2023-06-14 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 14 June 2023

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

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

Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Firstly, I want to commend Senator Duniam on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. What it's seeking to do is provide some transparency on the market prices that impact upon Australians' costs of living, indeed, in relation to their electricity bills. This is a critical and vital thing if we're going to actually drive down electricity prices, because Australians are paying through the nose right now. There is nothing that's occurring within the energy market that is actually driving costs down. Simply putting a cap on prices is only putting an artificial limit, and it's actually going to drive up prices further. On that side, they're even saying that the steps that this government has taken are going to cause a reduction in Australia's electricity prices. But what we know is that they're not having the effect that the government said they would. We know that that's true; people just need to look at their electricity bills. They're going up and up and up and up, and there's no prediction for them to go down in any noticeable way in the future. This is a big problem because Australians are facing significant pressures when it comes to their costs of living. Of course, energy is a major driver of that. The cost of electricity is a major driver of the increased costs of living. Whether Australians are getting and paying their power bills every month, every second month or every three months, depending on which provider they're with, they are seeing an increase every time they open their bills. It also impacts business. It impacts, for example, our grocery chains, which have to run fridges to keep our food cool. That's then passed on to the price of groceries, which each of us pays when we get our grocery bill at the check-out. We're seeing these increased costs of living every day, and Australians are struggling to make ends meet. I met just recently someone in the southern suburbs of Perth who earns $115,000 a year—and that's a reasonable salary; it's above the average salary—and they were saying that they are struggling. This person is a single mother with two children and a pretty reasonable, average mortgage—nothing extravagant. They are struggling to make ends meet. They said the only thing they could see in their budget every month that they could cut was their Netflix subscription. This is a dramatic shift that's happening in people's lives. The cost of living is a major problem Australians are facing. This bill seeks to provide one measure that could be put in place to provide some transparency over the input costs that are impacting people's energy bills. It's one way that we could address the cost of living. I encourage the government to seriously look at this fantastic private senator's bill that Senator Duniam has put forward. It goes a long way, a not insignificant way, to helping to bring down the cost of living by providing some transparency to, by shedding some light on, an issue that Australians are facing, and that is of course the increased costs of energy. We on this side know that nothing this government is doing—there was nothing in the bills it has brought forward already and there was certainly nothing in the budget—actually deals with the structural problems that we've got within our energy market right now. Just providing subsidies that go to certain households is not going to fix the issue in the years to come. 09:07 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland The Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023 should be a no-brainer. It really should be a no-brainer and it should actually receive support from all sides of the chamber. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why Australian customers should not be able to access a single point of truth with respect to electricity prices in the current environment. There is absolutely no reason. The Productivity Commission is well placed to undertake this task. Something very similar is done with respect to petrol prices, and I commend all those at the ACCC who undertake that work with respect to petrol prices. The Productivity Commission also looks at petrol prices. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why the Productivity Commission can't undertake this task to make sure there's a single point of truth with respect to electricity prices. We should make it as simple as possible for Australians to access key information with respect to one of their major cost-of-living items. We should make it as simple as possible for them, and that's what this bill does. I want to provide some commentary with respect to the context of this debate. It appears that every time you open a newspaper you see more and more bad news with respect to the cost of electricity. I want to walk through a number of articles that have appeared in my home state's lead newspaper the Courier Mail. On 25 May 2023 Matthew Killoran and Madura McCormack wrote an article entitled 'Price shock: QLDers hit with even higher power bill increases than expected', which reads: Electricity prices in Queensland are set to rise by an average of $350, with a 21.5 per cent hike kicking off on July 1. Queenslanders are set to cop an average of a $350 power price rise within weeks—almost $30 more than forecast just two months ago. …   …   … A Queenslander in the southeast on the default market offer, the maximum retail electricity fee, will be paying $1969 a year for their electricity— nearly $2,000 for their electricity bill each year. It's astonishing that a country such as ours is in this place. With the abundance of energy resources available to governments at all levels, how did we get to the place where an average household is paying nearly $2,000 a year for electricity? It's astonishing. The article said: The AER said increased coal and gas prices, lower reliability of coal generators— that particularly pertains to my home state of Queensland, where the Callide C generator is still in the process of being repaired— and the closure of Liddell Power Station in NSW in April were among the reasons for the price rise. When the coal-fired power stations are shut down, the prices go up. The prices are going up, and average Australians, average working families in Australia, are suffering as a result. It's nearly $2,000 for a household to pay their electricity bill. It's astonishing. How did we get here? How did we get to this position? Then there is the position of small businesses. The article said: Small businesses in southeast Queensland will be looking at an average price rise of $756, taking their annual bill to $4202. That's over $4,000, approaching $5,000, for an average small business in south-east Queensland, an increase of $756. How much do you have to sell in terms of goods and services to make up that additional cost? How many coffees do you have to sell? How many meals do you have to sell? How many goods do you have to sell? This is at the same time as small businesses are being hit with inflationary pressures. They are copping it from every which way. Every which way they are copping it. The retail electricity customers in my home state of Queensland, in the south-east corner, are paying nearly $2,000 a year for household electricity prices. So they have less money in their pockets to spend with those small businesses that are battling the average price rise of $756. It is actually a pending disaster for the Australian economy and the wellbeing of many Australian families. I visited a wonderful not-for-profit organisation in Ipswich, which is in the federal seat of Blair, where my office is located. I spoke to the wonderful team there at Ipswich Assist, one of the two food banks in that area. Their clear message to me was that they have been seeing a cost-of-living crisis reflected in the people coming through their door seeking access to food, toiletries and all the basic necessities of life. They are seeing people who they have never seen before, including families where there is someone in employment but they are struggling to pay the bills due to higher interest rates, higher rents, higher electricity prices and higher grocery prices. This is the cost-of-living reality at the coalface in Australian suburbs. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Jason Budden and his team at Ipswich Assist. They're a wonderful group of volunteers and they do amazing work in our community. But we in this place need to do our bit to do everything we can do to address this cost-of-living crisis. One of the ways in which we can do that is by considering this bill and what it seeks to do. With transparency, with the sharing of knowledge with respect to what is happening with electricity prices, comes accountability. You need the information to hold people to account. Every Australian retail electricity consumer has the right to a single point of truth with respect to what is happening with respect to prices. I want to make a few points with respect to the bill. Before I do that, I genuinely want to compliment Senator Duniam for putting forward this private member's bill. This is what we as senators should all be doing: considering how each and every one of us can take advantage of every opportunity at our disposal to try to make the lives of the people we represent easier, not harder. I think this bill does exactly that. At the moment there are a disparate range of sources people can access to try to find out what is happening in terms of their electricity prices. But the problem is that there isn't a single point of truth. There are the AEMC's residential electricity price trends document and AEMO's online dashboard. There are also the Australian Energy Regulator's Energy Made Easy site and the Victorian government's Victorian Energy Compare site as well as various webpages and products of organisations such as Canstar Blue, iSelect, Finder and Compare the Market. But there isn't a single source of truth—a single place where all Australian retail electricity customers can go to find out what is actually happening with respect to electricity prices. That information needs to be provided, and the Productivity Commission is the perfect vehicle to actually deliver that information and provide it in an efficient and effective way. As I've said, this is about access to information and this is about transparency, but it's also about accountability. Before the last federal election, the then opposition leader, Mr Albanese, made the promise 97 times that Australian households' power bills would be reduced by $275 annually. That promise was made 97 times in the lead-up to the last federal election. I come back to that article in the Courier Mail from 25 May 2023—just about the first anniversary of the election of the Albanese government—'Price shock: QLDers hit with even higher power bill increases than expected': Queenslanders are set to cop an average of a $350 power price rise within weeks … Instead of going down $275, it's going up $350. That's just in one year. The same is actually happening in regional Queensland. I quote an article from the Courier on 9 June 2023: Regional Queenslanders will bear the brunt of the nation's soaring power prices following a ruling that will hike their bills almost 30 per cent. The jump follows increases of up to 25 per cent in the state's southeast … … The rise from July 1 will add $429 a year, or 28.7 per cent for Ergon Energy customers, taking the average annual household bill to $1926 … That's $350 a year in the south-east and $429 a year in regional Queensland. Instead of going down by $275, as was promised by the now Albanese government when Mr Albanese was in opposition, the bills are actually going up. They're going the wrong way, and this is after just one year. I commend Senator Duniam with respect to this private senator's bill. We need to provide a single source of truth to electricity consumers. There needs to be transparency and there needs to be accountability—accountability which should be linked back to the promise that was made by Mr Albanese 97 times when he was in opposition to reduce household energy bills by $275 a year. That was the promise made. There should be a vehicle to hold the government to account with respect to its broken promise, and this private senator's bill provides exactly that. 09:18 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Transparency, accountability and better outcomes for Australians are what Senator Duniam's private senator's bill promises to deliver. Undoubtedly the cost of living is going through the roof, and a large part of that is the increase in our energy prices, particularly for electricity. In fact, to say that they're going through the roof is an understatement. That is how bad things are getting, and they're only going to get worse. Despite the now Albanese Labor government promising 97 times before the 2022 federal election that they would reduce power bills by $275, we've seen the exact opposite. Under Anthony Albanese's leadership, power bills have gone through the roof. But this is really no surprise, is it, when their key energy policies under a best-case scenario will increase power bills and under a worst-case scenario will destroy Australia's energy security. Take, for example, their disastrous Rewiring the Nation plan, which seeks to run poles and wires across the country for which they are currently providing under the budget measure—the non-budget measure, I should say—$20 billion in concessional loans. Not only will it fail to help Australia reduce energy emissions, but it will burden taxpayers for decades to come with significantly higher unnecessary debt, it will weaken supply and system security, and it will increase energy prices. On top of that, to make the cost-of-living disaster that Australians are feeling right now worse, those prices also flow through in the cost of all goods that are made with that energy. We saw yesterday, with the farmers who were here in Parliament House, that new transmission projects are facing increased opposition from communities in regional Victoria and other areas. For example, the VNI West project, currently planned at $3.3 billion, has already encountered local protests. A KPMG report suggests that a lack of social licence could cause transmission projects to rise by as much as 40 per cent. And here I will commend the great work of Professor Simon Bartlett and Professor Bruce Mountain, who are arguing that not only are the projected costs wrong, but that the routes they are taking are still not nailed down. In recent years major transmission projects in Australia have experienced significant cost blowouts, raising concerns about the effectiveness of large-scale transmission projects in decarbonising the energy sector. For example, and as I said before, the cost of VNI West, which was initially estimated at $1.6 billion four years ago, this year has risen to $3.3 billion, and the previous estimate, which was only two months prior to that, was $2.9 billion—an increase of 10 per cent. It is unclear what the final cost of the project will be, especially given the potential for construction contingencies over the next decade. Unfortunately, VNI West is not alone in experiencing cost overloads. Other major transmission projects, including Project EnergyConnect, HumeLink and Marinus Link, have seen significant increases in cost estimates since 2018. These projects have experienced cost increases of 50 per cent, 190 per cent and 250 per cent respectively. Collectively, the cost of these projects, according to Professor Bartlett, has increased by 140 per cent in just four years, with an average annual increase of 25 per cent. Now, voters are waking up to the fact that a large portion of their electricity bill is made up by what is called a supply charge. Any of you listening at home, turn over your electricity bill and, on the back, you'll see that line 'supply charge'. I know on my bill it's currently $1.60 a day. That is only going to go up significantly over the life of the projects. Sometimes that supply charge is overlooked by consumers, despite the fact that a significant portion of that bill goes towards funding the transmission and distribution infrastructure that transports electricity from generators to the market. Now, a quick history lesson from my great home state of Victoria. Sir John Monash built the State Electricity Commission. When he designed that, being the great engineer he was, he realised that the fuel needed to generate electricity in Victoria was coal down in the Latrobe Valley. He decided to build the generation there and transmit it up to Melbourne, where the load or the demand was. We don't need to do that anymore. The fuel is everywhere. Sunshine is everywhere. Rooftop solar is dominating the market and is only going to increase and can increase a lot further. So the business case for running poles and wires across our country is disappearing day by day. Certainly, in Victoria, to build the VNI West purely to save the investments of foreign investors who built the 'rhombus of regret' is unconscionable. Why are people building this? Companies like Transgrid that are building VNI West get a regulated return on their assets because they're monopolies, and they're regulated by the Australian Energy Regulator, the AER, which sets a rate of return on that asset base that is for the life of those projects—20, 30, 40 years. So not only is the taxpayer underwriting this, with the government planning to invest $20 billion in the construction of tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines; the total asset base of these companies is likely to range between $100 billion and $200 billion extra. Some transmission is cheaper than others, but the generally accepted cost is $9 million per kilometre for a 550 kVA transmission line. Just imagine tens of thousands of kilometres times $9 million. That's going to be on the back of your energy bill or on your grocery bill. If the government plans to go ahead with these ludicrous projects, Australians deserve, at the very least, transparency, accountability and basic information about what's going to be on their power bills. Accountability and transparency are lacking right now in Victoria, with Premier Andrews and Minister D'Ambrosio ramming through VNI West—no transparency, no accountability. That is what Senator Duniam's sensible private senator's bill promises to deliver, with more information more regularly. It will also allow governments to better respond to changes in the energy market, and, in the current economic environment, that is more important than ever. A recent report in the journal Nature Energy showed that up to 140 million extra people could be tipped into extreme poverty worldwide by an energy crisis that has sent prices soaring. The authors of the report said higher energy costs flow through to virtually all other goods and services people required because energy was an essential input for most economic activities and that the indirect costs tended to be even higher in overall terms. I raise this to highlight how important energy price policy is and to show why we must have better reporting mechanisms. The core objective underpinning this bill is that it would require the Productivity Commission to compile quarterly reports on retail electricity prices, as well as the sources from which electricity is being generated, for each state and territory, and would require the relevant minister to table these reports in parliament. This is hardly new or controversial. The NDIS provides quarterly reports to the disability ministers, with information including statistics about participants in each jurisdiction and the funding or provision of supports by the NDIA in each jurisdiction. Approved aged-care providers are required to submit a quarterly financial report to the Department of Health and Aged Care to enable the department to track, monitor and benchmark the sector. It also provides information for the star rating system, to help senior Australians make informed choices, and it helps with policy, planning and development. The Clean Energy Regulator provides quarterly reports on Australia's carbon market. So we see that, in almost every space of government, agencies and departments provide quarterly reports on a range of different areas to improve policymaking, increase transparency and support Australians through greater access to information. There is clearly a glaring gap that exists in Australia when it comes to reporting and transparency on energy, and that void is exactly what this bill aims to fill. It makes no sense that we would require departments and agencies to compile reports in almost every aspect of Australian life but not energy prices. While a substantially broader variety of data about energy generation, pricing and usage has been made available to Australians over the past decade or so, through projects like Dr Dylan McConnell's Open-NEM, there still isn't a single source or a single report that Australians can see regularly at a glance. This is something as simple as a full national snapshot of current and past retail electricity prices. The Australian Energy Regulator has revealed draft electricity price increases of between 20 and 22 per cent over the coming financial year, while Victorian consumers can expect a 30 per cent price surge. This is all despite, as I said earlier, the Albanese Labor government's promise to reduce power bills by $275. We know now that the Prime Minister either lied about that or made up the modelling due to a lack of reporting data, and still isn't being held to account. If this bill is passed—and I commend it to the Senate—it is not just the Albanese Labor government that will be held to account for broken promises and lies to the Australian people; all future governments will be as well. I think senators in this chamber will agree with me that this is a positive outcome. 09:31 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak to the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. Anthony Albanese, when opposition leader, promised to save households $275 a year on their electricity bills. That was a lie, as the now Prime Minister now shows in changing his promise from an actual saving to simply reducing the rate of increase by $275—very subtle. It means he doesn't give a damn about people paying extra prices. Of course, there is no talk of this saving because electricity bills are out of control anyway. People can't afford to turn on the heater, and the information the Senate needs to review the government's performance is literally all over the place, scattered to the wind. The Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO—another alphabet soup—maintains an online dashboard with retail pricing in there somewhere, although not in an easily understandable summary form—so, for many people, it's not useful. The Australian Energy Market Commission, AEMC, maintain their residential electricity price trends—again, not in summary form. The Australian Energy Regulator maintains some data called Energy Made Easy—really? Private companies like Canstar put out data. It is all different, scattered. This tells us two things. Firstly, we have way too many government agencies, each a product of a market failure that was fixed by adding—wait for it—another agency. The government agencies were causing the problems, and the solution, according to the government, was another agency. That in turn caused another market failure which was fixed with another agency, then another agency. You see what I'm saying. Who funds at all? We, the taxpayers, fund it all. What's the effect of all this bureaucracy and poor decisions on our electricity prices? When electricity generation used reliable base load coal, we only needed a fraction of this bureaucracy because coal was responsive to demand peaks and troughs. It was cheap, affordable, reliable, secure, synchronous and stable. And it was environmentally responsible, and it still remains environmentally responsible. Now, thanks to the Liberal-Nationals and the Labor-Greens, we have the miracle of renewable power, and we have all these alphabet agencies working away making electricity so dear that nobody can afford it. It is a complete failure of governance for the last three decades—actually, since 1996, with the Howard-Anderson Liberal-National government. Secondly, the data is all over the place. Assembling an accurate picture of how much more everyday Australians have to pay for their electricity bills requires a data gathering exercise of a type the Australian Bureau of Statistics would probably need 18 months to complete. This is not a flaw in the system; it's a design feature, as I'll explain with another example on cost in a minute. The more agencies, the more fractured the data and the less chance the Senate—the Senate is the house of review—or the people will be able to work out just how bad things are, and things are very, very bad. Constituents are sending my staff their electricity bills and quotes, phoning my office in tears. We're seeing 30 and 40 per cent increases in electricity bills. That's horrific, but it's even worse when you consider the trebling of electricity prices in the last two or three decades. It's 30 and 40 per cent on top of a huge bill that's been inflated in the last two or three decades. So where's that $275 saving the Prime Minister used in a cynical vote-buying exercise? It's a lie. It's nowhere. The Prime Minister and his carpetbagger mates in the disposable energy market conned the Australia public. Disposables—I call solar panels and wind turbines disposables, because these monstrous things only last 12 years at most. Then they have to be disposed of and replaced, with no recycling because recycling solar panels and wind turbines requires too much energy—it's not cost effective, it's not energy effective. Not one element of the electricity generation needed to meet the United Nations 2050 net zero target, which the Liberal-National government signed us up for and the Labor Greens pushed, and not one panel that the politicians volunteered us for is installed in Australia right now in 2023. What do I mean by that? Not one panel that we will need in 2050 is installed now. Every solar panel and wind turbine in place now will be replaced four times—four times!—in the lead-up to 2050. Every last solar panel and every last wind turbine we have now installed will be ripped out and sent off to the tip before 2050, all of it to be replaced four times. You think power prices are a scandal now? They are. Yet this nightmare is only getting started. Most people would think one solution would be encouraging gas stoves and discouraging electric cars. That would take pressure off electricity generation. The disposable ideologues on both sides of this chamber are doing the complete opposite. They're banning gas stoves and encouraging electric cars, which need more electricity. It will increase electricity demand and further increase prices. It will actually increase gas usage, because, right now, you can turn on a switch at your home and get abundant gas. Without a gas stove, you'll have to rely upon a gas-fired power station to send electricity to your home with transmission losses along the way. So there'll be more gas used to generate the same amount of energy that you could generate right now in a gas stove. The average Australian street of 20 homes can only afford to have three homes with electric cars before the draw on the power heats up the power lines and causes a blackout. It's almost as if the inhuman Greens, teals and Chris Bowen's energy vandals want things to be miserable for everyday Australians. That's what they're doing—they're destroying lifestyles and livelihoods for Australians. The reason behind this energy vandalism is simply power. I don't mean the type we used to be able to afford—electric power. I mean political power and control over people's lives through the restriction and control of electricity. The idea behind removing coal power from the grid is that it creates an artificial scarcity that these electricity vandals can use to bring in controls on everyday Australians' power usage. Control is the objective. Smart metres are already being introduced. They'll be set to allow each household a limited amount of power and will switch off when the limit is reached. Control. They will control when we use our electricity, how we use it and what we use it for. Only the wealthiest Australians who can afford to pay for their energy will have air-conditioners. Everyday Australians will not. We know this from the Prime Minister's housing bill, which will build a few thousand new homes at a cost per unit that is so low there can't possibly be room for air-conditioning. We know that the sustainable housing guidelines the Greens tried very hard to make mandatory on this housing bill only allow for homes to be built with ceiling fans, not air-conditioners. No wonder Bob Brown was run out of town in Clermont, in central Queensland, when he brought his climate and energy rationing alarmism to rural Queensland. Try not having air-conditioning in Queensland's rural bush. Senator Duniam's bill will help the debate. This bill will give the public, the media and the politicians the data we need to prove that climate crazies and their energy vandalism are making life miserable for everyday Australians for no damn reason other than control of people—for no environmental benefit. Indeed, it will damage the environment catastrophically, as people desperate for warmth will return to wood fires, as they have been in Victoria. One Nation will support this bill because One Nation likes and spreads truth, because One Nation likes to empower people, because One Nation likes to free people to make informed choices, which they can't do at the moment. I want to talk about a few other points. The primacy of energy: energy multiplies itself right throughout the whole of our economy. Everything depends upon electricity. It is a primary aspect of our society, modern society. The evils and anomalies of solar and wind are becoming apparent. I was at the property rights of Australia conference in Gympie last Friday. The anger amongst farmers and townspeople in rural Queensland is palpable. The people are coming for you, Greens, Labor, and also the wet Liberals and Nationals, with pitchforks. They want to know what the effect is on prices. It's a very harsh awakening, now, for people in the bush, because they're waking to the realities of solar and wind—paving huge acreages with glass panels, destroying rainforests for wind turbines and blighting the visual pollution on the landscape. Alan Moran, the noted economist, prepared an independent study for me entitled The Hidden Cost of Climate Policies and Renewables—basically, the hidden cost of climate policies and solar and wind. He refers to solar and wind as 'parasitic malinvestments'. He's an independent researcher and independent economist with an international reputation and is highly respected. He compiled the cost data from many state and federal government departments from government data and budgets and reports. It cannot sensibly be refuted. It's very three years old, but the figures are shocking because they haven't been updated. So imagine the figures now. Let's go through some of those figures. His executive summary says: Australia's excessively high electricity prices are undermining our economic resilience and competitiveness and cutting our standards of living. Since 2002 Australian governments, in a misguided quest to reduce carbon dioxide, have introduced climate policies at the expense of cheap coal and gas power. Our electricity prices, once the lowest in the world, have become one of the most expensive. That seriously affects our security, seriously affects our competitiveness. He goes on: Australians will be shocked to know the true financial burden of these policies on households and industry. These hidden costs drive up all costs of living, including electricity, food, water and transport. In summary, in 2019, he said solar and wind and climate policies cost households at least $13 billion annually, or around $1,300 per household. That is on top of the electricity bill. That's an additional cost beyond the increases in electricity costs. It goes across the economy for $19 billion. That was four years ago. Solar and wind and climate policies account for 39 per cent of household electricity bills, not the 6½ per cent that the then Liberal and National government was typically quoting. It causes a net loss of jobs in the economy; with every so-called solar and wind subsidised job created, 2.2 jobs are lost. There are market distortions involved in destroying the coal sector that are subsidising solar and wind. These market distortions increase the wholesale prices of electricity to $92.50 per megawatt hour, up from $45.40 per megawatt hour. It more than doubled because of the policies of the Liberal-National government and the Labor-Greens government. These are Moran's words: 'Investment in supposedly Green energy is a malinvestment'—a parasitic malinvestment that destroys the host, the Australian economy. The parasites are destroying the host. He goes on: It defies all sense that Australia's average price per kwh for electricity is three times that of India and China when they are using our coal. All Australians have a right to benefit from our rich natural resources and governments have an obligation to foster high growth environments for Australian industry, and support high standards of living for all of us. The parasitic and hapless renewables industry will provide neither. The parasitic and hapless solar and wind industry will provide neither high standards of living nor support for industry. What's the effect on prices of all these policies? It's catastrophic. We've gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to having the most expensive, and yet we are the world's biggest exporters of energy—absolutely bloody ridiculous. 09:46 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland It is a great pleasure to be up here today to speak to such a fantastic bill—the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. Let me tell you: there is no greater truism than the one that says that what gets measured gets improved. I came from the private sector and worked in the finance field, and every good business out there—or any good business who wants to stay profitable—knows that you've got to do your month-end reporting every month. You have to track your costs. You have to track your revenue. You need to be able to measure your data to work out whether you're improving or going backwards. That's exactly what this bill does. This is asking for centralised quarterly reporting of the cost of electricity, and that matters because, right now, electricity prices are going through the roof because of this insane renewable energy ideology being pushed by those on the other side, who are driving households into poverty. They are driving businesses into bankruptcy. They are sending jobs offshore. They are sending wealth offshore. It is an absolute disgrace. It exposes the hypocrisy of the Albanese Labor government and of the Greens, who, for the last three years have been talking about greater accountability and greater transparency and yet intend to oppose this bill. What a disgrace. If they were really serious about the cost of living, they would support this bill so that we know exactly how much energy costs and what the break-up of those costs is. That includes not just the split between coal powered energy and renewable energy but also the amount of subsidies being put into the energy market. We saw that yesterday with this ridiculous spending by the Queensland Labor government, where they're going to actually try and shut down Queensland coal-fired power stations, whilst at the same time raking in a huge surplus thanks to the foresight and vision of the great Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who built those coalmines 50 years ago. He got them built, built the railway lines, built the ports that created all the royalties, created all the freight revenue from the trains and all the demurrage charges from the ports. All that money is going into Queensland, and yet for some reason we want to actually sell that beautiful black coal offshore and not use it here. Then they're going to turn around and rob Peter to pay Paul to offset the ridiculous energy costs spent as we import billions and billions of dollars of renewables from offshore. That money is going offshore on top of all the money that goes offshore because of these ridiculous carbon offsets. It is completely absurd that, when we have the lowest carbon footprint per capita in the world when you take in our natural carbon offsets, we pay other countries to offset their carbon emissions. Australia has a huge land mass. We have only 26 million people living here. We have got lots and lots of natural environment—our soil, our trees and our offshore waterways. We have phytoplankton—and I give a big shout-out to all the little phytoplankton out there sucking up the CO2; good stuff, guys! And yet we don't count it. I come back to being accurate in measuring stuff because the reason why this bill is so important is that we do need to measure the horrendous costs of renewables. The crazy thing is that this is all based on the fallacy that somehow we can measure CO2. That was exposed in estimates, by none other than yours truly here, when the head of the CSIRO admitted that there are actually 40 different models to calculate net zero, to calculate carbon offsets. We've got to stop relying on models. There's a difference between that side of the chamber and this side of the chamber. This side of the chamber believes in facts and real world data, whereas that side of the chamber wants to believe in fantasies and fairytales and to make up stories that are ultimately always disproved. We saw that happen in the last 12 months. I can well remember Senator Wong standing up here and going, 'Renewables are cheaper.' Guess what? They're not. If they were cheaper, the price of energy would be going down. But the price of energy isn't going down. It's going up. Everyone knows that, if you want to improve performance, you should start measuring this data. Just last week we found out that the energy retailers are going to increase the cost of retail energy by 28 per cent. Can someone explain to me how that is going to help with the cost of living? I'm not hearing any interjections from the other side—of course not, because they have no answers. Yet right here in front of them is the answer that will at least start tracking the data and give us greater insight into how to bring the cost of energy down. Do the other side actually want to support it? No. They're the so-called party of greater accountability and greater transparency, and we've already seen that on display this week when people wanted to change. At first it was, 'There's no data and we know nothing about it,' but it turned out to be: 'No. Actually I was given information four days earlier.' This is the thing. The lies from the other side about the cost of energy and how they're going to have transparency on national cabinet have been totally exposed. These people aren't interested in helping the people; they only want to control the people. That is what the Labor Party has become. Believe you me, the old Labor prime ministers will be rolling in their graves—the Labor prime ministers who came from blue-collar backgrounds, the toolies, the tradies and all of that. We know the Hawke-Keating government sold all that out and adopted a Marxist approach when they backed the Dawkins plan and backed the Button plan that basically destroyed manufacturing in this country and replaced it with academia running the world. If this country wants to get back on its feet, it needs to get back on the tools. But we cannot get back on the tools in this country and rebuild manufacturing in this country if we don't have cheap and reliable energy. The sad thing is that we have the potential for cheap and reliable energy in this country. Just near my hometown we have 400 million tonnes of coal in the ground that is owned by the Queensland people. All it takes is the cost of production—the cost of digging it up, and it's only just below the surface, and taking it about two kilometres to the power station where you burn it and it's converted straight away into energy. It's not just Kogan Creek; it's Tarong Power Station. I can well remember in the early eighties when Tarong Power Station was opened that Queensland was excited. It delivered us the cheapest energy in the world. Senator Scarr will well remember when I spoke in my first preselection speech at the exhibition showgrounds when I first moved to Brisbane from my hometown of Chinchilla in 1988. Brisbane was a big country town back then, and there was very little difference between those from the regions and the city folk because big-country-town Brisbane knew that it relied on the people in the regions to give the people in the big city their power and their jobs. We should never forget that—that we are one country. The ideologues in the cities that want to impose poverty and austerity on the hardworking people of this country should be ashamed of themselves for wanting to import expensive energy from offshore in the form of solar panels that's going to destroy farmland, in the form of transmission lines that are going to wipe out large swathes of our beautiful environment, of our farmlands. For what? So they'll be sending power all around the country, when you can simply dig it up, put it straight into a power station, get it into the Southern Interconnector and there you go: one transmission line and it's done. But no, we're going to have this crazy grid-like structure where we're going to have transmission lines running across the country. We're going to have problems with synchronicity, keeping the electricity at a level amount of voltage—all of this stuff we're going to have. And then of course we're going to have recycling. Yet again, this is another reason we need to measure the data. Another answer to a question in estimates, courtesy of Larry Marshall of the CSIRO, was that the cost of recycling batteries is three times more than the cost of producing them. How is that going to reduce costs? And let's not forget the crazy subsidies this government is giving to renewable energy: $224 million for 400 batteries that is basically going to power 100,000 homes. When I asked questions about this in estimates, the energy department didn't even know where these batteries were going to go. They originally thought these batteries were going to be off grid, and then they had to be corrected by my Senate colleague Senator Hughes, who effectively pointed out that, no, no, no, they're going in the inner city areas, these batteries that are already on grid. So why are we going to spend $224 million on batteries that at best might last for one to two hours and will effectively come out of the pocket of the taxpayer—another $224 million on that? Then we've got the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Can someone please tell me, if renewables are cheaper and so efficient, why they need to rely on government funding to be built? Why isn't the private sector, our wonderful banks—who are closing down branches in the regions so that they can reduce their carbon footprint; yet again it's the regions who have to pay the costs of this crazy ideology—funding renewables? I'll tell you why the banks won't fund renewables: because they won't make any money. And I will tell you another thing; I will tell you another thing. Why are they building these renewables? What's the cost to the environment going to be from the likes of Chalumbin Wind Farm, which is going up, being built, right next to World Heritage rainforest in North Queensland? That is going to be built on top of lakes—right next door to lakes—in the pathway of migratory birds and endangered species. How much koala habitat's going to be wiped out, how much glider habitat is going to be wiped out, before we realise that this crazy ideology is going to destroy not only the economy but also the environment? It's going to destroy the environment. And for what? Because of this imaginary ideology that there's a greenhouse up in the atmosphere, that there's a glass dome up here that attracts convection. It's completely absurd. Yet here we are today trying to improve, trying to hold these people to account on the cost of energy. And what do they do? They're sitting there interjecting, still refusing to say that renewable energy makes money. Renewable energy makes money. Let's see it in these reports. But of course the Labor Party and the Greens won't do that, because they know their lies will be exposed. But let me tell you something: your lies have already been exposed. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made a promise before the last election that he was going to reduce electricity prices by $275. That did not happen. Electricity prices have increased by about $700 already, and what are they going to do? They're going to rob Peter to pay Paul and give an energy rebate to some people. They're going to give an energy rebate to businesses, who now not only are going to have to pay higher electricity costs—and that is one of the biggest input costs of any serious goods and services producer—but also have to buy carbon offsets as well. Are you people trying to build this country or destroy it? If I didn't know better, it would look to me like the Anthony Albanese Labor government is trying to destroy this country. They are trying to tear down everything our forefathers have built. It's not just in the energy sector; we know it's in the entire array of ideology, where everything is about guilt, shame and fear. These people do not want to build; they want to destroy. I say: shame on you. If you were serious about actually improving productivity in this country—and we hear it all the time: 'We've got to improve productivity; we've got to improve productivity'—you would start measuring input costs so that we could start to improve productivity and actually employ people in gainful employment, not employment where we sit around shuffling paper but employment where we're back on the tools, building things. You'd think the Labor Party, who, under the Button plan in 1985, destroyed manufacturing in this country and then introduced Marxism via their Dawkins plan in 1990, would want to do something about fixing up the mess that they made. But they don't. Well, I say: shame on you, Labor, and shame on you, the Greens. I commend this bill to the Senate—a brilliant bill that will lift productivity and hold the cost of electricity and renewables to account. 10:01 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia What a fitting move, from a party that is rapidly sliding into national obscurity, to bring such an obsolete bill to this chamber. Senator Rennick wants to talk about paper shuffling; well, this bill is little more than that. It shows a complete lack of understanding about how prices are regulated and whose job it already is to report on electricity prices. Senator Duniam's private senator's bill, the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023, is a weak swipe from the coalition in a redundant attempt to seek legitimacy in a conversation about electricity prices that outstripped them years and years ago. They have been missing in action for a decade on these issues. Instead of a meaningful contribution to the debate about electricity prices, about energy generation or about our electricity grid, what we get in their contribution is absolutely pathetic. It requires the Productivity Commission to table a report on electricity prices for each state. The ACCC already collects this data. This is indeed a pointless piece of legislation before us. There are already multiple avenues for ascertaining energy prices across the nation. I would have expected those opposite to be capable of grasping this fact. It is little wonder, frankly, that Labor was left with the mess that it was if those opposite are unaware of such basic facts of market management in Australia. The ACCC already reports on and monitors not only electricity prices but profits and margins in the national electricity market every six months. The bill also completely overlooks the fact that, in my home state of Western Australia, for example, prices are fixed and set by government. The opposition are somehow in the dark about the fact that the Australian Energy Regulator already produces a state of the energy market report, a quarterly retail energy market performance update and a wholesale market report. What is the point of this bill? Well, this bill has no point. It is a desperate and shallow attempt at legitimacy in a policy debate in which you have been missing in action for a decade. Instead of a meaningful contribution, what do we get? We merely get paper shuffling and duplication of government resources, with yet another electricity market report. You opposite were part of a government that aggressively hid all the energy price rises from the Australian public in the lead-up to the last election. You hid the prospect of significant energy price rises that were forecast by the energy market regulator in the lead-up to the election. It is hypocrisy to the nth degree to now bring forward a bill that talks about transparency in market pricing. You didn't allow Australian families to prepare for or understand what was going on in electricity markets; you just tried to hoodwink Australians into voting again for a government that mismanaged Australia's energy needs every single step of the way. Not only do we already have systems for providing information but you are, in this legislation before us, needlessly gilding the lily, while also totally barking up the wrong tree. The Productivity Commission should not be given this kind of job, in any case. Their function is focused on economic and policy research, not on monitoring markets. That job already rests with the ACCC—which they already do—and, indeed, with the Australian Energy Regulator, the very organisation that you had cover up the electricity price increases in the lead-up to the last election. Perhaps that's why you didn't want to give the AER this job, because you didn't want to draw attention to the fact that you had this great cover-up happening. Didn't you learn from your former leader's illustrious and bizarre multiple-ministries debacle? When people take on roles that aren't a good fit and that they're not equipped for, it never ends well. Our government, the Labor government, is not distracted by money-wasting, duplicating data-gathering. We are focused on the significant toll that the cost of living is having on Australians. We're worried about the effect of energy bills and the burden they place on a significant cohort of Australians. We're concerned about businesses, households, homeowners, renters and social housing residents—everyone who lives in our great nation—which is why we took urgent action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of global energy price spikes. It's why we put forward our energy relief plan, a plan that limits gas prices and coal prices and provides energy relief for households and businesses. It's why we're doing the hard yards with the states to put in practical measures, including in states like WA, where electricity prices are already controlled via the fact that electricity generation and the grid is still owned by state owned enterprises. Even then we've got the flexibility to adapt and put in measures to make these things work. We're committed to partnering with the states and territories to deliver targeted and temporary relief on power bills. It is also why we're partnering to deliver $3 billion worth of electricity bill relief for eligible households and small businesses. From July this year we are delivering on our plan to deliver up to $500 relief in electricity bills for eligible households and $650 for eligible small businesses. We're getting the states to pitch in too because the more we work together, the bigger the difference we can make, which is why we have made this a matching program, with states and territories being asked to match this funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. This provides hundreds of dollars of additional bill relief for eligible Australian families right around the country. We are also investing in cheaper, cleaner and more reliable energy for the future. We are investing more than $1.6 billion in helping businesses and households, including energy relief and support in social housing. We're working to make energy performance upgrades to social housing. We are putting an energy investment in social housing that is expected to cut the energy demand and needs of some 60,000 social housing properties. This is to cut their energy use and bills by one-third, which is incredibly significant for low-income households in social housing. We've got access energy savings and upgrades through our 'save energy, save on energy bills' package, including $1.6 billion to relieve cost-of-living pressures by making energy performance upgrades more accessible and affordable and $310 million for the small business energy initiative to give small business and medium business an additional 20 per cent deduction on spending that supports electrification and more efficient use of energy. It's these kinds of things—for example, enabling a tax deduction to draw down more quickly so you can make more efficient investments to get that transformative change happening sooner—that really help small business drive down expenses and costs as well as, really importantly, reduce emissions. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Pratt, the time for this debate has expired, so you will be in continuance when it resumes. (Quorum formed) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 11

