2023-06-15 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 15 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 Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023 1

Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria We are here on Ngunnawal country, and I acknowledge the First Peoples of this land and pay my respects to them. Sovereignty has never been ceded by the peoples of this land nor by the First Peoples of the land I want to take you to. A few hundred kilometres to the south of here are the lands and the forests of the Bidawal, Yuin, Gunaikurnai and Monero Ngarigo peoples in East Gippsland in Victoria. When I was in my 20s I got to know the tall, wet forests and some of the totems of this country really well—incredible animals, including greater gliders, yellow-bellied gliders and powerful owls. These forests shaped me significantly and helped me feel and understand how we all exist as part of the web of life. In my first speech in this place I recalled my work as an environment campaigner from those years. I said: I … fell in love with the forests of East Gippsland. I experienced their beauty and learnt everything I could about their ecology; their wildlife; their values for tourism, for water and as carbon stores; and about the impacts and economics of the forest industries. I became a leader of the East Gippsland forest campaign, working with hundreds of thousands of supporters, and we had some big successes. The wonderful rainforest and huge eucalypts of the Errinundra National Park in the catchment of the Roger River are protected because of our campaigns. But, despite the support of over 80 per cent of the population and despite the significance and value of these forests, neither Labor nor the coalition are willing to commit to protecting them. In my speech I also recalled the first time I visited a forest that had recently been clear felled and burnt on the Errinundra Plateau. It was early 1984, and I said: I can still vividly picture the smouldering stumps of trees hundreds of years old. These trees would have needed a dozen people arm to arm to encircle them. The forest was destroyed, and I was appalled—not just because of the loss of the forest, the potoroos and spotted quolls, but because it was all so unnecessary. The forests were being logged not because we needed the sawn timber but for export woodchips, with minimal employment in their processing. I worked as a forest campaigner into the 1990s. The ongoing sellout and betrayal by the Labor Party and the Liberal Party on forests and the hypocrisy of Labor, who claimed to be concerned about nature, animals, birds, climate, water and First Nations heritage, yet allowed industrial-scale destruction of some of the most biodiverse and carbon-rich environments in the world, were pivotal in my decision to throw myself into being one of the founders of the Greens in 1992. From then on, I kept on campaigning to protect our forests—one of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. Over decades we have campaigned on how destructive, how uneconomic and how illegal logging of our precious native forests is, pointing out that we don't need to log our forests for wood supply, that almost 90 per cent of wood produced in Australia comes from plantations now and that the potential of farm forestry and urban forestry is huge. Then suddenly, last month, four decades on, things in Victoria changed. The Victorian Labor government announced that native forest logging would end at the end of the year. The announcement has been celebrated across the country. Victoria is joining Western Australia in ending logging at the end of the year, and New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania will be next. The end of logging in Victoria is a victory for all the dedicated grassroots organisations who have been calling for this day for over 40 years. It's a victory for First Nations heritage and culture. It's a victory for the many threatened species and all of the other wildlife that call our forests home. And it's a win for the climate. Logging in Victoria was a huge driver of carbon emissions. It is genuine progress to see an end to logging in Victoria and Western Australia, but there's so much more to do. We need to end native forest logging in the other states, and this bill ends the regional forest agreements that allow this destructive logging to occur. The alternative, if we don't pass this bill, is that native forest logging continues in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, with devastating impacts for First Nations communities. When governments heedlessly damage forests through destructive logging, they are destroying First Nations heritage, with devastating impacts on our wildlife. There are over 1,300 plant and animal species that live in forests that are listed as critically endangered or vulnerable, including the critically endangered wollert, or Leadbeater's possum, swift parrots, Tasmanian devils, koalas, long-footed potoroos, gliders, owls, gang-gang cockatoos—the list goes on. Forests also have incredible benefits for water supply. Logging impacts the quality and the quantity of water available. And protecting our native forests has massive carbon benefits. Native forest logging increases carbon pollution at a time when we need to be doing everything we can to combat the climate crisis. Logging of Tasmania's forests emits almost five tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. In New South Wales, that figure is four tonnes. We also know that, when we preserve and protect our forests, there are economic benefits across our communities. As part of realising those economic benefits, we have to ensure a just transition for workers and communities out of native forest logging. The Greens have called for greater support for just transitions, including through a national transition authority. Just transition assistance should be provided to communities and workers affected by job transitions, towards sustainable industries. There are so many potential jobs—in plantation based timber, in ecological restoration and in pest animal and weed control, and in tourism. A key part of Australia's appeal in the international tourism market is our reputation as a place where visitors can be inspired by unique ecosystems and see incredible wildlife that is unlike any anywhere else in the world. Sadly, Labor has been missing in action when it comes to what's needed for protecting our environment. The nature repair market shows how far they've gone wrong. We don't need a green Wall Street; we need urgent, genuine action by government. We need investment in our forests. It's estimated we need to invest in the order of $2 billion a year in ecological restoration to halt the extinction crisis. And we need urgent action on the climate crisis, rather than the half-hearted efforts so far. Our forests are at increasing risk because of our heating planet. We are in a climate emergency, and our forests are on the front line. There is no time left. Who can forget the massive swathes of forest burnt and the two billion animals killed in the Black Summer fires three years ago? With the next drought, the next El Nino event, we can expect to see more—much more—of this devastation. Of course, protecting our forests enables them to keep growing, keep on soaking up and storing carbon and fully contribute to restoring a healthy, safe climate for us all. In conclusion, I commend this bill to the Senate, but I don't expect it to have the support of either the government or the opposition. Sadly, both parties at the federal level are still back in the Dark Ages, unable to recognise what needs to happen to allow our forests and our wildlife to flourish. But I can tell you that campaigning to protect our forests is going to continue until they are protected. And I know that eventually the federal government will see the light and will follow the lead of communities and the governments of Western Australia and Victoria, and that this bill, or a bill like it, will pass through this place. For the sake of our forests, I hope that happens today. 09:10 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria The government does not support this bill, the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023. Unfortunately, it's another political stunt by the Greens political party that shows, again, they are far from understanding the considerations necessary for being a responsible government for Australia. It's another example of their endless addiction to putting social media clicks ahead of consultation, consideration and meaningful environmental reform that responsibly balances community and environmental impact. The bill just ignores a whole lot of real-world factors and considerations that a government would ignore at its own peril, if we supported this bill. This government is anchored in the real world, so that's what we are doing with our environmental reform agenda because that is the strategy we took to the last election and that is the mandate the government has when it comes to environmental protection. Professor Graeme Samuel's 2019 review into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act showed us the EPBC Act is outdated and requires fundamental reform: Australians do not trust that the EPBC Act is delivering for the environment, for business or for the community. I take that to mean our current framework isn't getting the balance right between nature and the environment, and the industries and communities that rely on the longevity and sustainability of our environmental and natural world for their economic prosperity. That's why the government released the Samuel review into our environmental protection framework and responded to it with the government's Nature Positive Plan. These actions show you that Minister Plibersek is committed to rewriting environmental laws to better protect the environment and also to giving certainty to communities and the industry. What that does not mean is that the government is going to steamroll into communities, as the Greens and this bill would have us do, and start dictating to them exactly what they should think and do. It might come as a surprise to the Greens, but government doesn't work that well that way. You have to consult with people, you have to bring people with you and you have to explain change in a way that people hear you, and you have to persuade them. That's not what this bill