this about? When you put forward that logic it seems pretty straightforward to me—based on fiscal policy, based on economics policy, based upon risk management and cost-benefit return—that what the government should be doing is working out how much it wants to invest today, in terms of those laudable housing goals, and actually borrowing that amount to be spent today. That makes sense. But they're not doing it. They want the big hit of being able to say, '$10 billion housing fund,' as if $10 billion is going to be invested today in housing.</para>
<para>What I've just outlined demonstrates conclusively that you may get nothing invested in housing because it all depends upon the return in the markets and, even worse, you may go backwards. So you borrowed an extra $10 billion. That's inflationary. That puts upward pressure on interest rates. It necessarily has to put upward pressure on interest rates because you're going out into the market and borrowing $10 billion instead of $500 million. So you've got to find extra homes for that money. You've got to find people who are prepared to bid into that bond issue and take the $10 billion instead of the $500 million. So, potentially, you've got to make it more attractive for them. They've got greater leverage. Supply and demand—it's basic economics. It puts upward pressure on interest rates. Then, at the end of this process, you might not have a single dollar to actually invest into a social housing project—not a single dollar. It doesn't make any sense at all.</para>
<para>That basic lack of logic, going to the heart of what is proposed by the government, has not been explained by any of those sitting opposite. All we hear, as you heard from Senator Green before I rose to my feet, are passionate and, no doubt, good faith assertions that we've got to do this today in order to provide homes to worthy people in the community who need housing. There is a chronic shortage of housing in this country at the moment. There's no question about that. But there's no explanation as to why this is the right model when the government could go out today and borrow, say, $500 million or $1 billion instead of $10 billion and immediately invest that money into housing and not put that investment in housing at risk that the Future Fund will not get returns on the markets when it invests the proposed $10 billion. That lack of logic that goes to the heart of what is proposed by the government has not been explained.</para>
<para>There's been much toing and froing between the Greens and the Labor Party and we've sat back, we've eaten our popcorn and watched the show this morning. But in terms of delivering policy results on the ground for those who need that social housing—women and children escaping terrible domestic violence, veterans, the elderly—there is no explanation as to why the government doesn't take the more prudent approach, which I think ticks all the boxes. It's not as inflationary, it doesn't put as much upward pressure on interest rates and there's more certainty with respect to the delivery of social housing in a more timely manner. There's no explanation as to why that can't occur. Analysis has been undertaken. What would have happened if this legislation had been passed in the month after the new government got elected? Based on those current statistics, in terms of the future fund, there would have been a loss of approximately $370 million on that $10 billion, a loss, when in fact the government could borrow a more prudent and modest but still substantial amount—$500 million, a billion dollars—and invest that in social housing today. That is not what is proposed.</para>
<para>It's very, very important that the people of Australia understand what is being proposed by the government today. It is not a situation where the government is proposing to put $10 billion directly into housing today. The government is proposing to borrow $10 billion and get the future fund to invest that $10 billion in the share market, the international share market, or government bonds, equities, private equity, whatever it is; and then only the returns from that $10 billion will go into providing housing. That's the risk, and that goes to the core of the objection that the coalition has with respect to this policy.</para>
<para>In my remaining time to speak, I want to correct the record. Those opposite, now they are on the government benches, are fond of saying that the previous government did nothing in its nine years in government in relation to anything. I just want to put on the record, in the time I've got available to me, our initiatives with respect to housing when we were in government. The coalition's housing policies supported more than 300,000 Australians to purchase a home. We supported more than 21,000 social and affordable homes through the establishment of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. There were 21,000 social and affordable homes supported by the coalition government through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. After nine months in office the government haven't built one; they haven't contributed to one. In nine years of government we contributed to 21,000 social and affordable housing units.</para>
<para>Under the coalition, the number of first home buyers reached its highest level for nearly 15 years—a record number in nearly 15 years. It went from approximately 100,000 a year, when we came to office, to nearly 180,000 in our last year in government. An extra 80,000 Australians became first home owners during our last term of government—a fantastic result. In addition, the National Housing Infrastructure Facility established a $1 billion perpetual facility to finance critical housing-related infrastructure to speed up the supply of new housing through the provision of loans and grants and through making investments. We also established the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, providing cheaper and longer-term finance to registered community housing providers.</para>
<para>The National Housing Infrastructure Facility was a landmark coalition achievement, with $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers for 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments which could then be reinvested in affordable housing. We unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings through our $1 billion infrastructure facility and we supported more than 60,000 first home buyers through the home guarantee schemes—and I've personally spoken to people who took advantage of the Home Guarantee Scheme to buy their first home. We protected the residential construction industry, with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications. Lastly, through our First Home Super Saver Scheme, we helped 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposit savings through super. They were typically young Australians who could access their super—because, after all, it's their money—and then invest that to pay for their deposit on, invariably, their first home.</para>
<para>That's the roll call of achievement of the coalition government. If those opposite want to get up and say the coalition government did nothing, those listening to the debate should compare those comments with the actual facts on the record.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I say the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills introduce a seriously flawed concept—many flawed concepts. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill establishes the Housing Australia Future Fund to make funds available for Housing Australia to make grants and loans in relation to acute housing needs, social housing or affordable housing—more bureaucracy. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 renames the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to Housing Australia—more bureaucracy. This is a clear difference between the Liberal and Labor parties. The Liberal Party name their reckless, wasteful market interventions as corporations. The Labor Party give their reckless, wasteful market interventions grander names. 'Housing Australia' sounds so big, so comforting and so reassuring, yet it falsely implies the Prime Minister has the housing crisis sorted when he is way off target. He's making it worse.</para>
<para>Prime Minister Albanese's solution is not to slow down the obscene level of immigration pouring into cities without homes for people to occupy. His solution is not to address foreign investors buying and locking up new homes so they can be sold as brand-new in a few years' time when values increase. His solution is not to address short-term rentals pushing the long-term rentals out of the housing market. No, his solution is an investment fund that will make no noticeable improvement to the housing crisis.</para>
<para>Here's the data around that. The Australian Bureau of Statistics puts the number of Australian dwellings at 10 million. This bill pretends to add 30,000 new dwellings, or a 0.3 per cent increase. The total value of Australian dwellings is just under $10 trillion. We need as much as $1 trillion worth of new housing by 2030 to meet the needs of everyday Australians, including migrants. This government is offering $2.5 billion. That's 0.025 per cent.</para>
<para>The government can't build enough homes to fix this. Only private enterprise can meet Australia's needs. What created this mess? Red tape, green tape and blue tape created this mess, and high interest rates from a flawed Reserve Bank strategy and inflation from bad government management created the mess. The only thing that will work is getting government out of the way and letting free enterprise fix this mess. Anything else is dishonesty—reckless dishonesty. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill is dishonest. Not only does this bill not solve the housing problem for people who are already here; it does not solve the housing problems for the millions that will arrive by 2030. Either that Albanese government is deliberately misrepresenting the outcome of the bill or there is more here than the paperwork suggests.</para>
<para>Let's see what else we have here. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 streamlines the functions of Housing Australia—oddly, by making it bigger—establishes an annual review mechanism for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and extends the Commonwealth guarantee of the liabilities of Housing Australia to apply to contracts entered into until 30 June 2028. This last one is interesting. In Queensland a number of construction companies have gone broke recently. The main reason is that, thanks to the government, we have high inflation and home builders use fixed-price contracts. The last thing you want in a fixed-price contract is high inflation taking the profit margin and pushing the builder into a loss on every home they build. Who is going to build the homes now that private enterprise can no longer shoulder their fair share of the burden? Well, the government, of course—so it says—or is it? I'm sure Anthony Albanese's mates in those big union superannuation funds are out there recruiting builders as we speak.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Roberts! Remember to refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Prime Minister Albanese's mates in those big union superannuation funds are out there recruiting builders as we speak, ready to open their construction division to build and own Australian housing. If the project runs over budget, who cares? It's taxpayer money. After all, the government is giving a liability guarantee, so just shovel that government money right in there.</para>
<para>The bill will distort the housing construction market. On one hand, suppliers are under pressure to hold costs down to make private-sector construction affordable for everyday Australians to build and own their homes. On the other hand, Housing Australia will be out there paying top dollar to get their materials and labour to deliver the homes to keep their jobs. What could go wrong with that? The Albanese government could have worked with the supply chain and with banks to put in place supply chain security to keep existing builders in business. Instead, it went the Soviet route again, pushed the private sector aside and let the government build it.</para>
<para>The third part of this package is the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023. That streamlining thing I mentioned earlier apparently extends to creating a whole new advisory body called the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to advise the Commonwealth government on matters related to housing supply and affordability. It's more bureaucracy. We already have the Productivity Commission and the Australian Bureau of Statistics to provide this economic statistical data. We have a federal department to advise the minister on housing. Now we have a whole new body as well—more bureaucrats. Where is the corresponding reduction in the department's budget allocation, reflecting a substantially reduced workload? Bigger government is the Labor Party's answer to everything. History would disagree.</para>
<para>The numbers on this bill do not add up. The Housing Australia Future Fund, HAFF, will receive $10 billion to fund the delivery of 30,000 social and affordable homes and allocate an additional $330 million to acute housing needs over the HAFF's first five years. Oh, really? I noticed, though, that the budget line item for this bill is $15.2 billion. The explanatory memorandum states the Housing Australia Future Fund 'would be credited with $10 billion as soon as practicable after establishment.' Where's the other $5 billion going? Once invested, the Housing Australia Future Fund would provide up to $500 million per year to support social and affordable housing. That's a five per cent return on investment, which is nice if you can get it in the current investment market. The Future Fund can't. Their return on funds invested in the 2022 calendar year was negative 3.7 per cent. The fund would be reduced and no houses built—borrowed money, interest costs, lost money, no homes built. Even at a five per cent return on investment, a $500 million dividend for five years—that's $2½ billion—divided by the 30,000 homes is $83,300 per home. One may speculate that these are going to be really tiny homes, yet the truth is likely far worse than that.</para>
<para>What would a home built by this Labor government actually look like? Subdivisions will be of the modern design, with narrow streets, because cars are an environmental sin, and we will never have the generation capacity for everyday Australians to use electric cars. Those are for the city elites, in the nomenclature. Eliminating excavation for obsolete parking garages will save money. Residents will instead walk or ride children's scooters. Shopping will be delivered by drone from BlackRock and Vanguard-owned businesses like Amazon, Coles and Woolworths. Cameras will keep you safe and inside your 15-minute allocated region. Are cameras coming out of the $83,000 for each house or are local governments paying for those?</para>
<para>Home units will be constructed to the four corners of each block, and the landscaping which used to soften these buildings will no longer be allowed, because pointless plants waste water. Canberra's posh Red Hill suburb, where senior bureaucrats live, gets beauty while everyday Australians get utility. They get cell blocks, really. Ceilings will be lowered, walkways narrowed and walls made thinner to squeeze additional units into low-rise blocks without lifts, with a daily water allowance of 120 litres per person. I remember receiving a presentation on that target back in 2019. A standard bathtub holds 180 litres, so baths are every bit as much the environmental vandals as gas stoves. Don't laugh, Senator Duniam. Toilets will be half flush only. I don't get this one. Is there a little electric charge that zaps you if you flush twice? How does that save water? Smart water meters will police water limits and make home and balcony gardens impossible to keep watered. So purchasing food from corporate supermarkets and corporate takeaways will be the only way to eat. Smart electricity meters will police our daily energy allowance and remotely switch off unapproved appliances.</para>
<para>All of these things are the current ideology of modern urban design, stated in writing. Many of these are already evident in council building codes. Smart meters are being deployed as we speak. Once the reality of having to sell a home built to these standards is removed by government ownership, all of these measures will be standard. Even if you apply Hive home ideology, can the cost come down to $83,000 per house? I doubt it. But to use a yardstick of $400,000 or more is to ignore the real intent of the bill. It is a principle we are hearing a lot, lately: you will own nothing and be happy, or else.</para>
<para>After the bill passes, the minister will decide where and how the money will be spent. After the bill passes, we'll get the details. Disbursements, including grants made under the scheme, will be a budget measure, meaning the Senate can't disallow them. The legislation does not include the rules around who can and can't get a grant or disbursement, so this bill is really a $2.5 billion blank cheque. Clause 49 would allow the future fund board to use derivatives for certain purposes. This could include using derivatives as a risk management tool or to achieve indirect exposure to assets that it could not otherwise achieve. That sounds terrifying. I look forward to the minister's explaining the intention of this section in the committee stage. We have questions for you.</para>
<para>The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 'establishes the council as an independent statutory advisory body to inform the Commonwealth's approach to housing policy by delivering independent advice to the government on options to improve housing supply and affordability'. This is more bureaucracy. Does this suggest that the bureaucrats have been giving poor advice to the government? We already have a Commonwealth department of housing. What's gone wrong with that department that we need this whole new additional body? Or is this just another opportunity for jobs for your mates among union bosses and among the union superannuation industry?</para>
<para>This bill should have been about getting people into their own homes. That requires making life easier for private-sector homebuilders and for private homeownership, which will take demand out of rental accommodation and free up homes at more-realistic prices for those who can only rent. Instead, Prime Minister Albanese is using government construction to push private homebuilders out of the market and entrench renting over owning. There is a lot of additional bureaucracy and a lot of economic and social harm for proportionally little benefit, for almost no benefit.</para>
<para>One Nation opposes this Soviet-style reckless, wasteful market intervention. One Nation proposes getting down to basics: cutting immigration until housing and infrastructure catch up; cutting red tape, green tape and blue UN tape; comprehensively reforming taxation to give Australians a fair go; shrinking government to fit the Constitution; and getting the government the hell out of people's lives, enabling people to make choices that suit people's and families' needs. We do not need more bureaucrats and more waste; we need more houses, real houses. We need a return to basics. Let the tradies of Australia get on with the job.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. These bills display once again that the Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that Australians have access to safe, secure and affordable housing.</para>
<para>For far too long the Australian people have suffered housing insecurity, thanks to those opposite not making the changes necessary to improve secure and affordable housing for those in our communities who are in need. Safe and affordable housing is not something that all Australians have access to, and this has disproportionately affected high-risk communities such as women and children. With the cost-of-living pressure persisting, more and more Australians are struggling with the cost of rent. We can't deny that. These bills will help Australians who need affordable social housing to get it. We should not be demeaning people for needing social housing. We can never stamp out all the issues that have led to their need for social housing, but we can provide housing to help get people into a safer environment.</para>
<para>We know that the fastest growing cohort of homeless people in this country is women aged over 55. In the last nine years we have seen a massive increase in the number of homeless people living on the streets in my home city of Launceston and in Hobart. We see families living in cars. We see them living in tents. While those opposite were in government for nine years, they did nothing. And what do we see from them now that they're in opposition? It's so good to have Senator Duniam in the chamber today, because he likes to go back to Tasmania and talk about the Labor-Greens—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The debate is interrupted. It's 11.15 and we're moving to notices.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1937</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection of Bills Committee</title>
          <page.no>1937</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1937</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the fifth report of 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">REPORT NO. 5 OF 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">11 May 2023</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Ralph Babet</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Matt O'Sullivan</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator David Pocock</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Paul Scarr</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Lidia Thorpe</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Tammy Tyrrell</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A/g Secretary: Ivan Powell</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">02 6277 3020</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">REPORT NO. 5 OF 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 7.13 pm.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The committee recommends that—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021 be <inline font-style="italic">referred </inline><inline font-style="italic">immediately </inline>to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September 2023 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 September 2023 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 June 2023 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the Murdoch Media Inquiry Bill 2023 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 October 2023 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3. The committee recommends that the following bills <inline font-style="italic">not </inline>be referred to committees:</para></quote>
<list>Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023</list>
<list>Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021 [No. 2]</list>
<list>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023.</list>
<quote><para class="block">4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:</para></quote>
<list>Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023</list>
<list>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020</list>
<list>Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023 [No. 2]</list>
<list>Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023</list>
<list>United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022.</list>
<quote><para class="block">(Anne Urquhart)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Chair</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 May 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This inquiry would consider the ethics of exporting Australian greyhounds for racing & commercial purposes given multiple reports over the past few years about dogs being put at risk of cruelty, abuse and neglect overseas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It would also consider the adequacy of existing arrangements to protect greyhounds, including the 'greyhound passport' scheme operated by Greyhound Australasia and the Government's oversight of these arrangements. Recent reports show greyhounds are being exported overseas without Greyhounds Australasia's approval, making it clear that the enforcement system is failing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Animal welfare experts</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Animal welfare organisations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Veterinarians</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Greyhound rehoming charities</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Greyhound racing industry bodies</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Department of Agriculture</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">RRAT</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14 August 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 September 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nick McKim</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMI TTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Complicated issue</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">May—September</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 September 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wendy Askew</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For a short inquiry into the bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions o r evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Law Council of Australia, Defence Department, legal academics.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">09 June</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A. Urquhart</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Following the release of the Defence Strategic Review that proposed the establishment of a separate agency in Defence to oversee the ADP nuclear submarine program and recent announcements regarding nuclear submarines, public attention on these matters is particularly high.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Given this is the first step toward the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines and the national security interests at play, it is vital that this Bill is subject to oversight and scrutiny before being put before Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nuclear power experts</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nuclear and radiation safety experts and organisations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Health and environment organisations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Peace and nuclear non-proliferation organisations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Week of the 5th of June</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">26th July</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nick McKim</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a comm i ttee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill. (We recommend these bills be referred together)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For a short inquiry into the bills, noting the first bill has already been subject to an exposure draft process and the subject matter has been examined through multiple inquiries.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Law Council of Australia Family Law Section, Attorney-General's Department, Women's Legal Services Australia, National Association of Community Legal Centres, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 June</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14 June</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A. Urquhart</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Family Law Amendment Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Complicated issue</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible he aring date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">May-August</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">24 August 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wendy Askew</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Complicated issue</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible h earing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">May—June</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14 June 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wendy Askew</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Family Law Amendment Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Family Law (Information Sharing) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">24 August</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nick McKim</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 5</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Murdoch Media Inquiry Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To consider details of the bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Industry, academics, regulatory bodies</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Environment and Communications</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16 October 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nick McKim</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member</para></quote>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the report be adopted.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", and, in respect of the provisions of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report by 24 August 2023".</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the following amendment to Senator Ruston's amendment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "24 August 2023", substitute "14 June 2023".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Senator Chisholm's amendment to Senator Ruston's amendment to the motion that the Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:21]<br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>24</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>40</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:29]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>41</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the following amendment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", and, in respect of the provisions of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee report on 9 June 2023".</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move an amendment to that amendment proposed by the government, as circulated in the chamber:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "9 June 2023", substitute "26 July 2023".</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll speak to that amendment. The Australian public were blindsided when they woke up about two months ago and found out that the Labor government intended to spend $368 billion on nuclear submarines. In fact, one of the real offensive parts about that is that the Albanese government has not told the truth about the real cost. It turns out that $368 billion only gets you the first five of the AUKUS subs, and the last three happen outside that budget envelope, bringing the real cost of the nuclear submarine project to close to half a trillion dollars. It's extraordinary, isn't it, that the Albanese government comes out and scares everybody with a $368 billion bill but it's not even the truth. The real truth is that it's close to half a trillion dollars.</para>
<para>Then they say: 'Don't you worry. It'll all be safe because Defence will look after it. Defence will be looking after it.' They'll look after the nuclear safety. In fact, we found from the Defence Strategic Review that the government wants to have a standalone defence agency to look after all the nuclear safety regulation regarding their nuclear submarines. So we could have 12 nuclear reactors, each containing more than three times the fissile material in the Hiroshima bomb, floating in Port Kembla or a few kilometres off the coast of Perth or the coast of Sydney Harbour—and entirely regulated by Defence. Defence would be regulating Defence, and Defence would be regulating its own nuclear reactors. They're floating them into our harbours and floating them across our shores. Now we find that the government wants to slip in a little change—just a little change—to our nuclear regulatory legislation to start facilitating this, to start allowing Defence to be its own regulator. And just remember what Defence has been like when it comes to safety. Think about the contamination from PFAS in site after site. And you want Defence to be its own regulator on nuclear safety?</para>
<para>You're trying to sneak it through and start it, but we can tell the deal is in here, like everything on defence—like a $30 billion frigate deal that blew out to $45 billion, and it turns out no-one checked, from the coalition or Labor, whether or not it was value for money. You've got top-heavy frigates that sink in a heavy sea that are 50 per cent over budget and none of you checked. None of you bothered to check if it was value for money, none of you lifted up the bonnet to have a look at what was actually happening in Defence because you agree between you, Labor and the coalition, to not put this stuff under scrutiny.</para>
<para>Now you're trying to slip through a quick and dirty inquiry on nuclear safety regulation for nuclear submarines. Labor and the coalition are desperately not wanting anybody to look at this extraordinary project of intergenerational theft that is the AUKUS submarine project. Of course we want to allow a decent time for reporting. We don't want it rammed through in just another short, sharp, nobody-look-here, three-week non-investigation of Defence. Just think about what will happen if this nuclear submarine project blows out like the frigate project. It will go from half a trillion dollars to three-quarters of a trillion dollars—$750 billion. That's if they can even deliver it in the first place.</para>
<para>So what we're saying here, clearly, is: end the club. It's time to end the club where Labor and the coalition come together and agree never to ask the hard questions of Defence, never to check for value for money, never to check to see if this actually will make us any safer—or, in fact, will make us a nuclear target. We'll put a bunch of highly fissile nuclear material into 12 floating nuclear reactors sailing up and down our coasts and coming into our bigger cities. We want the public to have a right to have a say. We want to finally lift the bonnet and have a look at this club of secrecy that keeps protecting Defence. That's why we're moving this amendment. We'd love to see Labor and the coalition, for once, not come together like they do time after time and time and vote to shield Defence.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for this debate has expired.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order across the chamber!</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber! Order! Twice already this morning there's been disorder across the chamber, and, when I've called order, I've had to do it repeatedly. I ask that when I order you to be silent that you do that, and not continue the disorder. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator McKim to the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher relating to the Selection of Bills Committee report No. 5 of 2023 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:43] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>16</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I now move to the government's amendment on the Selection of Bills Committee report No. 5 of 2023, as moved by Senator Gallagher. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Original question, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>1945</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>1945</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That general business notice of motion no. 233, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, relating to the 2023-24 Budget, be considered during general business today.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>1945</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>1945</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name for today, relating to the reference of a matter to Environment and Communications References Committee, until the next day of sitting.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>1945</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>1945</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence be granted to Senator Babet from 13 to 16 June 2023, for personal reasons.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1945</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Acts Interpretation Amendment (Aboriginality) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>1945</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1378" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Acts Interpretation Amendment (Aboriginality) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>1945</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>, and for related purposes.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 228, moved by Senator Hanson, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:53]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>3</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>44</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Hanson, is no longer in order.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1946</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Legislation Committees</title>
          <page.no>1946</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>1946</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that government business notice of motion No. 1, relating to the reference of time-critical bills to legislation committees, be taken as formal.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is an objection.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher to suspend standing orders be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:58]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>40</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>3</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) To ensure appropriate consideration of time critical bills by Senate committees, the provisions of all bills introduced into the House of Representatives after 11 May 2023 and up to and including 1 June 2023 that contain substantive provisions commencing on or before 1 July 2023 (together with the provisions of any related bill) are referred to committees for inquiry and report by 13 June 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The committee to which each bill is referred shall be determined in accordance with the allocation of departments and agencies to standing committees agreed to by the Senate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A committee to which a bill has been referred may determine, by unanimous decision, that there are no substantive matters that require examination and report that fact to the Senate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) This order does not apply in relation to bills which contain:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) no provisions other than provisions appropriating revenue or moneys (appropriation bills); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) commencement clauses providing only for the legislation to commence on Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PARLIAMENTARY ZONE</title>
        <page.no>1947</page.no>
        <type>PARLIAMENTARY ZONE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Proposed Works</title>
          <page.no>1947</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that government business No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Chisholm, proposing the approval of works within the parliamentary zone, be taken as a formal motion.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is an objection.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with section 5 of the <inline font-style="italic">Parliament Act 1974</inline>, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone relating to the John Gorton campus carpark.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that government business No. 2 as moved by Senator Gallagher, standing in the name of Senator Chisolm, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [12:03] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>39</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                <name>White, L.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>3</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1948</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>1948</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>1948</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that general business notice of motion No. 229 be taken as a formal motion.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is an objection.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders as moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [12:07]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>41</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>3</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by no later than 4.30 pm on 11 May 2023, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Financial Sustainability Framework.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 229, as moved by Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [12:14]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>42</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUDGET</title>