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

Second Reading 11 10:16 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to speak on the additional appropriation bills of 2022-23. These bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, provide for additional funds from consolidated revenue for the remainder of the 2022-23 year. Collectively, the additional appropriation bills of 2022-23 appropriate approximately $6.2 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The majority, approximately $5.5 billion of this, is to ensure that there is funding to cover upward revisions in demand driven programs or other departmental funding. The opposition will be supporting the additional appropriation bills. However, this support should not be misconstrued as support for many of the ineffectual or misguided policies of Labor's 2022-23 October budget. In all the recent media about Labor's train wreck 2023-24 budget we may forget the failures of the October budget. Labor's October budget was indeed a failure. There was no sustainable cost-of-living relief. There was no handbrake on the taxes imposed on Australians. They have entirely abandoned the 23.9 per cent tax to GDP cap, and indeed the only new change to the tax system that was announced in this budget was a new tax on investments, the retiree tax 2.0. Labor's sneaky new tax will slug people that invest their own savings and superannuation. Despite ruling out these changes amongst many others before the election, Labor will in fact hit retirees and investors with a new $555 million tax, depriving investors of franking credits which they have previously relied upon. They have no plan at all to reduce spending, and we know now that they spent even more in the 2023-24 budget. There is no certainty for the 10 million Australians on their legislated tax relief that's due in 2024. We still don't have an unequivocal statement from the Treasurer that Australians will receive the stage 3 tax cuts—just weasel words—the stage 3 tax cuts that so many Australians are relying on. Since the October budget, the RBA has increased the cash rate six times just between budgets, pausing only to see if the government's 2023-24 budget would deliver any assistance at all. As we know, none came. Senator McGrath presently noted in his response to the October budget in this chamber: This government's reckless spending is forcing the RBA to ratchet up interest rates, and mortgagees are feeling it. Rate rises every month since this government has come to power, with each one making it harder for Australians to pay their mortgage, buy groceries, pay their bills, all thanks to this Labor government. He went on to say, in his typically eloquent Senator McGrath manner, when taken as a whole, this budget fails a test: … indeed, it even fails Labor's own test set by them. This budget breaks many of the promises the government made before the election. It lets Australia down. Australians were promised cost-of-living relief but, just in time for Christmas, they see this government has no plan to help them. If only the government had listened to the wise words of Senator McGrath. Instead, we saw the same old approach in May and, predictably, the same result. Australians didn't get cost relief for Christmas. They got more rate rises, they got higher grocery prices and they got higher energy bills. We know that Australians got no cost-of-living relief in the October budget simply by looking at the government's own actions. Cost-of-living pressures reached crisis levels by the time of the October budget, but the government failed to deliver any cost-of-living relief or policy to combat inflation. This is Labor's cost-of-living crisis, and it is doing nothing to help ordinary Australians. This was so obviously a failure of government that the government recalled parliament in December to ram through a ham-fisted intervention in the energy market. It did so because there was an urgency to cost-of-living relief. There was an urgency to high energy bills. Perhaps the only thing in the October budget that we can trust is that prediction, that forecast, that energy prices will continue to skyrocket. We can trust that there will certainly be no reduction in energy bills by $275, despite the comments from the Prime Minister prior to the election. More than 90 times he promised to $275 reduction in energy bills because of the policies of this government. Well, by October they had failed. By may they had failed again. One year on and the government has broken this among many promises. We found so soon after the October budget was delivered that it was, in fact, full of holes and fake savings—like their saving on consultants, on travel, on legal expenses and on advertising. In the most recent budget we saw that Labor gave themselves an extra year to achieve that saving that they banked back in October, and then we found out that the savings didn't even really need to be spent on consultants or travel or legal expenses or advertising. They were just suggestions: 'You can find those savings anywhere you like, but this is where we'd like you to find the savings. We've banked them, certainly, but just find them where you can.' This was simply an efficiency dividend by stealth. Labor's biggest spend in the October budget was, in fact, the canary in the coalmine for the big spending that would come in Labor's May budget. Back in the October budget the government announced $115 billion of new spending—new spending, not belt-tightening. Not to be outdone by past efforts, the Treasurer and the finance minister managed to deliver a budget last month that included $185 billion of extra spending while, at the same time, managing to cut productivity enhancing infrastructure—new spending and productivity enhancing infrastructure cut. This new spending has unquestionably added to inflationary pressures in an already high inflationary environment, making the cost-of-living crisis that Australians are experiencing under Labor even worse. It means that inflation stays higher for longer. It means that interest rates will therefore have to stay higher for longer. This is a cost-of-living crisis of Labor's making. This isn't simply the view of the opposition. It's the view of independent economists. Chris Richardson, for instance, said it very clearly. He said: I had thought that the Reserve Bank was done and dusted but this— the budget— has notably raised the chance that they will do another swing of the baseball bat … I'm sure Australians are thrilled to hear that the baseball bat is being taken out for them. BetaShares economist David Bassanese said that Labor's budget was 'unambiguously expansionary'. And all this is at a time when the Reserve Bank is trying to contract the economy. It has a contractionary monetary policy. The fiscal policy of this government is unambiguously expansionary. Experts from EY, from PinPoint Macro Analytics, from UBS and from HSBC have all lined up to call out this government's budget, which will do nothing to address inflation, meaning that inflation will be higher for longer, thanks to the decisions that have been taken—actively taken—by this government. So how are they trying to pay for all this new spending? Two new taxes on regional Australia will add to those inflationary pressures and increase the price of groceries. There's a new food and fibre tax on farmers, in the form of a 10 per cent increase on agricultural levies. How can this possibly be fair? There's a biosecurity levy on those that are paying the price of biosecurity threats, rather than on those that are importing the biosecurity threats. How can this possibly be fair? It's known that this government, by imposing this levy on farmers, is simply going to see the cost directly passed on to consumers at the grocery check-out. Everything you buy that comes from a farm will be more expensive because of decisions the Labor government has made. But wait, there's more—because there's also a tax on truckies, with a 5.2c per litre increase in the heavy-vehicle road user charge. So, while your more expensive lettuces are on the way to the grocery store, they're going to be taxed again—twice—and you will end up paying for that. Average, ordinary Australians will end up paying the price for the decisions that this government has made—decisions to spend more and tax more. And why are they doing that? Because it's in Labor's DNA. This is who they are. They spend more; they tax more. They talk about fiscal responsibility, they talk about good economic management, but that's prior to an election. Once they get into government, history repeats itself. All of a sudden, it's deja vu all over again: high tax, high spend and Australians pay the price. This is just a snapshot of the failures of this Labor government on managing the economy and managing the budget. Philip Lowe has called them out. He has said that there are risks to the economy and that it is a 'narrow path' that he is treading. The reason why he's treading that narrow path is that he is doing all the heavy lifting to manage the economy, because Labor has essentially raised the white flag. Even though, back in the October budget, Jim Chalmers looked Australians in the eye and said that inflation was public enemy No. 1 and that inflation was the dragon that we needed to slay, everything he has done has been entirely different to everything he has said. Because he's waved the white flag on inflation, the RBA has been left to do all the heavy lifting. That is their job; their job is to manage inflation. They've been given no help from the government, so of course they're forced to lift interest rates, the one and only tool that they have in the shed. Of course they're forced to continue to impose interest rate rises on mortgage holders in Australia. At the same time, Jim Chalmers has the audacious hypocrisy to then turn to Philip Lowe, the RBA Governor, and say he needs to explain his actions. I don't think so. Indeed, it's Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese that need to explain their actions and to explain to the Australian people why they promised cost-of-living relief and yet delivered so little; why they promised that it would be cheaper to pay their mortgages, and yet their mortgages have done nothing but go up. In fact, for a family that has a $750,000 mortgage, mortgage repayments have gone up to $22,000 a year. That's not the sort of money you find down the back of the couch. Where's the average family supposed to find that sort of money? This is what the decisions of this government have made. These are the implications for ordinary Australians. Prior to the election, the government said they were going to reduce your energy bills. They have failed. They have failed to reduce energy bills because they have put ideology over the cost-of-living crisis that is facing ordinary Australians and ahead of the essential services they need. That's why you are paying higher electricity prices. You are paying higher grocery prices because of the taxes the government are imposing on farmers and truckies. The opposition will support these additional appropriation bills, but understand that this government is making your life harder. The decisions that it's taking are making your life more difficult. Is there an Australian out there today that says they are feeling better off than they were just 12 months ago? If you can find me that Australian, that would be fantastic. Perhaps they could submit to the cost-of-living committee, because all the evidence that we hear as we travel around Australia is that Australians are doing it tough and that this government is not stepping up to help them. Indeed, it is potentially making a bad situation worse. We will support these additional appropriation bills, but we will also continue to hold the government to account over the budget decisions that it has made, the reckless spending that it continues to make and the increased taxes that it continues to impose on unsuspecting Australians who didn't vote for this. They didn't vote for this. They voted for one thing and got another. But, then again, that's Labor. That's in Labor's DNA—high taxes, high spending and broken promises. 10:31 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Greens will be supporting these bills, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023. This was a budget brought down in the face of massive challenges at a personal level, a local level, a community level, a state and territory level, a national level and a global level. This was a budget brought down while our climate is breaking down around us. This was a budget brought down while biodiversity is crumbling away as we speak. This was a budget brought down when Australia is facing massive wealth inequality, where the rich are getting richer and millions of Australians are being ground into poverty. This was a budget brought down when renters and mortgage holders are getting smashed, with 12 interest rate rises in 13 months—something we have never seen before in Australia's history. They are getting smashed by those interest rate rises which are owned by the government because the government is refusing to pull the fiscal levers at its disposal to help deal with the spike in inflation. This is a budget that is being brought down as an entire generation of Australians are being priced out of the great Australian dream of owning their own home. It is a budget being brought down while the millions of Australians who are renters are facing double-digit rent increases every year, where the power lies with the landlords, not the renters, and too many of those renters are faced with extreme rental stress and the danger of becoming homeless or having to couch surf because they can't afford to pay the rent. That is the scenario that nearly half a century of neoliberalism has created in this country. That is the context in which this budget has been brought down. So how did Labor respond to these great challenges? They brought down a budget that has over $40 billion out of the public purse to directly subsidise the burning of fossil fuels. I will tell you now that, when history is written about this time and people look back and say, 'In 2023, a government that liked to pretend it was progressive and liked to cosplay as a progressive government spent $40 billion in a budget to directly subsidise the burning of fossil fuels,' that will go down as a massive historical black mark not just against the Labor Party but against our country as a whole. While entire Pacific island nations are in the process of disappearing, literally, off the global maps thanks to sea-level rise, while we are seeing record ice loss in Antarctica as we have this debate today, while sea temperatures in the North Atlantic are spiking out of control and while we are seeing all around the planet unprecedented climate disruption and biodiversity loss, here is a government that still supports logging native forests and has over $40 billion in its budget to directly subsidise fossil fuels. In the face of massive wealth inequality, it's a government that has brought down a budget that bakes in a $24.85-a-day tax cut—a tax cut of nearly 25 bucks a day—to everyone who sits in this place and to the billionaires in this country, and that thinks it can buy off people on JobSeeker with a $2.85-a-day pay rise, leaving them to be ground ever further into poverty. We've had confirmation today of what we've seen over many decades in this country—that wage restraint is only for working people in Australia, and doesn't apply to the bosses and doesn't apply to company directors. The ABC is reporting today that CEO pay in Australia is rising at 15 per cent—15 per cent, folks—on average. If you're a CEO—nice work if you can get it—that's a 19 per cent pay rise amongst the ASX 200. It is a 15 per cent pay rise on average for the CEOs but a 19 per cent pay rise if you are the CEO of an ASX 200 corporation—the big corporations—in this country. This is an entire business class, and all we hear from them is just a constant drone—or whine, if you will—about declining productivity. Let me ask this question: if productivity growth is so bad, why do CEOs deserve a 20 per cent pay rise? Answer me that one, colleagues. I'll answer it for you here, because we know why: it's all about the profit. We've seen that with PricewaterhouseCoopers and the terrific job that Senator Barbara Pocock has been doing exposing that particular mess, that particular scam, that particular conspiracy from PricewaterhouseCoopers to monetise confidential Treasury information. It's all about the profit—parasitic corporate giants, many of them with monopoly powers, using the cover of supply shocks to jack up their prices and make more profits and fuel more inflation along the way, which the RBA then responds to by putting up interest rates and smashing mortgage holders and renters for a problem they didn't cause. We had confirmation from the OECD last week that, in Australia, profit is responsible for more than half of domestic inflation. The Greens totally accept there are global supply side issues that are driving inflation. But what we know from the OECD— Senator McKIM JKM That renowned organisation with that radical leftist at their head, Senator Brockman, who you know far better than me—with that radical leftist, former senator Cormann, in charge! We've had confirmation today that this profit is being used to jack up CEO pay. That's what is happening here, colleagues. It needs to be spelled out. It needs to be placed on the table. I want to say this: we hear a lot about the dangers of a so-called wage price spiral. I also want to be clear that, if there was genuinely a wage price spiral happening in Australia, that would actually justify action in the monetary policy space—absolutely no question about that. But we heard from the Treasury secretary, Dr Kennedy, in estimates, that there is no sign of a wage price spiral in Australia. I say this to you, colleagues: the only place in Australia where there is any sign at all of a wage price spiral is in places like Toorak and Double Bay. There is a good wage price spiral going on over there, colleagues, because that's where the CEOs live, in their multimillion-dollar mansions. So what is the Labor Party going to do about all the CEOs of the ASX 200 companies getting a 19 per cent pay rise off the back of rank profiteering and price gouging by corporations? What's the Labor Party going to do to them? It's going to give them a great, fat tax cut. That's right; that's what the modern Labor Party is all about—a $9,000-a-year tax break for struggling CEOs dealing with a mere 19 per cent annual pay rise. Then Labor's going to back in the RBA putting 130,000 more Australians out of work, because those are the figures that this budget was predicated on. That will mean the CEOs can reap even bigger profits by driving real wages backwards even faster than they are currently going backwards. That is the sum of the wit of the current Labor government: take a policy that Mr Scott Morrison came up with as Treasurer, take the policy that Mr Morrison then super-sized as Prime Minister, and make it your own—the stage 3 tax cuts. Make sure all those struggling CEOs out there can get even richer and buy more investment properties and make sure all the people who are not so rich stay not so rich. Then put another 130,000 of the not-so-rich people out of work so the workers don't get too uppity and start thinking maybe they should get their share. Well, fantastic—great move! Well done, Labor! What we are seeing in this country is nothing less than an upward transfer of wealth. This is reverse wealth redistribution. It's the enrichment of the wealthy at the expense of the poor. People are working longer hours for less money while their bosses are giving themselves pay rises at more than twice the rate of inflation. Let's think about that for a minute, colleagues. While real rages are plunging downwards, the bosses get a pay rise more than double the inflation rate. People are feeling ripped off in this country for one very good reason: they are being ripped off in this country. That is what is going on. Young people in particular are being absolutely smashed. They're told a complete lie about their future, and it is a lie that used to be the truth, used to be part of the social contract in this country. But it's a lie today, because young people are being told: study hard, work hard, save for a house, like your parents did, and you can have a good life. That's what they are told, and it was true, decades ago. Well, that bright future, that nice life, is being robbed from them by the corporate classes of Australia, facilitated by the major parties in this place. That uni degree is going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars, and that debt is indexed every year, meaning that many will never pay it off and will carry the weight of that debt around their necks for the rest of their lives—that indexation and that debt created by a generation of politicians who had access to free university. That house that young people are told they should save for is completely unaffordable now, unless Mummy and Daddy can help them out by loaning them the money or gifting them a house. If they were lucky enough to sneak into the market over the last few years—maybe they believed what Dr Lowe told them when he said interest rates wouldn't go up until 2024 at the earliest—the RBA is smashing them with interest rate rise after interest rates rise, sending them to the wall and in many cases turning them inside out, where their mortgage is now larger than the value of their property. And if they're renting they are being smashed to pieces by the same wealthy generation of landlords. And who's done all this to those millions of Australian young people and those millions of Australians being ground into poverty? It is the people in this room right now who are listening to this speech, the people who do the bidding of corporations—because, let's face it, they want to sit on the boards of these corporations in the future. They're doing the bidding of landlords because they've completely given up on education, hard work and decent jobs as a pathway to a better life in Australia. According to the Labor and Liberal parties, if you don't own multiple houses then you are not worth the time of day. And, as far as they are concerned, it's tough luck if you can't afford the rent. This budget gives nearly $17 billion in direct handouts to wealthy property moguls and contains no money—no money at all—for direct investment into new social and affordable housing. There is nothing for renters, no direct investment into social and affordable housing or public housing, and $16.8 billion for wealthy property speculators. This is a budget and, ultimately, this is a parliament that is just saying to people who are being marginalised and ground into poverty: 'Tough luck. Tough luck about your HECS debt. You should've gone to uni in the seventies and eighties when people in this place had the opportunity to go to uni and get a free university degree.' This budget says to people: 'Tough luck if you can't make ends meet. Tough luck if they ignore you. Tough luck if you want to hand over a sustainable climate and a functioning ecosystem to your children and your grandchildren so that they can have access to the same opportunities that we all had. Tough luck to you, because we're going to keep publicly subsidising burning fossil fuels.' I'll tell you what: poor people in this country, young people in this country, people who believe in a functioning climate and a functioning ecosystem on this planet that ultimately supports everyone's life, we are fuming right now, and rightly so. Those people—and I am one of them—have every right to be angry, because we are collectively victims of daylight robbery by the people that we collectively elected to represent us. This is a Labor government. If only we had a progressive government in this country, rather than a government and a Prime Minister that daily are earning the reputation of being timid. 10:46 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 and cognate bills. I will start by correcting the record. I agree with some of what Senator McKim had to say in criticising this budget, and I'll go on to say why I think this is an absolutely failed budget in a moment. But I do need to correct the record on the OECD report. This is not going to come as a blinding shock to anyone in the chamber, but the Australia Institute's interpretation of the OECD report and the Greens' interpretation of the OECD report is not entirely accurate. It's not an entirely accurate summation of what the OECD said, so I think it is worthwhile putting on the record what the OECD said. It said that market power of businesses may be increasing price mark-ups; it said that's a possibility. It also noted that it could be firms anticipating future cost increases rather than an increase to monopoly power. So, firms are responding to the inflationary pressures that they see coming down the pipeline at them because they are talking to their suppliers. They know their suppliers are about to increase their prices, because that's what inflation does, Senator McKim, through the economy. The OECD report said: A key policy issue is whether the observed aggregate increase in unit profits reflects a generalised lack of competitive pressures throughout the economy, or specific factors that have contributed to strong profit growth in a few sectors or in a subset of firms. Let's take that apart a little bit because it is very important. We've seen very high commodity prices, particularly in a couple of commodities that very much drive certain parts of the Australian economy. We've seen it in my home state of Western Australia, the home state of Senator O'Sullivan as well, in particular where we've seen very high iron ore prices, but we've also seen very high coal prices which have just delivered to Queensland a budget surplus of $13 billion—the highest budget surplus of any state in Australia's history, driven by commodity prices in the coal sector. So, we've got a unique set of economic circumstances, where a small subset of the Australia economy is doing extremely well on the back of high international commodity prices, but many businesses out there are just doing it tough. People, on this side of the chamber anyway, talk to those businesses every day. We know how tough those medium and small business sectors of our economy in particular are doing it in this inflationary environment. The idea that corporate profits are somehow the problem and that somehow limiting or capping those would solve the inflationary issue is an absolute nonsense. It's 'voodoo economics', to quote a previous Treasurer. We see, at the moment, that we have a serious problem with inflation—one that the government is failing to tackle. They are leaving all the work to the Reserve Bank. They are leaving all the heavy lifting in the economy, in terms of getting under control those inflationary pressures that are having a devastating impact on families. That's where I'll agree with Senator McKim: it's absolutely having a devastating impact on renters, on people who own their homes and have a mortgage and on families that aren't even in those circumstances, because of the cost increases everywhere else in the economy and the pressure that puts on family incomes. What did we see in Labor's second budget, after a year in office? We saw an absolute failure to recognise and confront those inflationary challenges. In fact, in their budget they increased spending, which must have inflationary effects. Inflation is and always will be a monetary issue. Increasing the amount of spending in the economy will flow on to inflation. Until we recognise and address that fact, we will see more pain coming. The Reserve Bank were clearly left with very little option, because they raised interest rates again, following the federal budget. They saw that there was nothing in the budget that was putting downward pressure on inflation, and so they were forced to move again, to raise interest rates again, which obviously then flows through the rest of the economy. Senator McKim says that there's no wage price spiral, and I agree that the evidence is probably mixed on that at the moment, but it's certainly a risk. Everyone must see that it is a risk. When you have unions making ambit claims for 30 per cent pay rises, you must see that a wage price spiral is a risk for this country. Philip Lowe, the head of the Reserve Bank, has spoken a number of times of the risky intersection of wage increases and inflation. This is not some grand conspiracy from this side of the chamber. This is something that we've seen in economies repeatedly before. We've seen the preconditions set up for wage price spirals that are extraordinarily damaging. I am old enough to remember the wage price spirals in the seventies and early eighties, and they were extraordinarily destructive to the economy and put extreme pressure on families and small businesses. What are a few things in the budget that I think are particularly destructive? One thing, I think, that perhaps has been overlooked is the damage to the investment climate for industries that we need to survive, thrive and actually expand. One is the gas sector. We need a vibrant, effective gas sector in this country. Instead, the Labor government say they support gas—sort of—but then they also talk it down and agree with the Greens on restricting potential pathways for investment in that industry. The Labor government also put in place things like price caps—an extraordinary ministerial power to control the industry domestically—and requisitioned gas for the domestic market, which sent shockwaves through our trading partners and horrified those who have invested significantly in Australia and in the Australian gas industry over the last 40 years. A company, INPEX, has invested significantly—billions of dollars—into the development of projects in Australia. I think you would all agree, as I've said before in this place, that the Japanese, when dealing on the international stage, are usually fairly restrained in their language. The chairman of INPEX came to this country—in fact, he came into this building—and gave a speech about Labor's policy in the area, where he said: Certainty in policy direction and a stable regulatory framework will continue to encourage strong investment in Australia. Unfortunately, the investment climate in Australia appears to be deteriorating. In Japan we say, "Don't cheat at rock, paper, scissors." This translates to "Don't move the goal posts after the game has started!" You have the chairman of a major investor in Australia saying that this Labor government is cheating at rock paper scissors. That is an extraordinary thing for a major investor in Australia to say, whilst at the same time saying that the investment climate in Australia appears to be deteriorating. He went on to say: The energy policy environment in Australia today appears to be driven almost by ideology and domestic concerns. It is 'driven by ideology', he said. He continued: Australia is competing for global investment and the changes we are seeing to Australian policy settings will choke investment and strangle the expansion of LNG projects in this country. This is a set of policies which are designed to detract from Australia's economic wellbeing, Australia's overall productivity, its ability to compete on the international stage and its ability to attract investment dollars from overseas. That is something that I believe all Australians should be extraordinarily concerned about. Another area in the trade space where we see this negative impact is in the, quite frankly, completely evidence-free decision to ban the live sheep trade from my home state of Western Australia. This is a small part of the economic pie; I fully admit that. It affects around 3½ thousand farming families in my home state of Western Australia. It doesn't have broad impacts outside WA—it does have some flow-on impacts, but they are not broad; I accept that—but it will have a devastating impact on WA. We saw in the latest Rabobank survey of, effectively, business confidence and farmer confidence that, generally, farming confidence in Australia is on the way up. People have had a couple of good seasons, generally speaking. Those on the east coast who have been through some tough times are seeing, perhaps, a bit of a recovery over here as people rebuild herds and flocks as they see the potential for a good season into the future. In Western Australia, the complete opposite has occurred. Under this government, farm business confidence in Western Australia has plummeted. It's gone into negative territory. This is extraordinary, especially when you consider that that is coming on the back of two record grain harvests in WA. We have been through the best of times in Western Australia in terms of grain production and yet business confidence among farmers has gone backwards. That's because this government is putting in place a policy that is a direct attack on farming wellbeing. It's not just these 3½ thousand farmers affected by the ban on live exports. That's the point in Western Australia. It will have flow-on effects to everybody involved in the sheep industry, but it will also have flow-on effects to everyone involved in the southern cattle industry because a lot of the live export boats that leave Fremantle are dual-purpose boats. They have both sheep and cattle aboard. With the economics of the sheep trade no longer present it will no longer be viable to ship cattle, either, on those dual-purpose boats. So we have the flow-on impacts to the southern cattle trade. Obviously, we also have flow-on impacts to vets, to transport companies, to the tyre providers who support those transport companies and to the shippers. We also have flow-on impacts to our trading partners in the Middle East—people who have been trading with us in these commodities for decades. They rely on this source of protein and they are also good purchasers of many other commodities that we produce, such as our grain. The idea that these decisions, both in the gas industry and in the sheep industry, won't have flow-on consequences to the general trading environment in which Australia operates is a nonsense. They will have flow-on consequences. They will have negative flow-on consequences. They will make it harder for Australia to do business in the world. They will make it harder for Australia to attract the investment dollars we need. They will make it harder to see development of new onshore gas in the eastern states, which the eastern states desperately need if they're not going to see energy crises over the next years. We've already seen the flow-on impacts of this Labor government's suite of policies on energy prices. They claimed, coming into government, that they were going to put downward pressure on energy prices, when all we've seen is upward pressure on energy prices. I think the market offers in Victoria were something like a 30 per cent increase in electricity prices over the next 12 months—a 30 per cent increase. That's energy prices doubling every three years. Householders need to think about that, as they also see their mortgage interest payments rising at the fastest rate in Australia's history, and they also see the cost of the general basket of groceries they buy in the supermarket increasing at an extraordinary rate. The underlying rate of inflation is the most significant economic challenge this country faces, and Labor's budget did absolutely nothing to do anything about it. 11:01 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Well, Jim Chalmers handed down his second budget, and I want to talk about a few things that are in it and the things that should be in it but aren't. It turns out our budget cartoon was prophetic. The Treasurer needs to find a new career as a comedian. First, lets talk about the surplus. It's the first surplus delivered in many years, but only because Labor included the interest from the Future Fund for the first time. Otherwise, it would have been a deficit budget. Don't forget that Labor had an unexpected $50 billion windfall from the previous government in the form of royalties. It's a very small surplus—$4 billion—and we will return to deficits in the next budget. Across the forward estimates—the next four years—these deficits will add another $110 billion to federal government debt. Within three years our gross debt will top a trillion dollars for the first time and our interest on this debt will be almost $30 billion a year. That's $60 million a day, or $700 per second. That's $30 billion going to central banks and other creditors. Not a single cent of it will go towards a road, a hospital or a school or even towards reducing the cost of living. It's about 75 per cent of Australia's entire defence budget. Our debt keeps piling up, and this budget is just the most recent opportunity blown by a federal government to undertake urgently needed structural tax reform. Labor has a worse record on debt than the coalition—but not by much. Labor is responsible for $250 billion of debt that the coalition took on when it was elected in 2013. So Labor, stop blaming the coalition for the debt we're in today. You're partly responsible for some of it. However, neither of these parties can bring themselves to really turn things around, deliver consistent surpluses and pay down our huge debt. There was a lot of pressure on the government to provide some relief to Australians who are struggling with the rising costs of living, and it's fair to say that the government has responded. There's a rise in unemployment benefits, rent assistance and the single parenting payment, and a bigger investment in Medicare. I'm not going to oppose most of these measures for families who are doing it tough. However, I completely reject the single parenting payment increase at a cost of almost $2 billion. It was Julia Gillard, Labor's PM—a woman, mind you—who about 11 years ago reduced to eight years the age of the child when the payment would cease, in an effort to get more parents back into the workforce. Now Anthony Albanese is reliving his childhood, wishing for his mother to be able to be at home for him, and he wants the taxpayers to fund it. Well and good, but it shouldn't be at the cost of our increasing debt, and it begs the question: don't the kids of working mums and dads deserve the same consideration? Albanese was the child, but I wore his mother's shoes as a single mother with three children. Support should be a helping hand, not a way of life. I expect many people may try to abuse the single parenting payment by having more kids just so they don't have to work. This is what happened with Peter Costello's baby bonus. It's also worth noting here that, with the government slashing more than $20 billion on various relief measures, it will very likely drive inflation rather than cool things down. So don't expect the cost of living to stop rising. Don't expect the cost of electricity or gas to just drop. It will keep going up as Labor and the Greens remove all our reliable generation and replace it with costly, unreliable renewables. The facts are irrefutable. Since the introduction of renewables, our electricity has become among the most expensive in the world. Climate change has nothing to do with it—only greedy corporations and incompetent governments fearmongering purely for votes and pushing an insidious agenda of international control. We can only stop this by moving to nuclear power. And, as these costs continue to rise, the Reserve Bank's only real mechanism to stop it is to keep raising interest rates. A home is the biggest investment the vast majority of us will make and, as we've seen during this crisis, there are many families who have been forced to sell their homes because they can't absorb the huge interest increases in their mortgage payments. The great Australian dream of owning a home is getting further out of reach. What we should be doing is implementing policies that help make it more achievable for more people. First things first—let's stop allowing foreigners to own residential property. Australians can't own property in many countries whose citizens are allowed to own Australian property. That's just not right. Banning foreign ownership, like Canada and New Zealand have done, will increase the supply of homes for Australians to buy. The thousands of foreign owned homes sitting empty should be made to be sold in a 12-month period. The next step is to lower immigration, which will reduce demand for housing. Since Labor took government, they've been bringing in 7,000 people a week and will continue to do so for the next two years and maybe more. Labor is making our housing and rental prices a great deal worse by letting so many people into Australia, and their worthless housing future fund will do virtually nothing that makes a difference to this crisis. One Nation proposes another measure to alleviate this crisis: allowing homeowners to rent rooms in their homes to tenants tax free. Having people under a roof is much better than having them living in tents, caravans or cars. This would also provide some additional income to homeowners so they can better manage rising mortgage payments and cost-of-living increases. Now let's turn to the Voice referendum. Our last referendum was in 1999, and it cost the taxpayer about $67 million. That's approximately $124 million in today's money. The Prime Minister is blowing more than $400 million of our money for this referendum. This makes absolutely no sense unless he's banking a lot of this cash to fund the Voice to Parliament. I suspect Labor will attempt to legislate the Voice to Parliament regardless of the referendum result. Labor doesn't give a damn about what the Australian people think, and the Prime Minister has nailed his political skin to a successful 'yes' vote. If we reject the Voice at the referendum, and the polls have shown we are more and more likely to do that, Anthony Albanese will try to push his personal vanity project through parliament anyway. Now let's talk about infrastructure. Labor has scrapped another dam project in Queensland. Labor and the Greens really hate dams for some ridiculous reason or another. One Nation, on the other hand, strongly supports the Hughenden Irrigation Project scrapped in this budget, as we supported the Hells Gates Dam project Labor scrapped in last year's budget. In this land of droughts and flooding rains, we need more dams and water security. They create wealth, using water that would otherwise flow uselessly to the sea. They can generate energy. They can help manage droughts and floods. They most definitely improve water and food security and drive growth in our world-leading agricultural industries—more farms, more food and fibre, and more jobs. Farmers are also screaming out for the road and rail infrastructure which supports their supply chains to be repaired, maintained and upgraded. A lot of road and rail infrastructure was damaged in floods last year and urgently needs repairing. Instead of giving billionaire Twiggy Forrest $2 billion, as Labor has done in this budget, to kickstart a green hydrogen industry, which has never been successful anywhere in the world, I would have directed this money towards this much more urgent repair effort. Let Mr Forrest fund his own pet project that could see him reap billions more if successful. I can assure you it won't be taxpayers who see any profits. What is absolutely no surprise in this budget is the obscene amount of money thrown at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Its funding has been doubled from $7 billion to $14 billion—what a criminal waste of taxpayers' money on things like green hydrogen pipedreams and yet more useless bureaucracy in the form of a net zero transition authority. Last year I showed that the Labor government can't even explain what net zero actually means. But that hasn't stopped them from creating this new bureaucracy to worship with them in the cult of climate change. Enough is enough. It's renewables which have directly led to a 300 per cent rise in our energy bills over the past 20 years, but Chris Bowen does not give a damn about household energy costs. He's aiming for 82 per cent of Australian energy production from renewables by 2030, more than triple what we have now, severely risking our energy security and piling another 300 per cent increase on Australian household and business energy costs. Along with that, we will lose a lot of our industries and manufacturing. Also, how's this for a budget measure? Labor has stated it's provided indemnity for specialised external advisers who advised the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it hasn't revealed the cost. That's right; Labor is protecting the so-called experts whose advice led to the lockdowns and mandates that destroyed jobs, businesses and families across Australia, while our governments put us into hundreds of billions of dollars of more debt. This begs an obvious question: Why do they need protection? Could it be that, while our governments were all patting themselves on the back for their pandemic response in front of the cameras, behind the scenes there were serious legal concerns about the individual rights they were violating and the potential dangers of untested vaccines? Only a royal commission has a chance of getting at the truth, and it's past time the Prime Minister pulled his finger out and followed through on this commitment. I won't stop fighting for a royal commission into the pandemic—if it really was a pandemic. This budget has been just the latest of many missed opportunities for urgent structural tax reform. Labor spent the weeks leading up to the budget talking about the need for more revenue, and they were actually right about that. There have been huge cost blowouts in the NDIS, with another $21 billion over the next four years, reaching $56 billion a year. I'm hearing constantly from people about how the NDIS is a bottomless pit full of fraud and overservicing, with no accountability and thousands of people on the scheme who shouldn't be. What has the minister done? Absolutely nothing—let's just throw another $21 billion at it! We have a massive commitment to the new AUKUS alliance. Those nuclear subs are not going to be cheap, but I support them. The money for all this cost-of-living relief has to come from somewhere too. There's a ready source of this additional revenue, but it's not the long-suffering Australian taxpayers. It's the mostly foreign owned multinational resource companies exploiting our world-leading natural resources while paying virtually no tax in Australia for this privilege. For the past six years, I've been calling for reform of the petroleum resource rent tax to make this happen, and, believe it or not, there's actually been a little bit of movement in this budget. The government has introduced a change to the PRRT which effectively mean that companies exploiting our offshore natural gas will pay more tax sooner. So, thankfully, my meeting with the Prime Minister to raise this didn't fall on deaf ears and he took advice from what I told him. The change would limit the proportion of these companies' income which then can by offset by deductions to 90 per cent. It's not a lot of additional revenue—just $2.4 billion over the next four years—but it's a damn good start. With the reforms One Nation is talking about, we could improve Australia's bottom line by at least $25 billion in a year. We still have a long way to, but I will never stop fighting for the Australian people to get a fair return for our resources. I call on this Labor government to do this. I don't believe they really understand—neither does Chris Bowen with regard to climate change and pushing on that—how people are doing it tough because of the cost of their electricity bills. We've seen the closure of a lot of industries in Australia, and we're going to see a lot more that will close due to the rising cost of electricity. Giving out $500 rebates in your budget, a few hundred dollars here and there, won't stop the cost-of-living increases. People are doing it tough. They're going to lose their homes. That's all because of government policy that happens in this place. I say to the government: you think that you're safe in your seats and that you've got your income. You've lost touch with grassroots people and how much they are really struggling, even when buying groceries. I see it. I've never lost touch with my grassroots, and I never will. That's why I'll keep fighting for the Australian people. 11:16 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I think the Australian people are being reminded that they really need to look at what Labor do when they're in government, not what they say when they're trying to get into government. I thought it was pertinent that we perhaps look today at a number of statements that were made in the lead up to the election. Mr Albanese and his team promised that cost-of-living pressures would improve under Labor. One of these statements was: 'I'll say this very clearly: they'—everyday Australians—'will be better off under a Labor government.' I would challenge you to find an Australian who will tell you they are better off now when it comes to the cost of living than they were in May 2022. Good luck finding one. Good luck finding anyone out there that is better off today than in May 2022. Just come and let us know. They said: 'We've got policies about getting power bills down. We've got policies to get real wages moving again.' I think we all know, as Senator Hanson just pointed out, that is not really the case. They said, 'People will be seeing in their bank accounts what the change of government means.' Well, finally, they actually told the truth about something! All Australians are actually seeing a significant change in their bank accounts since the change of government, but I'm not 100 per cent sure they understood what that meant. I think Australians, when they went to polls, thought: 'A change in my bank account, which they're so proudly spruiking, will be a positive change. It will be a positive change in my bank account. My mortgage is going to be affordable. My grocery bill is going to go down. My energy bill is going to go down.' This is not the case. We now have everyday Australians fighting to maintain a roof over their heads and making choices over what they can spend their money on. That's because petrol prices are up, grocery prices are up and energy bills are up. Tax bills are about to go up. For all those Australians that rely on their tax return each year, that $1,500 that mid- and low-income earners receive is gone. Ten million Australians will be $1,500 worse off with their tax returns this year. So we know that everyday Australians have seen a change in their bank accounts but not in the way that this Labor government promised it was going to happen. Those of us that have been around for a while, those of us tipping on the side of 45 plus, all remember 'the recession we had to have'. We all remember when unemployment was superhigh. We all remember when interest rates were through the roof. We all remember how difficult times were in 'the recession we had to have'. What is absolutely astounding from the government is that they seem to have no realisation about how tough everyday Australians are doing it. It actually begs the question, even though we in here are all on very good wages: how many of their senators are feeling the pinch? My mortgage, I can tell you, has doubled since August last year. That makes a difference. I have three children. I'm paying their school fees, paying the grocery bills and paying for their clothes. That all becomes increasingly difficult, even on good wages. So it would be interesting to see if any honesty would be forthcoming, which we know is a big call—a big call; honesty's not really their strong suit—if any of them were brave enough to say, 'You know what? My mortgage has gone up, my rent has gone up, to the point that it is having a significant impact on my household budget,' because we know Australians across the board are feeling this pain. A family of four, since this government has come to power, since its October budget, has been expected to find an extra $22,000. That's how much everything has increased—$22,000. If you are someone who has an annual income that doesn't have a whole big bonus that comes at the end of that and doesn't have the capability for you to go to your boss and negotiate a wage rise, where do you get that $22,000? Some people won't be able to find it. Some people won't be able to find that $22,000. So they and their children are going to miss out. They're going to miss out. That could be missing out on what food goes on the table. That could be missing out on staying in their home. They might have to sell their house. They might have to move from where they're renting to somewhere else. That could mean the kids don't get to stay in the same school—because they have to move. It also means that some people that are small-business owners—and we know those sitting on the government benches don't like small business; they do everything they can to push small business out of business. We are not a hundred per cent sure that there is anyone in the government, in either chamber, who has actually ever owned and run a small business, because they've got no experience or care or consideration— Senator Pratt I0T Oh, gosh, just listen to yourself! Senator HUGHES 273828 What was your small business, Senator Pratt? I note your interjection. Give us an update. I'd love to hear all the small-business experience coming from those on the other side of this chamber and in the House, because it's very difficult to establish, unlike on this side of the house, where almost every member at some point in time has run a small business. Ours was in agriculture, and I can tell you that was good fun—superfun! Not only do you have government policy doing awful things to your business but you're actually out there praying, 'Please rain,' and then, at a different time of year, 'Please stop raining.' Yes, that's a superfun business! Not being in agriculture anymore—and I feel for the farmers every harvest—I've got to say as the ex-wife of a contractor I don't miss it. I don't miss it and I get a bit of PTSD every time I see a header! But I digress. But do you know where these small business owners that have a family of four and are trying to find the extra $22,000 might find it? It's from cutting one of the staff from their business or cutting two of the staff from their business. Do you know what that means? That means unemployment starts to go up, and that means the staffer who just lost his job—because the small-business owner is trying to pay his own mortgage, pay for his own kids and put food on the table—is going to find it even more difficult. So we see the cycle continue. Some of us didn't nap through our economics lectures at university and actually turned up to the tutorials, and so we understand some of the basic economic principles that seem to elude those opposite. I think what is very frightening is that we hear lauded by Treasurer Chalmers the fact that he did his PhD on Prime Minister Keating, I believe, and claims that this is his hero. But, if we look at what this government is trying to do, they're moving back to before prime ministers Hawke and Keating. They are refusing to even uphold the values of the accord. They are trying to head back to pre the eighties. Whilst I do remember the recession and the election of Prime Minister Hawke, I was quite young back then, but I do know that Prime Minister Hawke came in and did take an approach, which was supported, if my memory serves me, by the then opposition Treasurer John Howard, making sensible reforms to the Australian economy, floating the Australian dollar and making sure there was a wages accord so that Australia could move into a modern economic climate and have an economy that was able to compete and participate on a world stage. That's not here today, people. No. The Australian people need to understand we are heading into a time machine. We're back to the seventies and the eighties, where we're going to see small businesses pushed out. We have this facade of 'same job, same pay', which is absolutely so detrimental to the Australian economy. I think today I saw an article that said a $13 billion hole would be blown into the economy—because that's what we can afford at the moment!—a $13 billion hole, thanks to a deceptive policy that's coming through under a pretty slogan, which is actually a complete fallacy. I'll run through it again for those opposite, who aren't getting it. Your budget in October has consistently contributed to the cost of living for all Australians. It's going up for every Australian. So that means increased grocery bills, increased pressure on supply chains and increased petrol costs and energy inputs going in at every step of the way. Whether it's food production with the safeguard mechanism—you know, agriculture is not included but Incitec Pivot is, because those opposite have struggled to find a farm let alone work on one. Incitec Pivot creates fertiliser, which goes on all food products. So when Incitec Pivot have to put their prices up, input costs go onto agriculture. That means food costs go up. We know they would love to go back to targeting the owner-drivers of trucks. We know they want to put pressure on that, because they want their union mates and their big trucking companies to have all the work, which isn't how it works out in the bush. But, when they start to move back into the tribunal around trucking and road requirements, we're going to see less trucks on the road, because it won't be viable for owner-operators to participate anymore, so there'll be an increase in getting that food from the farm to market. Then, of course there'll be fewer trucks to get it to the supermarket. The cost of processing any of that food is going to go up, because the energy costs are so much higher and the big processors, that may get caught up in this safeguard mechanism as it moves, are going to have, again, more costs. By the time it hits the supermarket shelves, you are going to have seen a grocery cost hit at about four to six levels for every single product—every product. People talk about the luxury products. We're not talking about families going in and purchasing their foie gras or their truffle salt; we're talking about people trying to buy bananas, people who might even want to buy some mince and perhaps a tomato to make a bolognaise. We're talking about everyday meals that families have around their table every night, and every single one of those ingredients will be going up. They're going to keep going up, and not because of the war in Ukraine, as they'd like you to believe. If you listen, it's all about Ukraine. It's funny though, because when we were in government the Ukraine war just started and those opposite were: 'How dare you shift it. How dare you look at this,' apart from the fact there was an oil crisis at the time and there were considerable supply chains being hindered by Russia cutting off gas and oil supply to a number of European countries who had mistakenly put all their eggs in one basket. But, now they're in government, it's a very convenient excuse. Well, guys, it's not the case. This inflation is Canberra based, like the Prime Minister. The thing about inflation is that every Australian pays it. It is a tax on everybody. It doesn't matter if you're 15-years-old and going down to buy a packet of Twisties or you're a mum of four going to buy the groceries for the week, you pay inflation. It doesn't matter if you're on a welfare payment or you're a multimillionaire, you pay inflation. It is a tax on all Australians. Yet inflation is continuing to go up under this government. It's at the highest level it's been in 30 years. Maybe this is what they're trying to do; they're trying to hit rates we saw in the late seventies, because that's where they want to take our IR policy. That's where they want to take us back to—the pre-Prime Minister Hawke and Keating days. They want to go back. Maybe that's what they're trying to do with unemployment rates. Maybe it's what they want to do with interest rates. Maybe that's what they want to do with inflation. They're certainly not interested in boosting productivity. We know that the one thing, the one lever, that will make a difference to inflation is productivity. In the last 12 months, what have we seen happen with productivity? How's it going? We had all these promises that it was all going to be great—the cost of living was getting better, inflation was going to come down, mortgages were going to come down, energy bills were coming down, grocery bills were coming down, cost-of-living pressures were coming off for all Australians. But you know what we've seen with productivity in the last 12 months? Under Labor's watch, productivity in the last 12 months, since they came to government, has fallen by 4.6 per cent—cracking job, guys! We've literally come out of a global pandemic which the coalition government steered the Australian economy through; we were one of the few economies that maintained a triple-A credit rating. We actually kept people connected to their workplace and did everything we could to support Australians through unprecedented times. Yet, under this lot, we've seen the one tool we've got to fight inflation, in productivity, fall by 4.6 per cent. That, under your stewardship, is so likely to just get worse. 11:31 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak to the three appropriation bills being considered. Just last month, Labor handed down their second budget within their first year of being in office. There's been much discussion about the government keeping their election promises. It seems to me the only promise Labor are okay with breaking is their promise that no-one will be left behind. This budget portrays everyday Australians caught up in the cost-of-living crisis currently happening, managing high inflation and high interest rates. This budget is a slap in the face for people who are made to choose between paying their rent, buying medication and groceries, and heating their homes. Budgets are about choices and priorities. Labor chose—and I will reiterate that word; they have made a political choice here—to put forward a surplus for a political win instead of prioritising people who are doing it tough. Labor chose to raise more money by indexing student debt instead of making meaningful changes to the PRRT. Labor chose to give $41 billion in fossil fuel subsidies and only $14.6 billion to those who are struggling most. And the daily increase of $2.85 to JobSeeker won't even buy you a loaf of bread or a five-pack of noodles in this country. I don't believe any government when they say they can't afford to do something. The truth is that they don't want to. If the government can afford to spend over a quarter of a billion dollars on stage 3 tax cuts, they can afford to lift everyday Australians out of poverty. With $41 billion of fossil fuel subsidies being given to companies who have absolutely no respect for free, prior and informed consent for First Peoples of this country, in their lands and waters, it seems our fight is as much with the government of the day as it is with the coal and gas billionaires who are destroying our sacred meeting places for both ceremony and cultural business as well as our ancestral songlines and trade routes—which are in fact the social and spiritual fabric of our culture. They are, in that attempt, wrecking the oldest-surviving culture in the world. It's frankly laughable that this government has positioned itself as ending the climate wars. Their emissions reduction target doesn't even come close to what's needed. They continue to push that gas is in fact a transition fuel. We don't need any more gas. We don't need any more new gas projects being approved; in fact, the 116 currently in the pipeline are what we don't need. Traditional owners don't want them. Climate scientists and environmentalists don't want them. Everyday Australians don't need any more gas than what we already have access to, so everyday Australians want you to stop gaslighting us and stop telling us that that's what we need, because it's for the greedy exporters that are making billion-dollar profits off exporting that gas. That's happening from the Beetaloo to the Barossa to Narrabri to Scarborough. First Nations people across this country have been strongly opposed to the destruction of their country and their cultural heritage. And this is all in the name of corporate gain. The Tiwi Islands' traditional owners took Santos to the High Court over their Barossa gas project. Santos have claimed that consultation with First Nations people was about sending two emails and making one unanswered phone call to the Tiwi Land Council. Tiwi Islanders argued that this was in fact not consultation, and the High Court agreed. I think most Australians would also agree that this is not what consultation looks like. The fact that this project was approved in the first place shows that there are absolutely serious issues with the consultation requirements for offshore oil and gas projects in this country. The burden of those regulations is absolutely placed on traditional owners. It's placed on them to prove and to challenge those approvals in court, which is not just an expensive process; it's a time-consuming process that some of these traditional owner groups cannot afford to pay for. They don't have a big bag of cash lying around that they can just go to. The Greens and I were thrilled to see $5.8 million in the October budget for the initial work to establish a makarrata commission. This was a huge step at the time that indicated the Albanese government took the calls for truth and treaty seriously and that they were actually listening to what First Peoples have said. However, there's been no additional money and no additional spending in this budget. In fact we already uncovered during estimates a few weeks ago that $900,000 of this $5.8 million has been spent. We're not even entirely sure what it's been spent on because the bureaucrats didn't actually give us any answers on the day. They said that they would take that on notice. The rest of this money is being held in what's called 'a contingency plan' until after the referendum. I've said many times before in this place that progress can and progress must happen on all three elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. We can do this at the same time. Multitasking is not just for some of us. Governments can also do this. We know that setting up the makarrata commission will take time and it will take negotiation. It could take us many, many years—in fact many decades—to get a treaty in this country, so we absolutely have to get started now. The result of the referendum shouldn't impact on that. It should not impact on progress being made towards a treaty or treaties in this country. The government has committed to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full—truth, treaty and voice—and they need to start showing they are serious about this commitment and start making movement across all of those different pillars of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I was pleased to see the commitment from the government in this budget for a review of consultation requirements, particularly as the spokesperson for resources for the Australian Greens on offshore projects, and this included with First Nations people. However, this commitment was lumped into the review of carbon capture and storage—a method about which, in fact, their own minister has said: 'It has not been proven to work to the scale that is needed to be a viable option to drive down emissions.' Even more disappointing is the fact that this review has already started. It quietly kicked off at the end of May, and we don't know who's involved in this process, what the time line is or even what the desired outcome is. It's like the best kept secret in Australia. This is a huge opportunity. Given that the Barossa project was a pivotal part of First Nations people standing up, using their voice in this country and saying that the regulation of offshore projects in this country didn't identify them as relevant people, the consultation processes weren't enough. If the government were actually serious about getting this review right, the minister should have gone to the Tiwi Islands people, sat with them and asked what was required, or he would have been out there telling people in the broader public what is actually happening, when it's happening and when people will be able to have their say. My belief is that First Nations people, as the traditional owners, need to be at the forefront of that, as do climate groups, marine scientists and other businesses that are also impacted by those offshore projects. This review cannot be like the one for the PRRT changes, where a bunch of high executives from fossil fuel companies locked themselves in a room and decided what changes they were happy with. This has much broader implications. I know Senator McKim and my other colleague Senator Whish-Wilson have done a lot of work on the PRRT in their time here. Speaking of the PRRT and the changes that need to be made to the tax in this budget, they are mere pennies in relation to the profits being made. As I said earlier, the government will be raising more revenue from university students than fossil fuel companies. This is state capture at its finest. It's like the government are an extension of the fossil fuel arm in this country. It's unbelievable. Fossil fuel companies that are making record-breaking profits off the back of high inflation and, as Senator Hughes said, the invasion of Ukraine are paying little to no tax but are still holding ever so tightly onto those tax credits. Nurses pay more tax than some of these companies. The changes to the current tobacco tax will actually raise more money than the PRRT if Treasurer Chalmers continues with the current narrative. With the Greens in the balance of power I look forward to us pushing this government to make sure that this tax actually raises revenue that is proportional to the profits that these companies make. Stop worrying about what your donations are going to deliver at election time. We are in a cost-of-living crisis and we are in a climate crisis, and this budget fails to address both of those. Labor have described this budget as being a result of making hard choices. I don't know how many times I heard during budget week, 'We've made the hard choices.' But a choice they made was actually to leave struggling everyday Australians behind. They left the most vulnerable in our communities behind. I know Senator Rice has risen many times in this chamber to talk about JobSeeker, raising its rate and lifting people in this country out of poverty in the current crisis we are in. Still we are not seeing action from the government. We thought we had a change of government last May, but we continue to see the same rhetoric from this government. Even First Nations communities are being left behind. So even though in this chamber yesterday we were debating the Constitution alteration bill about a Voice to Parliament, we are still ignoring the First Peoples in this country when they say they don't want oil and gas projects on their country. We need to start looking like we are representing the Australian public rather than representing the corporate interests of this nation. At the request of Senator McKim, I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that Labor's second Budget: (a) gives a $24.85 a day tax cut to politicians and billionaires, but only $2.85 a day to jobseekers; (b) gives $16.8 billion over the forward estimates in handouts to wealthy property moguls, but no new money for direct investment in new social and affordable housing; (c) includes $41 billion over the forward estimates in fossil fuel subsidies, which is more than all the investment in Australia becoming a renewable energy superpower; and (d) is a betrayal of the people who were promised that no one would be left behind". 11:43 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It's a pleasure to join others in speaking on the appropriation bills that are before the parliament for debate and deliberation. The job of an elected representative is a pretty basic proposition. We are paid to assist the communities we represent to solve problems. That's it. That is the one thing we—from the Prime Minister to the most junior members of the backbench—have to do. People have different responsibilities. They might have portfolio responsibilities or shadow portfolio responsibilities or be committee chairs—you name it; there are a range of roles we all play—but at the end of the day the one thing we are tasked with doing is to seeking to resolve the problems faced by the communities we represent. I think somewhere along the way this government has lost the memo on that. I think Senator Cox was right to quote the Prime Minister on one of the most important comments he made on election night, and that was that no Australians would be left behind. It was in the first few paragraphs of his election victory speech, and I think there were a lot of people out there listening to that, following on from having cast their votes that day and the weeks of campaigning where they were promised a range of measures that, if elected, an Albanese Labor government would deliver to make their lives better, to ensure that they wouldn't be left behind. Incidentally, it wasn't just about Australians being left behind—while that is a noble and admirable goal to have, to ensure that not a single member of our country, no citizen, is left behind. He went on to say that no-one in this country would be held back, because we should always support aspiration and opportunity, alongside ensuring that no-one will be left behind. Now, they were great promises made through the campaign, big words on election night from the Prime Minister, and those words have been echoed—or at least some of them have. Most of my colleagues have referenced, and I will do the same, that promise around electricity prices, the reduction in the cost of electricity by $275 per annum, a promise made nearly 100 times in the lead-up to the election and referenced once by a member of the Labor frontbench since. It's great to see Senator Ayres here. He did make reference to it—the only Labor politician who, since the election, has talked about that promise of reducing power bills by $275. I pay credit to you, Senator Ayres, for being the only one among your colleagues who doesn't shy away from that promise. We are looking forward to holding you to account on that. But those promises were all broken. I will come to those. But I want to start by turning to my home state of Tasmania, because I took great issue and a high degree of interest in an opinion piece written by a colleague of mine, Senator Anne Urquhart, a great Tasmanian whose heart is in the right place. But she penned this opinion piece titled 'A fairer society and a stronger economy'. I was wondering where she might be writing about—whether she was talking about our country or somewhere else. I went on to read this opinion piece, in a great daily publication, the Advocate newspaper from the north-west coast of Tasmania. Senator Urquhart, who is a very good Tasmanian said: 'How a government decides to direct its resources, what it sees as its priorities and whether it keeps faith with its commitments tells you a lot about who is running the country.' Now, never has a truer word been said, can I tell you. Senator Urquhart goes on to say: 'Labor's budget makes important choices'—much to the point that Senator Cox was making before about tough choices—'It chooses a fairer society and a stronger economy. It chooses to focus on taking the pressure off households and families.' Now, it's great to say that, and to point to a few things the government might have done—and then completely ignore all the things, the problems, that Australians are facing, be they households or businesses, people who invest to create economic activity and provide employment for other Australians. There was silence when it came to the problems we are to solve—going back to my original point—as elected representatives with one job: to solve the problems our communities face. Senator Urquhart does not go anywhere near talking about dealing with the problems that the people of north-west Tasmania are facing. She talks about a fairer society and a stronger economy, but I struggle to see how, in the two budgets that have been handed down, that's actually been delivered to the people of Tasmania, on any count. At the last election the coalition promised $3 million to support between six and eight aged-care beds in a town called Queenstown, on the west coast of Tasmania. If we were genuine about making Australia fairer and stronger—and in this case making the north-west coast of Tasmania, the electorate of Braddon, a fairer and stronger part of our country—then funding would have been matched and provided for that facility and that community. We all know about the situation, the pressure faced by our aged-care sector and those who rely upon it: those most in need, those who are at the end of their days, who've made a massive contribution to our country and who deserve the respect and dignity of good quality care—except if you live on the west coast of Tasmania, because $3 million was too much to find in the budget to ensure that people who live in a very remote part of my home state get what they need. I commend the member for Braddon, Mr Gavin Pearce, for calling this out. That community is still waiting for that money; that community still needs it. A fairer society, a stronger economy would do well to have that commitment honoured. The people of the west coast deserve it. Indeed, we only have to look across to the electorate of Bass, where community infrastructure has gone begging under this government. Commitments were not made to support grassroots sporting activities, for example. And while I enjoy Senator Polley's TikTok videos about what's happening here in Parliament House, I'm more concerned about what's happening— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator DUNIAM 263418 'enjoy' is probably a loose term—on the ground in Bass, in the northern part of our state, and how funding isn't being provided to these community groups but instead ripped out of grassroots activities and facilities in that part of the state. And while Senator Polley is very strong on certain issues and I look forward to working with her on some of them that I will be speaking about later today, I am concerned about her willingness to turn a blind eye to what northern Tasmania is missing out on when it comes to community sporting infrastructure, much in the same way the Labor member for Lyons, Mr Mitchell, has stood idly by while money has been ripped out of roads and infrastructure programs in Tasmania. We only have to look at the example of the Hobart to Sorell corridor, the Midway Point causeway, which is a massive commuter route for people who head into the Hobart city area for work each day from the south-east suburbs of Greater Hobart. Thirty-five million dollars has been taken out of that vital piece of infrastructure work. The Tasmanian roads investment contingency fund had $62 million taken out of it. The Tasmanian Northern Roads Package stage 2 had $67 million take out of it. Some of these are in Bass, in Braddon and in Lyons; some of them relate to the electorate of Franklin. Right across the state, we're missing out on vital infrastructure at this point in time because of this government. While according to certain opinion pieces this government is 'building a fairer society and stronger economy' by ripping money out of vital infrastructure projects, we have a commitment from this government to fund a $240 million waterfront stadium in Hobart's CBD. You know what? That's not the issue. The issue is how this government have chosen to fund this waterfront stadium. We already know that their priority isn't aged-care facilities for the west coast of Tasmania. It isn't grassroots sports infrastructure in northern Tasmania, in the electorate of Bass. It isn't roads for the people who live in south-eastern Lyons. Senators Urquhart and Polley and Mr Mitchell have made their views clear: they're happy to see the funding go to a stadium and not these on-ground infrastructure projects which would actually benefit the community. We know where their priorities are. But what's worse is the terrible approach they've taken to ensuring that we do actually miss out as a result of this decision. This funding has not been exempted from GST calculations. At estimates, I asked whether the government had guaranteed that this funding would be exempt from GST calculations for the state of Tasmania. No guarantee could be given. No Labor member from Tasmania had asked at that point in time whether that guarantee could be given. As we all know, GST for a state like Tasmania—it is a smaller state; it has a smaller population; it has a smaller economy. One of the beauties of Federation is that no matter where you live you are entitled to the same level of support when it comes to government services, no matter whether you live in downtown Sydney or remote or rural Tasmania. GST funding is essential when it comes to health, when it comes to education, when it comes to other essential services that Tasmanians deserve. But under the decision and the arrangement that's been struck up between the Albanese Labor government and the Tasmanian government, we will miss out. Now, I will point out that the Tasmanian Treasurer, Mr Michael Ferguson, has asked for this exemption to occur, like it has with other projects—like it did with the Mersey Community Hospital $730 million payment to the state of Tasmania for them to take back on what was under federal responsibility. The Mersey Community Hospital, just outside of Devonport, in the community of Latrobe, was exempt from GST calculations. I know that because I helped broker the deal. It was a good deal. But, for this one, not a single Labor senator from Tasmania, not Mr Mitchell and not Ms Collins, who sits in cabinet, has been able to, for the people of Tasmania—I see Senator McKim, who agrees with me on this. Ms Collins has not done her job for the people she represents: to ensure that they don't lose health funding for the sake of this stadium. The funding's coming; the deal's been done. Tassie will get a team. It's now obviously a matter for the Tasmanian parliament. But the matter for this crew here, the Australian government, the Albanese Labor government, is: are you actually pro-Tasmania or pro-Canberra? Are you going to protect Canberra's interests and make sure you don't have to pay twice, or are you going to do the right thing by the people of Tasmania and make sure that we don't lose a cent when it comes to health, education and other essential services? I've heard zip so far. I hope I hear more before this debate concludes. All of this, the abandonment of responsibility on the part of the Tasmanian Labor federal MPs and senators—I say that seriously: 'abandonment'—who are happy to come up here and do TikTok videos talking about their commitment to sports infrastructure in downtown Hobart but walk right away from a commitment to ensure Tasmania is no worse off when it comes to health, is an abrogation of duty. It doesn't speak to a fairer society, it certainly doesn't speak to a stronger economy and it breaks my heart. I have to tell you, Deputy President McLachlan, that, when colleagues who come from my community so happily walk away from commitments they made just a year ago and from the people back home who are getting on with trying to pay their power bills, make sure they have enough money in their bank account for their mortgage repayment, put fuel in the car so they can get their kids to school and keep the heating on through winter, they don't know what's going on up here. It's our job, as the opposition, to make sure people do know that's exactly what Senator Urquhart, Senator Polley, Senator Brown, Senator Bilyk, Mr Mitchell and Ms Collins are doing. They're abandoning their state. They're abandoning Tasmanians, even though they say differently. I look forward to Senator Urquhart penning an opinion piece to tell us, of course, that she has secured a commitment to have the stadium funding exempt from GST. I asked about it in this place over a month ago. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong—in fairness to her, I don't expect her to be across the ins and outs of where things were at, but it seemed like a pretty low-order priority to this government, and that distresses me because Tasmanians, like anyone who lives on the big island, are Australians, too. They shouldn't miss out on health funding just to back in a group of Tasmanian federal Labor MPs and senators who see their job as protecting the firm up here in Canberra, not looking after the interests of people in Tasmania who are doing it tough. They've got their priorities wrong. No matter what they write in papers and no matter what they say, they've dropped the ball and they've let Tasmanians down. This is something that I will make sure as many Tasmanians as possible know. 11:58 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I believe this second Albanese government budget is a time for reflection, a reflection on what this government promised and what it's delivered. There's been much talk about the Prime Minister's broken promises, without any thought to the question: were these promises ever designed to be kept, or were these strategic promises designed to hide this government's Soviet-style agenda during the election campaign? It's that agenda that I speak to now. It's an agenda of making people reliant on government handouts, to make them captive to the government. A compliant, captive population is the building block of a Soviet-style society that this Prime Minister appears to have supported in his youth. As part of this agenda, rather than creating viable private sector jobs, the Prime Minister is destroying them. We've lost 1,500 jobs in transport with the loss of Scott's Refrigerated Logistics in the name of net zero—trucking. We've lost jobs and risk losing entire communities in coal regions, including the Bowen Basin in our state of Queensland, in the name of net zero—mining. We've lost jobs in the live sheep export industry, which Labor is shutting down in the name of net zero—grazing. We're set to lose more jobs and more family farms in the agricultural sector as Minister Plibersek restarts water buybacks in the name of net zero—agriculture. 'No water buybacks' was another broken promise which all along was really a bald-faced lie. Net zero has made Australians poorer, transferring tens of billions of dollars in wealth from taxpayers to the government's mates in the solar and wind scam, who then export that wealth to foreign tax havens. Solar and wind are parasitic mal-investments. They're parasitic and they kill their host, the Australian economy. All this is wrapped in a feel-good cloak of saving the planet. Supported by affluent Australians who have led lives of plenty, these people now embrace the climate agenda to ease their conscience about leading lives of plenty. In reality, net zero is a fraudulent plan to replace productive energy generation with fairytale generation designed to create energy shortage, and from that shortage comes control. The only winners will be the billionaire carpetbaggers who are driving this agenda through their ownership of media, energy companies and, of course, political parties. The Prime Minister has given in to the foreign controlled Australian banks, removing penalties for criminal banking behaviour. Surely, criminal banking behaviour will follow. Let me remind people: former Prime Minister John Howard did the same thing in 2003 when he tore up the banking code of practice and gave the green light to banks to tear apart the laws of fairness and decency, laws that protected everyday Australians from financial exploitation. Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones has withdrawn penalties for criminal bankers in his financial accountability scheme proposal. He really is a friend—a great friend—of the big banks and their foreign owners. What, may I ask, is he doing in the Labor Party? The Prime Minister is hollowing out the bush, transferring up to two-thirds of Australian land area to the United Nations through native title and locking it away from Aboriginals. The Prime Minister has cancelled one submarine that will never be built and replaced it with another submarine that will never be built, all the while destroying Australia's defensive capability. Everyday Australia will feel the result of this mismanagement all at once, and then unrest will result. That's why the Prime Minister and our weakened, complicit military leadership are training Australian troops to attack Australian protesters. Clearly, the troops on the streets threatening and intimidating Australians into staying silent in their homes were just on a training exercise for what's to come. Yet the future is never dictated; it can only be manipulated. Conservatives can retake government in the next election if we come together and do more to spread our message of economic prosperity, family, community and Australian values. I've said this before in this place: abundance is not a dirty word; it's a wonderful word. One Nation is the party of abundance, with policies that generate wealth for everyday Australians and prevent wealth from being leeched away from Australia. Conservatives must do more to drown out the self-interest of the presstitute media, who are advancing the interests of predatory billionaires on their share register over the interests of everyday Australians. Here's an example: in the recent Senate committee hearing into One Nation's anti-vaccine-mandate bill, we heard of a fine young Australian killed by vaccine mandates imposed by her employer, SG Global. SG Global is part-owned by the Vanguard investment fund. Their primary shareholder is a South African company that is partly owned by Vanguard. They use financing instruments from Vanguard. Vanguard use their ownership to force vaccine mandates that require the purchase of vaccines from Pfizer, a company in which Vanguard are the largest institutional shareholder. Do you see how it works? That's how the rich become richer and everyday Australians lose wealth, lose health and, with no explanation or media interest, lose their lives in unexplained deaths. There have been more than 35,000 excess deaths in Australia. In a world run by everyday Australians, this sort of crony capitalism would rightly be considered racketeering, yet no action has been taken by the uniparty to uncover the truth and dispense justice to the crooked. What we hear from the Prime Minister is rhetoric around plans for better days accompanied by handouts to make it look like he cares—not to do good but to look good. Handouts are government funded fake jobs which will not lift the poor out of poverty. They will not provide a sustainable breadwinner job that is so necessary for starting and supporting a family. The indisputable truth here is that wealth drives social change, not the other way around. Handouts take wealth; they do not create it. This is why every policy that comes out of the antihuman Greens, the teals and the Labor Party is about making people poorer and taking their homeownership, their spending power, their opportunity and, worse, their pride in order to break their spirit. This is not an unfortunate outcome of Albanese government policies. This is the agenda the Prime Minister was covering up with his empty promises during the election campaign. It is a deliberate strategy to return the public to poverty, where they can be controlled, indoctrinated and caged in their 15-minute cities. Even the Bank of England stated recently that the public had to get used to being poorer. To hell with that. Corporate ownership and influence in Australia have gone too far. Health has been compromised, as I spoke about during my recent matter of public importance on a COVID royal commission, which the Albanese government promised before it was elected. Education has been compromised, as I spoke about in my two-minute statement on the sex education program of the UN and the UN's World Health Organization that can only be called child sexual grooming. Energy has been compromised, as Treasurer Chalmers's $15 billion income support in the budget shows. This giveaway is an admission of the failure of parasitic solar and wind energy to provide energy that people can afford. It's not just energy, of course. Food is becoming much more expensive, and that process will continue until everyday Australians eat the bugs or the lab meat—the in-vitro, cancerous meat. If this is not obvious to the chamber yet, then let me use an example from the Netherlands, where the globalist government of World Economic Forum lackey Mark Rutte has announced that they're buying back 1,000 family farms from Dutch farmers and rewilding them, using taxpayer money to buy back farms and shut the farms, shutting food production. The purchase agreement made at the point of an administrative gun requires the farmers to agree to never farm their land or any other land in the European Union ever again—all that knowledge gone, all that experience gone and all those farmers prevented from ever growing food again. Is this where Australia is heading? Under the antihuman Greens and the soviet Albanese government, the answer is yes, no doubt. I call on the Prime Minister to categorically rule out purchasing and rewilding Australian farms and to rule out taking food off the table and the future away from rural Australians. One Nation's message to the Prime Minister is this: Australia is not the Soviet Union, and it never will be. It's time Australian conservatives left behind the fifth column of globalist infiltration that has infected parts of the Liberal and National parties and returned to genuine conservativism. History has shown that the only way to lift people out of poverty and oppression is through economic progress. That's the basis for human progress. The last 170 years have been remarkable for that. The last 30 years have seen a backward step under policies adopted from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. History has taught us that some rich greedy bastard will always try and take everything for themselves. It is, though, only in recent years that the Labor and Liberal parties have decided to let them do that, no doubt in response to pressure from the party of the rich, the teals. The Liberals seem to have forgotten one of their founding principles: wealth in the hands of everyday Australians is the antidote to oppression and tyranny. One Nation will grow the wealth of everyday Australians and drive Australia forward using our abundant, cheap means of power generation, coal, to produce clean, environmentally responsible baseload power—reliable, secure, stable, synchronous baseload power. This will provide an answer to net zero for those who have joined the UN and World Economic Forum's alliance and its net zero cult, while we will also save the national silverware—and by that I mean our productive capacity. One Nation will use vehicles driven by internal-combustion engines that power our productive capacity in a way that electric vehicles can only ever pretend to do, at a fraction of the cost of those monstrous electric vehicles—inefficient resource hogs. One Nation will build infrastructure, including through Project Iron Boomerang, the Outback Way project, the Gladstone port upgrade and the Hells Gate water and hydro project. These are Queensland projects that will provide breadwinner jobs for 100,000 Australians and add 20 per cent to our gross domestic product. The longer the Albanese government wrecking ball continues, the more Australia will need a One Nation conservative government to restore wealth and opportunity to everyday Australians. 