does. The bill fails to acknowledge the native forest industry requires careful consideration and consultation. It's an industry managed across various Australian jurisdictions. It has impacts on workers and communities, and so requires a more thoughtful approach than this bill proposes—which is not what the Greens are proposing here. But I suppose there are no surprises there; consultation is not the Greens' political style. This bill doesn't adequately acknowledge that this very issue is already being addressed by the government. Part of the Nature Positive Plan released by Minister Plibersek is a commitment to getting everyone on board the national environmental standards to existing regional forest agreements. As they currently stand, regional forest agreements exist as long-term agreements with four states and set out requirements for sustainability and conservation of native forests. There are 10 agreements in total in commercial and native forest regions—five in Victoria, three in New South Wales and one each in Western Australia and Tasmania. Many of these agreements have been in place since around the year 2000. When they were implemented, they ended a history of dispute over forest use and were underpinned by the principle that Australia's forests should be managed for everyone. Back then the Commonwealth's role was to coordinate a national approach to integrating environmental, social and commercial interests in native forests. It did not happen overnight; there was widespread consultation to identify government obligations, regional objectives and interests, and broad forest uses as well as the nature and scope of the forest assessment. The process also included areas of forests that needed protection and which parts could be used for commercial purposes. The assessments also determined what the forests meant to the industries and the people in each region, including Indigenous Australians. This is a process of government and it's what managing complex issues and balancing interests looks like. It isn't particularly sexy; it can be laborious. But it is necessary to getting a sustainable long-lasting result. This approach to government seeks to bring people along with you, which is not something I would expect the Greens to understand, especially given they have never actually been in government. Instead, the Greens are seeking to throw away those useful and productive agreements and flatten the whole process to suit their agenda. As usual, the Greens are ignoring everyone who doesn't 100 per cent agree with them. That consultative and coordinated roll that the Commonwealth played in establishing those original agreements has not changed, and that is a good thing because that is what the Commonwealth should do. However, the time has come to revisit those agreements and make sure they are updated and fit for purpose in contemporary Australia, which is what Labor is doing. This is especially important after 10 years of neglect from successive coalition governments that not only ignored Australia's environment but also treated our natural world with outward contempt. Currently, the government is consulting with industry, regional communities and those states that have regional forestry agreements about updating and applying new environmental standards to those agreements. These environmental standards will be stronger and better reflect the changes in the forest industry and environment protection practices. We are doing that consultation work with the flaws of the environmental protection framework at the forefront of minds and with a keen awareness that, in fact, a sustainable renewable forest industry also acts as a net carbon sink for Australia. Native forests are valuable stores of carbon. In 2020 alone they sequestered 39 million tons of carbon dioxide—that's not a small amount at all. It is also worth pointing out that Australia's forestry product industry underpins the economic prosperity of many regional communities. The sector contributes nearly $24 billion to the national economy per year. Forestry jobs are also good jobs if the industry is managed properly and constructively, and they are sustainable in the long term. Currently, about 51,000 people are directly employed in the industry. Beyond the economic interests of regional communities, and like many primary and agricultural industries, forestry also underpins the social networks and fabric of many regional towns and communities. I've seen this myself when travelling around Australia as part of the Senate committee on rural and regional affairs and transport. I don't profess to be an expert on agricultural industry policy, but anyone who has spent five minutes in regional areas that rely on agriculture or primary industry realises how important these things are to local identity and as a source of pride as well as a source of jobs and incomes. That is something I often think the Greens party ignore or forget. They come into the Senate and try to pull off these political stunts by putting up something extreme. They are neglecting the fact that there are families that they haven't spared a thought for that would have been directly impacted by this legislation. I want to confront the allegation that Labor's been missing in action on the environment. That is just not correct. I want to put some facts on the record that point out the government's record on the environment and its reform agenda. As I alluded to earlier, after a decade of nature neglect by the Liberals and Nationals, Labor is now doing something on reforming our environmental protection laws. Even when they received reports showing Australia's natural environment was in trouble and that environment protection laws needed reform, not only did they do nothing about it they didn't even release the report to the public. In contrast, the Australian government under Labor has committed $1.8 billion in the most recent budget to protect the Barrier Reef, to protect native species, to clean up waterways, to fund the Environmental Defenders Office and employ a thousand new Landcare rangers. Something that has also become very close to my heart in the environment portfolio is the ongoing campaign to protect the unique biodiversity of Macquarie Island, which sits far south of the mainland—halfway between Tasmania and Antarctica. This rocky outcrop is an incredibly diverse and interesting place, home to 13 different species of seabird as well as fur seals and elephant seals. The Albanese government wants to make sure Macquarie Island, along with all of its unique inhabitants, is protected and preserved for the future. That is why Macquarie Island Marine Park will triple in size, adding an extra 385,000 square kilometres to the high-protection area. This is an area the size of Germany. The Albanese government is acting on the environment, just like Labor governments before it. We are making substantial changes and improvements not for social media likes, retweets or shares but for long-lasting changes for the better of the environment. Again, the government will not be supporting this bill. 09:20 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I've never actually participated in a debate on a forestry bill before where we've talked about a marine reserve! It was quite interesting to hear Labor's plan to turn Macquarie Island Marine Park into a forestry reserve! It was most interesting. And then we pivoted straight back to opposition to the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023, which I do commend the government for. The opposition won't be supporting this bill either. It is bad legislation based on nothing more than emotion and ideology, and not on science or fact, as I'm sure the minister and his colleagues—no matter how many references to marine parks are in their speeches—would agree. The reason this bill is bad is that it doesn't take account of, as Senator White mentioned in the relevant part of her speech, the fact that there are families that are impacted by decisions of this nature. There is an economic outcome of such decisions. There is no contemplation of this at all, despite the speech given by Senator Rice. I have to commend her for her consistency, although it's completely in the wrong direction and completely based on emotion and those sorts of unicorns at the bottom of the garden, rather than on the facts around what impacts these decisions will have. We only have to look at a recent decision by the Victorian Labor government, which I don't think Senator White referenced in her speech. The Victorian Labor government, which talked about being the friend of the worker and supporter of the regions and in the corner of those doing it tough, back in 2019 made the decision to phase out native forest logging, an entire industry. This is an industry which is sustainable, which is world's best, which actually is good for the environment, particularly when you look at the situation, globally, when you look at other countries what they do. They go ripping trees out of the ground and don't replant. They displace human populations and endanger populations of threatened species. That's what they do in many of the overseas jurisdictions from which we import timber. In Australia, we don't do that. We actually abide by world-leading, science based standards which are good for the environment. In Victoria, the Labor government, against the wishes of the CFMMEU, shut down this industry. In 2019, they said, 'We'll do it by the year 2030.' Just a couple of months ago, they turned around and said: 'You know what? We're bringing that forward by seven years.' Why? No-one knows. For what purpose has this decision been accelerated to such an extent? We will never know. But that is an absolute abrogation of their responsibility to the people that they represent in that state, the thousands of workers who depend on this industry. Premier Andrews and his government, in partnership with the Albanese Labor government, have turned their back on that industry. I find it passing strange that that didn't make it into the first government speech on this bill. Across our country we have over 134 million hectares of native forests. On an annual basis, 0.06 per cent of that area is harvested. That's six out of every 10,000 trees. If you listen to the rhetoric that's put out there in the malls and the city streets of our built-up population areas, you'd think that we were ripping millions of hectares out every day and displacing