        <page.no>1950</page.no>
        <type>BUDGET</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration by Estimates Committees</title>
          <page.no>1950</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wasn't sure, given the hard marker, what would happen with this, but I thank the opposition for the opportunity to talk about the government's performance in answering estimates questions on notice. I make the point that this government is still answering questions on notice that the Morrison government never answered. There are more than 300 questions placed on notice outstanding from the previous government. A total of 6,733 questions were asked on notice to the current government following the supplementary budget estimates hearings in February. We have provided answers to 5,543 of these. That is 82 per cent. I will give those numbers again. I note Senator Hanson-Young today and yesterday spoke about transparency. There were 6,733 questions asked, and 5,543 of these have been answered. This is a better compliance rate than the Morrison government achieved.</para>
<para>I make this point, and I'm happy to engage with senators about this directly. I encourage senators to consider the impact of questions which are particularly voluminous or orders for production which are particularly voluminous. I can say to senators that I know in my own portfolio that the diversion of resources of public servants to answer questions on notice that are very wide ranging, very wide in scope, is challenging. I made the point that Senator Whish-Wilson asked a question where my department spent 290 hours complying with a Senate order. Fourteen people across a period of several weeks were required for the question, and it diverted attention from the delivery of high-priority climate and environment related policy advice, multilateral engagements, development assistance programming as well as finalisation of material for the federal government.</para>
<para>I can't speak for all ministers, but I can indicate to the chamber that I am always happy to provide briefings to the opposition as required and, in fact, we offer them regularly. We are also happy to work with senators who put in place very-wide-ranging inquiries to try to narrow the scope so that the interests of transparency on a particular issue can be resolved but perhaps without the sorts of hours that I've described in relation to my own department's answer.</para>
<para>Responding to the Senate is a legitimate part of government. I've been here for some 20 years. I regard the transparency of the interrogation—that's probably the wrong word—or the questioning of executive government that this chamber enables to be an important part of our democracy. I would ask senators to be mindful of the volume and nature of requests, as that impacts on the government's ability to respond to them. I'm happy to have further discussions with opposition senators or with Senator Cash, who moved this motion, as required, but I would make the point that, in terms of estimates questions on notice, obviously it would be better if it was 100 per cent, but I venture that a rate of 82 per cent plus—this was obviously drafted for me last night, so questions may have been answered in the time since—demonstrates a government that is seeking to respond to a great many requests from the Senate. I thank the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the explanation.</para></quote>
<para>I rise to take note of the minister's statement. The issue I have with the explanation that the minister has just given is that it is full of excuses. It was excuse after excuse after excuse: 'There were too many questions asked,' and, 'The questions asked have too many parts to them.' That was never a luxury that was afforded to us when we were in government. When we were in government, those on the other side, at the drop of a hat, did not hesitate to stand up and ask for—in fact, not even ask for, but demand—accountability and transparency. Yet how the attitude changes the minute they are elected to government. There's excuse after excuse after excuse. But one of the issues is this: prior to the last election, what did Mr Albanese and his ministers trumpet from the highest mountain they could find? The problem was that he kept on telling the Australian people that, if he was elected to govern, his government, for the first time in Australian history, would deliver the transparency, integrity and accountability that no other government in Australia had ever delivered before.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cadell</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How's that going?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a really good question. Day after day in this place, what we see from this government is complete contempt for the Australian people; complete contempt for any form of transparency, integrity or accountability; and complete contempt for the way they treat this Senate. The number of questions outstanding is 1,192.</para>
<para>Let's now turn to how they answer the questions that they are asked, and I refer to question 1788, asked on 31 March 2023. Senator James Paterson asked Minister Shorten, the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a very simple question: 'Has the minister, the minister's office or the minister's department met with any representative et cetera of Anacta Strategies Ltd in relation to TikTok, either in person, via videoconference or by phone? If so, what was the date, time and duration of the meeting?' I would have thought that you'd have a quick whip around the office to find out whether you had or you hadn't. If you hadn't, you could submit straightaway, and, if you had, then you'd flick through the diary and—guess what?—you'd see the date, time and duration of the meeting. Instead, what we got from Minister Shorten was quite frankly an absolute disgrace. He has given a political answer to what is an incredibly serious question.</para>
<para>But what's worse is that, in giving his political answer, he tried to trash the record of former prime minister John Howard. On any analysis, John Howard was a prime minister who presided over the largest and most successful times of Australia, for Australia and for Australians, since the postwar period. There are many Australians out there who, to this day, will come up to me when I'm in the street or walking through a shopping centre and will say: 'The biggest mistake I ever made in 2007 was believing the 'Rudd 2007' hype. It's the biggest mistake I ever made, and I've been paying for it ever since.' But, in making the answer political, this is what he said, 'John Howard became only the second Prime Minister in Australian history to suffer the ignominy of being rejected by his own electors when he was unceremoniously dumped.'</para>
<para>Let's just compare Mr Howard's record to Mr Shorten's record. If Mr Shorten wants to be political, maybe he needs to be reminded that Mr Howard was elected by the people four times. Mr Howard served as Prime Minister of this nation for almost 12 years. Mr Shorten was rejected by the Australian people in 2016. Mr Shorten was rejected by the Australian people in 2019. Then he was rejected by those on the other side—dumped. They didn't want him as the Leader of the Opposition: 'You failed twice. You're not taking us to another election.' He now gets to stand next to Mr Albanese, and it must gut him every time he's got to look at Mr Albanese and say: 'Mr Prime Minister'. So, if you want to get political in your answers, if you want to compare a record, we will proudly compare John Howard's record with Mr Bill Shorten's any day of the week.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, you have called out Minister Wong's embarrassing and shameful defence of what is an absolute quicksand approach from this government to transparency and accountability by this chamber. It happens time and time again, whether it is the vague non-answers at the estimates table by their assistant ministers and ministers, the refusal to answer very sensible and necessary questions on notice, or the refusal to comply with OPDs or any measure of transparency and accountability that this chamber was designed to bring to our political system. It turns out that, when they get to government, they don't want to have the sunlight shine in on their decision-making.</para>
<para>Senator Wong proudly stands up and says 82 per cent of questions have been answered. That may be the case, but the vast majority of them were late. In my own portfolio area of infrastructure, transport, and regional development, they came in very late—only last week. They've been sitting in Minister King's office. I know this isn't annoying just us in the opposition. It is annoying the public who want to see the answers to these questions and it is annoying the crossbench. It is also incredibly frustrating for the hard-working parliamentary staff and public servants who have done the hard work and who take very seriously the closing date for answers to questions on notice to be handed back.</para>
<para>It was in estimates last time when I had the department in front of us in the RRAT committee, the secretary frustratedly answered that briefs had been sent up. They weren't in the department waiting to be sent up. So I assume the same thing has happened with the questions on notice. The department has done the right thing and sent them up to the minister's office, and they're just piling up on the desk of someone who is refusing to send them off. They are doing it for either political reasons or incompetence. It must be very embarrassing for senators who are also ministers to have to repeatedly come into this chamber and apologise for the behaviour of ministers from the other place who clearly do not take the Senate's role seriously.</para>
<para>Senator Wong made out that the questions that hadn't been answered were somehow hypercomplex and were really going to take the Public Service away from the hard work of delivering on the government's policy agenda. My question SQ 23-003381 was: 'How is the $7 million being spent?' It was a pretty simple question on a white paper into aviation. There is no answer. I'm sure the minister signed off on a brief on what the white paper looks like. Tell us about it. On the issue of consultation around community infrastructure and roads program, the government said they consulted and changed the program around a bit. Fair enough. You won the election; knock yourselves out. I simply asked, 'Could you provide details of what consultation was undertaken?'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a fair question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, it was a fair question. The very diligent public servant said, 'Yes, Senator,'—still no answer. They either didn't do the consultation or they don't like the results of the consultation.</para>
<para>On the question of decarbonisation across government, you would think this would be one that they would want to answer. My question is: Can you tell me who is the lead department on the electric vehicle strategy and the road user charges, please? Is it all in PM&C? Is it Minister Bowen? Is it Minister King? Please tell me who is in charge of the transport policy area in respect to decarbonisation. I shouldn't be surprised this one wasn't answered, because the government has no idea of who is in charge of what. We have had Minister King being overruled by the Prime Minister on what is in and out of the infrastructure review. For these guys, the confusion about who is doing what and where goes on and on and on.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to support my colleagues Senator Cash and Senator McKenzie on this very important issue. Those listening and watching proceedings today would have seen Senator Wong and would have thought Senator Wong's sentiments in response were all light and reason—nothing to see here; we are very cooperative, with briefings offered to everyone in this chamber; we are very transparent and open. The issue is the gap between Senator Wong's rhetoric and what is actually happening in substance. The gap between the rhetoric and the substance is the issue.</para>
<para>I want to go back to the questions on notice that Senator Cash was referring to and the responses which we are receiving from the government for some of those questions on notice. I'm going to give an example of question on notice No. 1856, which was asked by my colleague Senator Hume. Senator Gallagher, the finance minister, was quoted in the <inline font-style="italic">Canberra Times</inline> as saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Putting a productivity efficiency component into any funding I think is a responsible part of government and making sure we keep the budget on a sustainable footing.</para></quote>
<para>I think that is quite a reasonable proposition. I don't find much to disagree with, to be frank. So Senator Hume asked a series of relevant questions in relation to that, very courteously. The questions were: What is the current efficiency dividend rate for your department? That is a fair question. The minister said we should have an efficiency rate. What is the efficiency rate? Are any agencies or any other entities within the portfolio exempt from that efficiency dividend? That is a fair question. Is the efficiency dividend referenced in the portfolio budget statement? Are there any agencies or entities that have an efficiency dividend that is higher or lower than the rate applied to the department? These were very courteous, obvious questions flowing naturally from a quote attributed to Senator Gallagher.</para>
<para>Now, the way you would expect if the system were working, if the government was reflecting the principles enunciated by Senator Wong in her statement at the outset of this debate, is a logical, considered response to the questions. What did we get? What did we get from the Minister for the NDIS, the Honourable Bill Shorten? This is what we got. The Albanese Labor government—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is worthwhile reading it again, Senator Gallagher. I know you don't want to hear it but it is worthwhile raising it again. 'The Albanese Labor government inherited a budget disaster from the previous Liberal government'—blah, blah, blah—'featuring a trillion dollars in Liberal Party debt'. Even the ABC fact-checked that and found that was wrong. There is a difference between—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Scarr, please take your seat. I think the President has made it very clear that the chamber should be proceeding in an orderly way. I don't think anyone can consider what was going on just then to be orderly. I call you once again, Senator Scarr, mindful of the standing orders, to continue your contribution.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Even the ABC Fact Check found that statement was wrong. But the thing about this response is that none of it related to the actual question that was asked about where the efficiency dividend is applied across government. All it was was a political diatribe. It was absolutely sneering and contemptuous in relation to legitimate bona fide questions put on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> by the opposition. It is absolutely appalling.</para>
<para>The issue is when we look at the fact that there are over 1,000 unanswered questions. Budget estimates is there, and it's an extraordinarily important process for the Australian parliament. It gives an opportunity for senators from all parties to ask questions in relation to any government action that involves the expenditure of taxpayer funds. It's an extraordinarily important process and a key way in which the opposition and the crossbench can keep the government accountable. Yet we are in a situation with over 1,000 unanswered questions. As Senator McKenzie said, when we get the answers, quite often they're terribly late or they're non-responsive or we've got to put in a FOI Act request. We get the question on notice, then we put in a Freedom of Information Act request, we get documents and we play 'spot the difference' between the answer that's given and what we find in the documents provided in response to the Freedom of Information Act application. The system shouldn't work that way. The system should be one of integrity, transparency and accountability. As Senator Cash so eloquently pointed out, Prime Minister Albanese said something in opposition and now they're doing exactly the opposite in government.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government's behaviour in hiding from answering questions and avoiding accountability is not acceptable. Answering questions is important for accountability. The people deserve accountability, and they deserve respect.</para>
<para>Look at the list of questions here. In today's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>, the Senate notes that, as at 9 am on Monday 8 May 2023, there are 1,929 questions on notice from the 2022-23 supplementary budget estimates which remain unanswered and are overdue. From Prime Minister and Cabinet, 591 questions are not answered; from Defence, 408 questions; from Health and Aged Care, 401 questions; from Social Services, 189 questions; from Foreign Affairs and Trade, 133 questions; from Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, 52 questions; from Employment and Workplace Relations, 42 questions; from Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, 26 questions; from Finance, 26 questions; from Treasury, 25; from Services Australia, 22; from Industry, Science and Resources, nine questions; and from Attorney-General's, four questions.</para>
<para>Senators, there is only one word to describe this government's attitude to Senate estimates, to questions on notice and to orders for the production of documents, and that word is 'contempt'. The government continues to treat this chamber with utter contempt. Almost every order by this Senate to produce information is met by the government with contempt, and it is appropriate that we begin to treat the ministers who treat this Senate with contempt appropriately.</para>
<para>We've had explanation after explanation from ministers. Ministers are all too happy to come into this place, fluff around and cop a lashing for an hour and continue to refuse to produce the information that this Senate has ordered. They just put up with the hassle for an hour, and it's over. The explanations from ministers are not good enough, and it is not good enough that this Senate continues to accept them without any further action. It's time for this Senate to use its constitutionally enshrined powers to hold ministers to account, and that must be through charges of contempt when they continue to disrespect orders of the Senate.</para>
<para>I remind senators that it is this Senate, not the government-dominated Privileges Committee, that makes the final determination on matters of contempt. The Senate decides whether or not someone is in contempt. If this Senate is not happy with a minister's disobedience of a direct order, then the Senate itself can vote on contempt, which we should do and which should happen. The time for meaningless, hollow explanation after explanation is over.</para>
<para>The people of Queensland did not elect me to represent Malcolm Roberts. The people of Queensland did not elect me to represent the One Nation party, although I am very proud to be in One Nation. The people of Queensland elected me to represent the people of Queensland and Australia. That is why we're here. I go out and listen in the electorates and then I speak for the people in this chamber. So when the government holds the Senate in contempt, the government holds the people of Queensland and Australia in contempt. The government is repeatedly holding the people of the states and Australia in contempt. There are jail cells in the basement of this building. It is time for the executive government to be reminded why they're there. Start serving the people or start serving time in jail.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>1953</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>1953</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of government bills.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of this Senate, namely a motion relating to the consideration of government bills.</para></quote>
<para>I am surprised and quite disappointed the government did not grant leave for this motion. This motion, which has been circulated in the chamber, would give precedence to consideration of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023, and the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022.</para>
<para>The first two of these had previously been mooted to be listed in the normal non-contro business for the Senate. The government chose to not proceed with the non-contro listing, which would have ensured that these bills passed today quickly and seamlessly. The last of these has been subject to extensive debate in the Senate chamber already and, I understand, is close to being able to reach closure and pass the Senate. I don't intend to detain the Senate with a long debate about the merits of this. My intention is to enable us to get these bills done. This is simply what the government should have done as good housekeeping regarding the management of its legislative program. I'm pleased to co-operate with the support of the Greens in terms of bringing these on.</para>
<para>Yes, I know the government wishes it could get a vote on its housing bill today. It hasn't provided sufficient time for that to be debated. The Senate has determined that matter multiple times already, so you should have heard the message of the Senate by now. This is an invitation and an opportunity for the government to get done and get passed what can be passed today in an effective and timely manner.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I don't need to repeat what I said. Everybody who was in the chamber then should be remembering what I said less than nine minutes ago.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, well, well! I think the Academy Award for best actor in a drama this week goes to Senator Birmingham for that performance of apparently trying to help the government, to assist the government with its program, and to do that with a straight face—although I notice there's a bit of a smile on your face now. The government did not grant leave for this because we had organised our program, our program has listed the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill as the priority bill, and this is government legislation time. There is a lot of time through the rest of the week when other senators get to list priorities for them. This is not part of that time.</para>
<para>The government's priority is the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. I understand that the antihousing alliance in the Senate will be working together to try to get this motion up, because that's the priority for them. The priority for the Greens political party and the opposition is to not support the investments that we want to make in increasing the supply of housing in this country, so they can only be referred to as the antihousing alliance. It is an unusual alliance. It's an alliance that's been created from different points of view. So we have the opposition saying that they don't want investment in housing because we are spending too much and we have criticism from the Greens, saying that it's not enough. But the end result of the antics that have been carried out in this place over the past week will be that this legislation fails to pass. It will delay the establishment of that fund. It will delay disbursements from that fund to allow the building of 30,000 social and affordable housing properties in this country over five years. That is the game they are playing. They are playing a game on housing supply. They might think it's funny and it might work in the Greens sub-branches in the inner-city where people are already comfortable in their homes, but this is about other people in this country, people who are struggling to find accommodation after a decade of dysfunction, delay and neglect from those opposite, who didn't care about social and affordable housing and who didn't care about housing supply in this country.</para>
<para>The failure of that policy has brought us to the point we are at today, where we have a significant shortfall in supply, and this Senate is saying, 'We don't want to increase the supply of housing in this country.' That is the direct result of the decision that they are taking in ganging up together, the antihousing alliance parties, to stop this bill from progressing. We have tried a number of times this week to extend hours to allow for debate, and the antihousing alliance have taken decisions to filibuster in a whole range of areas in the program to not allow that to happen. So don't come in here and say the government didn't allow enough time. We have tried to provide time so that people had the opportunity to debate the bill.</para>
<para>There are amendments to the bill. There have been discussions about the bill. We have been working on this for months. We have been in deep negotiations, not with the 'noalition' because they have disengaged and won't even come to the table. If you don't come to the table, you write yourself out. That's fine. That's a decision that Mr Dutton and his leadership team have made. We get that. They're just not going to be any part of the future of this country. Fine. But for the Greens political party to take this position and to gang up on us and to frustrate any attempt to have a long-term sustainable funding stream into social and affordable housing is something that they will have to live with. We will let everybody know that this is what they are up to. We will have to work out how to ensure that the Commonwealth is able to increase the supply of housing in this country, and we will, because we are focused on it and it is our priority. We have made that clear with other investments we are making in housing through NHFIC and through some of the tax changes the Treasurer announced on Tuesday.</para>
<para>Let's just speak very bluntly about what is happening here today. What is happening is that we have the Greens political party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals joining together to tell Australians who rely on social and affordable housing that political games are more important than them. That is what is happening here. No dressing it up with some apparently helpful motion to reorganise the program is going to give them cover on that. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens stand ready to work collectively and collaboratively across the chamber to assist the government in actually getting something through the Senate this week. The three bills that are the subject of the motion that was attempted to be moved by Senator Birmingham are two non-controversial bills that would pass the Senate and, of course, the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill, which we stand ready to facilitate passing the Senate in very short order. Our assessment is that that would take 10 or 15 minutes maximum and the government could have those bills through the Senate.</para>
<para>So, when the government is opposing attempts to have these bills put through the Senate, folks need to understand exactly why they are doing that. This is all about the government wanting to ram its housing agenda through the Senate. And I use the word 'agenda' in the loosest possible way, because the Labor Housing Affordability Future Fund is a steaming pile of neoliberal rubbish that does not guarantee the building of one single extra house in this country. Labor's bill, even under the best-case scenario put forward by Labor, that it will deliver 30,000 houses—and there is no guarantee that it will and no reasonable likelihood that it will; it is a fantasy best-case scenario—the demand for affordable housing in Australia will be bigger in five years time than it is today. That's right, folks: Labor's so-called solution will see the affordable housing crisis in this country worse in five years time than it is today. And how's Labor proposing to respond to this massive social crisis? How does this so-called party of the Left—which of course is a masquerade, because they are a centre-right political party and heading further to the right every day—propose to respond to it? By gambling $10 billion of public funds on the stock market.</para>
<para>The Future Fund, the vehicle that Labor wants to give $10 billion worth of public funds to to gamble on the stock market, lost 1.2 per cent of its value last year. Would Labor attempt to respond to a health crisis by gambling public funds on the stock market? Of course they wouldn't. So why are they proposing to take that approach to a housing crisis? And of course this so-called package put forward by Labor does nothing for renters—absolutely zero for renters. We are in a rental crisis in this country. Rents are skyrocketing, particularly in the major cities, but also in regional Australia. We have a Labor Party that in this budget has offered a pittance of $2.85 a day to people who are on income support—using, I might add, people who are in poverty as a tool to fight inflation while they are delivering the massively inflationary quarter of a trillion dollars in stage 3 tax cuts for the top end. That's what's happening here, and there is nothing for renters. There is nothing for renters in this housing affordability proposal from Labor.</para>
<para>In my home state of Tasmania, Tasmanians are being conned by the Jacqui Lambie Network, who are claiming that it is in the legislation that a minimum of 1,200 new homes will be built in Tasmania over the next five years, when it is not in the legislation; it's not in any of the amendments that have been circulated by the government. Yet Senator Lambie and Senator Tyrrell are colluding with the government to try to smash through a bill that doesn't guarantee that a single extra house will be built in Tasmania. Isn't it astonishing that the Labor Party would prefer to see its bill fail in this chamber today than to sit down and have a genuine negotiation with the Australian Greens?</para>
<para>The Labor Party needs to understand that it doesn't control this Senate, and I urge them to sit down and negotiate a decent outcome for people who are struggling with rental crisis, struggling with the housing crisis, so we can move forward and address those issues.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the question be put.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [12:58]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>36</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>21</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>White, L.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [13:03]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>36</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>21</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>White, L.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the motion standing in my name, as circulated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bills take precedence over all other government business today:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Before paragraph (a), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, on a point of order, I would invite you to rule that amendment out of order and encourage you to do so. The motion before the chamber seeks to rearrange business, and, under current orders of the Senate, the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill is the next item of business that is coming on in the Senate. So the amendment being proposed, I would argue, has fundamental change—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's the Greens putting Peter Dutton in charge of government business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those interjections are disorderly. I ask for silence.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The amendment being proposed is a fundamental change that essentially is seeking to amend the motion, the result of which could be achieved by simply defeating the motion if the government wished to. The Senate has already twice expressed its will, in terms of government attempts to reorder business in relation to this bill, and the Senate has twice rejected the government's attempts. There is precedence in relation to a ruling that, where the Senate has clearly expressed its will on more than one occasion, a motion will not be taken again. This is a rather unique attempt at trying to do the same thing yet again, but it is nonetheless another attempt at doing so. I believe the amendment should be ruled out of order, such that the motion as put be considered, rather than us dealing with what appears to be an endless time-wasting exercise by the government to prevent consideration of its own bills.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am advised that the government's proposed amendment is in order and relevant to the motion. Senator McKim.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, I ask you to reflect, please, on page 241 in <inline font-style="italic">Odgers</inline><inline font-style="italic">'</inline>, which says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An amendment may not be moved if it is a direct negative to the question. An amendment is not regarded as a direct negative unless it would have exactly the same effect as negativing the motion.</para></quote>
<para>I think Senator Birmingham is right in his argument here—that the effect of the amendment that Senator Gallagher is putting actually has the same effect as voting against the motion. If that's not your ruling, President, could I ask you to explain why, in fact, you do not believe that that relevant passage of <inline font-style="italic">Odgers</inline><inline font-style="italic">'</inline> is pertinent in this case.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to do so. I am advised that, if we did nothing, we would go to the housing bill then the PID amendment bill. The motion moved by Senator Birmingham is seeking to rearrange that. The amendment by the government puts the housing bill next. So I am advised that, in this case, the piece of <inline font-style="italic">Odgers</inline><inline font-style="italic">'</inline> that you used is not relevant. I call Minister Gallagher.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President, for that advice to the chamber. I think we are reaching a pretty embarrassing point of the week, with the efforts being taken and procedural trickery and skulduggery going on. Over what? It's over the Senate supporting the investment of $10 billion into the Housing Australia Future Fund. That is what is happening here. There are efforts being put in place to not debate and not pass investment in social and affordable housing, and, even if you don't think it's perfect, it's a start to having a long-term funding stream going into social and affordable housing. Here we are with motions going this way and that way and the anti-housing alliance ganging up together to make sure that this bill cannot pass.</para>
<para>The government has listed the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill as its priority bill. We've got these three parties—the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens political party—working together to deny passage of the bill. Out of all the bills that go through this chamber I have to say I would have thought this would be the last bill that would face this kind of barrier. Honestly! The House of Representatives has dealt with it. Every housing minister in every state and territory has asked the Senate to deal with this bill. The housing organisations, the community organisations that will be beneficiaries—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres! Order! Most of the senators on my left, who are calling out, are out of order. They're not even in their seats so they are all being incredibly disorderly. I'm asking the back of the chamber to stop being disorderly; there is plenty of opportunity for debate on this bill. I should not have had to sit the minister down. I'm asking for her contribution to be heard in silence, and I would do so for any senator in this chamber. Please continue, Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The housing organisations, which have pleaded with us and have pleaded with all of you—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They have. We know they've been to see you to say, 'Pass this bill.' And the Greens slammed the door in their face. It's not good enough. It's not going to happen.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Once again, within a few seconds, I've had to call for order. If you wish to make a contribution, seek the call. Otherwise, I ask you to either leave the chamber, if you can't remain in here and be silent, or respect that the minister has the right and has the call. She has an absolute right to be heard in silence. Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I shouldn't actually be in the position where we've had to move this amendment, because we would have naturally, some time ago, gone to this bill. The time-wasting and the procedural trickery that's going on to try and ensure we don't get to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill is, frankly, a joke. I think the people of Australia expect better of us in the Senate. They expect we will deal with bills as they come. We wanted to provide extra time for people to have that debate. We wanted to sit last night—no, that wasn't good enough for the Senate. We wanted to bring it on first thing this morning—no, that wasn't good enough for the Senate. The filibuster started and now, at the time that we would normally and naturally get to this bill, this happens. So, yes, we are moving an amendment because we do want the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill dealt with. We do want to find that time. But it is absolute rubbish that what you're trying to do is arrange it so that we have time to deal with bills. It's just fraudulent; it's not true.</para>
<para>What you are doing—and what you should stand up and say you're doing, and what the Greens should stand up and say they're doing; it's everything you've done this week—is to make sure we don't deal with the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. Let's just say it as it is. I think people can hide behind motions and amendments and gags and all the rest of it. The agreement that's been struck between the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens has been to do whatever it takes—absolutely whatever it takes—to make sure that the Senate cannot pass a bill that would establish a $10 billion housing fund that would allow $500 million a year for more social and affordable housing for women escaping domestic violence, and their children, and for low-paid workers so that they can live close to where they work. That's what the Senate's doing now. And it's time for some honesty about that. Don't sit here and pretend that you're just trying to make things better or that you don't want to see the government spend so much. You three have ganged up to deliver this result and we won't let you forget it. We will not let you forget it. Until we get an outcome on housing we will be letting everybody know that it's the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens working together to make sure that we can't build more housing supply in this country. That's what the Senate's doing today. So we don't take a step back, our amendment seeks to reorder the priority and allow for the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill to come on first, because that is the priority.</para>
<para>Any member who has spoken to anyone in their electorate, in their community, realises that housing affordability and access to housing is a major issue, and here is one measure that we are taking. We have all these other things going on. We're working with the states and territories. We're pushing it through National Cabinet. We're increasing the liability cap for NHFIC so that it can ensure access to low-interest finance for community and social housing providers. We had a project here in Canberra just last week supporting the building of accommodation for women under the age of 45 who are on lower incomes who want to work towards owning their own house. That is what we are doing—practical steps to increase the supply of housing to take the pressure off people who want to buy and people who need to rent. That's what we're doing, and this Senate is standing in the way of it.</para>