12:10 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I want to bring a human context to this debate. I note that we have four Queensland senators in the chamber at the moment—Senator Roberts, Senator Chisholm, Senator McDonald and me—and each and every one of us would care about the people of Ipswich. My office is located in Springfield, which is within the Ipswich City Council area. There is a wonderful organisation there called Ipswich Assist, and they've been operating a food bank for quite some time. Recently they had a freezer break down, which was a desperate issue for them because they get 100 kilograms of meat donated from JBS meatworks in the area and they need that freezer to provide for the people in the community who rely on them. The community rallied, and enough funds were actually raised for two freezers. I give my deep compliments to Jason Budden and his team at Ipswich Assist and also congratulate JBS for making that contribution. When I visited recently, Jason and his team told me that there is an ever-increasing demand for the relief that they provide. They assist over 600 people a week in relation to cost-of-living pressures, and the feedback from Jason and his team is that they're starting to see people who they've never seen before. They are seeing families where there is someone with employment, but, with the impact of interest rates, inflation, grocery prices, electricity prices and rent increases, there is a cost-of-living crisis, and Ipswich Assist are at the coalface of dealing with that crisis. So there is a profound human dimension to this. People are struggling across this country. At the time when the last budget was brought down, those on this side of the chamber raised questions and concerns about whether or not that budget was fit for purpose for this point in time. I made a contribution in this place and spoke about how it was a big-taxing, big-spending and expansionary budget which, in my view, would contribute to inflation and which heightens the risk of a further interest rate rise. We saw that interest rate rise, and that hits every family's bottom line. I commend to everyone an article that was in the West Australian recently, written by my good friend Senator Dean Smith, in relation to the scourge of inflation and the need for leadership at the highest levels in this country to be focused on defeating inflation. I would recommend that everyone read that article. It was a very thoughtful article and an excellent contribution to the debate, because inflation is the great hidden tax. It impacts every single person in this country. It's a regressive hidden tax in the sense that it hurts those at the lower income end of the spectrum more than it hurts those at the upper end, because those at the lower end of the income spectrum have less discretion around their spending because they're struggling to meet the necessities of life. I think Senator Smith encapsulated those thoughts very well in terms of his arguments. I did want to go to some detail with respect to the last inflation increase and how this translated into actual figures impacting all Australians. When this was released, there was a statement made by Mr Marcel Thieliant, Senior Economist at Capital Economics. He said, 'It now looks more likely than not that Q2 inflation will overshoot the RBA's forecast of 6.3 per cent.' (Time expired) Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 28 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Workplace Relations: Transport Industry, World Elder Abuse Awareness Day 28 12:15 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania It saddens me, as someone who worked in the transport and exporting industries before coming to this place, that we see fuelled by the gig economy a race to the bottom and a deplorable lack of reasonable safeguards. Workers in the transport industry have fallen victim to an increasingly dangerous working environment, unfair labour conditions and plummeting pay rates. In this growing and nearly entirely unregulated space, gig drivers are forming a shadow workforce that undercuts parallel drivers who have won hard-earned rights and job protections through strong bargaining processes. Under the pretence of flexibility and what is now labelled as the 'Amazon effect' by the Transport Workers' Union, gig companies like Amazon are propelling unrealistic demands from wealthy clients. These companies, through schemes such as Amazon Flex are extracting copious levels of work from drivers with the lowest possible rate of remuneration and a complete lack of labour protections. These arrangements regularly see gig drivers being forced to put themselves in unsafe situations to meet nonsensical targets just to barely make ends meet, with crippling hours and working conditions. To demonstrate just how unrealistic these targets are across the gig economy, the average number of parcels delivered in a ten-hour delivery shift have skyrocketed to 93. That's one delivery for every six minutes, a standard that drivers often must meet to merely keep their jobs. What this means in the gig industry is that drivers are left with no other choice than to cut vital corners and threaten the basic safety of themselves and others. These behaviours are often directly encouraged by the gig employers themselves, with one-quarter of drivers feeling pressured to pass legal hours and to skip rest breaks and one-fifth of them being made to exceed speed limits to meet deadlines. This disgraceful disregard for safety in the gig driving industry have resulted in tragic, real-world implications on roads across our communities, An appalling 1,000-plus deaths from truck incidents have been reported since 2016, stemming from one-quarter of truck drivers having been involved in crashes while working. Somehow even more shocking is that 41 per cent of truckies have known a co-worker who has been killed on the job. This extraordinary risk to drivers comes with very little in the way of basic fair wages for them putting their lives on the line. While 81 per cent of gig economy drivers depend on their meagre earnings to afford everyday necessities, their pitiful remuneration has forced 41 per cent of them to work over 40 hours a week. This is all while 66 per cent of them earn less than the minimum wage on a full-time basis, directly contributing to 45 per cent of gig drivers struggling to afford groceries and household bills. Soon this race to the bottom by companies willing to out-compete each other, via slashing workplace conditions and basic safety standards for employees, threatens to spread across the entire Australian transport industry. FedEx has recently proposed an Amazon Flex style model of employment that would expand an underclass of gig workers' arrangements across a quarter to half of their entire workforce. These troubling developments are precisely why the Albanese Labor government recognises the need for urgent reform in this field to save good-paying jobs with hard-won working conditions across Australia and particularly in my home state of Tasmania. This is why workplace relations minister, the Hon. Tony Burke, along with the Transport Workers Union, joined a comprehensive roundtable with several gig companies and supply-chain clients to agree on creating enforceable and fair conditions for gig workers, alongside a powerful standard-setting body that will ensure a level playing field for all stakeholders. No more can hardworking Australians be vulnerable to appalling exploitation practices when we finally guarantee workplace rights for all working employees in Australia in this critical sector, the transport sector. I now want to turn to mark World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. We know that elder abuse is a scourge in our society. So, in marking and respecting the significance of World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, we must recognise that the stain of elder abuse in our community is all too prevalent and needs to be stamped out in its entirety. As family members, carers, friends and loved ones of older Australians, we must all hold a shared responsibility in protecting some of the most vulnerable in our society from the blight of abuse. We know that elder abuse comes in many forms. But we also need to understand that observing that abuse without reporting it means that older Australians are not going to be able to enjoy their lives. We know that at least 10 per cent of elderly Australians have been victims of elder abuse. We know this can come in the way of financial abuse. It can be coercion. It can be denying adequate care for them. It can be from their loved ones and their own children, who could be encouraging their parents to change their wills, to sell their property or to take a reverse mortgage to enable their children to do that must-have extension of a movie room for their family home. We know—and I have spoken about this on many, many occasions—that this is disproportionately affecting elderly women who come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. We need to continue to highlight this scourge in our society. I would like to give a shout-out to a former senator in this place. You won't be surprised. I'm always one to acknowledge the contribution of senators. Former senator and now Dr Kay Patterson has been outstanding as the Australian Human Rights Commissioner for age discrimination. She is somebody I worked with in this place and certainly while she has been in that important role. She has travelled the country, far and wide, to raise public awareness of this scourge in our community. In this place, we are sometimes—many times—actually a bit combative in our contributions, but I think it is important to acknowledge those people who make a contribution. We also need to raise awareness in the community for the purpose of ensuring that, if you have observed elder abuse, if you feel that someone has been coerced or taken advantage of or if there's an older Australian whose wellbeing you have concerns about, you know you have a duty and responsibility to report that to the appropriate authorities. We know that it takes more than just a speech in this place to change attitudes within the community, but I think there is enough goodwill around this chamber and the other place to ensure that we can continue to raise this awareness in the community. It is not just about physical abuse, although obviously that is very concerning; we also know about the psychological abuse, the coercion, the denial of care and the reality that there are those who regularly visit their grandparents when they are getting their Centrelink payment, and they've been to the bank—that they come for their handout. That's not acceptable. Of course, we all want to help out our children and our grandchildren. But if you have any concerns whatsoever that somebody has been taken advantage of it is then your responsibility to report that abuse. We have to take that abuse of our elderly Australians out of that dark place and shine a light on it. The elder abuse hotline is 1300368821. If you feel that that person is in imminent danger, then you should dial triple 0 and report it. Holocaust Remembrance Day 30 12:26 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Every year on the 27th of the Jewish month of Nisan, Jews and non-Jews around the world observe Holocaust Remembrance Day, or, as it's known in Israel, Yom HaShoah. This year it was commemorated on 17 and 18 April, coinciding with the 80th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The value, or, rather, essentialness, of remembrance is something well understood to Jewish people. The Hebrew word for remember, 'zachor', is repeated nearly 200 times in the Hebrew bible and embodies the belief in a divine commandment to remember, such as remembering the Sabbath, remembering the Covenant and remembering the Exodus from Egypt. In particular, the Book of Deuteronomy includes a specific commandment to remember the suffering inflicted on the Jewish people on their journey out of Egypt. Jewish people are called to keep in their memory the injustice of this persecution, which included targeted violence against women, children and the elderly. Ultimately, this practice of zachor is meant to keep the tragedies of the past close in the Jewish consciousness, to ensure they are never again repeated, so that the suffering of their ancestors was not in vain. It's a practice that has taken on significant additional implications in the aftermath of the Holocaust. The systemic murder of over six million Jews during the terror of the Nazi regime remains one of the darkest periods in our recorded history. As should be well known to us all, the Nazi regime sought to completely eradicate Jews across Europe and subjected them to forced labour, starvation, medical experiments and execution in many cruel forms. The horror of these events is difficult to properly express or represent in words. The world has relied heavily on the contributions of those brave survivors, who have reminded us, through their own storytelling, of this period of death and destruction, and who have been able to articulate to us the nature of this horror in the most lucid of ways—given, of course, it was them who saw it with their own eyes and experienced it with their own pain. They felt the pain of watching the execution of their loved ones, the indignity of being reduced to a number tattooed on their body and the agony of starvation and torture. As the survivors generation of the Holocaust passes away, we look instead to the significance of honouring their story in the spirit of how Jews have practised zachor for generations. Whilst Yom HaShoah is a period of mourning, it is also a time to recognise the bravery of those who resisted the Holocaust and its perpetrators. We note that this year commemorated 80 years since the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, where 13,000 Jews were killed in an act of resistance against their forced transportation to the Majdanek and Treblinka death camps. These resistors faced terrible odds and chose to face death on their own terms, in a final stand against their oppressors. The Holocaust Institute of Western Australia and the Jewish Community Council of WA honoured this anniversary in April this year with their own Yom HaShoah commemorations, headlining the uprising as an embodiment of what they dared to do. Whilst my travel commitments prevented me from attending this year's memorial, which has become an important custom of mine, I did want to use this opportunity in the Senate to acknowledge all the work that they do upholding the mission of education and remembrance of the Holocaust. This day of remembrance is observed in many reverent ways around the world and across our own country. In Israel the entire nation comes to a standstill as sirens are heard in every city and this is followed by a moment of silence. In Australia, exhibitions, lectures and memorials take place in synagogues, community centres and museums nationwide. In the homes of many, candles are lit to pray for those whose lives were lost in the genocide. I spoke in this place recently of the work of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and the necessity of the important work that the organisation does in fighting antisemitism, which continues to rear its ugly head in some corners of our own community here in Australia. It remains true that education and remembrance of the Holocaust are critical elements of fighting antisemitism and hateful discrimination. Many antisemitic people change their views when confronted with Holocaust survivors and the truth of the events that took place during the Second World War. Once those survivors have gone it will be entirely up to us to keep their memory alive. May we all recognise the importance of Yom HaShoah, work to ensure that the world never again bears witness to a holocaust and, more importantly, stand resolute in calling out and standing up against those preconditions to the terrible events that made something like the Holocaust such a terrible event. Just on Sunday, before travelling to Canberra, I had the opportunity again to join with the Western Australian Jewish community at their JHUB, Jewish Hebrew centre, community fundraising appeal. This appeal is in addition to the $12 million—half contributed by the WA state government and the other half by the federal government—to refurbish the Jewish community centre in Western Australia and, importantly, to improve upon and house the Holocaust Remembrance Centre in Western Australia. The Western Australian Jewish community has a tremendously proud history of contributing to not only Perth and its suburbs but also the entire Western Australian community. I just use this opportunity again to honour all of those people who have been involved in working towards funding the refurbishment of the Jewish community centre in Menora, which is close to where I live. I want to add my continued support for the wonderful work the Jewish community does not just in my home state of Western Australia, as important as that is to me, but across our whole country. Environment 31 12:32 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak on the important issue of Australia's environment laws. The laws of this country currently allow for the approval of big new fossil fuel projects—coalmines, gas wells and gas fields—without any consideration of the impact that these polluting projects will have on our environment or our wildlife, let alone on making the climate crisis worse. The Minister for the Environment and Water, Ms Plibersek, has said that her approval of the Isaac River coalmine had to be done because her hands were tied and there was nothing in the law to stop her approving this coalmine. Well, newsflash: this is the country's environment minister and it is time for the environment minister to protect the environment. If it is that the laws are broken then it's up to the environment minister and this government to fix them. We need laws in this country that protect our wildlife, protect our forests and protect our environment from more pollution. It is not good enough to say that it's out of the hands of the minister and nothing can be done. We are facing an environmental crisis that is fuelled by the climate crisis. We are losing native species in this country at a rate never seen before. We are losing native forests. We are losing important iconic places in this country that Australians care deeply about. Heavens above—Australia's koala is facing extinction. And all the while we have an environment minister who says it's not her job to fix this. Well, it is, and this parliament should expect this minister to do more and to do better. As we confront the reforms that this environment minister is going to bring forward to this place over the next couple of months, they must include stopping the logging and stopping the pollution. If we don't have environment laws that stop polluting projects with a climate trigger, they are not worth the paper they are printed on. If you can't guarantee as the environment minister of this country that you will protect the environment from further pollution, from the fossil fuel expansion that's making the climate crisis worse, then you're not doing your job. This is a fundamental issue that needs to be tackled. We are at a time in history when our environment is under immense pressure. Species decline is rapid. The climate crisis is getting worse, and we have the fossil fuel companies wanting to continue to expand their projects, pouring fuel on the fire. We need to make sure that our environment laws protect our environment and protect our communities from making these situations worse. When the environment minister signed off and approved the Isaac River coal mine, only some weeks ago, the country was aghast. This is a government who have said—they went to the election saying—that they care about the climate crisis. This is an environment minister who says she cares about our environment. Yet here we have the approval of a coal mine that is going to make pollution worse and is located on the critical habitat of Australian native species like the koala. It is just bonkers that in 2023 we have environment laws in this country that don't stand up and protect the environment. It is not good enough for the minister to simply say that it's out of her hands. It's time to fix it. What is the point of being in government if you're not going to use the office for good, if you're not going to make the changes you promised people, if you're not going to stand up when it really counts? If you don't want to be the environment minister, hand it to somebody else. There are 116 fossil fuel projects in the pipeline. There are currently five projects on the minister's desk awaiting approval in the next six months. That's what the government's own department advised us only a number of weeks ago. So, environment minister Tanya Plibersek has on her desk right now five requests from fossil fuel companies for her green light. The challenge to the environment minister today is: will you stand for the environment and Australia's wildlife, or will you do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry? Australians are watching. Australian children are watching. The future of this country and the health of our environment is in your hands, Minister. Do not let them down. If you do—if you sign off on these projects—we will fight it every step of the way, in this chamber and outside, because we are facing an environmental crisis, a climate crisis. In 2023, we can't afford to have mealy-mouthed ministers sitting on their hands and saying that it's all too hard and they can't do anything about it—not good enough. You'll be held to account. Ward, Mr John Desmond, OAM, Noonan, Mr David 32 12:40 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to pay my respects to the late John Ward OAM. John will be remembered as a rare individual and a thoroughly decent person. He was one of few who truly deserve the moniker of 'pillar of the community'. A pillar is strong, gives support and is the very foundation upon which we build healthy families, successful institutions and thriving communities, and John embodied those principles. Born in 1939, John committed his life to the service of others. He studied to become a teacher and began teaching at Bega High School in 1958. After a long and distinguished career in education, he retired from permanent teaching in 1999, after 41 years, including over 14 years as a school principal. But his passion for educating young Australians saw him continue casual teaching well beyond his retirement. In fact, he taught students in our schools for over 65 years, such was his complete commitment to the profession. John's long and distinguished career was recognised in 2000, when he was awarded life membership of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, having earlier been recognised as a life member of the Manly-Warringah Teachers Association. Angelo Gavrielatos, the New South Wales Teachers Federation president, paid tribute to John's union activism, which dated back to the Menzies era, when he took part in lobbying efforts to secure federal funding for science education. As a committed trade unionist, John was of course also very active in the Australian Labor Party. He served as honorary treasurer, and then subsequently as president, from 1987 until the day he died in his local community—an extraordinary commitment to the values of labourism, in an area not exactly known for being a traditional Labor stronghold. In addition to teaching, trade unionism and political activism, John's commitment to creating a better life for others extended to decades of volunteering and leadership in community and sporting organisations. He was heavily involved in the Elanora Community Centre for 30 years, holding the positions of honorary secretary, from 1989 to 1999, and honorary treasurer, from 1999 to 2019. John was also president of the 2nd Narrabeen Scout Group, a member of the Manly-Warringah Environmental Education Association, honorary treasurer of the Pittwater RSL Sub-branch, vice-president of the NSW Aboriginal Education Council and, for 60 years, a member and examiner with the Royal Life Saving Society of Australia. It's an incredible record of a lifetime of community participation, rivalled only by his involvement in sport. Over the decades, he was a referee in the New South Wales Rugby League, an umpire for the Chequers Netball Club, a state basketball referee, a secretary of the Parramatta men's basketball association, president of Sydney North Secondary School Sports Association, an honorary treasurer and president of Elanora Park Tennis Club and a director of the Sydney Academy of Sport. Between his years of service and support for the community, the Labor Party, the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the public education system, John contributed many lifetimes of service to the betterment of others. It's difficult to do justice to the life of such a remarkable man in a speech that goes for just a short period. For many of his accomplishments, he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia on Australia Day in 2023. John is survived by his wife, Pam, an extraordinary person in her own right. John and Pam were married for 65 years, and together they raised a large and loving family, including six children—Stephen, Katherine, Peter, Helen, Kali and Rebekah—10 grandchildren and one great-granddaughter so far. John's life and legacy remain an inspiration to his family, friends, students, colleagues and the organisations and communities to which he committed his love, his work and his life. Vale, John Ward. I'd also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the extraordinary career and service of another dear friend, Dave Noonan, who retired as CFMEU national secretary earlier this year. Dave first joined the CFMEU's predecessor, the Builders Labourers Federation, in 1985 while working on a construction site. Over 38 years, he went from rank-and-file member to organiser to industrial advocate, later becoming president of the Victorian division, assistant secretary of the national office and finally, for the last 16 years, serving as national secretary. Surviving 38 years in that industry is an achievement in itself, both figuratively and literally. But despite his enduring legacy in the construction industry, perhaps some of his greatest contributions were on Twitter, where he was the first person to coin the term 'Joyced'. If you're not familiar with the expression, it's become very popular in the last year. If your flight is delayed or cancelled, your flight has been 'Joyced'. If your bag has been lost or sent to the other side of the world, your bag has been 'Joyced'. I bet that Dave has seen a hundred Alan Joyces in the construction industry, a place where there is no shortage of crooks who will put their workers lives and livelihoods at risk to make an extra buck. I dare say a lot of people in this place don't really understand how tough it is in construction either. I don't mean the back-breaking work; it's the pyramid subcontracting where payment for a day's work is never truly guaranteed. It's an industry rife with phoenixing, sham contracting, dodgy labour hire companies, wage theft and, worst of all, builders who happily put their workers' lives at risk to cut corners on costs. Construction like road transport is the final frontier when it comes to labour and safety standards, and that's why the CFMEU's work is so damn important. And while Dave Noonan and the CFMEU have been trying to go about this work, every single day those opposite have attacked and demonised them on behalf of their paymasters at the Master Builders Association. Those opposite set up a disgraced and discredited regulator, the ABCC, to enforce rules such as taking stickers off caps, off posters and off building sites, and flags and cups of teas and women's toilets. All those important issues that the ABCC thought were essential to the High Court wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars. The ABCC portrayed Dave and his colleagues as thugs when anyone who has met Dave will tell you he is sharper and better read than many warming the benches opposite. Dave has dedicated his life to the welfare— Senator Scarr 282997 You were going so well! Senator Hughes 273828 How many degrees have you got? Senator SHELDON 168275 I said 'many opposite'. Dave has dedicated his life to the welfare of construction workers and has a legacy to be proud of. The disgraced Australian Building and Construction Commission has been dumped into the dustbin of history. Now with landmark IR reforms, which the CFMEU and other unions have campaigned for over many years—including same job, same pay and the criminalisation of wage theft—we're moving forward. This government is committed to taking action on silicosis and on industrial manslaughter. Now the future is brighter and safer for construction workers, and Dave has played a key part in that. Best wishes for your future, mate. You deserve it! Health: Smoking 33 12:48 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I'm going to let Senator Sheldon's slight slip by— Senator Scarr 282997 He wasn't talking about us! Senator HUGHES 273828 clearly not us—but I'm not going to let Senator Hanson-Young's speech pass. I notice she made a big deal about the habitats of koalas being under threat by coalmines. I hope to hear the same passion from Senator Hanson-Young when we see koala habitats being descried through the development of wind turbine and solar farms with the at least 22,000 solar panels required every day. We need 22,000 solar panels every day and 40 wind turbines per month if we're to reach our renewable target, all of which will most likely be contributing to the depletion of koala habitat. And yet silence from the Greens. Never let hypocrisy get in the way of a good rant, but I digress. My first minute, but this is not what I'm here to speak to today. The issue that I really want to speak to isn't just about policy, it's actually about Australian lives and the potential that we have, in this place, to save up to 20,000 Australian lives each and every year. This is a matter of public health and it's one where Australia is lagging behind when it comes to international best practice. I wanted to have a discussion today about one global best practice situation that's occurring in Sweden. This Scandinavian country, with a population of just over 10 million, is currently on the cusp of achieving an extraordinary feat. It is about to become the first nation to effectively eradicate smoking. This nation stands on the cusp of achieving what we in Australia can only dream of at present, which is becoming the first smoke-free nation. How did they do this? WHO considers a country smoke-free when fewer than five per cent of the population smoke tobacco. As of November 2022, the Swedish authorities reported a smoking rate of just 5.6 per cent among those aged over 16 years. This is a benchmark that we in Australia have aimed to achieve by 2030, yet Sweden is set to meet it this year. How has Sweden done it? The answer is both straightforward and damning of the approach taken by the Australian government. Sweden has made less harmful alternatives to cigarettes accessible, affordable and socially acceptable. Products such as snus, oral nicotine pouches and vaping products were introduced and embraced, leading to a health revolution. In just 14 years, from 2006 to 2020, these alternatives contributed to a striking 60 per cent decrease in Swedish smoking rates. In stark contrast to that, we find ourselves grappling with the failures of the Australian government's outdated tobacco control framework. Despite world-leading measures such as the highest cigarette prices globally and plain packaging, data from the Cancer Council Victoria shows that there's been no significant decline in adult smoking over the past five years. This isn't progress. This is a damning indictment of the Australian government's misguided approach. I will acknowledge, and you won't actually hear that very often in this place, that Minister Hunt's prescription model has failed. It is a failed policy. It doesn't work. All it has done is fuel the black market. After more than a year in office, Labor's response to this is, of course, to not only embrace that policy but to double down on it. They have actually made it more difficult and will punish some of the most vulnerable Australians. Instead of observing and understanding and adopting successful strategies—lessons from Sweden's progress—the health minister persists in an approach of prohibition, banning the very products that have driven down smoking rates in Sweden. Let's examine what's occurred since the health minister's chest-beating exercise last month, when he repeatedly stated he was determined to take strong action on vaping. In the May budget there was no funding allocated to enforce this misguided vape prohibition plan. This critical oversight is indicative of a government that's willing to make grand media statements but lacks any commitment to seeing them through. Further, the head of Border Force has publicly stated that banning vapes at the border won't be enough to stamp out a rampant black market, as his organisation was already only managing to detect a quarter of illicit drugs making their way to Australia. Let's have a think about it. Do we want Border Force focused on stopping heroin, cocaine and guns coming into Australia or do we want them focused on blueberry vapes? Furthermore, state governments have voiced their concerns about the practicality and costs of enforcing this ban. In fact New South Wales Labor Premier Chris Minns has conceded that the vape ban will be difficult to enforce and has indicated his government would seek support from the Commonwealth. The Labor Victorian Premier has said he's concerned that the Commonwealth government would push costs on to the states. The Police Federation of Australia CEO has publicly stated that officers are already under-resourced at a state and territory level, meaning resources to enforce vape bans will likely be redirected from other critical policing efforts such as domestic violence, organised crime and firearm offences. These concerns paint a pretty bleak picture of the Labor government's ill-conceived policy. It's not just the prescription-only model that's failing Australia. It's a policy that lacks any planning, adequate funding and a reasonable understanding of its enforceability. Where does this leave us? It leaves us at the mercy of the Albanese government's failed approach. It's a government that, despite evidence to the contrary, is doubling down on a policy that's proven unsuccessful. It's a government that is choosing to ignore the success of nations like Sweden, where a different approach has delivered remarkable results. I know those opposite, those that seem to have vaping as their raison d'etre for screaming, are going to accuse me and others who support the legal right of adults to ingest nicotine in any way they choose, whether it is a cigarette, a legal product; a spray; a patch; a gum; an inhaler. There is no reason vapes should not be considered the same as a consumer product. But what has happened under this failed prescription model is a black market has flourished. If you want to talk about organised crime, that's where the vapes are coming from at the moment. They are imported from China. They're not stopped at the border. And, even if they are stopped, there's a fine. There's no jail term. So it's actually safer for them to move their business model to vapes than to drugs or guns in some ways, because there's no jail time associated with it. It's actually putting pressure on the small-business owners and manufacturers in Australia who produce the juice that is used in vaping without the nicotine; they will be unable to survive. What happens when legal entities are pushed out of the market through failed policy? It means that the black market continues to grow. We know that those opposite are panicking about the reduction in the cigarette excise that they are currently able to access, and that's because cigarette rates are dropping because vaping is an incredibly successful smoking cessation tool. In fact, they are successful to the point that over in the UK they are offering financial incentives to pregnant women to stop smoking and to go to e-cigarettes or vapes. They're actually providing them at hospitals. New Zealand is streets ahead of us when it comes to declines in smoking rates because they have embraced vaping as a smoking cessation tool. They also have significantly lower rates of youth vaping, because it is regulated correctly. Rather than the government looking at a failed policy—and I've already said that I'll accept responsibility that Minister Hunt put it in. Senator Canavan and I in particular argued very strongly against it. You can look at our recommendations in the report. What we want to see is a regulated and licensed market. We want to make sure that there's quality control. We don't want people being able to access their Wuhan sticks about which they don't know where anything has been produced, they don't know what's in them and there are no nicotine levels. We want a product that has a quality control. We want a product about which Australians can be sure of its safety and efficacy. We want to see that it's sold as a consumer product in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are. We have pretty good success when it comes to keeping under-18s away from cigarettes and alcohol, probably as best as we can. Teenagers can be nightmares. That's what they do. But, as best as we can, we do pretty good generally at keeping under-18s away from cigarettes and alcohol. There are big fines if you sell them to under-18s. So why don't we do the same with vaping? At a time when we are facing gaps in our budget, under a pharmacy model, there's no GST because it's a medicine. But, if we move to a consumer model, not only can we put an excise on it; it gets GST. So, for all of these reforms we're talking about, when it comes to policing vaping, there will actually be some money in the budget, unlike what those opposite have done where there's no money in the budget. They're all talk with no follow through. All they are going to do is put legitimate businesses out of business, boost the black market and increase the access that our children have because they refuse to accept reality. The ACTING 287062 We'll now proceed to five-minute statements. First Nations Australians: Public Sector Governance 35 12:58 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I have already spoken about the management of the National Indigenous Australians Agency this week. I often ask myself: how do these Aboriginal bodies operate in greater secrecy than our national spy agency? It's broadly because of the pathetic leadership within Labor and the coalition not demanding transparency and accountability for fear of being subject to weaponised claims of racism. And our media aren't much better. They too need a clip under the ear for not reporting the billions of dollars wasted in the Aboriginal industry. Since the NIAA's inception, it has awarded $3.5 billion in Indigenous grants, while the government has awarded $11.5 billion across all departments in the past five years. The administration of these grants by recipients has, in many instances, been found to be noncompliant with relevant legislation and government standards. Instead of prosecuting those responsible, the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, ORIC, just writes letters about good governance. It has prosecuted on a few small matters over a few thousand dollars, but the big players are untouched. It's like having the fox in charge of the henhouse. The Australian National Audit Office report into the NIAA states: The NIAA's frameworks for managing provider fraud and non-compliance are not fully fit-for-purpose— and— … do not fully comply with legislation or the NIAA's internal policies. …   …   … The NIAA's arrangements for the prevention, detection and referral of potential provider fraud and non-compliance are partly effective. …   …   … The NIAA's management of provider fraud and non-compliance risks is partly effective. I've also had a look at the agency's corporate plan. It sets spending targets but no value-for-money targets. The plan sets out the goal to increase grants and contracts by three per cent per year. Yet, under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, Commonwealth entities must take all reasonable measures to prevent, detect and deal with fraud. Under the Commonwealth grants rules, these grants must have an outcomes orientation, provide value for money and meet probity and transparency requirements. It looks like a very different standard is applied to Indigenous grants—no milestone reports, little transparency and no accountability for outcome delivery. It also appears that many investigators who are supposed to be looking into these matters are not suitably qualified. Until we learn the truth about how these grants are managed to prevent fraud, Australians can't vote for a voice to parliament and we can't protect this industry in the Constitution. It must be held to the same standards of governance as any other recipient of taxpayers' funding. I'm calling on the Albanese government to instruct the ANAO to launch an immediate audit of ORIC, which has had oversight of $11.5 billion handed out in more than 19,000 grants over the past five years. I'm also putting the government on notice. The report by Sky News has prompted whistleblowers to contact my office with substantial evidence of more corruption in this unaccountable Aboriginal industry. We're talking about evidence that's been presented to: the former Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt; the current minister, Linda Burney; and NDIS minister Bill Shorten. They've known about it for more than two years, yet the subjects of the investigation continue to lead an Indigenous body distributing taxpayer money. Once again, we're talking about millions of dollars of taxpayer funded grants going not to help the people it was intended for but to line the pockets of corrupt leaders to fund their own lavish lifestyles, at the expense of better outcomes for the people they're charged to help. Once again, we're talking about what appears to be an institutional reluctance to investigate and prosecute fraud and corruption in the use of Indigenous grants despite clear evidence that there are many cases to answer for. It's probably no coincidence that government departments have gone suspiciously even more silent on the matter since the government began its dishonest, divisive and deceptive campaign for the 'yes' vote in the coming referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament. Workplace Relations: Maritime Industry 35 13:03 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Yesterday the International Transport Workers Federation, the ITF, launched its Nowhere to Hide campaign. They're announcing it in the parliament today, but they actually kicked it off in the Port of Newcastle last night. It's a week of action targeting shipowners and agents that systematically steal the wages of vulnerable seafarers aboard the cargo ships that deliver more than 95 per cent of the goods which Australian communities depend on. I know this because we've been talking about it for many years. I have done no less than, I think, six inquiries into wage theft around our ports and around our shores in this nation. This was under government after government, nonstop, and all through the exploitation of the temporary voyage permits that were being issued and the lack of enforcement—until now. The Robbed at sea report, published by the Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work in 2022, set out the systematic exploitation of vulnerable international seafarers working in Australian waters. It found that 70 per cent of ships carrying imports and exports failed to meet minimum international standards for wage payment. And $38 million in stolen wages was recovered over a 10-year period by the ITF Inspectorate conducting spot checks at Australian ports. Flag-of-convenience vessels are usually registered in low-wage, developing countries with limited power to resist exploitation by unethical shipowners, contractors and subcontractors. This action will target every ship entering any New South Wales port this week, 13 to 20 June. I'm proud to officially launch the campaign this afternoon, as I said. The campaign is built on the experience of the ITF Inspectorate in Australia and the research commission that published the Robbed at sea report. It will target wage theft, refusal of shore leave, failure to repatriate seafarers to their countries of origin, denial of medical care and bullying and harassment of vulnerable workers. I'm happy to say that the ITF will also target flag-of-convenience vessels registered overseas but operating in Australian waters to ensure compliance with the coastal trading act and the Fair Work Act and gather further evidence to support the Robbed at sea report recommendations to government for improving the working and living conditions aboard cargo and coastal trading vessels operating in Australian waters. I would like to congratulate the Maritime Union of Australia and my very dear friends National Secretary Paddy Crumlin and Assistant Secretary Jamie Newlyn and my very, very dear and close friend Christy Cain. He's the secretary of the CFMMEU and, I am proud to say, a very good friend of mine. He will be here today as well. I also want to congratulate Ian Bray. Ian, Christy and I go back some 25 years, when we were all young roosters in the union movement, me with the TWU and Christy and Ian with the MUA. They were both very well-respected and highly regarded seafarers before they stepped up to the next stage in their lives and became magnificent leaders of the MUA, and they are still very active today. But guess where we get some pushback? Guess who want to push back about looking after exploited foreign seafarers? It comes down to the same usual suspects. They won't admit it, but I'll call them out. You can guess who they'll be because they are the same corporations and greedy employers who want everything they can get for them and their members as long as no-one else gets a fair crack. These are the same ones that are opposing the Albanese government's 'same job, same pay' legislation that I have been rabbiting on and banging on about for many years. It's all the same ones. There's the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Make no mistake: their members don't want to pay the right money to get freight shipped around this nation, but, by crikey, they'll make sure that it's taken off the hides of exploited foreign seafarers. They won't talk about that out loud, will they? I'd like them to. What about the National Farmers Federation, those paragons of virtue? I have chaired the agriculture committee in this place for 15 of the last 18 years, and I'm the first one to say that farmers, food producers and fibre producers must be remunerated. They must make a good living. But—oh, no!—it can't be passed along the supply chain. God forbid our road transport industry, shipping industry and rail industry should get paid as long as their members are paid properly. I have nothing against the farmers. That's why 'NFF' stands for 'no family farms'. You can defend that, Mr Mahar. Knock yourself out. You know where to find me. Then there's the Master Builders Australia. Oh, my God! We can't have the building companies paying the right rates, can we, as long as they can make a heck of a lot of money off the backs of Australian workers? (Time expired) Environment 36 13:08 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'd like to talk about a very concerning pattern which is emerging around the Albanese government's approach to environmental laws and what it means for our nation's environment and, importantly, also our nation's economy, an economy which we have already heard in the debate on the appropriation bills before the Senate has struggled. It's slowed down. Productivity is down 4.6 per cent. We have heard about the cost-of-living increases. Any handbrake on economic growth, on the capacity for Australian households to make ends meet, pay their bills and save for the future, is a bad thing. This is why I am very concerned about the approach that has been taken by this government when it comes to environmental laws. We know there is work underway to respond to the Samuel review, which is a review of the nation's environmental approval laws, which are longstanding and do need updating. But the response that this government tables is going to be critically important. Balance is needed here—a balance between environmental protection and economic growth. You can't have all of one or all of the other. We need to live. Our country needs to grow. People need jobs. We need to actually exist in this environment, so balanced management is essential. Mines, forestry, fishing, farming and energy generation are all essential and all have an impact on the environment. But we need to manage it properly. No-one is arguing about going back to the bad old days. I look at a town on the west coast that I've spoken about today, Queenstown, which is an example of what happens when a government only places emphasis on the economy as opposed to the environment. It will take a millennia for the environment around Queenstown to return to its natural state, without remediation. That's what good laws stop from happening. But we can't go to the other extreme, and it is my concern that that is where we're heading under the Albanese government's response to the Samuel review. It's yet to be seen, but much of the feedback coming out of industry groups is indicating a significant level of concern that it will strangle economic growth in this country. The minister's approach to decision-making is something I do have concerns about as well. Let's look at two recent decisions. The first one is around the Macquarie Island Marine Park trebling in size, impacting on fisheries businesses in the state of Tasmania, my home state. There was a consultation period set down by law. There were 15,000 submissions received. By law, the Director of National Parks needs to receive those submission, assess them and then provide advice to the minister. Would you believe that four hours prior to the close of submissions the minister announced, by way of Twitter, what her decision was and declared it a 'no-brainer'. So much for consultation with industry and so much for regard to the impact a decision of government will have on the capacity of businesses who, as the minister herself said, have operated sustainably for twenty years or more. It will now be incredibly difficult for the jobs that those businesses create to continue to operate in the way that they have—sustainably—and to provide work for a good many Tasmanians. And, of course, to provide fish to market that are fished sustainably to the world's best standards. It's the same with the decision to ban gillnets in the Great Barrier Reef—a decision which has been labelled by industry as one that is actually going to be bad for the environment globally. We do things appropriately here in Australia. From fishery scientists to members of the commercial fishing sector, it has been said that this ban announced by the government minister completely blindsided them. We need to work with industry to make sure that these changes, which might be made with the best intentions, are done in a way that does not impinge on our capacity to grow the economy and to create jobs. That most alarming thing about this, as the Queensland Seafood Association's David Bobberman said, is that there was no warning about this decision and a complete lack of government engagement. I found the previous speech by our colleague Senator Hanson-Young, about what she expects the government to do when it comes to environmental laws, very disturbing. She expects them to go harder, to lock up more and to prevent growth and economic activity from occurring. It's the same green groups who are now saying, bizarrely—I'm not sure if they are aware of what happens in my home state of Tasmania—that farmed fish is the future. Those same groups are the ones who say we should ban fish farms. No economic activity is okay for them. No impact on the environment is okay for them. The people who pay the price are the people who currently can't pay their power bills, particularly in rural and regional communities, where most of our primary and extractive industries are. I'm concerned about the direction this government is going in, I'm concerned about the approach this minister is taking and I look forward to seeing the laws when they are tabled here. Hopefully they are not what most businesses are telling me they expect: laws that will cause businesses to suffer under this government. Albanese Government: First Nations Australians 37 13:13 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to speak about the difference between voices and actions. Actions speak louder than any voice. The Albanese Labor government has been in power now for over a year, and there is so much that this government could have done to improve the lives of First Peoples across this country by now, but it has chosen not to. There is so much that it could do today, yet it seems that any major reforms on policy impacting First Nations peoples is on hold until after the referendum. Despite all Labor's rhetoric and commitments to closing gaps and how better outcomes are achieved when First Peoples have a say in decisions that affect them, there is no proof that Labor has any intention of ending the war against First Peoples. Despite having an opportunity to make real change in this country, we are yet to see any signs that the government might be willing to address the contempt that successive governments have shown to our people and the ongoing racism that plagues this country. Racism is everywhere, and the violence it inflicts upon the bodies of First Peoples continues to show in our ongoing health gaps, in our suicide rates and in our overrepresentation in the prisons and police cells. It is in our streets, in our governments, in our courts and embedded in the policies that the current Labor government refuses to address. Instead, all we see are broken promises and continued silencing of the voices of those First Peoples who hold the solutions. Last year environment minister Tanya Plibersek said that the destruction of Juukan Gorge was shameful and that the government must do better. Then she went on to ignore First Peoples' voices and approved destruction of the Murujuga rock art sites on the Burrup Peninsula—some of the oldest archives of our peoples' stories and some of the most ancient rock art sites in the world—all to make way for a $6 billion gas-guzzling and climate-wrecking Perdaman fertiliser plant, which will only continue to destroy our cultural heritage. This government has committed to introducing new standalone cultural heritage legislation. Yet we have word that consultations and work on this has been stalled until after the referendum. Meanwhile, every day our cultural meeting places are being destroyed—our sacred sites, our songlines that are the fabric of our culture and our livelihoods—along with our lands, waters and skies. They are being plundered, destroyed and polluted. Labor say they are committed to implementing the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which has been gathering dust for over 30 years now. Rather than deferring responsibility to the states and territories, this government could show national leadership and implement the recommendations that fall under federal jurisdiction. This includes—Labor, listen; write this down—improving health care in prisons by providing access to Medicare in prisons, to the PBS and the NDIS to people in prisons; raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility for federal crimes to 14; supporting and extending Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, which are suffering from years of neglect and underfunding; and establishing an independent body to oversee and monitor the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations. This could be done by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, which was what this role was originally intended to do. While our babies continue to be stripped from their families and culture, the genocide against our people and the Stolen Generation continues. This government could: implement the recommendations of the Bringing them home report; develop a national intergenerational healing strategy; develop a national framework for all legislation to comply with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle; and support and extend community controlled wraparound services that are designed by and for our people. You could do this—this week—if you had any go in you, and if you believe in black people in this— (Time expired) Nuclear Weapons 38 13:18 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Today is 28,457 days since the detonation of the world's first nuclear weapon in a New Mexico desert. Since that day there have been no less than 2,058 detonations, as part of either testing or warfare, as was seen so clearly and horrifically in the case of Nagasaki and the bombing of Hiroshima. On average, that is a detonation every two weeks. There are a lot of philosophical questions that can be asked about the type of society that brought into being the nuclear bomb, saw its effects and then continued to detonate such weapons over 2,000 times. There is no such philosophical question, however, about the dangers these weapons continue to have for our entire planet and everything that lives upon it. They are very practical, real dangers. We can make no mistake about it. The continued existence of these weapons poses a threat of the most urgent nature to the continuation of life upon this planet. If we take the entirety of human history and look at it as one year, the human race invented the nuclear weapon just three hours ago. That's how long these weapons have been with us. Yet in those three hours what terrible destruction they have wrought upon this planet and upon people, whether it be the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whether it be the terrible disasters of Chernobyl, Fukushima or Three Mile Island, or whether it be the continual reality that every single person on this planet lives mere moments away from a decision, made and held overwhelmingly within the hands of a powerful man, to at the push of a button or at the issuance of a command end millions of lives and condemn millions more to death. The question is not whether these weapons will be used on people again. The fact is that while they exist it is guaranteed that they will be, by the active intent of an individual or individuals, through a miscalculation or the making of a mistake as to the intention of another, or in the case of an accident. Instruments like the TPNW are an important first step not just in ridding the world of these weapons but also in showing that so many countries, like Australia, are indeed serious about disarmament and are prepared to be leaders that other nations can follow. This treaty, championed, created and collaborated upon by the fantastic ICAN campaign, is an incredible contribution to the world's store of international law and humanitarian practice. It is something of which we as a country should be proud, particularly to see that that campaign was the recipient of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for their work. It is far past time for the government to sign and ratify the TPNW. There can be no more dither, there can be no more delay and there can be no hiding behind the absence of global unanimity when no UN treaty has ever achieved such unanimity. There is a massive cost to the continuing existence of nuclear weapons, but it is not an economic cost. It's not even an opportunity cost. The cost is created by the continuation of the risk—the reality that while these weapons exist everything is but moments from destruction. We cannot let a mushroom cloud be the symbol of our failure. Pharmaceutical Industry 39 13:24 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania There are many Australians out there who think that many people in this place spend too much time using politics as a weapon against the other party. But deep down, most of us in this place want to do the best for the Australian people that we possibly can. When I first heard about the government changing how prescriptions were doled out, I realised that for many Australians it meant that, instead of going to the doctor every month or so, they could have a 60-day prescription. These scripts are only for chronic or stable conditions—things like diabetes, asthma and epilepsy. It doesn't cover things like analgesics or antibiotics. I've been on serious meds in my past, and I know what it's like to juggle a budget on a single mum's pension, so, at first, this change looked pretty good to me. As I've said before, nothing is ever perfect—certainly not in this place. The government tell us that, as well as saving people money, we are going the way that most Western countries are, with not as many trips to the doctor and not as many trips to the chemist, which you'd think would be a good thing. From September, six million Australians will have some of their prescription bill cut in half. The government says it will save those Australians $1.6 billion a year. That $1.6 billion in savings has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the pharmacies, unfortunately. If the pharmacy is a Chemist Warehouse, it's probably not an issue, so who really cares, but if it's a small regional pharmacy—and we have plenty of them in Tasmania and around the other states and territories in this country—the loss of income is a real concern, let alone the closure of pharmacies. For small communities, their local pharmacist offers a lot more than a Chemist Warehouse can ever offer. The good ones know their patients. They know what meds they're on and they know what their living circumstances are. They are mates. Senator Tyrrell has done a damn good job by listening to and raising the concerns of pharmacists, and I thank her very much for that. My office and I have taken soundings from across the board—from doctors to the minister and a pharmacist who works for a community owned pharmacy on Tasmania's very isolated west coast. My pharmacist said that the chemist he works for will lose money. He just doesn't know how much. He also said that they wouldn't know the full impact until 2025. He is worried about running out of meds. He is worried about the young pharmacist who has just bought in with him and about other young pharmacists—a couple of them around Tasmania—who have taken the big deal, borrowed off their grandparents and put their houses down as a down payment. They have done that and backed themselves, and now this move has been made, and they knew nothing about it; otherwise, they would never have invested in a pharmacy. This is what we're doing to our young people. He had other suggestions, like bringing back telehealth for pharmacists—how about that?—doing medical checks or putting pharmacists on the MBS for long-term meds prescribed by doctors. He also reminded me that regional pharmacies get a bit extra. He's just not sure if it will cover what they might lose from the 60-day prescriptions. The doctors and the minister say these concerns are overblown. I don't think so. I think you've underestimated by a long shot. With every new policy or law, you have to take a deep dive. Our job in this place is to look for the unintended consequences and for the solutions because nothing is ever perfect. That's what Senator Tyrrell and I have been doing—looking for solutions. That has involved talking to everyone. That's what the government and the minister are not doing. They've shut the door. This is not a sewn-up deal yet, you guys over there. So I would like to call on the minister to put on his big-boy pants and sit down with the pharmacists and talk to them again—talk and listen. Get this right. I tell you what, the unintended consequences in the future for these smaller pharmacists will wipe them out, and I can tell you that no patient, no doctor and no pharmacy is going to win out of this. It will send us into a spiralling crisis. There are other options. You need to either come up with a compensation scheme for those people losing out or bring the pharmacists back to the table and get this right. I can assure you that this bill is not right. You need to look at the unintended consequences and meet them head on. Running away is not the answer. Once again, Minister, don't try and pull the wool over my eyes and Senator Tyrrell's eyes. Get your big-boy pants on and get back to the table with the pharmacists. If that means you have to bring that pharmacy agreement forward and get this right, then bloody well do it. We will not pay the consequences of your actions in Tasmania. Albanese Government 39 13:29 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales What a terrific opportunity this is. I was just wondering, when listening to Senator Lambie, whether she was inviting the minister to put his big-boy pants on before pulling the wool over her and Senator Tyrrell's eyes or after doing that. In the remaining 17 seconds—I notice, as the clock adjusts—it would be such a great opportunity, wouldn't it, to talk about the achievements of the government in terms of lifting wages, putting downward pressure on the cost of living and building the infrastructure to reindustrialise the Australian economy—but it's gone! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 It being 1.30, we shall now proceed to two-minute statements. Western Sydney City Deal 40 13:30 Senator M56 New South Wales PAYNE () (): In estimates we canvassed infrastructure investment in Western Sydney. Our government knew the importance of working with local councils at the epicentre of Australia's growth on what their communities need and deserve. The Western Sydney City Deal is a transformative agreement bringing together state and federal government, alongside eight councils, to deliver in the best interests of our region. It would be deeply disappointing if the power of this unity across three levels of government, and what it has delivered for an area of Sydney typically taken for granted by Labor governments, disappeared into this government's vortex of reviews and committees—including the expert panel for Western Sydney infrastructure planning, the independent strategic review of the Infrastructure Investment Program and the National Urban Policy, for starters. Don't throw out something, that has worked and delivered, for base ideology or base politics; that is the definition of stupidity. We also know that, under Labor, a significant increase in migration will see 400,000 people arrive in this financial year, literally in the next six months. Experience shows Western Sydney is often the location for those new migrants—and they are welcome. But Labor have no plan—not one they're sharing with Australia, anyway—to manage these two challenges of piling significant new population numbers on high and growing infrastructure needs in Western Sydney. Apparently we should just trust them—not likely! I say be very aware of Labor once again forgetting Western Sydney. I want to particularly thank the Mayor of Campbelltown, Dr George Greiss, who visited and met with me yesterday, for his strong commitment to his community and to Western Sydney. Government should take note of mayors like Dr Greiss. They know what their community needs, and they deserve to be listened to—and that is not being demonstrated by this government. Childs, Mr Bruce Kenneth 40 13:32 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I'd like to make a contribution today on the life of the late Bruce Childs. I wasn't in this place, believe it or not, when he served here. Why I'm speaking about this, on somebody who served the New South Wales state so well over so long, is that a member of the Tasmanian Labor Party, Fay Gervasoni, worked for him for a long period of time. She talked about his commitment to the Labor movement. She spoke about his involvement with the Labor Party over such a long period of time. She was still heartbroken even though he passed away at the age of 88—that's still too early, I would think—but I thought it was fitting because of the way Fay felt about him, and the fact he was such a good boss, and that he was a role model for so many others. I'm sure that, in the condolence motion, there were people who eloquently talked about his contribution. He was married three times, which I think is—that's an effort! He had a son and a daughter. I've only done it once and, personally, I think once is enough—but each to their own! As I understand it, he rose through the Labor movement. I think it's indicative of people who have transitioned through the Labor movement that, once they are a union person, they are always a union person. I didn't take that tour into the Senate or politics, but I was raised by parents who believed in the Labor movement and unions, which has helped shape who I am. It also should be noted that Bruce was very passionate about social issues—the Vietnam War, supporting women. In fact, I think he was a man ahead of his time. I just wanted to place on record my condolences to his family. Pakistan 40 13:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Pakistan is experiencing some of the most intense political, economic and climate turmoil it has seen in decades. The nation is caught in a debt spiral and the economy is in a nosedive. Pakistan has billions in debt from overseas governments and institutions, and inflation is at record highs. The cost of living is rising, and people are struggling like never before. Pakistan desperately needs IMF funds to avoid defaulting on its soaring debt. The shackles of debt have crippled countries like Pakistan for far too long, and it's high time to cancel the debt for the global South. The extent of Pakistan's debt means that social services are being neglected at a time when the country is still reeling from the catastrophic climate induced floods, which last year killed more than 1,700 people—a third of them children—and impacted and displaced millions. The floods caused more than $30 billion in damage. Terrifyingly, this year's monsoon season is off to a foreboding start, with Cyclone Biparjoy set to make landfall shortly. Amongst all this, Pakistan has been facing growing political instability, which was triggered by former prime minister Imran Khan's removal from office in April last year. There have been terrible stories of arrests, torture and pressure put on party figures. Human rights groups are concerned about extrajudicial disappearances. The media has reported police brutality and repression. The crackdowns on media and dissent have been extensive. The growing reports of violence are deeply concerning, and violators of human rights must be held accountable. Democracy and human rights must be protected. Having grown up in Lahore, and hearing about the current situation and turmoil from family every day, I find it really distressing, and I express my solidarity with the people of Pakistan and the diaspora here. Organic Industry 41 13:36 Senat 281697 New South Wales or DAVEY (—Deputy Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (): I rise today to highlight the power and potential of Australia's organic industry, which boasts the world's largest certified organic agricultural area, spanning over 53 million hectares. The minister's silence on the issue of organics and his indifference towards the industry is very disappointing. With an annual contribution of over $2.6 billion to our economy and projected revenue growth of 14.6 per cent each year, the organic industry is not just a passing trend. It encompasses not just food but also textiles, cosmetics and a diverse range of products. It's a force driving growth in our regional areas, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Consumers are increasingly embracing organic products. There has been a 53 per cent increase in the purchase of organic fruits and vegetables and there have been significant rises in purchases of things like organic eggs, dairy and meat. But here is the alarming truth: while consumers are eager to embrace organics, they are sceptical, due to the lack of a robust domestic regulatory framework. A staggering 31 per cent of consumers consider lack of trust in organic status as a barrier to making those purchases. The minister's duty is to address these concerns and to restore confidence in our organic industry. We must acknowledge its undeniable strength and its impressive growth and potential by providing the necessary support. Our organic sector deserves it. They deserve a true advocate who will champion their growth and success. Jobs and Skills Councils 41 13:38 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I'm very proud to say that I saw an announcement today from Brendan O'Connor, the Minister for Skills and Training, that the Albanese Labor government has delivered three more Jobs and Skills Councils to help address skills shortages and broader workforce challenges, covering the manufacturing, transport and logistics, and mining and automotive sectors. The JSCs are a network of industry owned and led organisations that will bring together employers and unions to work in partnership with governments and the education and training sectors. This shows the government's ongoing commitment to tripartite leadership to find solutions to the workforce challenges and skills needs that are currently facing industry sectors across Australia. The JSCs will have a strong connection with Jobs and Skills Australia to align workforce planning for their sectors. This is an essential first step in determining job roles, the skills needed and education and training pathways, combining industry specific intelligence from JSCs with JSA's forecasting and modelling. The transport and logistics JSC, Industry Skills Australia, will bring together employer and union leaders from the transport and logistic industries to support workforce planning. This is magnificent. I'll just go quickly to the board composition of Industry Skills Australia. I know quite a few of the board members: Mr Laurie D'Apice, excellent choice; Mr Nick McIntosh, another excellent choice; Mr Jamie Newlyn, another excellent choice; Mr Mark Diamond, another excellent choice; and Mr Tony Wilks, another excellent choice. I must say that I don't know Mr Northorpe, but, in the company of those characters, what an excellent choice that definitely is. The same can be said for Mr Ronald Devitt, who I have not heard of and never met. In that company, he's another magnificent choice. Congratulations, Minister O'Connor. It does warm the cockles of my heart because I brought a delegation of transport reps to Canberra to talk about this last year. One Nation 41 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In the months ahead One Nation will explain our vision for this beautiful country of ours. We will explain what we mean when we talk of one Queensland community and one nation with one flag that represents all Australians—those who were here first and those who have come since. We'll cover the importance of treating each and every Australian fairly, offering equality of opportunity and assistance with dignity for those who cannot support themselves. In the 25 years since Pauline Hanson founded One Nation to advance these principles her predictions have proven prescient. Remember when Pauline said Australia was going to be 25 per cent foreign-born within 25 years and the media piled on, calling that fear mongering, impossible and racist, for good measure. Well, Australia is now 29 per cent foreign-born and the number is rising. Where are the industries and jobs to support 28 million people by 2026? Where are the roads and railways? Where is the water and power generation? Where are the schools, hospitals and police stations? These are the policy time bombs that One Nation has been trying to get the public to discuss for 25 years. Now the day Pauline warned us about has arrived. In the last few weeks I have travelled and listened to Queenslanders who are not safe in their own homes and can no longer afford their power bills, their grocery bills and their rent or their mortgages. Our national housing stock is short one million homes, and Prime Minister Albanese's solution in today's housing bill is to create a scheme that will help a few thousand people, not the million who need it. And that's just those who are here now. Warning of the impending population crisis has caused One Nation to be called racist and Nazi. These words no longer provide protection for the groups in our community they were designed to protect, so devalued have they become from their use as extreme expressions of misrepresentation, disagreement and hatred. These words tell me about our opponents, not about who I am. Everyday Australians now find their backs against the wall the government put there. Pauline saw this day coming. Why didn't you? Pride Month 42 13:42 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia What does it say about us as a society when we commemorate our Anzacs on a single day and yet we get a whole month for pride? What is Pride Month? In case you've been living under a rock, haven't wandered past your local council chambers to see it lit up in rainbow colours, logged onto your bank portal and seen the rainbow logo, or trudged into your office lunchroom to be forced to eat a rainbow cupcake, Pride Month is a four-week campaign from the corporate sector in which we're all told to celebrate the sexual preferences of a small minority of the population at the risk of excommunication from polite society should we refuse. I'm here to tell you that being sceptical about this and the motives of this exercise in corporate rainbow washing doesn't make you a bigot or a homophobe. It just makes you someone who wants to watch the footy without getting another political message jammed down your throat. Rational people scratch their heads at the concept of having to publicly celebrate one's sexuality with BDSM displays, especially for an entire month. As I said, we don't remember the sacrifices of our fallen Anzacs for an entire month. Do you know the Anzacs, the people who fought for this nation and endured the gravest of hardships? We honour these people on a single day. I wonder what they would think about this. Despite what the grievance industry wants you to think, we all support LGBT people and their community and we want what's best for them, but don't be fooled—this isn't about what's good for LGBT people; this is just another attempt to divide Australians on sexuality. Agriculture Industry 42 13:43 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Recently I had the pleasure of representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry at the 2023 Victorian vegetable innovation field days in Catani, Victoria. 'What exactly is a vegetable innovation field day?' you ask. Let me tell you. I didn't know before I went there, but now I do. It was organised by AUSVEG Victoria. The event gathered together seed growers, farmers and ag tech professionals from across Australia and New Zealand on the same acre of land to show off their products and discuss all things vegetable. In fact, about nine of the 10 major Australian seed growers were represented. Basically imagine a paddock with every type of lettuce, spinach, silverbeet, leek, cabbage, Asian vegetable, onion, zucchini and herb you can think of and then imagine them all looking their greenest and juiciest at the same time. Like the roses at Flemington for Melbourne Cup Day, they were all blooming together. To get the timing just right to show off the produce at its best meant that growers had started planting in January and staggered winter veg through to May. The quality of produce and sheer diversity of product all in the one place was incredible to see. It reminded me of the royal Easter show that I saw as a kid, seeing the wonderment of the beautiful produce displayed together, with excited people talking about it. It also reminded me how technically advanced and special our agricultural industries are. The level of resilience and innovation necessary to make agriculture work never ceases to amaze me, and it is sharing this sort of innovation and best practice across the industry that these field days are all about. So thank you to the organisers for having me, and thanks especially for entrusting me, as the guest of honour, to officially open the event by cutting the ceremonial bok choy. It's not something that I ever imagined I would do, but it was fantastic, and it was a brilliant day. Thanks also to the Butler Market gardeners, whose property we were on. It was something I won't forget. Barunga Festival 42 13:45 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I had the honour of attending the Barunga Festival on the weekend and being the only non-government parliamentarian to make the trek to the regional Northern Territory town, 83 kilometres outside of Katherine. I was able to watch the red dust flying from the flag dances and joined over a hundred of the most remote communities in northern Australia. I was warmly welcomed by Esther and Charlene from the Bagala people of the Jawoyn nation, and it was with much joy, celebration and respectful discussion that the four land councils of the Northern Territory signed the Barunga Voice Declaration and presented it to Minister Burney, on behalf of the government. I was moved to be part of this historic moment. The Barunga Festival began in 1985 and was a celebration of cultural survival, drawing together people from across the north of Australia to paint, sing, dance and play sport. It was an honour to witness some of those activities and yarn with the mob. I enjoyed the diversity of First Nations traditions shared with the thousands of people that camped at Barunga. Barunga, like many other festivals, includes important moments of celebration and discussion, the sharing of our cultural practices and the bringing together of communities to discuss social and political issues. In 1988, a few years after the first Barunga Festival, the Barunga Statement was painted and presented to the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. The Barunga Statement requested a treaty but also requested that they pass laws to establish a nationally elected Aboriginal and islander organisation to oversee Aboriginal and islander affairs. This was in fact the Voice to Parliament, which we are currently debating in this place. The Barunga Statement asks    that the body be elected, and I see this as an essential part of the Voice—to be connected to and responsible for the voices of regional and remote communities so that they are heard by all levels of government, including the executive government here in this place. I support the people at Barunga's call for the Voice and their continued calls for treaty and truth-telling. Tasmania: Economy 43 13:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Whenever someone says to me that the economy is doing well, my questions are always 'For who?' and 'Are we talking about the money economy or the social economy?' Economists and the Tasmanian Liberal government will tell you that Tassie is going great guns. It grew by 4.3 per cent in 2021-22. But—and this is a big 'but'—it is a story of two Tasmanias. If you own your own house and have a steady income, life is pretty okay, but, if you're on a low income, renting or trying to save for a house, life is damn tough and the only thing going up is your cost of living. People used to move to Tassie because, although wages were lower on average, so was the cost of living, especially housing. But it is not like that anymore. In Tasmania, almost 3,000 homes have been removed from the rental market and the average rent is now more than 550 bucks. In some areas, it's even higher than that. Families are living hand to mouth, with some of them in tents and cars. This, in one of the wealthiest nations on earth, is absolutely shameful, and we are supposed to be the land of the fair go. Children are growing up in households where mum and dad are unemployed, and alcohol and drug abuse are the norm. These kids will earn as much as 20 per cent less than adults with better childhoods. It's not just a moral worry; it's an economic worry. Meanwhile, our TAFEs are on their knees. The federal government has supplied fee-free TAFE places but almost nothing to fix the buildings themselves, let alone put teachers in place. I went to TAFE with my mum. She did business management, and so did I. Mum had worked in a factory for many years, and we were a low-income family living in public housing. I honestly believe we have this back to front. We help the wealthiest by providing tax loopholes in schemes like negative gearing, but we're still not helping those that are doing it the toughest. We don't address the gap between the rich and the poor to make sure that families like mine can move into the middle class. The privileged and the struggling: is this really who we have become as a nation? Justice Reinvestment 43 13:50 Sena 280304 Victoria tor THORPE () (): I rise to speak about the government's commitment to justice reinvestment. Around $6 billion of federal funding is spent every year on prisons and police, on a violent, harmful and expensive system that does nothing to build safer communities—and to what end? More black bodies in jail? Families torn apart? Kids taken from their homes? And, when blackfellas go to jail, there is no guarantee we'll come out. Going to prison makes people more likely to offend. We need to urgently move money away from prisons and police and invest in place based social support systems in our communities so that our people have access to health, housing, education and employment and don't end up in jail. That is what 'justice reinvestment' actually means, Labor. It's very effective. I welcome the additional funding in the A-G's Justice Reinvestment Program, but justice reinvestment is also about taking money out of policing and prisons and reinvesting in the community. There are successful First Nations place based community approaches all over this country, but the resourcing for this work remains tiny and, in many places, nonexistent. Using $40 million of NIAA money for the Northern Territory Police Force is an absolute shame. (Time expired) Schools 44 13:51 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania On election night, the Prime Minister said: I want Australia to continue to be a country that no matter where you live, who you worship, who you love or what your last name is, that places no restrictions on your journey in life. And so, to that end, I had a great meeting today with representatives from a coalition of Christian schools who raised concerns with me about the proposals contained under the Australian Law Reform Commission's consultation paper around the allowances for faith based schools to hire in accordance with their faith. It was a very reasonable meeting, but the reason I'm concerned about it particularly is in light of the undertakings of the ACT Labor government's and their position in relation to the Cavalry hospital and their land grab and early termination of the lease of that hospital. I'm concerned about what the federal government is going to do, given they did nothing around Cavalry hospital, to protect the right for parents to choose what schools their children go to and the right of those schools to hire in accordance with the faith that their school professes to hold. The majority of parents who send their kids to these schools support that right for teachers to be hired who share the faith based views of the school. Indeed, 86 per cent of all voters support the right of parents to choose a school that reflects their strongly held values and beliefs. That is a strong part of the Australian community and our way of life here. Our pluralistic views, our tolerance and inclusive approach to life and, indeed, our democracy are underpinned by it. I am very concerned about the trajectory of this debate, but I hope that this government deploys some common sense and protects the rights of these schools and the families that send their children to them in accordance with their faith, something we should protect. Maugean Skate 44 13:54 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I want to stand up in the federal parliament today and introduce to my fellow senators the ancient endangered Maugean skate. Dubbed by the scientists who discovered it in Tasmania nearly 40 years ago the 'thylacine of the sea', this ancient skate that's been with us since the days of the dinosaurs is only found in one population—in Macquarie Harbour on the west coast of Tasmania. For those of you who are watching the Alone Australia series on SBS, that's slightly due south of where those participants were at the edge of the Tarkine rainforest. Sadly, we heard last month, from an IMAS interim report—it is unusual for scientists to do an interim report—that they were so concerned about the decline in skate numbers, a 50 per cent decline over 10 years, that they rang the alarm bell. Most concerning was the lack of juvenile recruitment. In other words, they weren't finding young skates. We heard from the federal environment department in estimates a few weeks ago that the culprits that are ruining the water quality in Macquarie Harbour—because of the low dissolved oxygen, the skate is struggling—are industrial salmon farming; variable hydroflows into Macquarie Harbour, affecting the dissolved oxygen; heavy metal contamination in the harbour from mining and other activities; and recreational gillnetting. The government has made a pledge of zero extinctions, and that pledge sits overarching to the new environment laws that we're going to be debating in this place soon. I understand that Minister Plibersek has written to the Tasmanian state government calling for an extreme intervention to prevent the skate from going extinct. The same scientists who discovered the skate said in the media last week that it is 'one extreme weather event away from extinction'. Going into a potential super El Nino event, this couldn't be more critical than it is now, and it'll be a big test for all of us, to make sure— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Liddle. Cybercrime 44 13:56 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I rise today to share with you a terrifying message received by a 14-year-old Adelaide boy recently. Imagine, as a child, parent or grandparent, receiving this message: Hey this is the end of your life. I am sending your nudes to the world now. So I am swinging it to all your followers first and your team and your school page and your family and friends. To all your comments and tags. So just comply and do what I want ok. If you try to block me that's the end of your life so just comply that's the end ok. Attached to that Instagram text was a photo of the teenager's profile, along with a random picture of genitalia that was absolutely not his. Sextortion works like this—criminals preying on children through social media platforms and demanding money. It's where the extorter tricks children into sending a compromising photo and then threatens to leak those photographs, or the extorter threatens to send a fake photo to everyone in the recipient's communication feed or to schools, clubs or anywhere the young person is connected to in their feed. Children online during school holidays—likely with more cash or gift cards than usual—are targeted. In this example, without parental knowledge of social media risk and without parents intervening, the consequences could have been enduring and catastrophic. Luckily, in this case, the parents routinely and actively monitored the child's social media and immediately reported the message to police. Then they contacted the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, the ACCCE, an organisation established by the coalition to act on these matters. The ACCCE has seen a 100-fold increase in reports of sextortion crimes in 2023 compared to the previous year. More than 90 per cent of victims are young boys. I encourage everyone to know more about protecting our children from sextortion and check out the ACCCE website for— The D 10000 Senator Payman. Human Rights: Pakistan 45 13:58 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Recently, I have been contacted by my constituents about concerns they hold for the people of Pakistan, and so I would like to take this opportunity to raise their concerns in this place. I've heard immense concerns about violations of human rights, arrests of citizens and political activists, violations of the constitution and the suspension of democratic process. People are concerned about the arrest of the former Prime Minister, Imran Khan, in May; the treatment of PTI party members; and the harm caused to those protesting, with many injured and some tragically losing their lives. Restrictions on the people's movements and political expression are also concerning. Any suspension of human rights, including political freedom, that impacts democracy is deeply concerning to me and all those in this place. The Australian government is concerned about the reports of violence in Pakistan following the arrest of Mr Khan. Violence has no place in politics, and the right to protest is a fundamental part of democracy. The Australian government continues to call for all parties to uphold democracy, adhere to the rule of law and respect and promote human rights for all. The Australian government regularly engages with all sides of politics, including through our high commission in Pakistan. The high commissioner recently met senior members of the PTI party in March and with Mr Khan in May. We regularly raise human rights directly with government in Pakistan, including to underscore the importance of freedom of expression and of association, to foster tolerance and to strengthen civil society and its institutions. Thank you to those who have raised these issues with me. My thoughts are with those fighting to exercise their human and democratic rights wherever they are threatened around the world. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 45 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Ministerial Standards 45 14:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, yesterday in your statement to the Senate you addressed the issue of your role in the Commonwealth settlement. You said: the Minister for Finance has no decision-making role in processes around significant legal matters—absolutely none. And you quoted paragraph 3.2 of the Legal services directions. Guidance note 7, issued by the Office of Legal Services Coordination, relates to paragraph 3 of the directions. The guidance note explicitly refers to your role as a relevant portfolio minister requiring an agency seeking to settle a matter to provide information about any approvals by or briefings to the portfolio minister before a settlement request is provided to the Attorney-General. Was a brief or any form of advice ever provided to you or to your office on this claim or proposed settlement as envisaged by the guidance note and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I am going to ask senators for silence. That was a complex question. I need to hear it, and I also need to hear the minister's answer. 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Cash. No. From my memory, I did not receive a brief or any advice from my department. I think it was quite detailed in terms of any other advice that may have come to the office. I would just want the opportunity to check that. But, from my point of view, I had no role and no briefing from the Department of Finance. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a first supplementary. 14:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Did you ever declare a conflict in relation to any aspect of this matter, including the proposed settlement, or did you ever seek advice in relation to a potential conflict? If so, when and to whom? 14:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It never came to me, so there was never any conflict to declare. If it had come to me, I would have declared a conflict, but it didn't. It didn't cross my desk. I did not get a brief. If there is anything further that I can update the Senate about on that, I will. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a second supplementary. 14:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Did you or your office have any communication with the Attorney-General or his office in relation to the proposed settlement of this matter, and, if so, please detail the timing that contact? 14:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I certainly had no contact with the Attorney-General. Again, just for the purposes of being absolutely clear to the Senate, I will take other aspects of that on notice, because that would require me going and speaking with other people. But, from my point of view, no. Budget 46 14:03 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister outline how the Albanese government's second budget addresses the cost-of-living pressures facing Australian households, many of whom are struggling right now? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question. I can, and thank you for the question on the budget. We understand that the rising cost of living is hitting a lot of Australians hard. Australians with mortgages and Australians who rent are facing spiralling housing costs, as are groceries and prices for other services as well. Many Australians are struggling right now. That's exactly why the budget was carefully calibrated to take pressure off the cost of living for average Australians, rather than adding to it. And the centrepiece of our second budget was the $14.6 billion cost-of-living package. This budget provides responsible relief to Australians that need it most and undertakes some long overdue structural reforms that will set this country up to be fairer and more equal. It strikes the right balance between restraint and targeted cost-of-living relief, sustainably funding the services Australians depend on now and into the future and positions Australia to make the most of new opportunities. Our policies to ease cost-of-living pressures are expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. In terms of those cost-of-living measures, there's the record investment in bulk billing, supporting 11.6 million eligible Australians to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs; the cheaper medicines via changes to pharmacy maximum dispensing quantities, which will reduce the cost of medicines by up to half for at least six million Australians—you'll be hard pressed to find an Australian who wants to pay more for their medicine—and our energy price relief plan, which is up to $3 billion in electricity bill relief through the Energy Bill Relief Fund to take pressure off households and small businesses in partnership with state and territory governments. This will benefit more than five million eligible households and one million eligible small businesses. Plus, we are providing assistance to the most vulnerable Australians with increases to payments. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary? 14:05 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Can the minister explain how the government's economic plan is addressing cost-of-living pressures rather than adding to them due to the complex and ever-changing economic pressures and world events right now? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for her question. The Albanese government's economic plan is carefully calibrated to provide targeted relief to those that need it most whilst not aggravating inflation. The May budget was very carefully designed with this in mind and has successfully walked this line between giving a hand to Australians in need and not causing inflation. In fact, Danielle Wood, head of the Grattan Institute, told the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 May: They've managed to walk that short-term line between giving some relief, particularly to the most disadvantaged households, and not substantially adding to inflationary pressures. Inflation will still be higher than we'd like and more persistent than ideal but down from where it would have been. We're making a meaningful difference to families and individuals around the country. These cost-of-living pressures have been largely driven by Russia's illegal war in Ukraine, and they have been made worse by a decade of wasted opportunities from the previous government, with its energy policy chaos and failure to address the nation's skills shortages. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 14:06 Senat 252157 Victoria or WALSH () (): Can the minister detail the work the government is doing to ensure it can continue to address cost-of-living pressures going forwards? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for her question. Yes, I can. We are putting a lot of work into improving the budget overall. As people will remember, we inherited a budget heaving with debt and with deficits as far as the eye could see. Now, we are improving the budget, we're returning revenue upgrades to pay down the debt we inherited, we're forecasting a surplus, we're investing in the services that are needed now and we're setting things up for the future. All of this is about providing the room to make sure that our budget can invest in programs which continue to support Australian households and easing their cost-of-living pressures. This is responsible economic management. It's responsible budget management. I know it pains those opposite that we are managing the budget in an adult and responsible way, but that is what the people of Australia expect us to do and that is what we are doing. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Staff 47 14:08 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday, in answer to a question from Senator Birmingham, the minister said that in the week prior to 15 February the minister 'came into receiving some information through the partner of the young woman who was going to raise those allegations'. In an answer to Senator Cash, the minister said, 'What you are asking me to do here is to disclose information that was given to me and asked to be kept by me in confidence.' I ask the minister: was part of that information that you came into receiving a copy of material that was always intended to be made public—specifically, a copy of the transcript of the project interview or the interview itself—prior to its release? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I dealt with these issues yesterday. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, I did. I did deal with them. It may not have been to your satisfaction, but I dealt with them in a way that I am going to deal with them, which is the statement that I made, and I will go back to that, and the fact that I was given information from a young woman who made a serious allegation about something horrific that had happened to her in this workplace, allegedly—I accept that; allegedly— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING There was something, allegedly, that occurred in this workplace, in this building between two Liberal staffers in a Liberal minister's office. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. The minister is on her feet answering, and there are constant interjections across the chamber, all of which are disorderly. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING As I said yesterday, I was provided with that information in the days leading up to that information, or stories, becoming public. But it wasn't my story. It was Ms Higgins's story, and she had asked me to keep that information confidential, which I did. I don't intend— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, your constant interjections are disorderly and disrespectful. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING I don't intend to breach that confidence now, and I didn't then. I have been approached in the last 24 hours by women— Opposition senators interjecting— Th 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING I treated that information in the way that I treat all information that comes to me and is asked to be kept confidential—as I would hope everybody in this building does when people approach them with information and ask them to keep it confidential. I treated this information exactly the same way. And I would say that I have been contacted and I'm sure plenty of people in this place have been contacted by women who are extremely concerned with how this discussion is occurring— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payne, a first supplementary? 14:11 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Minister, was the partner of a young woman the only source of the information to which you refer? Or did you receive any information prior to 15 February from Ms Wilkinson, representatives of The Project, anyone else from Network Ten or any other media organisation? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The answer to that is no. I did not receive any other information from any other source. The information that came to me came only through Ms Higgins and through her partner. And I was asked to keep that information confidential. I did. It was a serious allegation. I was shocked by it. I was stunned. I couldn't believe that something like that allegedly had occurred in this place a couple of years earlier. I was shocked by it and I was shocked by how upset this young woman seemed to be. And I would just remind people—there are essentially two charges against me: (1) that I misled the Senate, which I've tried to deal with, obviously not to your satisfaction, but I've been as honest as I can on that, and (2) that I had some role in the compensation payment; I have not, I did not. So, take those issues up with me. Continue to take the issues up with me— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payne, a second supplementary? 