native species and endangered species, but, no, we're not. Six trees out of every 10,000 are harvested annually, and then, as is required by law under these nasty regional forest agreements which have ripped the guts out of our environment, if you listen to the Australian Greens, this land is regenerated—by law. Under law, these trees are replanted so that they can be harvested again so that we can have a continual flow of access to this vital material. Almost exclusively, I might add, these trees that are being harvested have been harvested before. So this is this whole renewal thing—as the industry calls it: the ultimate renewable. Of course, in Australia, we have certification. We're proud of our industry. Again, it's backed in by science and is sustainable and world-leading compared to the rest of the world, where 80 per cent isn't certified. It comes back to this fundamental point. The Greens say that this is an environmental imperative, we must protect the environment by shutting down native forestry, we have to do it. The thing is, by shutting it down here in Australia, by doing what has irresponsibly been done in Victoria, and Western Australia I might add, we're just offshoring our demand. We're sending our demand to jurisdictions where, as I've already said, they don't care about the environment. They don't care about what happens to those endangered species. They don't care about the impact on the environment at all. They don't care about what that might do for carbon emissions. They don't care about what that does for bushfire management. They don't care, and you don't see it. It's not happening here in our backyard; it's happening somewhere way offshore where we don't have to worry about it. That's a good thing, that's a good outcome, as far as the Greens are concerned. Of course, that's what this bill would do. Although I do understand, based on the contribution of Senator White, that this bill wouldn't actually prevent native forest harvesting from occurring in this country; it just would mean it's subject to assessment under the EPBC Act, so doesn't actually end native forest harvesting, it just means it has to be approved in a different way. Demand isn't going to disappear for this product, because you can't just swap out native hardwood that we use in so many applications. In this chamber I often refer to the beautiful timbers that line this place. You wouldn't be able to use radiata pine to create the wonderful pieces of furniture—the staircases we go up and down in our houses, the window frames. Those sorts of things don't come out of softwood plantations, and, indeed, if you talk to anyone in the industry that knows, hardwood from plantations doesn't have the same strength characteristics as native hardwood does, so that's why you can't just swap it out. You can't just shut it down and automatically there's a resource. Sure, in Tasmania there is a huge amount of unthinned, unpruned eucalyptus plantations. That's not going to be used for that sort of purpose, and those who talk to the industry know that. It was planted to feed a pulp mill which was never built. So, of course, as a country, we end up importing pulp products, paper, from countries that, again, don't care about the environment. I was doing a bit of a google on the paper used in this parliament now. We bring it in from Indonesia. We used to buy it here, but, of course, because of the Labor plan to shut down the industry despite saying they will keep it open, we don't make white paper in this country anymore. We bring it in from Indonesia. If you read the Greenpeace's website or the World Wildlife Fund's, the company that makes this paper is responsible for huge amounts of deforestation as recently as 2022. These are the net results of these sorts of plans—bad for the environment globally. We are told that we a global responsibility to show leadership when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. Sure. But then, when it comes to managing our forests to ensure we don't cause devastation and destruction elsewhere, that's something we aren't going to worry about. We'll just shut it down here and push this burden offshore to countries where they don't have high standards of good environmental management, where frankly they don't care and it's about making a buck rather than making sure that their employees, the communities they support and the environment have good outcomes as well. Also, there was a reference to ending native forestry and that being a recipe to minimise the risk of bushfires. I find that strange, because what happened in the Black Summer bushfires was terrible. It devastated huge swathes of the forestry estate. It had a massive and devastating impact on the communities that depend on the forestry industry. But one thing we did see in the Black Summer bushfires were those businesses who work in the forestry industry using their equipment to support the firefighting effort. If we go and shut down a forestry industry and we send out of town all of the forest contractors—those people who own equipment to manage the land, to manage the forest—if they aren't operating in the forest, if they aren't in those communities, when bushfires come along they're not going to be there to fight the fire. They aren't going to be there to help protect life and property. They aren't going to be there to stop the fire from burning and prevent carbon emissions. The fire will burn on, out of control. You know what that's going to do for carbon emissions: it's not going to be very good at all. This is another net result of shutting down native forestry, offshoring the environmental problem, offshoring the economic inputs to our community and increasing the risk of bushfires in our community. The whole idea of locking up forests entails not managing them properly, which, sadly, is what happens. With the best of intent, reserves are created, but never are appropriate amounts of resources put into managing these resources— Senator DUNIAM 263418 They become delinquent neighbours, havens for pest animals and weeds and, of course, bushfire risks, which no-one will have the capacity to manage because, if this bill passes, we will be seeing those people who have the capacity, the resources and the equipment to fight these fires leave town and never come back. I think there was a reference in Senator Rice's speech when she introduced this legislation to the $2 billion needed annually to manage these ecological features of our nation and protect the environment. That is an increase of $2 billion a year. But where does this money come from? How do we pay for it when we shut down parts of the economy that generate revenue for governments to then spend? It all depends on government doing everything. It asks that the government be responsible for every bit of private land management and public land management. It says that forest management can be done only by government, not by private industries that actually depend on the resource. The idea that any part of an extractive or resource-intensive industry wants to see the resources disappear is madness. Those industries depend on continued access to a sustainable flow of timber products. That is why they manage this resource so well, so sustainably. That is why they actually do want this resource to be available in a continued fashion. We in the coalition support that. At the last election, we made it very clear that we backed native forestry. We said that this is an industry that we don't think should be shut down, for the reasons I've set out, including the environmental reasons. Sending this burden, this devastating and destructive impact, offshore to other countries means unfairly putting the pressure on them so that they can feed our demand for native hardwood products. It would be offshoring the economic benefits of downstream processing, which we want to see retained here. We don't want them sent offshore. That's why, at the last election, we had a great suite of programs which would support growth in this sector: value-adds, innovation and future focus. It was pleasing that the Australian Labor Party virtually copied those policies. They are now government policy, and I say good on you. If it's good, take it; run with it. The only thing they didn't copy, though, of course, was our support for native forestry. In part, they did commit to protecting this industry. The now Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made a commitment on 17 May last year when he wrote to the participants in the Tasmanian forest and forest products industry. He said that he would ensure that this industry would not be shut down. He said: I promise you that if I become Prime Minister, a Government I lead will not shut down the native forest industry in Tasmania. It was a promise that only related to Tasmania—it didn't relate to New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia; it was just Tasmania—so I will put that out there. But it's clear that at least in part the government, thankfully, does support this industry. I do hope that they go further than that. I do hope that they will see sense in bringing back onshore what is a sustainable industry, not offshoring it, not sending the jobs, not sending the economic returns and certainly not sending what is a worse outcome for the environment globally. Sure, with any industry—farming, forestry, fishing, mining or any primary industry—there is going to be an impact on the environment. But balance is key—making sure that we don't deprive ourselves of economic returns for one cause. I said it yesterday: gone are the days when we made decisions purely on economic grounds. That town in Tasmania, Queenstown, is a beautiful part of the state. But because decisions were made purely on economic grounds we've seen environmental devastation that will take a millennium to repair. Senator Whish-Wilson referenced the impact on Macquarie Harbour as a result of legacy mining issues. Those decisions aren't made anymore. There is balance in the decision-making process—or at least there should be balance in the decision-making process. So, we have to be careful not to go down this pathway of thinking purely and only about environmental outcomes at the expense of economic outcomes, of the communities we represent here and of the people who more than ever need jobs to pay their bills. This is a bad bill and should be defeated. 09:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Rice for the opportunity to speak on the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023, and I will be supporting this bill. Here we have another example of a disappointing stance from the major parties, a unity ticket that means that the young people up in the gallery and around Australia will be facing worsening climate impacts and will potentially not be able to enjoy the incredible biodiversity that all of us have enjoyed and have been able to experience here in Australia. Last year at the COP 15 biodiversity summit there was global consensus about the need to conserve nature, to take the necessary steps to safeguard nature and indeed our future. And we have a government that has committed to no new extinctions. The first and most obvious thing to do is to stop destroying important habitat for threatened species. Continuing to log native forest no longer makes sense. I really want to call out the major parties for the way they talk about logging; they include native forest logging and plantation timber. There is a thriving plantation timber industry in Australia. It is much needed. It is something that does need support. Native forest logging—its time has come. It is time to transition those communities out of native forest logging. It doesn't make environmental sense. It doesn't make sense for our climate. And it's bad for our economy. Without ending native forest logging, the government will struggle to reach its own climate goals and will likely fail on its commitment to no new extinctions. Senator Duniam talked about having better logging standards overseas but didn't mention the fact that Victorian logging operations haven't been able to get Forest Stewardship Council certification because of their unsustainable practices. Our magnificent forests are now far more valuable as carbon storage than as woodchips and paper pulp. The climate impact of ending native forest logging in Victoria at the end of this year would be the equivalent of taking 700,000 cars off the road. Ending native logging forest in Tasmania would be the equivalent of taking 1.1 million cars off the road every year. And let's remember that 90 per cent of the wood from native forest logging goes to woodchips, paper pulp and box liners. Less than 10 per cent of it goes to sawn timber and building products. It is an absolute furphy that this is what we are building our houses with. Our native forests are ending up as low-value, high-volume commodities. After the 2019 bushfires we should all be concerned about the impact climate change is having and the increased risk of catastrophic fires. And the science is now clear that logged forests burn more easily than old-growth forests. We should be pushing for an end to native forest logging rather than continuing with this and risking what we saw in 2019. Senator Duniam seemed to dispute this, but this is peer reviewed science published in some of the world's best scientific journals. Dr Chris Taylor from the ANU's Fenner School of Environment and Society notes that the general trend across the scientific literature is that forests begin to be more flammable eight years after logging. To quote: The relationship between the forest having been logged and how severely it burns during a fire is quite clear. Professor David Lindenmayer AO from the Climate Change Institute stated that the link between fire severity and logging has been found in global studies of places such as the US and Patagonia and now locally here in Australia. There is also a huge cost when it comes to biodiversity to continue native forest logging, driving some of our most incredible, unique species to extinction—like greater gliders, yellow-bellied gliders, swift parrots, Leadbeater's possums, Carnaby's black cockatoos and a host of other species. To turn to the economic argument, the forestry industry in New South Wales and Tasmania is losing money. In Tasmania, total losses are above $1.5 billion since regional forest agreements were signed 20 years ago. We have heard much debate, including from Senator Duniam, about the need for more investment in things like social and affordable housing in Tasmania rather than building a stadium. Here is $1.5 billion that could have actually gone to those things. It could have gone into these communities that need to be looked after. The Blueprint Institute found that, if we end native forest logging on the north coast of New South Wales, there would be an economic windfall of $294 million between now and 2040. This is just in northern New South Wales. The economic argument does not add up. It doesn't hold water. We as a country have the opportunity to stop losing money by cutting down our precious native forests, and we have the opportunity to then benefit from the economic, climate and biodiversity windfall of protecting them. Moving to employment, we absolutely need to work closely with communities impacted by the transition to ensure that they are able to build and transition to industries of the future—industries that can sustain their communities for generations to come. There are huge opportunities that exist in transitioning the valuable skills held by the native forest logging industry to sustainable forest management and tourism. There will increasingly be the need for those same skills to be used in firefighting. Turn on the TV and see what is happening in Canada. We're going to need specialist logging teams help our firefighters come the next bushfire season and the one after that. It is time for the government to step up, to show some leadership and to help states make the transition now so we can actually look after these communities, rather than just kicking it down the road and getting to the point where we have cut down those remaining native forests and things like tourism and carbon aren't the opportunities that they are right now. In New South Wales, it's irresponsible to continue to wait to end native forest logging. Just in north-east New South Wales, if we end forest logging now instead of waiting for the north-east forestry regional agreement to expire, we could deliver a net benefit valued at $45 million. That is $45 million that could be invested in those communities to set them up for beyond the end of the RFA. Let's remember that 90 per cent of all sawn timber in New South Wales already comes from plantations. That's the opportunity. That's where the value is. That is what we should be focusing on. In south-east New South Wales, Frontier Economics analysis shows that the plantation industry is worth 160 times the native forest sector and employs far more people. We know that in New South Wales a lot more endangered species are in proposed logging areas. There is high conservation value in places that are planned for logging. We have heard talk about the Great Koala National Park. We know that areas around there are earmarked for logging. I would urge the government to work with the New South Wales government to show the leadership required to speed up this transition and protect those areas. In Tasmania, it is quite incredible that there are proposals to actually log proposed World Heritage areas. This would be bad for the climate and terrible for the environment and our native species and would detract from the amazing opportunities that tourism provides Tasmania and will continue to provide Tasmania as more people look to get out into nature and enjoy this incredible continent. As a country, we are now cutting down our remaining native forests at a loss. We're cutting them down at a financial loss and we are losing biodiversity. And the more we cut down, the more difficult it will be to transition communities in the impacted regions to use the forest for carbon storage and tourism. I urge the government to show leadership. Australians love our native wildlife. They want a government that is taking climate change seriously. You have commitments around climate action and biodiversity conservation. Here is an opportunity to address both those things. 09:45 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I will just say, from the outset, that the government will not be supporting this bill. But I also want to take this opportunity to say to you, Senator Rice, that I have enjoyed working together with you for many, many years now. I've found that you are a person of integrity and honesty. In your previous role as a spokesperson for the Greens, I couldn't have wished for a better representative from the Greens to work with. We've never had a cross word, although we may differ in some of our opinions. Certainly, from the transport sector, I know that you are held in high regard, and I miss you. I will miss working with you in the road transport and shipping areas. Hopefully you might do a 180 and come back again in the next parliament. We can't support this bill. This issue affects not only our environment but also the livelihoods of countless workers in Australia, as we have heard from previous speakers. And I will go into that further. While I acknowledge the sentiment to ban logging outright, I believe that careful regulation of responsible logging is a more pragmatic approach that minimises the economic impact on workers. We can do these things. We can have both. We can do it properly, whether it is agriculture, forestry, fisheries or mining. It is ridiculous to think we have to kill off one side of the argument. We can do both—when it is done properly. This government has repeatedly made it clear that we are committed to strengthening environmental protections, and we are getting on with the job. We also recognise the vital role that forest industries play in regional communities. They directly employ over 50,000 people, with thousands more jobs indirectly supported by the sector. That is thousands and thousands of families. I can't speak for Victoria or Tasmania, but I do know the southern end of Western Australia. Think about all those small communities—the little timber towns and the bigger towns that have agriculture near them. Think about what would happen to these communities if we were to just kill off all logging completely. I know, as an ex furniture removalist, that every time a mine shut down or an industry shut down we'd come in and start moving the families out. All of a sudden, the school wasn't viable. That happened on a couple of occasions. By the time half a dozen families had left and 20 odd kids were gone, the school was not viable and we had issues: what do we do with the other