<para>It is mind-bendingly crazy that that is where we're at today—that this Senate would choose that path as opposed to the path of 'okay, let's deal with this bill, let's set it up, let's make sure that we get the investment flowing'. Keep talking to us about more things you would like to see and keep talking to us about the way you want the fund to operate, but don't stand in the way of its being established in the first place. The irony of it is there are people calling for more investment when we can't get the investment that's before the Senate through the Senate—$10 billion, a $500 million funding stream. Anyone who has watched housing over the last 10 years realises that the Commonwealth hasn't been at the table. It completely vacated the field under the former government.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not true.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You did.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You vacated the field. There was no housing policy. There was no housing minister—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, I called you to order. You ignored me. Not only are you not in your seat; you are also continuing to be disorderly when asked not to be. Minister, please resume.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Here we are with a range of interventions that we are putting in place, including funding the extra support for workers in the sector; negotiating the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement with the states and territories; increasing NHFIC's liability cap; and, with some of the tax measures that the Treasurer has brought in, trying to incentivise the National Housing Accord, working with investors around how putting that investment into housing in this country will work. And there's the Housing Australia Future Fund. It's part of a bigger suite of investments in housing, and this Senate won't even allow it to be dealt with. We have support from the Community Housing Industry Association, National Shelter, Homelessness Australia, the MBA, the Property Council, the Housing Industry Association, PowerHousing and the Urban Development Institute, who are all saying, 'Deal with this bill, please. Let us get started.' And this Senate wants to play games with procedure and to delay even debating it. Honestly!</para>
<para>We could leave this place today not having been able to even get through the second reading stage of this bill, because of the agreement reached between the opposition and the Greens political party. That is the result. What a week. You can leave here and give yourselves a big pat on the back because what you've done together is make sure that this bill doesn't get passed, that the fund doesn't get set up, that the money doesn't flow and that the houses don't get built. What a terrific outcome from the Senate! I say that with a very strong lacing of sarcasm. That is the result.</para>
<para>So I would urge senators to consider and support the amendment that we have moved and then, if that amendment is successful, to find time this afternoon to actually deal with the bill, as we have been trying to do. We will move whatever motion it takes to ensure that we can deal with this bill today, and, if people need to stay longer this afternoon, so be it. We want to deal with it. We have been trying all week to deal with it.</para>
<para>I urge those who are in the Senate to listen to the voices of the advocates; to listen to the voices of the state and territory housing ministers, who know a little bit about housing; to listen to the first ministers of the country, who at national cabinet signed up to work with us on Labor's housing plan. Everybody is in the cart except this antihousing alliance that's been formed in the dark of night in the corridors of the Senate to gang up and make sure that this bill cannot be dealt with.</para>
<para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion that the question be put, as moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the motion to amend, as moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [13:25]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>21</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>White, L.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>35</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [13:32] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>37</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>22</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>White, L.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It being after 1.30, we will now move to two-minute statements.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>1961</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Criminal Justice System in the Australian Capital Territory</title>
          <page.no>1961</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that Mr Drumgold, the ACT DPP, today backflipped on his allegations of political interference in the AFP investigation. Let me be very, very clear: as I did yesterday, I categorically reject this suggestion and consider it a complete affront to my reputation. This baseless suggestion was without any foundation. It should never, ever have come to this. I have provided all assistance and all possible cooperation with the Australian Federal Police investigation, as I released in a media statement yesterday. I cooperated not only with the AFP but also with the DPP and the defendant's lawyers.</para>
<para>The facts were always available to the DPP. It is baffling and it is disturbing that this view was offered under oath yesterday, as there was absolutely no basis for this claim, as the DPP has now acknowledged, again under oath, today, in the inquiry.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lung Cancer</title>
          <page.no>1961</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, I rise to speak on an issue that is extremely close to my heart: lung cancer. Lung cancer is a cruel and evil disease. It has stolen people that I love too painfully and too quickly, and I know I'm not alone. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Australia. Forty-two per cent of diagnoses happen at stage 4. Once diagnosed, the five-year survival rate is just 22 per cent, but you wouldn't necessarily know it because the stigma that has so unfairly surrounded this disease has kept it and its sufferers in the darkness for too long, without the support, research or funding needed to save lives.</para>
<para>No more! After decades of advocacy, the plight of those fighting lung cancer is finally in the light. Last week, I watched as health minister, Mark Butler, announced a $260 million national lung cancer screening program. It is a screening program that is set to prevent thousands and thousands of deaths from lung cancer, and which would have prevented the deaths of people I know. I couldn't be more proud of this announcement and what it will mean for those people we would lose without it and for every family member, every parent, every child, every husband and every wife who won't have to say goodbye to their loved one because we now have this program.</para>
<para>I want to pay tribute to Lung Foundation Australia, to Mark and Paige, and to every advocate I've met in the campaign to get this program established, including those advocates who are no longer with us to see the result. To Lorraine, Sandy and their beautiful nurse, Mel, in Adelaide: be proud of the role you've played in saving thousands of lives. In government, we get to do good, powerful things. This is a good, powerful thing, and I am damn proud of it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>1961</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Twelve months out from the last election, I visited a housing and homeless service in Mackay. There, I heard firsthand about the housing crisis in that city, and how they were forced to turn away 90 per cent of the people who came to them for help with housing because they just didn't have capacity to meet the overwhelming need. Stories like this were repeated over and over as I travelled around my home state of Queensland.</para>
<para>Fast forward to now, and we're well into this term of the Albanese government. We've seen two allegedly progressive budgets, and what we're left with is a housing crisis that this government wants to wash its hands of. Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of people in desperate need of a roof over their heads. Just last week, in Emerald, I heard from Jeanelle and the team at the Emerald Neighbourhood Centre. They told me about the ever-increasing pressure being placed on their services by people in the community who are having to choose between paying their rent or buying food, and about people living in tents on the outskirts of town because they can't find an affordable home.</para>
<para>I remind the Senate that we are not here to rubberstamp bad policy. We are especially not here to rubberstamp a policy that will see the housing crisis get worse in five years. We are here to genuinely help the people in our communities and to keep fighting for those in crisis. We are here to push the government for a better deal for the 5.5 million Australian renters who were left behind in the budget and for the thousands of Australians who desperately need direct investment in public and affordable housing. That's why our constituents voted for us, and that's what we are going to keep doing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Live Animal Exports</title>
          <page.no>1961</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in this place on occasion to reflect on the current status of the live export industry—this is something I've talked about many times—and today I rise to give this chamber an update on the current success of that industry in achieving very high quality animal welfare standards not just on the voyage but also in overseas destinations. As I have stood up and reflected on an ongoing basis in this place, the industry continues to improve its performance.</para>
<para>In the latest mortality figures published, by law, on the department of agriculture website—I'll start with sheep because that's obviously been a topic of some discussion over the last six months or so—the total mortality rate is down to 0.14 per cent. Just to give you some idea, this is not a flash in the pan; this is a consistent downward trend since at least the 1980s, whereby the industry has consistently and regularly improved standards, improved animal welfare outcomes and improved their animal handling practices. Just to give you a small snapshot, in 2017 the mortality rate was 0.7 per cent, and that went down to 0.53, then 0.25, then 0.23, then 0.21, and now it is down to 0.14. These are mortality rates that farmers would be very happy to achieve in paddocks, particularly in times of weather stress. The industry has done an extraordinary amount of work over the last few years and deserves to survive. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>1962</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'Dirty deeds', AC/DC—that's what we've witnessed here in this chamber this week. The Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals are all doing their dirty deeds right in front of our eyes. We have a homelessness crisis in this country and a rental squeeze. We desperately need more social and affordable housing, yet all of those opposite and around this chamber—like the Greens, who've thrown the baby out with the bathwater—are stamping their feet because they're not getting what they want. They would prefer to see people stay homeless than to give their support to the bill that's going to make a difference.</para>
<para>The Albanese government wants to deliver security and put more roofs over the heads of desperate Australians who need a place to call home. The Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals are now all known as the 'no-alition' because, instead of looking at this legislation as another layer of support on top of everything else that we've done in our recent budget, they're prepared to say no. This is a new all-time low in Australian politics. This is senseless, destructive politics. Those opposite only say no in this place. What they really need to do is accept the election result. They're in opposition. The Australian people have spoken: they want action, they don't want people being left behind and they're sick of the Greens coming into this place and trying to write what they want into legislation instead of accepting that this is a $10 billion housing affordability investment in the future of all Australians. But, no, the Greens won't support that; they'd rather do their dirty deal with the Liberals, which is extraordinary, considering that the Liberals in Tasmania are always criticising Labor for doing deals with the Greens. What we've seen is this 'no-alition', which is growing, with all of them involved. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>1962</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Three prominent ecological scientists assessed this week's budget in an article in the Conversation this morning. Sarah Bekessy, Brendan Wintle and Rachel Morgain were blunt. They noted that the government 'has made bold environmental promises over the last year', including 'ending new extinctions, fixing national nature laws and protecting 30 per cent of our land and waters'. But they said that the budget 'falls well short of what is needed' and that 'Australia's threatened species and ecosystems will not survive more funding neglect.' They say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… budget spending does not represent the substantial increase to existing funding needed to halt biodiversity declines or recover threatened species.</para></quote>
<para>They noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Australia must spend $2 billion a year to save its 1,900 most-imperilled species. And an additional $2 billion a year for 30 years could also restore 13 million hectares of Australia's degraded land.</para></quote>
<para>So where is the commitment to finalising and implementing recovery plans for Leadbeater's possums, greater gliders and swift parrots—species being decimated by native forest logging? Ensuring their future is our future.</para>
<para>I want to finish by quoting the lyrics of a wonderful Melbourne band, Sunfruits. Their words from their album <inline font-style="italic">One Degree</inline>, which was launched last weekend, should echo to all of us here. From 'Made To Love':</para>
<quote><para class="block">Fire in my throat, I'm choking on my breath,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Trying to find a way out of this godforsaken mess.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Would you search for me in rubble and in smoke?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Hope we wake one day and this is all a joke.</para></quote>
<para>From 'End of the World':</para>
<quote><para class="block">Won't you stay with me and watch the end of the world?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We can cry happily together.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Won't you sit with me and hold my hand real tight?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We can close our eyes and everything will be just fine.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Oh, it feels like this is it,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The very first year of the apocalypse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Oh, I will see you at the end of the world</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Dippin' your toes into the inferno.</para></quote>
<para>I think we all need to listen up to young people and the fear that they are expressing in the environmental catastrophes that we're facing. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Freedom of the Media</title>
          <page.no>1963</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ANTIC</name>
    <name.id>269375</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A journalist's job is to hunt the truth. That means following the evidence, wherever it leads, and faithfully reporting their findings to the public. The pursuit of truth is a vital service to our common good. The truth keeps tyranny at bay and provides facts in the face of propaganda. Before 2020, I think a lot of Australians assumed that we had at least something of a free and truthful press. But that myth has been blown apart, and the trust in the fourth estate has never ever been lower.</para>
<para>The fear propaganda surrounding COVID-19 exposed the rot at the core of the censorship industrial complex, otherwise known as the mainstream media. Throughout this period, the censorship industrial complex ensured that any rational, reasonable, thoughtful discussion about case fatality rates, the origin of the virus, the ineffectiveness of the masks or the criticism of the state governments' draconian lockdowns and restrictions was shut down, and that remains true today. The will of the elites was enforced ruthlessly by their handmaiden media assets. Those who didn't accept the ABC news or the latest CHO press conference and assume that they had it right were demonised.</para>
<para>What does this tell us about the connection between the media, the government, and big business? Few journalists have remained faithful to their duty to pursue the truth for Australians, and, despite the frustration aimed at parliaments like this, the censorship industrial complex was at least as culpable. To the media-release-transcribing employees of the mainstream media, which is basically all of you, I say: is doing the bidding of your corporate overlords really why you took this career? Are you satisfied by being the narrative enforcers of the big end of town? Don't kid yourselves—that's what you've become.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Australia Future Fund</title>
          <page.no>1963</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam Acting Deputy President Polley, I want to follow on from your comments. You've contributed to this debate too. You and I came in here together 18 years ago, with hopes of—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Eighteen years? No!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I know. It only feels like 18 years ago, but we have just witnessed—correct me if I'm wrong—one of the most insane sessions I think we've ever gone through. When the Labor government, proudly trying to put through its Housing Australia Future Fund, the $10 billion program to build some 30,000 new social homes, tried to get extra hours yesterday, the Greens—listen, everyone out there—held hands with the 'no-alition' to defeat the motion. Then, no later than this morning, they were saying they wanted more time to debate this magnificent piece of policy. And then, within two or three hours, they're holding hands again with the 'no-alition' to kick the bill off the table—to just kick it down the road. And then I sat in your chair, Madam Acting Deputy President, and witnessed one of the Greens, Senator Allman-Payne, get up and start talking about the need for social housing. Please, am I in a dream? Hang on. Oh, Jesus, that hurt!</para>
<para>I can't believe what I've witnessed today! There's the 'noalition' holding hands with them in the corner. I've called them a few things over the last few days, but the most fitting is a part of the 'noalition'. Maybe they should change their name to 'the 10 who fell out of the cuckoo's nest'. I can't believe what we're experiencing here today! Thirty thousand homes! We've just gone through nine years of a terrible, rotten, stinking government that did nothing, that didn't even have a housing minister, and you lot want more. You don't get it, because none of you have been in any position to spend your own money; you want to spend everyone else's money. I cannot believe this is happening in Australia in 2023. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nakba</title>
          <page.no>1963</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Palestinians around the world mark the Nakba, or 'the catastrophe', every year on 15 May, referring to the violent dispossession by Israeli forces of 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland in 1948. But the deep and lasting trauma of the Nakba is an ongoing reality for millions of Palestinians, who continue to live under brutal military occupation.</para>
<para>Israeli military strikes in recent days have killed women and children in Gaza, people trapped behind the Israeli-imposed blockade. With the recent election of the most extremist government in Israel's history, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, the reality of the Nakba has never been more present or more terrifying for Palestinians than it is today. A second Nakba, pushed by senior members of this extremist Israeli government, is a real and growing threat.</para>
<para>In global solidarity with Palestinians and their allies, I want to read onto the Australian parliamentary record an extract from a resolution introduced to the US Congress by Palestinian congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. In her words, she says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… condemn all manifestations of Israel's ongoing Nakba against the Palestinian people, including Israel's illegal theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; Israel's displacement of Palestinians by destroying their homes and forcing them from their land; and the daily brutality and violence inflicted by the Israeli military and Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians.</para></quote>
<para>I will join with protesters in Sydney this Saturday to mark 75 years since the beginning of the Nakba. I say this having visited the West Bank and seen the daily brutality myself. I will stand in solidarity with Palestinians in calling for peace with justice.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliament</title>
          <page.no>1964</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I say this, as someone who is new to this place: it's Thursday afternoon and we haven't got through any legislation this week. It's been incredibly frustrating. We're not living up to what Australians want from their elected representatives, which is to debate the issues. We've had months on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. I would urge both Labor and the Greens to work together to come to some sort of agreement that will benefit people who desperately need housing.</para>
<para>It's easy for me—I can ride into work—but people in the Senate fly from all over the country. Our time here is valuable. I would urge senators to make use of that valuable time. We next sit in June, and we're kicking all the stuff down the road to deal with it then. I would urge the Greens and Labor to do what Australians expect the Senate to do. It's where the government does not have a majority. It may claim mandates on certain things, but every elected representative here, whether an Independent or from the coalition or the minor parties, has their own mandate. That's what the Senate is about. We work to shape policy and legislation so that it reflects what Australians want.</para>
<para>It's incredibly frustrating that, after three days, we haven't done much, other than procedural matters and slinging mud at each other. We can do better. Over the next two hours, I hope that we can come to some agreement on the HAFF. If not, we can deal with it when we come back in June.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fitzroy Crossing: Floods</title>
          <page.no>1964</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Two weeks ago I visited Fitzroy Crossing, a place you know very well. It's a town that went underwater in a record flooding event earlier this year. A hundred buildings were flooded, including homes and businesses, and the Fitzroy River bridge on the Great Northern Highway collapsed, vital infrastructure that connects East and West Kimberley. To give you an idea of how much water was there, the speed signs on the sides of the road in Fitzroy Crossing had dents on their tops, and that's where the propellers from the boats hit the tops of those signs.</para>
<para>I met with the Fitzroy Crossing Volunteer Fire and Emergency Services team, the team that was responsible for carrying out rescues of stranded locals before DFES and the Australian Defence Force arrived to lend a hand. During the state of emergency, while homes and businesses were going under water, the captain of the Fitzroy Crossing emergency services, Richard Oman, led teams that facilitated rescues of more than 100 individuals—in some instances, they needed to dive down into flooded homes, swim underneath doorframes and break windows to reach people inside. Even while their own homes were being flooded, the brave men and women of the Fitzroy Crossing Volunteer Fire and Emergency Services team were out in force around the clock saving lives.</para>
<para>Thankfully, not a single life was lost during the peak of the emergency. The efforts of those heroes were truly remarkable, and I commend them for their service during their community's dire hour of need. While the town is certainly still recovering, it's not closed for business. It's a beautiful place. I encourage people to go there. The causeway is now open. Caravans can get through. The peak season is now, so get on up there. Go and explore the beautiful Kimberley. It's a magical place in this world.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians</title>
          <page.no>1964</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The pathetic pants-wetting senators in this chamber, all bar two, prevented me from introducing my Acts Interpretation Amendment (Aboriginality) Bill 2023. This stunt has rarely ever been done. They are effectively saying that a senator who represents more than five million Queenslanders is not allowed to introduce legislation or speak in this chamber on their behalf. That's not democracy; that's a dictatorship of which the North Koreans would be proud.</para>
<para>Heed my warning: this issue will continue to fester in the referendum period and for a long time afterwards until we settle what defines an Indigenous Australian. It's a crucial question for many reasons. Many Indigenous Australians are understandably appalled that a non-Indigenous person would falsely claim to be one of them for personal gain, and there is plenty of evidence that many non-Indigenous people have done just that. Since 1971, the number of people recorded in the census as identifying as Indigenous has risen by 700 per cent. From the 2016 census to the 2000 census, the total population of Australia rose by eight per cent, while the number of people identifying as Indigenous rose by 25 per cent. What a joke! Budgets and moneys given to Aboriginal corporations rely on these figures. Government spending per non-Indigenous Australian is approximately $24,000, while government spending per Indigenous Australian is more than $44,000. In many cases, no real evidence is required to identify as an Aborigine. It's effectively a box-ticking exercise.</para>
<para>My bill seeks only to ensure that any future legislation define Indigenous Australians as they do, as a native title claimant. This will provide a stronger definition and aims to prevent dishonest people from falsely claiming a heritage that is not theirs. Also, it will stop the rorting of an Indigenous gravy train. Where's the accountancy, PM Albanese? With the continual lies to the public, they have— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Donations to Political Parties</title>
          <page.no>1965</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's been a lot of attention on the budget night fundraiser event for the Labor business forum this week. The gall of a Labor fundraiser being sponsored by PwC, a company that had leaked confidential Labor government documents, rightly raised eyebrows. After pressure from my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock, I was pleased to see PwC withdraw their sponsorship of the event, but we will keep holding the government's feet to the fire over their relationship, this cosy relationship, with that company.</para>
<para>Previous pressure from the Greens and the crossbench has meant that party fundraising events can no longer be held in this building, but the grift certainly continues outside this place. The budget night fundraiser once again highlights gaping loopholes in our donation disclosure rules—rules that allow the big parties to continue to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars without adequate scrutiny, rules that continue to give big donors privileged access to ministers.</para>
<para>The current definition of 'gift' allows a wide range of contributions to avoid being classified as donations. Exorbitant membership fees, like the $82,000 PwC paid to the Labor Business Forum, aren't considered donations. Donors can spend thousands of dollars on a fundraising event with the Treasurer, but it's not a donation if they think they got value for money. I think $330 million in government contracts might seem like pretty good value for money if you're PwC. At $5,000 per seat, the event could have raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Labor business forum on a night when the Treasurer announced that those on JobSeeker would get $2.85 extra a day. We won't know how much Labor coffers grew from the evening until at least February of next year. Business forums are a front to get around donations rules, and it's time to strengthen those rules. If you really want to know what stakeholders want, listen without—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Waters. The time for this discussion has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTRY</title>
        <page.no>1965</page.no>
        <type>MINISTRY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Temporary Arrangements</title>
          <page.no>1965</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I advise the Senate of changes to ministerial arrangements. Senator Farrell will be absent from question time today on account of ministerial business overseas. In his absence, ministers will represent portfolios in question time in accordance with the letter I have circulated to the President, party leaders and Independent senators.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>1965</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>1965</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday the Treasurer said in parliament: 'Bill Evans from Westpac, a very respected economist, said, "I don't expect them to put upward pressure on interest rates."' Today, Mr Evans said, 'The risk is that the stimulus that's in the economy in 2023-24 proves to be stronger than the Reserve Bank is comfortable with, and, therefore, they don't have the scope to cut rates as early as February.' He said, 'The timing of the first Reserve Bank cut will be the factor where the budget may have an implication.' Does the Treasurer still agree with Bill Evans, whose comments clearly show that Labor's budget risks interest rates being higher for longer?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Smith for the question. We are very confident that the budget is providing cost-of-living relief and important investment into services like Medicare—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Give me a second! In fact you've given me 12 seconds before the interjections start, so I appreciate that, Senator Cash—without adding to inflation. There is a fair bit of commentary about the budget, as you would expect two days later. However, Treasury provides advice to the government and supported us in finalising our budget decisions, and Treasury's very clear assessment is that this budget will not add to inflationary pressures, and that is clear right through the budget papers. The cost-of-living package is expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24, and I would remind those opposite that a reasonable proportion of the spending that's happening in this financial year is to do with the legacy pressures that we inherited from you. So it's spending that was continuing up and then it was stopping, and we are keeping those services and those agencies going.</para>
<para>I would note that it would be very unusual to get all the economists in Australia, particularly those that provide commentary, to agree on one point. It's thoroughly unsurprising that you would have a range of views. I note that there have been comments from Mr Evans from Westpac. In fact I had some discussions with Westpac yesterday, and I have a direct quote from Mr Evans where he says that he believes the policies—that's the investments we were making—were necessary, and he said, 'I don't expect them to put upward pressure on interest rates in the near term.'</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Dean Smith, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday you told the chamber the budget was fiscally neutral, but today your colleague the minister for aged care said, 'This is a budget that will put downward pressure on inflation,' in contrast to economists from countless banks and rating agencies who called this budget 'expansionary'. Are you seriously arguing that the minister for aged care is correct and that the majority of Australia's leading economists are wrong?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It would appear that Senator Smith wasn't listening to every single word I said in question time yesterday—I'm horrified! Out of everyone, Senator Smith, I expect you to. You're a man with the eye on the detail. I know that from appearing before you in estimates. But I think, if you go back and have a look at what I was saying, I was saying that the Treasury advice is that the cost-of-living package is expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. I said it, in fact, in answer to your first question as well. So I think the answers given by Minister Wells are completely consistent with the answers that I gave yesterday. I said that it puts downward pressure in 2023-24, and across the forwards it is broadly neutral. That is the point that we have been making for the past two days. I would say— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Dean Smith, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister assure the Senate that not one of the measures in Labor's budget were thought to be inflationary in the independent Treasury advice you referred to in your first answer?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Budget is a range of decisions—hundreds, if not thousands, of decisions that work together. And the focus of the ERC has been very clearly to make investments where we can, to make a sensible cost-of-living relief package where we can find room to do so and to not have those measures add to inflation. We have been consistent across that from the beginning of putting this budget together to the release of this budget. It has been front and centre of our thinking, but we have had to accept that there is a need to provide some sensible, modest investments where we can afford to do so. You see those in the cost-of-living package. Where we can find room to support other investments like Medicare to make sure that bulk billing continues on, then we've made that as well. The Treasury advice was very clear. It cannot be clearer. Look forward to exploring this in estimates: that the decisions taken in this budget are not inflationary and they are reflected in the inflation forecasts in the budget. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget: Women</title>
          <page.no>1966</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister outline how the budget delivers for women in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator White for the question and for her career-long effort in supporting the rights of working women right around this country. Equality for women is at the heart of what we do as a Labor government. There's no other government in recent memory that has done as much for Australian women as we have tried to do in our first year in government. For too long Australians were treated as second-class citizens, and, after nine years of blokey budgets, this is finally a budget that delivers for women. It delivers for all women now and into the future but gives the most economically vulnerable immediate relief with—</para>
<para>Opposition sena tors interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>our investments in parenting payment single, our increase in Commonwealth rent assistance—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. I have called order. Senator Henderson and Senator Hume!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>our increase to working-age payments. And I am pleased that we are abolishing the punitive ParentsNext program from 1 July 2024 and designing a new voluntary—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry, but Senator Henderson keeps interjecting and I can't hear myself think, President.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson and Senator Hume!</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Minister, resume your seat. Order, particularly on my left! Senator Hume, I have called you twice now—three times!—to stop the interjections. Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. We are supporting women's economic equality and helping to close the gender pay gap with investments to support highly feminised workforces, including fully funding a wage increase for aged-care workers; investing in the Australian Skills Guarantee, which includes national targets for women in apprenticeships; and investing in building and retaining the early childhood education workforce. An additional half a billion in further investment in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children will bring the total funding for investment in that national plan to a record of $2.3 billion. And there are a number of measures which address women's health priorities, including $26.4 million to support health and medical research focusing on women's health.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator White, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for that comprehensive answer. It was a shame it was hard to hear, but I understand those who are used to developing blokey budgets won't listen. Can the minister outline how the budget builds on the significant investments in women already made by the Albanese government in just a year of government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator White. I hope you can hear this answer to your question. In our first budget, less than six months after the election, we initiated structural changes that will continue on, hopefully, for generations to improve the lives of all Australian women. Our approach is not a sugar hit for women. It is going to change the landscape for women in this country. It builds on the investments we made in October, which will shift the dial on gender equality. This means investing in women's experiences across the board—for example, our investments in cheaper child care and paid parental leave.</para>
<para>We've invested in making the workplace relations system work better for women, including by putting gender equality at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making and by implementing the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@</inline><inline font-style="italic">W</inline><inline font-style="italic">ork</inline> recommendations so that women are safer at work. We are investing in women's safety, including by introducing paid domestic and family violence leave and through consent and respectful relationships education.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator White, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister outline how this budget demonstrates the government's commitment to ensuring that the experiences of women are at the heart of the budget process?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator White, for the question. Before I start my answer, I welcome the Borroloola women who are in the back row up in the public gallery, who have come from seeing Senator McCarthy. I say a big hello from us. It is so great to have you in the Senate, particularly when we are talking about our investments in women across the country.</para>
<para>Our achievements, investment and actions have been made deliberately and specifically to benefit women and contribute to gender equality because women are not an afterthought or something you add on at the end of the budget process. These are efforts that are being led by the Prime Minister down and across the cabinet and reflect the values of not only the government, which is a majority-female government, but the Australian people. These priorities will be carried forward in the budget process through our gender responsive budgeting, our Women's Budget Statement and the measures which support those.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>1968</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to Minister Watt, representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The government has had almost a year to assess and evaluate the $120 billion infrastructure pipeline and make funding decisions. Last week, the government announced a 90-day infrastructure review, placing hundreds of projects and billions of dollars of investment under a cloud. A genuine review would have assessed the merits of all projects in the pipeline. Why are the $9.7 billion of Labor election commitments exempt from the infrastructure review, particularly given many are smaller projects of a type often criticised by Minister King and, as in the case of the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop, also have scathing Auditor-General reports?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator McKenzie. It is nice to get a question from the National Party. We're still waiting for one about agriculture, but one day they'll get there. It is important that we ensure that the Commonwealth government infrastructure program can actually be funded and delivered and that there are the skills available to build these projects. That is something that the former government never had any concern about, because all the coalition ever used to do is get out the colour-coded spreadsheets, work out which seats they needed to put some projects into and they were off to the races. They said: 'Off we go! We'll go out there and make some commitments. We won't worry about whether we can pay for them. We won't worry about whether there are the tradies to build them. All we will do is go out and make an announcement. We'll trick people into thinking they are going to get a big road, and we'll never actually get around to delivering it.'</para>