14:13 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales So, yesterday you advised the Senate that you did 'absolutely nothing' with the information provided. Can the minister categorically guarantee to the Senate that the minister provided no feedback or suggestions in response to the information provided, as has been publicly alleged? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I refer you to my statement. The manner in which this story became public, the timing of this story becoming public and the decisions about Ms Higgins's story and how she wanted to tell it had absolutely nothing to do with me—absolutely nothing. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, the implication in that question from Senator Payne is that I was involved in it, and I wasn't. And I want to remind people here today just what message this chamber is sending out to every other woman who might want to stand up. Honourable senators interjecti ng— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left and my right. These are difficult questions and difficult answers, and I'm asking that you listen respectfully and in silence. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING I would say that this chamber should think about how this debate, and the ongoing coverage of it, is impacting on all the women out there, to whom we are saying with one mouth, 'Stand up and tell you story, and we will support you.' Using the other tongue, we are saying, 'If you dare to do it— (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! I'm not sure who made that comment. I am calling on you to stand up and withdraw it. Honourable senators interjecting— The 10000 I'm not going to repeat it. I think you're well aware of what was said. Senator McGrath 217241 I withdraw. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 That's enough! Seriously. I heard it, and so did a lot of other people. Thank you for withdrawing, Senator McGrath. Maugean Skates 48 14:15 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to Senator Wong representing the environment minister. My question is about to government's zero extinctions pledge. Two weeks ago in Senate estimates, Dr Helene Marsh, the Chair of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, said she'd written to Minister Plibersek with concerns about the endangered Tasmanian maugean skate after new scientific information revealed population levels had halved in the past 10 years and scientists warned the species was one extreme weather event way from extinction. She also said the committee would be meeting within a fortnight, and she would be recommending the species conservation status be uplifted to critically endangered. Can the minister confirm the skate's conservation advice has now been upgraded to critically endangered? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you ,Senator Whish-Wilson, for the question. I appreciate, also, that we had some opportunity to get some briefing, which I will add to if it's insufficient. I understand that the Threatened Species Scientific Committee did meet last week in relation to the maugean skate. I am also advised that the committee have yet to provide the minister with a formal recommendation to change the status of the skate. I'm advised that the primary threat to the maugean skate is reduced water quality in Macquarie Harbour, particularly decreased levels of dissolved oxygen. Whilst the committee is considering this matter in order to be able to determine whether it will recommend and what the content of a formal recommendation to change the status of the skate to the minister would be, I'm advised that in the meantime there is action underway. The federal and Tasmanian governments are working with experts and stakeholders to update the existing conservation advice for the species, to host a series of workshops to better understand the threats and critical conservation actions for the maugean skate, to convene a recovery team and to identify funding for conservation actions. I'm also advised there is work underway to identify possible funding for emergency research. There has already been in excess of $500,000 invested from the federal government for priority maugean skate recovery. Obviously, we are in a situation where under the previous government this portfolio was substantially neglected. Ms Plibersek has made clear the importance of protecting more of what is precious and repairing more of what is damaged. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, a first supplementary question? 14:18 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Senator Wong has answered some of my second question. At Senate estimates, the Threatened Species Commissioner, Dr Fiona Fraser, also explained there are numerous pressures impacting and risking the skate, including industrial salmon farming. She said that Minister Plibersek was writing to her state counterparts in Tasmania calling for an extreme intervention to prevent the possible extinction of this skate. What is this extreme intervention? Will it include getting salmon farms out of Macquarie Harbour? 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I can confirm that the minister has written to the Tasmanian government and has received a response from the Tasmanian minister. I'm advised that Ms Plibersek's letter raised issues such as water quality in Macquarie Harbour. She noted that salmon farming and hydroelectric industries are regulated by the Tasmanian government, and she urged Tasmanian Minister Jaensch—is that correct?—to work with industry on urgent interventions to rapidly reduce nitrogen outputs and to improve oxygen levels in the harbour. The point I was making at the conclusion of my answer to the primary question was a broader point about the neglect and mismanagement by those opposite and the priority that Ms Plibersek, as minister, is making to protect more of what is precious, repairing more of what is damaged and managing nature better for our children and our grandchildren. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, a second supplementary? 14:20 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The scientists who discovered the maugean skate dubbed it the 'thylacine of the sea' nearly 30 years ago. These risks and pressures have been well-known to us all for well over a decade now. The Albanese government is committed to a zero extinctions pledge. Is this commitment now at risk given the dire predicament of the maugean skate, and will your government do everything in its power to prevent an extinction on our watch? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As the minister has made clear, we do not accept extinctions as inevitable, which was the position and the passivity that was too often taken by those opposite. Of course, it is a priority to do what we can to better understand threats to species and use the most up-to-date advice to protect them. The government's Threatened Species Action Plan sets ambitious targets, including preventing new extinctions in this country, and the plan includes the maugean skate as a priority species. In addition to the $224.5 million in the Saving Native Species Program, the senator may recall the May budget included in excess of $400 million, almost $440 million, through the Natural Heritage Trust, the doubling of funding for national parks and increased funding for urban rivers. Workplace Relations 49 14:21 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. People on low and modest wages have the least capacity to deal with the rising cost of living. How are wage increases assisting Australians with cost-of-living challenges, and how is the Albanese government standing up for workers and getting their wages moving again? 14:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator White. Senator White, along with many people on this side of the chamber, has dedicated her working life to assisting working people, including right here in the Senate. You're right, Senator White: one of the best ways we can help Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures is by helping them get a pay rise. So, I'm proud to say that, under the Albanese government, we are seeing wages get moving again. Since coming to government a year ago, we've overseen the largest increase in jobs of any new government on record and the fastest annual growth in wages in over a decade. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 We know you don't like higher wages. We know you don't. One time it's spreadsheets, then it's higher wages—the things that set you off! After a decade of the coalition's deliberate policy of keeping wages low, under the Albanese government we are now starting to see wages grow. Through our submission to the Annual Wage Review, we advocated for a real increase for Australia's lowest-paid workers. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order! Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 I'll tell you what, the things that set you people off! Higher wages, of all the things! Through our submission to the annual wage review we advocated for a real increase for Australia's lowest-paid workers and the Fair Work Commission's annual wage review's 5.75 per cent increase to awards is the biggest increase in history and will help 2.7 million low-paid workers. We've also delivered important reforms that are getting wages moving through the secure jobs, better pay bill—opposed by those over there—and we supported the aged-care work value case which delivered a 15 per cent pay increase to some of the hardest-working Australians—something the coalition refused to do. I have noticed the various comments of Senator Cash, as the IR spokesperson, about these issues. She warned us when passing this legislation last year that it would potentially close down Australia. I don't know. I'm having a look around. It looks pretty open to me. She also said that our changes would take us back to the Dark Ages. I don't think they had iPhones in the Dark Ages, but apparently that's where we're going to end up. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator White, your first supplementary question? 14:24 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Under the previous Liberal-National government, the bargaining system had become too rigid and legalistic, leading to a decrease in agreement-making. That certainly was my own experience, as you highlighted. Since passing the secure jobs, better pay act in December last year, how has the Albanese government delivered on its commitment to reinvigorating enterprise bargaining? 14:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator White. As I say, the Albanese government are proud to have done a lot already in our first 12 months to get wages moving again, even though we know it's the thing that those opposite hate most. Enterprise bargaining is key to getting wages moving again. Under the coalition it fell away and more people became reliant on awards than should have been the case. Since our secure jobs, better pay bill was passed—against the opposition of those opposite—employers are now back at the bargaining table, many of whom have not been bargaining for many years. Thanks to our important secure jobs, better pay reforms, we've seen workers in traditionally feminised sectors accessing the supported bargaining stream to reach agreements across multiple employers. Workers in early childhood education are now using this stream to negotiate wage increases across the sector. We've got the single interest bargaining stream starting to be strengthened to stop a race to the bottom on wages and conditions. Every single one of these things was opposed by the LNP. Every single one of those wage rises that we called for was opposed by the LNP. We've now got a government that supports wage rises and that's helping Australians. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator White, your second supplementary question? 14:26 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria We know that, even when there are strong bargaining outcomes, some employers still use labour hire to undercut the pay and conditions of their workers. I, for myself, saw that day in, day out at Qantas, for example. What is the Albanese government doing to close the loopholes that some employers use to undercut employee pay and entitlements? 14:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Unfortunately we have seen too many big employers in Australia use these loopholes to undercut people's pay. The Albanese government made it clear before the election, and we're making it clear now, that we want workers to have more secure jobs and better pay. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're raising the bar on awards, on enterprise agreements and on bargaining and lifting the floor for workers. It's a shame we are still seeing some employers using existing loopholes to circumvent the pay and conditions of their workers, including by exploiting the use of labour hire. We acknowledge that there is a role for labour hire in our economy, especially for short-term surge workforce needs, but the system is being abused by too many employers at the moment to undercut people's pay and conditions. Currently our system allows for an employer to have an enterprise agreement that they've fairly negotiated with their workers, where the enterprise agreement has a fair rate of pay that's been agreed upon and voted up by the workers, but unfortunately we are seeing employers rip people off by exploiting labour hire. Our same job, same pay policy is designed to bring that to end. (Time expired) Indigenous Organisations 51 14:27 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. I refer to a report in the Australian Financial Review on 6 February 2023 which highlighted allegations of corruption, threats and intimidation on the part of decision-makers leading Aboriginal organisations incorporated under the C(ATSI) Act or registered as charities receiving millions of dollars of taxpayer funding to deliver Indigenous disability services. Is the minister aware that operators involved in these allegations are connected with multiple Indigenous organisations, sitting on boards or as part of senior management, with responsibility for millions of dollars of taxpayer funded grants and are allowed to continue to do so while being investigated by multiple government departments in relation to alleged fraud and misappropriation? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I might have to take the majority of that question on notice, Senator Hanson, because I'm not fully across it. I've got a number of briefs here that have been provided to me, but it might assist if I come back with a comprehensive answer for you because I haven't previously been briefed on this. I'll take your next question and see whether I can answer some of it through that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary question? 14:29 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland When was the minister first made aware of these allegations and the fact that whistleblowers who made them were being systematically victimised and threatened in an effort to silence them? 14:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I will have to take that on notice. That information isn't in the information I have before me, but I will endeavour to come back. I'm sorry I can't assist you further today, Senator Hanson, but I'll see if we can get you an answer as quickly as possible. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland To the best of my knowledge, the minister was made aware of this matter more than two years ago. What has the minister done to ensure that alleged perpetrators of misappropriation of Indigenous grants meant for vulnerable and disadvantaged Indigenous communities are identified, investigated and, if warranted, prosecuted in a timely and transparent manner? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Based on that time frame, it would have been a different minister, if a minister was made aware of that two years ago. I'll see what I can find from the point that Minister Burney took on the responsibilities just over a year ago, but I have no doubt that Minister Burney, once briefed on these concerns, would have taken action. I'll see what I can come back to the chamber with in terms of that information as soon as I can. My apologies that I'm not in a position to answer it today. Members of Parliament: Staff 51 14:30 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, on 7 June 2023, in an interview on ABC RN Breakfast, journalist Hamish Macdonald put the following statement to you: … David Sharaz, said, "I've got a friend in Labor, Katy Gallagher". Mr Macdonald asked you if Mr Sharaz was a friend. You responded: … he was a journalist here in Canberra when I was Chief Minister, so I knew him. But I have nothing further to add. Minister, do you or did you ever have a friendship with Mr Sharaz, and, if so, what is or was the extent of this friendship? Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Before I call the minister, I'm going to ask for order on my right. Minister Gallagher. 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I had a professional relationship with Mr Sharaz, as I presume many in this place did, because he worked in this place as well for some time. That is the extent of it. In terms of where this is getting to now, I would appreciate it if people would think about the impact that it's having on women. I have been inundated with calls from women's organisations and from women themselves who are concerned about how this debate is going to impact on women making choices about their own safety. You may be able to live with your conscience on that, but I can't live with mine. So my responsibility is to stand up and say—I'm happy to answer questions like Ms Henderson has asked—it was a professional relationship with a journalist that I knew when I was in the ACT, and I came across him when he was working here when I moved up to the Senate. That is the extent of that. I expect that relationship exists for a number of senators around this place. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, first supplementary? 14:33 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, it was reported by radio broadcaster Ray Hadley on Friday 9 June 2023 that you were invited to Mr Sharaz's first wedding in 2019. Minister, were you invited to the wedding? 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I didn't recall that until I heard it reported, and I had to ask the people that I worked with at the time. I think I was Chief Minister. I got a lot of invitations to a lot of things. Some I was able to go to and others I wasn't, and I didn't attend that one. The invitation was declined. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson ZN4 Just on a point of order, President, the question was: were you invited? I'm just asking if the minister could please indicate that. The PRESIDENT 112096 That is not a point of order. The minister answered that. Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU She went directly to that. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! This is question time. Senators are entitled to ask questions which you may or may not think are relevant. They are relevant to them, and they are entitled to be asked in silence. Senator Watt 245759 Says a lot about them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt! Order! Senator Henderson, second supplementary? 14:34 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, in text messages that have been released and reported in the Australian on 7 June 2023 Mr Sharaz describes you as an old friend. Minister, have you ever invited Mr Sharaz to a personal event or personal celebration? Government senators interjecti ng— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right. I should not have to keep calling out for order. Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU I take a point of order, President. In the interests of trying to deal appropriately with this, we have not taken points of order as to whether the questions are in order. I make the point that that question about friendship neither relates to the minister's portfolio nor to a previous statement. I again raise my concern from yesterday, and I ask people to reflect upon whether the use of private text messages of an alleged survivor is an ethical thing to use to ask questions in this place, particularly given what the DPP has said about her state of mind. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X President, just on the point of order: Senator Wong's premise that the question is not based upon public statements is incorrect. The primary question was based upon public statements made by the minister during an interview on Radio National Breakfast, and the supplementary questions follow from those public statements in that primary question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Because it's quite an unusual question I will seek advice from the Clerk. I am advised, and I urge senators to remember the primary question. The view is that we have drifted quite a way from the primary question, so I invite the minister to answer the second supplementary to any extent she wishes to. Senator Gallagher ING Can Senator Henderson just repeat it? The PRESIDENT 112096 Sure. Before I call Senator Henderson, I'm going to ask those on my right in particular to listen in silence. Senator Henderson. Senator HE ZN4 Minister, in text messages that have been released and reported in the Australian on 7 June 2023 Mr Sharaz describes you as an old friend. Minister, have you ever invited Mr Sharaz to a personal event or personal celebration? 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you. I start by saying I'm not responsible for how people describe their relationship with me. In Senator Henderson's question she again raises the text messages that have been published in the Australian. When they are raising that, I again ask people to think about what message that is sending out to women right now who are living in dangerous situations and to consider the impact on them. Frankly, we have a bigger job to do in here to protect those women. When they see seemingly illegally accessed documents are then published on the TV and in newspapers and repeated constantly in this place, the message to them is: 'Watch out. Don't open your mouth.' I think that is wrong. I think we have a responsibility to ensure that that isn't the message out of this place. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator GALLAGHER ING On the third part of her question, I don't recall and the answer is no. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 I was just going to raise a point of order about relevance, but the minister did come to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 You will recall that the minister was invited to answer the question as she thought was appropriate. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 53 14:38 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I have repeatedly asked the government to provide the legal advice they received around the impacts of the Voice to Parliament on the sovereignty of the First Peoples of this land. I was directed to the Referendum Working Group statement from February this year, which simply stated: 'All members of the expert group agreed that the draft provision would not affect the sovereignty of any group or body.' Given that my repeated requests for this directly to the minister remain unanswered, can you please provide me with the definition of 'sovereignty' that was used for this assessment? 14:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Thorpe. You're right; you have repeatedly asked this question. In fact, I think I answered it in estimates many months ago, when you asked the question of me and the officials who were there. And we do keep telling you, but I know that you keep coming back with that question. The fact is that the expert panel on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples sought advice on this issue. The advice was simple—that is, that constitutional recognition does not in any way foreclose on First Nations sovereignty. The Uluru statement is clear that enshrining a voice to parliament in the Constitution is linked to recognising the ancient sovereignty of our First Nations peoples. The Uluru statement states, as I'm sure you're aware: With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia's nationhood. That's why the Albanese government is looking forward to working with the community and all sides of politics, and I recognise there are people on all sides of politics who support recognising our First Peoples in our Constitution and there are people on all sides of politics who support doing that through a voice to parliament. We look forward to working with everyone who supports that occurring, everyone in the broader community and First Nations people, the overwhelming majority of whom support recognition and a voice to parliament. We look forward to working with all of them to achieve a voice to parliament in the Constitution through the referendum that we'll be having later this year. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 Just on relevance: the question was around the definition that was used to determine what sovereignty of First Nations people was. It was about the definition, which I still have not received. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Thorpe. I will draw the minister to that part of your question. Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 Unfortunately, Senator Thorpe, every time we have attempted to answer your questions about sovereignty—you obviously have a very strong view on this, and I know you have an agenda politically around the Voice to Parliament and it is based on this question of sovereignty. Every time we answer the question you're not satisfied with that answer, and you come back effectively asking the same question. We keep saying this to you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, did you want to raise— Senator Thorpe 280304 Just in terms of relevance: it's about definition. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, Senator Thorpe, I have drawn the minister to that part of your question. Senator Thorpe 280304 What is the definition of 'sovereignty' that the government are using? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, I can draw ministers to the question. I can't put words into their mouths. Senator Watt, you have a second left! Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:42 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria It seems to me that a thorough legal analysis, especially on something so important as our sovereignty since time immemorial, is impossible without actually defining what sovereignty is. Can you please provide me with the definition that is commonly used by the government in respect of First Nations sovereignty? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Thorpe. All I can do is repeat what I've already said, which is that the expert panel on these issues has sought advice on the issue, and the advice was categorical that constitutional recognition does not interfere with or foreclose on First Nations sovereignty. I have just reminded myself of the members of that expert group— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 Relevance: definition. How did the referendum group come up with the definition? Is it a colonial sovereignty or is it First Peoples sovereignty? What's the definition? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, when you raise a point of order you do not repeat the question. You've raised the point of order. I think the minister is answering the question, and I'm going to invite him to continue. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Thorpe, as I have done before, I'm happy to get the relevant minister's office to engage with you on this particular point. But I remind all the chamber that the constitutional expert group, who has categorically said that your concern is unfounded, includes former justice of the High Court of Australia Kenneth Hayne, former— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe 280304 In terms of relevance, there is no evidence to what the minister is suggesting. We want evidence about the interpretation of First Nations sovereignty. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, the point of raising a point of relevance is for either you to ask me to agree with you that the minister is not being relevant and draw him or her to that part of the question or I can advise you that in my view the question is being answered. It's not a debating time—there's plenty of other opportunity to do that—and that's what you're starting to do. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 As I say, I know, Senator Thorpe, that you have an agenda on this point to oppose the Voice to Parliament, and whatever we say won't convince you, but a former justice of the High Court of Australia along with several leading scholars in constitutional law from a number of different universities found there was evidence to say that this won't interfere with sovereignty. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria The government has committed to a treaty with First Nations people, which they declined yesterday, mind you. A treaty can only be negotiated between sovereigns. Does the government thereby acknowledge the sovereignty of First Peoples in this country? 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As has been articulated in the Uluru statement itself, the government does acknowledge this issue. As we say, and as the expert panel has said, the Voice to Parliament does not interfere with the sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As I say— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe 280304 President, let me get this right. Relevance: on the question, does the government thereby acknowledge the sovereignty of First Nations people? The PRESIDENT 112096 You may not agree with the minister's response, but, in this case, the minister is being relevant, and I'm going to invite him to continue his answer. Senator WATT 245759 I have already answered the question in my opening points by the remarks that I made around sovereignty. And, again, Senator Thorpe, with the greatest of respect, I know that nothing we say to you will convince you of this point because your agenda is to oppose the Voice— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe 280304 Point of order: I don't know what it is, but it's not personal. I'm asking for the black sovereign movement out there who haven't ceded their sovereignty and who are watching right now about whether the government acknowledges the sovereignty of First Nations people, because you can't have a treaty without one. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, please resume your seat. Once again you are getting into a debate rather than calling a point of order. I agree with you that the minister should stick to the question and not— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, I am attempting to answer your point. I will ask the minister to refrain from making a personal reference to you and to stick to your question. Thank you, Minister. Senator WATT 245759 As you probably know, Senator Thorpe, I did study law at university and I practised as a lawyer, but I'm not a professor of constitutional law. I'm not a former High Court judge of Australia. I'm not a former vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University. I'm not one of the people in the expert group on the Voice who have all said that the issue you're talking about is not a concern. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe 280304 Relevance. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant, and I will listen carefully. Senator Thorpe 280304 Telling me his resume— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, please don't argue. I've ruled on it. Senator Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 My point is: I can't think of a more eminent group to advise this parliament on these matters. We have listened to their advice, and I would encourage everyone to do so. (Time expired) Housing 55 14:49 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness, Senator Farrell. Following a decade of inaction and delay by the former coalition government, we have seen homeownership become increasingly difficult for many and homelessness on the rise. Ensuring all Australians have access to safe and affordable places to live is critical. Can the minister explain how the Albanese government's housing reforms will improve housing outcomes for Australians experiencing or at risk of becoming homeless, and what are the implications if it is further delayed? 14:50 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Polley follow for her excellent question. I know she's deeply concerned about the issues of housing and homelessness in her home state. Turning around the lost decade of inaction on the issue of housing and homelessness under the opposition will require a coordinated and ambitious housing reform agenda to address our nation's housing challenges. This is exactly what the Albanese government is doing. Central to our plan is the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. That will help— Senator Watt 245759 Tell us about that! Senator FARRELL I0N I will, Senator Watt. It will help to deliver new social and affordable rental homes for people that need them, a guaranteed ongoing pipeline of funding for social and affordable rental homes. The 30,000 homes the fund will deliver in its first five years are just one part of the Albanese government's ambitious housing agenda. The returns from the fund will also deliver $100 million for crisis accommodation for women and children, $30 million to build housing and services for veterans and $200 million for the repair, maintenance and the improvement of housing in remote Indigenous communities. Senator Watt 245759 It's a lot of money. Senator FARRELL I0N It is a lot of money, Senator Watt. But imagine the difference this fund and these homes will make to people at risk of homelessness in this country. We on this side of the Senate want to actually deliver homes for Australians who need them. This isn't a campaign tool for us. This isn't about doorknocking. This is about real people, those Australians facing homelessness. The coalition and the Greens should stop playing politics and get out of the way, so that we can get on with the job of delivering homes— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, a first supplementary question? 14:52 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Can the minister update the Senate on the Albanese Labor government's solution to the acute homelessness challenges that Australians are facing that our housing reform agenda will provide? 14:52 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes, I can, Senator Polley. I can answer that question, because the Albanese government believes that everyone deserves a safe and secure place to call home. From the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, we will deliver 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes, with 4,000 properties for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness. The returns from the fund will also fund responses for people in urgent need. These include $100 million for crisis and transitional housing options for women and children, and $30 million to build more housing and fund services for veterans who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness. We are committed to ensuring more Australians have a safe and affordable place to live and to reducing homeness. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call Senator Polley, I'm going to remind senators that Senator Polley is entitled to ask her question in silence. Senator Polley, a second supplementary question? 14:54 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Can the minister provide an update on what the Albanese Labor government is doing to provide support to people who rent a home? 14:54 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes, I can, because tenants are a valued and important part of our communities, and renting has been getting tougher and tougher. We hear their concerns and we're acting to address them. The Albanese government is delivering the first substantial increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in over 30 years. The national Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council has been tasked with developing a proposal for National Cabinet on the options to strengthen renters' rights. Of course, the answer to rental stress is a sustained boost in the supply of homes to rent and a substantial investment in new social and affordable housing. This is exactly what the Albanese government is doing. If the Greens can put aside their grandstanding and political games and put the Australian people first, the Housing Australia Future Fund will be the largest boost to social and affordable rental housing in a decade. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Staff 56 14:55 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong. Minister, aside from the briefings provided by former Senate President Ryan, were you aware of any other aspects of sexual assault allegations, or provided with any other information, prior to them being made public on 15 February 2021? 14:56 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, in relation to the briefings or my knowledge, as the former Senate President Ryan has made clear, a number of senators, including me, were made aware of some details of these events as early as 2020. That knowledge firstly related to the retention of CCTV footage, as he had outlined in his statement to the Senate in February 2021. He contacted both Senator Cormann and me on 16 October 2020 to address queries regarding the retention of CCTV footage and to advise that we were undertaking an independent inquiry into the actions of DPS staff, following the receipt of anonymous correspondence and its referral to the AFP. That's what the President told the chamber in 2021. The statement also makes clear that the President 'did not disclose to those senators any allegations of sexual assault'. As you know, Senator Birmingham, after you were appointed as Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance, you were also briefed on these matters. The former President's statement provided to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee states that the independent inquiry commissioned by those presiding officers reported to the secretary of DPS on 29 October 2020. I was subsequently briefed on this report and provided a copy, as were you, Senator Birmingham, as Leader of the Government in the Senate. At all times I've sought to ensure that this matter was being appropriately handled by relevant authorities, including by raising this matter with both the President and Senator Birmingham. The President's statement on 1 April 2021 makes clear that the report did not contain Ms Higgins's identity. The details I became aware of, through the briefing process I've outlined, were never made public by me or by others. I believe victims have a right to determine what course of action should be taken in relation to sexual assault. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary? 14:58 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, aside from the disclosures made by Senator Gallagher, those briefings provided by former Senate President Ryan or information related to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee's work, were, to your knowledge, any other members of the Albanese government aware of any other aspects of the sexual assault allegations, or provided with any other information, prior to them being made public on 15 February 2021? Can I also ask you, for clarity, to make clear at the end of your answer as to whether you had any other prior information other than the details you just stepped through? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I've outlined the details and the sources of information which I had. In relation to others' knowledge, obviously Senator Gallagher has outlined her knowledge. Her account, as given yesterday, is correct. She kept the confidence in relation to the information she was provided with, including with me. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary? 14:59 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, Senator Gallagher has told a Senate committee that 'no-one had any knowledge', yet she did have knowledge. Senator Gallagher told the Senate that she wasn't aware of the full allegations, yet Senator Gallagher refuses to deny advanced receipt of a transcript of the broadcast. Senator Gallagher told the Senate that she did absolutely nothing with the information, yet Senator Gallagher refuses to deny reports she provided suggested questions in response to the information. Minister, isn't it clear that Senator Gallagher has mislead the— (Time expired) 15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I reject those assertions contained in that question. I would make the point that Senator Gallagher has provided a statement and answered questions to this Senate, even going to whether or not someone was an old friend. I would make the point also that there are those who did owe the woman in question, Ms Higgins, a duty of care, and those persons still have failed to take responsibility for their action. I— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Please continue, Senator Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU Yes, it is a serious statement to make, Senator Henderson, and it is— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU I think when those opposite seek to blame everyone but themselves, and, frankly, as Senator Gallagher has outlined, send a message to women around this country that you will be punished if you— (Time expired) QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 57 15:01 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. I find this government very intriguing, as they seem unable to be able to look in the mirror and be honest with themselves. This government lectured us for months on end about the importance of transparency, honesty and accountability. The Prime Minister said last year: Our democracy is precious. We should be very proud of the democracy we have created here in Australia. But the Westminster system relies upon checks and balances. Yet, since coming to power, this government has done all that it can to unwind any kinds of checks and balances, let alone proper transparency. This government can't face the simple fact that in the past year of governing they have not done a single thing that was conducted in an accountable or transparent process. This government are complete hypocrites on accountability, and, frankly, Senator Gallagher refusing to answer simple questions here is doing nothing to ameliorate that concern. How is refusing to answer questions being accountable? On 24 April 2022, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese published an opinion piece called 'A government that will accept responsibility', and I'll quote from it. He said, 'Australia needs a government that will accept responsibility and not seek to blame others for its errors.' I find it particularly interesting, because all Labor have done is blame the former government. In what instance have we seen this government take any responsibility for its actions? In dealing with serious allegations, they cannot answer important questions, and Labor's unwillingness to be transparent, accountable or honest is shaping up to be a consistent pattern in their attitude and certainly their behaviour. They blame, for example, the RBA for the 11 rate increases on their watch, while overseeing $185 billion in new spending that only adds to further inflationary pressure. I rack my brain to think of any legislation that they've passed that did not play political games and put the people of Australia ahead of their own agenda. We're all very aware of what happened late last year when the shocking 'secure jobs, better pay' bill came before this parliament. They allowed 22 days for the committee that I'm on, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, to report on that legislation. Now, explain to me how 22 days is a satisfactory amount of time to consult with stakeholders, businesses and individuals, let alone giving them enough time to prepare significant and substantial submissions, in order for the department to have the appropriate time to consult and to have the bill drafted properly. The Prime Minister needs to take a deep look inside his operations and how he is conducting his government. He needs to take a deep look. He needs to stop weaponising important issues and focus on leading this country with integrity. The government said they would end the waste and the pork-barrelling, yet the Minister for Communications blocked a freedom of information request for documents relating to Labor's dodgy round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. No wonder it was blocked. The minister personally selected all 54 locations to receive funding, and they were almost all in Labor seats. This government has some very important questions that they must answer, and when they come into question time they should be prepared to answer those questions in their entirety and with clarity, not hide behind any sort of excuse. So, remind yourselves, government, of the promise you made to the Australian people—the so-called promise that you would run the most honest, transparent and accountable government. We are yet to see that promise transpire. We're yet to see it occur here in this Senate. So take this opportunity to listen not just to me but to yourselves, because this was your promise, and you're failing dismally. 15:06 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Well, that was interesting. Can I just say that I'm really proud to stand here as a member of the Albanese government. We are one of the most transparent, honest governments that we have seen in this country for the last 10 years. I have to say that. And you want to talk about black spots? Really? You had nine or 10 years to fix the black spots all around this country, and you come in here and talk about black spots, and you haven't fixed any of them. You're having a go at us, and you've had 10 years—10 whole years—to fix the black spots around this country, and you come in here and have a crack at us. At the end of the day, I don't know how many of you on that side did not stand here and listen to the statement Senator Gallagher made yesterday. I want to read out the first four sentences of that. She said: I want to begin by statement by saying that when it comes to responding to the serious allegations of rape, that occurred in a minister's office in this building, I have at all times been guided by the bravery and courage of a young woman who chose to speak up and about an alleged incident in her workplace. I have always acted ethically and with basic human decency on all matters related to Ms Higgins. I will continue to do so. I will always support women to come forward and I will always respect their confidence when it is sought. Those were the first four sentences of her statement yesterday, and that is exactly what she has done. And I think we really need to remember what this is all about. Senator Gallagher, in answering the questions both yesterday and today, has continually said—let's stop and think about this for a moment—that this is about the wellbeing of a young woman who stood up very bravely and was prepared to speak out. She was working in this building that we're all in today, in a Liberal minister's office, when she alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by her colleague. Who was the employer? The Morrison Liberal government. They let her down in the days and the weeks and the months that followed that allegation that she reported to them. After two years, when the government and the party that she served did nothing, she made the courageous decision to speak up, to stand up. Those allegations were made public on her own terms. She has a right to that. She does not have a right to have her name drawn through the mud here every single day. She knew when she came forward that she would become a political target, but she did it anyway because she was determined to change the culture in this building. Senator Gallagher, as the Minister for Women, has done more than any other minister for women in the last 10 years to make sure that people are protected in this building and to make it a healthier and safer place for women. So let's not think about that. We should be concerned about the long-term impacts that these actions—your actions—are having. Senator Gallagher, over and over and over, has said that she has been contacted by women's organisations about the effect of your actions on those women and their courage to stand up and speak out. That is not what this country is about. This is not what this government is about. We want those women to stand up. We want them to speak out, and we want them to get help. What this sends is a message about how they will be treated in this country if they do. So I would say: be responsible, and consider your actions, because those bear huge responsibilities and we don't want women to hide in the corner and not speak out about these issues. For too many years, that has happened. It's time it stopped. The actions around what's happening from that side every single day are not going to help that. We want these women to be able to stand up and to feel safe. Senator Gallagher, as one of the best ministers for women, is helping women to stand up and speak out. What you're doing is continually putting a lid on them and telling them to shut up. 15:12 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I'd like to support the words of Senator Urquhart, that actions have consequences and people need to consider those. One of the actions that I'm aware that my colleague Senator Reynolds and her chief of staff undertook was to make the offer of support and advice to report the allegation to police. The action of going to the media before the police though has had a significant consequence, in that the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' has been denied to an Australian citizen. Valid concerns have been raised here about the impacts of this whole debate on people's mental health. But it's important to realise that that individual has also been driven close to the point of suicide and self-harm because of the pressure that has been placed on him because that principle, that part of the rule of law in Australia, has been taken away. Likewise, the mental health of a number of other people has also been damaged. So actions do have consequences, and I think all senators in this place should reflect on that, not just in terms of the action in here but also in terms of the actions that governments take. No amount of rhetoric will change the reality. One other answer from Senator Gallagher that I wish to go to is her comment on cost-of-living pressures. She made the claim that things like power prices are linked to overseas events. The reality on the ground though is that, throughout 2020, the average price for energy in Europe—in Germany, in particular, which has been seen as a bit of a canary in the coal mine—was in the order of 43 euros per megawatt hour. By December 2021, it was already increasing to an average of 213 euros per megawatt hour. In December 2021, before the invasion of Ukraine, it was peaking at 435 euros per megawatt hour. There were another couple of large spikes in the intervening period, but in Germany that price has now gone back to 102 euros per megawatt hour, which is still, by the way, one of the most expensive in the OECD. The point is that the price pressures in Germany were rising ahead of the invasion—they have been held out as the canary in the coalmine—so the rhetoric from the minister doesn't reflect the reality of the things that are driving up prices. In fact, if you look, in Australia's case, back to the market interruptions in May of last year, there were times when the domestic price for gas was higher than the international price, which actually lays bare the claim that our market is driven purely by international factors. So the interventions by the Albanese government, with things like the price cap, actually decrease confidence in investment, which decreases supply. Basic market economics say that that then starts driving price factors and has an impact on the cost of living. The other part that is important to understand around the rhetoric versus reality, going particularly to the cost of living and energy, is that the rhetoric here is that the clean energy transition to variable renewable power sources will drive down prices. But the reason that Germany has the highest price for electricity in both industry and residential households in the OECD is that they actually have the highest penetration of variable renewables in the OECD. The country with the lowest price of power in the OECD is Canada, which operates 19 nuclear reactors and also has a substantial amount of hydro. But the province of Ontario, which gets the majority of its power from those 19 nuclear reactors, is in the bottom quartile of the provinces in Canada for power. So clearly there is no correlation between the claim that large amounts of variable renewables will drive down power and that nuclear will drive up power. In fact, reality shows the opposite. It's also borne out by the reality shown in modelling by both the OECD and the IEA, which highlights that the only way to have reliable and affordable power is to invest in base load power such as nuclear power. 15:17 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Senator Katy Gallagher is an absolute trailblazer and fierce advocate for women, and I am incredibly proud to be in this chamber with a woman of her calibre. It doesn't feel like it was all that long ago that I was working in child protection with children and women who were survivors of sexual abuse, and I got to see firsthand the impacts of those assaults and violence on children and women, which are long lasting and devastating. They leave a profound impact on survivors. It's certainly easy to forget in this place how powerful words are when they are used so irresponsibly by those opposite. They're used without any care for anybody outside this place. We have a responsibility in here to tread with care. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey released in March this year, an estimated eight million Australians—41 per cent—aged 18 years and over have experienced physical or sexual violence. One in five women—that's 22 per cent, or 2.2 million women—have experienced sexual violence. One in 16 men—that's 6.1 per cent, or 582,400 men—have experienced sexual violence. The rates of family and domestic or sexual violence are higher for Indigenous women. We know that. They are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised than non-Indigenous women. While those opposite want to try to turn the torch on Labor for political gain about who knew what and when, there are people out in the community who hear every word that we say in here. It is echoed out into the community, and what they hear is that you don't care about their trauma and that you don't care about their resilience or the strength of survivors at all. It would be easy to forget, with the disgraceful comments thrown around over the last couple of weeks, that the Me Too movement ever happened. You'd be forgiven for thinking that the Set the standard report was never written or that the #LetHerSpeak campaign never happened. You'd be forgiven for thinking that those events didn't happen, because it's certainly fallen on deaf ears over there. It's like those opposite learned nothing. To be so irresponsible is frigging outrageous. We know that half of the women who've experienced sexual assault did not seek advice or support after the most recent incident of sexual assault perpetrated by a male. The events that have unfolded in this place certainly won't give them any confidence in seeking support in the near future. It should go without saying that every person in this place should be able to live free from violence, to be safe in their communities. The discussion today again serves as a stark reminder of the work that we need to do not just in this place but as a country. We are certainly under some great leadership with our Minister for Women in Katy Gallagher. We need to place survivors at the heart of conversations that we have about them, because that's what this conversation is about. We need to acknowledge the tenacity and strength of all those who have experienced it and survived, because they are the true heroes here. To those listening I say I'm sorry if you're feeling retraumatised because of the conduct of the people in this place. I'm sorry for what you've had to hear in this place. I'm sorry for what you've had to see through the media and on your TV screens that has retriggered you over the last couple of weeks. I'm sorry if you're in pain from the conversations that have happened in this place. I want to say that we absolutely need to do better. We need to do better for you. 15:22 Sen 283601 Victoria ator VAN () (): I thank my friend Senator Stewart for her contribution, but it's very clear that she wasn't in the last parliament, because the behaviour— Senator Stewart 299352 What's that got to do with it? Don't belittle it. Senator VAN 283601 I listened to you in silence. The behaviour that we saw from the Labor Party, from those benches, in the last year or so was disgraceful. Even yesterday and today, the muck that's been thrown from that side to this side at Senators Cash and Reynolds is really just not on and makes a mockery of her words, which I thought, for the most part, were quite strong. As parliamentarians we need to be focused on setting the standard for all Australians and in all aspects of life. When then Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins handed— Senator Thorpe 280304 We know what you were doing! Senator VAN 283601 Deputy President, could you— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Thorpe, please. We have had a respectful debate. Senator Thorpe 280304 I can't believe they put you up to make this speech. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Thorpe, I know you're going to have your two minutes. You'll have your turn. Senator Van, please go on. Senator VAN 283601 Disgraceful. When I'm trying to say these things— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We don't need commentary from you, Senator Van. Let's just keep going. Senator VAN 283601 When then Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins handed down the Set the standard report, recommendation 2 asked us to demonstrate institutional leadership and recommendation 4 asked us to demonstrate individual leadership. Under the heading 'The case for change' the report states: Many Australian workplaces have recognised that a safe and respectful workplace culture influences their ability to attract and retain the best people, drive organisational performance as well as to manage what are now significant reputational and legal risks. What happened in the previous parliament did not enforce the Set the standard report. After almost two years it seems that nothing has been learnt and that we're in the same place we were then. Those opposite continue to attack Senator Reynolds and throw mud across the chamber, while claiming indemnity and innocence— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Thorpe, please! Senator Thorpe 280304 You know it! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Thorpe, I have called you to order. Please be in order. Senator VAN 283601 Could you ask her to withdraw that comment, please. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I didn't hear the comment. Senator Thorpe, please, just withdraw. Senator Thorpe 280304 Why'd you have to move your office— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Thorpe, please withdraw. Senator Thorpe 280304 away from me? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Thorpe, you are not assisting. I ask you to consider withdrawing that. Senator Thorpe 280304 I withdraw. Senator VAN 283601 It is time we elevated the discourse in this chamber and elevated how we treat each other. Transparency— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Point of order, Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 I just want to relay that I'm feeling really uncomfortable when a perpetrator is speaking about violence. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Thorpe, that's inappropriate and reflecting poorly on the member. I have to ask you to withdraw that. Senator Thorpe 280304 I can't, because this person harassed me, sexually assaulted me— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Thorpe, I would just warn you at this point— Senator 280304 and the Prime Minister had to remove him from his office. To have him talking about this today is an absolute disgrace on the whole party. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Thorpe, I have to call you to order. I'm going to have to refer that to the President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I'm going to refer it to the President. I'm just looking at the leaders—my course of action is to refer it to the President. Senator Van, please continue with your contribution. Senator VAN 283601 I utterly reject that disgusting statement outright. It is just a lie, and I reject it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Van— Senator VAN 283601 Sorry; I withdraw the word 'lie'. It's just not true. May I continue? The 10000 Yes. Senator VAN 283601 Transparency, honesty and integrity are the most important factors for a functioning democracy. The people must be able to trust that their elected representatives are working in their favour. It is time to bring back integrity into this building. It is time for those opposite and the crossbench to start acting on their words. Despite campaigning on integrity since day one, the Albanese Labor government has demonstrated anything but integrity. It seems like every time the opposition comes into this chamber asking questions of the government, the government is incredibly reticent to provide answers. We saw that in estimates most recently. When in opposition, now Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus spent years trying to get hold of the ministerial diaries of George Brandis—even taking him to court. Now in government, he refuses to release his diary, as do other ministers—all of whom campaigned on transparency, honesty and integrity. The complete hypocrisy of the Prime Minister and Attorney-General to campaign on transparency and integrity while in opposition calling for a specific act of transparency such as releasing diaries—we must do everything we can to ensure that government and government processes are transparent, and that citizens are prepared to engage with our democracy. Question agreed to. Maugean Skates 61 15:28 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to maugean skates. The once pristine waters of beautiful Macquarie Harbour on Tasmania's west coast have been turned into a turgid and increasingly lifeless soup by industrial development. This awful transition was historically driven by the mining industry, but in recent decades it's been driven by salmon farming. One tragic outcome of that transition is for the maugean skate, a magnificent Gondwanan relic marine species that has been around since the Tyrannosaurus rex roamed the earth. A recent study by the University of Tasmania has found that that species is now confined to Macquarie Harbour, and has dropped in population by 47 per cent from 2014 to 2021. Scientists are now extremely concerned that the maugean skate is one extreme weather event away from extinction. The rapid decline in population has resulted from a general decline in dissolved oxygen levels in its habitat that, completely unsurprisingly to the Greens and many other people, has occurred at exactly the same time as a rapid expansion of marine farming operations in the area. Salmon is currently being factory farmed in Macquarie Harbour by Huon Aquaculture, Petuna Aquaculture and Tassal. For people listening who are buying farmed salmon from Huon, from Petuna or from Tassal, you are directly subsidising the potential looming extinction of the maugean skate. That beautiful skate is slipping into extinction. What is the government's response? Minister Plibersek, as we found out today from Senator Wong, has written a letter to the Tasmanian government. That letter requests that the Tasmanian government take an extreme interventional approach in order to address the critical situation facing the maugean skate. What's the Tasmanian government done? What is the critical intervention of the Tasmanian government? They've set up a few committees. I say this to the Tasmanian government and to Minister Plibersek: not good enough. If you want to save this skate, which is slipping into extinction on our watch, get farmed salmon and the aquaculture industry out of Macquarie Harbour. They should never have been let in there in the first place and they should be booted out and booted out now. Question agreed to. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 62 15:31 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Voice. What we heard today is shocking. The government is doing everything they can to avoid providing a definition of sovereignty. They actually cannot do it. So on what basis can they state that sovereignty is not affected by the Voice? This is a farce. What is really happening is that the government is scared of our sovereignty because if we are sovereign then what is the government? There are only three mechanisms by which a state can acquire sovereignty—by conquest, by ceding or by settlement of unoccupied land. This land was not unoccupied. We all know that. We have also not been conquered. First Nations people are still here today and standing strong. And we have never ceded our sovereignty. So this government is not sovereign. It is simply an illegal occupier. This colony is an imperial occupation of over 250 sovereign nations. While I welcome the efforts made towards treaties by states and territories, there is no legal basis for them. Treaties can only be negotiated between sovereigns. The states and territories are not sovereign. The Crown is a sovereign, though not over our lands, as I just laid out. We are willing to treaty with the Crown, and it is the federal government's responsibility to progress this. Treaty reaffirms our sovereignty, but it can also lead to the coexistence of sovereignties and a new framework for our society. It is the only way we can finally live together in peace in this country. Question agreed to. NOTICES 62 NOTICES Presentation 62 BUSINESS 64 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 64 15:33 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Ciccone for 13 and 14 June 2023, for personal reasons; and (b) Senator Green from 14 to 16 June 2023, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 65 15:34 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Nampijinpa Price for today for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 65 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 65 Reporting Date 65 15:35 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on. CONDOLENCES 65 CONDOLENCES Staley, the Hon. Anthony Allan (Tony), AO 65 15:35 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 3 May 2023 of the Hon. Anthony Alan (Tony) Stanley AO, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Chisholm, Victoria, from 1970 to 1980. I call the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Farrell. 15:36 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate records its sorrow at the death, on 3 May 2023, of the Honourable Anthony Allan Staley AO, former Minister for the Capital Territory and Minister for Post and Telecommunications, and former member for Chisholm, places on record its gratitude of his service to the Parliament and the nation and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement. I rise to pay tribute to Tony Staley. Tony was elected to the House of Representatives for the division of Chisholm at a by-election in 1970, joining John Gorton's government. He would go on to serve the people of Chisholm for a decade. During his ten years in parliament, he served as the Minister for the Capital Territory, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Arts, Minister for Post and Telecommunications as well as shadow parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. Sadly, Tony passed away on 3 May 2023, surrounded by his children, with his beloved poetry books on his bedside table. Tony's life was one of service. Before entering parliament, he was employed as a senior lecturer at the University of Melbourne, the same university where he graduated with a Bachelor of Laws. Tony's departure from parliament was not due to a loss of confidence of the electorate or his party but rather as a man who wanted to spend more time with his family. At the time, Tony described the reason for his decision as he no longer wanted to be an absentee landlord to his children. He was a family man. He was a dedicated father and husband. When Tony left parliament, he didn't walk away from the party that he loved. Instead, he was convinced to put his name forward as national president, a position he held from 1983 to 1999. Many credit a portion of the Liberal Party's success during this period to the leadership that Tony provided. He was a man with great courage in his convictions, never hesitating to do what he thought was right. Tony has been remembered as a man of great resilience and strength, as was demonstrated by his notable courage in the wake of a terrible car accident in 1990 in which he was injured. Tony has been described as a great politician; an even greater man; a brave, strong and, above all, party loyalist; and a devoted servant of and contributor to the Liberal Party all his adult life. In the days following Tony's passing, tributes have flowed, with many from across the country remembering him with great affection and wishing to express their condolences. While Tony had a deep love for politics and service to the community, he also had a deep love for poetry. Some of his favourite poems were said to have brought him comfort when making difficult decisions while in government and peace in difficult moments of his life. It's appropriate that we pay tribute to Tony in this place, that we acknowledge his contribution to Australia. We're deeply saddened by Tony Staley's departure from this life. I offer my condolences and those of the government to Tony's family, especially his children, Richard, Samuel, Alexandra, Jonathan and Lucinda, as well as to Tony's friends and to all those who knew him. May he rest in peace. 15:40 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise on behalf of the opposition to honour the life of the Hon. Anthony Allan Staley, AO. Tony Staley served as the member for Chisholm, a Liberal Party member and a minister. Born in Horsham in 1939, Tony attended Scotch College before going on to university where he became an active member of the Liberal Party. A graduate of law, Tony had two passions dominant in his life at that stage: drama and politics. Both stages were open to him in life, but he pursued the latter after completing a masters degree in politics and working as a senior lecturer at the University of Melbourne. However, Tony never lost the art of bringing a little drama to politics whenever the stage would demand it. In 1970, he was elected in the seat of Chisholm at a by-election, joining John Gorton's government, and he would go on to serve the people of Chisholm for a decade. In his maiden speech in 1971, a speech that walked across issues of public order, protests, universities and freedom of speech, Tony made an observation of enduring relevance. He said: In time of peace, wishful thinking and dreaming will not keep institutions alive and well. They must be defended as any human institution must be defended when it is under attack. Upon being re-elected in 1972, Tony found himself and his party in opposition for the first time in a long time, with Billy Snedden now at the Liberal helm. In 1973, Tony was promoted to shadow parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. However, Tony admitted to losing faith in Snedden's ability to lead the Liberals, and, despite his personal regard for the then opposition leader's honesty and decency, Tony joined a growing chorus who threw in their lot with Malcolm Fraser. Tony would later say: I'm not prepared to be the sort of politician who won't stand up for his beliefs. Tony was not necessarily a major powerbroker, but his decision, his rule and his actions there were influential. He certainly should not be portrayed as a powerbroker, for, as author and journalist, Paul Kelly, wrote, 'Without Staley's decision, Fraser would not have won the Liberal leadership at the time he did and consequently would probably not have won it before the Liberals were returned to office.' Staley's role helped to divert and change that part of history. But Paul Kelly noted that, unlike some of his party colleagues for whom the blood and thirst of leadership challenges and the like came naturally, Tony was a theorist who enjoyed philosophising, a trait which came naturally to the academically minded and gifted Tony Staley. If Tony was atypical in this regard, he was also exceptional in being someone who did shape Australia's political history—first, as I said, in helping to lift Fraser into the Liberal leadership and, secondly, in helping to bring down Gough Whitlam's Labor government and therefore making Fraser Prime Minister. In Malcom Fraser's government, Tony Staley proved to be a steady hand and an effective minister, first for the Capital Territory, then assisting the Prime Minister and finally for Post and Telecommunications, where he excelled. Yet, as Senator Farrell has indicated, Tony Staley made the decision to retire from the parliament before the 1980 election, despite then Prime Minister Malcom Fraser's attempts to dissuade him from doing so. After leaving the parliament and seizing that time with his children, Tony took on a directorship for Ogilvy & Mather and became chairman of Mitsubishi Motors Australia, Geostar Pacific, Reed Stenhouse, Australian Telecommunications Users Group and, for a short while, Ozonyx, a medical equipment company. He turned his attention to being chairman of the Jet Corporation of Australia but also found time for chairmanships relating to his passions, including the Australian Professional Performing Arts Association, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Film Victoria and the Playbox Theatre. In 1990, as Senator Farrell alluded to, Tony was involved in a near-death car accident with a drunk driver that left him to endure a long and arduous recovery. Once over the hardest hurdles of his recovery, Tony reflected to the Sunday Herald about taking his first steps in some eight months and sharing the triumph with his family, saying: 'These are big moments in a little life.' None of us who knew Tony would ever describe his life as a little one. Tony had and made a big impact. He also never complained of the injuries caused to him or the calipers that he would use to aid his walking for the years to follow. He instead always reflected on the charmed and privileged life that he felt so fortunate to have. Following the accident, in the years to come, he continued to contribute. He took great delight in his work as chair of the Cooperative Research Centres Association, acting there in ways aimed to help drive science and research across so many different fields in Australia. Tony also gave back to the Liberal Party at its time of need, becoming federal president between 1993 and 1999. Nineteen ninety-three was a dark, trying and troubling time for the Liberal Party. We had just lost the so-called unlosable election; we were churning through leaders and facing great challenge. But Tony answered the call to step up. He wasn't just a leader who provided great leadership at the highest possible levels of the party. He used that office to connect across the board. It was at this time that I first met Tony Staley at a Young Liberal conference at Sydney University. I remember Tony Staley not as the person who came with his great deep voice and got to the stage and gave an uplifting speech, though indeed those are the things that he did do. I remember Tony Staley as the person who stayed through the day and into the night—well into the night—and, after the wines were finished, finding a bottle of scotch and continuing to engage with all of the Young Liberals, decades his junior, inexperienced as we were, with plenty of cigarette smoke wafting through the air in those days too. Tony Staley was clearly in his element mentoring and encouraging future generations, challenging our ideas and our thinking, and quizzing us about the policies that were being debated at that conference. From that, I know many who may not have seen or heard much of Tony Staley in the years to come but will, like me, have taken great inspiration from the work of somebody who had been serving in this place—likely at the time that most of us, in fact, were born. As Tony finished his presidency of the Liberal Party, then Prime Minister John Howard described him as 'a great servant of the Liberal Party' who 'always put the party first'. That is so true. And it was, of course, during Tony's presidency that he saw and oversaw the successful election and re-election of the Howard government, turning the tables on the 13 years of opposition and setting us up for more than a decade in government. Howard highlighted Tony's three great qualities: his immense personal courage, his great sense of humour and his considerable grace and eloquence. I'm sure all of us who met or knew Tony can attest to each of those. Testimony to Tony's achievements, he was fittingly made an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2007 for his service to politics, to the telecommunication and arts sectors and to the development of the Liberal Party. He was generous in sharing his time and insights with new generations of Liberals but also across the art society and world, the scientific realm and all other sectors in which he engaged. The Hon. Anthony Allan Staley passed away peacefully, surrounded by his family and neighbour, with, as his family reported, books of poetry, Leonard Cohen playing, a glass of Cointreau and a crumpled Age newspaper—his son Sam noting 'a happy end to a long and interesting life'. We can all but hope to go surrounded by such love and so many fitting memories of a life well lived. On behalf of the opposition and the Australian Senate, I thank Tony for his service and offer our heartfelt condolences to his children, Richard, Samuel, Alexandra, Jonathan and Lucinda. And, to all of Tony's loved ones, friends and former colleagues, we extend our deepest sympathies. 15:50 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Today the chamber pays its respects to a lion of the Liberal Party in Tony Staley. I am both sad and very proud to stand here today to mark, on the indelible record of Hansard, a tribute to his life. But I have a confession to make before I do: I am hopelessly biased because Tony Staley was my 'Tuesdays with Morrie' guy. That is a rather crass referral to an airport novel that's rather unfit for a man so well versed in the classics, but, indeed, it is the best description I could come up with. I met Tony eight or nine years ago at a group dinner, knowing only the legend of him. He inadvertently left that dinner early without paying his bill. To avoid embarrassment, I picked up the cheque for him and quietly covered his share, but clearly somebody knew, because about a fortnight later he called me and asked me to lunch to thank me. I went to lunch, and we hit it off and we've been having regular lunches ever since then. At first, it was always the same. It was at the Bamboo House, and we had Peking duck at his regular table. When he moved into an aged-care facility about three years ago—his mind still very sharp, just his body giving way—I would bring the takeaway Peking duck to him. It was over these lunches that I got to know a truly great man; a man of extraordinary achievement; a man of love for his family and passion for poetry, of charm and erudition; a man of strength of will and determination in the face of adversity; a man of character and patriotism and a commitment to service; a man with a cheeky sense of humour and a healthy sense of the ridiculous; and a man of enormous conviction and deep humanity. He brought all of these things to his life and to his politics. I took great joy in learning from him and about him. His life was one that was well lived—a race well run from the start. He was born in Horsham and educated in Melbourne, and he went on to Melbourne university, where things could have gone in a very, very different direction. It wasn't until his funeral that I realised—because much was said about it—his original plans were to in fact join the church. But it was not to be. Apparently, two days into a theology degree, he told the Reverend Davis McCaughey that he had come to the conclusion that man created God and not the other way around. Needless to say, law and politics were clearly a better fit. One of Tony's childhood friends was Sam Holt, and Sam spoke so beautifully and eloquently, and with such affection, at Tony's funeral. One can only imagine just how profound the effect of the disappearance of Sam's father, Prime Minister Harold Holt, at the Portsea Back Beach was to be on both men, as well as on the psyche of a nation—because just three years later, at the age of 31, Tony Staley won the seat of Chisholm in a by-election and increased the Liberal Party's primary vote. He went on to serve in the many capacities that have already been spoken about, most notably as Minister for the Capital Territory and Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It was in this particular role that Tony took his Liberal values to the airwaves. Through the reforms that he introduced to our broadcasting legislation, he provided the basis for local and community-focused radio stations through the establishment of new broadcasting stations. In introducing the changes, he told the parliament: … the main reason for setting up new broadcasting stations is to provide better programs. The Government sees public broadcasting as a force for diversity. Its role is to provide Australians with a range of choices which the national and commercial sectors are not able to provide. He was also the minister when the long-held ambition of the SBS came to be a reality. These are extraordinary achievements in themselves. But Tony Staley was not a minister that was only delivering changes in order to receive accolades or create announceables. In his time in parliament Tony Staley was central—he was instrumental—in the rise of Malcolm Fraser as leader and the downfall of the Whitlam government and the Dismissal. Unbelievably, after an extraordinary career, he left parliament by choice after 10 years at the age of 41. I once asked him why he chose to leave politics at such a young age at the height of his political influence. 'You could have become leader,' I said to him. He said back to me in his deep melodious voice—one that usually quoted poetry or said words that I later had to look up in a dictionary—in that beautiful rich timbre: 'Jane, I just wasn't enough of a'—and for the sake of Hansard I won't reveal that final word, but I will say that I responded, 'Tony, that's not what I've heard.' As a member of this parliament he served a brief but still very remarkable period. It was made even more remarkable for the fact that this was not the culmination of his contribution to public life but just the beginning of it. Reflecting on some of the harder moments he faced and difficult decisions he confronted in public life, he turned to poetry as his source of courage. An oft quoted favourite was Australian poet James McAuley—a warrior for his beliefs, according to Tony. His musings on the human condition contrasted by the value of lived conviction was indeed a compelling theme. Tony said it was a McAuley poem entitled Liberal or innocent by definition that helped him to decide to resign his shadow ministry and begin the campaign to elect Malcolm Fraser as leader. In it McAuley calls out the empty life of the virtuous neutral without beliefs or the courage to commit to them—'Unbiased between good and evil they can never be convicted. They have no record of convictions.' I just love that. Following parliament, Tony's convictions were lived, not forgotten. He was the president of the Public Broadcasting Foundation and attended the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia's conference for over 40 years. As a result, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia honours community broadcasting organisations or programs that actively promote the values of community broadcasting with the Tony Staley Award. When he was asked what community radio meant to him he responded, 'The voice of the people.' This is typical of how Tony lived his time beyond politics—the continued pursuit of those values and projects that in public life he believed in. Convictions for Tony were never performative. When the Liberal Party was facing the 10th year of Labor in power in Canberra, despite his permanent and profound injury from a car accident three years earlier Tony Staley put himself forward to serve his party again as federal president. This wasn't an easy decision. He had to defeat Malcolm Fraser, the man he had campaigned for the Liberal leadership 20 years prior. But, having beaten his former leader and Prime Minister, he didn't rest. No-one was left wondering whether he would be an active and activist party president when he took the step to remove his support from John Hewson as leader. Together with Andrew Rob, Graham Morris, Ron Walker and Mark Texta, Tony Staley devoted his time to rebuilding the Liberal Party's machinery and movement. That dedication delivered victory for the first time in 13 years and the election of John Howard in 1996. The work that Tony and others had undertaken established the foundation for electoral success over the next decade and beyond. For those of us who may have been too young to be in Canberra for the Whitlam dismissal but had the privilege of knowing Tony later in life, he was always gracious and always generous with his wit and with his wisdom. Those regular lunches—first at the Bamboo House and later by his bedside—we are very important to me. They were a source of inspiration. They gave me perspective. They gave me context. Tony gave me advice and encouragement. In him I found someone I could trust completely. He saw my potential, pushed me to be braver and wished me nothing but good things—a rare thing, indeed, in this game. I loved the stories of his family, who he loved so desperately. Stories came thick and fast from his time in politics and the characters that he knew on both sides of the political divide. Some were fantastical, but they were all true. At his funeral I heard one that I hadn't heard before. It was told by one of his five adored children. Apparently in the early 1980s Tony was sitting on a plane and found himself next to Wendy Wier, the wife and collaborator of film director Peter Weir. Somehow, as most conversations with Tony go, a poem was quoted, this one by Tasmanian poet Gwen Harwood. So taken with the poem was Wendy Weir that she asked Tony to write it down on a Qantas napkin. A few years later, Tony received a phone call from Peter Weir, letting him know that the poem was a source of inspiration for his new film that was about to be released, Dead Poets Society. Apparently the director gave each of the young actors a copy of Gwen Harwood's poem in a frame at the conclusion of filming. That frame can still be seen on the wall behind Ethan Hawke in interviews and documentaries. I found out that Tony was unwell and only had a short time to live via a text message written on his behalf by his son Sam. Even his texts, even when dictated to somebody else, were poetic. Among other things, he said that he faced death with no fear whatsoever and greatly supported by his beautiful family and friends. He said he counted me as one of those and hoped I would give us a better world. I wouldn't let him get away with that. I went to visit him the next day. Sure enough, there he was, still holding court, surrounded by family, talking about—very matter-of-factly—his funeral: who would do the eulogy, which hymns would be sung and where it would be held. I suggested to him that there would need to be space for his many friends and admirers. 'Definitely not St Paul's,' he said, 'Too small for a cathedral, too large for a church.' His funeral at St John's was one of the loveliest I have ever been to: full of family, full of friends, full of love, full of admiration and full of gratitude. Tony's life will not be judged as being unbiased. He wasn't a fence-sitter. He wasn't a bystander. It was a public life with conviction, and for many neutral observers that might have pushed him between the columns of good and evil. But he was never deterred. He was all in, feet first. Just as the Dead Poets Society quoted Thoreau, Tony Staley wished to live life deliberately. As parliamentarians reflecting on a former servant, we can only hope to deliver on our beliefs to the extent of Tony Staley. For some of us, our time here will be the conclusion of our public service and the beginning of a return to a life that is more private and more personal. Tony's convictions burned too bright for that. His love for life and for those around him and his devotion to service of his nation will forever be an inspiration to me, as they should be to us all. I will miss our lunches. I will miss sharing Peking duck. I will miss my friend. Vale Tony Staley, go well and God bless. 16:02 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria It is my great honour to rise with my fellow senators to honour the life of the Hon. Anthony 'Tony' Staley AO. I want to acknowledge the very fine contributions made in the chamber today, including a beautiful contribution from Senator Hume. Tony Staley was a man of great strength, resilience and conviction, and a fine example of the very best that the Liberal Party has to offer to the Australian people. Born in 1939 in Horsham in regional Victoria, Tony demonstrated a love for learning, poetry, and philosophy—a love that would later lead him to obtain a Bachelor of Laws and a masters degree in politics at the University of Melbourne. After his studies, Tony went on to teach at Melbourne Grammar School before returning to the University of Melbourne, this time as a lecturer in politics. During his time as a lecturer, Tony became increasingly engaged in the fight to maintain freedom of speech on university campuses, a cause after my own heart. That was an issue that prompted him to nominate as the Liberal candidate for the seat of Chisholm. In 1970, Tony was elected to the parliament as the member for Chisholm, the beginning of a decade of service to his electorate and many decades of service to the Liberal Party. As we've heard, Tony served in a number of eminent ministerial roles, perhaps making the greatest mark in a portfolio that he loved dearly, as Minister for Posts and Telecommunications. Apart from his great love of community broadcasting—he is till held up as one of the great people in this country to champion community broadcasting—he also had a particular interest in the ABC, another cause after my own heart. I was looking through some of the clippings and found one written by Michelle Grattan and Tony Walker, in the Age, from 23 May 1979, called 'Staley sets up ABC inquiry': The Federal Government has approved a full-scale inquiry into the ABC. Yesterday's decision follows persistent criticism of the way in which the broadcasting body is run. That was something that Tony had, and I have, a deep interest in—matters of public broadcasting. He was a great champion of broadcasting but also of accountability of our public broadcasters. As we have heard in this condolence motion, Tony was pivotal in helping to bring down the Whitlam Labor government before his appointment as a cabinet minister in the Fraser government. Tony retired at a very young age, and that ended a decade-long service to the people of Chisholm. In 1990 he suffered very serious injuries in a car crash that would leave him very debilitated, but those closest to him noted that he demonstrated immense strength and he never complained about the accident or the painful and debilitating side effects that he endured. After a period of recovery, Tony went on to serve as the federal Liberal Party president between 1993 and 1999, working tirelessly to secure John Howard's leadership of the party and, ultimately, the successful election of the Howard government in 1996. Tony Staley was duly appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2007 for his service to politics. There are many current and former members of parliament and senators, including myself, who owe a great debt of gratitude to Tony Staley for his friendship, for his service and for his guidance. I, too, was honoured to attend Tony's funeral, which was a wonderful celebration of an exceptional life. I offer my heartfelt condolences to Tony's family, friends and colleagues, but especially to Susie and his children, Richard, Sam, Ali, Jon and Lucinda. Vale, Tony Staley. 16:07 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I rise to add a couple of short comments and associate myself with the wonderful presentation speeches that have been made in recognition of the life of Tony Staley. I first met Tony when he came to lobby me as a delegate to my first-ever federal council in 1993, when, as has been so beautifully put, he saw off Malcolm Fraser, who he helped install as prime minister 20 years earlier. He won us over as delegates—his entrance to the federal council hall at the Lakeside Hotel would have to be one of the most dramatic entrances that I've ever seen—and cemented his place as our leader of the Liberal Party at a national level. As others have said more eloquently than I, he gave great service to the organisation at a time when it needed it and provided leadership through the period that saw the Howard government come to office in 1996. He was always there to offer support and advice when it was needed. He was a great friend. He made a great contribution to his country, and clearly, from the anecdotes that have been prepared here today, was someone whose love of his family was always to the forefront. I'd just like to add my condolences to Susie and his family. He is very much deserving of the recognition that he's receiving here in the chamber today. I thank those who've made a contribution to the debate and I commend the debate to this chamber. 16:10 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland A lot has been said, and I associate myself with all the remarks that have been said. The only two additional points I'd like to make are as follows. First, I always assess the contribution that a member of the Liberal Party makes not just in light of the contribution they make when they serve in this place but also in terms of what they do afterwards. I think the contribution which Tony Staley made after he left this place was just outstanding, and that should be recognised. Second, I did have some opportunities to interact with Tony Staley, mainly in the context of Young Liberal National conventions. Tony spent a lot of time making sure he interacted with younger members of the party, and that was greatly appreciated. That was something he did not have to do, but which he chose to do, and everyone who interacted with him on those occasions enjoyed his company immensely. I do wish Tony's family and friends all the very best. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 70 Reference 70 16:12 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in 2024: Australia's residential electrification efforts, with particular reference to: (a) the economic opportunities of household electrification, including but not limited to: (i) long-term reduction of energy price inflation, (ii) long-term employment opportunities, and (iii) the scaling up of domestic capacity; (b) the macro-barriers to increasing the uptake of home electrification; (c) the total upfront cost and longer-term benefits of household electrification and alternative models for funding and implementation; (d) the marginal cost of abatement for household electrification compared to alternative sectors and options to decarbonise the economy; (e) the optimal timeline for household electrification accounting for the likely timing of decarbonising electricity; (f) the impacts and opportunities of household electrification for domestic energy security, household energy independence and for balance of international trade; (g) the impacts of household electrification on reducing household energy spending and energy inflation as a component of the consumer price index; (h) solutions to the economic barriers to electrification for low-income households; (i) the effectiveness of existing Australian Federal, state and local government initiatives to promote and provide market incentives for household electrification; (j) Australia's current standing against international standards, particularly with respect to the uptake of rooftop solar, batteries and electric household appliances; and (k) any other matters. Question agreed to. Community Affairs References Committee 71 Reference 71 16:12 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I move: That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting Thursday in March 2024: Equitable access to diagnosis and treatment for individuals with rare and less common cancers, including neuroendocrine cancer, with particular reference to: (a) barriers to screening and diagnosis, including the impact of factors such as: (i) geographic location, (ii) cost, (iii) cultural and language barriers, (iv) type of cancer, and (v) availability of treating practitioners; (b) barriers to accessing appropriate treatment; (c) the adequacy of support services after diagnosis; (d) the adequacy of Commonwealth funding for research into rare, less common and neuroendocrine cancer; and (e) any other related matters. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 16:13 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Hume, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Women, by no later than midday on Thursday, 15 June 2023: (a) all correspondence between the Minister for Women and the Prime Minister regarding the appointment of members of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce; (b) all briefings from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Minister for Women concerning the appointment of members of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce; and (c) any related documents. 16:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I welcome Senator Hume's interest in the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce. Establishing the task force was a Labor election commitment, and we prioritised the delivery of this promise. The members of this task force have worked hard, and the government thanks them for that work. During the Finance and Public Administration Legislative Committee's estimates hearing on 25 May, Minister Gallagher took questions on notice from the opposition on this exact matter. We will be opposing this OPD on the basis that we are still working through those questions on notice within the established estimates time frames for response. Senator Hume's motion would require those same documents to be produced tomorrow, and this is not a reasonable time frame to allow the government appropriate consideration of the details. We'll continue to work through the questions taken on notice at estimates. I urge senators to consider this when voting on this motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 234 standing in the name of Senator Hume be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:19]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 72 BILLS Acts Interpretation Amendment (Aboriginality) Bill 2023 72