six or seven kids who are left? That is a serious problem. Think about the local service station. Think about the local IGA or supermarket. Think about the local news agency, the repair shops, the tire shops. All of these small businesses actually employ people and families who live in these towns and in these communities. It's easy to stand in this building and say we want to kill off an industry or we want to stop fishing or we want to stop certain parts of agriculture. Well, we have to think of the knock-on effect that has in communities. We have seen this in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee that, Senator Rice, you and I have sat on together for many, many years. We have seen the devastating effects it can have when governments make these decisions to just kill industries off without consultation and without working with the communities and the industries. I'm not saying it can't be done. We can move things and move to something else, but we have got to do this in consultation. We also recognise the vital role that forest industries play in these regional communities. We can't forget that. The benefits of a competitive, sustainable and renewable forest industry to our regional community should not be so lightly dismissed. These hardworking Australians deliver employment and income throughout the whole supply chain. We forget about the whole supply chain, but we should never forget about it. Responsible logging can play a pivotal role in sustainable forest management. When forests are managed effectively they can lead to healthier ecosystems and even support biodiversity. By carefully regulating logging we can ensure that these practices are followed, minimising the negative impact on the environment and also promoting long-term sustainability. Another crucial aspect to consider is that timber is a renewable resource. Wood is an essential material that is used in various industries, as we have heard other speakers say, including construction, furniture manufacturing and paper production. By responsibly harvesting timber we can meet our society's needs while reducing reliance on non-renewable resources, and promoting a more sustainable future. A complete ban on logging would force us to rely more heavily on alternative materials, some of which may have even greater environmental consequences. It's also important to recognise that Australia has a long history of implementing strict regulations to protect its forests. By strengthening these regulations we can ensure that logging operations follow stringent environmental guidelines, minimising the impact on native forests and their ecosystems. Rather than an outright ban, investing in stronger regulations and enforcement mechanisms will lead to better outcomes for both the environment and the workers. This is why the government will be not supporting the repeal of the RFA Act. The government is also expanding Australia's plantation forests that are available to our timber industry. We are committed to supporting the ongoing operation of the regional forestry agreements while also strengthening environmental protections. As I said, we can do both at the same time, and we should be doing both at the same time. We are committed to working with stakeholders and relevant jurisdictions to ensure national environmental standards for regional forestry agreements. These will support the ongoing operation of RFAs while also providing stronger environmental protection. This can and will be achieved by applying new environmental standards to the RFAs. If the Greens are really serious about protecting native forests and supporting regional communities, I suggest they take a closer look at the actions of the Labor government in the great state of Western Australia, rather than simply rely on stunts like the bill before us today. The Western Australian government has made the decision to end the logging of native forests—that's no secret. This followed extensive consultation not only with the industry but with workers and, importantly, communities. There was the promotion of additional plantation timber. This decision will deliver no less than 400,000 additional hectares of karri, jarrah and wandoo forests. The WA government has also released a transition plan to support workers, businesses and communities, along with the Community Development Grants Program. That's how grown-ups do it. The government announced an $80 million commitment. Now, think about that—$80 million for supporting workers, businesses and communities transitioning out of native logging. It's not killing off jobs, not killing off communities and not killing off businesses. It is actually working with them, closely consulting and assisting with some funding. This $80 million commitment is in addition to the $350 million investment to expand WA's softwood timber plantations to not only support jobs but create more jobs. This record investment will provide at least an additional 33,000 hectares of softwood timber plantations. Up to 50 million pine trees will be planted, sequestering between 7.9 million and 9.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. It will also create about 140 timber industry jobs, protect about 1,980 existing jobs—mostly in the south-west timber industry—and support the many thousands of jobs in the state's construction industry. By crikey, don't we need to do that? These are jobs that depend upon the reliable supply of softwood timber. A native forestry community advisory group was also established late last year as part of the state government's plans to end logging of native timbers. Importantly, the community advisory group includes representatives from south-west native forest communities. Compare this to the approach of the Greens political party. The Greens come in and seek to have this parliament agree to an immediate cessation of native forest logging without any consultation with the affected communities, industries or workers. I find that gobsmacking, but we shouldn't be surprised. This is how they operate. The Greens claim to be the bastions of climate change reform and warriors for the environment, yet that was the party that sided with that mob over there, the Liberal and National parties, in 2009—and I know because I was sitting in here watching it unfold—to vote against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Let me make this point very clear again: the Greens voted with the Liberal and National parties to vote down the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Former prime minister Kevin Rudd wrote an article in the Monthly in June of last year about this scandal, where he said: If the Greens had stood up for their beliefs, we would now be 12 years into an emissions trading scheme steadily decarbonising our economy with targets escalating at conferences in Doha, Paris, Edinburgh and beyond. Having attracted some Liberal support, Abbott could not have repealed it without unleashing a devastating civil war. Unlike the subsequent carbon price, which was legislated without any Coalition votes, it would have stuck. Former independent member of the ACT Legislative Assembly Michael Moore pointed out the Greens' faults further in an article that he wrote in 2019, titled, 'How the Greens failed climate change'. He begins his article by stating: In their unwillingness to compromise, the Greens destroyed Australia's best chance to establish an emissions trading scheme and to seek later improvements. I couldn't have written that better myself. Mr Moore then goes over a number of the Greens' reasons and justifications as to why they sided with the 'no-alition', and he subsequently pulls them apart. One of the Greens' more strident arguments was that the CPRS 'is not just a failure, but it locks in failure'. Mr Moore writes in response to that: The irony is that the Greens locked in failure on climate action by siding with the Abbott-led coalition in a pincer movement of the hard right and the hard left of their respective parties. Sadly, not a lot has changed with respect to the Greens in the four years since this article was written. So the Greens can move all the motions and private senators' bills that they like, but at the end of the day every Greens senator and MP has to live with the fact that, when they had the opportunity to protect the environment and support legislation to combat climate change, they failed. Mind you, those opposite are no better. They got an independent review showing Australia's environmental laws were broken and did nothing. They refused to act on climate change. They announced 22 different energy policies and didn't land a single one of them. Let's be honest: a complete ban on logging would have far-reaching economic consequences for workers in that industry. Instead, careful regulation and oversight of responsible logging practices, like what the government is striving to achieve, should be our priority. By implementing stringent guidelines, investing in sustainable forest management and engaging in meaningful dialogue with the community, we can strike a balance that safeguards our environment while minimising economic hardships. As I was saying, the time for stunts and inaction is over. The government is getting on with the job of developing stronger laws to better protect the environment and give faster clearing development decisions. We're strengthening RFAs to ensure better environmental protections. We're working to establish an environmental protection agency, restoring our urban rivers and waterways, cracking down on plastics pollution and doubling the number of Indigenous rangers. For these and many other reasons, the government will not be supporting this bill. 10:00 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to agree with the government. I'm not going to support this bill, the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023, and the Nationals will not support this bill on behalf of the thousands of timber workers across Australia whose economic viability this bill will rip out from underneath. There are more than 9,000 employees across New South Wales alone who work in the timber industry. These are people who are already fearful of what the state Labor government may do to their future economic viability, even though Timber NSW has produced a report by Ernst & Young that shows that any plans to transition native forestry to plantations are both unnecessary and unworkable. It says that science based forest