<para>I note Senator McKenzie has something to say about Auditor-General reports. I would have thought she would be wanting to stay away from that. But we are all happy to talk about Auditor-General reports that happened about the former government, including Senator McKenzie, whether it be sports programs or infrastructure programs.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, I rise on a point of order on relevancy. The minister has gone nowhere near why the election commitments given by the Labor Party for $9.7 billion of projects aren't also subject to the review.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will draw the minister to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, unlike the coalition government, this government actually believes that it is important to deliver on your election commitments, just as we think it is important to deliver on construction infrastructure projects that are already underway. We have said that election-commitment projects or projects that are already under construction, including projects like the Rockhampton Ring Road, something I know Senator Chisholm, Senator Green and I have been strong supporters of, will go ahead while we review the bucketloads of projects in the former government's infrastructure program that were—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, I called you to order and you continued with your interjections. I would ask you to listen in silence. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President. We make no apologies for delivering on our commitments, and we make no apologies for following through and delivering on projects that are already under construction. But the reality is the infrastructure program that we inherited from the former government had blown up from about 150 nationally significant projects to over 800 projects, which could not be delivered, that were never funded, that never had a plan to be delivered because they were all about making an announcement.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There seems to be some confusion about which projects are exempt from the review and which aren't. Melbourne is one of only 18 airports from the 100 busiest in the world without a rail link. Who requested the $10 billion Melbourne Airport Rail Link project be subject to the infrastructure review? Was it the minister, the Prime Minister or the Victorian state Labor Premier?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know that Senator McKenzie and a number of her colleagues have a bit of an obsession with the Victorian Premier and that for years now they have traduced his reputation in this chamber with the hope of winning seats in Victoria, but all they ever do is go backwards. We are all interested in the goings-on in the Victorian Liberal Party, because that weeping sore of a branch—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on a point of order on relevance to the question. It was a very simple question about the airport rail link in Melbourne and who decided it would be subjected to the review. I didn't want a treatise on the Premier.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind all senators: there is no need to repeat the question. I will draw Minister Watt to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know this might be hard for Senator McKenzie and the National Party to understand, but the Labor Party doesn't operate in a way where our party president dictates what happens in infrastructure programs. I know that is what happens in the Liberal Party and the National Party. You get the faceless men out there coming in and telling you what to do—'fund this project and fund that project'.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres, I just called the Senate to order. Minister Watt, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I say, we don't operate on the basis of the coalition, where we have outside political intermediaries dictating what we should do.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on a point of order on the matter of direct relevance. The question was very clear. It went to whether it was the Prime Minister, the Premier or the minister who interfered. The minister has had his fun for 46 seconds now, but, in the remaining 14 seconds, I urge you to draw him to the question and encourage him to be directly relevant to it and give a clear answer.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I will again refer the minister to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, what I am trying to do, in rejecting the premise of the question, is point out that we operate differently. We operate on the basis of delivering projects that have been funded, that have business cases, that can be delivered rather than making announcements.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (—) (): The <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun </inline>today reports that the minister's staff claimed she misspoke at her 1 May press conference when she gave an emphatic: 'No, it doesn't include the airport rail link.' When saying the $10 billion Melbourne Airport Rail Link would not be part of the review, did Minister King misspeak, and when else has she misspoken about other projects ruled in and out of the review? Will the government release a full list of projects subject to the review, given the lack of clarity on what is exempt and what isn't? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have no reason to disagree with the comments that are in the <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline> today about that issue. But let's not forget the reason why we need this review in the first place. That is that we inherited an infrastructure program that had blown out from 150 projects of national significance to over 800, a program that was littered with projects that were all about pork-barrelling—it didn't matter whether they could be delivered—and that was grossly underfunded and unable to be delivered. There's Inland Rail, that signature piece of the National Party at work. I mentioned yesterday that the National Party was full of economic illiterates, and, if there is one example of that better than any other, it is Inland Rail, where the project has blown out in cost from—is it $15 billion to $31 billion or $32 billion, $33 billion or $34 billion? It doubled in cost. We're not talking about small beer here. We are talking billions of dollars. There's the Urban Congestion Fund and the Commuter Car Park Fund. We are cleaning up the mess, and we're going to have an infrastructure program we deliver. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>PricewaterhouseCoopers</title>
          <page.no>1969</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Finance. On 16 November, the Tax Practitioners Board ruled that the former PwC partner Peter Collins leaked confidential government tax plans and sold advice to clients to help them sidestep multinational tax avoidance laws. Since then PwC has been awarded more than $77 million in new government contracts. All you and the government have done today is speak of reputational damage as the penalty for PwC and seek assurances from PwC that they won't do it again. Will the government immediately cease and ban all contracts with PwC?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pocock for the question. On the issue, I think we have all been deeply shocked by the information that has been uncovered through that inquiry. Certainly, from my point of view, I'm deeply disappointed that processes that are put in place so that we can engage in reasonable and open discussion, confidentially, about how certain legislation is drafted and its potential impact—where we work with stakeholders not just through places like PwC but more broadly—have been compromised in this way. I've read all the emails that have been provided at Senator O'Neill's request, which have gone through to the committee, and I think they reflect very poorly indeed on PwC.</para>
<para>I know that the Treasurer has asked his secretary to provide advice to the government on what further steps are needed to respond to these matters, beyond the recommendations of the Tax Practitioners Board, and I have also asked my department some time ago to look at what can be done in the procurement framework and in contract management processes not only to ensure the integrity of suppliers but also to act as a very significant deterrent to this kind of behaviour occurring again. I haven't received that advice yet—we've been finalising the budget—but I expect that I will get it reasonably soon, and I'm happy to update you as I get it. My understanding is that the government doesn't directly engage through the departments and their contractual arrangements and that stopping those contractual arrangements where they exist is not an option available to— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Taxpayers are looking for more than discussion and advice. The ATO estimated that up to $180 million in tax revenue could have been at risk from the PwC breach. Why is this matter not being investigated by the Australian Federal Police under the Crimes Act, and will the government sue PwC to recover any lost revenue?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In response to the assertion that the Australian people deserve more than discussion and advice: it is not unusual for the government, before taking whatever future steps—if they are available to us, whether through Treasury or through Finance—to take advice on that before making a decision. So I don't think that's unusual. What I am saying to you is that the government is extremely concerned about what has been uncovered through the Tax Practitioners Board's inquiry. We are aware of the material, we have looked at it and we are taking further advice on what further can be done to deal with it. I think that's what people would respect from a responsible government. Those are the steps that the Treasurer and I have put in place. That is what we'll follow and, when we get that advice back, we will make further decisions.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for that answer. PwC monetised confidential government information to earn $2.5 million in fees from 14 clients to help them sidestep new multinational tax avoidance laws. In this clear case of systemic corruption and cover-up, which everyone in this place must find abhorrent, will you work with this parliament and support the Greens' referral of this matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As senators know, anyone can make a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The commission makes its own decisions about what matters it will investigate. I can say that the government is appalled by the behaviour of PwC in this situation. It has compromised our ability to work with third parties around developing up policy and legislation. The Treasurer and I have taken the matter very seriously, and we are currently looking at what further steps are available in my area, around the procurement framework, around panels, around future work, around all of those things, to make sure that not only are we putting in place tighter processes for those that are awarded contracts but that we have a very significant deterrent to this kind of behaviour occurring again.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>1970</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the minister for regional development, Senator Watt. Colleen is a registered nurse living in Theodore, west of Gladstone. Colleen has found it impossible to secure housing. On the housing crisis, Colleen has said, 'We don't have any options. We are out on the street. Basically, we are homeless.' What is the Albanese government doing to address housing challenges in regional and rural Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Green, for being such a strong advocate for the needs of regional Queenslanders. It's a shame we don't have a few more of them in this place, especially around there—over there in particular. Certainly, Colleen's story in Central Queensland is not an isolated one. At the end of last year the vacancy rate in our home state of Queensland was 0.8 per cent, and the numbers in the regions were far worse, particularly in Gladstone, the Southern Downs, the cape, Goondiwindi and the tablelands—all seeing near zero vacancy rates.</para>
<para>The lack of housing in regional Australia disproportionately hurts women, low- and middle-income earners and the very essential workers and tradies that certain people here say they stand up for. It constrains regional economies and puts people in really difficult living situations. And it is the direct result of nine years of inaction and underfunding of housing from the former coalition government, who pretend that they are on regional Australia's side but always let them down. For years, under the former government, we saw state governments, peak groups and regional communities crying out for national leadership and funding from their federal government to address what was a looming housing crisis. As a result of their inaction, as a result of the mess they left behind, we see far too many regional Australians being hit by growing rents, struggling to buy a home, and facing or experiencing homelessness.</para>
<para>We, of course, as the new Labor government have a policy to develop 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes across five years through the Housing Australia Future Fund. In fact, we've committed to distribute the homes equitably across urban, regional and remote Australia. So why are Senators Canavan and McDonald, for instance, working with the Greens to stop this happening? Why is Gladstone based Senator Allman-Payne taking instructions from the inner-city based Brisbane housing spokesperson on the other side of the building? These people should get behind regional Australia and back in those homes. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Green, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Kelly, a disability pensioner from Tasmania, was forced to live in a tent while waiting over eight months for social housing, and she was on the priority list. Can the minister outline how the Albanese government's housing initiatives guarantee social and affordable housing for regional and rural Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Green, for the question. We all know the impacts the housing crisis is having in Tasmania, none more so than our Tasmanian senators. I appreciate the advocacy of local senators on this side of the house, as well as Senators Lambie and Tyrrell, and their willingness to work together for good housing outcomes. It's a little bit of a shame that a couple of other senators from Tasmania didn't have the same approach.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has been working hard to implement housing initiatives to increase housing supply in regional and rural Australia. In Tasmania, for example, we are delivering 48 new affordable homes in Launceston in partnership with community housing—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, please resume your seat. Senator McKim, order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're also delivering 181 new homes in north-west Tasmania, funded by the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, in partnership with Housing Choices Tasmania. These are the sorts of things that we're doing in regional Tasmania right now, and if we can get the Senate to agree, we want to do more.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's why we've included in Housing Australia's investment mandate—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Rennick and Senator Canavan! I have called you about three times. I expect order when I call it. Minister Watt, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know they're working together on the votes, but it seems they're working together on the interjections as well. I say to the— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Green, a second supplementary question?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On the housing crisis, the Regional Australia Institute has said—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Green, please resume your seat. I am waiting for silence. Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the housing crisis, the Regional Australian Institute has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Regional Australia wants policies that will add to supply … that will make sure everyone in the community has a housing option available to them.</para></quote>
<para>What are the risks to regional and rural Australia if the Albanese government's important housing reforms are not implemented?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Green. We all know the biggest risk to regional and rural Australians who need more housing is this unholy antihousing alliance that has formed between the Greens, Peter Dutton and Pauline Hanson. We've all known for a long time that the—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, I remind you to refer to all MPs and senators by their correct titles.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Will do. As we know, the Liberals and Nationals have profoundly let down regional Australians, but the Greens have done so too. For all the Greens' cries for more housing, they don't back it up in their own homes. Which Greens senator, for example, owns a $1 million investment property in Brisbane? It's apparently quite nice. It features a master suite of epic proportions that would keep any of the Kardashians happy. And why did that senator increase the rent on their investment property by nine per cent while calling for a rent freeze? Which Greens senator owns four separate properties while telling the Senate last year that the great Australian dream today is owning a property portfolio with tenants who pay your income and pay for your assets? Why would those sorts of people now want to stand in the way of other people getting a home and a roof over their heads? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I am waiting to call a senator for the next question and I expect there to be silence. Order!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>1972</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President, I appreciate it. My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Gallagher. Your government has acknowledged that your proposed changes to the dispensing limit for pharmacies from 30 to 60 days will mean pharmacists lose income. You've made a welcome commitment that the money your government saves from this measure will be reinvested back into community pharmacies. How much money will pharmacists lose as a result of these changes and how much are you committing to reinvest?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question. There is an important change that the government is making based on the advice of the expert group which has provided this advice to government since 2018, which those opposite ignored and didn't address. It's a significant cost-of-living measure in terms of reducing what people have to pay for their medicines. We know how much that can hit the pocket of many households—six million Australians who rely on regular medicines. In terms of the changes, the impact on the budget—this is from memory, and I will correct this if I have to—is in the order of just over $1 billion in savings to the government, and we are reinvesting all of that back into pharmacy.</para>
<para>We're not disputing that there will be income lost to pharmacies through this, basically because they are not charging people every month for the additional dispensing fees. If they're only charging that once every two months that will impact on pharmacies' income. But it also makes a major difference to people who rely on medicines and how much they pay. These are the decisions that we have thought through carefully.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We want pharmacies to do more. We don't want them to be seen as retailers, clipping the ticket in a sense. We want them to be health professionals. They want to be health professionals.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left! Senator Scarr!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Our investments are essentially putting that money back into pharmacies so that they can do those important jobs like vaccinations, opioid treatments and other things. I have no doubt the role of the pharmacist will change significantly in coming years. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Tyrrell, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the government's commitment to reinvestment extend to the $1.6 billion pharmacists stand to lose from prescription co-payments?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The money that would have normally returned to our budget will go back into pharmacy; we make that 100 per cent commitment. We want to work with pharmacy about how these changes will be rolled through. So we have responded to them—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was not the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, it is not your turn.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We have responded to pharmacy about the rollout of this administration. You're obviously arguing for people to pay more for their medicines, so there you go. That's what you're doing. You are wanting them to pay more. We will make those investments back into pharmacy to make sure they can do new programs, more programs and, indeed, programs that were facing a funding cliff under the former government. We'll work with them on the phasing of this, so, coming in in September, then coming in in January—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order on relevance, I think you'll find that the question that was asked by the senator at the other end of the chamber is not the question that is being answered by the minister. You may draw her attention to it, unless she doesn't understand the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Ruston. The minister is being directly relevant. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> If the question relates to whether the government will fund the other income, not related to the one that's returning to government, that is not our intention. But we do want to work with pharmacy about the new things they can do— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Tyrrell, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Does your government's promise to reinvest every dollar that pharmacies lose include or exclude the lost dispensing fees that are required to compensate for the current community pharmacy agreement?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government remains committed to the agreement, and it will continue. We will enter—no doubt, in the next little while—discussions into the eighth pharmacy agreement. But I think the point we're trying to make here is that the government got advice that said there is absolutely no reason why people have to come in every month to get their medicines. For a certain number of medicines, you only need to come in once every two months. If your doctor approves it, you can get access to this medicine once every two months. It will save you money throughout the year. It is safe. It's the advice to government, and, if we weren't acting on this, I think people who have to buy medicines every month are right to ask the government why, because the very clear advice is that it's safe. We want to work with pharmacies. And it means that it's cheaper for people who rely on long-term medicine.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>1973</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday on Sky News, former Labor leader Bill Shorten said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I always think, well, there are plenty of property tax concessions and a lot of … well-off people … still getting some … government money.</para></quote>
<para>Do you agree with Minister Shorten?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I haven't seen the comments to which Senator Chandler refers, and I do note that the opposition has a habit of selectively quoting—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, you do, to be fair. You do. I think the tax expenditure statement, which the Treasurer released earlier this year, shows the arrangements and various tax concessions that are in place. We reported it openly and transparently. You can see it in the tax expenditure statement; it's available online, I believe, if you haven't already looked at it. The budget that we handed down on Tuesday, just two days ago, doesn't make any changes to those arrangements. The budget that we handed down was very much focused on cost-of-living relief; on where we could make investments into key services like Medicare, such as tripling the bulk-billing rate; on how we repair the budget over time—how do we borrow less and pay less interest?—and on the importance of returning those upward revisions in revenue to budget repair so that we put the budget on a much more sustainable footing so that we can find room for responsible investments in other areas of services as those decisions get taken.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Chandler, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for your response. Is it the government's view that a tax concession or a tax reduction is, as Minister Shorten said, the government giving out money, or are such tax arrangements a case of Australians getting to keep more of their hard-earned income?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The budget outlines the government's position on all of these matters. I would refer you to the budget. It clearly outlines the changes that we've made around taxation. There are some modest and minor changes, but they're ones that will make a meaningful difference to the budget, going forward, particularly outside the forward estimates. You can look at the changes we're making to superannuation, and we're bringing forward some revenue under the arrangements under the PRRT. That is the position of the government. But I would say that it's very important—it's why the tax expenditure statement was released—that people are aware of the concessionary nature of a whole range of measures that exist in the budget. It's important that we have that information available for people—where there hasn't been any change to those concessions in the budget that we handed down two days ago.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Chandler, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, is the fundamental reason why Australians always pay more under Labor that Labor doesn't actually trust Australians to spend their money on their own needs?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I didn't catch the end of it, but I think I got the gist of it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For clarity, I'll get Senator Chandler to repeat it. It's quite a short question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, is the fundamental reason why Australians always pay more under Labor that Labor doesn't actually trust Australians to spend their money on their own needs?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Chandler, but it doesn't change my answer. I think the budget that we handed down shows the respect with which we hold the Australian people, because it responds to the pressures that are being experienced now, responds to essential services going forward and creates space to grab the opportunities that come for the future. It's a story about meeting the Australian people's needs now, investing in services and growing the economy so more people get more opportunities in the future. This is a very responsible budget, and I think it pays respect to the Australian people. In terms of the budget repair story, we will be borrowing less—significantly less—under this budget and under the repair strategy that we've implemented, so I don't accept Senator Chandler's proposition. We will borrow $300 billion less, and we will pay $83 billion less in interest. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Trade</title>
          <page.no>1974</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Minister Wong. We live in a global economy, and Australia has a lot to contribute to international trade. We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources and an agricultural sector that produces the best food and fibre in the world. I commend the government on their recent success in negotiating trade agreements with the UK and India. Can the minister please update the Senate on the current progress in negotiating a free trade agreement with the European Union?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Babet. As you know, as a consequence of Senator Farrell going to China also on trade issues—and I'm happy if you go to that in a supplementary question—I will update on the EU as well as the UK, and thank you for your recognition of the UK agreement.</para>
<para>Securing an ambitious trade deal with the European Union would obviously be a significant step towards creating more opportunities for Australian exporters. One of the points that we have made since coming into government is that diversification of our export markets, which we recognise is a diversification of what we export as well as where we export to, is an important part of improving our economic resilience. We benefit greatly from bilateral trade with many countries, and we are better off and more resilient as a nation if we can diversify our export markets, which requires, in turn, not only trade agreements but also a diversification of the goods and services exported. Obviously, the European Union is a very large part of the global economy. It's a high-income market with about 450 million people and a GDP of around $24 trillion.</para>
<para>I know Minister Farrell is seeking to progress the EU trade agreement. I think there's already been quite a lot of media and discussion about it, including under the previous government. There are issues that will have to be resolved, around provenance and so forth. I know Minister Farrell is working very hard to try and ensure there is progress on that for the reasons I have outlined.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Babet, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Free trade agreements are a good example of how bipartisanship delivers great outcomes for the Australian people. On 6 March, the government member for Fremantle and chair of the treaties committee stated in the Federation Chamber that the independent tribunal system used to resolve investor-state dispute settlements is dodgy—his words. Minister, does your government agree with this statement—yes or no? Is the ISDS dodgy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have two points. First, in relation to bipartisanship, I think you will find, Senator Babet—and I know you weren't here when I was shadow trade minister, nor would you probably remember anything about that, because it may not have been that interesting!—I did work quite hard as shadow trade minister to deliver bipartisanship. It was through that period that the Labor Party supported the China free trade agreement, the Korean free trade agreement—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Babet</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I make a point of order on relevance. I would like to know if the ISDS is dodgy. That's all. Yes or no?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Babet. The rest of your question also went to free trade agreements and bipartisanship.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> Senator Babet, I wasn't trying to obfuscate; I was actually trying to be helpful, and I was actually agreeing. I think bipartisanship does matter. I'm also on record from that time—and I think since that time our party's position has developed—raising concerns about ISDS. We all know, for example, that it was—my recollection is this, and I might be wrong—a Hong Kong free trade agreement. There was an investor-state dispute settlement clause under that which led to tobacco companies seeking legal action against Australia for— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is important for the integrity of current and future trade agreements that the Commonwealth of Australia abide by the terms of its agreement. We note that the same member of government made further statements on 30 March about—and I quote—'the dodgy system known as ISDS'. Are we to take it that the arbitrator recently appointed by the Commonwealth to an ISDS arbitration is also dodgy—yes or no? Is he or she dodgy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not going to comment on an individual, and, I'm sorry; I don't actually know what detail you're referring to. But I would make this point: the ISDS clause that I referenced in the Hong Kong agreement was used by tobacco companies to try and take legal action against an Australian government for plain packaging. I think that demonstrates, amongst other things, the concerns that many in the Australian community have about those sorts of provisions in these trade agreements—that they obviate or constrain a country's sovereignty. We in government have said that we won't be doing trade agreements with those clauses in them, and we will be going through a process of trying to improve or remove those agreements which have those clauses.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Babet.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Babet</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order, once again, on relevance: is the person who is appointed by the Commonwealth to perform ISDS arbitration dodgy? That's it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet, Minister Wong went to that part of your question. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I again say that we have concerns about ISDS clauses when it comes to ensuring that an Australian government can make appropriate decisions on behalf of the Australian community, and we put those on the record.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>1976</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. After nine long years of cuts and neglect, how is the Albanese Labor government investing in Medicare and, importantly, making it easier to see a doctor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Polley. Thank you for your support for Medicare and for your continued advocacy for public health and public health measures, alongside all of your Tasmanian and Labor colleagues. What we know is: Labor built Medicare. We will always protect it and we will always strengthen it.</para>
<para>There are some differences between those on this side of the chamber and those on that side. We can go through them. Top of the list is Medicare. We are the party of Medicare, and we know that you have opposed it and sought to break it over many years, including under Mr Dutton—I'll come back to you. In this budget, this Albanese Labor government is making historic investments in Medicare. We believe Australians should be able to access affordable, reliable health care. That is why we are investing $5.7 billion to build a stronger Medicare.</para>
<para>Our priority is to invest in Medicare and make it stronger. Their priority was to cut Medicare. Those opposite left measures in the budget on a time line to be cut, and they failed to address the needs of Australians, particularly our most vulnerable. This government is investing to ensure the tripling of the bulk billing incentive. This is the largest increase to the incentive in the 40-year history of Medicare, and it will benefit Australians. It will benefit pensioners. It will benefit Commonwealth concession card holders. It will benefit Australian families. We've wasted no time making medicines cheaper, establishing Medicare urgent care clinics and investing in practices to employ more nurses and allied health professionals. We've committed $219.4 million to extend public dental services because we understand Medicare must always be protected. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, first supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a stark contrast. Following a sharp decline in bulk billing under the Liberals and Nationals, can the minister please outline to the Senate what the government is doing to boost bulk billing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the question. Of course, we understand how important bulk billing is. What we also know, and what Australians know, is that for over a decade those opposite made decisions that eroded Australia's world-class healthcare system, and they weren't upfront with the Australian people on the bulk billing rate, which has been in decline. Let's remember that they're led by a man who doctors voted the worst health minister in decades. The principle that all Australians should have access to affordable care underpins Medicare. That is why, as I said, the centrepiece of our Strengthening Medicare package is a $3.5 billion investment to triple bulk billing incentives for GP visits. This means five million children and their families, and seven million pensioners and concession card holders, will be able to see a GP without an out-of-pocket expense. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, second supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How is the government making Medicare stronger for all Australians? How does the budget deliver crucial funding for the urgent needs of today and reforms for health care for tomorrow?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, we're investing in bulk billing, we're investing in practices to employ more nurses and allied health professionals, we're investing in public dental health services, we're investing $47.8 million in wound care for patients with diabetes and chronic wounds, and we're investing in digital health to ensure critical information sharing and a more secure, safe and efficient information system to benefit patients and clinicians.</para>
<para>Those opposite are remembered for many things, and one of them is the GP tax. Let's remember that the man who will front the parliament tonight saying he's going to talk about families was the health minister who sought to impose a tax on Australians going to GPs. The GP co-payment which Mr Dutton sought to impose is something every Australian should remember when he stands up tonight and claims he speaks for Australian families. That is why we know it is only those on this side— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>1976</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. What proportion of Australian households will face the impact of higher inflation and interest rates being higher for longer as a result of Labor's budget but will be receiving none of your selective handouts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the question. I guess we should expect that kind of divisive question from those opposite that seek to divide Australia as opposed to unite it. If the senator had read the budget papers, they would have seen that we are predicting that inflation comes down considerably over the next financial year before heading back to the target range. I would remind those opposite that interest rates began rising under them.</para>
<para>Op position senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Because you lost the election, mate. You lost the election. That's why. We have been in a period of tightening of monetary policy since that time, and that's why the budget has been carefully crafted to not add to the inflation challenge in the economy.</para>
<para>Here is a list of things where we have our focus on all Australians. This is a budget that seeks to make investments that benefit all Australians, no matter how much you try to divide different groups across our community. In terms of wages growth, who do you reckon that helps? For the first time in a decade, by overturning your policy to deliberately withhold wage increases from working people, we are going to see real wages growth. Part of the reason we have significant upward revisions in this budget is that we are seeing wages growth. Our investment in Medicare and the tripling of the bulk billing rate supports all families across the country. We're putting downward pressure on inflation to tackle the cost of living. On energy bills, the gas energy caps that we put in place, which you voted against—have a look in the budget at what that says. The fact is that people will be paying less on their bills as a direct result of— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday on <inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">oday</inline>, construction worker Frank was interviewed and said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I feel that our standard of living has reduced considerably; I've never seen it like this.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia should be considered as a lucky country. Are we lucky? No, we're not.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Give the working person, the people who supports the country, the middle-income workers, more relief.</para></quote>