Acts Interpretation Amendment (Aboriginality) Bill 2023

First Reading 72 16:21 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 233, standing in the name of Senator Hanson, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:23]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 4 AYES Hanson, P. L. Lambie, J. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. 44 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 73 DOCUMENTS Economy 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 16:26 Senator 281558 Tasmania ASKEW (—) (): At the request of Senator Hume, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 15 June 2023: (a) a copy of all reports by Moody's Corporation, Fitch Ratings Inc., and S&P Global (or an affiliate or subsidiary of any of the aforementioned) received by the Treasury or the Treasurer's office relating to the Commonwealth of Australia's credit rating since 1 March 2023; and (b) a copy of all associated briefing materials, minutes, memorandums and other related documents produced by the Treasury for the Treasurer or his office relating to the Commonwealth of Australia's credit rating. 16:27 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will be opposing this motion, noting that a 48-hour deadline for an OPD is unreasonable and impractical. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 235 standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 39 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 19 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Farrell, D. E. Grogan, K. Lines, S. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Fisheries Industry, Macquarie Island Marine Park 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 16:34 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I ask that general business notices of motion 237 and 238 be taken as formal. Leave granted. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I move: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 237 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 21 June 2023: (a) a list of the dates of formal meetings with the Chief Executive Officer of Austral Fisheries personally attended by the Minister for the Environment and Water since 1 June 2022; (b) a list of the dates of formal meetings with the Chief Executive Officer of Australian Longline Fishing personally attended by the Minister for the Environment and Water since 1 June 2022; and (c) a list of the dates of formal meetings with the Chief Executive Officer of Seafood Industry Australia personally attended by the Minister for the Environment and Water since 1 June 2022. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 238 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 21 June 2023: (a) any emails, file notes, briefing materials or records of other interactions between the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) and the Minister for the Environment and Water that clearly show and specify the scientific basis of the Minister's decision to expand the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park; and (b) all other documents in the possession of DCCEEW and the office of the Minister for the Environment and Water that clearly show and specify the scientific basis of the Minister's decision to expand the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park. Question agreed to. Debate adjourned. Forestry Industry 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 16:36 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 21 June 2023: (a) a list of the dates of formal meetings and discussions between the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Western Australian Minister for Forestry in relation to the implications and consequences of the Andrews Government's decision to end native timber harvesting in Victoria from 1 January 2024; (b) any emails, file notes, briefing materials and records of other interactions between the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Western Australian Minister for Forestry in relation to the Andrews Government's decision to end native timber harvesting in Victoria from 1 January 2024; (c) a list of the dates of formal meetings and discussions between the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Western Australian Minister for Forestry in relation to the Western Australian Government's decision to end native timber harvesting from 1 January 2024; and (d) any emails, file notes, briefing materials and records of other interactions between the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to the Western Australian Government's decision to end native timber harvesting from 1 January 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 239 standing in the name of Senator Duniam be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:41]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Tyrrell, T. M. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Forestry Industry 75 Order for the Production of Documents 75 16:43 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 21 June 2023: (a) a list of the dates of formal meetings and discussions between the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Western Australian Minister for Forestry in relation to the implications and consequences of the Andrews Government's decision to end native timber harvesting in Victoria from 1 January 2024; (b) any emails, file notes, briefing materials and records of other interactions between the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Western Australian Minister for Forestry in relation to the Andrews Government's decision to end native timber harvesting in Victoria from 1 January 2024; (c) a list of the dates of formal meetings and discussions between the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Western Australian Minister for Forestry in relation to the Western Australian Government's decision to end native timber harvesting from 1 January 2024; and (d) any emails, file notes, briefing materials and records of other interactions between the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to the Western Australian Government's decision to end native timber harvesting from 1 January 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 240, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:44]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 39 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 19 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Lines, S. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Infrastructure 76 Order for the Production of Documents 76 16:46 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than Thursday, 22 June 2023, all information (including documents) relating to the Macquarie Point Precinct and University of Tasmania Stadium 'urban renewal projects' for which the Federal Government has provided $305 million towards in the 2023-24 Budget under: National Approach for Sustainable Urban Development; Hobart and Launceston—place based co-investments. Question agreed to. BILLS 76 BILLS Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 76

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023

First Reading 76 16:47 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 77 16:48 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Coalition has introduced this Bill because we believe the time has come to draw a line in the sand and put an end to gambling advertisements during live sport. Footy time is family time—and family time is precious. Too precious to have it swamped by a rising tide of gambling ads. Watching and listening to live sport is a great Australian tradition. And we want to preserve that. The bombardment of betting ads takes the joy away from that tradition. We know it, because the community is telling us. They are over it. We are over it. And as representatives of our communities, it is beholden on us to act on their behalf. The time to act is now. That is why the Coalition is taking strong steps to implement a ban on advertising during live sport. We know there is a problem. We're not going to wait for months as the Government has been signalling. The Prime Minister says he finds the ads annoying. He's probably a bit annoyed too that the Coalition is once again providing the leadership on this issue. We've seen the reporting that "Several Government sources said that while no decisions had yet been taken, (the Leader of the Opposition's) move had wrong-footed them." Frankly, it doesn't matter whose idea it was. A good policy is a good policy and should be supported. It would be petulant to quibble over whose idea it was first. Labor is hiding behind a parliamentary inquiry, which they say is due to hand down its report in the middle of the year. One suspects they'll try to rush it out sooner, given they've been left behind on this issue. But there is nothing stopping them supporting this Bill now. Today. The community wants it, and they expect their representatives to act. This is the second set of reforms from the Coalition to limit the running of gambling advertisements during live sport. In 2018, the Coalition Government passed a significant body of reforms in this area, limiting when and where gambling ads could be placed during live sport. We have acted before—and we are taking action again. The actions set out in this Bill are straightforward. They require minor amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act of 1992. The changes would require industry codes of practice to be updated to incorporate the ban. There are industry codes that apply to the different sectors within the media, including for commercial television, commercial radio and subscription broadcast television. Online content is regulated separately, and the changes in this Bill ensure that live streaming is also captured by the gambling advertising ban. Our bill allows for a transition period for the change. The Minister would be charged with the responsibility of ensuring industry transitions over to the new regime. The ban would commence one hour before the scheduled start of the match and end one hour after its conclusion. It would apply to television and radio broadcasting and live streaming of sporting events. This bill makes no changes to the existing exemptions on gambling advertising that apply to the broadcasting or live streaming of horse racing or other racing codes, or advertisements or promotions for government lotteries, lotto, Keno or contests. In conclusion, we want to reiterate that footy time is family time. The Coalition believes that it is wrong in principle that children are subjected to gambling advertising when they just want to enjoy a sporting event with their families. This Bill would put an end to that. I urge all Senators to support this important legislation. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BUSINESS 78 BUSINESS Rearrangement 78 16:48 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to amend government business notice of motion No. 1, relating the hours of meeting and routine of business. Leave granted. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I move motion as amended: That to facilitate consideration of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023— (1) On Wednesday, 14 June and Thursday, 15 June 2023: the Senate adjourn without debate at the conclusion of the second reading debate, at 10.30 pm, or on the motion of a minister, whichever is earlier. (2) On Friday, 16 June 2023: (a) the hours of meeting be 9.30 am till adjournment and the routine of business be: (i) government business only; (ii) at 1.30 pm, statements pursuant to standing order 57(4); (iii) at 2 pm, questions; (iv) motions to take note of answers; (v) at 3.30 pm, notices of motion; (vi) postponement and rearrangement of business; (vii) motions relating to the membership of committees, if any; (viii) messages from the House of Representatives to be reported; (ix) consideration of the following bills: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023, Creative Australia Bill 2023 Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, and Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023; (b) if consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a)(ix) has not concluded by 4 pm, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate; (c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (d) following consideration of the bills, the routine of business be consideration of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023; (e) divisions may take place after 3.30 pm; and (f) the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister. 16:49 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 What have we got here? We've got a government so out of control of its legislative agenda that it's seeking on day 2 of a sitting fortnight to put bills up for the guillotine. It is unbelievable. I have offered to work with the government to facilitate their legislative agenda over the next fortnight. They haven't spoken to me. So, without notice, you stick this motion into this place, seeking for us to guillotine a number of really important bills, including the appropriation bills that support your budget, on Friday afternoon. We asked you if you would make sure that the bill in relation to the Voice was the thing that was prioritised, but, instead of doing that, you're seeking to guillotine other bills. The contempt you show for this chamber by the way you go about managing the business in this chamber is absolutely shameless. You said you'd be transparent, you said you'd be accountable, you said you'd let us have a debate and what do you do? On day 2 of a sitting fortnight you come in here and seek to guillotine the budget bill. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amended motion, as put by Senator Chisholm, be agreed to. Question agreed to. BILLS 79 BILLS Acts Interpretation Amendment (Aboriginality) Bill 2023 79

Acts Interpretation Amendment (Aboriginality) Bill 2023

Reference to Committee 79 16:51 The PRESIDENT 112096 There was a vote to be taken on a motion moved by Senator Hanson on Tuesday 13 June, which related to Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. 16:53 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question is that the motion be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:53]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)

 4 AYES Hanson, P. L. Lambie, J. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. 38 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF URGENCY 79 MATTERS OF URGENCY Cost of Living: Students 79 16:55 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Labor is refusing to support students who are bearing the brunt of this cost-of-living crisis, including from soaring rents, ballooning student debt, woefully low income support payments and unpaid placements, whilst splurging hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy and dangerous nuclear submarines." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:56 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Labor is refusing to support students who are bearing the brunt of this cost-of-living crisis, including from soaring rents, ballooning student debt, woefully low income support payments and unpaid placements, whilst splurging hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy and dangerous nuclear submarines. It must be depressing and overwhelming to be a student right now. Students are struggling to afford groceries, to pay for medicine or period products, to afford train or bus tickets even, and to pay weekly bills. They are surviving on instant noodles and lining up in queues for free food. Students are struggling to pay rents to keep a roof over their heads. They're facing rent hikes from greedy landlords. International students are pitching tents in lounge rooms and sleeping in bathrooms. Students are caught in a debt spiral. Labor allowed student debts to rise by an astronomical 7.1 per cent on 1 June, handing down even longer and larger debt sentences to millions of students. This is on top of the 3.9 per cent increase last June and a predicted further 3.9 per cent next year. Student debts will have ballooned by 15 per cent in just two years under the Labor government. The situation gets even worse for students who are required to work for free as part of the degrees they will be paying off for decades. It should be the other way around. Degrees should be free, and students should be paid for the work that they do. Last week I joined Students Against Placement Poverty to launch their campaign against yet another unfair and unjust aspect of our education system: unpaid placements. Hundreds of thousands of students are working countless hours without pay or compensation. Work placements are especially common in feminised fields of study, and this further entrenches gender inequality. One student spoke, through tears, about completing a placement in a hospital and needing to work seven days a week just to afford to live each day, saying, 'You can't process anything when you have to work seven days a week. How do you learn and how do you get better?' Students are being pushed to the limit, going months without a day off. They finish their placements at 5 pm and go straight to paid shifts at the pub or the grocery store. Students are choosing between putting petrol in the car to get to a placement and putting food in their stomachs. Inflation is increasing because of corporate profiteering, and it's students who are suffering. Students are working multiple jobs and cutting back on necessities but still barely scraping by. It's an absolute travesty that a Labor government is allowing this to go on. How is it that senior executives and CEOs of some of Australia's largest listed companies are pocketing 14 and 15 per cent average pay rises when so many students can barely stay afloat? It is absolutely atrocious and outrageous. Young people's futures are being stolen from them. Yet whenever someone points out to the government how bad things are for students, Labor's response is to either defend the current system, which is clearly cooked, or deflect to the universities a court process—a process that could take years to implement. This is not good enough. Something needs to be done right now, and the government has the power to do it. An education system that pushes students further into inequality is a completely broken one, and a welfare system that doesn't lift people above the poverty line is an utterly cruel one. Labor knows students are struggling now. To say anything different shows how out of touch with reality they are. Labor could lower the age of independence for youth allowance from 22 to 18 and raise all student social security payments to above the poverty line, to at least $88 per day. Labor could take meaningful action for renters by freezing rent hikes. They could wipe student debt, pay students a living wage for placements, and make university and TAFE free. There is absolutely no doubt that we can afford these measures. It's just a matter of priorities. Labor has made the terrible choice to give $313 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest and $368 billion for dangerous war machines, while supporting struggling students and those doing it toughest is apparently too costly. Despite the hardship that students are facing, their courage to speak up, to organise and to mobilise to turn things around has not diminished. They are rallying in the streets. They are bravely telling their powerful stories. They are building a powerful movement for change. So, thank you to all the students for being such staunch activists and showing grit in the face of the such difficult circumstances that they face. The fight goes on. 17:01 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria There is no doubt that students across this country are hurting, and they are hurting because of the cost-of-living crisis caused by the Albanese government. As the opposition leader has told the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, the one issue that Australians are raising with us again and again is the cost of living. Inflation has lifted from 6.3 per cent to 6.8 per cent. We know that interest rate rise after interest rate rise is impacting on the cost of mortgages, rents and groceries, and of course there is the hideous broken promise: $275 a year, Labor promised 97 times before the election. That's how much Labor said Australians' electricity bills would be reduced by, and what a laughing stock this government is. We have never seen a more crippling rise in the cost of living, including in electricity and gas bills, than under this government. And as Senator Faruqi has correctly said, students are suffering, and this is caused absolutely front and centre by Labor's crippling inflation rate, which has driven up HECS debts by a crippling 7.1 per cent. So, on 1 June, just over three million Australians were hit with a crippling 7.1 per cent increase in their student loans, fuelled by Labor's high inflation. This is the highest HECS indexation rate in more than 30 years. The indexation hike linked to the CPI will drive up the average HECS loan of $23,685 by $1,700. And, as we know, this additional liability, this massive increase in student debt—affecting literally millions of Australians—is even affecting the ability of Australians to borrow, because HECS debt is taken into account when you apply to borrow money from the bank to buy a home. After so many bad decisions and broken promises from this government, it is clear that the Albanese government is tone deaf to the cost-of-living crisis that so many students are facing. It is astonishing that the education minister, Mr Clare, rather than be empathetic to the situation that so many students are in, made a blanket statement that he saw no case to change the HECS payment system—until he realised that people were paying down their HECS debt and those payments were not being recognised in real time. People are being indexed on the higher rate which applies at the beginning of the financial year. I have called for the HECS payment system, which is antiquated, to be reformed. I am now pleased the education minister is looking at this. But, frankly, he was asleep at the wheel. This comes at a time when the government is proposing the Startup Year loan scheme, which is nonsense. The Startup Year loan scheme will give full fee paying students funding, imposing this hideous cost of up to $23,600, to do accelerator courses. It's for student entrepreneurs but under circumstances where students can currently do these courses for free. What a complete nonsense! As I have announced, on behalf of the opposition, we are opposing the Startup Year loan scheme. It is a defective bill, it is unfit for purpose, and it potentially puts several thousand students a year at risk of having this horrendous debt imposed on them with very, very little benefit. This bill is so bad that it doesn't even protect student's intellectual property and doesn't do things like giving them the rights for a refund if these courses don't stack up. So this is nonsense and, frankly, a demonstration that the government, as I say, is tone deaf to the cost-of-living crisis that Australians are encountering—particularly students, many of whom are struggling to put food on the table and to pay the rent. For the government to put forward this loan scheme is reckless, irresponsible and will place students in a further debt trap. 17:06 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The Labor government is committed, as it has always been committed, to supporting all Australians, especially our students on their journey to gain an education, to build their life and to contribute to our community and economy. It is, of course, very clear to all of us in this place that the rising cost of living is hitting Australians very hard, including students. That's why we filled the budget with measures targeted at supporting concern for cost-of-living pressures, including for students. We had at the centrepiece of our budget a $14.6 billion cost-of-living package. I would note that, with inflation still much higher than what we would like and more persistent than would be ideal, these measures do make a meaningful difference to the cost of living, including for students. And they're targeted at where the cost of living actually rests—for example, in energy consumption, in seeing your doctor and in the price of medicines. Under the last government, in inquiry after inquiry, we saw students and other young people on Austudy, in representations to Senate committees, arguing, for example, that they couldn't afford to see a doctor and that they had to choose which medicine they would take or whether they would turn on their heater in the wintertime. They felt they had no choice, frankly, other than to be cold. So there's a real reason we targeted our measures at the pointy end of the cost of living, not a catch-all for all students. Yes, many students are doing it tough, but I did notice in recent Commonwealth Bank data on inflation and trends and who is hurting most in the economy currently that they found, if you are a renter and a young person who's moved out of home and into share housing—that is, indeed, quite stressful, and that is why it's really important that Commonwealth rent assistance has been improved. But they did, in fact, see in this data that discretionary spending for students who live at home with their parents was still being sustained and that where you see the real pointy end of cost-of-living pressures is frankly on renters and on people with significant mortgages. So there is a real reason that we have targeted our measures in this way. Under those opposite, we saw a wasted decade and the wrong priorities, with falling real wages, cost-of-living pressures and $1 trillion of debt without an economic dividend to show for it. We understand that this takes time to rectify. Part of rectifying this is ensuring that Australians can make it through with the qualifications that they need to build our economy and build their own futures. We are targeting our policies to ease cost-of-living pressures and directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point over the next financial year. We are here to ensure that students can cover basic costs while focusing on their studies and career aspirations. This includes more fee-free TAFE. It includes an increase to the base rate for eligible recipients of JobSeeker, Austudy, youth allowance and other working-age payments. Rates of student payments, youth allowance, Austudy and ABSTUDY will increase by $40 a fortnight from 20 September. There are some 318,000 young people under 25 who will benefit from this. And, very significantly, we are increasing the maximum rates of Commonwealth— (Time expired) 17:12 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland One Nation does not believe we should forgive HECS or HELP debt. People have a duty to pay off their loans. However, there are some issues with how indexation is applied to the HECS-HELP debt. Credit where credit is due, these issues were outlined well in a recent ABC article which explained: More than 3 million Australians saw their student debt rise with inflation on Thursday as an indexation of 7.1 per cent was applied to the debts. It is the highest indexation in more than three decades, with average $25,000 HECS-HELP debts rising by $1,775. The problem, as the article says, is that: Under the current rules, indexation is applied to the original debt and not the current balance. For example, if you have a debt of $30,000 and over the course of the next 11 months you pay off $3,000 the ATO's indexation will be applied to the original $30,000, not the $27,000 balance. This isn't right, and it doesn't encourage people. But, as I said, we do believe that people should pay off their debts. We see too many people who are abusing the system of HECS and HELP debts. There is about $70 billion owed to the taxpayers that they fund students. If you've paid for something, you are going to work harder for it. If you have to pay for it out of your own pocket, you will work harder to achieve your goals. Nothing's free, at all, in this country. Taxpayers work hard. They put their taxes towards providing these universities for these students. That's why students should be able to pay their way. A system where they don't start paying it back until they start working is fair. It won't be abused, then, if they have to pay their way. But on this other issue of indexation, by all means, it should be addressed. I'm pleased to see that the Labor minister has had it brought it to their attention and is interested in addressing this issue. (Time expired) 17:14 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to this urgency motion from the Greens. You can tell just from the tone of the motion how badly they want young people to be struggling so they can capitalise on it. We have seen this same cynical tactic again and again from them, turning up to rent inspections to hand out political flyers and using the housing crisis to fundraise. Here in this place they bring motions like this so they can talk a lot, clip it for social media and try to garner more support. But it's just lip-service, isn't it, because when it comes to real action, the Greens are absent. The Housing Australia Future Fund is just one example of this. This behaviour from the Greens is really disappointing. They haven't had every demand met and so they're spitting the dummy. While the Greens are standing in the way, this Labor government is taking action, and I'm so proud of what we're delivering for young people. Earlier on, Senator Henderson called our government tone-deaf. With all due respect, we're not going to take lessons from the other side, because the former coalition—or noalition—have the track record of a decade of delay and denial, and neglecting the most vulnerable in our society. So, 'What is the Albanese Labor government doing?' I hear you ask. We're delivering fee-free TAFE courses, with almost 150,000 Australians having enrolled. Young people are taking advantage of this great opportunity to upskill themselves, helping to address areas of skill shortages. For young people it's important to have options for their future, and we know that TAFE provides real skills for amazing careers. This is important not just for young people but for our whole nation, because we rely on these skills for our most essential things: to keep the lights on, to keep the water running, to care for our elderly and young, and the list goes on. The previous government cut recklessly from TAFE over their time in power, but we understand its importance and are committed to investing in TAFE. We're taking real action on issues that are affecting young people, such as climate change. We are strongly committed to climate action because, as Minister Bowen has said, the stakes are high and the cost of inaction is huge. Importantly, we are serious about hearing from young people and enabling their contributions to policy. The Office for Youth has been established and it's dedicated to enabling direct engagement with government. The office listens to young people and their advocates, improves and harmonises policies across government that impact young people and is developing a strategy to meaningfully engage with young people. When it comes to cost of living, which we heard about in other senators' contributions, it's important and it's definitely something that we take seriously, but we want to address this challenge in a responsible way. We know Australians are being hit hard and this is something that young people are also very vulnerable to. As we've seen in the budget, we're investing a record $3.5 billion to triple the bulk billing incentive for GP consultations for children under 16 and Commonwealth concession cardholders. We're reducing the cost of medicines, this time by changing the maximum dispensing quantities, with some patients being able to save 50 per cent of their medicine costs. And our Energy Price Relief Plan will take pressure off households and small businesses. People in my home state of WA, in particular, will receive $400 from the state government. In addition, vulnerable people will receive up to $350 from the federal government straight off their energy bills. The budget increased payments for young people through increasing rent assistance by 15 per cent, which is the largest increase in 30 years. Youth allowance, Austudy and Abstudy will rise by $40 a fortnight, benefiting around 318,000 people under 25. And while I know people are calling for more, the right balance has been struck with the budget by not adding to inflation, which would only hurt young Australians more. The budget measures were designed to allow us to do what we can to help while also being responsible, and we're working every day to relieve the pressure on Australians. As a young person, I understand the challenges young people face and I understand that it's real—juggling study, work and the challenges that life throws at us. I am committed to hearing from young people every step of the way and I'll always stand up for them. 17:19 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland If the government was listening to students they would hear that what they're doing is not enough. They've given paltry rises in rent assistance when rents are going through the roof. They are failing to address student poverty by not raising income support to levels above the poverty line. They are talking about balance when billionaires, the wealthy and politicians are going to get $9,000 in tax cuts whilst income support for students is still below the poverty line. I'm sorry, but it's not okay to say that it is a campaign to stand up for young people who are living in poverty and drowning in student debt, which has been indexed to the point where one young person said to me, 'That indexation wiped out my last three years worth of payments.' To be accused of standing up for those young people just to campaign is an insult to the young people who have been telling you repeatedly that they need more support. How dare you? We are loading students up with thousands of dollars in student debt at the same time that they're dealing with exorbitant rent increases that far outstrip the paltry rise in rent assistance. They're also dealing with prohibitive dental and mental health costs, which the government is doing nothing about. While the government is splurging on tax cuts and nuclear submarines, the message that you are sending to students is that you don't care. If it's not the message you think you're sending, it's the one they are receiving. You are telling them that you don't care about their welfare, you are telling them that you don't care about their dental and mental health, and you are definitely telling them that you don't care about their education. Students populate some of our lowest-paid workforces. They are subject to endless waves of wage theft in hospitality and retail. The government is standing by while they are endlessly exploited. They also work in many of our sectors that have the most extensive workforce shortages right now, like nursing, social work and teaching, yet they're required to engage in weeks upon weeks, sometimes months, of unpaid work while they barely subsist on a poverty stipend. Unpaid internships are rife. These lengthy unpaid internships suppress and limit the potential of students and force some students to drop out under the weight of poverty or punitive jobseeking requirements. We are making those students choose between fuel and food for the week and even staying in university. We see this extend to how we undermine the education sector writ large. Increased fast-tracking of interns into classrooms on Permission to Teach only serves to entrench education inequality and push out a workforce that is underprepared. A decades-long bipartisan commitment to the privatisation of education has driven thousands of passionate, experienced teachers out of the public school system. Rather than properly and fully funding the needs of the workforce and actually acknowledging the complexity of work undertaken by teachers, the burden falls onto students, who are shunted out too early without the full support and benefit of their degrees. Labor is refusing to support students, who are bearing the brunt of this cost-of-living crisis, while splurging hundreds of billions of dollars on tax cuts and nuclear submarines. If we want a future for this country that is prosperous and safe, instead of abandoning students, we need to go back to genuinely caring about and investing in them. 17:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak briefly on this matter of public urgency about the debt crisis that we are condemning students to. I move to do so because I heard a contribution from the leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party that made assertions that education isn't valued unless you pay for it, amidst some other word salad that I won't try to summarise. I was then shocked to hear Senator Payman assert that the Greens were making up this crisis because it suited a political agenda. I was genuinely floored by that assertion, because I would have thought anybody under the age of 30 knows that we are in a genuine cost-of-living crisis and students are at the very front of that. They've just had the indexation increased by seven per cent on debts that were already crippling. They can't afford housing. The rent's gone up by over 20 per cent nationally and 22 per cent in my home state of Queensland's capital city of Brisbane. They are already juggling multiple jobs, generally being ripped off by their wages being stolen by their employers. The minimum wage is already paltry, and we're having a debate now about how a slight increase in that might somehow be problematic on a day when we learn that CEO pay has increased by 15 per cent. This is just farcical. What is it going to take for the people in this place to actually get out there into the community and understand what's going on with students and with the cost of living more broadly. I am flabbergasted that rather than saying, 'Yes, we acknowledge there's a problem, but, oh, we're too poor to fix it,' like they normally say, they're not even acknowledging the problem. This is a new low. We are standing here today, asserting that students have a right to an education. It should be free. Student debt should be wiped. It certainly shouldn't be increasing year upon year at rates that are astronomical. We've heard so many stories of people saying the amount I was able to pay back on my debt has just been eclipsed by the amount that it was just indexed. People are paying, and they are going backwards. Their debt is increasing. And this is for a public good, something that actually benefits the country. Education should be free at all levels, right from the very start, right to the very end. The audacity of people in this chamber contributing to this debate, saying that this is not actually a real problem out there, really says more about the lack of engagement by the other political parties with actual human beings who genuinely would like for their cost-of living emergency to be tackled. But, instead, we get tax cuts for the rich, we get nuclear submarines, we get fossil fuel subsidies and we get negative gearing and capital gains tax perks. What a joke! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Faruqi at the request of Senator McKim be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [17:31]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)