policies can achieve environmental aims while safeguarding local timber supply and local jobs—and science based policy is one of the things that RFAs do. I also want to highlight, for the benefit of those listening, the absolute and utter hypocrisy of the Greens in presenting this bill. The Greens are quite happy to see rangelands and grasslands covered in glass and silicon for solar farms. They're quite happy for sections of native forests and national parks to have swathes cut through them so that we can erect transmission lines to connect renewables in far distant locations to where they're actually used—in the cities, which are concrete jungles. Maybe we should set up a concrete forestry industry! The other hypocrisy in this, though, is that demand for timber products is growing. We know timber products are true carbon sequestration. The tree absorbs carbon as it grows. Once it's harvested, as it's turned into a table or a chair or used for housing and construction, that is that carbon locked up forever. Australia has sustainable practices. Gone are the days when wholesale land clearing was the practice of the forestry industry. But, instead of supporting our sustainable industries and encouraging our sustainable industries to continue to improve their practices, the Greens want to export our problems. They do this time and time again. They want to tell us, 'We can't grow rice, so we'll buy it from other countries that have less sustainable practices.' They want to tell us, 'We can't have other industries; we'll just import it.' That's what will happen; we'll ban native forestry and we will import hardwood from countries that we know have unsustainable practices—countries whose orangutans are at risk of extinction because of logging. But it's okay; we'll buy their wood and we'll shut down our sustainable practices just so that they can say that they've done the right thing by their ideals. We've got to stop this hypocrisy. We've got to back our industries and we've got to make sure our industries continue to grow and evolve and become more sustainable each and every day. We will not be supporting this bill. We will be supporting all of our foresters, loggers and sawmillers across Australia—and I, in particular, will be supporting those across New South Wales. I've had meetings with the northern New South Wales timber industry, and I want them to know that I back them. I support them and I support their industry. Keep up the good work. 10:05 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The question is that the bill be now read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [10:10]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 32 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:13 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The time for this debate has expired. Home Affairs Bill 2023 11

Home Affairs Bill 2023

First Reading 11 10:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Senator WATT 245759 by leave—I move: That— (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put at 11.15 am; and (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142. I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Purpose of the Bill The purpose of the Bill is to terminate the lease, and any legal or equitable right, title and interest held by the leaseholder over a specified block of land in the Australian Capital Territory. Reasons for Urgency There are immediate national security risks associated with allowing the leaseholder to exercise its interests over the specific block of land. The introduction and passage of the Bill in the Winter 2023 parliamentary sittings is necessary to avoid those risks. Question agreed to. Second Reading 12 10:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Home Affairs Bill 2023 will establish an Act for the termination of the lease held by the Government of the Russian Federation on a parcel of land adjacent to Parliament House, located at Block 26, Section 44 in the Division of Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory. The Bill will terminate the lease and any legal or equitable right, interest, trust, restriction, obligation, mortgage, encumbrance, contract, licence or charge granted or arising under or pursuant to a relevant lease, or in dependence on a relevant lease, in respect to the specified land. This action is necessary to protect Australia's national security interests. There are not currently diplomatic or consular premises on the land. This action does not preclude the Russian Federation from a diplomatic presence in Canberra, which they maintain at their existing premises in Griffith, Australian Capital Territory. The termination of the lease has no impact on the Griffith site. This legislation is consistent with Australia's obligations under international law. The Bill includes a provision that if by its operation, it results in an acquisition of property within the meaning of paragraph 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution, the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation. This Bill demonstrates the Government's continued commitment to protecting our Parliament and our national security. The Australian Government maintains diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation but will always acts in Australia's national interest. 10:14 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I'll be brief, given the sensitivity of the bill today. I just want to put on record the coalition's support for the swift passage of this bill before the parliament. It is important on sensitive national security issues like this that, in the national interest, we come together to resolve these issues. This action the government is taking today is consistent with policies the previous government put in place with a similar intention and has now become necessary as a result of legal action. The coalition is supporting the bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Minister, do you wish to sum up? 10:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No. In the interests of expediting the passage of the bill, I'm happy to leave it at that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The question is that the Home Affairs Bill 2023 be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 12 10:15 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? There being none, I call the minister. 10:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the bill be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BILLS 12 BILLS Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 12

Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022

In Committee 12 10:17 The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU The committee is considering the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 and amendments (1) to (3) on sheet ZB203, together, moved by Minister Watt. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Are there any further contributions to those amendments? There been none, I put the question. Question agreed to. 10:18 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I seek leave to move Greens amendments (1) and (11) on sheet 1870 together. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You're seeking leave to move (1) and (11) together as opposed to moving (1) to (14) as a block? 10:18 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Correct. Just for the convenience of the chamber, I will be moving them in three tranches. The first will be amendments (1) and (11), subject to leave. The second tranche, which relate to the meaning of public interest disclosure, will be amendment (2) and the other consequential amendments to that, which are (3), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (12), (13) and (14). Then, the third tranche will be amendments (4) and (5), which both relate to parliamentary stuff. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Leave has been sought to move amendments (1) and (11) on sheet 1870 together. It there any objection? Leave is granted. 10:19 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales These amendments go to the meaning of public interest disclosure. They specify that when a person has genuinely attempted to comply with the requirements of the PID Act, but has nonetheless failed to comply with all further requirement in column 3 of the act, the court may also take into account if the disclosure is otherwise reasonable and in the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances. We believe this is a reasonable compromise to ensure the act is able to cover matters where a PID has been attempted to be made correctly and in good faith, the information should have been disclosed in the circumstances and the disclosure is reasonable and in the public interest. Those disclosures should have the public interest protections. Two recent cases, those of David McBride and Richard Boyle, highlight the need for this reform. In both cases bona fide whistleblowers attempted to gain the protections of the PID Act. They made what they thought were PID Act disclosures. They stepped through the quite technical elements of the PID Act, including with legal assistance. But in both cases the courts have denied them protection under the PID Act, because of what can only be described as legal technicalities. As a result of this, both David McBride and Richard Boyle are exposed to serious criminal prosecutions. In short, what these amendments seek to do is to say that, where you a public interest whistleblower who has had a bona fide engagement with the PID Act and sought to step through the technical requirements of the PID Act for the disclosure, but, in circumstances where there has been some technical legal misstep by them, they should also have the protection of the PID Act. The McBride case, which is currently on appeal, would have to be the clearest demonstration of why we need this PID Act protection. A public interest whistleblower blew the whistle on what I think we all now agree is compelling and deeply, deeply distressing evidence of Australian Defence personnel engaged in war crimes in Afghanistan. Some of the evidence that Mr McBride put into the public arena has now been tested in the Federal Court and has been found to be compelling to make findings on the civil standard that those unlawful murders did occur. What I find appalling is that the person currently in court who faces the most imminent risk of going to