<para>Minister, wouldn't Frank and indeed all Australians be better off if you had a plan to tackle inflation rather than a budget that just selects a few winners?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Here we go. It's so predictable. I didn't see that interview, but what I would say is that there are challenges in our economy because of 10 years of failure to deal with the challenges—to deal with the energy transition, as one example—and we are playing catch up so that we can seize the opportunities and the jobs and the income that are going to come with that energy transition. We are putting in place legislation that you voted against to get wages moving in this country. You voted against it.</para>
<para>Every single time we put in this place some legislation to improve the lives of working people, you vote against it. You vote against the Housing Australia Future Fund. You vote against the National Reconstruction Fund. You vote against every idea that we bring into this chamber to build a better future for every Australian. You vote no to it, and then you come in here and start pretending that you're on their side. It doesn't add up. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Sullivan, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This budget confirms that the cost of living continues to go up. Gas and electricity prices continue to rise, real wages are not growing, inflation remains high, unemployment will rise and Australians will pay more taxes. Why is it that Australians always pay more under Labor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What the Australian people will see in this budget is targeted cost-of-living relief. This will help those that are most vulnerable. Are you opposed to that? Are you opposed to those investments? It sounds like you are. It will deliver historic investments in Medicare and aged care. Are you opposed to that? It sounds like you're opposed to that. There will be a wage increase for aged-care workers. Are you opposed to that too? That's in the budget. It sounds like you are opposed to it. It will grow the economy in skills and in small business for renewables. It sounds like you're opposed to that as well. It will strengthen the budget surplus and clean up the mess that we inherited. There was $11.5 billion in legacy funding pressures that were just going to tip of a cliff. There is $17.8 billion in savings in this budget. We're borrowing less. We're paying less interest. We've forecast a surplus this financial year, and you're opposed to that. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>1978</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>1978</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>1978</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Answers to Questions</title>
          <page.no>1978</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today.</para></quote>
<para>I'm going to start with a history lesson, and Senator Gallagher probably knows which history lesson I'm going to start with. It is the history of Medicare co-payments in this country. I want to take everyone back to 1991. Who was the Labor Party leader? Who was the Prime Minister? It was Bob Hawke. And what was happening to Bob Hawke in 1991? He was facing leadership pressures. And what did Bob Hawke, as Prime Minister, and his then health minister Brian Howe do, without consultation, in the 1991 federal budget? They announced a Medicare co-payment of $3.50 and a reduction of $3.50 in the rebate. So it lacks credibility for Labor senators to come into this place and try to suggest that it is only coalition members and senators who are interested in a sustainable health system.</para>
<para>Let me finish the story. What happened later in 1991? This is particularly important for the current Treasurer. What happened next? The Left and the Right and the ACTU ganged up on Bob Hawke, who, to be fair, was a very popular Australian Prime Minister, and guess what happened. A week before Christmas, Paul Keating became the Labor Prime Minister. I understand completely why Labor does not want to go back and hear about the horror story of its experience with Medicare co-payments.</para>
<para>This brings to an end the first week of Labor's second budget. What will be top of mind to many, many Australian families this weekend is just one word and the consequences of that one word, and that one word is 'inflation', the consequence of inflation being higher interest rates.</para>
<para>When Jim Chalmers attended the National Press Club yesterday he said he was 'supremely confident' that the budget would not add to inflation. They are very brave and courageous words by the Treasurer, no doubt. But we can't trust the Treasurer's supreme confidence that the budget will not drive up inflation, because just a year ago Anthony Albanese tried to tell Australians that life would be cheaper for them under Labor. Well, 12 months on, we know that is not true, as this country struggles with the very real challenge of higher inflation and rising interest rates.</para>
<para>We heard a little bit of commentary earlier in question time today about the remarks of Westpac Chief Economist Mr Bill Evans. Those remarks are important because Mr Evans is a trusted economist. Westpac is a significant banking institution in our country. I want to remind people of some observations Mr Evans made and why they have important implications for the budget and the analysis of the budget that will continue over coming weeks and indeed when we come back for Senate estimates. Mr Evans said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Do I believe the rates relief I thought we would get—</para></quote>
<para>that Australian families would get—</para>
<quote><para class="block">in February could be delayed? Yes.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Evans is saying that he thinks rate relief and falling interest rates that people are expecting to happen in February next year are not going to happen, or the chance of them happening is significantly reduced as a result of the budget. What else did Mr Evans say? He also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The opportunity to cut rates as early as February starts to fade away—that's the one thing I'm worried about with regard to the budget.</para></quote>
<para>He also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">$20 billion going into the economy in the space of three years is what I would call big spending.</para></quote>
<para>Those were Mr Evans's comments—not his only comments but, I think, some very pertinent comments when we think about the challenge that has now arisen as a result of the budget that was delivered on Tuesday night.</para>
<para>The budget will not be measured today, tomorrow, in two weeks' time or in three weeks' time but in a year's time, when we are still in this chamber. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to stand and take note of the answers provided today. And it does beggar belief, really, that those opposite—in defence of their actions on Medicare over many years; a decade of delay, of ignoring the GP crisis, of standing up every day and supporting someone who as health minister proposed a co-payment—want to go back to a policy that Labor supposedly was implementing when I was eight years old. It's two days after the budget, and the Liberals are going back to 1991 to try to defend their position, which is to not support the things we put forward. It's clear that they don't support these things. It's clear that they don't support a budget that's responsible, that's measured. It's clear that they don't support the measures in the budget to provide cost-of-living relief to everyday Australians.</para>
<para>Those on this side have been working really hard to get those measures into the budget, to get that relief out to Australian families, and we couldn't be prouder of the work that's been done to make sure that we're taking care of vulnerable Australians, that we're making more opportunities for more Australians and that we're building a strong future and a strong, resilient economy for our future. The budget strikes this balance between helping Australians through hard times right now and building for the longer term. We're delivering real cost-of-living relief and the biggest-ever investment in bulk-billing—the biggest-ever increase for bulk-billing incentives. It is something that needed to be done, and it's something that those opposite would never do, after 10 years of drilling Medicare down to the ground, starving GPs of resources. I am sure that if they were still in government we would have got to a point where Medicare was completely privatised. That is their legacy. But, in our budgets, we care about Medicare. We built it, we will protect it and we are strengthening it. That's what they're against. That's what we are for. We're lowering the cost of medicines on top of this, which is another thing it seems, from the questions today, that those opposite oppose. Funding the biggest pay rise for aged-care workers—that's what's in this budget. That's what is in this budget, but those on the opposite side say we shouldn't be doing it.</para>
<para>On top of all of this cost-of-living relief, something that's incredibly important is offering cost-of-living relief on electricity bills. That is something that was in the budget the other night. We're working with states and territories. And it was something we had in our October budget, because we're completely aware of how important this is for people. Those on the opposite side had the opportunity to support cost-of-living energy bill relief in the last year of their parliament, but they refused to support it.</para>
<para>We're creating opportunities that all Australians can share and we're making the services that we rely on stronger. Our plan will grow the economy, create new jobs, boost renewable energy and invest in skills and training. Remember that problem you also ignored—the skills crisis that you did nothing about for 10 years? It was already happening before the pandemic. It was made worse by COVID. And you had no plans other than paying interns $5 an hour to wash cars and getting Scotty Cam to come out of the woodwork and be on a TV ad. That was your plan to fix the skills crisis. We've put real money behind it in our budget, because we know that we need to get skilled workers into skilled jobs to make sure that Australians have those opportunities.</para>
<para>This is a responsible budget, it's a practical budget and it's one that works to clean up the mess of a wasted decade under the Liberals and Nationals. I'll give you one example of that neglect and decay. Townsville is the proud home of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. They're a fantastic organisation and they do important work in our oceans, making sure that we've got the very best marine science in the world. They do incredible work on the Great Barrier Reef. Under the previous government, we were at a point where the defunding and underfunding of this incredibly important institution was going to lead to job losses. Their equipment was out of date, they hadn't had a refurbishment of their premises for years and there were jobs on the line. In the budget the other night, we added $163 million to the budget of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. That is $163 million to get them back just to where they needed to be. That's what this budget does.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, too, rise to take note of the government's answers, and, sadly, again today we've seen the fact that this government has no capacity to understand, approach or deal with the economic challenge of our time, which is inflation. We had the finance minister in question time basically citing an economist who said the least worst about the budget is that it's not going to be inflationary. That's not passionate evidence that the government understand that they need to act to put downward pressure on inflation and not just do nothing, not just take their hands off the wheel and say, 'We'll leave that up to the Reserve Bank.' They've shown no capacity to understand that inflation is the key economic challenge of our time.</para>
<para>Yesterday in this place I started reading out some quotes from senior economists in this country on the impact of this government's budget. I'm going to continue that because I did not get through them all and because it's not like Senator Gallagher says—that there are just one or two economists out of a room of 100 who think this is an inflationary budget. Senior economists across a wide range of organisations have come out and said that this budget makes it harder for the Reserve Bank, not easier. The government has failed its first test.</para>
<para>David Bassanese, chief economist at BetaShares, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Contrary to all the talk of a surprise budget surplus for 2022-23, the 2nd Labor Budget under Treasurer Jim Chalmers is unambiguously expansionary, with a boost to GDP growth equivalent to around 1.5% over the next two years. This adds to the risk that the RBA will feel the need to raise interest rates at least once and possibly twice more in the coming months.</para></quote>
<para>Goldman Sachs's chief economist, Andrew Boak said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At a time when the RBA is lifting rates to contain elevated inflation and accelerating labour costs, we assess the budget's near-term boost to household incomes to have an incrementally hawkish read-through for monetary policy.</para></quote>
<para>Yes, that is economic language but it means that interest rates are more likely to go up. USB economist, George Tharenou, said, 'We also now think the RBA is unlikely to cut the cash rate this year.' He said specifically, 'We formally pushed back our expectation of the first RBA easing to February '24.' It is a greater risk that inflation will go up and it is going to take longer for inflation to go down.</para>
<para>PinPoint Macro Analytics chief economist, Michael Blythe said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Unfortunately, proposed fiscal settings look a little confused. Policymakers cannot claim that fiscal measures are both stimulatory for households and non-inflationary.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Blythe said the government's decision to increase JobSeeker, single parent payment and aged-care wages had no inflation offset. He also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Nobody will begrudge lifting payments to welfare recipients, the lowest paid and essential workers. But the hard-hearted economist will point out the potential risks of boosting household spending power and adding to labour costs at a time of elevated inflation.</para></quote>
<para>Yes, there are hard decisions that need to be made. They are hard decisions. Inflation is the key economic challenge of our time.</para>
<para>EY Oceania chief economist, Cherelle Murphy, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government plans to spend more than it saved in the short term. In normal times the economy would easily absorb this stimulus. But inflation is already running at an annual rate of 7 per cent, and more than one in every four dollars spent in the Australian economy is by a state, territory, local or federal government.</para></quote>
<para>This is an expansionary budget. It puts upward pressure on interest rates. It forces the Reserve Bank to consider continuing to raise interest rates further and higher than they have really had to in order to contain the inflation this government continues to ignore.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Isn't it interesting? Before I start, these are the people who are giving lectures about interest rates and inflation and how to deal with the cost of living. They are the ones who started this whole rise of interest rates in this economy. They seem to forget that one of the big issues we had were their 22 consistently failed energy policies that put the pressure on our cost of living in this country. If you look at the budget, you clearly see that the Treasurer's assessment is that interest rates over the inflationary pressures is clear in the budget papers because it says the cost-of-living package is expected to reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24.</para>
<para>You also have to realise the importance of this budget in getting inflation right and supporting our community. A $14.6 billion cost-of-living relief package has been critical to supporting hard-hit Australians. But what those opposite are saying is nothing because what they are actually saying is that we should turn around and do nothing, that we shouldn't turn around and support hardworking Australians, that we shouldn't support those people that are at such a disadvantage because of the increase in inflation that commenced under their watch.</para>
<para>Let's start looking at building the capacity to deal with shocks into the future. Eighty-seven per cent of revenue windfall over this budget and the last, compared to a 40 per cent average over the last governments, is the money that will be going into dealing with some of the issues that have put pressure on our spending within our budget. We have prioritised and saved almost $40 billion, and that has returned an 87 per cent revenue windfall over the budget compared to a 40 per cent average by the last government. These are significant figures because it puts us in a position to deal with future shocks in our economy. It's actually making sure that we have the capacity to deal with the future.</para>
<para>Quite clearly, when we go to these questions about what an economist has said, what those opposite leave out and who they fail to quote is ANZ's Adelaide Timbrell, Nomura's Andrew Ticehurst, National Australia Bank's Alan Oster on Tuesday, JP Morgan's Ben Jarman or ANZ's Richard Yetsenga. I might just quote Yetsenga in particular, because all of those previous economists have said that at worst this will be neutral, and many have supported the fact that this budget will have a positive effect on inflation. The particular quote from ANZ is that '$A14.6 billion in household support is the largest package of spending'. Yes! It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In Australia's $A2 trillion economy, this won't make the inflation challenge materially worse.</para></quote>
<para>That's what was said. To hear those opposite deciding to quote Westpac—well, how about you quote everything that Westpac and Mr Evans said? Mr Evans said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think those policies were necessary—</para></quote>
<para>listen to that word, 'necessary'—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and I don't expect them to put upward pressure on interest rates in the near term.</para></quote>
<para>These are some of the important aspects of what we've done in this budget.</para>
<para>Of course, what those opposite don't want to do is talk about the cost of living, because they haven't any plan for it. These are the same people that voted down having a strategy to put downward pressure on energy prices. These are the same people that have turned around and made sure that they wouldn't support secure jobs and better pay proposals for people to have the capacity to deal with the cost of living. They're the ones that turned around and didn't want to have people getting more secure jobs so that they can bargain more fairly. These are the people that turned around and refused to support the appropriate fee-free TAFE, cheaper child care, the expanded Paid Parental Leave scheme and introducing the domestic violence leave. These are all strategies they have been consistently trying to undermine or have opposed in this place.</para>
<para>The real question for those opposite will be the future reforms: same job, same pay; minimum work standards for gig workers; an objective definition of casual employment and the pathway to permanent employment; and making deliberate wage theft a criminal offence. Let's see what they do, because that will show them up for what they think about the cost of living. They are not about taking it on. They're not about giving people the opportunity to have a decent wage and a decent income. They certainly haven't got a plan to deal with inflation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, too, rise to take note of answers, in this case from Senator Gallagher to the first supplementary question by Senator Smith, who pointed out that the minister for aged care said, 'This is a budget that will put downward pressure on inflation,' and Senator Smith highlighted that that was 'in contrast to economists from countless banks and rating agencies who called this budget "expansionary"'. Senator Gallagher gave a response, and she mentioned, pleasingly, the concept of frameworks. It's really important that, if we're not just going to look at short-term perturbations but long-term impacts, we understand the consequences of the frameworks we have in place.</para>
<para>When we come to the issue of the cost of living—and I go here to the cost-of-living committee, which has been inquiring into that—I notice that in their interim report one of their key findings is that energy prices have risen and are a major contributing factor to the cost-of-living crisis in all sectors of the economy. What has that got to do with frameworks? The government's rejection of the expert opinion of a number of economists in terms of inflation—it's not the first time. They have form on that.</para>
<para>I was flabbergasted to see Mr Bowen say in response to a question in the House that every sensible economist would tell you that nuclear energy is the most expensive form of energy there is. I'm paraphrasing there. I haven't got his exact words, but that was the sense of his answer. The OECD, who, globally, are probably the most reputable group of economists looking at economic cooperation and development around the world, issued a report last year, in April, where they looked at the frameworks that countries put in place around their energy systems. On page 35 of their report, which was a strategic briefing on meeting emissions targets, they look at the levelised cost of electricity across the OECD for various forms of energy generation, and they highlight that 'the lowest cost option for generating electricity is long-term operation of nuclear power plants'. That quote is from work done by themselves and the IEA, the International Energy Agency, in 2020. But, as they highlight in their report, that is only part of the equation.</para>
<para>When you look at the systems costs and also the context in which we are seeking to reduce emissions by 2030 and getting to net zero by 2050, for anyone interested, I highly recommend looking at pages 37 and 38 of the report. The OECD highlight that as you constrain emissions and you take fossil based fuels out of the system—and you must remember that here in Australia our national electricity market still uses nearly 70 per cent fossil fuels—the costs will go up exponentially beyond about 2030. They say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The policy implications of these systems costs findings are significant. It may be possible to reduce emissions to meet 2030 targets by growing the share of variable renewables in the mix. However, the costs of reaching net zero with high shares of variable renewables are likely prohibitive.</para></quote>
<para>They go on to make the conclusion, which is backed up by the IPCC and the IEA, that the only way we can still have reliable, affordable power and reach net zero is to embrace a form of baseload power which is either hydro, if you have suitable conditions, or nuclear power. This is why so many countries—such as the US—are looking to double their amount of nuclear power.</para>
<para>To the issue of expense, they found not only that long-term costs of electricity show that it's cheaper but also that from a grid scale, as we seek to reduce emissions, the framework says it will be cheaper. If we look at the lived experience of nations like Germany, with high levels of variable renewables, they have the most expensive power in the OECD by a country mile. Nations like Canada, which has the lowest penetration of variable renewables, using hydro but also 19 nuclear reactors, have the lowest energy price in the OECD. In Ontario, the province which has those reactors in it—and the majority of their power comes from those reactors—it is among the cheapest in Canada. Frameworks matter, and the framework of this government will just drive up prices further.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>PricewaterhouseCoopers</title>
          <page.no>1982</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to PricewaterhouseCoopers.</para></quote>
<para>I rise to take note of Senator Gallagher's response to my questions about PricewaterhouseCoopers. I will start by clearly laying out some of the facts of this outrageous case of institutional corruption and cover-up. Every parliamentarian and, indeed, every Australian must be horrified by this chapter. I know that many are because they are contacting our office in outrage.</para>
<para>First, the facts. On 16 November 2022 the Tax Practitioners Board published their findings that former PwC partner Peter Collins breached three confidentiality agreements by leaking government tax policy to staff and partners at PwC to monetise that information by assisting private clients to sidestep the new multinational tax avoidance laws. Peter Collins was deregistered for two years as a tax agent and PwC was required to roll out confidentiality trading. Confidentiality trading—I ask you! It's outrageous. It's so inadequate. At estimates in February the ATO estimated that up to $180 million in annual tax revenue would have been at risk from Mr Collins' breach. The same estimates, Taxation Practitioners Board CEO Secretary Michael O'Neill said that 20-30 PwC staff were implicated in the leak. The PwC CEO at the time, Tom Seymour, contradicted O'Neill's evidence, claiming the board had made 'no findings' to support the statement that 30 staff had access to the information, and that claims about the breach were a perception issue in his view.</para>
<para>Shocked by the revelations unfolding in relation to PwC and the huge increase in spend on consultants in the public sector over the last decade—we're talking billions of dollars—in early March I initiated a Senate inquiry to investigate government use of consultants with a focus on management of unethical behaviour, conflicts of interest and breaches of contract. That committee is working hard. It will go hard, and taxpayers want us to.</para>
<para>Since then more evidence has emerged in relation to PwC. On 2 May, 144 pages of redacted emails were released, involving 53 PwC email addresses related to the leaking of information. They make for an extraordinary read. It's clear that Tom Seymour had significantly downplayed the extent of the breach. This wasn't a perception issue or the case of one bad egg but systemic institutional corruption and very, very poor internal culture and leadership. Days after the emails were published, Tom Seymour admitted he had received emails relating to the leak and stepped down as CEO. Last night, two other senior executives followed him, though it's important to note that all three still remain at PwC. The emails also revealed that PwC collected $2.5 million in fees as it did this extraordinary act. It's an astounding case of corruption in a company that employs 10,000 Australians and whose website front page says, 'Our purpose is to build trust in society'. Unbelievable!</para>
<para>These are the facts. What are the facts of the government's response so far? I encourage you to keep your expectations very, very low. This will be short: I wrote to the finance minister in March asking her to remove PwC from the Management Advisory Services Panel, which gives PwC access to government contracts, because they've clearly failed to meet the panel's requirements. The minister's department confirmed at estimates that the Department of Finance can terminate a consultant's position on the panel. To be clear, it's absolutely in the Minister of Finance's remit to do so. She has not done this. She has not banned them and, instead, has sought assurances that this won't happen again. That is completely inadequate.</para>
<para>There are four things the government needs to do immediately. Firstly: stop cosying up to the large consulting firms, taking their money and political donations, and keeping them safe when they do things that are totally inadequate. Secondly: cease and ban all contracts with PwC. Thirdly: initiate civil proceedings against PwC to recover a huge loss of government revenue and ensure that the Australian Federal Police investigate this matter under the Crimes Act. Finally: will the government work with this parliament? All of us across the political spectrum are appalled, and we support the Greens' call today to refer this matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That's where it belongs. We need to run down this corruption and look more broadly beyond the bad apple to the systemic nature of the consulting industry and what it's getting wrong.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>1983</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Elstob, Mr Ronald Charles</title>
          <page.no>1983</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 16 March 2023 of Ronald Charles Elstob, a senator for the state of South Australia from 1978 to 1987.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate records its sorrow at the death, on 16 March 2023, of Mr Ronald Charles Elstob, former senator for South Australia, places on record its gratitude of his service to the Parliament and the nation and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.</para></quote>
<para>I rise on behalf of the government to express our condolences following the passing of former Australian Labor Party senator—from my home state of South Australia—Ronald Charles Elstob at the age of 98. I convey, at the outset, the Albanese Labor government's condolences to his family and his friends. I especially extend our sympathies to his partner, Fay; his daughters, Wendy and Christine; his three grandchildren; and his three great-grandchildren.</para>
<para>I'm grateful to Wendy for sharing memories of her father prior to this motion being moved so that we could incorporate these into my remarks and the recollections of the very political family environment in which he grew up. I understand Wendy and Christine are listening to us as we remember their father today. I also know they are rightly very proud of their father and his place in this Senate and in Australian politics.</para>
<para>Politics was central to the life of Ron Elstob. It consumed him, and in turn he involved everyone around him, regardless of whether they shared his ideological position. Ron Elstob was Labor through and through, shaped by experiences of poverty, employment insecurity and war, both learned and personal. He became South Australian by choice, through marriage. He embraced politics on the waterfront and in the suburbs. After active involvement in the trade union movement and as a local party organiser, he was convinced to run for the Senate, and he embraced the role and the opportunity to advance policies to the benefit of veterans and in the area of social welfare.</para>
<para>But I start first with his early life. Ron Elstob was born in Toowoomba in Queensland in 1924, and his early years were spent on his family's farming property handling cattle and other stock. He later said the experience was that of a child doing a man's job. The effects of the Depression in the 1930s became one of the formational experiences of his early life. In his early teenage years, his family moved to Sydney and became part-managers of the Marlborough Hotel in Newtown, an establishment that still exists in the electorate of the member for Sydney. This exposed him to a completely different environment from that of his childhood. As he helped in the business after school, as he was expected to do, he heard patrons talk about their experiences at work and, too often, out of work. Getting to understand the lives of these men and women galvanised a determination to fight for social justice, a passion that would remain for the rest of his life. He gave expression to this resolve by joining the Australian Labor Party and soon found himself supporting the member for East Sydney, the irrepressible Eddie Ward.</para>
<para>The outbreak of World War II also had a profound impact on his life and became a bitter memory. Too young to enlist in the regular Army in 1942, he instead joined the US Army Small Ships Section. A year into his service, Ron Elstob was aboard a ship struck by a Japanese fighter, and he was subsequently deployed as a coastwatcher. It was an unenviable task as he and his four comrades faced constant jeopardy, taking drastic and violent actions to stay alive. Only two of the group remained when his mission concluded. He lost an eye and was shot in the ankle. Years later, as a senator, he convinced the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, another South Australian, Tony Messner, to extend the service pension to merchant seafarers. This was a particular source of personal pride for him.</para>
<para>Following the war, Ron Elstob took up work selling industrial equipment, including forklifts and cranes, across the country. On a trip to Adelaide, he met Angela, who became his wife—and Adelaide his home. They were married until Angela's passing in 2008. He found work on the waterfront as a crane driver, and he joined the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia, a forerunner of the famous MUA, the Maritime Union of Australia. He witnessed appalling accidents in the workplace, which resulted in injury or even death, and the distress this caused him he channelled into advocacy for improvements to health and safety. Alongside his union involvement, and with Angela, he became a key organiser in the Hindmarsh Federal Electorate Council, where he became close to power broker and Whitlam government minister Clyde Cameron. He helped Clyde Cameron maintain his grip on the party in South Australia with his well-regarded organisational skills. He used these to advance the cause of Labor within the state, most notably to achieve the election of Don Dunstan as Premier against several severely malapportioned electoral boundaries. It was Don Dunstan who would ultimately convince Ron Elstob to stand for preselection, and in 1977—the year I arrived in this country—he was elected to the Senate for the first time, from second place on the Australian Labor Party ticket. He would be re-elected in 1983, this time from first place.</para>
<para>He made Senate contributions on a wide range of issues. The two subjects in which he took a particular interest were defence procurement and social welfare, and the former was a vital part of his role as a seven-year member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. It complimented his previous advocacy for a strong Australian shipbuilding industry as necessary for national defence—something this government and this Prime Minister advocate and have taken forward today. He was also a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare for the majority of his parliamentary service and the majority of its existence, including as chair from 1983 to 1987. This committee conducted landmark inquiries into drug and alcohol issues and the administration of the government's social services program. It also inquired into social matters, including a national superannuation scheme, children and institutional care, homeless youth, and income support for the retired and aged. Looking at that list, it was a committee ahead of its time. This work gave a voice to some of society's most vulnerable and sought to fund policy solutions that might enable such people to lead better lives.</para>
<para>Ron Elstob was ineligible to seek re-election at the 1987 simultaneous dissolution as a result of the age limit the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party placed on candidates at that time. During retirement, he lived on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland. He always maintained his optimism and lived by his mantra—every day is a good day; some days are just better than others. We can be grateful for the service of Ron Elstob in this Senate. He represents a generation that gave so much to this country, a generation that knew the Depression and a generation that served in World War II. Once again, on behalf of his family, I express condolences following his passing to his friends and family, especially to Faye, Wendy and Christine, his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to associate the opposition with the remarks of Senator Wong in relation to the motion marking and honouring the life of Ronald Charles Elstob. On 29 November 1924, in Toowoomba, Rob Elstob was born, son of Charles and Ann. With his two sisters, Ron attended Toowoomba East State School before the family moved to Sydney when Ron was 14. As Senator Wong indicated, Ron's parents became part managers of the Marlborough Hotel in Newtown. After completing his education, Ron helped behind the bar and in the cellar. This was where he gained his education in many ways. Also, at this time, Ron joined the east Sydney branch of the Labor Party.</para>
<para>In 1942, Ron joined the United States Army Small Ships Section. He had been too young to join the Australian Imperial Force at the outbreak of the war. The US Army Small Ships Section instead provided a collection of trawlers, sailing craft and freight vessels crewed by men and boys considered too young or too old for the regular forces. In shallow vessels, they were able to land on small beaches, carrying ammunition and supplies, in this case for the New Guinea campaign. It was tough and dangerous work, carried out under the cover of darkness and often in rough weather. Ron and his company continued this work for a year before their ship was sunk by a Japanese Zero fighter. They were then dropped onto an uninhabited island to be coast watchers reporting on the movements of enemy aircraft by radio. Sadly, though, Ron was one of only two in his company to survive. He himself, as Senator Wong acknowledged, was shot in the ankle and lost an eye during the war.</para>
<para>Recounting his wartime experiences, he made clear he believed the allies knew of Japanese movements long before the war ended. He believed many more lives could have been saved. He had strong views in this regard. His reactions and approach are a reminder of the different emotions and reactions that many returning service people have to the traumas and challenges of war. Ron, like some, chose never to join his local RSL or march in Anzac Day parades, but, as Senator Wong acknowledged, he worked hard in different ways to uphold the rights of those who had served in all forms, including those serving in a non-military capacity.</para>
<para>Post war, Ron worked selling industrial equipment, travelling much of Australia. It was through this that, in 1949, he settled in Allenby Gardens in Adelaide, having met and married South Australian Angela Smerlac after first meeting her during one of his work trips. Ron found work as a crane driver and joined the Waterside Workers' Federation and the Port Adelaide Labor branch, later joining the subbranch in Hindmarsh, as Senator Wong has touched on. Ronald still believed he'd left his run for politics too late, but I understand it was South Australian Premier Don Dunstan who helped convince Ron to run for the Senate, and in 1977 he was elected.</para>
<para>Ron served with great enthusiasm as a senator. His interests spanned across industry, transport, social welfare, defence procurement and foreign affairs. As well as making time for his constituents, Ron also acknowledged that he had a vital interest in his committee work. Notably, Ron was a member of the foreign affairs and defence committee for nearly seven years. He sat on the publications committee for eight years, four as chair, and for eight years on the social welfare committee, of which, again, he was chair for four years.</para>
<para>In Ron's early years in the parliament he had a quick but perhaps unwelcome claim to fame. As the <inline font-style="italic">National Times</inline> described it in 1984, he made 'a notable oratorical flourish that the Parliament House tucker was "fit to kill a brown dog"'. Ron probably wouldn't have predicted that such remarks would result in the then Parliament House chef in the old building announcing his resignation and the building's catering staff staging a 24-hour strike.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed, different times, Senator Wong. The report suggests that the matter was perhaps settled in good humour, with Ron giving an apology in the Senate and the Parliament House chef constructing a metre-high sculpture made entirely of butter and margarine in his honour.</para>