 11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Farrell, D. E. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 84 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Labor Government 84 17:34 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 A letter has been received from Senator Scarr: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: Labor's broken promises & woeful transparency as evidenced in Senate budget estimates hearings. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 17:35 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak in relation to this matter of public importance, and it is a matter of great public importance—namely, Labor's broken promises and woeful transparency as evidenced in the Senate budget estimates hearings. I've got pages I could speak to. I have absolute pages of this stuff. I have over 21 pages of this. Senator SCARR 282997 I must say, Senator Brown, I was searching for some references to you on the pages, and I haven't been able to find any. Or perhaps I'm just too polite and I've cast my eyes over them and moved to the next example. But let's go to the first example I've got here in relation to what happened at estimates. For those in the gallery, we should explain that estimates are an absolutely fundamental process. They are fundamental to the role of this Senate chamber in terms of being a check and balance on executive power. It gives us—all senators, including the crossbench—the right to ask questions in relation to any matter which involves government expenditure, and that's just about anything, so it is a very, very important aspect of this Senate chamber discharging its responsibilities as a chamber of review. The first point is the Defence budget cuts. Under questioning from Senator Birmingham, it was discovered in estimates that Labor has actually cut $1.5 billion from the Defence budget. One of the things that those who have not seen estimates before should delight in on their first interaction with the estimates process is that those in the government will try and come up with every single synonym for the word 'cut'. There might be 'reprofiling'. There might be 'reallocation'. There are all these words instead of 'cut', but, if there is less expenditure on a program tomorrow than there was today, that's a cut. That's what's happening in Defence. They cut $1.5 billion from the Defence budget. Not only that but the questioning by my good friend Senator Birmingham revealed they're still looking for another $1.8 billion of cuts. The poor Department of Defence. Not only has it had $1.5 billion cut from its budget but it actually has to go out and find an additional $1.8 billion in savings. That's in a high inflationary environment. That's in an environment where there are supply chain constraints and there is geopolitical uncertainty. It's the worst possible environment in which to be expecting our Department of Defence to actually have to make these sorts of cuts. This is my second example. I actually sit on the legal and constitutional affairs committee. This is a classic estimates scenario. The government announces something, and then they work out, 'Gee, we were meant to go through a process before we announced it.' So they go through the process after they've announced what they were actually intending to do. This is in the context of the release of the Solicitor-General's advice. What happened in this context is the Solicitor-General gave some advice. The Attorney-General's Department's guidelines for briefing the Solicitor-General note: Opinions of a Solicitor-General are confidential … The Office of Legal Services Coordination and the Solicitor-General's chambers must be consulted before any opinion of the Solicitor-General, or a former Solicitor-General, is provided to a person or body outside the Australian Government … They must be consulted first. What happened? The Prime Minister made an announcement which was reported in the media at 2.31 pm on 22 August that the advice was going to be released. When did the consultation occur? The first time the Office of Legal Services Coordination heard about it was at 3.51 pm. So announcement, 2.31 pm; but consultation in accordance with the good governance procedure, 3.51 pm. Third example—I've got pages of this stuff. It's like an episode of Utopia. I've got pages of it. The third example—I'll have to go through this one quickly and leave my colleagues to pick up the other examples. On Tuesday morning in the economics committee, Treasury secretary, Dr Steven Kennedy, confirmed under questioning from my good friend Senator Jane Hume that despite regularly briefing former prime ministers one-on-one about emerging economic issues, Prime Minister Albanese has not requested any briefing with the Treasury secretary on inflation. Not one briefing on inflation. (Time expired) 17:40 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I'm actually rapt to speak to this matter of public importance, and I thank my good friend Senator Scarr, who I have the highest respect and regard for as one of the really intelligent, better operators on that side of the chamber, for it. Let's take a walk through Senate estimates. For my sins in a previous life, I think I've just done my 53rd estimate round. I don't know what I did wrong to get to 53, but anyway! Senate estimates, as Senator Scarr said, are very important. They're an opportunity for the crossbench and the opposition to go through the budget and ask questions about it, and we want them to do that. I know when I've been in opposition that's what we've wanted to do. I'm on the rural and regional affairs and transport committee. We have two portfolios. Regional development, transport and infrastructure is one; the other is two days of agriculture. These are two very important portfolios for this nation. I want to hear senators ask questions, so prior to Senate estimates—just so the gallery and anyone listening know—I'm glad we're broadcasting—the Senate legislation committees meet a month or six weeks before estimates and we ask senators: 'Which agencies and which parts of the department do you want? Who do you want to hear from?' We don't hold back. We say, 'Just tell us who we'll have.' We try to manage the time we have, so we set an agenda. It's very fluid because years ago brainiacs in this joint thought they were so intelligent they brought forward a motion to allow senators to talk all day, question all day, ask the same tedious, repetitive questions all day with no regard to time limits. This infuriates me. We see it. This is what happens. We get a list of witnesses, and they come. And I am sick to death—I sit there, trying to manage the program as the chair. When I say to my colleagues—my committee used to be one of the most collegiate committees in this building. Unfortunately, in this parliament it's one of the worst. That's not a scourge on members of the opposition; it's just the odd senator who comes in and disrupts. We have people who travel from interstate because the Senate has informed them that they will be appearing at whatever time it may be on this day, give or take half an hour, hopefully, or whatever it may be. This time I got to the stage where I'd keep walking up to my colleagues and saying: 'We've got people from interstate. You've got them sitting here. Are we going to get to them?' It's not my business, because unfortunately the brainiacs thought it was a great idea to let senators dribble crap—sorry! I withdraw that! Senators dribble on all day about things that have nothing to do with the budget. I ask, 'Can we at least tell those people from interstate we are sorry we have wasted your money; we've got you to book airfares and get cars to get here and get accommodation or whatever it may be.' I don't mind if we don't get to them, so long as I can say to them and say, 'Look, I really do apologise, but the opposition still wants more time to ask the same damned questions that they've been asking for the last three hours.' But this time around there wasn't even the decency to give me the opportunity to say to the witnesses, 'We're not going to get to you.' There was one agency in particular. I said: 'These people were supposed to be on at 12 o'clock or 12.30. It's now 4.30. Are we going to get to them?' These three gentlemen from this RDC had to catch an airplane back to Narrabri, I think it was. They had flown from Narrabri to Sydney, down to Canberra the night before so that they didn't get caught in fog or anything. They wanted to do the right thing. They wanted to address all the senators' concerns about taxpayers' dollars being spent. No! You know what I got? I got one of the opposition senators, whose not even a full-time member of our committee, who sat there and said, 'Well, we're here to 11 o'clock.' So what? How rude was that? All they wanted to do was get a taxi out and get to the airport, so they could get the flight back to Sydney to catch their late night flight back to Narrabri. And the rudeness from that senator, who I've unfortunately had in my committee for the last two or three rounds of Senate estimates, couldn't even be decent enough to deal with people. So I'm really glad that my dear friend Senator Scarr gave me the opportunity to raise this, because it really irks me. And some on that side will say, 'You did it to us.' Well, you know what? Not me. I always sat there, as the deputy chair in opposition, and said, 'We won't get to these people. I'll let you know so we can let them go.' At least I had the decency to do that. (Time expired) 17:45 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Former Senator Rex Patrick said to me that transparency is a word that's only ever shouted from opposition benches. After years and years of virtue signalling from Labor while they were in opposition about the importance of transparency and accountability and the importance of Senate estimates hearings, now that they're in government it's an entirely different story. Before they were elected to government we heard endlessly from Labor that the government should be accountable and one of the ways they should be held accountable is an order for the production of documents. Labor has resisted, has voted against or refused to comply, with almost every order for the production of documents on which this Senate has voted. That same attitude is prolific, and they've show up again over two weeks of Senate estimates hearings. I've got plenty of criticisms about the Labor Party, yet I've got to ask some of the senators from the Liberals: it's a little rich, don't you think? While you are in government, there were plenty of motions for the production of documents and evasiveness at Senate estimates. When it comes to accountability and transparency of government information, unfortunately, the Liberal and Labor parties are two wings of the same bird. As former Senator Rex Patrick said so accurately, 'Transparency is a word that's only shouted from the opposition benches.' Once in government it's all quiet. Let's have a look at just some of the transparency that Labor has blocked. Motion No. 124, an order for the production of documents to tell the Australian people how much extra Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cost them to call parliament back for a ridiculous one day of sitting to push his gas industry nationalisation through. It likely cost millions of dollars, just so Labor could pull a stunt and claim they were doing something on electricity prices. Six months later, it's done nothing. Looking good, not doing good—that's what matters to Labor. What was Labor's response to the Senate ordering them to tell Australia how much this exercise had cost? They may as well have just put a middle finger in the envelope. Not one dollar in costings such is the contempt they have for this Senate and for Australian taxpayers. Let's look at motion No. 176, an order to produce documents relating to millions of dollars being paid to political parties for ill-defined grants and programs. What was Labor's answer? Contempt. Not a single document related to the funding was produced. What about motion No. 200? Just yesterday, documents were requested in relation to the MRH-90 helicopter crash in Jervis Bay, documents that would uncover if we are putting our Defence personnel at risk of death flying in dodgy helicopters. The government refused to return a single document—not a single document. Of course this culture of secrecy extended to Senate estimates. We saw witnesses tell outright lies to the Senate and the Labor ministers sit by idly. Ministers raised flimsy public interest immunity claims, if they bothered to raise them at all. In the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade hearings, Chief of Defence Force, General Campbell, simply flatly refused to answer questions from myself and from Senator Shoebridge. That's not how Senate estimates works. If a witness does not want to answer a question, they are obliged to take it on notice and then it is up to the minister to raise a claim of public interest immunity—not the witness. General Campbell knew this. He's attended many estimates sessions. The Labor minister at the table knew this, yet sat there in silence as the witness treated questions with outright contempt. Again, transparency is a word only shouted from the opposition benches. Now, we've had two constituents, one from Queensland and one from New South Wales, telling us about specific instances that indicate a senior member of one of the departments lied. We're chasing that up now with a question on notice following Senate estimates. Let's not forget the unanswered questions on notice. Answers to questions on notice were flowing in while the next Senate estimates had already started. Make no mistake, many of these answers were no doubt available, yet they probably sat on the minister's desk waiting for a final sign-off. That's why many of the questions on notice don't arrive in time: ministers are holding them up. So much for transparency. There is no reason a minister needs to sign off on answers anyway. The truth is the truth. The agency's answer is their evidence; it's not for the minister to change. None of this will change until the Senate fulfils its duty to bring contempt charges against those who treat it with contempt. It is within our power to enforce accountability. A few contempt charges and a couple of witnesses in jail should send a message to the others. 17:50 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland We're talking about broken promises. I want to first touch on the whole aged-care issue, which I think is worth noting. We were promised that there would be nurses 24/7 in aged-care homes by, I think, June 30 this year. That hasn't happened. The minister, Anika Wells, isn't prepared to actually state or even give a figure on the number of aged-care centres that do have full-time nurses. I'm personally not in favour of the policy; my view is that if someone is sick they should go to hospital. I think it makes it very confusing when you've got aged-cares centres acting as nursing homes as well. I think there needs to be a clear delineation, and I accept it's not an easy thing to solve. But that was a promise that was made by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Labor government, and it is a promise I don't think they are serious about keeping. The least that they could do—as I spoke about this morning—is give us a figure on how nurses are in aged-care centres on a full-time, 24-hours-a-day basis, so that we can gauge the performance of the Labor Albanese government. I think it is very disappointing that the aged-care minister, Anika Wells, won't answer that question. That's one thing we could talk about in terms of broken promises and accountability. The other thing that I found very annoying was the release of the National Cabinet minutes. The current Prime Minister, when he was opposition leader, said that he would release the minutes of National Cabinet. He used that to wedge the Morrison government. I myself was never a fan of National Cabinet, and I also thought the minutes should be released when we were in government. Yet again, this is a case of saying one thing in opposition and another thing in government. I think this is another example of where the Albanese government—it's not a hard thing to do. I'm sure these meetings aren't that detailed or it's that difficult to have a secretary in there to take the minutes, yet they refuse to release the minutes. Why is this so hard? Why can't we have greater transparency about what goes on between the federal and state governments? The federal government pays billions of dollars a year in transfer payments to state governments, and I think we have a right to know how this money is distributed, the reasons behind that and the wrangling. We can move to the cost-of-living issues. Of course, we never saw power prices decreased by $275. As a matter of fact, they are up by about $700, as at the last budget. Just last week, we saw the energy retailers saying that they're going to put up energy prices again, coming into the new financial year, by between 28 to 30 per cent. That is enormous. It was another reckless statement, given that there is a massive energy transfer from reliable and cheaper baseload energy to renewables. Here is another broken promise or lack of transparency. In an earlier set of estimates, I asked the acting environment minister, Senator McAllister, just how many kilometres of transmission lines we need to reach 82 per cent of renewables by 2030. The department couldn't even answer that question. They have no idea how many kilometres of transmission lines are needed to reach 82 per cent of the grid. I think it's absolutely absurd that you're going to legislate to get to a 43 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2030. To reach that you've got to reduce baseload energy or get renewable energy up to 82 per cent of the grid, and you can't actually say how many kilometres of transmission lines you need to do it. At least get some idea and have a plan. I can't even get a plan out of the Albanese government. I'll say one last thing. This isn't necessarily a broken promise or an issue of transparency, but I will have a crack at the Prime Minister because he had a crack at me for moving a motion to get the RRAT committee to have a look into the regional banking inquiry. This bloke doesn't even know me. He doesn't know anything about my past or my passion for regional services, and he's dared me into saying that I won't do anything for regional banks. Well, let me tell you right here, right now, that I'm going to be pushing for an old-fashioned public bank. Paul Keating sold the CBA. I want a new public bank. I want a state government insurance office or a federal government insurance office, and I want the Commonwealth government to offer interest-free bonds in lieu of superannuation. I'll hold him to it. 17:55 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I would genuinely like to thank Senator Scarr for the opportunity to talk about transparency. 'Transparency' is a word that no-one would use to describe those opposite, the previous government. It is absolutely laughable that the opposition even thinks about bringing a motion into this chamber with the word 'transparency' printed in it. Whether it was sports rorts, car park rorts, overpriced land rorts or overpriced water buybacks, or whether they were hiding behind whiteboards or manufacturing colour coded spreadsheets, those opposite have absolutely zero authority to come into this chamber with a motion about transparency. These are the people who had a prime minister who, we know—now we know!—secretly appointed himself Minister for Health; Minister for Finance; Minister for Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; and Minister for Home Affairs. And, of course, he appointed himself Treasurer as well, just to round it off! How is that for transparency? How's that on the transparency index of those opposite? We are still uncovering the dodgy dealings, the rorts and the cover-ups of the Liberals' time in government. Only this month did the National Audit Office find that the Morrison government deliberately breached federal grant rules in administering the $2 billion Community Health and Hospitals Program. The audit found that the funds were used in a way that failed ethical standards and also exceeded legal authority, using taxpayer dollars as if they were Liberal Party dollars, yet again. Our government is still cleaning up the mess that has been left by those opposite. After more than a year in government, we are in fact still answering questions that were placed on notice and are outstanding from the previous government. That is their record on accountability to this chamber. For our part, a total of 6,733 questions were asked on notice to this government, the current government, following the supplementary budget estimates hearings in February, and we have already answered all but 11 of those. That is 6,722 questions answered. For those playing along at home, that's 99.8 per cent of questions answered. I'm pretty happy to stake my reputation and say that this is a much better compliance rate than that ever achieved by the Morrison government. We are delivering a higher standard of integrity, a higher standard of transparency and a higher standard of accountability in government. We are upholding a standard that the opposition never even got close to, never even got into the room with and never even imagined getting close to. We are the government who have legislated a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will commence operation in July this year. The former government's proposed integrity commission—everyone will remember—was so weak it wouldn't have been able to commence its own independent inquiries, and it was never even introduced into the parliament. The model was described by legal experts as a body not designed to stamp out corruption but to help cover it up—to help cover it up! Now, for the first time in a decade, in Transparency International's corruption perceptions index Australia's ranking has risen to 13th, and I reckon we can do better than that. Under the Liberals, Australia's rank fell 11 places to 18th—the worst result of any OECD country and the worst result in our nation's history. Transparency International directly attributes Australia's dramatically improved ranking to our government's landmark National Anti-Corruption Commission. We are being accountable at Senate estimates as well. During the budget estimates referred to in Senator Scarr's MPI, question after question was asked and answered—questions about our budget, a budget that is delivering for the Australian people. It was scrutinised. There were over 100 hours of questions across eight different committees. We are proud of our record of transparency and we stand by it. (Time expired) 18:00 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance in relation to transparency and the lack of transparency of this government. I think it's comical that this government thinks that it's being transparent. I think it's acting like most governments act. Former Senator Patrick said that all governments engage in a level of secrecy, perhaps too much secrecy. What we see on a daily basis is the frustration of freedom-of-information requests, the frustration of orders for the production of documents and the frustration of proper answers to questions on notice. That is the basic situation. It is very hard to get information out of this government. Of course the government has engaged in spending that has required it to raise new taxes. The consequence of the new taxes is that there is a process that departments have to go through. Oppositions conduct the business of trying to get to the bottom of how the new taxes have been constructed and consulted on. I've often called this government the government for vested interests, because its main focus is on the vested interests of its fellow travellers—the class-action law firms, the big super funds and the unions. You see ministers working through the laundry list of the things that are important to the unions and the super funds. We saw it yesterday with Minister Jones announcing a policy on financial advice. Minister Jones has prioritised the interests of super funds over the interests of people. The government works through the consultation processes, usually in secret, with its favourite vested interests, which are usually the unions. It might be on pattern bargaining or on stripping transparency from super funds. They work through these processes in the dark. Our job is to try to work out how they drafted the bill, who was in the room, who provided advice and whose business model it suits. When you are a government for vested interests everything is about grifting for your favourite vested interest you work for. In the case of the super issues, we all know that Minister Jones's first act as the minister was to strip transparency from the super funds so that people couldn't see how much of their money was being sent off to the unions. The Senate, in its infinite wisdom, decided to roll back that regulation, but more broadly the government has had to fill its fiscal holes with new taxes. One of its new taxes is the franking policy. Of course the Prime Minister promised before the election that there would be no changes to franking and then in their very first budget in October announced that there would be two changes to franking—one on off-market buybacks and another one in relation to capital raising. The capital raising one is very interesting. We asked a number of questions on notice and we pursued the Treasury department to work out how this policy had been costed and modelled. After an extensive process of obfuscation we found out that the modelling was in 2016 when there was some activity that the tax office was concerned about in relation to capital raising and the issuance of franked dividends. Today, according to the Treasury department, in 2023, there are no nefarious activities happening in relation to capital raisings and the payment of franked dividends. But the modelling is from 2016, and it is alleged to have raised $10 million. So how could the modelling today be the same? Obviously, the modelling can't be right, but we only know this because we had to go through an extensive process of questions on notice, FOIs and orders for the production of documents, and I acknowledge the Greens' role in ensuring the orders for production of documents were approved and information was provided. But it is hard to get information about how policies have been developed, who has been involved in developing them—which vested interest—and how it has been modelled. These are central questions that face all oppositions, and I would say that, in this first year of opposition, it has been a very difficult effort, but we remain committed to holding this government to account. And I believe it is now time to report that my time has expired, and I shall sit down. COMMITTEES 89 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Bills Committee 89 Scrutiny Digest 89 18:07 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest No. 6 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence relating to the report, and move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Public Works Joint Committee, Electoral Matters Joint Committee, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum Joint Select Committee 89 Government Response to Report 89 18:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I present government responses to the dissenting report to the first report of 2021 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works; and to the advisory report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the advisory report of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum, on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 and the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 respectively. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard. Leave granted. The document s read as follows— Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works — Report 1/2021—Dissenting r eport — Government Response. MAY 2023 1. Background 1.1 Public Works Committee Act 1969 Under the Public Works Committee Act 1969 (the Act), the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works (the Committee) is required to inquire into and report on public works referred to it through either house of Parliament. Referrals are made pursuant to Section 18 of the Act, and by practice are made by the Minister for Finance or their delegate in the House of Representatives or the Senate. Section 17 of the Act requires that the Committee consider and report on: the purpose of the work and its suitability for that purpose; the need for, or the advisability of, carrying out the work; whether the money to be expended on the work is being spent in the most cost effective manner; the amount of revenue the work will generate for the Commonwealth, if that is its purpose; and the present and prospective public value of the work. 1.2 Australian War Memorial The Australian War Memorial (the Memorial) forms the core of the nation's tribute to all those Australians who served in conflict and operations including honouring the sacrifice of the more than 103,000 Australian men and women who died serving their country. Operating as a shrine, archive and museum its mission is to help Australians to remember, interpret and understand the Australian experience of conflict and operations and its enduring impact on Australian society. 1.3 Australian War Memorial Developm ent Project In 2018, following approval of a 'Two Stage Capital Works Approval', the Australian Government funded the Australian War Memorial to implement a $498.7m Development Project (the Project). The Project involves the construction of new works, the refurbishment of the Main Memorial Building (Main Building) and the Bean Building, new and upgraded galleries, and improvements to the public realm. The works will enable the Memorial to meet its obligations to Government and the Australian people as detailed in the Australian War Memorial Act 1980 (the Act). The new build and refurbishment works will provide additional and improved space for galleries, visitor circulation and amenity, address accessibility constraints, increase storage of National Collection objects including archives, and improve support services. 2. Project Approvals As with any major project a series of approvals were required to examine the suitability of the Project prior to delivery. In the case of these works the following major approvals are required: Figure 1: AWM Development Project Approvals Process [The figure could not be reproduced in the Transcript] 2.1 Medium Works Approval Following funding approval by the Australian Government the Memorial submitted a 'Medium Works Approval' request to the Committee in March 2019 relating to an 'Early Works Package' for the Project. The submission sought approval to commence procurement activities for design and management consultants and to develop submissions for early Government approvals such as the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and a future Major Works Submission to the Committee. This Medium Works referral was approved in May 2019. 2.2 Major Works Approval On Thursday, 30 April 2020 pursuant to subsection 18(4) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, General the Honorable David Hurley AC DSC (Retd), Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, referred the Australian War Memorial Project to the Committee for consideration and report. Following referral, public comment on the inquiry was sought, this involved publicising the inquiry on the Committee's website and via media release. The Committee received 77 submissions, one confidential submission, and one confidential supplementary submission. On 14 July 2020, the Committee conducted a project briefing, public and in camera hearings. In February 2021 the Committee released its report on the inquiry and recommended that: Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to Section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the following proposed works: Australian War Memorial Development Project. 3. Dissenting Report Whilst the Committee recommended implementation of the Project a Dissenting Report was submitted by two members, Mr Tony Zappia MP and Mr David Smith MP, Australian Labor Party. The Australian Government notes the Dissenting Report contained within the Standing Committee on Public Works Report 1/2021 regarding the Australian War Memorial Development Project. 3.1 Dissenting Report Recommendation 1 Dissenting Report — Recommendation 1 Labor members support in principle the intent behind the AWM development project. The Australian Government notes the Dissenting Report—Recommendation 1. 3.2 Dissenting Report Recommendation 2 Dissenting Report — Recommendation 2 Labor members believe that the Government should consult further on this issue and consider alternative approa ches that do not involve the complete demolition of the existing Anzac Hall. The Australian Government does not support Recommendation 2. This recommendation is irreconcilable with the full Committee's recommendation to implement the submitted scope of works including the replacement of Anzac Hall. 3.2.1 Project Consultation The Australian Government notes that the Project has been subject to extensive consultation through the Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation {EPBC) Act 1999, the National Capital Authority (NCA) and, of course, the Committee itself. These processes included a cumulative period of more than 6 months during which the public has been able to formally comment on the project between December 2019 and September 2021. These consultations, which appropriately for a place of the Memorial's significance greatly exceeded minimum requirements, have been conducted online and in person around the country by the Memorial, the NCA and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (now the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water). Over this near two year period of consultation a total of 7,204 responses to consultation and public comment activities relating to the Project were received. Public comment across these responses demonstrated 71% of those who responded were supportive, 8% neutral and 21% not supportive. The Australian Government notes, as did the Committee and the Memorial, that there are a range of views in relation to replacement of Anzac Hall. It is evident from public submissions received through the broader approvals process that there is a vocal minority of Australians who strongly objected to the demolition of Anzac Hall. Their concerns have been widely publicised and carefully listened to at all stages of Project consultation including having had the opportunity to provide public testimony to the Committee. Ultimately however the broader needs of the Memorial to be able to fully honour those who have served takes precedence over the preservation of this 20 year old extension on the Memorial grounds. The Australian Government is satisfied that consultation on the Project, and specifically the demolition of Anzac Hall, was more than sufficient. 3.2.2 Need for Replacement of Anzac Hall The Australian Government notes that the need to replace the previous Anzac Hall has been endorsed on financial, heritage, environmental and process grounds through the EPBC Act approval, Committee approval and NCA approval of Project early works including demolition of Anzac Hall. The Memorial has articulated the reasoning behind this decision through each of these processes, a summary of this reasoning is provided below. The previous Anzac Hall was opened in 2001. Built according to the needs of the time and wi th the resources available, it was not designed to be modified to provide additional floor space. Over time, it has become clear that more space is needed to recognise contemporary service and to accommodate the Memorial's growing collection, through which these stories can be told. The design by Cox Architecture — which includes a new Anzac Hall and Glazed Link — was chosen as the most viable, least complex, and best value-for-money solution to meet the Memorial's needs for the next 50 years and to allow for e xpansion, if needed, in the future. The proposed design will strengthen and improve connections between the main building and new Anzac Hall galleries, improve the visitor experience and circulation, and create approximately 4,000 square metres of addition al exhibition space, while preserving the heritage of the main Memorial building. While the previous building has been a valuable part of the Memorial over the past 20 years, the intrinsic value of Anzac Hall is its capacity to tell stories. Replacing Anza c Hall increases the space available to honour Australian servicemen and servicewomen involved in modern conflicts and operations, which is the best outcome for the Memoria l 's future[1]. The Australian Government is satisfied that the replacement of Anzac Hall was necessary to achieve the objectives established by the Australian Government for the funding. It should also be noted that in the intervening time between the production of the Report by the Committee and the preparation of this response there was a change in Government in May 2022 and, further, that ANZAC Hall itself was demolished in July 2021 as per the Development Project approvals. 3.3 Dissenting Report Recommendation 3 Dissenting Report — Recommendation 3 Labor members believe that the Government should consider a range of lower cost options that would still meet the stated purpose of the proposed works, while achieving better cost- effectiveness and value for money for the taxpayer. The Australian Government does not support Recommendation 3. This recommendation is irreconcilable with the full Committee's recommendation to implement the agreed purpose and scope of works. · The Australian Government undertook careful and detailed assessment of the Memorial's needs in relation to telling stories of recent Australian Defence Force history as well as those of the past, circulation, access and other issues and the best way to meet them through regular decision making processes. This included a 'Two Stage Capital Works Approval' process where the Memorial was able to demonstrate the need for the Project and the reasoning behind the delivery methodology submitted to, and approved by, the Committee. As described by the Department of Finance, The Two Stage Capital Works Approval Process provides a methodical approach to developing the scope and cost estimate associated with a project, reducing risk and increasing cost certainty. This approach ensures that: i. the Government achieves m aximum value for money in the investment being made, including that funds are utilised in the most effective, economical, ethical and efficient manner; and ii. the scope and budget approved is adhered to by entities.[2] Most importantly in regard to the Dissenting Report—Recommendation 3 is the process undertaken as the first of the two stages—the 2017 Initial Business Case (IBC). The IBC, a strategic assessment of the need for works, examined options from 'do nothing', to the use of satellite sites for exhibitions (including the Memorial's Treloar Technology Centre at Mitchell), adaptive re-use of existing buildings, and new construction solutions. The nineteen scenarios examined ranged from those requiring no additional funding to those requiring significant capital and future operating expenditure to implement. The outcome of the IBC was that Government approved development of a Detailed Business Case (DBC) based on the creation of the additional space on the Memorial's Campbell site through new construction as the only viable solution to the Memorial's needs and long term relevance to the nation. The second part of the two stage process, the Detailed Business Case, developed this business need into a detailed scope and clear assessment of the required cost estimate, management approach, risks and key deliverables. The resulting DBC was closely examined by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Department of Finance and Cabinet before being approved for funding in November 2018. The Australian Government is satisfied that this process, together with close scrutiny by the Committee and ongoing oversight of the Project by the Australian Government and Parliament through annual reports, Senate Estimates etc., ensures that the proposal approved by the wider Committee for implementation is the most cost-effective and best value for money approach. [1] Australian War Memorial Response to Public Submissions, NCA Main Works Approval, October 2021 [2] Commonwealth Property Management Framework, Capital works Joint Stand ing Committee on Electoral Matters — Advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 —Government response. MAY 2023 Introduction On 1 December 2022, the Government introduced the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 (the Bill). The Bill proposes to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to ensure a consistent voter experience across elections and referendums. On 13 February 2023, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled a report titled Advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. The Bill passed both Houses on 23 March 2023 and was assented to on 27 March 2023. The Government's formal response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 Majority: Minority: Dissenting: Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Stra it Islander Voice Referendum — Advisory Report on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 —Government response. MAY 2023 Acknowledgements The Australian Government acknowledges the traditional owners and custodians of country throughout Australia and acknowledges their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to the people, the cultures and their elders past and present. The Australian Government thanks the individuals and organisations who contributed to this inquiry, including all those who made submissions and appeared as witnesses, and the members of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum (Committee) and the Committee's secretariat. We particularly acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who shared their experiences, views and aspirations with this inquiry. Introduction The Australian Government welcomes the Committee's report on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 (Bill). The Bill recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia in the Australian Constitution through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (Voice). Enshrining the Voice in the Constitution is the form of recognition sought in the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Voice would be an enduring institution to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can make representations to the Commonwealth Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters that relate to them, improving the development and implementation of laws and policies. The referendum that would follow the passage of this Bill through the Parliament is part of the Government's commitment to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. The Australian Government's response to the report is set out below. The response addresses the recommendations contained in the report, the dissenting reports and additional comments from members of the Committee. Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 be passed unamended. The Government supports this recommendation. The Bill is the product of more than a decade of efforts to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution. It offers both practical and substantive recognition. As the Committee's report makes clear, the Bill is fit for purpose, meets the first request expressed in the Uluru Statement from the Heart and is constitutionally sound. Moreover, as outlined in the Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights accompanying the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill: would promote the rights and freedoms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by acknowledging their continuing disadvantage, and h istorical exclusion from participation in the making of decisions, policies and laws that affect them. The Bill does this in a way that would not abrogate or otherwise negatively affect the ability of members of the broader community to enjoy or exercise t heir political, economic, social, cultural or other rights and freedoms. The Voice, as a representative institution, would enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to express their views to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Com monwealth on issues that relate to them, including their communities. This will ensure that the laws, policies and programs of the Commonwealth are better attuned to empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, addressing disadvantage, and imp roving outcomes. Liberal Members' Dissenting Report Recommendation 1: The proposal for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice should not be adopted in its current form. The Government does not support this recommendation. As noted above, the Government supports the Committee's recommendation that the Bill be passed unamended. Recommendation 2: Noting the Coalition will not stand in the way of Australians having their say on the proposal, the Government should amend the drafting of the Constitution A lteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 to address the significant risks identified through the Committee process. The Government does not support this recommendation. Amendments to the Bill are not necessary. The Bill is constitutionally sound, and the Voice would enhance our system of representative and responsible government. This is consistent with the submissions and evidence provided by most of the eminent legal experts to the Committee. In particular, the Solicitor-General's opinion attached to the Attorney-General's submission to the Committee (Solicitor-General's Opinion) stated that proposed section 129 is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution, but an enhancement of that system. The Solicitor-General's Opinion indicated that proposed section 129 would not require the Executive Government to consult with the Voice prior to developing any policy or making any decision. Moreover, the Parliament would be empowered to legislate to specify the extent to which decision-makers within the Executive Government are required to consider representations of the Voice in certain contexts. Recommendation 3: The People should never again be asked to vote on constitutional amendments that do not have the benefit of detailed public debate, in the form of constitutional conventions or similar. The Government does not agree with the assertions contained in this recommendation. Previous referendums have been preceded by a wide range of different processes, reflecting the context of each referendum. In this case, there has been a comprehensive and lengthy process stretching over more than a decade to determine the right form of constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That process has involved consultation with First Nations peoples, as well as parliamentary inquiries and expert reports. This has included the 2012 Final Report of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, and the 2015 Final Report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. In 2017, a Voice was endorsed as the preferred form of constitutional recognition in the Uluru Statement from the Heart issued at the National Constitutional Convention, following the Uluru Dialogues. The Referendum Council-led Uluru Dialogues consisted of 12 First Nations Regional Dialogues and one Regional Meeting. The Dialogues engaged 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from traditional owner groups, community organisations, and key individuals on their views on meaningful recognition. In 2018, the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples inquired into options for constitutional change, including the proposal to establish a Voice. It recommended, among other things, the Government initiate a process of co- design with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to achieve a design for the Voice that best suited their needs and aspirations. On 30 July 2022, the Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, released draft text of the constitutional amendment at the Garma Festival for discussion. This draft text drew on the considerable discussion of amendments already in the public domain and provided a further opportunity for the public to engage with the proposed amendment in the lead up to parliamentary consideration. The draft text was subject to robust scrutiny and testing from the Referendum Working Group, the Constitutional Expert Group and other legal experts. As a result of that process, the Government made changes to the draft text, including to put beyond doubt the broad scope of the Parliament's power to make laws relating to the Voice. The proposal has been subject to further public debate and consideration in the course of this Committee's inquiry, which has affirmed the findings of those earlier consultation processes. National Members' Dissenting Repor t The National Members' Dissenting Report contains no specific recommendations. However, the Report states that The Nationals do not support the Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum or its recommendations. The Government does not support the views expressed in this dissenting report. Additional Comments from Senator Andrew Bragg Recommendation 1: The 'seven words' model be adopted into the constitutional amendment. The Government does not support this recommendation. The 'seven words' model would involve inserting the words 'and the legal effect of its representations' to the end of s 129(iii). As set out in the Government's response to recommendations 1 and 2 of the Liberal Members' Dissenting Report, amendments to the Bill are not necessary. Paragraph [35] of the Solicitor-General's Opinion states that this proposed amendment 'was overtaken by the current wording of proposed s 129(iii), which necessarily includes (although it extends beyond) the power to legislate with respect to the legal effect of the Voice's representations.' Additional Comments from Australian Greens Members The Additional Comments from Australian Greens Members contain no specific recommendations. The Government notes these additional comments. 18:09 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia In respect of the government response to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum report on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The report only provided one recommendation. I was one of the only crossbench members to participate in the committee's deliberations, within a short period of time. But we had a very rich and diverse amount of evidence provided, particularly from First Nations people from Orange in New South Wales, from the Torres Strait and from my home state of Western Australia in Boorloo, or Perth. We were able to hear directly from First Nations people about the impact a voice to parliament could provide, particularly around tangible and practical changes. People were saying how there is a longstanding history of doing things that just never worked for First Nations people in this country and that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been asking since the abolishment of ATSIC some 20 years ago to have recognition in the Constitution but also a body that represent our interests. I've spoken about this many times in this chamber. I spoke yesterday about my visit to the Barunga Festival last weekend and the call for treaty and the call for an overarching body to oversee Aboriginal and Islander issues in this country but also to look at criminal justice and policing issues across Australia. The Barunga statement was very clear that treaty in this country is something that we've been asking for for 35 years. In 1988 the Bagala people in Barunga painted and presented that bark to the then Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, and asked him for treaty. His response on behalf of the Australian government was, 'The Australian people shall have a treaty with the first peoples of this country.' And still we are waiting. My analysis and my contribution as part of the joint select committee on a Constitution alteration through a voice to parliament was that I supported the one recommendation, the recommendation that this bill pass through both houses of this place and that we make sure that it actually promotes the rights and freedoms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as per the explanatory memorandum of the bill. It's important that we make sure that we follow this through and that we understand the importance of enshrining this within the Constitution. Democratically, that is up to the Australia people. It's not up to us as politicians. We'll pass this bill, hopefully, in the next week or so, and then it will be up to the Australian public to make that decision. It's not up to us. Participating in that committee I heard things like that it took 170-odd years for someone Indigenous to be on a local government in country New South Wales. That man had tears in his eyes. I remember his evidence. I remember he went out campaigning for 12 years to be an elected representative. I saw the weariness on his face. But, finally, he was able to be a voice for his local community and local government. But he also said that he believed the work in his community could be bolstered by understanding and representing the local, regional and remote voices that are important and that they also needed to have an elected body. He believes it needs to be elected; it can't be a tap on the shoulder by the minister of someone handpicked or chosen. He believes the Voice needs to be a representative institution and that the representatives of the institution of the Voice would represent not themselves but those issues. That was very, very clear. I know that there are member for the coalition who disagree about the power of the Voice to speak to the executive government and the importance of that. I myself asked people on the committee and through the deliberations of this committee, 'How important is that for you—for it to speak to the executive government?' They said it was so important because that's where the decisions are made. We don't want the run around anymore. We don't want to talk to the bureaucrats and other people. We want to speak to the executive government of the Commonwealth. We want to make sure all of the laws and the programs and the policies that are being developed are things that we can provide direct input to. It's about time that we started addressing the clear disadvantage that many have spoken about in this chamber on Closing the Gap. We need to continue to try and improve the outcomes for the First Peoples of this country and continue to work on partnerships across states and territories. But, more importantly, we need the federal leadership that is required to understand the disparity and why it exists in this country. It exists because we failed to provide a self-determined, human rights institutionalised approach previously in this country. I'm very proud that I was able to hear from lots of those witnesses that gave their time to come and sit in front of the committee. I want to acknowledge the chair, Senator Nita Green from the Labor Party; and Mr Keith Wolahan from the Liberal Party, who were leaders of this committee and provided the stewardship. I think that all senators and members who participated in this committee did so with the goodwill of finding that small space of commonality of what we all wanted to achieve, and that shone through. I know that there was a dissenting report from the coalition in relation to the processes and the report from the joint standing committee, but during the deliberations everyone was respectful. Everyone was respectful to each other. Everyone was respectful to our witnesses and to our community and to the people that we heard from. That's the way this place should continue to have our inquiries and our debates. And we should continue to seek what I see to be a resolution, particularly on the constitutional alteration bill that we are now debating in this place. I look forward to the next part of the journey in relation to truth and treaty as part of fulfilling all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and this government's commitment to that. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 98 BILLS Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023, Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms and Other Updates) Bill 2023 98

Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023

Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms and Other Updates) Bill 2023

First Reading 98 18:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 98 18:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech es read as follow s — HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW SCHEME) BILL 2023 Australia's universal health care system, Medicare, provides free and subsidised access for all Australians to most health care services. The Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023 responds to the independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip, known as the Philip Review. The Philip Review was commissioned by the Government last November to respond to concerns about the operation of the Medicare system. While the Philip Review found that the majority of health professionals are well meaning and protective of the health system, it also noted that changes are needed to modernise the compliance system underpinning Medicare to ensure it remains rigorous and effective. The Government is committed to protecting the integrity of Medicare. This Bill makes a number of priority amendments in response to recommendations from the Review. The measures in this Bill will strengthen the operation of the Professional Services Review, known as the PSR, as well as improving the effectiveness of the current process for auditing payments relating to Medicare services. In essence, the Bill: removes the veto power of the Australian Medical Association, known as the AMA, in the appointment process of the Director of the PSR; amends consultation requirements for appointments of other statutory office holders of the PSR, including Deputy Directors, Panel members and members of the Determining Authority, to enable consultation with relevant peak bodies directly; enables the appointment of Associate Directors of the PSR; and removes the need for engagement with stakeholder groups as a prerequisite for issuing a notice to produce documents during an audit. The PSR is an independent statutory agency responsible for protecting the integrity of the Medicare program by investigating whether a person has engaged in inappropriate practice. In doing so, the PSR protects patients and the community in general from the risks associated with inappropriate practice and protects the community from having to meet the cost of services provided as a result of inappropriate practice. The PSR addresses the behaviour of a person who may have engaged in inappropriate practice through review by the Director or by Committees made up of clinical professional peers of the person under review. Currently, the Director of the PSR cannot be appointed without the agreement of the AMA. The Government considers that this veto power is not consistent with public expectations and undermines confidence in the independence of the PSR as a regulator. This veto power has also never been exercised, raising further questions of the need for this requirement. Given the potential conflict between the PSR's objective to safeguard Medicare and the AMA's role in representing the interests of medical practitioners who may be subject to PSR review, it is appropriate for the veto power to be removed. The Bill will also enable direct consultation with relevant medical peak bodies regarding appointments of Deputy Directors and Panel members of the PSR, instead of making arrangements for the AMA to coordinate and provide advice, as is the current requirement. Similarly, the Bill removes the requirement to consult with the AMA on the appointment of the Chair and other members of the Determining Authority. Instead, the Minister is to consult directly with relevant peak bodies on appointments of medical practitioner members of the Determining Authority, which is consistent with current requirements for other health practitioners subject to the PSR arrangements. These changes will remove potential conflicts of interest to enhance public perceptions of the PSR Scheme and ensure the PSR process can operate with impartiality and independence. Allowing for Associate Directors to be appointed will also improve the PSR process by managing conflicts of interest, unexpected absences, and high case volumes. The Director of the PSR is currently the sole decision maker for most aspects of the PSR Scheme. There is no contingency in place if the Director is unable to make decisions on a particular matter due to a conflict of interest or if they are otherwise unavailable. To address the risk that a case may lapse if a statutory time limit passes while the Director is unavailable to make a decision, the Bill makes provisions for a new statutory office of Associate Director. The Bill will provide for multiple Associate Directors to be appointed on a full or part-time basis which will allow for the recruitment of more wide-ranging medical expertise. An Associate Director would be able to review inappropriate practice in the same way as the Director, and make relevant decisions such as whether to enter into a written agreement with a person under review or to refer them to a Committee of their peers. Associate Directors will not have any functions relating to the administration of the PSR. The Director will remain the sole statutory agency head and the accountable authority under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Finally, the Bill will remove the need for engagement with stakeholder groups about documents relevant to substantiating Medicare payments, as a · prerequisite for issuing a notice to produce documents during an audit. This amendment will strengthen and speed up Medicare compliance functions, without limiting the types of documents a person may provide during an audit of payments. Importantly, this change will not have any impact on procedural fairness requirements for a person being audited. There will continue to be an opportunity for the person to make submissions about their compliance matter and to provide any information or documents they consider relevant. Robust structures to identify and address non-compliance and inappropriate practice are essential to ensure that Commonwealth resources are directed to necessary health services and to ensure that Medicare remains sustainable. By supporting the integrity of Medicare, this Bill will ultimately benefit all Australians. The Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms and Other Updates) Bill 2023 amends 85 Commonwealth Acts to enhance administration and promote consistency across the statute book. It does this by amending references to prescribed forms in the statute law of the Commonwealth, making minor and technical changes to the Commonwealth statute book, and repealing certain obsolete Acts and provisions of Acts. Statute Law Revision Acts and Statute Stocktake Acts have been passed since 1934 in order to remove obsolete and spent provisions from the statute book and correct drafting mistakes. They are traditionally non-controversial and are essential to keep the Commonwealth statute book accurate and up-to-date. Statute law revision and update Bills aim to enhance the clarity and efficiency of the statute book. The amendments are minor in nature and either make no change, or only minor changes, to the substance of the law. This Bill contains 6 Schedules. Schedule 1 updates references to prescribed forms in 33 Acts across the Commonwealth statute book. The provisions amended by Schedule 1 currently provide for forms to be prescribed by regulations. Those forms generally impose requirements for things to occur, such as particular information to be provided. Modern legislative drafting approaches recognise that requiring forms to be prescribed in regulations can be unnecessarily restrictive. In some situations, it will remain important to provide for a form to be prescribed by, or set out in, an Act or regulations. However, in other cases, it is more appropriate for the form to be approved by a specified person or body by notifiable instrument. This enables minor updates or significant improvements to be made to those forms, without requiring further regulations to be made. Where prescribed or approved forms are made by notifiable instrument they will still appear of the Federal Register of Legislation. Schedule 1 of the Bill amends provisions that require forms to be prescribed by regulations and replaces them with other approaches that are best-suited to the context of the particular form. These amendments will ensure well-targeted requirements will apply, taking into account the best modern practices available in the relevant circumstances. They will ensure there is still oversight of the information to be provided while enabling flexibility in updating and improving forms. Schedule 2 updates language relating to persons with disability to focus on the person, rather than the disability. These amendments give effect to the recommendations made by Economic Justice Australia in its August 2022 research report, Handicapped—Use of outdated terminology in Social Security law and policy. The object of the amendments in Schedule 2 is to prevent negative impacts on the lives of people with disability resulting from the way they are referred to in particular legislative provisions. These amendments are not intended to change the way these provisions operate. Schedule 3 updates references in Commonwealth Acts to Northern Territory Acts, to make those references consistent with the way the Northern Territory now cites its Acts. Schedules 4 to 6 of the Bill correct technical errors that have occurred in Acts as a result of drafting and clerical mistakes, and repeal spent and obsolete provisions of Acts. The amendments in Schedules 4 to 6 enhance readability, facilitate interpretation and administration, and promote consistency across the Commonwealth statute book. These ongoing improvements to legislation are important to ensure that the Commonwealth statute book remains up-to-date, accurate and user-friendly. STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT (PRESCRIBED FORMS AND OTHER UPDATES) BILL 2023 The Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms and Other Updates) Bill 2023 amends 85 Commonwealth Acts to enhance administration and promote consistency across the statute book. It does this by amending references to prescribed forms in the statute law of the Commonwealth, making minor and technical changes to the Commonwealth statute book, and repealing certain obsolete Acts and provisions of Acts. Statute Law Revision Acts and Statute Stocktake Acts have been passed since 1934 in order to remove obsolete and spent provisions from the statute book and correct drafting mistakes. They are traditionally non-controversial and are essential to keep the Commonwealth statute book accurate and up-to-date. Statute law revision and update Bills aim to enhance the clarity and efficiency of the statute book. The amendments are minor in nature and either make no change, or only minor changes, to the substance of the law. This Bill contains 6 Schedules. Schedule 1 updates references to prescribed forms in 33 Acts across the Commonwealth statute book. The provisions amended by Schedule 1 currently provide for forms to be prescribed by regulations. Those forms generally impose requirements for things to occur, such as particular information to be provided. Modern legislative drafting approaches recognise that requiring forms to be prescribed in regulations can be unnecessarily restrictive. In some situations, it will remain important to provide for a form to be prescribed by, or set out in, an Act or regulations. However, in other cases, it is more appropriate for the form to be approved by a specified person or body by notifiable instrument. This enables minor updates or significant improvements to be made to those forms, without requiring further regulations to be made. Where prescribed or approved forms are made by notifiable instrument they will still appear of the Federal Register of Legislation. Schedule 1 of the Bill amends provisions that require forms to be prescribed by regulations and replaces them with other approaches that are best-suited to the context of the particular form. These amendments will ensure well-targeted requirements will apply, taking into account the best modern practices available in the relevant circumstances. They will ensure there is still oversight of the information to be provided while enabling flexibility in updating and improving forms. Schedule 2 updates language relating to persons with disability to focus on the person, rather than the disability. These amendments give effect to the recommendations made by Economic Justice Australia in its August 2022 research report, Handicapped—Use of outdated terminology in Social Security law and policy. The object of the amendments in Schedule 2 is to prevent negative impacts on the lives of people with disability resulting from the way they are referred to in particular legislative provisions. These amendments are not intended to change the way these provisions operate. Schedule 3 updates references in Commonwealth Acts to Northern Territory Acts, to make those references consistent with the way the Northern Territory now cites its Acts. Schedules 4 to 6 of the Bill correct technical errors that have occurred in Acts as a result of drafting and clerical mistakes, and repeal spent and obsolete provisions of Acts. The amendments in Schedules 4 to 6 enhance readability, facilitate interpretation and administration, and promote consistency across the Commonwealth statute book. These ongoing improvements to legislation are important to ensure that the Commonwealth statute book remains up-to-date, accurate and user-friendly. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023, Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023 101

Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 101 18:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 101 18:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— TRADE SUPPORT LOANS AMENDMENT BILL 2023 Today I am introducing the Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023. This Bill amends the Trade Support Loans Act 2014 to expand access to income contingent loans to more Australian apprentices and trainees working in high priority occupations of skills need, as determined with regard to advice from Jobs and Skills Australia. For the first time, this will include non-trade occupations. The Bill also proposes administrative changes to make the program fairer and more effective. Trade Support Loans are interest-free, income contingent government loans that currently support apprentices in priority trade occupations with cost-of-living while they are completing their training. As an incentive to encourage completion of training, apprentices who complete their apprenticeship, are eligible for a 20 per cent discount on their Trade Support Loan. Since introduction in July 2014, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) estimates that Trade Support Loans have helped over 167,000 apprentices, who may otherwise have struggled to complete their apprenticeship. Data on completion rates provided by DEWR shows that recipients of Trade Support Loans are more likely to complete their apprenticeship. Since the program's introduction in 2014, completion rates for apprentices who have taken out Trade Support Loans have been around 10 percentage points higher than completion rates for all trade apprentices. Australia is currently facing the most significant skills shortages in decades, and the measures in this Bill are a practical way that we can extend the benefits of a Trade Support Loan to more apprentices and trainees. It will support them to continue—and to complete—their qualifications, so that they can gain secure work in areas of greatest need for the economy. This Bill will expand eligibility for Trade Support Loans to apprentices and trainees working in critical occupations specified on a new priority list. The Bill provides the flexibility for the list to include occupations in early childhood education, aged care, and disability care. This means occupations such as enrolled nursing, personal care assistants, therapists, dental technicians and many more would have access to financial support to continue their training, and an incentive to complete. Beyond the care sector, other examples of occupations that could be eligible include veterinary nurses, aircraft maintenance engineers, civil engineering technicians, gardeners, youth workers, swimming coaches, chefs and many others. The Bill will achieve this by replacing the existing Trade Support Loan Priority List, with a new Australian Apprenticeships Priority List, which will be more relevant and responsive to the needs of the economy. The outgoing Trade Support Priority List restricts access to the loan program to apprenticeships leading to qualifications in a limited group of trade occupations. The list of eligible occupations has not been updated since the scheme was implemented. It is out of date and no longer aligns with the range of Australia's current and future skills needs. The new Australian Apprenticeships Priority List will be responsive to new and emerging skills shortages, and will significantly expand the list of occupations that have access to the program. Importantly, the Bill will extend eligibility to non-trade occupations for the first time—critically including those in the care sector. To reflect the new scope of eligibility, this Bill re-names the Trade Support Loans program to the 'Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans'. By extending eligibility, the Bill will assist many women, as women predominantly take up non-trade apprenticeships and traineeships. According to the latest data from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research in September 2022, 76.8 per cent of women in apprenticeships and traineeships—95,335 women—are in non-trade occupations. In determining the occupations on the new Australian Apprenticeships Priority List, the Bill requires me (as Minister) to consider the advice of Jobs and Skills Australia. Jobs and Skills Australia will leverage its strong team of specialists including labour market economists, data scientists, analysts and researchers to provide independent, expert advice to help determine the new Priority List. Unlike the current list, the new Australian Apprenticeships Priority List will be updated at least annually. As a result, the list will be responsive to current, emerging and future skills and training needs in the workforce. The Bill will also provide greater flexibility and fairness in the administration of the loan program. It provides discretion to the Secretary of DEWR to accept late applications for loans, if appropriate in the circumstances. This could include where an administrative error or exceptional circumstances have disrupted an eligible apprentice's loan application. This ensures that immediate financial support is not unnecessarily or unfairly denied. The Albanese Government is working with our partners to re-build and modernise our vocational education sector. In partnership with states and territories, we are delivering 180,000 Fee-Free TAFE and vocational education places in 2023, with a further 300,000 places to become fee-free from 2024. The Albanese Government is working to remove the barriers Australians face in accessing life-changing education and training and ensuring that Australians from all backgrounds and cultures are supported to achieve their full potential. This Bill, and the new Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans program will join those reforms to help Australia and Australians to meet our current and future skills needs. I commend this Bill to the chamber. STUDENT LOANS (OVERSEAS DEBTORS REPAYMENT LEVY) AMENDMENT BILL 2023 Today I am introducing the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023. The Bill makes consequential amendments to the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Act 2015 which arise from the enactment of the Trade Support Loans Amendment Act 2023. The amendments update references in the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Act 2015 to "Trade Support Loans Act 2014" with "Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014", to align with the rebranding of Trade Support Loans to Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans. This rebranding reflects changes to the Trade Support Loans Scheme, which expand eligibility for access to the loans so that they will no longer be limited to trade occupations. Instead, there will be ongoing flexibility for the program to provide support loans for apprentices in priority non-trade occupations such as aged care, childcare and disability care. I commend this Bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023 102

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023

Report from Committee 102 18:20 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Green, I present the committee's report on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023, together with accompanying documents. Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 102

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

Report from Committee 102 18:20 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Green, I present the committee's report on Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023, together with accompanying documents. COMMITTEES 102 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 102 Reference 102 18:21 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Last night we had 60 farmers in the chamber who'd travelled since 1 am the previous night. They came here and sat here and listened to a debate about having some of their concerns heard and some of the concerns of native landholders heard and all sorts of concerns heard about letting landholders have their say on a committee. They don't want to stop these things. They want just terms on land ownership. They want us to underground transmission where we can, which is something that I know we have support for. We're talking about a new power system, but we're using an old transmission line. We're taking away their rights to their land. We're taking it all the time. We heard of 77,000 hectares of land being reclaimed—the size of Bahrain and the size of Singapore. But we couldn't get it to a vote. We couldn't get it quickly enough. They waited here and they stuck it out. This will probably go down again tonight, but we'll bring it to a vote and we will bring it back. We will bring it back and we will bring it back until they are heard, because every day these people are suffering and every day their lands are being claimed, so we will keep going. In the interests of time, I will finish up here and hand over to other friends. Senator Canavan wants to speak. But this will come back and this will come through eventually, and thank you for that. 18:22 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland It's a very quick, short contribution. I just want to say that the best decisions are always made when they're made on the basis of advice from people on the ground, at the grassroots—local communities. Too many decisions are being made about our so-called energy transition from our large capital cities by people who have no actual on-the-ground knowledge of how their decisions impact not just people but the local environment too. It might not shock the Senate for me to say that I'm not the world's biggest greenie, but I think I'm about to get myself fitted up for a koala suit because some of these renewable energy projects near my home town of Rockhampton are destroying our local environment, destroying local koala habitats and destroying local sugar glider habitats. It's an absolute environmental outrage. It is vandalism on an industrial scale that these projects, with government approval and often government funding, can come along and just knock off the tops of mountains to put 200 x 200 square metre pads for wind turbines. Farmers from down the valley can't cut down a tree in the Great Barrier Reef without being accused of being criminals, but these large investors—often from overseas—can just walk in and totally destroy our local environment, with no questions asked. There must be a greater spotlight put on these practices because people are making decisions out of complete ignorance. They do not know what's going on on the ground, and it will be too late when we wake up 10 or 20 years hence and vast swathes of our wonderful, rural, green landscapes have been turned into industrial wastelands. People on the ground deserve this inquiry today. It should have been done yesterday, before we made some of these decisions, but it needs to be done as soon as possible. I want to recognise all the people who travelled to Canberra over the past days to witness this debate. They're trying to get their voice heard. That's all they want. They just want a voice. I would implore the Senate to please give them that right and respect as Australians to have that voice and support this inquiry. I also want to recognise my colleagues in the other place, the member for Mallee, Ann Webster, and the member for Wide Bay, Llew O'Brien, but I know others as well have been working very hard on this, trying to give local constituents the opportunity to bring their concerns to their nation's capital. 18:25 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia We are voting against this inquiry, but I just want to try and put a bit of balance into this debate about where we actually are and what the situation is as we see it. We can all disagree; that's totally fine. But let me just put where we're at on this. We think that the motivation for a reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee is not about getting an outcome, and it's not a genuine and meaningful conversation. But I'm not really surprised about that. We've watched, in the last 12 months, a great interest in this all of a sudden, whereas for 10 years there was much, much less interest. We know that those opposite are driven by an anti-renewables agenda, and we know that yesterday the stunt, in my opinion, of bringing 60 farmers—which is great—and landholders— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GROGAN 296331 No, no—finish that— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Grogan, resume your seat. Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Order! There is a senator on his feet. Minister, a point of order? Senator Watt 245759 Yes, a point of order: opposition speakers were heard in silence while they were making their contributions; certainly while I've been here tonight they were. I'd ask that the same respect be provided to Senator Grogan. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Yes. Thank you, Minister. And senators, it can be a bit boisterous in this chamber at times. I don't partake in that behaviour myself! But I would advise: can we just hear the senators in silence, and everyone will get the chance. Senator Grogan. Senator GROGAN 296331 The stunt I refer to was informing the gallery last night of a variety of things that I think are untrue and the accusations that requests for meetings were denied. In my original inquiries to the minister's officers, they couldn't find the relevant invitations. So, I'd be keen, as I said very clearly last night outside of this chamber to members of those opposite, for them to let me know where those requests were sent. Who requested them? And let me follow them up, because the people you brought to this chamber deserve to be heard. Their views deserve to be heard. And I was offering a practical solution, which was not taken up. You say that you care about the impacts of an industry, while you've refused for the last decade to engage in this conversation—buried your head in the sand and left these communities to fend for themselves. It took 10 years to deliver nationally consistent energy rules, changes to the market, improvements. But no, we're 22 half-there half-not-there failed policies later; we had nothing for 10 years. So, now that we are doing something, I would ask that you actually reflect on that at least with the facts. What we've done is partner with the states and territories and the transition network providers, and together we are improving the planning, community engagement and community outcomes for all of the new electricity developments that we've put forward. As we have ageing traditional energy assets—as they reach their retirement—upgrades and new build of energy transition are essential for our energy security, essential for the future of this country and essential for delivering cleaner and cheaper energy. Recently we expanded the funding to the office of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, who works with communities. He works with people's concerns, complaints and challenges and is very well known as being great on the ground, dealing with people, working with communities, working through problems and looking for outcomes. Even members of the opposition have praised his ability to engage with communities. He has done an excellent job and is part of the consultation, engagement and improvements that we are making. We're working to give better guidance to landholders and communities about their rights and their entitlements. We're introducing reforms for earlier and better engagement with communities by those proponents to ensure that those complaints and concerns that people have are genuinely looked at, genuinely investigated and genuinely engaged with. We're also making changes to the National Electricity Rules to clarify consultation requirements for transition developers to ensure that consultation begins at the very start of the route selection. This will absolutely improve community engagement. You only have to talk to the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner for him to tell you the story about how they're moving those routes and negotiating those corridors. He has a great story to tell if you wanted to listen to it. These reforms are going to make sure that these communities will be more engaged. They will be engaged early, and their concerns will be and are being listened to. In August 2022 the energy ministers across the country established the National Energy Transformation Partnership. That's working in partnership with the states—something that wasn't happening a lot in the last 10 years but something that we have reinstated to get better engagement, better planning and better outcomes. So this partnership makes sure that all those levels of government are working together to enhance that community engagement and working through the reforms of the electricity transmission regulations to ensure that we get the best possible outcomes. A key priority of that partnership is developing a national best-practice guideline for that community engagement to hear the voices of those people out there who are impacted. So everyone is listening. This is exactly what we are doing: working alongside all of the partners to make sure that the people are heard. I think that the way to get an outcome is to try and find one, not to try and find some splash. Yes, I know I heckled last night, because I was incensed at what was happening—at what was being said in this chamber. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GROGAN 296331 Thank you very much. I didn't get a text from anyone. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Grogan, resume your seat. Senators, interjections are disorderly. I'm struggling to follow Senator Grogan's comments. Senator Brockman 30484 We're struggling to follow them as well! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 That's not helpful, Senator Brockman. Senator Grogan, you have the call. Senator GROGAN 296331 My final point is that, if those opposite genuinely wanted an outcome, they would go about it in a completely different manner. They don't want an outcome. They want to use the poor unfortunate people they brought up here as a battering ram and as a political stunt. That is how I see it and that is exactly how I saw last night playing out. 18:34 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales It was astounding to refer to 60 farmers who travelled overnight to come to their nation's capital as a stunt. It's unbelievable. There are these protestations that ministers are super responsive and are so open to talking to constituents. I'm so glad that Senator Watt is here at the moment, because I have a series of WhatsApp messages here from someone who works for Redland City Council. They are in Canberra at the moment for the local government conference. They have a massive regional funding issue that they are here for. They have requested meetings with regards to nothing being done around a number of highly disadvantaged island communities on North Stradbroke. I will read a message out: 'Hi, we're desperately trying to get a meeting with Minister Watt for the week of 12 June. Any suggestions on the best way in? It regards disaster management, and we have tried going through NEMA'. So this council in Queensland, Redland City Council, has made requests to meet with the minister about North Stradbroke and some desperate issues that they have, with no response. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Watt? Senator Watt 245759 Thank you Acting Deputy President. I have a point of order on relevance. I'm not sure what that meeting request has to do with the matter that we are debating. In addition, I have this afternoon met with at least six different councils, at their request, about agriculture and disaster management. Of course, I haven't been able to meet with every single one of the 20 councils that requested a meeting, but I'm happy to arrange for someone to meet with them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Watt, that is not a point of order. Senator Hughes, I am ruling on what I assume you're about to stand up and call a point of order on. Senator Watt, this is not an opportunity for a debating point. In my reading, that is not entirely a point of order. But I would remind all senators of the importance of relevance. Senator Hughes, do you still wish to make a point of order? Senator HUGHES 273828 No, thank you, Acting Deputy President. I will just conclude on the point about the message I got from the staff member at this council. Another mayor just raised with Darren Chester that ministers aren't willing to meet with local government and no-one is getting meetings. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Watt, on a point of order? Senator Watt 245759 On that specific matter, I met with Mr Chester and three of his councillors yesterday afternoon. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hughes, resume your seat! Senator Watt, resume your seat! Senators, there are multiple points of order being made on both sides. It is impossible for me to make a determination on them if I cannot hear them and two are being made at the same time. Senator Watt, do you have a point of order? Senator Watt 245759 I'm happy to respond at the end, but Senator Hughes is providing incorrect information to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 What is your point of order? Senator Hughes 273828 Misleading the Senate! You guys know all about that! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hughes, your interjections— Senator Watt 245759 I don't think you want to go there, Senator Hughes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senators, for me to be able to make a determination on a point of order, I need to be able to hear it. One point of order at a time, please. Senator Watt, have you concluded? Senator Watt 245759 I would ask that Senator Hughes withdraws the accusation that ministers have refused to meet with councils from the Gippsland region, because I personally did that yesterday afternoon with Mr Chester, at his request. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Watt, resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senators, resume their seats. Senator Hughes, resume your seat. If you would like to take the conversation outside the chamber, it would really assist me. I cannot hear the points of order being made if you are both seeking to make them at the same time. Please wait until I call you on your point of order. Senator Hughes, it would assist the chamber for you to withdraw your remarks. Senator HUGHES 273828 I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Thank you, Senator Hughes. Senator Hughes, you have the call. Senator HUGHES 273828 Since we have had to withdraw comments from actual constituents because they are so offensive to the minister, and it is in relation to the fact that we just heard— Senator Watt 245759 They are wrong. Senator HUGHES 273828 They're not wrong, because this is what people who are constituents in Queensland have said to me. Senator HUGHES 273828 Not, obviously, all the councils in Queensland who have problems, particularly those representing North Stradbroke Island— Senator HUGHES 273828 Interjections are disorderly, Minister Watt, and I would appreciate you not yelling over women, as you are want to do. That is your speciality. We never hear you yelling over the boys. You just can't wait till the girls get up to have a go. As Senator Grogan was having a go at the fact that those farmers— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hughes, please resume your seat. Senator Watt, on a point of order? Senator Watt 245759 I ask that Senator Hughes withdraw that remark. I think there are any number of male senators over there who would recognise that I am just as interventionist when they're making stuff up as I am with Senator Hughes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Are you seeking to make a point of order, Senator McKim—an actual point of order? Senator McKim JKM I was going to make the point that Senator Watt is an equal-opportunity yeller and interjector, in my opinion! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hughes, resume your seat. I am yet to rule on a point of order which has been made. I will say again: it is very difficult to make a ruling on a point of order when multiple senators are standing up at the same time seeking to talk over the top of each other. Senator Watt, can I clarify: are you requesting that Senator Hughes withdraw a specific remark? Senator Watt 245759 I am—the accusation that I only yell at women. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Watt, you don't need to repeat the remark. Please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, it would assist the chamber— Senator HUGHES 273828 I withdraw. He likes to yell at everyone and interject at everyone. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hughes, I have asked you to assist the chamber by withdrawing. It does not assist when it is done with reservations. Senator Hughes. Senator HUGHES 273828 The truth hurts. Senator Grogan came in here making the point, 'Please let me know which ministers wouldn't meet with the 60 farmers that travelled all night to talk about the concerns they have about an entire new grid and power lines being put through their lands.' There was dispute from Senator Grogan that this open and transparent government was so keen to meet with constituents to understand their issues about the 22,000 solar panels needed every day, the 40 wind turbines that are going to be required every month, all those new transmission lines over productive farming land, and communities that are about to be divided because of some pipedream being chased. We know that the department, in estimates, couldn't even answer the question, 'How many solar panels have been installed since, over 250 days ago, Minister Bowen said we needed 22,000 solar panels per day and 40 wind turbines per month to meet their renewable energy target?' The department had no answer. And they have no answer, but they did say, 'We know we're a little bit behind.' They're that far behind—we know the 22,000 solar panels per day are going to be a lot more than 22,000 now because we're way behind schedule. We also, today, heard Senator Hanson-Young come in very upset about environment minister Ms Plibersek's approvals of coalmines, because they upset koala habitats. I'm desperately waiting to hear from Senator Hanson-Young and her concerns about the 22,000 solar panels per day, the 40 wind turbines per month and this entire new grid that is going to be placed over farming land—and guess where else, for those at the end of the chamber—or through koala habitats. But we don't want an inquiry into it, with the Greens and Labor bubbling up again, making sure there's no transparency, no investigation, no surety and no care for those in rural and regional Australia. Quite frankly, most of them couldn't even find it on a map. They don't leave the coast, they wouldn't know where anything is, and they don't meet with constituents. We hear it, all of us. I'll cast my mind to which minister has been hearing from so many groups about concerns, but we hear all the time, over here, frustrations from constituents, from farming groups, from those in rural and regional areas, from business groups, from those that are concerned about the impacts on their small businesses, from people that represent groups that manage families, from Christian schools—they were here today, very concerned about the activity over Calvary Hospital; we know you're coming for them next. Don't believe the same as Labor; they'll come for you. We hear from them regularly how it doesn't matter who they write to, who they call or how many times they try and get in touch. We know that every single Labor minister's door is shut. On top of that, Labor backbenchers—we know they hide in their offices when the Pharmacy Guild walk around here because all their businesses are about to be closed and impacted. We're about to see shortages of drugs. We're going to see a reduction in services, especially to aged-care facilities, by pharmacists, because those opposite don't believe in consultation. They believe in saying: 'This is what we're doing. We'll tell you all about it and you'd just better get on board.' This is an inquiry to make sure that farmers' views are represented and that rural and regional communities are represented. People in rural and regional communities—they're smart enough to not vote for you lot!—deserve to be listened to. You are an absolute disgrace with the activities to block the vote from going ahead tonight. It will come back tomorrow, and guess what? You will all get together on this side of the chamber and say: 'No, we don't want to hear from farmers. We don't want to know how much farmland's going to be destroyed. We don't want to know how many koala habitats are going to be destroyed, because, in the scheme of things, we have renewable energy as the Almighty God! We used to care about the whales and we used to care about koalas'—but they're lower down on the triangle of left-wing ideology. If koala habitats are destroyed and if whale migration is absolutely upset by offshore wind, those opposite will say, 'That's not a problem for us anymore, because—guess what?—it's renewable energy.' The absolute apex of the left-wing woke ideology triangle strikes again. Once again we'll see a denial of transparency and a denial of consultation, with no information provided and a message that says: 'Take what you get. You don't vote for us, so we don't care.' 18:46 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to make a contribution because I think this is a debate well worth having. I commend both Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell for what I think is a fantastic motion that addresses many of the issues with the implementation of renewables across the country. But, before I go into the detail of this particular motion and the actual inquiry, I just want to address Senator Grogan's statements that somehow we are anti-renewable. She's right; I am anti-renewable. But I am pro-environment, because, at the end of the day, renewables aren't good for the environment. They're a threat to our biodiversity and they cannot be recycled. The name itself is a lie, because you cannot recycle the concrete blocks that go into the ground, you cannot recycle the wind turbines, you cannot recycle the wind blades, you cannot recycle the solar panels and you're going to rip out large swathes of land with transmission lines. This is the lie that we have to address—that, somehow, because you don't believe in renewables or climate change you don't care about the environment. I am very passionate about the environment. I'm a sixth-generation Australian farmer. My mother's family, the Brocks and the Pikes, grew up in the Macleay Valley near Kempsey. That is a beautiful part of the world. The Macleay River is a beautiful river, and I often stop off when I drive to Sydney. I'll always stop in Kempsey and visit the old family dairy and things like that. I strongly recommend that anyone who's driving up to northern New South Wales takes the opportunity to enjoy the beautiful Northern Rivers that go through there. My father's family moved up from Narrabri. My great-great-grandfather on my mother's side was a convict and a vagabond that was picked in Dublin and came out in 1826. My father's side moved up progressively from Victoria, through New South Wales and eventually to Chinchilla. My father, who will turn 88 on Friday, is still a farmer. He's still out on the farm, as is my brother. So, just as I'm passionate about the environment, I'm also passionate about our farmland. I'm very passionate about our farmers because it is the farmers that feed this country, and our agricultural sector has always been the backbone of this country. It's an absolute insult to think that you're just going to walk onto their land and build all these renewables without actually properly explaining what you intend to do. Farmers are quite rightly concerned. They are very concerned. But I want to address that issue later on. I want to come back to the fundamental issue that if you're not pro-renewable you're not pro-environment, and that's just not true. That is just not true. I have to admit that the Left have been very good at conflating the two issues. If there's one thing we have to improve on this side of the parliament, it's delineating our passion for the environment, whether it be our biodiversity, our land management, plastics in the ocean or our riparian zones. They're all things that I know this side of the chamber are extremely passionate about, and we have to fight very hard for them. But, at the same time, the greatest environmentalists in my view are the farmers and the greatest way to protect the environment is through land management. Having grown up both on a mixed farm property in Chinchilla and further out in western Queensland, I just know that some of this ideology is not actually converting to good results. There's no greater example of that than the mulga country out in south-west Queensland, where people think that locking up the mulga instead of actually pulling it is the right thing for the environment. It is not the right thing for the environment, because, when the mulga is allowed to grow, it destroys the grass underneath it. Eventually the grass dies and the ground cover seals. Then, when it rains, the water runs over the top of the ground, not into the ground. We need grass cover. Our grasses and our grasslands are just as important as our native forests and our other types of tree life. Nothing exemplifies the complete misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the inner-city greenies and lefties, who supposedly want to save the environment, more than the solutions they're proposing, which are actually going to do more damage to the environment. One of the things about western Queensland and certain other areas is that you actually have to allow sunlight into the ground. If you don't, the trees will eventually block the sunlight and you will end up getting sealed ground cover. Not only that—and I know Shaun 'Zoro' Radnedge was just down from Charleville this morning—but we see shires die because these blocks of land are being sold off to foreign multinationals. They don't manage the land, so the land then gets an infestation of pests. We don't want wild pigs, wild goats and wild cats—it's just horrendous, the number of cats out there in outback Australia. I've seen a few of those big cats in my time out there, and it's amazing just how much damage they do. So we need to keep our farmers on the farmland, managing the land. That is true environmentalism, in my view. There's this myth that somehow carbon dioxide is bad for the environment; it is actually a part of photosynthesis. I know people will mock me for saying that, but it is a natural part of the environment, and it is recycled for free through grass, trees and phytoplankton. Phytoplankton in the ocean actually absorbs 70 per cent of the world's CO2. It was interesting that there was an ABC article just after the bushfires in southern Australia a few years ago that even commented that there was a phytoplankton bloom in the Southern Ocean because of all the carbon dioxide released into the environment. I think that's a much more environmentally friendly way to recycle energy, through photosynthesis, than pretending that you can recycle batteries, recycle solar panels or recycle wind blades and other sorts of things. I just want to address some of the points in this motion and some of the issues that this committee will look at. I think that they are excellent points that need to be addressed. I'll just talk about them in any order. Unfortunately, Senator Sterle, it looks like we're not going to get it. I have to say that I'm very disappointed that it isn't coming to the rural and regional affairs committee. It looks like it's going to go to the environment committee. We're going to look at the 'terms and conditions for compulsory access and acquisition'. There are very, very good questions to ask here. How on earth are these transmission lines going to cross farmers' lands? What will they be compensated? Will the land be taken from the farmers? What rights do they have? That's an excellent point. 'Fairness of compensation' is another excellent point. You might say that the land is worth $500 an acre, but, if you've got a big transmission line running across your farmland and you can't— Senator RENNICK 283596 Yes. Think about if, for some particular reason, you're no longer able to access the land or, more importantly, other people can come onto and access your land at any time. I happen to know about this because of the stories I've heard from my own home town about when the gas wells were put into farmlands in Chinchilla. A lot of people don't understand that you can't just go driving around paddocks willy-nilly. You've got to stay on the road and not drive at 80 kilometres per hour past a herd of cattle or you'll basically upset them. You want quiet cattle; you want cattle that are going to walk up to the ute and not be afraid of you. If you've got people who aren't familiar with how to treat livestock, you can actually end up upsetting your herd and making them much harder to muster because they won't want to come near human beings. Other things that this inquiry is going to look at are 'options for the development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition'. These are excellent points to cover here. 'Options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries'—these are excellent points. I like this one as well: 'power imbalance between traditional owners, farmers and fishers with governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their land or fishing grounds'. Yet again my home town of Chinchilla was smack bang in the middle of all of this. Unfortunately, George Bender, my own cousin by marriage—he was married to my second cousin—committed suicide over this because felt he was shafted by the gas companies. You cannot have in small towns one farmer getting lots of money because of a good deal out of the gas company and another farmer being shafted by the gas company. It breeds tension within a small community. It's very important that everyone is compensated in a fair and equitable manner, otherwise you will breed tension between neighbours and within communities. We cannot have that. It is not just compensation itself; it's also the neighbour. You might agree to having a transmission line or a gas well on your farm. You might want it as far away from the house as possible, so you put it on the boundary. That is obviously then going to impact the neighbour as well because it's on the neighbour's boundary as well. Do they want a transmission line or a gas well? We're experiencing that right now on the Jimbour Plains where we have perceived subsidence problems. I'm not familiar with the exact issue, but I certainly know the locals out there are concerned about it. The Jimbour Plains have some of the best cropping in Australia. They are getting subsidence. Farmers are understandably very concerned about that. We have to look at not just the people being compensated but also the impact on the neighbours and how they are treated. What else are we going to look at here? The protection of flora and fauna, with particular emphasis on threatened species and habitat corridors. Yet again this is the crux of the issue about protecting the environment. There's this notion that somehow renewables are going to save the environment. They will not do that. It doesn't matter how many renewals you build they are not going to save the environment. If anything, they are a threat to the environment. This is interesting. I'm currently following a page on social media about the wind farms they're building off of New Jersey. A lot of whales are being washed up on the beaches there. There are more than normal. It's very difficult to prove that that is from the construction of the wind turbines. Yet again it raises the question: are we actually looking at what will happen if you go ahead and build lots of offshore wind farms in the Bass Strait and off the New South Wales coastline later on? These are legitimate concerns that should be addressed. The Senate is a house of review. The role of the Senate is to ask questions. Yet again I put to Labor and the Greens: why are you opposing this inquiry? Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he would deliver transparency, yet you don't want to go into the detail here of all of these renewables. You can't even explain how you are going to pay the cost of getting to 82 per cent renewals by 2030. Probably even more important than the cost is the actual social and environmental impacts—the impacts on both the environment and our communities. Once the transmission lines are built and the solar panels are built they will be there for a long time. Once they have reached their use-by date, how do we get the big wind turbines transported off the land? Who's responsible for that? Is it going to be the responsibility of the farmer or is it going to be the responsibility of the energy producer? How are they going to get these massive concrete blocks out of the ground? You don't want concrete blocks sprinkled around your farmland for ever and a day, and they will be if they're not removed at the time. Good luck trying to get rid of them. It's the same with solar panels. These things are ugly. I'm sorry, but I think these things are ugly. You might get away with it on top of the roof of a residential house, but out on the farmlands it's just disgusting. It breaks my heart to think that we're going to be littering the countryside and the environment with these things under the notion that somehow this is the way forward. I think this is a fantastic motion. I think this inquiry is desperately needed. I'm incredibly disappointed in Labor and the Greens, because, if they genuinely cared about the environment, if they genuinely cared about regional communities, they would agree to this motion because there are legitimate concerns here that need to be addressed. I think regional Australia has every right to expect these issues to be addressed before we go ahead with this transition to 82 per cent renewables by 2030—ha, ha, ha! But that's what you guys signed up for, so show that you actually care about regional Australia, show that you actually care about the environment and actually approve this motion. Vote for this motion, and actually put your voting power where your mouth is when you say you care about the environment, because, if you don't vote for this, this is going up on social media. I'd love to telegraph to the world, but that's all I've got. I'm going to call you out on your hypocrisy, because that's what this is. If you do not support this motion, if you do not support this inquiry, it is blatant hypocrisy on environmental concerns, on community concerns and on accountability and transparency concerns. 19:01 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia In following the very wise words of Senator Rennick, I want to start by reading an extract from the Western Australian government website concerning the compulsory acquisition of land. It reads: The High Court decision of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1915) … held that the sovereignty of each State Parliament empowers it to take or acquire land with or without payment of compensation. So where we have a protection in the federal Constitution of governments not being able to take property without just compensation, there is no such protection in the state constitutions. In fact, the High Court has actually found that state governments can take without compensation. So you have in this country a stated government objective reflected in significant modelling of the energy regulators that show up to 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines will be required, the vast bulk of which are not going to be in cities. We're not going to be suddenly knocking over suburbs in Melbourne or Sydney or Brisbane or even Perth. The corridors for those transmission lines are already present in those cities. There will be no disruption to particularly the inner city but to anyone who is living in one of our capital cities. The disruption will be minimal. Who are these up to 28,000 kilometres of new power lines going to impact? It's an obvious answer, and it's pretty obvious when you see those on our side who have been standing up and making these points. It's going to impact on the regional areas of this country. It's going to impact on particularly landholders and land managers in this country. As many people in this chamber know, very close to my heart is the impact on our farming communities, and this is not an issue that is just restricted to the 60-odd farmers that were here yesterday and who brought their concerns to the capital, to Canberra, as they rightly should have. This is a concern for farming and regional communities right across this nation, including in my home state of Western Australia. This issue will see the potential reconfiguring of much of our energy grid. If the policies put forward by the government continue and probably are even ramped up over time, we'll see an extraordinary part of the burden of this change being carried by regional communities and being carried by farmers. All this motion does, all this motion seeks to do, is set up an inquiry into the way multiple levels of government are going to deal with this issue of an extraordinary impost on local communities, an extraordinary impact, particularly, on our farming communities—20,000 kilometres and that's only the start of it. I spoke to one company in Western Australia—my good friend Senator O'Sullivan was at the same briefing I had—which is planning on installing, over the next few years, 4,000 hectares of solar panels. That's one company. This is a burden that is not, as I say, going to be placed on the cities. It's not going to be 4,000 kilometres in Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane or Perth; it's going to be 4,000 hectares in the regions. That's one company. And then you need the powerlines to support those 4,000 hectares of solar panels, and then you need the wind infrastructure to balance the power requirement, and you still need the backup power, whether it be gas or diesel generators, for when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Who will be the ones impacted by this significant development? It's going to be our regional communities, once again. They will bear the burden of this change—and it will be a burden. Make no mistake about that. Powerlines have never been loved. I can remember, back in my childhood, powerlines going through the periurban area where we lived at the time. They're disliked intensely by those who have to put up with them—but it's farmers, so you don't care. It's farmers, so you don't care. The fact is that this burden is not something that's just a NIMBY attitude, a not-in-my-backyard attitude. That's not true. Farmers are not NIMBY. Farmers are actually pro development. Farmers want to see new infrastructure in their areas. They want to see reliable power supply to their areas. I could name 20 or 30 Wheatbelt communities that, right now, could have new industries moving to their towns, if only they could secure reliable power from Western Power in WA. So farmers are not against development; they just want to be consulted. They want to know where, when, how—how they are going to be compensated. I'll go back again to the statement on the government of Western Australia's website. Under the High Court decision, compensation, when it's a state taking, does not need to be paid. Compensation at state level is voluntary. That is why Commonwealth governments have always left the heavy lifting in this area to the states. They know, if the states do it, they can undervalue it a bit; they can cut the costs. They don't even have to pay at all if they don't want to. So we have a regulatory framework that means, as this Commonwealth government, in particular, seeks to impose this vision of an energy grid upon Australia, people do have the right to be consulted. They do have the right for their representatives in this chamber to stand up and say: 'Hang on a minute. Let's just take a bit of a look at this.' We've got a particular community in Victoria who travelled overnight to be here to raise this concern. Let's step back. Let's take a look at this issue. Let's consider what we are doing in the overall picture of changing the energy grid and how this will impact individual communities. It shouldn't be ad hoc. It shouldn't be done differently in Western Australia to Queensland to Victoria; there should be some consistency in the process, particularly as it is being driven from this place. If it was being driven from the parliament of Western Australia or the parliament of Victoria, then I would say: 'Fine. I'm a federalist. I believe that the states should determine their own destiny in this regard.' But this policy framework is being driven from this place. Therefore this place has the right—in fact, I would say beyond the right. This place has the obligation to look into what these decisions are going to do to regional communities across this state. Again, it's not about farmers being NIMBY or landowners being NIMBY; they've got serious concerns. There's the economic loss, of course. Others have talked about that, and I won't go into that. It's about the fairness of the consultation process, the power imbalance between one or two farmers who are impacted versus those who are not directly impacted versus governments and large energy companies. Of course there's a power imbalance in that negotiation. But it's also about other things, such as biosecurity. Biosecurity probably isn't something that most people in urban areas have to think about. Biosecurity might be something you worry about when you go through an airport check-in, or you're coming back from Bali or you're coming back from Singapore—do you have to declare something? Farmers have to think about that every day. The traceability is only getting more significant. The need to manage and control access to property, access to stock and even access to grain paddocks is extraordinary. You will now see biosecurity signs on the entry points of a vast percentage of farms in Australia, because traceability, trackability—the need to maintain and be aware of what is coming onto your property, when it's is coming onto your property, whether it's undergone proper clean-down procedures, and whether it's bringing in foreign matter from other farms, from other places in the state, perhaps even across state borders—is of paramount importance. This isn't just something that farmers put on their gates for fun. This is about them maintaining their biosecurity credentials in a global marketplace where those credentials are of increasing value. Farmers have a right to be concerned about that. They have a right to be concerned about who has access to their property, when they have access to their property, and the procedures they are taking when they come on to farming land. It's also about burden sharing. The fact is, as I've said, that this burden is unfairly shared. Wholesale suburbs will not be knocked over in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or Perth. New electricity corridors will not be created in those cities. They already exist and they will be utilised. Perhaps the capacity will be increased. But we are talking about up to 28,000 kilometres of electricity lines being imposed on regional areas, who certainly didn't ask for them. As I said, regional areas aren't against development. They quite like development, and they'd like to see it. But we need a process by which that is done in a fair way, in which the burden and the rewards of that investment are shared fairly across the community, and a recognition is given of that contribution that is being made by those regional communities to this entire process, because we also have other burdens coming from the suite of measures the government is talking about. We have the companies that are involved in the safeguard mechanism. Considering how they are going to meet these reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, one of the ways they're considering is the purchase of agricultural land—locking it up, turning it into sequestration zones. That could have a potentially damaging impact on regional communities right across this country. If we see the wholesale move of productive agricultural land into sequestration zones then this could fundamentally undermine the economic viabilities of hundreds of communities across this country and leave farming communities smaller and less financially viable. And just as you see large mining companies, for example, buying up agricultural land, that of course that leads to a loss of population in those areas. So the transmission lines, the solar panel, the sheer amount of land that is potentially going to be required to be put under solar panels all have impacts on our regional areas. They all require significant investigation. And then the flow-on impacts, again, of the other parts of this policy mix that we are seeing from this government, which has the potential to absolutely devastate agricultural production in this country, must be looked at by this place. We can't pretend that these things are not real, that they're not going to have real consequences on businesses, on families and on communities in the regions of Australia. They will. And this Senate has every right to look at this narrow set of issues. It's not a highly political reference. It's not seeking to embarrass the government in any particular way. It's a straightforward reference. The fact it's been knocked back three times already, I believe—it's just beyond belief that the government are so embarrassed that they would not be able to support what is a genuine inquiry that literally hundreds of farmers, thousands of farmers, across this country and other land users have been making to senators in this place. The fact that they're not willing to even take this very small step of having a Senate inquiry into this issue beggars belief. It really is something that this Senate has an obligation to look at. I understand there won't be a division tonight, so I urge the government to really have a think about this, as to why they are voting against what is a perfectly reasonable motion. 19:16 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question before the chair is that the motion be put. A division is required, and, therefore, it is deferred until tomorrow. BILLS 112 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 112