<para>More seriously, Ron's committee work saw him navigate inquiries into income support for the retired and elderly as well as into institutional care for children and youth. His time as chair of the publications committee also led him to oversee the production of the fourth edition of the Commonwealth <inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">tyle </inline><inline font-style="italic">M</inline><inline font-style="italic">anual</inline>, which I gather was jokingly referred to as 'an eagerly awaited tome'. He did the hard yards in many different ways that are necessary for the operation of this place, and effectively so.</para>
<para>But Ron also took strong and principled approaches. In 1986 Ron was one of three Labor member of the foreign affairs and defence committee to call for the then Hawke government to take a stronger stance in response to sanctions imposed by Indonesia against Australia at the time as a result of Australian media reports on President Suharto. Ron's stance was informed in part by a delegation visit he made with the committee to Papua New Guinea, where he saw firsthand refugee camps and people fleeing Indonesia. He was in agreement with those recommending that Australia take some of those refugees.</para>
<para>A double dissolution election was called in 1987, as Senator Wong said, and, due to the South Australian Labor Party's then age rule, Ron did not recontest, after serving for nine years in the Senate. At the age of 63 Ron retired to Mountain Creek in Queensland but continued to be an active member of the Labor Party. Reflecting on his time in parliament and his engagement in the Labor Party and politics more broadly, Ron was quoted as saying: 'If you can't count numbers in politics, don't go into it. It doesn't matter whether you've got the best idea in the world, unless you can count on the numbers to support that. You've got to be able to count and count accurately.' In this, as in life, Ron Elstob showed the pragmatism and practicality that appear to have been a hallmark of his life and contributions in politics, in parliament, in the Labor Party and more broadly. We acknowledge and thank Ronald Charles Elstob for his service to our parliament, and we pay respects and send condolences to his family and loved ones.</para>
<para>Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1985</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economics Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>1985</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Additional Information</title>
            <page.no>1985</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Walsh, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the National Energy Transition Authority Bill 2022.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriations, Staffing and Security Committee</title>
          <page.no>1985</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1985</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Standing Committee on Appropriations, Staffing and Security, I present the 66th report of the committee concerning the estimates for the Department of the Senate 2023-24.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence and Security Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>1985</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1985</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report of the committee on its review of the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1986</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>1986</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1986</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>1986</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>1987</page.no>
        <type>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>1987</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1987</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>South East Trawl Fishery</title>
          <page.no>1987</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>1987</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the South East Trawl Fishery.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1988</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>1988</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>1988</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Shoebridge for the committee's inquiries into the provisions of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating member: Senator Shoebridge</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Rural and Regional Affairs and Tran sport Legislation Committee—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Substitute member: Senator Faruqi to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into the Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating member: Senator Whish-Wilson</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1988</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>1988</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6992" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>1988</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>1988</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The bill to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016 </inline>('the Act') proposes to:</para></quote>
<list>increase the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility's ('the Facility') appropriation from $5 billion to $7 billion;</list>
<list>add Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, collectively the Indian Ocean Territories, to the definition of 'Northern Australia' in the Act; and</list>
<list>clarify that the persons to which section 7(1A)(b) of the Act refers are indigenous persons, and that the objectives of the Act include the provision of financial assistance for the development of Northern Australia economic infrastructure for the benefit of Indigenous persons.</list>
<quote><para class="block">This Government committed to increase the Facility's appropriation in the October 2022-23 Budget, and this amendment legislates that commitment. By providing the Facility with an additional $2 billion to provide financial assistance to businesses and communities in Australia's north, this Government is demonstrating its commitment to developing the north. To date, the Facility has committed over $4 billion to projects, generating substantial public benefit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">By extending the definition of 'Northern Australia' to the Indian Ocean Territories, this Government is empowering the Facility to provide financial assistance for the development of economic infrastructure that provides a basis for economic growth or stimulates population growth in the Indian Ocean Territories. Allowing the Indian Ocean Territories to benefit from financial assistance provided by the Facility will enable local businesses to diversify and create jobs in line with our core principle of 'No One Left Behind, No One Held Back'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Clarifying that the persons to which section 7(1A)(b) refers are indigenous persons, and that an objective of the Act is to benefit indigenous persons, removes potential ambiguity in the Act. Further, it makes clear this Parliament's expectation that the Facility is empowered to provide financial assistance for the development of Northern Australia economic infrastructure, including for the benefit of indigenous persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Government is fully committed to advancing indigenous outcomes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill being introduced today will, if enacted, deliver these outcomes for Australia's North.</para></quote>
<para>Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed</inline> <inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>1989</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>1989</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Labor Government has delivered a Budget that does not have a plan to tackle inflation, fails to reduce cost of living for all Australians, increases spending that will add to inflationary pressures and risks forcing the Reserve Bank of Australia to keep interest rates higher for longer.</para></quote>
<para>I appreciate the opportunity to make some remarks about the Labor Party's budget from just a couple of days ago. It is very important that this chamber is able to have a debate about the nature of fiscal management in Australia—the way that we tax and the way that we spend—because this goes to one of the central components of how we are governed as a people. The core point to make this afternoon is that, fundamentally, this is a budget which is based on increased expenditure and which will have two particular consequences. It will result in higher taxation—as it has already—and it will continue to fuel inflation. Those are the two direct consequences of the government's latest budget.</para>
<para>Much is made of the promises that politicians make before elections. Before the last general election, the now government made many statements about promising never to increase taxation. Of course, there was much laughter in many quarters when these statements were made because no-one believed that the now government—then the opposition—would be able to help itself and would be able to maintain a lower level of taxation, because, ultimately, when you have an addiction to spending and you can't seem to say no, you will necessarily have to look to raising taxes. Since the election, a couple of new taxes have emerged and you can read about them in Budget Paper No. 2 from the October budget last year, or you can look at them in Budget Paper No. 2 from this May's budget.</para>
<para>The first tax which was leaked out and briefed out in the course of the budget's preparation was this new tax on superannuation. It's a very interesting taxation policy for the Labor Party. It was not taken to the election and was in breach of a promise. It's quite curious for a few reasons. The first of which is that by putting in place a new tax on balances over $3 million, and not indexing it, it means over half a million people will be captured. The people that are most heavily impacted by this new taxation measure will be younger Australians because of the failure to index. Perhaps one of the most curious implications of this will be that superannuation will not be the preferred savings vehicle for many people in the future because it is so uncertain. When you are asking people to put money away for 20 or 30 years, or maybe longer, people will want confidence that the settings are going to be reasonable and won't be set aside by a future government. So for a party that is obsessed with talking about how fantastic superannuation is, it's a very curious initiative, because it will shake the confidence that many Austrians have in the scheme. This new taxation measure, which is going to hit over half a million people, is an unfair tax for younger people.</para>
<para>It also introduces this very novel concept of unrealised gains. Everyone from the National Farmers Federation through to the inner-city asset management groups have had major reservations about this idea of the introduction of taxing unrealised gains. The whole principle of the tax system is that you only tax on something when you sell it, earn it, or there is a particular moment where something happens which triggers taxation. The GST is levied on transactions. When you sell an asset you pay capital gains tax. These are natural points which occur, but an unrealised gain is very hard to define from an accounting and legal perspective, and, as I say, the farmers feel that they will be unfairly targeted. The head of the Farmers Federation has said: 'The Treasurer doesn't care.'</para>
<para>Another person who has been involved with some of these debates, Geoff Wilson, from Wilson Asset Management, has said, 'Taxing unrealised gains is like a gain on your house when you still own it.' This is going to be a major problem for the government when it seeks to legislate this particular tax policy. It is, ultimately, another attack on self-managed super funds. The Labor Party have never liked self-managed super funds because their savings vehicle of choice are the funds which are controlled by their friends and great benefactors at the union movement.</para>
<para>Perhaps, on one level it is true that it is a curious thing for a Labor Party to do, to try and damage the long-term confidence people have in the system. But perhaps it does suit the short-term tribal initiative which is evident in all the policies of this government—which I am regularly referring to as 'the government for vested interests'. Of course, they would like to damage the self-managed super funds, because these are funds which are run by individuals, not by the major union and bank funds. The first consequence is you have a tax like this, which was briefed-out for the budget, but appears now in Budget Paper No. 2.</para>
<para>The second taxation change, which appeared in the last budget, in October, was the changes to franking. The franking changes, which the now government canvassed widely in 2019, are, again, very curious because it was the Labor Party which introduced imputation. An idea that had been around for some time was that it was a bad thing that people were going to be taxed twice, so they introduced this measure to avoid double taxation. Unfortunately, on this occasion, the two measures that the government proposed in last October's budget to change imputation are going to result in a new tax, effectively, because they will remove people's ability to receive franked dividends and avoid double taxation. But it is perhaps a clever measure that, after you have taken to an election a policy which was designed to remove people's ability to receive franked dividends. This policy—which is a breach of another election commitment—aims to switch off the franked dividends from the companies themselves.</para>
<para>We now have legislation before the economics committee which will remove a company's ability to pay a franked dividend when it is raising capital. There is a very broad test in this bill which basically says, 'Unless you have an established practice of paying dividends, you can't pay a dividend in any period.' Companies, by definition, need to raise capital. That's how companies work. They raise capital, that becomes the company's equity and that can be used for running the actual operation. Having in the law a test that is very difficult to manage and navigate means that companies will be less likely to raise equity capital, they will be more likely to raise debt in order to fund their operations or they may in fact look to go offshore. So, ultimately, this particular measure, which is designed to improve the budget balance by $10 million per annum, could actually result in a significant loss of revenue because companies will be less likely or less able to pay company income tax because their profits will be lower, and that will mean that there's a lower level of franked dividends available to the shareholders and the owners of the companies.</para>
<para>It was curious to hear the evidence given by the Treasury department on this bill. The Treasury department made it very clear that there was no activity in Australia's capital markets today that was giving rise to a need to regulate or impose a test as has been proposed in this legislation. Again, the test is that, if you have raised equity capital, you cannot pay a franked dividend. It is a very, very ugly test, I would say. Treasury gave evidence that there is no activity in today's capital markets that would require that sort of intervention. Treasury, I think, have also been concerned over the long term about imputation. I'm not sure whether they think that imputation is a good idea. So this may have been an idea that was pushed through into the government's first budget. We know now it was based on modelling or data from 2016 and, as a result of the motion yesterday, we should now be able to see the assumptions and the methodology which underpin that particular tax measure.</para>
<para>The last tax measure I will refer to briefly is the new tax on gaspers—cigarettes. A new tax is required across the board as we chart up to a projected 26.4 per cent of GDP in the medium term. That's quite a high tax-to-GDP ratio. There is everything from complicated measures on imputation through to new taxes on super and new taxes on cigarettes. That is the net result of the government's expansionary fiscal policy: you need to have more taxes.</para>
<para>On the spending side of the budget, we're looking at an additional $185 billion of expenditure since the election—$44 billion of new money in this budget. We're looking at an expansionary fiscal policy at a time when the central bank is trying to pull back on monetary policy, and that means that the arms and legs are not working in sync. The Reserve Bank is trying to rein-in inflation by using interest rate policy—it's raising interest rates—and the government is fuelling inflation by the budget massively expanding expenditure. That is ultimately the decision that the government have made. They have put in the budget papers that they think that they can cut inflation by 50 per cent over the next 12 months. I think that is an ambitious and laudable objective, but it is a great test now for the government. Can they get inflation down to 3¼ per cent? It's going to be very difficult when they're running an expansionary fiscal policy. I would have thought it would have been in everyone's interests if they were able to take the difficult decisions now and look to consolidate their position and remove stimulus from the economy. Ultimately, unless we can rein in inflation, we are going to have a major problem, particularly for low-income Australians.</para>
<para>Ultimately governments decide how they want to tax and how they want to spend. This government has made a very clear judgement that it will be increasing taxation through a range of these measures. I pointed out how some of these are going to be problematic. That is the threshold they have. They want to have higher taxes, and that will be their record.</para>
<para>They've also decided that they will, frankly, work against the central bank. The government has decided that it wants to work against the Reserve Bank. It wants to send its backbenchers out to whinge about Philip Lowe and say what a terrible person he is. Philip Lowe is doing his job, whereas Jim Chalmers refuses to do his job and refuses to fight inflation. That is the reality of the situation. The Australian people will not be passing judgement on Philip Lowe; they will be passing judgement on Jim Chalmers and Mr Albanese. And they will be looking at whether or not that 3¼ per cent inflation figure will be achieved. That is in the budget papers. We will look to hold the government to account to ensure that that is achieved, as much as possible. We don't set the government budget, but we will hold the government to account through these processes in the Senate. That is the position that I would like to leave you with now.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What we have in front of us is a motion that starts off with the line:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Labor government has delivered a budget that does not have a plan to tackle inflation …</para></quote>
<para>Well, we do have a plan to tackle inflation, a fully articulated one. There are pages and pages of description in the budget papers. It's all there to read. We've had various members in the lower house and in the Senate stand up and talk about the kinds of things that we're doing and the exact details of what we're doing. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it's not there. There is a serious issue with some of the scaremongering, spin and hoo-ha that goes on. There really is a lot of detail in those budget papers that goes through quite clearly exactly what it is we are intending to do and exactly what it is that we are doing to curb inflation.</para>
<para>Yesterday I stood in here and I spoke about the positive side, the upside, the relief side, the kinds of things that we are doing to help Australians across this country deal with what is a serious cost-of-living challenge. We saw it coming, and it's getting worse. It wasn't invented, as some around here would say, on 21 May last year, when Labor was elected. You cannot end up in the kind of situation we are in now in that space of time.</para>
<para>The housing crisis that we are seeing is significantly about housing stock and supply. Where is the housing? We have seen 10 years of the coalition government doing very little, seeing these challenges coming down the road and actively choosing to do nothing about it. We are now in a situation where the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is $10 billion—we've heard time and time again this afternoon that there is no detail. Well, there is a very lengthy explanatory memorandum. There is an awful lot of information, an awful lot of detail. Again, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't there. So take the time, read the EM, then maybe think about what $10 billion of investment would do for the people in this country who are struggling to find somewhere to live.</para>
<para>I have spoken in this place before about my story, my lived experience, of being in abject crisis. When I was three months pregnant, the doctors told me and my partner that our child was likely to be born with a disability. That was alarming. My partner then decided that he couldn't handle that, and he left. I then became unwell, and the doctor told me that I had to give up my job or I would not be able to keep my baby. I chose to keep my baby and lose the partner, and it was really hard. It was really, really hard. But what got me through those times were exactly the things we're talking about. The sole parent pension was my lifeline, and my Medicare card was my saviour. I had access to those payments when in the space of three short months I had gone from being very happy, being very comfortable, having a rosy future, to having nowhere to live. I was sleeping under the kitchen bench at a friend's house. So I get pretty wound up when I listen to some of the rubbish that has been spoken about in here this week.</para>
<para>A $10 billion investment in housing will help people like me at that point of their life—affordable housing, social housing, support for women fleeing domestic violence. We have to do something about the situation we are in. You may not like it. I'm sure that if the Libs, Nats or Greens were in government they would do something else, but they're not. This is our plan. This is the plan that we took to the Australian people, and the majority of them said: 'Yes, that looks like a good plan. We'll take that.' Here we are now, in this chamber, with no action happening. Everyone is filibustering, everyone is trying to avoid a debate and doing anything but bring on this bill. Is that because you are all afraid that if you vote it down the Australian people will actually be a bit pissed?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Grogan, we all hear the importance of the personal story you're bringing to the Senate, and it can be very emotive to speak in that way. I just ask that you respect the dignity of the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My apologies. I go back to how we got here. In part it's through 10 years of neglect in our energy system, 10 years of denying any form of energy transition—hiding under a rock, as far away from the rest of the world as we can get—and doing nothing on housing. We have to change. Something has to change. That's why the country voted out the previous government. It's time to just move on. We have to take action. We have to do something meaningful. We actually have to change what we're doing and how we're doing it, to respond to the situation we find ourselves in.</para>
<para>The war in Ukraine, that hideous war in Ukraine, has driven a tsunami across our supply chain. It has meant enormous increases in the prices of goods. It has impacted energy prices, food prices—you name it. We've seen so many challenges, and they've all come home to roost. We have to do something. The Albanese Labor government has set forward a budget—a sensible, responsible and balanced budget—that brings down the amount of interest we're paying on the hideous debt that we were left. That helps us over the long term. I think this is one of the issues that we're not really seeing come through here. The structural changes that we have made in this budget will make a fundamental difference to the ability of this country to respond to the situation we're in, to lower our debt, to lower our interest payments, to lower inflation and to lift the people in this country who need assistance.</para>
<para>We have significant ideological differences, and I think it's time to acknowledge and accept that and realise that us doing something you don't like is okay. Ideologically, the coalition are very much about the survival of the fittest, the primacy of the wealthy and the free market. And that's fine. The coalition have that view, but we have a slightly different view.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I didn't read that on my membership application, Senator Grogan—the primacy of the wealthy!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I may well have read it on your membership application form!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll call the senators to order. If you want to have a chat outside, please go ahead. But conversation across the chamber is disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We believe that the government should step in with targeted, strategic relief for those who need it. We want to make sure that we reduce the waste within the budget, that we look into every single crack and crevice to see how we can make sure that every single dollar of government spend is absolutely the right thing to do, that it is totally defensible and that integrity is critical. And that is what we're doing. Have we got to a point of saying, 'Yes, look, everything's fixed'? No, not at all. There is a long way to go. But the budget that Senator Bragg is talking about in this motion takes a significant step on that road to recovery to make a difference to those people who desperately need it, to make our economy stronger for the whole of the country, to impact every single Australian and to have a stronger, more sustainable economy, and that's exactly what we've done. Bearing in mind the differences we have, sometimes our way of doing it is because we're in government and your way of doing it is for when you're in government, and I'd just like to say that Labor is in government now. This is our plan, this is the plan that we took to the election and this is what the majority of the country voted for.</para>
<para>I'm going to go back to the inflation piece, just briefly, because I saw an interesting article this morning from someone who you wouldn't say was a close ally of the Labor Party or the Labor government, and that's Terry McCrann. In this morning's article, he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The budget is not going to increase inflation and force the Reserve Bank to whack us with more interest rate hikes.</para></quote>
<para>He then went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Yes, the RBA is likely to hike rates … But any such rate hikes will have nothing—and I mean, nothing, nada, zip—to do with the budget.</para></quote>
<para>He then goes on to say a whole range of other, entertaining things. But the point here—what I'm trying to get at—is we have a different ideological perspective and we need to just accept that.</para>
<para>Listening to the spin, the scaremongering and the bother is really frustrating. It is okay to just say, 'Well, we disagree with the approach you are taking but we get that this is an important thing that needs to get done.' And, while we are about it—I'll reference friends over here in the Greens party, because $10 billion is not enough in their world—$10 billion is enough for right now. If that is not enough, if the crisis increases and we find that isn't enough, we can do something else. But right here, right now, we have to do something about the housing crisis and the best thing to do right here, right now, is to pass the bill. The longer we drag this out, the more filibustering there is, the longer people have to wait, because you don't build a house overnight. It takes a while. So I would just plead with the people in this chamber to look deeper than the spin and the bother. What we're doing here with this budget is sensible, is responsible and is taking that first strategic and significant step to protect this country, to build the housing we need, to support the people who need it, and to strengthen and build our economy.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the outset, can I sincerely say that it was quite generous of spirit for Senator Grogan to share her own personal story with this chamber. I deeply respect that and I'm sure my fellow senators deeply respect that fact as well. Having said that, I have pulled out Terry McCrann's article.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres, Senator Grogan quoted from Terry McCrann, so what can I do but go to the oracle and see what other words he gave in this article? I checked the quotes that Senator Grogan attributed to him and I did find them there, so I acknowledge that. But he also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The biggest danger, the biggest risk to our future, setting aside the really big one—the climate cult lunacy … is a wages break-out chasing higher inflation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is no small thing, if these Dr Jim handouts can mute some of the wages pressure by directly reducing the published inflation rate—</para></quote>
<para>And I acknowledge that—</para>
<quote><para class="block">albeit only starting with the September quarter numbers published at the end of October.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That's actually pretty-to-profoundly important.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Those inflation numbers will immediately determine what the RBA does with rates at its November meeting on Cup Day.</para></quote>
<para>So I think we would do well to heed the whole of the message in Terry McCrann's article where he talks about the risk of a wages blowout and that feeding into an inflation cycle, where the dog is literally chasing its tail. I think that is a point that Terry McCrann made very well.</para>
<para>I also accept Senator Grogan's proposition that there is a philosophical difference between those sitting on that side of the chamber and those sitting on this side of the chamber. I wouldn't put it in the terms that Senator Grogan used. I think we are both parties of government. Despite the Greens' protestations that those on the other side of the chamber are a centre-right party, I don't see them as a centre-right party, I must say. I see them as a centre-left party, a social democratic party, a party with a long tradition of activism and philosophy along those lines, and I see my own party as being a centre-right party.</para>
<para>The key philosophical difference from my perspective is the role of government in our society and the freedom, as we would say, of individuals to pursue their own dreams, their own aspirations, with a minimum of government intervention, thereby creating wealth and prosperity which thereby provides for everyone in Australia. By giving an opportunity to everyone in our community to pursue their aspirations and dreams, we thereby create wealth and prosperity, which enables us to do some of the laudable things which have been done in this last budget. Without that investment, without that job creation, without that return on capital, we simply do not have the funds as a society to help those who need support. That's the point from our perspective, and I think that is one of the fundamental differences between those on this side of the chamber and those on the other side of the chamber.</para>
<para>In looking at the budget, I'll be quite frank and open about my biggest concern. This budget was dependent upon rivers of gold flowing in from the mining industry, the oil and gas industry, personal income tax receipts and company tax receipts. What is going to happen when those receipts fall away? That is my concern, because all of the laudable social spending helping the less advantaged in our community depends upon those tax receipts. If you turn to Budget Paper No. 1, you see page 168 talks about the importance those tax collections. Let me refer to page 168:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Tax collections for 2022-23 continue to be higher-than-anticipated … Tax receipts to March 2023 are $13.0 billion higher-than-expected at the October Budget.</para></quote>
<para>Just in that short period of time, tax receipts have increased by $13 billion. What happens as unemployment increases, as the cost of living, which is also a cost of doing business, becomes more and more difficult for businesses to navigate, they start laying people off and people go from paying tax to claiming JobSeeker benefits? That's the question. How sustainable is the spending which has been cooked into the budget over the forward estimates?</para>
<para>The tax receipts outlook on page 169 says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Relative to the October Budget, tax receipts are forecast to be $42.0 billion … higher in 2023-24 …</para></quote>
<para>The budget is assuming that tax receipts are going to be 7.3 per cent higher in 2023-24 than was forecast in the October budget and also $134.8 billion, or 4.5 per cent, higher over the five years from 2022-23 to 2026-27. This budget is totally dependent upon increasing tax receipts. That's a fundamental assumption of this budget.</para>
<para>Page 169 also says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Company tax has been revised up by $28.9 billion in 2023-24 and $52.7 billion over the 5 years from 2022-23 to 2026-27.</para></quote>
<para>Again, the forecast is that tax receipts are going to keep going up. That's my concern because, when I'm talking to small, medium and, in particular, larger businesses, they're telling me that, in some cases, small businesses have started to shut their doors because it's simply becoming too difficult to keep their doors open and they're looking for a way to a transition out. At the larger end of the sector, with the big mining, oil and gas companies, they're telling me they're looking overseas. That's what is really concerning me, that, if you have those big mega projects—the $5 billion projects; the $10 billion projects—instead of those projects being constructed, for example, in Western Australia or in Queensland, they go to Mexico or Vietnam or somewhere that doesn't have the current safeguard mechanism that makes it more difficult and problematic for companies to carry on business here. They go to jurisdictions where perhaps they won't face the prospect of taxes being changed after they've already built their project on certain assumptions and then have the ground shift under their feet when the government decides to change the tax system. It profoundly concerns me that, when I'm talking to people—including in my old industry, the mining industry—they're telling me that they're seeing sovereign risk in this country. And it's not just coming from the federal government; it's also coming from the state governments.</para>
<para>In my home state of Queensland, the Queensland government shamelessly increased royalties on mining companies in Queensland—just shamelessly increased royalties. That sends a message to investors that companies don't have to invest here; they have a choice. With respect to greenfield projects, they have a choice. I have a dollar of capital. Do I invest it in Australia, or do I invest it in the US, Canada, South America, Africa or Asia? They have choices. My concern is that this budget is being supported by projects that were constructed and are being built under the investment regime that Australia had over many years and that that investment environment is deteriorating from the perspective of those who make investment decisions. They're the ones making the investment decisions. They will compare whether or not they should be investing their capital in Australia, Mexico, the United States, Canada, Vietnam or wherever else it is. They have choices.</para>
<para>I've often given the example in this place of the oil and gas industry. I lived and worked in Papua New Guinea for over two years, and I had a lot of clients in the mining, oil and gas industry. Three kilometres north of Australia, at the closest land point, a company can choose to invest in their new oil and gas project in Papua New Guinea instead of Australia. They can go to Papua New Guinea and enter into a long-term fiscal stability agreement. In terms of risk, they can decide the length of time it takes to get approvals. Even if you're doing the right thing, they can decide that they're going to invest their dollar in Papua New Guinea instead of Australia. That's wonderful for Papua New Guinea—absolutely—and I care deeply about our Pacific neighbours, our family in the Pacific. It's great news for Papua New Guinea. But those companies will make choices with respect to the allocation of their capital.</para>
<para>I want to make another point in terms of this debate. There is a philosophical difference. I've risen in this place to speak against the National Reconstruction Fund. I spoke against it. Why? Because I don't believe in the usual course, unless there are incredibly extenuating circumstances—and I think Defence is an example—that governments should be taking equity positions in any business. I think it is a perilous thing to do. Once a government is a shareholder in a business, it has responsibilities over and beyond what a common shareholder has because of its very nature. There will be stakeholders approaching the government for that investment, putting forward their story as to why it's a good idea for the government to invest in those businesses, but what happens when it goes pear-shaped? What is the government going to do if it's a minority shareholder in a business that has cashflow problems? If that business needs urgent equity injections, the government is practically on the hook because of the political pressures. That might be a good thing, depending on how you look at it. From my perspective, I would much rather see a situation, as occurred under the coalition government, where, if a grant injection is needed for a company to buy a piece of equipment to modernise et cetera, it's done in that way rather than the government becoming an equity holder in a business. I think it raises all sorts of issues, and I think we will see that play out over the next few years.</para>
<para>It is recognised by the Department of Finance that those risks are there. The Department of Finance is setting up a special team to look at those risks and try to manage those risks. I think the Department of Finance is right to do so, but I really do caution it. I've been involved in companies with government shareholders. Typically, governments are unable—for all the reasons we know—to move quickly and act quickly, and I'm deeply concerned that the government is not going to get the return it expects to get on that $15 billion of investment. I think it could be extremely disappointed, but I do at least commend the Department of Finance. Page 115 of Budget Paper No. 1 notes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to effective, efficient, and transparent management of its assets and will establish a new centralised oversight function for investment vehicles within the Department of Finance.</para></quote>
<para>I will certainly be looking very closely at the investments which are made in those companies and those corporate entities, and at what return taxpayers are getting for that investment. I do hope that there is a transparent reporting with respect to those investments because the Parliamentary Budget Office has previously raised the issue of opacity in terms of these sorts of investment vehicles and what it means for the budget.</para>
<para>I commend Senator Bragg's comments in relation to the changes which are being made to the utilisation of credits. I am concerned about how the legislation which Treasury put out for consultation earlier this year in relation to equity-raising and utilisation of franking credits is going to work in practice. It is absolutely correct what Bragg said—typically, companies like to pay dividends on a sustainable basis across the years, but during the same time they will go to shareholders and raise equity. The concern is to what extent the ATO and the government will say, 'You're able to pay dividends only because you've raised that equity.' But that is common practice in the listed public company space in Australia. That's something I'll be watching very carefully.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I share Senator Scarr's view in many respects. We do come at this from a different place, but many of us in this chamber, including Senator Scarr, have a strong view that we need to get the balance right. When you're preparing, drafting and presenting a budget, there are a number of tests. One of those tests is important because of what Treasury is saying about the veracity and the capacity of the budget, and what the forecasts are. When you look at this particular budget, you see the incredibly important aspect is that the Treasury has noted that the cost-of-living package, for example, is expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. That goes to the heart of the discussion that has been put by those opposite, and this proposition that has been put forward by Senator Bragg. It's the independent advice and the governing advice for the country that's making comment about what should be happening, what will be happening and what's the desirability of us getting a budget right. They've hit the nail on the head.</para>
<para>We understand that for all of us here, and many Australians—and some feel it more than others—the cost-of-living package is an incredibly important aspect of the way that we approach the present pressures that on Australians at the moment. We should not only be looking at the package to get that balance right—because it is a task to get the balance right, deal with inflation and set up ourselves, our kids and their kids appropriately for the future—but also making sure that we get the appropriate support to our community. We've seen that in so many respects in regard to this budget, whether it be in pharmaceutical support, the tripling of the rebate for Medicare, or a number of important issues from 1 July with child care and early childhood education. Those aspects also have a productivity boost.</para>
<para>There is fee-free TAFE and that program's ambition for the coming budget period. We have the desire to say to so many of our young and those wishing to retrain that there is a future here and to say to our industries that there is a capacity to actually invest. What wasn't happening under the previous government was a package that actually delivered an outcome that said there was certainty about both trained and able staff being able to come in and do the work that needed to be done to make sure that we had productive, efficient and ongoing confidence in the performance of businesses and how they run their operations.</para>
<para>What's also critically important is what others say about the budget. It seems to me that probably the most important point of question time was that, in one narrow way, what was relied on by those saying that the budget wasn't up to scratch—in dealing with many of those issues that Senator Scarr and Senator Bragg raised before—was quotes from Westpac's Bill Evans. They were talking about Bill Evans's and Westpac's view with regard to the budget. I'll repeat this, because it was said earlier in the chamber. Mr Evans said, 'I think these policies were necessary'—again, going to these very important issues of how we make sure that we have proper safety nets for our community and proper productivity investment so that parents who require early childhood education and child care for their children and who would otherwise be at home have the capacity to go and work.</para>
<para>The skills area is also important, in getting the capacity to go out and make sure that we have a more skilled and agile workforce—not only a retrained workforce but also, critically, hope amongst the workforce and individuals within our communities that they will be able to get jobs. So Evans said, 'I think those policies were necessary, and I don't expect them to put upward pressure on interest rates in the near term.' This is a whole house of cards, from what those opposite have been saying. Those opposite are relying on comments by Bill Evans from Westpac, but, when you read Bill Evans's comments, they actually endorse the trajectory of getting that balance right.</para>
<para>So many more economists did the exact same thing and said that this is a projected opportunity for us to get the balance right not only to deal with inflation but also to put an incredibly important package forward to make sure that we give support to the most needy whilst also using that opportunity to take the pressure off the cost of living and invest in the right places—jobs, skills and training; and, from 1 July, child care and early childhood education.</para>
<para>Of course, when we start saying where those important areas are for us to be investing in, we're talking about our social infrastructure, which is critically important to the country. It's mums and dads, our parents and our kids out there who we are making sure are secure. It's our next-door neighbours. It's our brothers and sisters. It's our new Australians. It's our First Nations Australians. It's everybody. When we're talking about investing in social capital in the Australian community, it's everybody.</para>
<para>Part of that program is about looking at those important areas of how we also reduce costs, such as, of course, in the area of energy. This is a critical area to put downward pressure on those increases. What we've seen from those opposite is that they've done the direct opposite. The 'no-alition' is actually voting against putting downward pressure on energy, and we'll see what flippant comments come from them tonight, which we've certainly seen so far from those opposite, as comments have been passed with regard to this budget. I'm not including Senator Scarr because he had a thoughtful proposition about it being wrong, saying, 'It's not the right direction.' He's holding his ideological view, and I respect that. But, when you get the independent advice, it says the opposite of what Senator Scarr is saying. It's saying the opposite of what those on the opposite side have been saying. Of course, when you start looking at some of the issues like the 15 per cent wage increase for aged-care workers—a critically important part of the social infrastructure to make sure that our mums and dads, our grandads and grandmums, and all of us into the future get that service and protection—that is the social capital that we need.</para>
<para>Even the conservative commentary from <inline font-style="italic">The </inline><inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> is saying we're getting it right. The only people saying we aren't getting it right are those opposite. Whatever we do, they think that we should be doing 20 to 50 per cent less. And then, on our left, we have the Greens, whatever we do, saying we need to do 20 to 50 per cent more, so there is another reference about how right we are getting it. We're getting the balance right, as evidenced by that independent commentary, and even by the commentary coming from those with an opposite view on many of the initiatives we have taken to this budget. When we start looking at those questions about getting it right, it does go to that critical question of cost of living.</para>
<para>Cost of living is a substantially critical issue now and it will always be. The way to deal with cost of living is by making sure that we get wages right. We have had over a decade the previous government's intentional strategy to suppress wages—intentional wage decline. Every proposition we put forward to deal with the cost-of-living challenges that everyday Australians have now—the inflation problems that were unleashed under the previous government—those opposite turn around and oppose. We put forward proposals to have better, more secure jobs. We put forward proposals about a fair bargaining system. We put forward a proposal, which is always the real killer on this argument, and those opposite opposed it, which says it to a T.</para>
<para>Whatever your ideology is, this is the practical consequence of an ideology. When you turn around and say the poorest people in the country don't deserve a dollar-an-hour wage increase, you have just nailed your ideology to the wall for everyone to take pot shots at, because every ordinary, decent Australian in this country—I shouldn't say 'every', because there are a few on the opposite side in the Senate—would say that is a fair dinkum thing. I will tell you what, I'm confident that even on the opposite side there are some who reckon it is a fair dinkum thing, too.</para>
<para>When you start looking at what changes will come in the future, we have a proposition about how we deal with issues like wage theft. Decent companies put their energy into skilling their workforce to a more productive company. They work with their workforce and, heaven forbid—I will even say it—with their union representatives, duly elected, in tripartism to try and make a better system going forward.</para>
<para>Whether it be aviation or any other industry, we are dealing with companies that carry out wage theft, the ones that take the low road, the ones that turn around and decide that the best option for them is not to do better, not to build a better work community, not to build a better society, not to lead the way, but to pull the rug out from underneath hardworking Australians and the community they should be serving. And yes, they should be serving their working community and serving the broader community. And, yes, you can do that, and I can name umpteen companies that do that, that make a profit and a very handsome profit indeed, because they know how to generate decent wages for a productive workforce through good engagement—not without argument and sometimes even conflict, because sometimes having an argument across the chamber can come up with a better result—but simple opposition for opposition political point scoring does not get a better outcome for any of us.</para>
<para>We will see a whole series of propositions put forward this year to deal with the critical issue of wage theft. What I would really like to see from those opposite, when we talk about cost of living, is in relation to people working in casual jobs—an important area of the economy, an important option people do have—as permanents without job security, so companies can force them without a bargaining position, when labour hire companies are engaged and created by the same company that has agreements with its own workforce to undermine the workforce, such as BHP and Qantas. You have to start turning around and asking, 'Are you going to be fair dinkum and deal with the cost of living?'</para>
<para>When I've gone to the cost-of-living Senate inquiry, we have talked about raising the issue with the retailers that are amongst the biggest employers in this country, asking: 'What is your strategy to deal with cost of living with your workforce? How are you going to pay them more? Here are examples of things that are going wrong within your system. Answer that. Give us some evidence. Tell us about how you are going to deal with it.' That applies to some of the scoundrels like Aldi in particular. To see those in the chairs opposite at the Senate inquiry turning around and defending those companies is nothing but shameful.</para>
<para>What too many of them on the opposite side don't understand is that, when you start talking about industry plans, industry isn't the person who's the CEO of the company and a few well-paid executives. It is them, but it is more than that. It's all the people from the top—the person cleaning the bathroom—right down to the bottom—the CEO. It is everybody in the system that makes that a successful business. The employers that approach it that way, with that sense of justice and sense of humility, are the ones that succeed.</para>
<para>What they on the opposite side can't do when we talk about industry policy, whether it be the aviation industry or other industries, is understand it. So when we start talking about 'same job, same pay' that is an issue about opportunity rather than having companies gaming the system, rather than taking the Alan Joyce and Qantas board strategy of wiping out decent wages and conditions and job security. An industry that attracted people now has to find people because of the strategy that they adopted and that those opposite only encouraged when they were in government. When you encourage that in government and allow it to prosper, you see other companies following the exact same strategy. We saw that through the job security inquiry.</para>
<para>For those few who listen in to parliament or to question time, when you hear comments from Jack and Fred or whoever from the opposition, go to the job security inquiry and hear from the dozens upon dozens of people who were abused and abused under the previous government's policies.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The biggest economic issue facing the country is clearly the out-of-control inflation rate we are experiencing right now. The government's budget does not put even one ounce of effort into tackling or trying to reduce the rate of inflation in this country. While that is the topic of this motion and it is obviously a statement I have made, you don't need to spend a lot of time arguing about whether or not the budget is inflationary or deflationary or going to add to the cost-of-living crisis we are facing; you just need to go and have a look at the numbers. You just need to look at the numbers in the budget, because the budget does tell you whether or not the government is increasing spending or decreasing spending. Simply, if it's increasing government spending, that is going to add to inflationary pressures in the economy because there'll be more demand for goods and services and not necessarily any more production of goods and services. That is the set definition of how we get inflation. That table is not very well promoted in the government's budget, obviously. They are not very proud of the results of these facts and figures.</para>
<para>For those listening and playing at home, if you pull up Budget Paper No. 1, available on budget.gov.au, and go to page 94 and table 3.2—it's the most interesting and probably should be the most discussed table in every budget; you can compare it to different years, which I will come back to—it shows you how much government spending is increasing in net terms due to government decisions. So it's not because of economic activity or unemployment going up or down or commodity prices affecting the budget. All it does is try to isolate the impacts to the economy of what the government has done this week and over the last few months leading up to the budget. There is a line in table 3.2 which says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Total policy decisions impact on underlying cash balance.</para></quote>
<para>Now, cash balance is just our overall balance, and a negative number in that line means that things are getting worse, that our cash balance is deteriorating, or, in other words, that government spending in net terms is going up. So that line in that table shows that the government's impact on spending is deteriorating the budget to the tune of $20.6 billion over the five years of the budget. That is $20.6 billion of extra cash going into the economy.</para>
<para>So let's forget all the spin. We don't have to refer—or I might, if I get time, refer—to some economists who have had their say. They might be right or wrong. Different economists will say different things, of course, but the simple facts, in the government's own figures in its own budget, are that it will be adding $20.6 billion to the Australian economy through its decisions over the past few months and through its budget this week, and that is going to be inflationary. And why is it going to be inflationary? It's a lot of money, for a start. I think we could all say that it's a lot of money, but it's also a significant amount of money in comparison to what has taken place in previous budgets. As I said, this table is a common table in all budgets. All modern budgets have this table identifying what the policy impact of a government's budget is.</para>
<para>Quite often I'm here late with not much to do. The other night I went through and had a look at this table in every budget for the last 15-odd years, since 2007-08. Putting aside the COVID years, this stimulatory amount is the largest we have seen since the global financial crisis. Obviously, the COVID years were pretty special. In fact, the year of the coronavirus, that figure wasn't $20.6 billion; it was $233 billion. No doubt that's one of the reasons we're in this cost-of-living crisis, but very few of us opposed that level of stimulus at the time. In fact, the Labor Party, if they were in government, would have wanted to spend more, but we all recognised that, because we had to lock down because we had a pandemic, the government had to support the economy. Now we're left with this, the hangover of an inflationary crisis. Yet, being out of a pandemic, having no recession and having very strong economic growth otherwise, the government still has put more money into the economy than we've ever seen in a budget since the global financial crisis.</para>
<para>Back in the 2009-10 budget, which was trying to respond to that financial crisis, when the banking system in the US, and in Europe too, was collapsing and housing prices were under stress, the equivalent table showed that the Rudd government put $29.5 billion into the economy, a figure not that dissimilar to what we saw this week. Notwithstanding all of the Rudd government's waste on pink batts, school halls and other calamities, they at least had the excuse of trying to fight a global recession. That's why they put that money in, and it was a sensible thing to do to try to stimulate the economy. How they went about it was just unfortunate, but they were at least going in the right direction.</para>
<para>This week the government is going in completely the opposite direction given what our economy is calling for. To put it in context, apart from the COVID years and the GFC, in other years the next biggest stimulation was the $14.9 billion in 2018-19. So this amount of $21 billion is a very significant amount of extra government spending in a situation where inflation is already at seven per cent. I think it was Mr Chris Richardson who mentioned this the other day, but it was one of the economists commentating who said that the rule of thumb is that every $6 billion the government adds to the economy is another quarter per cent of interest rates. By that rule of thumb, this budget is potentially adding 75 basis points onto the interest rates that families are already suffering under, so that will be to the tune of $300 or $400 extra a month for families already suffering on higher mortgage payments.</para>
<para>This budget now won't be judged this week. It won't be judged tonight in the reply. It won't be judged in the polls that we see over the next few weeks. It'll be judged in the next six months to a year when we see whether the government's massively expansionary budget has actually caused the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates further and made things tougher for Australian families—exactly the wrong recipe. It's such a big amount of spending. I'm being fair to the government; I'm using the net impact of spending. Their actual total increase in spending is $42 billion, but they are netting that off with various tax increases, but they're nowhere near fully funding those increases in spending, so we're left with the $21 billion.</para>
<para>Now, admittedly, it's over five years. I was just on the ABC, and, when I raised the point about the $21 billion being the biggest since the GFC and COVID, a Labor senator, Senator Chisholm, tried to say: 'No, it's over five years. The money is spread out over those five years, so it won't be that expansionary.' That was a complete lie. That was completely wrong. Again, in that table, it's helpfully broken down by year, and so, if you look at that row that I mentioned, of that $21 billion in extra spending, $13 billion comes in either this financial year or next financial year, exactly at the time we're having this high inflation. This is a massively expansionary budget. It is adding fuel to the inflation fire. It's putting a huge amount of petrol on a fire that's already out of control. It reminds me of that scene in <inline font-style="italic">Zoolander</inline>, when they're having that petrol fight and they're all throwing petrol on each other and having a great time. We're all having a great time right now; the economy's going strong! Murray Watt's over there with the hose, spraying the Treasurer; the Treasurer is spraying Katy Gallagher, and they're all having a great time—until someone lights a match and it all blows up. This budget is a powder keg waiting to blow up, because it's adding fuel to a fire that's already raging through our economy and through Australian households.</para>
<para>It's also instructive to go and look at where this money is being spent and what it's doing. If I draw a comparison to the Rudd government stimulus, at least that stimulus was largely in temporary programs—temporary programs that ended up being complete dogs. But at least the pink batts program and the school halls program had an end date. It was called Building the Education Revolution. Did we have a revolution? Do we remember? Anyway, I'm getting distracted. But Building the Education Revolution always had an end date, so, even if it was overly stimulatory, it was going to ease itself out of the economy. The problem with this budget is that, when you go to the chapter on spending, the big increase in the government's spending is in social security and welfare. Defence spending stays about the same. Health spending actually falls a touch in the next financial year. Very few other items have significant changes in spending, except for social security and welfare. The problem with that is that this isn't a temporary scheme or a one-off subsidy. Whether it's the increases in the JobSeeker rate or the expansion to the single parenting payment, these will be locked into the budget now. They'll be structural changes to the budget, which will make our clearly quite large structural deficit permanent and ongoing.</para>
<para>Again, I wonder what the strategy here is, from an economic point of view, in responding to the inflation crisis we have. I've just found the figures here. Social security and welfare will cost us $226 billion this year. It's by far the biggest single function or expense function of the budget, and it's due to grow, in just one financial year, from $226 billion to $250 billion. That's 10 per cent growth in one year. Then it's going to grow another $13 billion the year after that, another $14 billion the year after that and then just shy of $11 billion the year after that. They're locking in and baking in a massive expansion of our welfare program. That's in the context of their estimates being that our economy will have pretty strong employment and therefore won't necessarily be paying out welfare to a lot of people. If those assumptions change, those figures will easily grow to over $300 billion a year in spending. Again, this is not a very well-formed response to the crisis we have right now.</para>
<para>The other major economic crisis we have that the government should—and I would hope—respond to at the moment is our shocking productivity performance. We've actually now got lower productivity than we had before coronavirus. We've had pretty stagnant growth for the last 20 years, along with almost all other Western countries, but in the last few years we've actually fallen. We're producing less with the same amount of labour and capital, and that actually adds to inflation too. These issues are somewhat separate—productivity and inflation—but they are also, in a way, connected because, as the Reserve Bank governor said, if we can increase our productivity performance and produce more goods, that'll soak up the excess money supply that we clearly have right now post COVID and help reduce inflationary pressures in the broader economy. So it should be a major goal of any Australian government that wants to respond to the inflation crisis we have to increase our productivity, to have certain policies and plans to do that. It's a very difficult thing to do. There's no particular lever the government can pull, but they could try. But there's not even an attempt here, in this budget, to do that. Certainly, expanding welfare spending is not going to do that. Investing in dams or major roads, attracting new investment, reducing regulation and red tape—those sorts of things could help increase productivity. But the government has cut funding for dams and the government has put in massive amounts of new regulation on our energy sector, including price caps, which is going back to the failed policies of the 1970s. None of their policies that I can see are doing anything to help our productivity performance and, therefore, also make the job of the Reserve Bank governor easier.</para>
<para>The big problem in this budget is that Philip Lowe had a tough job—somewhat of his own making, but that is spilt milk—before Tuesday and he's got an even tougher job now. I do wonder if Mr Lowe actually had a bit of a hint of what was coming this week, because he did shock a lot of Australians. He certainly shocked the markets and shocked the business community with his decision to raise interest rates earlier this month. I'm sure he speaks to people here in this place who would have had a bit of knowledge about the overall macroeconomic situation of the budget and where it was going to go, and maybe he was getting ahead of the curve here by raising interest rates in an unexpected way. That might just be the first of the interest rates we can blame on the government's ill-timed and ill-thought-through massive expansion of government spending. But there may be more to come, because this is a pattern, unfortunately, for the Australian Labor Party. There are not the likes of Paul Keating or—I've forgotten their finance minister's name in the eighties. There are not those sorts of giants there anymore.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Peter Walsh.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Scarr. There's no-one around that cabinet table that seems to be able to say no. Let's face it: Senator Gallagher is a nice person, but I can't see her intimidating anybody around the Expenditure Review Committee, with all respect. Again, Jim, he's a hail-fellow-well-met sort of fellow. He doesn't inspire confidence that he's got any guts and a ticker to say no and to make tough decisions. They're just kicking the can down the road. They're addicted to spending your money. The Australian Labor Party are just addicted to it. They think it's their money. They tax you. They raised taxes in this budget by $20 billion. They spend another $40 billion, and then they have the gall to say they're fighting inflation. Their own figures damn them. They are totally misreading the Australian economy. They are wasting your money, they are taxing you more and they are doing nothing to help you pay your bills and get the cost of living down.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 17:13 to 20: 15</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUDGET</title>
        <page.no>1999</page.no>
        <type>BUDGET</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Statements and Documents</title>
          <page.no>1999</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to table the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech and have it incorporated in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">INTRODUCTION</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Thank you, Mr Speaker.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On Tuesday night, the Treasurer spoke for 30 minutes about our country's future.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians listened intently in the hope that the promised cost-of-living relief would be delivered.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It wasn't—and millions of Australians have every right to be disappointed with this Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I've been around parliament for over two decades.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sometimes, the most important thing about a Budget speech is not what the Treasurer says, it's what he doesn't say and tries to keep hidden in the Budget Papers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Here are five things the Treasurer failed to mention which are important to all Australians:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. 10 million Australians who earn under $126,000 will face a tax hike and around 175,000 more Australians will be unemployed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. Millions of middle Australians—the backbone of our country—are worse off. This Government is spending an additional $185 billion, yet middle- income Australians won't receive one cent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3. Amidst a housing and rental crisis, our migration numbers will increase massively by 1.5 million people over five years—the highest number in our country's history and more than the population of Adelaide. Without addressing housing supply and infrastructure, where will these people live?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4. Your power bills are still going up by more than $500.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5. As a result of the Government's policies, inflation will only stay higher for longer, continuing to grind down real incomes of households.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Just as Labor withholds the truth, it also breaks its promises.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the last 12 months, this Government has broken 12 promises to the Australian people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Above all, it promised Australians would be better off…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It promised cheaper mortgages…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It promised no changes to your super…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It promised that your taxes wouldn't increase but that your real wages would…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It promised a nurse in aged care homes 24/7…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And it promised a $275 dollar cut to your power bill on 97 occasions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Labor will say anything to get into power. Once in government, they do the opposite.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Tonight, the Coalition remains focused on strengthening the economy…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Making sure that our hard-working middle class can get ahead and do not become Labor's working poor…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And keeping Australia safe and secure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Good economic management and managing budgets is important to the Coalition and to your family.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Not as an end in itself, but because it can pay for outcomes that help people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We want to help those in need.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We want to give people choices in their own lives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We believe in lower taxes to allow Australians who work hard to keep more of their own money.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's budget is no different to the budget of your family or small business.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I hate seeing families hurting under Labor's mismanagement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Families working hard, but barely keeping their heads above water.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It was like this when I was growing up and Labor was in power.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Dad—a bricklayer—and Mum—a day care mum—worked incredibly hard.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They didn't have much money.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I remember the difficult conversations around our dinner table as we pored over the family budget trying to find ways to pay the next bills and cut back expenses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Every dollar mattered. And it does again today.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Today, millions of Australians—in their homes and businesses—are having similar conversations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The only money the Government earns is from taxes paid by you.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That money needs to be spent wisely.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has benefited from the last nine years of Coalition strong economic management.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The books they inherited had the lowest unemployment rate in almost 50 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We created almost 2 million jobs over nine years. We bequeathed interest rates at historic lows.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Of course, Labor has also benefited from company tax receipts and the revenue generated from soaring coal, gas and other mining commodities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's a sector they give little support to publicly, but a sector from which they're always willing to spend the benefits.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Given the revenues from mining and tax receipts in this Budget, there should be a surplus next year as well.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But, as we move further away from the Coalition years, this Budget projects that the economic numbers increasingly deteriorate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There's more spending than the Government earns.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And that's exactly what always gets Labor governments into trouble.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We don't need 10,000 more public servants in Canberra on top of the already 181,000 public servants.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We don't need Labor's truckie tax, because transport companies will pass it on in higher prices paid by you.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We don't need inflationary spending.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But we do need more spending in aged care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And we support the Budget measures in aged care—which build on the $30 billion we invested in government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians who have worked hard, raised a family and paid taxes deserve a dignified and respectful life as they age.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The aged care system has been under strain for decades and we support the additional investment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's incredibly important—given the increasing need—to take care of elderly Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For example, those diagnosed earlier in life with dementia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Like many Australians, I know only too well the terrible impacts of such diseases on beloved family members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Aged care funding is not a magic pudding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A respectful, dignified, world-class aged care system is only funded by residents or taxpayers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I want to work with the Government to ensure that our aged care system remains sustainable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am a person of my word.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And, as I stated in my last Budget in Reply, we support sustainable funding in the NDIS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Budget shows the Government reducing NDIS spending growth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And I call on the Government to outline how this will be achieved.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">NDIS participants and their families deserve to know.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We live in the best country in the world.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But at the moment, millions of Australians are hurting and have been forgotten by this Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They're feeling the pain of the cost-of-living crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As well as the Government's energy policy crisis—which is just driving electricity and gas bills higher and higher every day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Budget, despite the Government's energy polices, your electricity bill is still going up by more than $500.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Yet, you were promised on 97 occasions by this Prime Minister they would go down by $275.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I would love to see a copy of anyone's power bill that's gone down by $275 since Mr Albanese made that promise.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Moreover, Labor promised that the average household's power bills would be around $1,200 in 2024-25.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Based on forecasts in the Budget, they will be in excess of $2,000 per annum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians thought there was help on the way in this Budget.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But a family with children—and a mortgage—is $25,000 worse off under Labor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Very few Australians can say they are better off today than they were 12 months ago when Labor was elected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">RESPONSE TO BUDGET MEASURES</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As I said in my Budget Reply last year, we will support good policy and stand against bad policy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the October Budget, we supported several of the Government's measures.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We've also provided bipartisan support on the AUKUS security deal.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And we've supported almost 70 pieces of legislation since Labor formed Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Budget, we also support several measures: Increasing bulk-billing incentives…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Expanding the Parenting Payment…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And the additional investment in women's safety and implementation of the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children—which builds on the $3.5 billion the Coalition invested in women's safety initiatives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COST-OF-LIVING AND INFLATION</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians give new governments the benefit of the doubt.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But think of how hard Labor has made things after just one year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians around our country are grappling with mounting costs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Your mortgage repayments, gas and electricity bills, supermarket and petrol station receipts, and insurance premiums are the evidence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The number of businesses which have gone into insolvency have almost doubled in a year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And the problem is Labor's inflation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At 7 per cent, it's well above the 2 to 3 per cent target.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">International factors feed into inflation—like the war in Ukraine—but the main ingredient is the domestic factors.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If domestic inflation wasn't a factor, Australia's inflation would be comparable across like economies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But it's not.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At 6.6 per cent, Australia's core inflation—the best measure of inflation—is higher than every G7 nation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has taken decisions—and avoided others—which has made inflation higher than it needs to be.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It often happens when Labor is in power because they can't manage money.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Labor recklessly spends, carelessly cuts and inadequately saves.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When you hear the Government constantly blaming Putin's invasion for inflation, they are being deceptive.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's inflation woes are of Labor's own making. Inflation is coming from Canberra.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And Labor's big spending Budget will only fuel inflation and make life harder for millions of Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As soon as they were released from the Budget lockup, economist after economist stepped-up to the microphone.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They warned Australians that this big spending Budget was going to make the Reserve Bank's job even harder.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaking on the Reserve Bank lifting interest rates, respected economist Chris Richardson said:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"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."