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

Second Reading 112 19:17 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland For those who were watching or listening to my speech earlier today, I'm in continuance. I ended my contribution earlier today before we hit the hard marker by quoting the views of some economists with respect to the inflationary impact of the budget which was brought down by the government back in May—and we've seen that now wash through the system. This was a typical Labor, big spending, big taxing budget, an expansionary budget—the last thing we needed at this point in time, and now we're seeing the consequences of that. I want to go through the inflation statistics that were released in April. I think this really provides an insight into the effect of a high-inflation environment. When you actually break it down into the separate goods and services which make up that basket of goods and services, which, in aggregate, form the basis of the consumer price index, you see the impact on people of this high-inflation environment—and it's absolutely devastating. Let me go through some product categories. Under food and non-alcoholic beverages, the inflation rate for the April 2022 to April 2023 period for bread and cereal products—there can hardly be anything more basic than bread and cereal products—saw an 11.4 per cent increase over 12 months. Meat and seafood, the source of protein for so many people, saw a 4.4 per cent increase. Dairy and related products saw a 14.5 per cent increase in the period from April 2022 to April 2023. These are horrendous increases. Fruit and vegetables, 3.5 per cent; food products NEC, 11.7 per cent; non-alcoholic beverages, 9.7 per cent. These are typical staples that an average Australian working family would have in their shopping trolley when they go and do their weekly shop, and we've seen inflation impacts of 11.4 per cent, 4.4 per cent, 14.5 per cent, 11.7 per cent, 9.7 per cent. Then we move down to rent, a 6.1 per cent year-on-year increase; new dwelling purchases by owner-occupiers, 9.2 per cent; electricity, 15.2 per cent; furnishings, 6.3 per cent; transport costs, 7.1 per cent; communication, 0.2 per cent; recreation and culture, 6.4 per cent; holiday travel and accommodation, 11.9 per cent. If you're an Australian working family and you're trying to get a break from all of these financial pressures, we've got here an inflation rate impacting holiday travel and accommodation at 11.9 per cent. These are very, very distressing figures, extremely distressing figures, which are having an impact on all Australians. With the headline inflation rate from April 2022 to April 2023 of 6.8 per cent and an expansionary budget, what have we seen? On 6 June 2023 another interest rate increase. In a statement made by Philip Lowe, Governor of the Reserve Bank—he has a very difficult job at the moment. He's got a very difficult job because the government is going one way with its fiscal policy and he's trying to go the other way with monetary policy. It makes things extraordinarily difficult. On 6 June 2023 Dr Lowe said: … the Board decided to increase the cash rate target by 25 basis points to 4.10 per cent. It also increased the interest rate paid on Exchange Settlement balances by 25 basis points to 4.00 per cent. What really concerned me when I read the RBA Governor's statement was in the last paragraph. It said: Some further tightening of monetary policy may be required to ensure that inflation returns to target in a reasonable timeframe … Let's just reflect on that, 'some further tightening of monetary policy may be required'. Translation: perhaps another interest rate increase. I go back to the RBA's statement: … but that will depend upon how the economy and inflation evolve. The Board will continue to pay close attention to developments in the global economy, trends in household spending, and the outlook for inflation and the labour market. The Board remains resolute in its determination to return inflation to target and will do what is necessary to achieve that. The RBA is essentially doing its job, as it's commissioned to do under the legislation of this parliament, in returning inflation to the target range of two to three per cent. What the governor is warning us about is that further tightening of monetary policy may be required to ensure that inflation returns to that target. So at a time when you've got bread and cereal products up 11.4 per cent, dairy products up 14.5 per cent, food products general up 11.7 per cent et cetera, the RBA's saying there could be a further interest rate increase at absolutely the wrong time for Australia, and that's of grave concern. Everyone needs to reflect on this situation and the government needs to have answers. We wait to hear the government's plan to tackle inflation. (Quorum formed) The PRESIDENT 112096 Is Senator Scarr happy to finish? If not, we can deal with that later and hear from Senator O'Sullivan now. Senator O'Sullivan? 19:27 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Thank you, President. I've got an audience now, which is really good, but we only have about a minute before we are due to move onto the next thing. Speaking on the appropriations bills give us an opportunity to speak about the government's response—it obviously deals with the budget—to the economic conditions Australians are facing right now. And Australians are facing the most incredible pressures on their budgets. Families right across Australia are being impacted right now by the rising cost of living. There have been 11 interest rate rises, and that is hitting households. In Western Australia, I've spoken to many families. Even those who two years ago who would have considered themselves to have pretty good means are now finding themselves struggling to make ends meet. Their mortgages have gone up—$1,000, $1,800 or $2,000 for some, and even more if you have a bigger mortgage. This is, of course, devastating for families, because they are having to make some tough choices. I had one family that spoke to me about the economic challenges and budget constraints that they are facing. The only thing they could find that they could cut was their Netflix subscription. They were choosing between whether they were going to continue to send their daughter to sewing lessons and their other daughter to dancing lessons, and they didn't want to have to cut those things, so the only thing they could cut was their Netflix subscription. There was nothing left in the budget to cut, because their cost of living has gone up. Every time they open those electricity bills they are finding increased costs. This is a big challenge that Australians are facing. Unfortunately, this appropriations bill and all the other economic measures the government are taking are doing nothing—nothing!—to address cost-of-living challenges. Inflation is driving up the cost of living, and there is nothing that this government is doing—there is not a single measure that this government is taking—that is driving down inflation. Productivity is falling against wages, and this is having a dramatic inflationary impact. Real wages are going backwards as a result of this. So, when I get my chance, when I can speak on this in a more fulsome way once we resume this debate, I look forward to outlining how this budget is doing nothing and the steps that they really should be taking to address the significant cost-of-living challenges that Australians are facing, particularly those in my home state of Western Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. You'll be continuation. It being 7.30, we will shortly move to the hard marker, but I'm going to call Senator Thorpe. STATEMENTS 113 STATEMENTS Members of Parliament: Conduct 113 19:30 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria President, earlier today I made some comments in relation to another senator. The Deputy President referred the matter to you, and you requested me to withdraw those remarks. In order to comply with the parliamentary standing orders, I withdraw those remarks. For the information of the Senate, I will make a further statement on the matter tomorrow. Thank you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Thorpe. It being 7:30, we will move to the earlier agreed motion. BILLS 113 BILLS Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 113