</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Government spending will increase by a staggering $185 billion over five years compared to our last Budget. The Treasurer's cost-of-living relief is only temporary.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That temporary relief is targeted at Australians on welfare but at the expense of the many including Labor's working poor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's a band-aid now, but much more pain later.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And the Government's spending is only going to fuel the nation's inflation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Budget is a missed opportunity at economic structural reform and building a stronger economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">IMMIGRATION AND HOUSING</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Government's Big Australia approach will make the cost-of-living crisis and inflation worse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We all support a well-planned migration program—and that's the history of Coalition governments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But over five years, net overseas migration will see our population increase by 1.5 million people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's the biggest migration surge in our country's history and it's occurring amidst a housing and rental crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians are struggling to rent or purchase a property now.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation estimates that 138,000 homes will be built in Australia in 2024, falling well short of current demand.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And the Government is now proposing to bring in almost 6,000 people per week, which will make a bad situation worse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Cities, towns and suburbs are already choked with congestion.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Yet in this Budget—as it did in the last—the Government is cutting infrastructure spending already announced.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And it will take the axe to the Coalition's $120 billion dollar infrastructure pipeline which was designed to bust congestion.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Coalition Government will sensibly manage migration—as we have done in the past—in conjunction with proper infrastructure planning.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Tonight, I affirm our policy commitment to allow Australians to use their super to buy their first home—a policy which will particularly support young people and separated women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Because the best way to empower Australians—to make them masters of their fate—is through home ownership.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ENERGY</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Only a Coalition Government can reduce power prices because we have the track record.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under the last two years of the Coalition Government, electricity prices went down by 8 per cent for households—that's a drop of $128 a year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In those two years, power costs also went down by 10 per cent for small businesses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Minister Bowen was the worst performer in multiple portfolios during the Rudd and Gillard Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As Energy Minister today, his policies are driving your electricity and gas prices higher and higher.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On the 1st of July, power prices are set to rise by up to 33 per cent for almost 250,000 small businesses and 1.6 million households.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If you think you're paying a lot now, you're only going to pay more.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Labor clearly has us on the wrong energy path.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians deserve a much more honest, more sensible, and less emotional discussion on energy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Because energy is crucial to our national success and security.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Three weeks ago, I visited SAFCOL in South Australia. Tonight, in the gallery, is the CEO of SAFCOL, Mr Andrew Mitchell.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's a great business, founded in 1945.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Today, they're one of our biggest manufacturers of baby food.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They also produce packaged food like soups, stocks and sauces which stock our supermarket shelves.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SAFCOL purchases millions-of-dollars' worth of produce from farmers every year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We want businesses like SAFCOL to grow, to employ more Australians, and to export to the world.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In January, SAFCOL's electricity bill went up by 120 per cent—it more than doubled.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With inflation driving up their costs, our food prices then go up.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And that's exactly what is happening in supermarkets right now.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If companies shut-up shop on our shores and go elsewhere because of Labor's energy crisis, we lose jobs, money and industries.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And global emissions will go up—not down.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In that scenario, no one wins.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Labor is being deceptive with its energy policy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The scientific reality is that we must firm-up the energy grid when renewable energy is unreliable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The latest battery technology installed in Adelaide—at a cost of $180 million—lasts for one hour.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">So, whether you have 50, 75 or 100 per cent renewable energy, you still have the fixed cost of firming.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To distribute renewable energy, more than $100 billion will need to be spent on 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These poles and wires will run through farming land, national parks and suburbs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Aside from the huge environmental impact of this roll- out, every dollar spent will be passed onto you in the form of higher electricity bills.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We want to see emissions go down.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Indeed, between 2013 and 2021, the Coalition Government cut Australia's emissions by 17 per cent while growing the economy and creating jobs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Next generation, small modular nuclear technologies are safe, reliable, cost effective, can be plugged into existing grids where we have turned-off coal, and emit zero emissions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the 21st century, any sensible government must consider small modular nuclear as part of the energy mix.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Thirty-two countries—including Canada, China, France, the United States and the United Kingdom—use zero emission nuclear power today, including to firm-up renewables.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Fifty countries are exploring or investing in next- generation nuclear technology.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Oddly, Labor is happy for similar technologies to power our future submarines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But it refuses to consider the benefits of onshore small and micro modular reactors.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With the Government against coal and nuclear, gas remains the only viable firming power.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Yet Labor wants gas gone too. It's undermining gas at every turn.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With interventions in the market with price fixing…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">By funding activists to wage lawfare against new gas supply ventures…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In introducing a new carbon tax—three times more than Julia Gillard's…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In pushing to electrify homes and businesses despite the exorbitant cost for families…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And by increasing taxes on offshore gas and oil projects in this Budget.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Coalition Government will get more gas into the domestic system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">What matters is what works.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">TAXATION</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The key indicator that a government can't manage money, is that it comes after yours.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On the eve of Easter, Labor axed the former Coalition's low-and-middle income tax offset.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Around 10 million Australians earning under $126,000 will now be up to $1,500 worse off.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Labor has abandoned the Coalition's tax cap of 23.9 per cent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will restore the cap.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Compared to our last Budget, over the next five years, the tax paid by Australians will increase by more than</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$300 billion.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Budget, Labor has slugged our farmers with a new $153 million dollar tax.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They will be forced to unfairly pay for the risks of international importers—especially at a time when our farmers and producers are facing more uncertainty with rising input costs and workforce shortages.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This tax will be passed onto Australians in the form of higher prices at the supermarket.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Instead of taxing Australian farmers, tonight I announce the Coalition will establish an importer container levy—as recommended by the independent Craik Biosecurity review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under a Coalition Government, Australian farmers will not be punished for the biosecurity risk others pose.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Labor has been silent on its promise to keep stage 3 of the Coalition's legislated tax plan in full.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our tax cuts will see 95 per cent of Australian workers keep at least 70 cents in every dollar they earn.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With about 400 days before the tax cuts take effect, there's time enough for Labor to break another promise.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Budget, Labor has doubled the tax on Australians who have worked hard, sacrificed and saved to invest in their super.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This move will affect millions of Australians over coming years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Including more than 2 million Australians under the age of 25 earning an average wage during their life.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Government thinks your super is their money.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This tax is an attack on Australians who have worked hard and saved to support themselves and their families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It undermines the fundamentals of our tax system in taxing unrealised capital gains.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Imagine your small business, your farm, or another asset will support your retirement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under Labor, you will pay tax on those things before you sell them, impacting your cash flow.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To those who have welcomed this tax, a word of caution:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Being spared by the Labor tax shark today doesn't mean you won't be on its menu tomorrow.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If Labor can't keep its promise to leave your super alone, any super tax cap will not be set in stone.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Taxation is the killer of aspiration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The working individual supports themselves, their family, community, fellow Australians and our country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">People should be rewarded for their hard work by keeping more of what they earn so they don't become the new working poor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The more you keep from what you earn, the less you're dependent on the state.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And the more freedom and choice you have to realise your aspirations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Be it studying, travelling, educating children, starting a business, owning a home, or retiring comfortably.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Your money is your money—not the government's.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under a Coalition Government I lead, your taxes will always be lower.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">BETTER MENTAL AND WOMEN'S HEALTH</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Good government prioritises the health of all Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As Health Minister, I increased GP training places by 25 per cent to improve access to the family doctor and I established the $20 billion-dollar Medical Research Future Fund.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To date, 903 research projects have been funded into Alzheimer's and many other diseases.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">During the Coalition's nine years in government, we listed more than 2,900 new and amended medicines—worth $16.5 billion—on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We support the Government's decision in this Budget to fund new medicines and general practice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But there are many areas—two in particular—which Labor are not prioritising.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">First, is mental health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Coalition increased the number of Medicare- subsidised psychological sessions from 10 to 20.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Labor dropped it back to 10 sessions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will restore the 20 sessions and subsidise them on a permanent basis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I want an Australia where we support Australians who are unwell—not an Australia which leaves them behind.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And this is critical in the area of mental health. Secondly, in the area of women's health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Coalition has a proud record in committing funding for endometriosis, stillbirths, breast cancer and ovarian cancer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Tonight, I confirm our commitment of investing $4 million to Ovarian Cancer Australia after they were forgotten by this Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition, I announce a Coalition Government will allocate $5 million to review women-specific health items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule and corresponding treatments on the PBS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The review will identify what best-practice women specific medical services are not listed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And ensure clinically-effective services and treatments are affordable and accessible for conditions such as endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's about determining where additional funding is required to better support women's health and well- being.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Better access to quality care for women specific pain conditions will improve women's quality-of-life and economic and social participation for hundreds-of- thousands of Australian women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A SAFER AND BETTER SOCIETY</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As health will be a priority for a future Coalition Government, so too will community safety.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will again fund the highly successful Safer Communities Fund.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This program supported at-risk communities across the nation and assisted multi-cultural communities to protect places of worship.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a police officer, I attended my first domestic violence incident aged 19, and countless others over my decade- long career.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From that time, I committed myself to protecting women and children from violence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As Home Affairs Minister, I funded and opened the $70 million-dollar Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation which has removed more than 500 children from harm.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Tonight, I announce that a Coalition Government will industrialise our law enforcement and intelligence strike capabilities against sexual predators online and in our communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will double the size of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I use this opportunity tonight to again call on the Prime Minister to hold a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And I reaffirm our commitment to re-instating the Cashless Debit Card in communities who seek to have it, so that welfare payments can be spent on food for kids—not alcohol and drugs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Its removal by this Government has led to increasing violence, particularly domestic violence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Coalition Government will impose more onerous obligations on big digital companies to stop scams and financial fraud.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Particularly to protect elderly Australians who deserve dignity and respect after a life of work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If the internet influences our children, so does content on our television screens.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In our country, footy time is family time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But the bombardment of betting ads takes the joy out of televised sports.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Worse, they are changing the culture of our country in a bad way and normalising gambling at a young age.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Many Australian families have had enough. That's why, tonight, I announce that a Coalition</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Government will move to ban sports betting advertising during the broadcasting of games.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ads would be banned for an hour each side of a sporting game.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I encourage the Prime Minister to work with us on this initiative—to get it implemented now.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">JOBSEEKER</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The best way to ensure Australians are getting ahead will always be a job.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This has been the guiding principle of Liberal governments dating back to that of our founder, Robert Menzies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Jobs change lives, families and communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia has achieved what was thought impossible in the dark days of COVID:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our unemployment rate hit a record 50 year low and has had a 3 in front of it for more than a year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The labour market remains very tight with over 438,000 job vacancies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After Labor's much hyped Jobs and Skills Summit—and the establishment of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee—there is nothing in this Budget to reduce barriers to work and get Australians into those vacancies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There are over 840,000 Jobseeker recipients of which more than 75 per cent had no reported earnings—that is, no part-time work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Which is why the Coalition would have thought, before increasing the base rate in this tight labour market, the Government could have instead increased how much people can earn before their welfare payment is impacted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Increasing how much people can earn, before their benefits are reduced, incentivises job seekers to take-up opportunities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It supports many small and medium-sized businesses across the country which are crying out for workers and have been left stranded by this Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If Labor had made this change, a job seeker picking up some extra shifts and taking home $300 a fortnight could still have retained the full Jobseeker allowance.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is not dissimilar to the Age Pension and Veterans Work Bonus increase I announced last year—which the Government was forced to begrudgingly adopt.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will support expanding eligibility for assistance for single parents—which Labor cut.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In recognition of the workforce barriers single parents and over 55-year-olds can face, we will support the Government's assistance for these people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We also support the increase to rental assistance—that is directly linked to rent paid.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">DEFENCE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As acknowledged by both the Government and our defence and intelligence experts, we're living in the most precarious period since the Second World War.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Yet the Government hasn't committed any new money to Defence in this Budget.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Instead, under the cover of Anzac Day, Labor chose to make cuts to our Army.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Labor's reduced our Infantry Fighting Vehicles by 2/3<inline font-style="italic">[rds]</inline> and made cuts to the self-propelled howitzer program.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This leaves our troops and our new strike forces more vulnerable and lowers morale.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Such decisions are also a big blow to Australia's defence industry, local jobs and global export opportunities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In an increasingly uncertain world, it makes sense to invest in key defence capabilities to keep Australians safe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have always been prepared to make hard decisions in our national interest.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And under a government I lead, we will support—not undermine—the men and women of the Australian Defence Force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">CONCLUSION</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr Speaker…</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians will be disappointed with the Albanese Government's second Budget which adds to inflation and cost-of-living pressures.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Budget hurts working Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Worse, it risks creating a generation of working poor Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will restore economic responsibility—by balancing the budget; getting debt, deficit and inflation down; and doing much needed structural reform.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will lower your taxes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will bring back smaller government which stops interfering in your life and telling you how to live it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will pursue sensible policy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And unlike Labor which shows favouritism to the few, we will govern for all Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We're just shy of the first anniversary of this Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And I leave Australians with this question:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Are you better off than you were 12 months ago? You deserve a far better government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And that's exactly what you will get under a Coalition Government I lead.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Everyone's a winner in Treasurer Chalmers's budget. At least that's what Treasurer Chalmers will tell you. The Treasurer himself is certainly a winner. His budget windfall victory is one which is largely driven by luck, but many expect, as I do, that his luck will be short-lived. Following the budget release, if you believe the rhetoric, you might also believe that maybe you're a winner, unless you understand that inflation is a tax. That's what it is. It is a tax that does not require legislation. It is a tax that hurts the most vulnerable. Inflation is not driven exclusively by consumer spending. Government spending also drives inflation. They promise to spend around $185 billion more of your money. The RBA's money printing obviously drives inflation, and government debt accumulation also drives inflation. Inflation raids all of our pockets. Like a thief in the night, it makes us all a little poorer every single time. The trouble with politics nowadays is that all the incentives are upside down. We have created a system whereby, over time, politicians are rewarded not for what they achieve, as they should be. Instead, they are rewarded for how much they spend. Politicians know that they will rarely be judged based on the outcome of their actions and are all too often tempted to announce a big spend, knowing that the return may not be there for hardworking taxpayers. Our politicians, unfortunately, find it much too easy to spend other people's money.</para>
<para>Treasurer Chalmers had an opportunity to cut spending and to post a large surplus and repay debt. Instead, Labor continues to frivolously spend taxpayer funds. They are paying $450 million to our nation's largest industrial businesses to reduce emissions. There is an additional $200 million for the war in Ukraine, and there is $360 million for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Those are just a couple of examples. We congratulate the Treasurer on projecting a budget surplus for 2022-23. This is something that, obviously, every single government should aspire to do. Our challenge for the government is this: produce back-to-back surpluses. Can they post a budget surplus in 2023-24, I wonder? Probably not. The other victory for the Australian people in this budget is a lower projected federal debt. That is a good thing for our country, of course. We urge the government to make a concerted effort to repay debt, because low debt is a youth policy. Higher debt means higher taxes for our kids.</para>
<para>I think our Treasurer is the luckiest Treasurer in history. He's pocketed an unexpected windfall that, on the surface, makes him look rather competent. Low unemployment, higher-than-expected commodity prices and high inflation have boosted the Treasurer's bottom line. Our farmers and our miners unfortunately don't get any thanks from the government, but it is these hardworking Australians who produce our minerals and our food and create real economic value. The blood, sweat and tears feed and literally clothe us. Do you know what our regional industries they do? They sustain us and they build our cities.</para>
<para>The hidden, but very painful, tax of bracket creep is another key driver of the Treasurer's windfall. Bracket creep occurs when wage growth forces employees into a higher tax bracket. The brackets are fixed, and they do not increase in line with the cost of living and wages. Without the indexing of tax brackets, we all end up with less money in our pockets and the tax revenue received by the government obviously balloons. I urge the Treasurer to not only pass on the legislated stage 3 tax cuts but also consider indexing our tax brackets to alleviate the silent theft of bracket creep.</para>
<para>Many Australians are going to get $500 or so towards their energy bills. The government feels the need to hand out cash to help everyday Australians keep the lights on, but it then assures us that it has nothing to do with our forced transition to expensive and unreliable renewables. Of course, we beg to differ. Green energy policies are impacting family budgets. The government also has the audacity to claim that this measure will temper inflation. How does handing out money to people temper inflation?</para>
<para>There are no tough decisions in the budget. Courage, it seems, is not the Treasurer's strong point. Unions are happy, globalists are happy, 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—large problems often created by the very government that chooses to ignore them.</para>
<para>Average families are forgotten. They are the forgotten people in our nation. It wasn't that long ago that a single income family could own a home, go on an annual holiday and buy a new car every few years or so. Those days are gone. They are over. But there are many things that government can do to ease the cost-of-living pressures—for example, income-splitting. It is such a simple policy that would yield incredible results for Australian families. Imagine this: a family comprising one primary income earner and one stay-at-home parent. What if they were able to split their incomes for tax purposes? For example, a household with one party earning $100,000 a year currently pays roughly $23,000 of income tax. If they were able to split their income with their spouse, the combined tax they would pay reduces to around $13,000. That's around $10,000 of their money back in their pockets to spend as they wish. Treasurer Chalmers, this is the kind of family friendly tax reform our nation needs.</para>
<para>The solution to our nation's headwinds is not more spending or a bigger government; the solution is cutting red and green tape, removing barriers for business and promoting entrepreneurial attitudes. We must grow the pie so that everyone can eat, not just hand a slice of pie to a select few.</para>
<para>In the United Australia Party, we believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, entrepreneurship, free-market capitalism and family. We will continue to hold the Treasurer to account. He has said that he plans to remake capitalism, and we know what that means. That means more socialism, which has failed and will continue to fail everywhere. It has been tried.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>2007</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>PricewaterhouseCoopers</title>
          <page.no>2007</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this evening to speak about the appalling misuse of confidential government information by auditing and assurance company PwC. In response to questions I asked in February at Senate estimates, and further questions I've put on notice to the Tax Practitioners Board, there's now a cache of emails that gives shape to an undeniable scheme of theft and deception undertaken by PwC, designed to cost the Australian people and profit PricewaterhouseCoopers. The deception was designed and known by at least 53 as yet largely unidentified partners and participants in the PwC email chain. References in Singapore, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States and Europe appear throughout the correspondence and it's clear this is an issue with global implications.</para>
<para>There has been extensive discussion in past days in the community, and in the financial sector, about the immense and far-reaching implications of this misconduct by partners at the pinnacle of PwC's partnership hierarchy. Mr Peter-John Collins has been banned from practice by the Tax Practitioners Board for two years. Mr Tom Seymour has stepped down as PwC Australia's CEO but remains a senior partner at PwC. Mr Peter Calleja, head of financial advisory division, and Mr Sean Gregory, chief of strategy and risk and reputation officer, have stepped down as board members but remain partners at PwC. Acting CEO, Kristin Stubbins, has not released a media statement to the public. We do not know if she is one of the blacked-out recipients of the now-public and shocking email chain. There has been no reveal of the identities of any of the people whose names are currently blacked out in the documents we have.</para>
<para>Claims have been made by PwC about the appointment of an independent inquiry, but there is no public document revealing the terms of reference of the inquiry. And the independence, or otherwise, of the inquirers, appointed by PwC to inquire into themselves, is completely unknown. With trust in PwC at an all-time low, you'd think they would have figured out that such an inquiry is not to be trusted when it is self-appointed.</para>
<para>Given the impact of this situation for every Australian who has superannuation, it's not surprising that over recent days my office has been inundated by emails and letters from Australian citizens and key stakeholders deeply concerned about the recent revelations regarding PwC. Many told me that they had never written to a politician before but felt, due to the seriousness of this issue, they simply must communicate. Amidst the extensive coverage of this issue, I seek tonight to share the voices of a number of concerned Australian citizens, some with tangential connections to the assurance industry, who know deception when they see it. Others with deep and informed understanding of this sector, who abide by the professional standards—people who do abide by those standards are there—so clearly spell out the standard of behaviour that is required to be an accountant, auditor or tax practitioner, and they know those standards have been breached.</para>
<para>Here are some voices from the Australian people who've been in touch with me this week: 'The actions of PwC are an outrage. This particular white-collar crime has helped the privileged to even more wealth, illegally. The opportunity cost to the Australian public of that money they acquired, and saved their clients in tax avoidance, would have done immeasurable good in improvements to health, education and infrastructure, potentially. Keep going after these unscrupulous bottom-feeders who have taken advantage of their privileged position to advance themselves. It's pure greed at the expense of the collective interests of the Australian public.'</para>
<para>Another fine Australian wrote to me, saying: 'As someone who used to work at PwC, I want to thank you for your efforts in bringing their terrible behaviour to light. I encourage you to keep digging. I left because of bullying from my boss. After I reported it I was encouraged to take stress leave while there was zero accountability for her. In fact, I think she got promoted. There are so many who have been damaged by working at PwC. They truly seem untouchable, which is why your efforts mean so much.'</para>
<para>Another citizen wrote: 'I have worked in multinational service companies, and the arrogance of some of these companies and the arrogance of some of these executives is staggering. Some would truly drink their own bathwater.' Another wrote: 'It is evident that the firm is trying to wriggle out of an ethical and professional morass in which many of its personnel appear to be involved. There is only one way for a client of the firm, be they government or private clients, to have any confidence in the firm going forward: the bad apples need to go and the firm needs to suffer.' Another wrote: 'I personally don't think apologies and scapegoat resignations are enough. Yet again, white-collar crime has minimal impact on the perpetrators or the industry which promotes their behaviour. It will only check itself when publicly exposed or embarrassed.' And there are more. I hope to get their voices on the record as we continue our investigations into what happened at PwC.</para>
<para>Some of my Senate colleagues have called for this matter to be referred to other bodies for further investigation, and that may yet occur. Any and all future action on this PwC matter needs, however, to be based on facts and detailed information, and any proposed action needs to be given due consideration. That's what responsible governments do. Chasing headlines for a day will not fix this problem. Knee-jerk reactions rarely manifest lasting reforms that have integrity. Irrespective of calls for action and what further developments there may be in terms of potential pursuit of criminal charges or investigation through the National Anti-Corruption Commission or, indeed, by professional bodies that supposedly oversee the sector in a self-regulatory model, there is a task for the Senate to undertake to further reveal the underbelly of the sector that is now a matter of public record.</para>
<para>I use Joseph Conrad's words from his remarkable novel <inline font-style="italic">Heart of Darkness</inline> to express my personal response to what I have seen of this PwC scheme in these documents I have in hand here. There are 144 pages of communications across the globe inside PwC, with bits and pieces blacked out. There's still no transparency about who was involved from PwC. When a company thinks it's okay to steal from the government of a country, what does this mean for the multinational companies, the Australian companies and the small and medium enterprises that they are supposedly servicing? What does it mean in terms of the integrity of the advice they are receiving? What does it mean for us as holders of superannuation about the truth that they are supposedly assuring with their reporting of what's going on in the companies of this country?</para>
<para>I assure you, those Australians who are listening to the broadcast tonight and those who read of this in the newspapers in Australia or overseas, that this is a matter I will continue to prosecute here with my colleagues in the Senate to bring light to the darkness and change the cultural realities that have been revealed.</para>
<para>We need to propose thoughtful, substantive and impactful recommendations to government and other entities for the change that is necessary. Misconduct of this nature cannot occur within the assurance sector. For the Australian people's economic security, assurance companies in a healthy economy must be trusted actors. Section 30.10 of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 establishes the legislated code for registered tax practitioners. The code sets out the professional and ethical standards required of registered tax practitioners. There is no mystery here. There are five categories, covering 14 principles: honesty and integrity; independence; confidentiality; competence; and other responsibilities. They had a manual, clear and explicit, to follow. They had a professional obligation. They did not accede to any of those standards and, instead, set up their own scheme for profit. Requirements are clear, but many at PwC have failed the test. The PwC cultural reveal is an issue which deserves far more than kneejerk reactions and snappy headlines. I intend to continue to pursue this issue through the Senate in the same reasonable and deliberative manner which originally brought these issues to light. I seek the support of my colleagues in doing that on behalf of the Australian people and for transparency in the financial markets of this country. I hope for the same determination from all my Senate colleagues. This is exactly the type of work that we were elected to do, and it's what we must do in this important place at the heart of our democracy.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind honourable senators that legislation committees will meet to consider estimates commencing on Monday 22 May 2023 at 9.00 am.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 20:35</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>