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 113 19:31 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales As I'm in continuation in the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, I realise I've only a short amount of time left, so I just want to reiterate that I am absolutely committed to working with my democratically elected colleagues to listen to our communities and to support frontline, evidence based solutions to address closing the gap, to close this city-country divide and to ensure that we hopefully can drive change from the ground up. What I am not committed to doing is supporting the establishment of a bureaucracy that can only have a governance board based on an identity. A lot of people say it's not about race. If it's not about race, what is it about? If it's not about heritage, what then is it about? I believe that we are all equal, whether you are a First Australian, whether you are a colonial Australian or whether you are a new Australian. What is the common factor there? The common factor is that we are all Australians. To ensure that we close the gap and to ensure we make services available to rural, regional and remote Australians from all walks of life, I will continue to work my hardest and I will continue to listen to the voices of all of those people and do my best in this place with my colleagues to affect change. 19:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I expressed my view about this legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, and the brain-snapping folly that will occur if the Yes campaign wins the upcoming referendum. Martin Luther King's dream was that his children would 'not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character'. I share that dream. Although I doubt that he imagined we'd be discussing this same principle nearly 60 years later. The Voice would result in constitutionally enshrining deferential treatment based on skin colour and heritage. I cannot endorse racism, and I will not do so. It's difficult to discuss the 'no' case in relation to the Voice and its operations without being labelled racist. This has been Mr Albanese's deliberate policy. He's hoping to mislead voters into thinking this is a modest proposal, merely a goodwill gesture that needs very little thinking and should be supported because it's simply good manners and will not change much or anything at all. He's taken a leaf out of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's playbook. Mr Albanese is telling us, 'Don't you worry about that'—the details—'Just do as I say.' Mr Albanese is telling a great mistruth. The Voice, if established, will become a huge new institution with vast powers enshrined indefinitely into the Constitution based on race. It will change governance to Australia's detriment. There's no doubt that past governments failed to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's needs. This is despite billions of dollars successive governments have wasted lining the pockets of white and black bureaucrats, academics, activists, lawyers, consultants and all those whose incomes are based on the white and black Aboriginal gravy train siphoning off the money that rarely filters through to those who should benefit from assistance. The government is already seeking mass endorsement of the 'yes' campaign. It's calling in support from those already dependent on government funding. Sports organisations, the arts and big business are all dependent on government funding grants and contracts. They aren't exactly independent but bribed. We'll hear from more of those organisations in the lead up to the referendum. While it's interesting to look at the elites supporting the 'yes' case, we need to consider what real Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want. I've travelled with my staff to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and across Queensland. I've visited every Cape York community twice and in some cases three times—and to Torres Strait communities. I've listened to residents, and one thing that has struck me is the fact that there is little knowledge or even interest in this Voice. There is little interest or respect for the so-called Closing the Gap. A counsellor in the Torres Strait community of Badu summed it up accurately, saying that many in the Aboriginal industry do not want to close the gap; they want to perpetuate the gap to keep milking taxpayer funds. There's no common understanding as to what the Voice is or what it might offer residents in terms of improving people's lives. Opinions differed from community to community. They differed from family group to family group. In fact, on most issues there's little commonality of views. There's no single Voice that could represent the differing views of each separate Aboriginal and islander community. I remain deeply concerned about the unworkability of what's proposed. Mr Albanese, when deflecting questions recently on how the Voice would work in practice, has constantly directed questioners to read the lengthy Calma and Langton final report on the Voice. It's not a policy, merely recommended. The report says there'd be a need for 24 full-time roving commissioners and a secretariat. With 35 districts, there's a need for local Aboriginal Voice to Parliament groups and committees. On each issue, these committees would seek to develop one opinion. There would be the likely risk of people in Tasmania giving their view on an issue for Torres Strait Islanders. The report did not say all representatives would be elected democratically. Retired High Court judge Ian Callinan has been vocal in opposing the Voice, questioning how it might not be truly representative of Aboriginal Australians and run the risk that the Voice might be made up of a hand-picked Canberra cadre. He noted practical difficulties with drafting the constitutional amendments that would need High Court interpretations. This Voice push is not from the grassroots; it's coming from city elites, academics and others on the white and black Aboriginal industry gravy train. The Voice faces the real risk of a noisy minority of activist groups hijacking and driving it. Across Australia are more than 3,000 Indigenous corporations and more than 12,700 registered charities with purposes including assisting Aboriginal Australians. Since 2018 more than 19,000 grants have been made, totalling more than $11.5 billion for Aboriginal purposes. All of this money has been directed towards the needs of a group representing less than four per cent of Australia's population. For example, Noel Pearson's Cape York Institute collected more than $50 million. He supports the Voice. The recent budget included $781 million for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, to be added to an already announced expenditure of $1.36 billion. Look around the communities. Where has this jaw-dropping amount of money gone? What has it done to lift the lives of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? Previously, I raised in this Senate the sorry plight of Aboriginal people on Mornington Island, Australia's third world disgrace. Has their life benefited from the jaw-dropping amount of wasted money? Clearly, no. A core issue for me is there is the historic suppression of Aboriginal Australians under governments that continue to patronise and reinforce a victim mentality through misplaced paternalistic care, so-called care—control masquerading as care. This remains a national disgrace. The solution is not creating a powerful unaccountable body to satisfy a small group of activists with vested interests in maintaining an ever growing white and black Aboriginal industry. There is not one word from the government on the cost of setting up the Voice. There is not one word from the government on the proposed annual costs. Why is this so, asked a famous and much loved and admired TV scientist. The Prime Minister does not want us to know the answer, as it would be a figure so large that no-one in their right mind would agree to such expenditure for yet another new bureaucracy, when many Australians are already wondering if they can afford to put a meal on the table for their family. Billions are already being spent. Billions more will be spent to run the Voice. Whoops, don't tell the voters! A previous body created to assist and represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' needs was ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—and look how that experiment went. ATSIC's abuse of Aboriginals and the related corrupt waste of taxpayer money led to ATSIC being abolished. It would be almost impossible to abolish the new version of ATSIC, which is the Voice, enshrined in the Constitution—how handy for the corrupt white and black Aboriginal industry, as the Voice, like ATSIC, would be a never-ending cash cow for those in the know, perpetuating bureaucrats, agency heads and board members living off taxpayer funds—parasites. Let's not forget the bloodsucking white and black lawyers, activists and academics, who are dipping their snouts in a new public funds trough. Is the Voice really necessary? Is it needed? The government says it's needed to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people an opportunity for input into government. Currently there are already 11 members of parliament of Aboriginal heritage. Are they not doing the job of raising issues on behalf of Aboriginal Australians? If not, what sort of job are they doing? What about the National Indigenous Australians Agency? Isn't its job to highlight to government areas of need? Will the Voice replace this body? The Prime Minister suggested that governance of the Voice would come under the jurisdiction of the future National Anti-Corruption Commission. This has been challenged. Retired senior judge Anthony Whealy said that further legislation would be required to extend the commission's jurisdiction to cover the Voice, as it would not be covered under the current legislation setting up the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This brings us to the issue of jurisdiction. The High Court would decide disputes about the Voice, because it would be created under an entirely new ninth chapter of the Constitution. The High Court is the only body having the role to interpret the Constitution—a whole ninth chapter added to the current eight chapters, with details in wording hidden. The High Court schedule could fill up rapidly with cases of this nature and slow down the judicial process. The Voice would be able to make representations to parliament and to the executive on matters relating to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. That's almost everything. There's little restriction on the sorts of issues that the Voice could raise, and the advisory role is not only to parliament; it's to the executive government. That means that the potential for excessive involvement of the court system may necessitate expanding the High Court to consider Voice disputes and interpretation. This leads to another criticism of the proposed Voice. At what stage can the Voice advise the parliament or the executive? Must the government consult with the Voice on all proposed legislation or the development of policy? Is the onus on the Voice to make representations about an issue with the government or the executive? The Aboriginal industry says it is to advise both. The Prime Minister has been unwilling to answer any of these vital questions. Will activists rely on the Voice to slow down government processes to the extent of blocking legislation and holding the government to legal ransom unless demands are met? That seems to be the activists' intent. The Prime Minister's comments that the Voice would be subject to the parliament are clearly wrong. Any law that was designed to rein back Voice activities may fail, as the power of the Voice is so broad that it is nigh impossible to minimise such power. Any law that is passed related to the Voice must be subject to the Constitution. Surely that is a recipe for confusion and parliamentary disaster. The Voice does not practically solve any of the current issues facing remote Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. These problems of people living in remote areas, Aboriginal or not, are already well known, yet solutions have not yet been offered. Allocation of vast sums of money, resources and programs have not worked. We've been told that the Voice is proposed to be advisory only, with no power to provide programs, resources or grants. How is that supposed to assist Aboriginals in need? The concept of native title was supposed to support Aboriginal Australians yet has failed miserably. Aboriginals living in a community are not able to own their own homes, are locked into rent cycles and unable to borrow to advance themselves, because they cannot use land under native title as security for a business or home loan or other loan. They're locked into a system that keeps them from improving their lives and livelihoods or working towards buying their own home. Native title freezes Aboriginal people out of the economy and keeps them from advancing personally. No-one should be surprised that the native title legislation's preamble is littered with references to the Voice's roots, the globalist United Nations. The Voice will further entrench Aboriginal disadvantage, promote victim mentality and sow further division. One of the nastiest sides of this debate has been the coercive approach that 'yes' campaigners have taken, pitching any opposition to the 'yes' campaign as racist. Even within the Aboriginal community, where there are clear differences of levels of support, derogatory name calling and put-downs are the response from 'yes' campaign leaders such as Noel Pearson. He has derided Senator Nampijinpa Price and other leaders taking a strong 'no' stance. It's interesting that in rural areas, where Aboriginals are most in need, the 'no' vote is way out front—much higher than the 'yes' vote. Aboriginals see little value for them in the 'yes' campaign. The 'yes' campaign support is in fact falling and remains strongest in cities, with support from the wealthy and the elites who have fallen for the cheap rhetoric of lies from government and lies from elite academia. Sadly, young people are being sold a pup, third hand, through a deceitful government media blitz providing huge sums to others to run a deceitful 'yes' campaign on behalf of the government. What I dislike most of all is the fundamental flaw in this government's whole referendum push, and that is the out-and-out racism underpinning the whole Voice concept. It is the insertion of a whole new chapter into our Constitution, as the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Ms Lorraine Finlay, recently highlighted by saying: It inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination … The proposed Voice will give Aboriginal people special rights. Only the members of the Voice will have a constitutional right to influence the parliament and the executive. No other Australian person or body would have that constitutional right to influence the parliament or executive based on race—not one. This is pure racism. If one goal of the Voice is to create harmony and reconciliation, this is doomed to failure, irrespective of the referendum outcome. This issue is so divisive that, whatever the result, a wedge will have been driven between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members of our Australian society, a wedge based on race, thanks to the Labor government. Australians should all have the same rights. If this referendum succeeds, that will not be the case in Australia, because one group, Aboriginal Australians, will have additional constitutional rights that other Australians will not have. That is racist and it is wrong. We all share two identities. We are all human and we are all Australians. Our nation is the world's only nation whose people voted for the national Constitution. Our Commonwealth Constitution is the people's Constitution. Giving the government's dishonest proposal an open slate—a blank slate—for changes made by politicians will degrade it to a politician's Constitution. We have had enough of politicians in this country. In answering a question last week, the Prime Minister acknowledged the public has turned against the Voice. He then confirmed that if the people reject his racist Voice proposal he will legislate it. He will defy the will of the people. Lastly, what is the point of a voice when the problem is not Australians speaking up; the problem is politicians not listening. It is the arrogance, the deceit, the unwillingness to listen. I will vote no. 19:48 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania It is unfortunate that I follow a speech that indicates a 'no' vote, because I want to say to the chamber, and to those that may be listening or reading our contributions at a later time, that I will be voting yes. I want to also acknowledge the many speakers who have contributed on this history-making bill and who have indicated that they will be voting yes. The bill before us, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, is an extremely important step on the pathway to recognition and ongoing consultation. That's what it is: recognition and consultation. I often wonder why those that oppose the Voice are so frightened of recognition and consultation. It just means listening. Why are they? Everything that I've heard so far from those that oppose, including the previous contribution, does not adequately address these concerns. Yes, they seek to provide misinformation and disinformation to the wider community, to those people that are considering how they may vote in the forthcoming referendum, and to scare them into a position of voting no. If you have to scare people to support your position, you really need to have a good, long, hard look at yourself. This bill proposes an alteration to the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by establishing a voice to make representations to parliament and to the executive government on matters that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Right now, our Constitution doesn't refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people once—not even once. Simply, this alteration is about two things, as I've said: consultation—meaning listening; it is not a hard thing, not a big thing, to ask for—and recognition. As a nation we need to grasp this opportunity with both hands; that's my view. It is an opportunity which will work to address the structural and systematic problems that continue to produce devastating outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I don't think there's a person in the chamber that would suggest that the current outcomes that are being produced by government policy are working. I don't think there would be a person that could stand up here and suggest that what we've been doing in the past has worked. We have a thing or two to learn, I believe, from our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities—65,000 years of knowledge passed down from generation to generation through songlines, all of which have been dismissed and ignored far too long. The generosity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in sharing their culture, their songlines, their stories—as an Australian nation, we should feel privileged that they have reached out to do that. I defy anyone that goes to an Aboriginal community, goes to an Aboriginal ceremony, to not feel touched by what First Nations people are imparting. If you don't feel touched and blessed—that is a big thing for me, because I'm not a religious person. I was up at the NT, and I was having a discussion with— Senator McCarthy 122087 Wonderful place! Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Beautiful place, lovely place—far too hot for any Tasmanians! We were having a discussion with the Larrakia nation community organisation. The way they talked about their culture and discussed it—this is a real community. You can't be anything but touched and feel profoundly influenced if you have the opportunity to hear and listen to Indigenous people. I found it quite incredibly moving. I think we should be incredibly proud of that history, where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have had the longest living connection to land, sea and sky compared to anywhere else in the world. Some senators may claim that this is an idea that has been formulated by the Labor Party—far from it. The idea of constitutional recognition through a voice to parliament follows consultation with over 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, representing their communities, at numerous dialogues across the country. Once completed, the representatives from the dialogues met at Uluru and formulated what we now know as the Uluru Statement from the Heart. What we are doing is listening, like all good governments should. We're listening to what that Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for: constitutional recognition through a voice to parliament. We are all better off when we stop and listen to those around us, to the people who will be impacted by it the most, and to use the knowledge that they harbour to make decisions that will make real lasting changes to communities. For too long, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have had haphazard representation, if there has been any representation at all, because they've been dependent on election cycles and the government of the day. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have always organised themselves in an attempt to effect political and social change for them and their communities; however, without a structure set out in the Constitution it has been far too easy for governments to dismiss the calls of such groups. The Voice will change this. The Voice is simply about listening. The Voice will be there, no matter the party in government, no matter the politics of the day. The Voice will remain. The need to listen will remain. I really find it hard to understand how you can be frightened of listening. Finally, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will have a consistent and representative advisory body. I'll be out there campaigning for a voice to parliament alongside so many Australians, many of whom will be campaigning for the first time and many of whom who will be voting in their first referendum, like my kids. My kids have never voted in a referendum. I've never seen two children more excited about being out there and having an opportunity to vote yes, and I'm so proud of them to have come to that decision themselves. They understand we need to do something different. They understand the extraordinary need to recognise the First Peoples of this nation. They understand that you need to listen. They embrace it. And I hope, I believe, Australians will embrace it; I do. I know that Tasmanians will stand up, show up and vote yes for constitutional recognition and a voice to parliament. I commend Premier Rockliff and former premier Gutwein on their strong stance in their support for the 'yes' case and their support for a voice to parliament. As I've said, I know that Tasmanians have it in them to be on the right side of history. I'm looking forward to celebrating when the day comes that Australia is a more mature and a more representative country. In the words of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese: We approach these tasks and the work of constitutional change, with humility and with hope. Humility: because over 200 years of broken promises and betrayals, failures and false starts demand nothing less. Humility because—so many times—the gap between the words and deeds of governments has been as wide as this great continent. But also hope. Hope in your abilities as advocates and campaigners, as champions for this cause. And hope because I believe the tide is running our way. I believe the momentum is with us, as never before. I believe the country is ready for this reform. I believe there is room in Australian hearts for the Statement from the Heart. In conclusion, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney; the Assistant Minister from Indigenous Australians, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy; and, of course, the forefather of constitutional recognition, Senator Pat Dodson. Your commitment and leadership to make a real difference to the lives of First Nations people is second to none. Again, I will be voting yes. I hope that the referendum is successful and that we can move forward together. Now is a time for our country to come together. 20:01 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I want to make three points at the outset: I have always supported this concept, I support this bill and I will be voting yes in this referendum. I think this concept is ultimately about providing agency to community members to make decisions about their own communities but also to make decisions about national policy which affects a group of people in a unique way. I think that is a very Liberal concept. Effectively this bill is about putting an amendment, now, to the Australian people on our Constitution. It is not the exact form of words that I would have chosen, but I believe that the Constitution and our system of government will be better for having this amendment included. So I'll be voting for this bill, as will the bulk of my party. I believe that voting yes is the right thing to do for our country, and I think it will be a positive change for all Australians. I have never believed that it is in the best interests of our country to defeat a referendum on reconciliation. I addressed this issue in my first speech to the Senate in 2019 and on numerous occasions over the past few years. I said at the time that it was important to build consensus. This must be a unifying project because the Australian Constitution belongs to all Australians. At the time, I established five principles which I believe would be critical to the success of any referendum. Those principles were: Any proposal must (1) capture broad support of the Indigenous community; (2) focus on community level improvements; (3) maintain the supremacy of parliament; (4) maintain the value of equality; and (5) strengthen national unity. I think at this stage it is clear that there are questions over principles (3) and (5), but I want to address the issues before coming to some of the detail. The first issue is recognition. I believe in recognition because the Constitution is incomplete, and I think we should be looking at this referendum as a way to build on 1967. The process that led to 1967 was very much linked to the debates of today. There were two changes that were made in 1967. One was about the census, and the other one, which was the most substantive of the two, was to vest a new power in the Commonwealth Constitution to allow the Commonwealth laws for Indigenous people, which had previously been the preserve of the states. The intention was that this new lawmaking power, effectively a race based power, would be used for good, and it was not used heavily in its first couple of decades. It was used more later, though, and there were currently 15 different laws on the books which were made under this race power for Indigenous people. Land rights, heritage protection, corporations, education, native title, the Stolen Generations redress scheme—it's a lengthy list. We have no good system to manage these laws; when they're made, they're made without the input of the people they're made for. That's why I have always believed that the current system is fundamentally illiberal. On the Voice: as I mentioned, I do support the Voice. I believe that the local voice has always been the central component. I formed that view by travelling extensively around New South Wales, which has the largest Indigenous community in this country, through towns like Nowra, Kempsey, Walgett, Bourke and Brewarrina. The view that I often hear expressed is that people are frustrated with the way that services are delivered in these rural and regional places. There's a sentiment that bureaucrats change and processes change, and so there's no good way to provide input to policymakers. Therefore there's a loss of continuity and a loss of traction that happens. Of course, we hear the big lie that this would be the introduction of race into the system, but the policies that are run by the states—like Aboriginal medical services, for example, which are very important policies in these towns I speak of—are race based policies. I just mentioned 15 different race based laws that we have here on the books in Canberra at a national level, so the fundamental principle at the local level that you would want to have structured and consistent input from local people on how policies are deployed I think is compelling. At the national level, I have already listed the various laws that we make. But when we decide to amend the Native Title Act, what process do we go through to assure ourselves that the decisions we're going to make on behalf of the people who are subject to special laws are in their interests? I would say that the process we go through is very poor, and I think that we could do many worse things than get more information from the subjects of special, race based laws. There is a lot of misinformation out there. As I said, we have race based policy at the state level, which is predominant, and we have race based laws at the national level. We have a country that has had race at its heart for 250 years. To argue that this is the introduction of race today is fundamentally untrue. Of course, though, it isn't really about race when the no advocates make this case. These laws and policies exist, not because of race but because they recognise the unique relationship that the first people of Australia have with this land, and always will have. That is about the first people; it isn't about race. I have tried to build common, or centre, ground over the last few years, and I've tried to work with colleagues in my own party and in Liberal conservative circles. I had hoped that there would have been a lot more common ground at this juncture, but I have to say that over the past 12 months very little progress has been made. But there hasn't been a process to provide for the building out of that common ground. I think we've been long on politics and short on consensus building. So the model that we have in this bill is a detailed model. It is a bigger and more substantial change than I have argued for in the past. I always had the view that a complex model would put a referendum at risk, and I argued as much in a Sydney Institute speech back in June 2021. At the time, I argued for an amendment which read something like, 'The Commonwealth shall make provision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be heard by the Commonwealth regarding proposed laws and other matters with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, and the parliament may make laws to give effect to this provision.' That was the sort of simple but empowering amendment that I thought would have the most chance of winning some more of the common ground that I think is going to be essential. The government decided not to go for a simple amendment. We had an opportunity, finally, to review this amendment as part of the joint select committee. To cut to the chase, I made recommendations in the joint select committee report that we should add seven additional words, which were, 'and the legal effect of its representations', into the constitutional amendment. During the hearings, I exhausted this idea with people, like Anne Twomey and George Williams, who are eminent legal and constitutional scholars and professors, and they all indicated that the addition of those words would not be offensive to the concept, may provide assurance and would be worth doing. None of this was done, none of this was adopted, for reasons which are unclear to me. But I would have thought that that would have assured people that parliamentary supremacy was going to be maintained, which is the concern that some people have. I think that was a lost opportunity. I made some remarks yesterday about the joint select committee, and I think that will be viewed, regrettably, as a missed opportunity to build some common ground, or centre ground, before we go to this referendum. I regret to say that even the people that went to the trouble of writing reports in this committee have not had a response from the government, so we simply don't know what the government's view is about those seven additional words, for example. I would have thought that the best way to have handled this—and I made these points at the time—would have been to have established a parliamentary committee in 2022 which could have made recommendations to the parliament as a committee. Instead what we received was a government bill, a policy of the government, which, I think—I'm trying to be as generous as I can be here, but I don't believe there was any real intent when the joint select committee was set up to do its job. It was given five weeks to review a constitutional amendment and made one recommendation. I think that was a very regrettable process which has not helped us at all. As I say, I think there has been far too much politics here, and, for reasons which are unclear to me, the government has rebuffed efforts to build consensus. It's now up to the government to convince people why they should vote yes. Perhaps the only question, really, is whether the referendum should succeed in its current form. I think the government has one last chance before we vote on this bill to improve the bill, but that is now a matter for the government. This is, obviously, a very disappointing starting point for this referendum, but I do wish the campaigners well. I hope that all sides can maintain the dignity which the Australian people would expect of them. I'm accountable to this chamber, and I want to report that I have done my best to try and build that middle ground, or common ground, here. I've tried to address the concerns that my own political party has had. I'd hoped that the middle ground was going to be larger at this point. I have to say that it feels invisible. I support the passage of this bill, and I will help write a 'yes' case should I be asked to. That will be my substantive contribution on this issue. I am not a commentator, nor am I a professional campaigner. If the government does proceed with this model, it is up to the government to convince the Australian people to vote yes. My vote will be for yes, and I will be encouraging other people to do the same. It is very important that people over the age of 18 enrol now to vote. Everyone's vote has the same weight. The status quo has not been good enough, and that is why this issue is so important. Unfortunately, this has been treated more like a routine political issue than a constitutional reform. Ultimately, though, the government still has time to improve this bill and to build some more common ground. I hope they do, and, for the record, I will be voting yes. My view has always been that defeating a referendum on reconciliation cannot be in the nation's interests and cannot be in the interests of Indigenous people. Thank you. 20:15 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I would like to start by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, who are the traditional custodians of the land on which the Australian parliament meets. I'd also like to acknowledge the Yuggera and Turrbal peoples of Meanjin, my home town of Brisbane where I live and work. I'd also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of hundreds of nations around Australia, their elders past and present and their connections to the land, waters and skies. This country was invaded, and the First Peoples were violently dispossessed of their land. The sovereignty of First Nations people was never ceded. Successive governments at federal, state and local levels have perpetrated grave injustices since the initial invasion, and those injustices are ongoing. The legacy of colonisation lives in the lingering gap between First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians, a gap that's laid bare each year in the Closing the Gap report, a gap which is closing far, far too slowly. First Nations people are locked up and thrown in jail at a higher rate than any other group of people in the world. They are more likely to be incarcerated as children, and they are more likely to die in prison. First Nations communities have poorer health outcomes, higher unemployment and are more susceptible to the housing crisis. First Nations children are still being taken from their families. Cultural sites are destroyed for mining projects with barely a slap on the wrist. Consultation with traditional owners over resource projects remains tokenistic and exploitative, and destructive projects like the Adani Carmichael mine, fracking in the Beetaloo basin and highway expansions at Deebing Creek and Djaki Kundu press ahead despite the opposition of those who speak for country, all for the profits of big corporations. Systemic racism is embedded into the fabric of our laws, social policies, policing and media in this country and impacts every aspect of First Nations people's lives. First Nations communities have said all of this loud and clear for decades, for centuries—frontier resistance, tent embassies, Invasion Day rallies, the Bringing Them Home Committee and countless other advisory bodies. They've used their voice; we just haven't listened. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was an attempt to reckon with our past and to create a better future. It states: These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness. What the Uluru statement calls for is bold but ultimately simple: '…to empower our people and to take a rightful place in our own country.' Giving First Nations people, those who have survived, power over their lives so that their children can flourish, their culture can flourish and they can thrive—all this should be non-negotiable. I am proud to be the Greens spokesperson on women, and in that role I am keenly aware of the injustices that First Nations women face. I want to pay tribute to the First Nations women in this chamber, some of whom are participating in this debate tonight. First Nations women, as I hope we all know, are nearly more than eight times more likely to be killed and 27 times more likely to be hospitalised by domestic and family violence. They are more likely to be misidentified as a perpetrator in a domestic assault. The inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women, initiated by Senator Cox and Senator Thorpe, has revealed the shocking dismissal and underinvestigation of the abuse of First Nations women. I am pleased that the government has finally acknowledged the need for a dedicated First Nations action plan and a national plan to end violence against women developed by and for First Nations women. First Nations women know how to address the cycles of violence they experience and have been calling for action—we just haven't been listening. That's what is at stake when we are considering the Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. It is an opportunity to start the process of redressing centuries of injustice and to finally start listening to the voices of First Nations people. Critically, a Voice to Parliament is only one element of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, an invitation to deliver truth-telling, treaty and Voice. As the first party to endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, the Greens support progressing all of these elements. We support a Voice to Parliament, but it's but one of the three elements of the Uluru statement. They are intended as a package, to build the scaffolding for a stronger Australia. A successful Voice referendum later this year could be the start of change for First Nations people as we move towards truth-telling, treaty-making and self-determination. We have an opportunity to change things for the better with First Nations people throughout this nation—not just for First Nations people but for all of us. The Greens know that there will be no justice in this country without truth or treaty. Strong First Nations networks within the Greens, at both a national level and in my home state of Queensland, have made it clear that we must begin to tell the truth about the history of violence and dispossession that lies at the heart of this country. We must negotiate treaties with First Nations people so that we can forge a better shared future. The Greens are committed to working with the government to advance First Nations justice while listening to the concerns of First Nations people. We've called for progress of all of truth, treaty and Voice, but the government has chosen to proceed with Voice first. In that context, we want the Voice referendum to succeed, to lay the foundation for progress on each element of the Uluru statement. We want and we see Voice as the pathway to truth and treaty. The government must not take its eye off the whole package. Since the welcome commitment of $5.8 million to a makarrata commission in the October budget, there hasn't been real progress on truth-telling or treaty-making. With a successful Voice referendum, the pressure to act on that commitment must grow. Truth, treaty and Voice offer a historic opportunity to move towards First Nations justice and healing, to create a better Australia. So I am disappointed, but sadly not surprised, to see many parts of the coalition and others in this place seeking to derail the Voice referendum. They do that knowing full well that they're standing against advancing First Nations justice, they're standing against recognising and respecting the First Peoples of this nation and their culture. Rather than the path of listening, hearing and learning, they resort to the tired old path of racist rhetoric and dog whistling that has stood in the way of justice for so long. They're playing to fear and division and outdated conservative notions, appealing to those who have benefited from the colonial legacy and who see justice and equality as a threat. Thankfully the rest of the world has moved on. This country has moved on. We are ready to listen and to respect and to grow together. Unlike those in the opposition and One Nation, whose only trick is division, the community sees an enshrined Voice to Parliament for the opportunity that it is. Will the Voice alone fix a history of dispossession? Will it immediately lower the rates of violence or get kids out of prison? No, not on its own, but a successful 'yes' vote will show that we are capable of moving forward with purpose. And the Voice will inform the decisions that come next. It will ready us for truth-telling and treaty-making, to finally have the hard conversations that need to be had and to actually act in response, to implement the recommendations of the black deaths in custody report and the Bringing them home report and to actually close the gap, on all metrics. As the Greens spokesperson on democracy, I also want to take the opportunity to say that this referendum is itself an opportunity to improve enfranchisement, particularly for First Nations communities. This opportunity should not be squandered, and I once again call on the government to introduce on-the-day enrolment, to remove restrictions on voting for prisoners, to increase remote polling programs and to allow phone voting for those in remote communities, to maximise the number of people who can have a say on this nation-building reform. Lastly and most importantly, I want to thank the elders and custodians who have spoken to me about Voice. I thank the Australian Greens and Queensland Greens First Nations networks, whose representatives have met with me over the past year to discuss the risks and rewards of the Voice and their dedication to truth and treaty. I deeply respect your views and I hope that we can continue to work together in this ongoing fight for First Nations justice. We have much work to do in this country. Let's make sure the Voice is the pathway to truth and treaty, and let's move forward with hope in our hearts for genuine reconciliation and healing together. 20:24 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Six weeks after the Uluru Statement from the Heart was delivered, I was in the very privileged position of attending the Garma festival in north-east Arnhem Land. I was very lucky to watch the debate unfold, following the Uluru statement, amongst the many thousands of delegates who attended that conference. What was plain to me as I watched this unfold was that there was a tidal wave of change. While there was enormous debate, as a person who's watched trade union conferences, labour movement conferences and parliamentary debates for most of my adult life, I watched people like Marcia Langton, Pat Anderson, Noel Pearson and Dr Yunupingu argue through these issues at that remarkable festival, and I think, if Uluru was the place where this statement was delivered, the Garma festival was actually really important in building the case amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia that this was a really important reform—that this was a reform worth committing to and a reform worth putting the best part of a decade into, for change for Aboriginal people. I remember the late Dr Yunupingu gave a blistering presentation, including a welcome to the then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull. Yunupingu, of course, from his earliest days had been making arguments for his people, providing leadership to his people, in north-east Arnhem Land but also right across Australia. He was a confidant and an advisor to Prime Minister after Prime Minister. He was utterly clear that this was the reform—voice, treaty and truth—that was required to advance the position of First Nations people in Australia. That man contributed so much for Australia. 'Makarrata,' he said—'coming together after a struggle.' That is what the Uluru statement is about—voice, treaty and truth. You can draw a consistent line through my political party's, the Labor Party's, response from then to now. Then opposition leader Bill Shorten said at Garma that Labor would support a referendum on a voice to parliament. Following the 2019 election, Anthony Albanese said Labor would back the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, and I watched with enormous pride as the new Prime Minister of Australia in his election night speech pledged not just the Labor Party's support but the government's full support, unequivocal support, for the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full—voice, treaty and truth—and committed the government in its first term to a constitutional referendum to effect that change. It's a simple proposition, a generous proposition, that we as a country should not let slip away. It is a short and simple proposition. I think I heard one of my friends from the other side here make the argument that it was too short—that it only had 300-something words. Well, the Gettysburg address had 277 words. It will be that important in our national history if we can only achieve this referendum in 2023. It is the right thing for First Nations Australians. But on top of that it is the right thing for Australia, for a stronger and more confident nation, comfortable with the truth of our history, not prisoners of our past but owning our own past, facing the future together, confident in the knowledge that First Nations have a secure place in our future. We can't be a confident nation if we shirk or deny our history. Part of this history was struggle. There were hundreds of nations across our great continent, on islands and in waterways, for more than 60,000 years, passing down through thousands of generations stories, wisdom, art, agriculture, community and kinship, with songlines across our land. Our 60,000 years of history is one of our greatest national assets. It should be a source of pride, it should be a source of strength and it should be something that we teach our children at every opportunity. The truth is that 60,000 years of history was shattered by European colonisation. That is the truth. That can't be undone. We are a great nation, sure, but we must see the past as it is and put things right. Voice, treaty and truth are the pathways that have been set out for us. As Dr Yunupingu said: 'Makarrata is coming together after a struggle.' The truth is that 'struggle' is a very generous way indeed of describing what happened. Utter brutality is a much more accurate way of describing much of that history. I think it's worth Australians reading Peter FitzSimons's account in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age,over last weekend, of the Myall Creek massacre, an event that happened not too far from where I grew up. It's worth reading that account. Everybody should read it. If you're not much of a reader, listen to Troy Cassar-Daley singing 'Shadows on the Hill'—one of my favourite country songs from one of my favourite country artists—again, about a massacre that occurred not very far from where I went to school. These things are true stories. They are things that we need to understand in terms of our history. As I say, we cannot confidently approach our future if we don't have a proper understanding of our past. That is something we should approach with some confidence. I listened with interest to Senator Bragg's contribution just half an hour ago, and it struck me that there is much in terms of conservative politics and progressive politics that we can all agree upon: the role of institutions, the importance of constitutional arrangements, the importance of following the law and the importance of treating each other decently. It struck me that there is a very strong conservative case for 'yes', and I respect that there is a conservative case for 'no'. I understand that. But what I do ask is that when the cases are put that they are put honestly and truthfully and carefully and, if I might say it like this, that they are put with love for our fellow Australians, not with an intention to divide, not with an intention to belittle and not with an intention to make things worse. I've listened to Senator Price and Mr Mundine, who lead the official 'no' campaign, say that Aboriginal people don't support the Voice, that it's only academics and lawyers, that Canberra supports the Voice, as if there are no Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics and lawyers. It's actually untrue. In every survey that has been undertaken on this issue, more than 80 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders support the Voice. And we should listen to them. Senator Price and Mr Mundine claimed that the Uluru Statement was conceived by just 250 hand-picked delegates, but they miss or fail to mention that the process was designed and led by First Nations people and that delegates achieved broad consensus in a deliberative process that was a remarkable achievement for such a complex set of problems. If Senator Price and Mr Mundine had their way we would just go back to the way that parliaments too many times have dealt with requests for Indigenous recognition essentially to ignore them, to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians a form of recognition that they don't want and haven't asked for—in fact, have expressly rejected—and ignore the demand, expressed with such clarity and moral purpose, for a constitutionally guaranteed Voice to Parliament. This is constitutional catastrophising at its worse—a scare campaign with little basis in reality. What the constitutional debate will require, once this debate finally leaves this parliament and is handed to the people of Australia, is a discourse that's less about partisan politics and more about genuinely listening to each other. I have to say that I was deeply concerned about what I saw happen in the area that I grew up in in Tamworth when the 'no' campaign came to Tamworth. Some of the things that were said were utterly divisive, utterly cruel, utterly dishonest and completely unnecessary. The first Gomeroi person elected to Tamworth Regional Council, Marc Sutherland, attended that event as an observer. He said he was disappointed that the group chose Tamworth to launch the campaign and described the language used by the speakers at that rally as really dehumanising. He said the Aboriginal community have made it really clear that that kind of language, like 'real blacks' or 'true blacks', and describing Aboriginal people as 'them' or 'those people' is dehumanising and othering. It's that foundation of language that leads to this supposed superiority. When this debate gets out of this parliament we have to ensure that the debate is conducted respectfully, with decency and with the right values—with Australian values. That's what I want to see, and that's what my colleagues want to see. In one of the towns in regional New South Wales, in Bourke, the Maranguka Justice Reinvestment Project shows what a voice can achieve at the local community level. That project is remarkable. It has had incredible results, with re-offending dropping significantly, a 72 per cent reduction in the number of people under 25 arrested for driving without a licence, a 39 per cent reduction in drug offences and a 35 per cent reduction in driving offences. These are real achievements when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are given a voice. We want to bring to Canberra the spirit of that—the capacity to make that argument—in Bourke. That's what this is all about. Minister Burney was right when she said that this referendum won't be decided by politicians or lawyers but will be determined by the Australian people. This bill is one more step along that process. Of course it will provide for future constitutional referenda as they come up and as they are determined by the Australian government. The final thing I want to say is that we have democratic rights in this country and we also have duties. I think in the context of this constitutional debate we all have a duty to inform ourselves. If you're listening to this debate and you have not read the Uluru Statement from the Heart, you should read it. It's short. It's one of the best pieces of writing you will ever read. Read it. Understand what is being put. Understand what the arguments are here. Understand what it means for Australia. It's not just going to be good in social justice and democratic terms for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians but it is going to be good for making Australia a stronger country. The final duty of course is to enrol to vote. If you are a young person, particularly a young person in the country, you should enrol to vote. If you're a young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person in a community outside of the city, you should enrol to vote. Let's make sure there is a strong expression of community sentiment and a strong expression for social justice. I look forward very much to the passage of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 through the parliament. 20:38 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I too rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The proposal contained in this bill to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in our Constitution is not a proposal that I can support. However, I will support the passage of this piece of legislation because I, like the Liberal Party, will not stand in the way of Australians having their say on this really important issue. One of the key differences between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party is that we place far greater trust in the democratic institutions of our country, which is why we are concerned by the idea of transferring authority out of the hands of the people who have been elected to these institutions and hand it over to the courts, to people who do not represent the people of Australia. So, whilst we do support people having their say, we do not support the permanent change to our Constitution, because Labor's Voice is four things. It's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and, above all, it will be permanent. Australia's Constitution is our most important legal document. Every word can be open to interpretation. Therefore, enshrining this Voice in the Constitution means that everything that happens thereafter in relation to this power is open to legal challenge and interpretation by the unelected High Court of Australia. Legal experts themselves can't even agree on how any High Court will interpret such a constitutional change. In fact, no-one can say for certain what a future High Court will decide at all. The only certainty is that this Voice will open a legal can of worms. As Ian Callinan AC KC, former High Court judge, said, 'I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of the Voice.' No-one knows what a future High Court will decide, not even the experts. It's a matter of public record that even the government's own Constitutional Expert Group could not reach agreement on this very issue and that the Solicitor-General has conceded there is room for argument. That's why the way that Labor have worded the change also means that their proposed model is a voice not just to parliament but to all areas of executive government. That gives them unlimited scope, from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink or, in the words of a constitutional law professor, 'from submarines to parking tickets'. Former Justice of the High Court Robert French has even commented that the immense range of matters in which Labor's Voice model may apply means that the Voice would really make government unworkable. In effect, this change fundamentally undermines our Westminster system of democracy and, at the same time, provides immense uncertainty about the future machinations of government. The Prime Minister's Voice will wrap government administration and decision-making in a whole new level of complexity, and we know that more bureaucracy slows things down and that this change has the potential to render the government inert. A dysfunctional government is not in the best interests of Australia or Australians. Australia hasn't changed its Constitution by referendum since 1977. This is a massive decision. It is certainly not a modest one, which is why it is so concerning that Labor refuses to reveal any of the details before the Australian people go to the ballot box to cast their vote. The Prime Minister is asking Australians to vote on a voice without knowing how that voice will operate. In other words, he's asking Australians to sign up to a permanent change to our Constitution with some vague notion that the details will be revealed after the referendum. To reiterate the key point here: we currently have no firm details about how Canberra and Labor's Voice will work. Essentially Labor is putting the cart before the horse and, in doing so, treating Australians with great contempt. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution. They should not be asked to sign a blank cheque. So my message to the Australian people is: if you're not sure how the Voice is going to work—if you don't know—say 'no'. Another significant danger with Labor's proposed Canberra Voice is the destruction of the concept of equality of citizenship. I truly believe that the Constitution belongs to every Australian and that every Australian should be treated equally within the powers of our Constitution. But enshrining a body for only one group of Australians in our Constitution, as the Prime Minister is proposing, means permanently dividing Australia by race. The simple proposition of whether we are willing to divide our country in this way is something that we must examine closely. I don't believe that that's what Australians want. Importantly, we know that many Indigenous Australians don't want this split. At its core, the Voice is divisive. It will be a permanent, publicly funded group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people which has additional rights that will be embedded in our Constitution. Those rights will be to make representations to the parliament and executive government in relation to absolutely everything. This sends a message to Indigenous communities that they are different from everyone else and they will be treated differently forever, because, if this change gets up, it will be permanent. The Voice will be forever a symbol of division rather than an instrument of unity. And we should be bringing Australians together, not dividing them, as Mr Albanese seems intent on doing. Most importantly, dividing our country along the lines of race will not help the most marginalised members of our Indigenous communities. We all want better outcomes in this area. The coalition absolutely strongly supports this critical objective. But we know that enshrining a top-down, elitist Canberra voice isn't the solution. It will do nothing to help Indigenous community members on the ground who want to build a better life for themselves and their families. We know that having a Canberra based voice rather than regional voices seriously risks the need of rural, regional, and remote communities been completely overlooked. Despite with the Albanese government seems to believe, Canberra doesn't know what is better for those who are actually on the ground in regional, rural and remote communities. As a senator from rural South Australia, I understand firsthand how these challenges are often felt very differently in rural, regional and remote communities. Solutions often need to be addressed with flexibility and with innovative solutions that recognise the individual and unique challenges of these communities. To borrow a phrase from somebody else: 'If you've seen one rural town, you've seen one rural town.' Each and every one of our rural communities is unique and needs different solutions. But the Albanese government continues to prove that it only understands a one-size-fits-all, city-centric model which they continue to use as their approach to policymaking and decision-making. They don't understand the needs of rural, regional and remote Australia, and they've proved it again with the construct of this Canberra voice. But the dangers become more concerning when you consider the fact that labour's proposed voice, once enshrined in the Constitution, will be there permanently. It cannot be easily undone once it's enshrined. Interpretations cannot be overruled once the High Court makes a decision. Australians will be forever tied to the negative consequences of the Prime Minister's voice. When it becomes evident that it is not resulting in better outcomes for Indigenous communities, when it becomes clear that the Canberra based body is not effectively representing the interests of the unique rural, regional and remote communities across Australia, it will remain as a permanent feature of our government, our Constitution and our democracy. That is why we on this side of the chamber are so concerned by the way the Prime Minister is trying to portray this decision as no big deal, a modest change and something that should just be waved through almost on the vibe. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are talking about a fundamental and complex change in the way that we will be governed in Australia. This is a very big deal, and to pretend otherwise is not only disrespectful to Australians but disrespectful to our democracy. This will change our country and the way it is governed forever. But there is a better way forward. Both parties of government recognise the need for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We recognise that there is a place in this country, too, for bodies to serve as voices for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. But they should not be a top-down, elitist voice out of Canberra. We believe in the importance of having local regional voices, as was recommended by the co-design process led by professors Tom Calma and Marcia Langton. These would be bodies embedded in local communities and regions, established at a grassroots level and recognised by legislation. They are the potential engine room for real change on the ground because they would be tailored to the needs of each and every one of our unique communities. Importantly, they would recognise the unique differences between rural, regional and remote communities and those in metropolitan areas. We know that the concerns of Aboriginal communities in the Central Desert are vastly different from those that are facing Cape York. It's disappointing that Labor has chosen to reject this alternative approach in favour of a risky, untested one that will be locked permanently into our Constitution. Labor believes that Canberra knows best about what local communities want, but the Coalition understands that remote communities know what's best for them. To summarise, it is clear that those opposite are only going to provide greater uncertainty. We have a prime minister's Canberra voice that will contain significant risk, as well as uncertainty about how the High Court will interpret it, and, if carried at the referendum, it will be permanent. For these reasons, I, like most of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, do not consider that the proposal in this bill should be adopted. But I and my party have made our position clear: we support the Australian people having their say. 20:50 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise in support of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I know we acknowledge country in the morning, at the start of the Senate, but it does seem fitting to acknowledge that we are on Ngunnawal country, an incredible part of the world that has been looked after for tens of thousands of years. As an immigrant to this country, having moved here 20 years ago with my family, I am incredibly grateful for the opportunities that it has afforded me and will always be grateful for that and seek to contribute. Having grown up in Zimbabwe, a country that by the time I was born had undergone independence, was grappling with decolonisation—at times, in a messy way—but was trying to find a way forward, I've been struck again and again by the generosity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here. They're still welcoming people to their country after the brutal history of colonisation, knowing that we're one of the only developed countries—if not the only one—without a treaty and that we still do not have recognition of Australia's First Peoples. There is a strong argument that we are not responsible for the things that happened—you're not responsible for the things that your ancestors did—but what we are responsible for is the kind of future that we're building, and I really believe that the centre of that, given our history, has to be reconciliation. This does require change. I agree that if it ain't broke don't fix it, but we need to face up to the fact that it is broken. Decades of governments on both sides of politics have grappled as best as they've known how to try and deal with entrenched disadvantage in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and we still see the gap reported every year. This is a huge moment in our history. We are at the point where we have decided as a country that we will go to a referendum to vote on whether we believe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Australia's First Peoples, should be recognised in our Constitution and whether or not those same people across the country should have a say on the laws that affect them. It seems a straightforward proposal to me. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was the result of one of the biggest consultations and deliberative democratic processes in our history. It is a powerful statement and it is a generous offer to Australians: to find a way forward together, to walk together in a way that allows First Nations people to have a say on things that affect them so that we can start to deal with the issues that we talk a lot about here in the Senate. To quote the Uluru Statement from the Heart: With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia's nationhood. This is a step on the road to reconciliation. This combines the deeply symbolic act of a nation changing its constitution as well as the very practical way of beginning to deal with the entrenched disadvantage we see in communities across the country, by consulting. People know their problems better than anyone else. When you listen to people, when you consult, you get better outcomes. We hear so many senators having a go about the lack of consultation on this or that piece of legislation. This is an opportunity to ensure that we do have that consultation when it comes to an issue that we have failed to address. On the point of making representations, it's been disappointing, after the committee process where it seemed so clear to me that there was overwhelming evidence from constitutional lawyers and experts that this was sound wording. As I've seen many times, the government is not obliged to take advice, but certainly a lot has been made of that. From consulting with Ngunnawal people here in the ACT, and with other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, there is a deep desire to see this referendum succeed in terms of what it will mean for our country. We have to acknowledge how tough this debate is for many people, and we'd really like to call out some of the misinformation that we have seen thrown around: the fearmongering. This is an opportunity to make the case for an Australia that is committed to addressing this challenge. Ngunnawal elder Aunty Violet Sheridan said: 'We need to make change. We need to make a difference. Think about the next generation and the next generation. I want my great grandchildren to walk beside their friends and not let them see that there's a difference between us. We are proud Aboriginal people, proud First Nations people, but we are also proud Australians. So let's work into the future to make a difference. Please support this yes vote because it will make a difference to my people. I'm 68 years old. My eldest granddaughter is 27. Will she be 68 when her granddaughter is standing beside her, and nothing has changed?' I'm hoping the Voice will empower communities and that the government will sit down and listen. This year, as a country, we have a chance to be part of building something together. I commend this bill and urge my Senate colleagues to be part of a new future that we can chart together. We know that the decision on the Voice will be up to the parliament, so the claims of lack of detail are disingenuous. This is about ensuring that we don't see what's happened to the other seven Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations that fell at political whims. This is about ensuring that we are committed to listening. What the Voice looks like will be up to the parliament, as it should be. And that will hopefully change as we learn better ways to actually consult. We should be proud, as a country, to have the oldest continuing cultures in the world. We're facing some very big challenges here in Australia when it comes to climate change—the ecological crisis that we're seeing. As a country, we need Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous wisdom more than ever. In this debate we have an opportunity not only to recognise Australia's First Peoples but also to actually truly begin to listen. It really doesn't seem like you often get to speak on something that can truly change our country not in a matter of days or weeks but over years and years and years. We have an opportunity to start to address the many issues that we talk about here and the many more issues that we don't even know about. I thank the Senate for this opportunity, and I would encourage Senate colleagues on all sides to keep the debate grounded in fact. Remember that there are a lot of people watching this debate, and this affects their lives. This affects the experiences that they are having in their communities. 21:01 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia In the debate this evening and over recent days on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, much has been said about the amendment before us, the nature of it and the detail within it. I don't intend to use my time this evening to go through that. What I want to say tonight to everyone in this chamber and beyond is that history is calling us now. History is calling us, and we have an opportunity to make it. We have an opportunity ahead to respond to a generous offer that came out of one of the most extensive consultations we have seen in this country—a generous offer to walk together towards a more united and reconciled future. We have an opportunity before us to be part of a story that will mark a step change in the way our country chooses to heal itself, and we need healing. If we're all honest with each other, we know we need healing. The Voice won't always be easy to listen to. It will lead to some uncomfortable truths. That's the whole point here, because if the things we know we need to do to fix the challenges before us that we're all aware of after year after year of Closing the gap reports which have told us these truths—the work to fix those challenges—were easy, then it would have already been done, because I don't think there's been any shortage of goodwill in these chambers or in government. There's been no shortage of good intent or good people. But it hasn't been enough. We all know that. We all know that that goodwill, that intent and every investment that has been made haven't been enough. It's always easy to talk yourself out of acting and out of change. There are plenty of reasons we can all find in life to not do something, particularly something hard. Change takes courage, and we need to have some courage here because we know what the risks are, indeed what the consequences are, of not acting. We know what inaction looks like. It looks like continuing to let Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children down in the worst possible ways. It looks like far too many Aboriginal people incarcerated, far more than the rest of the population. It looks like our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters dying almost a decade before the rest of the population. And it looks like everything else we read year after year in the Closing the Gap reports. We can no longer accept this. In good conscience, we cannot accept this. I genuinely believe that in their hearts Australians want to move forward together towards a more united future, a more reconciled future, because we know that our past has darkness within it. But our future can be lit up with lights. We can do that if we choose to walk together on a different journey on a different path. We can do that if we open our hearts and minds, if we respond to the deeply generous call of the Uluru Statement from the Heart to Voice, to treaty and to truth. This bill starts us on that path. I commend this bill. I support Voice, treaty and truth, and I want to use this opportunity to encourage every Australian, as they come to a decision later this year on the referendum, to be guided by open hearts and open minds. Together we can do better. We can do better to right the wrongs of a history past. We can do better to take a different path towards a more reconciled and unified future. But we cannot do that without a step change. There is a generous offer on the table to do different—open hearts, open minds, hand in hand—to light up a different and better future for this nation but only if there is change. I commend the bill. 21:07 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. When this debate concludes, I will be voting for the bill, not because I support this constitutional change; I don't. I think it is constitutionally dangerous and wrong in principle to treat Australians differently in our foundational document. But it is right that the Australian people should have their say, and I don't wish to stand in the way of that. This has sadly become a divisive and contentious debate. It did not need to be this way. There were other pathways available to the government, if they chose them, pathways that could have led to consensus and bipartisanship and virtually guaranteed success for the referendum. I'm not just talking about constitutional recognition, which polls show has overwhelming support, and for which Peter Dutton has offered bipartisan backing on behalf of the Liberal Party, because, although permanently enshrining a Voice to parliament and the executive is where this debate is ending, that is not where it started. It is useful to consider the recent history of this issue that some advocates appear to no longer want to talk about. It was not that long ago that many of today's most prominent Voice supporters were passionately arguing for a very different change to our Constitution, and they were right to do so. At Federation, the framers of the Constitution decided to include a race power, section 51(xxvi). Reading the debates from the 1890s at Federation conventions is discomfiting to say the least. Many of the people who are celebrated for helping to bring the Federation into being expressed views that would be an anathema to every Australian today. Edmund Barton, our first PM, said, at the 1898 convention in Melbourne, that our new nation needed a race power so that it could 'regulate the affairs of the people of coloured or inferior races'. Alfred Deakin, our second Prime Minister, responded 'Here, here' to another delegate, who said that the policy agreed at the 1888 conference restricting Chinese immigration did not go far enough. In its initial form, this power did not apply to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The target of this provision was clearly migrants, especially migrants from Asia, who were subject to extensive discrimination by the states relating to their employment as miners during the gold rush. As Professor William explains: Aboriginal people were not subject to this section. However, this was not because they were to be protected, but because it was thought that the Aboriginal issues were a matter for the States and not the federal government. That changed in 1967, when Australians agreed to amend the Constitution to permit the Commonwealth to make laws relating to Indigenous Australians. The sentence 'other than the Aboriginal race in any state' was deleted from the Constitution, and the race power enabled the federal parliament to enact laws relating to Indigenous Australians for the first time. While the sentiment of the 1967 referendum was clearly not discriminatory, that was the intent of the framers when they included a race power in the Constitution at Federation, and now Indigenous Australians were subject to it. This was considered by the High Court in the Kartinyeri case in 1998, which related to the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act. The law was upheld despite a challenge arguing that the race power could be used to the detriment of Indigenous Australians. As Professor Anne Twomey argues: If one accepts that in 1901 the power to make laws with respect to the 'people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws' included the power to make laws that discriminated adversely against those people, then the textual amendment in 1967 did not, on its face, limit that power to one to make beneficial laws. It's clear, then, that the race power as it stands today can be used to discriminate against Australians of any race, including Indigenous Australians. It is not the only reference to race in our Constitution. Section 25 set out the consequences if a state excludes people from the right to vote based on their race. It's hardly surprising that many Australians have argued that we must fix this. Chief among them have been many of today's most prominent advocates for a voice. Professors Marcia Langton and Megan Davis, writing in 2012, said: Two provisions that have had racist consequences remain. The race power and Section 25 are remnants of the racist sentiment of the Constitution developed in the 1890s at the end of the colonial period. They also said: … we should recommend that Australians be asked to agree to remove Sections 51(xxvi) and 25 from our Constitution because of their outdated racism. In 2012, the then co-chairs of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, Mark Leibler and our now Senate colleague Patrick Dodson, wrote in their report: It became clear to the Panel during the course of its work that Australians have increasingly rejected the concept of 'race' as having any place in the Constitution. Their panel recommended that the race power be removed. Noel Pearson in the Quarterly Essay in 2014 argued: The Race Power, section 51(xxvi), allows the Commonwealth to pass special laws for so-called races in Australia, whether positive or adverse. It therefore empowers parliament to infringe our liberty on the arbitrary and unjust basis of race. He went on to say: How can a liberal democratic constitution still allow race-based laws against its citizens? How can it still contemplate barring citizens from voting on account of race? The truth is the founding fathers abandoned liberal democratic principles with respect to race. It was an error reflecting the thinking of the time, but it needs to be rectified. The Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, chaired by our former colleagues Ken Wyatt and Nova Peris, in 2015 recommended that section 25 and section 51(xxvi) be repealed because: … the committee believes that the continued presence of these sections is at odds with a modern Australia and does not represent Australian values. The popularity of this change to the Constitution waned after 2015 and it was not a feature of the Uluru Statement from the Heart or the work of the Referendum Council afterwards. It is true that there are reasons to be cautious, as both Professor Williams and Professor Twomey have warned. There are today laws and programs of the Commonwealth that are beneficial to Indigenous Australians that may hinge on the race power, such as native title, but surely we are capable of thinking of other ways of preserving these without keeping a provision in the Constitution which we would all clearly agree is racist. How many of us, if we were involved in drafting a new constitution for Australia today, would support the inclusion of a race power? While we would all hope that no future parliament would use it to adversely discriminate against Australians of any race, the only way to guarantee they can't is to remove it. There are those, including my friend Senator Bragg, who thoughtfully argue that it is the existence of the race power which justifies the creation of the Voice. If there is a special power to make laws according to some people's race, they should at least be consulted on it, they argue. But surely we can do better than that. Surely, if we agree that it is wrong in principle to treat people differently based on characteristics which they cannot control, like their race or their heritage or their ethnicity or their ancestry, the best thing to do is to stop doing so, not to double down on it. Even after this referendum takes place, even if it is successful, our Constitution will still contain an anachronistic, outdated and offensive reference to race that rightly outraged many of the Voice's most prominent advocates less than a decade ago. This is not a view that I have come to recently. I have long believed and publicly argued for many years that in our modern, pluralistic liberal democracy there should be no place for race in our foundational document. Although I am a constitutional conservative and I do believe our Constitution has served our democracy remarkably well since Federation, this is one change that I would enthusiastically support and campaign for. While there is enormous goodwill among Australians for the advancement of their fellow Indigenous Australians, the goodwill for this referendum proposal is clearly fading fast. It is already dividing us. The more Australians learn about it, the less they like it. They doubt that it will deliver the practical changes that we all recognise are necessary to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. They are increasingly concerned about the constitutional risk posed to our Westminster system of government. It is not too late for the Albanese government to change course. The Prime Minister has warned us of the consequences if this referendum were to fail. Now that polling demonstrates that it might, if he truly believes his own warnings, he should act. He could go back to the drawing board and seek bipartisan consensus for constitutional change which is genuinely unifying. It could correct the wrongs of the past and give Australians a Constitution that we can all be proud of. I hope he seizes on that opportunity before it's too late. 21:17 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. This bill seeks to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and to provide for the establishment of a new constitutional entity called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. This will be put to a referendum of the Australian people. First, I want to put some facts on the table. Australia is a settler-colonial society built on the dispossession, murder and ongoing abuse of First Nations people. It is built into and ingrained into systems and structures of this country. As a migrant, I have an obligation to break the cycle and build an antiracist society. We stand on ground that belongs to someone else and was taken from them forcefully and violently. I will be voting yes to the Voice, but it should be the start of driving the structural changes and genuine self-determination rightfully demanded by First Nations people, not another unfulfilled promise. The Voice is important, but it is definitely not enough. I can see why some First Nations people are nervous when they see some of this country's most gruesome groups supporting it—Woodside, Rio Tinto and the Minerals Council of Australia. I understand why people are wondering what the agenda of these big mining corporations is. Their very business model is built on the destruction of Aboriginal heritage, as they dig up climate-destroying fossil fuels as if there is no tomorrow. Ultimately, here's the thing. First Nations people have been speaking out, resisting and fighting for justice for a very long time, but they have not been listened to. The colonial structures and the systems of discrimination and racism are all stacked against them. So it is time to listen, but, much more importantly, it is time to act. I hope the Voice can be the start of that action. Many First Nations people—people I deeply respect—have questioned the ability of a representative body that has no teeth to be able to create the big changes needed to make the difference. Will it be another body that will be ignored by the government and paid lip service to? Will it be a body that makes people feel they've done something without actually changing a thing? These are very valid questions. There are other First Nations people who I have spoken to who have told me the Voice will move us forward as a nation, that it will start to address past and present injustices, that they have been waiting for some positive change for a very long time and that they need this. The Voice can be the start of change, but the Labor government must show that they are pushing all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Voice is just one of the three pillars; truth and treaty need to be progressed. The groundwork for treaty needs to be laid right now. I want to see more focus from this government on treaty and truth-telling during this term. These have the most transformative potential to redress the injustices of the past and to build a future where First Nations people have their rights, their self-determination and their sovereignty. What excuse, really, does the Labor government have for not implementing all the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody or the recommendations of the Bringing them home report? There is no reason why all this cannot happen in parallel. Australia has a colonial past and a bloody, racist history that is tainted with dispossession and violence, but this truth has been stifled for far too long. If we want to heal this country, we need to reckon with the truth about who we are and how we came to be. We do need to reckon with the fact that the race power in the Constitution was very clearly intended to allow the Commonwealth parliament to enact racially discriminatory laws and has its basis in disgusting views of white supremacy. There are no two ways about it. It is undeniably racist. We need to reckon with the fact that among the first pieces of legislation ever introduced to Australia's federal parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act which formed the basis of the White Australia policy. The sentiments of the White Australia policy continue to inform our nation's deplorable treatment of First Nations peoples, refugees and asylum seekers. Given that sordid history, it is pretty disgraceful that the Liberals, their leadership especially, have been perpetuating this myth that the Voice will create two classes of citizens, with First Nations people being at an advantage. This really makes my blood boil. Look back in history and it's right there in black and white, literally. The two classes of citizens were created when the colonialists forced their way in and ripped land away from the sovereign owners. The two classes of citizens were created when the race power was enacted. The two classes of citizens were there when the White Australia policy was agreed to by the federal parliament. That's what divided this continent, and the Liberals continue on with their dog whistling again and again. They are the ones who want this division to keep going. That's what some of them are best at, appealing to the worst in humanity. We need to recognise that this violence, oppression and discrimination against First Nations people has never actually ceased. It continues to this day in the settler colonial systems and the structures of our country. The depth and breadth of prejudice against First Nations people is still rooted in law enforcement, in societal attitudes and in institutional systems. It will take significant and ongoing political will and commitment of resources from successive governments to achieve real and lasting change. Truth, Treaty, Voice, have to go hand in hand. Treaty is a peace agreement. It's how colonial nations like Australia move forward. Shamefully, though, Australia is one of the only Commonwealth countries without a treaty with First Nations people. Treaty was promised by Bob Hawke's Labor government in the eighties, and yet First Nations people are still waiting and fighting for treaty. There is broad community support and momentum for change; we know that. Labor should use this moment to make a tangible difference in the lives of First Nations people by progressing truth and treaty at a national level, just as Labor governments have already started to do at state and territory levels. Now is the time for federal Labor to show courage, to show leadership and to show ambition. Let's finally remove the shackles of colonialism, move to treaty with First Nations people and cut ties with the monarchy, to become a republic. And let's remember, no matter where we are in this country, we are on stolen land. Sovereignty was never ceded. This is, always was and always will be Aboriginal land. 21:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales To assist the smooth running of the chamber, I indicate that I intend to keep my remarks quite brief. On the streets of Sydney, in the years before the outbreak of the Second World War, few women, let alone Indigenous women, had much of a voice. Pearl Gibbs was one of the few who did, speaking in public and political forums like Speakers' Corner in the Domain. She was born in La Perouse and she had moved as a young woman to western New South Wales. However, in 1936 new legislation expanded the power of the Aborigines Protection Board, and she experienced most directly the coercive and controlling powers of that institution and its impact on her and on the communities in which she lived. So, in the late 1930s, she returned to Sydney and she devoted herself to activism. She worked in the Aborigines Progressive Association and she spoke publicly about the need for change. In 1938, in one of her many speeches, she said this: 'Ladies and gentlemen, I am an Australian. I have lived here all my life. I love my country and I love its people. I wish something more for them than riches and prosperity. I wish for their greatness and nobility. A country needs be great that is just.' Like Pearl Gibbs, I am a proud Australian. The truth is that Pearl Gibbs had more reason than most to understand that loving this country does not mean pretending that it is perfect or maintaining a wilful blindness to its past. My firm belief is this: to be a proud Australian means to see this country with open eyes; to love this country is to devote yourself with courage and decency and tireless work to make it better. And Pearl Gibbs did that. She worked all of her life for recognition and justice for First Nations people. She was part of the campaign that saw success in the 1967 referendum, and that is part of her legacy—her legacy of courage and patriotism. The referendum that will be enabled by the passage of this legislation is as much about our history as it is about our future. In recognising the past, we can declare today and into the future that we are united in our determination to build a common community on the land that we all share. Thousands of histories are woven together in this community: migrants from around the world who turned to Australia for a better life, those sent here against their will and, of course, our First Nations people, who have loved this land since time immemorial. No matter how we arrived, all of us share this same continent and we share a common future, and the richness of our diverse histories only enhances that future that is within our grasp. From all walks of life, patriotic Australians have worked to make this country better, to unite people, to advance and defend democracy, to improve our standard of living, to protect the land that we love. Together we are building on this continent a society for which there is much to be proud and which few match—an open, vibrant, successful, multicultural democracy with a continent to ourselves, a home unparalleled in natural beauty and the oldest-living culture in the world. For those of us who want to see the Australian nation fulfil the aspirations, the decency and the courage of our citizens, our work is unfinished and there is much to do—not least in improving the material conditions of First Nations people. Pearl Gibbs was right: justice begets greatness but greatness requires justice. And, for First Nations people, justice requires recognition. Through this referendum, I am confident we will take the chance to demonstrate the greatness of this country found in the courage and the quiet decency of our fellow Australians. 21:30 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I rise tonight to speak against the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. In the explanatory memorandum of the bill, one of the stated reasons for the amendment to establish an Indigenous voice to parliament is 'in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia'. Labor says the Voice is about recognition. The suggestion is that anyone who disagrees with them simply doesn't respect Indigenous Australians or doesn't want to acknowledge the unique hardships that Aboriginal Australians have endured—something that Australia, it must be said, has already done to a great extent. This is standard practice for those opposite. They rely not on facts, evidence or arguments to prosecute the case, but on vague sentimental rhetoric designed to guilt-trip people into agreeing with them. And if you don't support amending our Constitution, they tell us, then you must oppose recognition, meaning there is something deficient about your character. This is a shallow tactic. Many Australians, including many Aboriginal Australians, oppose the Voice precisely because they care about Aboriginal people and their communities, which I will get to later on. Simply put, the 'yes' case is little more than a national guilt trip. Indeed, the way the Voice debate has played out is now indicative of how political discourse has deteriorated in this country as arguments become less about truth and the common good of Australians—and constitutional amendment surely affects all of us—and more about virtue-signalling identity politics and empty rhetoric that disguises the intentions beneath. Speaking of rhetoric, the proposed wording of the constitutional amendment which Australians will vote on is as follows: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:    (i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;    (ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;    (iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. Let's run through these three points sequentially. First, the constitutionally enshrined body that would be established by the upcoming referendum would be a permanent feature of the Australian government and of society, if the referendum passes. Unless a future government were willing to hold another referendum to remove the Voice—which is going to be very difficult task—the Voice would be here to stay. Let me be clear: what Labor hopes to achieve is to permanently entrench an Indigenous bureaucracy into our Constitution. They could, if they wished, simply create another bureaucracy to accomplish whatever it is it was imagined the Voice would do, which remains a mystery. In fact, the South Australian state parliament has already established a state voice, proving that constitutional amendment is unnecessary for achieving the Voice's stated goals. But the purpose of this constitutional amendment is not to achieve meaningful outcomes for Aboriginal people but to ensure that this Canberra based bureaucracy is permanent. Even if one supports the creation of this body, it's clear that constitutional amendment is unnecessary and dangerous, as I'll explain shortly. This raises the question of why the Voice's permanence is so important to Labor. Does Labor already have some ideas in mind regarding what they wish to accomplish with the Voice? For example, consider Western Australia's recently passed Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 which will come into effect from 1 July. The act's stated purpose is: … about valuing and protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage and managing activities that may harm that heritage. That sounds lovely, but what does it really achieve? The answer is all kinds of arbitrary and tedious bureaucratic impositions on farmers regarding what they are and are not allowed to do on their property. The act creates an extensive set of everyday farming activities that WA farmers will now require permits for from the newly established Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Council. One WA farming website described it in this way: Everyday Farming acts like Scarifying, Seeding, Delving, Deep Ripping, Shed Building, Drainage work, Fencing, and even pulling out a dead tree stump will require a permit to do so. Any ground disturbance to a depth of 50mm is included. It is reported that it will cost the state government $77 million to implement over the next four years. To allocate the permits, a series of Local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Service … offices will be established across the state. This is bureaucratic overreach at its most absurd and frustrating, and all in the name of protecting heritage. The WA government is attacking farmers under the guise of local Aboriginal issues. This is a taste of the kind of thing that will be imposed on farmers from a federal level if Labor's permanent Voice is enshrined in our Constitution. I guess we'll just have to wait and see as we haven't really been told by Labor what the Voice is meant to achieve or what it's even meant to focus on. There's no reason why this body even needs to be constitutionally enshrined, unless Labor already knows that the Australian people would reject the Voice if they actually understood what it was there to do. There are existing Indigenous bureaucracies, such as the National Indigenous Australians Agency as well as non-governmental bodies such as Reconciliation Australia, whose stated mission is to close the gap. Why, then, does the Voice require constitutionally afforded protection? It makes no sense unless the government has other intentions. Second, we're told: … the Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples … To quote Warren Mundine, I don't know of any issues that don't affect Aboriginal people. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are citizens of this country, so every law, every part of the Constitution affects Indigenous people. It's a great point. So what exactly is the criteria for whether a matter is relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? The proposed amendment might as well read, 'The Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth on absolutely anything.' Every law, policy point and action of government in this nation relates to Indigenous Australians because they are citizens of this country and Australian citizens. Again, what are we to expect from the Voice? Given that all matters relate to Aboriginal and Indigenous Australians in some way, the scope of its function of making representations is unclear. Will members of the Voice be making representations to the Treasurer on economic policy or managing inflation? Will they be making representations to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy on the importance of renewables and shutting down fossil fuel projects? Will it make representations to the Minister for Education about the need to cease teaching students about Australia's colonial history? Will we simply have no idea? It's almost as if Labor is seeking to create a permanent body that will be able to influence and control the parliament and government on every issue in the name of Aboriginal affairs. As Peter Dutton has rightly written: … no issue—the economy, national security, infrastructure, health, education and more—would be beyond its scope. Now, supporters of the Voice might well respond to that by saying that if the Voice's members were to do so, then it would lose all credibility. I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that it would continue to exist on taxpayer funds because it has been permanently entrenched in our Constitution. This would mean we have a body we cannot get rid of if things were to go bad. The worst-case scenario is that we would have created a permanent bureaucracy that will pester government and the parliament on every single matter, wasting taxpayer funds, disrupting the parliamentary process, doing nothing more to help Aboriginal people and working towards agendas that we currently know nothing about. And given the woeful history of organisations like ATSIC—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—which drifted along from 1990 to 2005, I'm inclined to believe the latter is more likely and that the Voice is a Trojan horse for Labor's other plans. Indeed, the Voice does seem to be little more than ATSIC 2.0, back with a vengeance, seeking to be bricked into our Constitution. You may recall that ATSIC was riddled with misuse of taxpayer funds and other scandals as its former head continued to be embroiled in legal troubles. When it came to selecting those board members, Indigenous Australians were asked to elect people from regional councils, who then elected ATSIC's national board of commissioners. Few Indigenous people voted in those regional elections, meaning that ATSIC was controlled by a relatively small group of people. One 1993 report on ATSIC stated: 'Of the few Indigenous people who did vote, many voted for their own families.' So the people elected came from the biggest families, and so a small select group of voters elected a small select group of representatives to have control over enormous amounts of money. It sounds rather like the 35 local and regional voices being proposed to represent districts across the country who would then elect the 24 members of the national Voice. One can easily see how the Voice, like ATSIC, will end up being controlled by a small group of people rather than genuinely representing Aboriginal people. The third point is: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. The Australian people are expected to vote on something that is subject to change and which they aren't being told the details of beforehand. We are being asked to support embedding an Indigenous bureaucracy into our Constitution so it's permanent, yet its composition, functions, powers and procedures—in other words, literally every aspect of it—are subject to change. One can only speculate about what this will look like, given every aspect of it is subject to change. Suffice it to say that Australians simply don't have enough information to cast an informed vote. What they are voting for today will almost certainly look radically different from what they well imagine. If you don't know, vote no. It is as simple as that. And it's clear that nobody, including the Prime Minister, knows where this will end and what this Voice will end up being. As the Prime Minister has affirmed, the Voice is part of the government's implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which is an activist document that claims that so-called Indigenous sovereignty—whatever that actually means—co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. Why is Labor throwing its weight behind a concept that there are two Australias: one Indigenous and one non-Indigenous? Does it mean that somehow we are going to end up with two separate nations? When you think about it, it is very strange that there many grassroots organisations covering a huge section of interest groups, from farmers to feminists, and they don't require constitutional amendment or millions of taxpayers' dollars to represent them in parliament. They roll up their sleeves, they organise members themselves and they get on with it. One wonders why this isn't the case with the Voice. I doubt, for example, we will be seeing a Balkan, Italian or Indian voice to parliament any time soon, and one wonders why. The idea that we need a permanent bureaucracy which only people of a certain ethnicity can be members of is dubious enough. However, it is made all the more so given that we don't know how the potential members will be established. Earlier this year I asked the Attorney-General's Department to explain how legitimate Aboriginal status would be determined for eligibility into the Voice, and nobody, it seemed, could explain that to me and, seemingly, nobody ever can. Nobody seems to know what this is comprised of anymore. My guess is that that trend will continue if and when this proceeds. The Prime Minister has stated that it would be a very brave government who disagreed with the Voice's recommendations. We know that this race based card is very, very powerful. We have to stop letting people abuse it in the tone of the debate and call them out for hypocrisy. Polling suggests that, as time passes, fewer people are supporting this, with support gradually waning over the last few years. I don't believe I've heard a single outcome being proposed by Labor or the Greens regarding the Voice. The entire 'yes' case has really been nothing more than sentimental rhetoric about recognition, representation, reconciliation and so on. When it comes to closing the gap, we need to start asking serious questions about the root causes of the issues. I know my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price has very worthwhile insights into such matters. I would suggest that those opposite take the time to listen to her voice in this debate sooner rather than later. Whatever Labor's doing here, it won't achieve anything of value or importance for Indigenous people. I think we all know that. Deep down, Australians know that what is needed in our Indigenous communities is not the opinions of more highly paid bureaucrats but genuine, grassroots action carried out at the most personal and local levels. If Labor's referendum is successful, it would likely achieve the creation of a permanent leftist bureaucracy that would presumably be used to push other agendas in many years to come. The Voice, in my view, is a Trojan horse for Labor's big-government agenda. That's why I will be voting no not only to this bill in this place but also to the referendum, should it pass. I encourage my fellow Australians to do the same. (Quorum formed) 21:48 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The majority of our country's history is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history—over 60,000 years of rich history—and it is our humanity and our duty that has brought us to this point in this chamber to pass this reform. The Constitutional amendment would recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia in the Constitution through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. This would fulfil the first request in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which the government is committed to implementing in full. This is not too much to ask, like some may have you believe. This is about acknowledging the oldest living culture in the world in the founding document of our country. The fact that this is not already the case is a blight on all past Australian governments, on our national identity and on our national discourse. The constitutional amendment is: Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. This constitutional alteration will allow for the establishment of an enduring voice that will make representations to the parliament and to the executive government about matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The alteration also provides a broad power to the parliament to legislate for the day-to-day operations of the Voice and the interactions with other entities and bodies. It would also empower the parliament to make laws specifically whether and when an executive government decision-maker has a legal obligation to consider the Voice's representations. This bill is the product of robust and detailed commendation by the Referendum Working Group, the Constitutional Expert Group and within government. There has been a broad national conversation about recognition and enabling government all the tools to improve outcomes in Indigenous communities. As a government, we believe the Voice will hopefully best achieve such positive outcomes. The bill reflects the working group's advice to government. In light of these very clear and simple facts about how a voice to parliament would operate, Mr Dutton's prejudiced posturing must be called out for what it is. His federal coalition opposition towards the referendum has been deliberately crafted to engineer anti-Indigenous fear, prejudice and division within our society for his own selfish political gain. His shameless use of right-wing populism and his emotionally charged rhetoric in a desperate attempt to scaremonger voters is not based in any factual reasoning and needs to be rejected by the Australian community. In the face of his dog whistling and concerted disinformation campaign about establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice, truth must never be sidelined, and it has to be restated. Constitutionally recognising First Nations people does not take away rights from any other Australian. Let's be clear: no special rights are being granted based on race, because Australian Indigenous people are not defined by their race. Being the original inhabitants of the Australian continent before British colonialism, Australia's First Nations people and their culture have vibrantly thrived here for tens of thousands of years. We have recognised this clear reality since the 1992 Mabo decision from the High Court, and Mr Dutton should not try and should not be able to succeed in turning back the clock and cynically denying otherwise. What a voice to parliament would instead do is allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be heard on issues that are at the forefront of their communities, plain and simple. There's nothing to fear. With Indigenous Australians suffering from heartbreaking disparities in their health outcomes, basic economic wellbeing and a generational curse within our criminal justice system, something must change. That change must start with us, and this will only start with something as simple as listening. Mr Dutton wants to have his smear campaign in this referendum both ways. Somehow, according to him, a Voice to Parliament is ineffectual and will fail to address priorities on the ground for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but, in the same breath, he casts the modest invitation from the Uluru Statement from the Heart as an all-powerful and villainous proposal that will encroach on all domestic and foreign political discourse. I think the previous speaker from that side of the chamber only reinforced that here tonight. We should all see this nonsensical fearmongering for what it is and reject it outright. Pure fearmongering should never succeed. We will never forget that this is the same Mr Dutton who cynically thought that boycotting former prime minister Kevin Rudd's Apology to the Stolen Generations would earn him political favour by appealing to our worst instincts. History was not on his side then, and Australians should not be on his side today. A Voice is a form of constitutional recognition called for by over 250 First Nations delegates to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The whole purpose of the Voice is to amplify the voice of First Nations peoples from communities and regions, on matters that affect them. Listening to the Voice when we make and legislate for change and develop policies will improve the lives of First Nations people, but it will also improve the lives of all Australians. It will help us to close the gap—the gap that we've been talking about for generations. We achieve better outcomes when we work in genuine partnership with First Nations communities. So we really have nothing to lose. We have nothing to fear. We must try, because First Nations deserve better. Australia deserves better. Government after government have failed Indigenous communities, and this is the opportunity for change. The constitutional amendment ensures that the Voice will have an enduring, independent, representative body that cannot be taken away by politicians. It empowers the parliament to legislate about the day-to-day operations and functioning of the Voice, allowing it to evolve over time—again, nothing to fear. The design principles for the Voice which the Referendum Working Group developed and agreed will inform government's design of legislation to establish the Voice. Ultimately, it will be up to the Voice to decide when to make representations on matters that are important to First Nations peoples. The Voice will not need to wait for an invitation. Parliament and the executive government will also not need to wait for representations from the Voice before making laws or decisions. The Voice's representations would be advisory in nature. I think I need to emphasise that: the Voice's representations will be advisory in nature. So, to all those naysayers and critics of the Voice, I make this very clear: the parliament and executive government will not be bound by the Voice's representations. The Voice will complement and enhance the existing structures of Australia's democratic system. This reform is fundamental to our nationhood and to progress on the opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be the best versions of themselves—to be what they want to be. I want to acknowledge my colleague Senator Pat Dodson for his immense contribution in this place and to the people of Australia. He's walked a life journey embodying grace and forgiveness at the highest level. I urge this body and Australians of every stripe to follow Senator Dodson's example and walk on a journey towards lasting recognition with First Nations people. The unifying invitation of the Uluru Statement of the Heart to recognise Indigenous Australians in our Constitution by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament represents an unbending opportunity for every single Australian to walk along that path. We've spoken and heard other comments from the contributions about closing the gap. First Nations people have a shorter life expectancy. First Nations people have the worst health outcomes of all Australians. First Nations people have a lower education attainment than most Australians, and they are overrepresented in our jails. So, quite clearly, what we have been doing for decades and decades has failed First Nations people. When we fail our First Nations people, we fail all Australians. We are a multicultural country. My great, great grandfather and my great grandmothers had no choice in coming to this country. They, too, were migrants. We welcome with open arms refugees to this country. We welcome migrants like my husband's family to come and to afford them the opportunities to be the best people they can be. However, no matter how well-intentioned, we have not in the past been able to provide the policies and resources and we have failed to provide those same opportunities for our First Nations people. We really, as I have said on a number of occasions, have nothing to fear by voting for change. I urge all Australians to consider whether they want a truly inclusive Australia. Take the time, I urge you, to consider the choice you have when you are asked to vote later this year. Again, I remind you, we have nothing to fear from voting yes. However, you can finally be able to be part of change, the change of righting the wrongs of the past by recognising our First Nations people in the Constitution. I'm proud to be standing here in this chamber tonight with my fellow senators, my fellow First Nations representatives in this great chamber, to be part of a Labor government that is introducing history-making legislation. I'm very proud to be part of that change. When we vote on this bill, it is only the beginning that is so long overdue, but much more still needs to be done after we pass this legislation. Change is never easy, but we must have this change. We can do better and we must do better to give Voice, Treaty and Truth. I urge everyone in this place and my fellow Australians, when you get the opportunity to vote yes to the referendum be part of changing Australia for the better. I commend the bill to the Senate. 22:03 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I rise tonight to also speak on this utmost significant bill, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I find it challenging on many levels to do so, because there have been very good words and it's been a very good debate, and I am aware that I identify as a European Caucasian male that has never walked in that path. But it's a confronting thing. There were a very good words and some very good things. Some of the things I will say are not what I would like to think of myself at times, but they are authentic, and I will say them. In my view, this bill is dividing our nation and the best thing for it is it not be put. Whether the polls are right that say it is losing or the polls are right that say it is winning, they are all showing that there is an almost equal divide between the Yes and No camps. Twelve months ago when I came here, starry eyed and full of dreams, this was not where I wanted to be, and I think this bill sums up a lot of things that I think are going on down here. There was strong support, I think, across the chamber for recognition. I think a recognition bill voted on by 90 per cent plus of Australians would have brought Australia together. I think it was a great opportunity to heal some wounds. If the Voice in itself was something that could fix many problems—all the problems—I think it would be a different conversation. But I think this is another step in not having answers to the many problems. So we divide Australia. We either enshrine—and let's not say we're racist—some racism in Australia or we build resentment in Australia, and that is not a good thing. As I said, I would like to be better, but sometimes I feel the resentment. I've experienced it in regional towns, when this is the only country that I've ever lived on—the only country I've ever lived in—and up to five times a day I am welcomed to it. There is a saturation level where that becomes problematic for me. I will say that. When I sit in the chamber of the Australian parliament and there are three flags here and only one can ever accept me, that is confronting to me. But I accept the problems that go on in regional communities. When we went out with the Nationals, we saw some truly horrific conditions and some truly horrific things. There are many problems that rural and remote Aboriginal communities face. It is not just dislocation from culture or a change in their life that has been forced on them but also geographical isolation from hope, and that is as much to blame as anything here. Everything that is said about lower life expectancy is true, and it's true what's said about lower outcomes in life and higher crime. I think I said in one of my first speeches here that, if I were so far from anywhere and I had money, time and nothing else, I certainly wouldn't be where I am today. I doubt I would have stayed out of prison, and I doubt I would have stayed out of pubs—I doubt all these things. But many of the communities I've spoken to, many of the people I've spoken to, have spoken about this on-the-ground local action, these regional voices and money getting to the places it's needed, not industrial, city based action. If you're in the city, you have these things. You don't have the isolation, you have some opportunity and you have greater diversion and things. All those things exist; in the bush, they don't. We see that, and I want to fix that. I want to fix that for Aboriginal Australians not because they are Aboriginals but because they are Australians. I will say that this referendum will go down the line of racism or resentment, and we are better than that as Australia, as a Senate and as a parliament. What disappoints me is that there were plenty of opportunities not to get here. There were plenty of opportunities to take everyone on this journey. The Voice could be legislated. I get the fact that it wouldn't be enshrined in the Constitution—I get that and understand that—but it could have been. We could have come together with recognition, and we could have shown that we are a better nation. We could have shown so many things. But this is my authenticity. We've all heard some great words—they're better than I could deliver—but this is my problem. I will give some words, as I said to many people, next week about my first 12 months here and what I know, what I feel and what I see, and I think our parliament terms are too short. I think that we often take the sugar hit of the short-term fix, of the populistic end of the wedge—of all these things in policy. I've worked in campaigns. It was my job to get people elected, it was my job to bring the governments down and it was my job to put people up. I didn't think it would be my job here to do that, and I think I'm trying to act better than that here. I know I can do those things; I'm just trying not to do that here. But here we are, and a decision was made not to have a constitutional convention where we could hash things out and find common ground. A decision was made to link the Voice to recognition. A decision was made to sit until the wee hours of, probably, Saturday morning to get this through. I'm told—maybe reliably, maybe not—that we are going to dispense with the roll call as is the norm for constitutional votes for the absolute majority. This is not the way it should have been done. These journeys have to take people with us. On these journeys we have to take Australia with us, and we haven't. It's not the fault of anyone; it is the fault of everyone. We stand here today about to pass something that will make our nation worse. It may make the lives of some people better. I get that. I accept that. But there are also other ways to do that. There are better ways to do that. When I go out there, I see programs that work. I see Blackrock industries, where they take Indigenous Australians who have served time and train them in skills and put them in the mines. They have a four per cent recidivism rate. It's great for people. This program has problems getting funding year on year. I see money going to projects that I'd class as whitefella guilt. We can't fix the problem, so we throw money at the problem. We know it won't make a great difference, but we do it so we can feel a little better. We don't address the real problems. We don't address these things. In my maiden speech, I said that we live on an old land but we are young nation. We are making many, many mistakes as we grow. We can learn things from our First Nations people, if we do it together. This doesn't do that. I place great faith in the democratic institutions of our country. I am honoured to be here. I wanted to be here so that, when a big decision was made, I was in the room—and I feel I am doing that today. That is an upside. But on such an issue that has such grave concerns going forward, on such an issue that will divide us and won't make our nation as a whole better, it's a sad day. I am coming up to my first 12 months here and, as an overshare, due to my disappointment in what I've been able to achieve in my first 12 months I am going to see a psychologist for the first time since my divorce because I am feeling that I am part of something not achieving. That's a problem. This change, despite what I hear the other side say—and I know we've all got our marching orders, but I am talking from the heart here—isn't fully disclosed. They have high expectations of what it could do, but there are risks. It is not risk free. More information may have made it better. More information may have given us a chance to flesh out what we truly agree on, which is more than we think, and make this better. But enshrining in the Constitution one group of people for any reason is wrong. I get that I have had white privilege all my life. My family love me. I was supported. I get that 100 per cent. That's why I am where I am. At my high school in Newcastle, we had Kirinari lodge up the road and people coming to school from Lightning Ridge and Walgett in western New South Wales. There were great boys. Ashley Gordon, among the first signings for the Newcastle Knights, came through that program. I saw some of the problems that they experienced too. Among the sporting few at the time, they were in our basketball team. There were in our rugby league team. I got selected for zone largely because I had Ashley Gordon standing outside me and, whenever I passed him a dodgy pass, he went through a gap before I knew what had happened, so I looked good. But I saw the struggles. I saw walkabouts or them going missing. I saw huffing. I saw the stress that these guys were under and I saw their lives. I see that still in communities that we turn a blind eye to. Everyone talks about Alice Springs. Everyone talks about all these things. But, as I've said, if you have nothing to live for, why wouldn't you take those risks? Because this is so unknown, the fear is real. People who talk to me in my community—I don't say 'fear mongering'; we always say there is nothing to fear but the unknown, and there is so much unknown in this. We have something in the Constitution that is permanent and something in the Constitution that isn't well disclosed, and I don't think anyone will stand up here and say it will fix all of our problems. It will fix some of them, and, to me, to risk the Constitution in that way is not a good thing. I am far from a constitutional lawyer. I think law 101 was the best three years of my life at the University of Newcastle! There are dissenting views, as there are on every legal opinion. Enough money will get you the right opinion. When there is no consensus on matters of law, I would err on being safe over brave, and this does not do that. There are all of these things, and we have evidence from former justices of the High Court Robert French and Kenneth Hayne. They concur that implying a duty to consult across a wide range of matters would make government unworkable. I don't know how unworkable it would be, but it would be harder, and I don't know how effective it would be. I come back to my core belief, my core position, on this. It's not the talking points of the government or the opposition or anything like that. We are here today talking about changes that hurt Australia. And the worst possible case for Australia, and I think unfortunately the most likely one now, is that this is put and this goes down. We're not talking about that here; we're talking about when what this does when it gets up. Just think of what it does to First Nations people and think of what it does to the country when it goes down. These are political points now. By not disclosing or by not having the convention, by linking it together—not an A and B, here is recognition here is this—cognitively, it has been set up knowingly. I get that. It is a wedge for our side. I 100 per cent understand why it was done. If you were going to win 60 to 40, I get it. Well done. But that is not the case anymore. It is real, and we have to start looking at real things if this goes down. If anyone gets up and says that would be a great outcome for Australia, I would be amazed. It might be a great outcome for some politicians here or some politicians there, but it's not a good outcome for Australia. I wish I had better words. I wish I didn't have to disclose some of my own weaknesses, as a person who has not walked in those shoes. But I cannot vote for this. I beg anyone listening from government to pull this bill. (Time expired) 22:18 The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Cadell. I'm going to give myself the call. I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, the traditional custodians of the place we now call Canberra. I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging and to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people watching this debate today. I recognise the strength, resilience and capacity of Australia's First People, and in that spirit of reconciliation and respect I look forward to working together to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, including a constitutionally enshrined voice to our national parliament. Towards the end of this year, all Australians will vote in a referendum to determine whether a voice to parliament can be enshrined in the Constitution. The framework for a voice to parliament is not an invention of this government and nor is it a new ask. The process for constitutional recognition was agreed across the parliament and created by a co-design process. The final outcome of that process was a meeting at Uluru of 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates, who met and agreed on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I want to start by quoting from a piece of the Uluru Statement: Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are alienated from their families at unprecedented rates … And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers … These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness. Upon his election last year, Prime Minister Albanese and the entire government accepted this generous invitation, the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and we have committed to implementing that statement in full. The Voice proposal is about two things: firstly, to recognise the unique status of our First Nations peoples as the original owners and inhabitants of this land; and, secondly, to recognise that, after generations of being silenced and ignored in our country's founding document, specific measures are required to raise First Nations voices and ensure that they are consulted on issues that affect them. As Noel Pearson stated earlier this year in his first Boyer lecture: Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians is not a project of identity politics, it is Australia's longest standing and unresolved project for justice, unity and inclusion. As a Western Australian senator, I've held many meetings across the state. Many First Nations and community leaders have attended these forums. We've had full and frank discussions about what the Voice is and what it isn't. In these meetings I've heard the views of many, from cultural leaders and elders to young people, stolen generations and non-Indigenous people. Despite the many differences between groups who attended these meetings, common themes emerged, once again described so eloquently by Noel Pearson when he said: Let me point out what is incontrovertible: Australia doesn't make sense without recognition. Until the First Peoples are afforded our rightful place, we are a nation missing its most vital heart. One of the incredible women who has become part of this journey is Narelle Henry, a proud Noongar yorga living and working on Whadjuk country and General Manager of Ember Connect. She has shared her heartfelt endorsement to the Voice to Parliament. I want to add her words to the Hansard for this debate. Narelle said: The outcome of this referendum will affect me, my daughters, my nieces, aunties and communities for the rest of our lives … I think about the outcome of the referendum every day. This will be just a day for most Australians, but for me and my family and so many of the people that I love and care about, we will wake up the next day forever changed by the outcome of the nation's decision. If there is a negative outcome, I'm not sure that I could ever recover, but if it is positive, it means I can let the hope that occasionally creeps in stay a while and grow, with the knowledge that my daughters will not have to bear the weight of carrying a banner, like their mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers. That the Australian people have chosen collectively to make history, which means my babies can enjoy a life of choice, that they are seen and heard as equals on a land in which their ancestors nurtured for thousands of years … Your vote means a lot. My life and the lives of my loved ones will never be the same following the referendum. I met a respected leader at a Mandurah forum earlier this year. She also described a terrified feeling for the day after the referendum. She asked me: 'What if we lose?' The hope and fear so touchingly voiced by Narelle and others is shared by First Nations people, and it stays with me every day. I have many First Nations people who are my dear friends. My granddaughter is Gidja, and her family were stolen from Warmun and, after two generations, are still piecing together their family history. All of my First Nations friends and my granddaughter have been victims of racism. I find WEH Stanner's remarks, in his 1968 Boyer Lecture as he describes racism, heart-wrenching. He said: Australians hold and express strong views about us, the great proportion of which is negative and unfriendly. It has ever been thus. Worse in the past but still true today. In his Boyer lecture, Noel Pearson makes a bold claim of which he is most convicted. He said: … racism will diminish in this country when we succeed with recognition. Daniel Morrison, my granddaughter Charlee's uncle, whose bloodlines flow from Noongar, Yamatji and Gija clans, came with us to Waroona to hear from locals and to answer their questions and concerns about the referendum. Daniel told the group he'd thought long and hard about what he wanted to impress upon the people on that day. In the end, he said it was what was most important to him, his moort, his family. Daniel comes from a long line of fierce advocates, leaders and role models, the experience of many First Nations people who have attended our forums. Daniel told us about his grandfather Arthur. He enlisted and fought for his country in World War II. He was captured and held as a prisoner of war for three years on the Burmese railway. These soldiers were Australian heroes and yet Arthur was never recognised as an Australian hero. On his return to Australia he was still unable to vote, still excluded from stepping inside the Perth CBD and still not able to have a beer in the same pub with the men that he had fought alongside. He spoke about these experiences publicly and never stopped fighting. This notion that recognition is somehow new is false. Many First Peoples have laid out the processes to get to where we are today. Once again Daniel shared a very early Western Australian experience. In 1928, a deputation of leaders selected by the community met with Premier Philip Collier to voice their concerns about the Aborigines Act of 1905. This included Daniel's great-uncle, Uncle Wilfred Morrison, who was a member of that deputation. As a non-Indigenous person, I know my role is to speak to as many people as I can to ensure a successful result in Western Australia and to use my platform to confront and challenge the misinformation being shared from the 'no' campaign and, sadly, by some parliamentarians in this parliament. I hope that every Australian is able to make an informed decision on how they will vote. When asked about his concerns about the success of the Voice referendum earlier this week on the radio, Thomas Mayo—I'm sure he is well known to all of you here as he's a campaigner from the Uluru Statement from the Heart—said: 'I know there are lots of lies and misinformation out there from people that are interested in seeing us defeated. The false argument about a racial divide is just that: completely false. This is about an Indigenous people that were here for over 60,000 years before colonisation. This isn't about race. In fact, decisions are made about Indigenous people as if we were a different race. That has been happening for hundreds of years and now we are seeking simply to have input into decisions that are made about us. Then we want to be heard. It's a unifying thing. It's about listening. It's about ensuring that we finally let go of that burden from our past and hand over to the next generation a better future where we accept that we have such a wonderful and great culture that makes us unique as Australians, and this is our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and culture.' I want to make clear in my contribution, for the benefit of Australians watching, that this is not a political issue. In passing the constitutional alteration legislation, we are giving Australians the chance to change our Constitution, to stand on the shoulders of generations of change makers. That decision will sit with each and every Australian on the day that we go to vote on the referendum. I will be supporting the Voice because it's time to recognise 60,000 years of continuing culture and it's time to ensure that our First Nations people have a say in matters that affect them. I want to do justice to the voices of Narelle and her family, to Daniel and his family, and to my granddaughter, Charlee. I want them to have a future that is just as important and for them to be listened to in the same way that I am. The Voice, if successful, will allow us to continue our reconciliation journey as we face our past and look forward to a future. I hope that as a country we will vote 'yes' so that we can implement the generous invitation of the Uluru Statement of the Heart and move forward in a confident and unified way. I'm very sad now. I rarely cry, and I cried earlier this week when Senator Patrick Dodson sent a message to us. I miss him deeply. He's a great warrior. He's called the 'father of reconciliation'. So I am dedicating this contribution to Senator Patrick Dodson, who said: 'Reconciliation means that we walk together towards a better future. My hope is that the Voice referendum this year will be Australia's greatest act of reconciliation. Let us deliver a successful referendum for a Voice that will be heard across the generations to come.' Senate adjourned at 22:30