jail for those appalling circumstances is the whistleblower, David McBride. David McBride tried time after time to raise it within Defence. He was a serving member of the Defence Force. If anyone is deserving of a medal and a plaque and a place in the Australian War Memorial, it is David McBride, the brave whistleblower who put his career—and, as it turns out, his personal freedom—on the line to tell the truth about war crimes in Afghanistan. David McBride tried time after time to have it raised within the chain of command in the Australian Defence Force, and it was squashed. It wouldn't go anywhere. After enormous frustration within that process, he then began to step through, as best he could, the public interest disclosure steps. Remarkably, a court—with encouragement from the legal representatives of the Commonwealth—found that David McBride's steps of gathering the evidence to make a compelling PID Act disclosure were not protected by the PID Act. Gathering the evidence to make a compelling disclosure is not, apparently, according to the current state of the law, covered by the PID Act. As a result, David McBride, who thought he had whistleblower protections, is utterly exposed and faces a series of criminal charges and years and years, potentially, in jail for blowing the whistle on war crimes. What these amendments seek to do is to say that, if those actions of a whistleblower were in good faith, were in the public interest and were seeking to comply with the PID Act, even if there is a legal technicality, the court has discretion to extend the defences of the PID Act to protect the whistleblower. That's what these amendments do. For this government to not support them is to send a message to whistleblowers that they want to hang the next set of whistleblowers out to dry just like they've done to David McBride. Not supporting these amendments would be saying that you're happy to send a message to future whistleblowers that, if they make one tiny legal misstep, you're going to hang them out to dry, criminally prosecute them and try and put them in jail. I commend the amendments to the chamber. 10:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government does not support these amendments. The government supports effective and accessible protections for whistleblowers, including the ability to make external disclosures in appropriate circumstances. This includes providing an effective pathway for disclosures to the media and others outside of government, and that's of course the intent of the bill overall. The proposed amendments give rise to a range of complex policy issues that require careful consideration and would be appropriately dealt with as part of the comprehensive second stage of PID reforms. We'd be happy to engage with Senator Shoebridge as part of that work. 10:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The opposition will also not be supporting the amendments. The amendments would massively expand the types of disclosures covered by the PID Act. In addition to the current criteria, any disclosure that is otherwise reasonable and in the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances, would be covered by the external disclosure and emergency disclosure definitions of the PID Act. The potential impact on our national security arrangements and far-reaching unintended consequences would be staggering. These amendments could potentially permit disclosures and trigger whistleblower protections relating to intelligence information. They would not require any attempted internal disclosure as a first port of call, contrary to the scheme of the PID Act as a whole, and they may be operationally unworkable. For instance, who would decide whether a disclosure is reasonable and in the public interest? In practice, how would that decision be made when a person is considering whether to make a disclosure, and what would be the consequences if the whistleblower acts in good faith but is later wrong? The changes would permit disclosure to union representatives, who are not the subject of the same fiduciary obligations as lawyers and some of whom treat law-breaking as a cost of doing business. These changes, we believe, are dangerous to our system of national security, and they have not been recommended by the PJCIS, the Moss review or any serious body in this space. 10:27 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I think Senator Cash has got ahead of herself in terms of dealing with some amendments, but we can address those later. The question of whether or not a disclosure had been in the public interest will be decided by a superior court of record. That's who will make these decisions—a member of the judiciary. The Greens have faith in the ability of our judiciary to weigh up the considerations and make a decision as to whether or not a disclosure is in the public interest. The argument that this would create a 'staggering' extension of the PID Act, I think, misunderstands the narrow cast of the proposed amendment in 50A, which relates to the requirements set out in column 3. It's not a complete expungement of all the requirements under the PID Act—only of those that are set out in column 3 and only in circumstances where the disclosure was in good faith and where there had been that attempt to meet the legal requirements. I understand the response that we got from the opposition that this would have national security implications, but what I would suggest is this: preventing people from telling the truth about war crimes has far greater national security implications. Preventing people from telling the truth about gross missteps by our defence forces or our national security apparatus or the parliament has far greater national security consequences. And if there is an aversion within our national security apparatus to truth-telling, well, that's an aversion that I think the national security apparatus should be taken to task for. And of course if we want to see the most extreme case of a national security apparatus viciously fighting against truth-telling, we can look at what our purported closest ally is doing in trying to jail, for the rest of his natural life, an Australian citizen, Julian Assange. That's where the coalition's arguments end up, that kind of brutal state security apparatus action against a whistleblower—wanting to put them in jail for life or telling some ugly truths about how power is exercised by our government or one of our allies' governments. We commend the amendments to the chamber. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1870 be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [10:35]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 21 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Farrell, D. E. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:42 The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that item 9 of schedule 2 stand as printed.    

The committee divided. [10:42]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

 22 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Farrell, D. E. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:44 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move Greens amendments (2), (3), (6) to (10) and (12) to (14) on sheet 1870 revised: (2) Schedule 1, page 30 (before line 21), before item 51, insert: 50B Subsection 26(1) (table item 4, column 1) Omit "Legal practitioner", substitute "Professional assistance". 50C Subsection 26(1) (cell at table item 4, column 2) Repeal the cell, substitute: (3) Schedule 1, item 63, page 36 (line 9), omit "legal practitioner", substitute "professional assistance". (6) Schedule 2, item 3, page 51 (line 2), omit "legal practitioner", substitute "professional assistance". (7) Schedule 2, item 3, page 52 (line 31), omit "legal practitioner", substitute "professional assistance". (8) Schedule 2, item 6, page 53 (line 23), omit "legal practitioner", substitute "professional assistance". (9) Schedule 2, item 6, page 53 (after line 24), after the definition of legal practitioner disclosure in section 8, insert: union has the same meaning as in the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011. (10) Schedule 2, page 53 (after line 28), after item 8, insert: 8A Section 25 Omit: a disclosure to an Australian legal practitioner for purposes connected with the above matters. Substitute: a disclosure to an Australian legal practitioner or union representative for purposes connected with the above matters. (12) Schedule 2, page 54 (after line 21), after item 16, insert: 16A Section 67 (heading) Omit "legal practitioners", substitute "professional assistance". (13) Schedule 2, item 17, page 55 (lines 1 to 4), omit the item, substitute: 17 Paragraph 67(1)(a) Omit "public interest disclosure covered by item 4 of the table in subsection 26(1) (a legal practitioner disclosure)", substitute "professional assistance disclosure". 17A Paragraph 67(2)(a) Omit "legal practitioner" (wherever occurring), substitute "professional assistance". (14) Schedule 4, item 8, page 66 (lines 12 to 15), omit the item, substitute: 8 Section 7 (paragraph beginning "The protec tion provisions") Omit "or professional assistance", substitute ", professional assistance or NACC disclosure". One of the core recommendations of the Moss review was to expand the category of people to whom whistleblowers can go to seek professional assistance, to expand it unambiguously to the legal profession and appropriate legal advice and also to empower whistleblowers to make their disclosures appropriately and with the appropriate advice to comply with the PID Act and any other requirements. These amendments seek to expand the category of persons to whom whistleblowers can go to for professional assistance from not just lawyers, and in some cases government approved lawyers, to Australian legal practitioners or their relevant union representative. As we know, many public servants who are members of the CPSU or another union go to their union to seek advice on how they can step through a really hard workplace issue. You can't think of a harder workplace issue in many instances than trying to work out how to do a PID Act disclosure properly. The Greens firmly believe that appropriately skilled union officials should be available to whistleblowers to help them step through the complexity of making a PID Act disclosure. We should remember as well that union officials often also have an understanding of how the animal works, how the agency works, what the power structures are within the agency and what the likely consequences and, altogether too likely, adverse consequences are for somebody when they make a disclosure. Being monstered by the HR department and being excluded at the next meeting—all those adverse consequences—so often happen to whistleblowers and are intimately tied to their making of a PID Act disclosure. Of course whistleblowers should be able to go to their union representative and seek assistance in pulling together the PID Act disclosure and also in meeting the sometimes quite nasty, targeted management actions against them once they've made the disclosure. This is consistent with the Moss report. I would have thought that this is consistent with any party that believes that unions have a very valid and important role in supporting their members when they're in a dispute with the government of the day, with their employer. It is for those reasons I've moved these amendments. 10:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will be opposing these amendments. The government believes it is important that whistleblowers can access all necessary forms of support throughout the disclosure process; however, the government does not support these amendments at this point in time. Further consideration is needed to determine how disclosures to union representatives, among other forms of professional assistance, can be appropriately provided for in the act. The government has committed to considering the outstanding recommendations of the Moss review, including improved access to professional assistance, as part of the second stage of broader reforms. We will ensure that this issue is considered closely as part of those broader reforms. Again, I'm happy to work with Senator Shoebridge in that further work. 10:49 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I thank the minister for that explanation. I simply say that it's a sad day when the Labor Party won't allow a whistleblower to talk with their union rep. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that amendments (2), (3), (6) to (10) and (12) to (14) on sheet 1870 revised be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [10:54]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

 11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:56 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move Greens amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 1870 revised together: (4) Schedule 1, item 88, page 47 (line 20), omit "Parliament;", substitute "Parliament.". (5) Schedule 1, item 88, page 47 (lines 21 and 22), omit paragraph 69(4)(d). These amendments aim to remove the exemption for MOP—members of parliament—staff for access to the PID Act, the Public Interest Disclosure Act. As I understand it, the opposition that may come to these provisions is that there are potentially other ways in which members of parliament staff can raise their concerns and that there are ongoing steps to provide other protections for MOP staff. But let's be clear: the Greens are moving here a recommendation of the House of Reps committee in 2009—so 14 years ago. The House of Reps committee said members of parliament staff should have access to public interest disclosures. Nothing happened. It was also a recommendation of the Set the standard report, which said that parliamentary staff employed under the MOP(S) Act should be included as public officials in section 69 of the PID Act—and that hasn't been implemented. And it is also a recommendation of the Moss review. How many times do we have to be told that we should be providing this accessway to members of staff in this place? How many times have we been told that giving access to the PID Act to members of staff is an important integrity measure? If there is an argument that there are potentially other avenues that MOP staff can take, then fine; let there be other avenues. But why wouldn't we provide as many ways as possible for MOP(S) Act staff to make a disclosure and have the protections they need to feel safe? That's what the PID Act does; it allows people who work for the government to make a disclosure in the public interest and do it in a way that they feel safe. That's why we're moving these amendments, and that's why we'd hoped to get support from the rest of the chamber. 10:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government does not support the amendments. The government supports effective and accessible protections for whistleblowers, including appropriate protections for persons who disclose wrongdoing, including MOP(S) Act staff. The government understands the intention of these amendments is to apply the Public Interest Disclosure Act to MOP(S) Act staff. However, this amendment would not achieve this outcome as the Public Interest Disclosure Act as drafted is not set up to deal with disclosures about or by MOP(S) Act staff. The proposed amendments give rise to a range of complex policy issues that would be appropriately dealt with in the context of implementing relevant recommendations in the Set the standard report or as part of a comprehensive second stage of PID reforms. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 1870 revised be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [11:04]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

 11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:06 The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 18 11:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the bill be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023 19

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 19 11:07 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia This bill works to improve debt recovery and help prevent future debts for low-income parents, and for that reason the coalition will be supporting this bill. Two of the measures in the bill are measures that were previously put forward by the former coalition government as part of the 2021-22 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook that were not legislated before the last election. These coalition measures strengthen Australia's child support framework, and it is pleasing to see that the current government recognises the hard work of the former minister in this area by legislating these important reforms. The former coalition government committed $7.8 million to strengthen child support compliance activities, enabling child support debts to be recovered in more circumstances. This includes allowing Services Australia to dock parents' pay packets to repay child support in more circumstances, including after a child turns 18, overturning the existing loophole where it was effectively case closed once a child turned 18 and there were limited ways to then collect that debt. The former coalition government also worked to strengthen the departure prohibition order system, which prevents parents who fail to pay child support from leaving Australia, another measure within the bill before us today. The coalition government worked to give Services Australia the discretion to refuse an exemption if they had reason to believe that the parent is likely to shirk their responsibilities and fail to pay back the remainder of the debt when they return to Australia. Under the coalition, from 2017, 5,394 parents were issued with a travel ban, enabling the recovery of nearly $100 million, ensuring the wellbeing and economic security of those children that were affected by the breakdown. It's expected that these changes will recover up to $164 million in debt owed to parents and their children. The coalition understands that family breakdowns are incredibly difficult, so child support is in place to ensure that, no matter where and with whom they live, children affected by family breakdown remain financially secure. The coalition makes no apologies for using tough measures to ensure child support is paid, because parents who shirk their responsibilities are depriving their children of financial support that will help them live a better life. The coalition recognises that most parents do the right thing and fulfil their child support obligations. Since its introduction in 1988, the government spend has transferred over $33 billion in child support payments. When parents don't pay their child support on time, it has a real and material impact on the financial security of single parents and their children. These coalition measures will go some way to closing loopholes and provide Services Australia with additional capacity and capability to stop those seeking to shirk their responsibilities to provide their children the financial support that they need and deserve. With these important reforms, the coalition remain committed, just as we were in government, to seeing parents and children receive the financial support they are entitled to and that those seeking to shirk their child support obligations are held accountable. In 2021-22, the agency worked with separated families to help the transfer of $3.89 billion, supporting 1.1 million children, in both child support collect and private collect. Services Australia collected and transferred $1.82 billion in child support payments. The measures in this bill are initiatives of the former coalition government and were partly announced as part of the MYEFO, broadening powers to recover child support, but they were unfortunately not legislated. The former coalition government committed $12.4 billion in the 2017-18 budget towards addressing three priority recommendations in response to the 2015 From conflict to cooperation: inquiry into the child support program report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. These proposed changes in the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill were part of the government's phased approach to achieving the best possible outcomes for separated families and their children. The measures addressed longstanding issues in the child support program relating to care disputes, amended tax assessments, child support agreements and payee overpayments, including strengthening incentives to comply with court orders or participate in dispute resolution processes about care, enabling changes in circumstances to be more easily reflected in child support assessments without parents having to go to court or through onerous administrative processes, and aligning the recovery of overpayment of child support from payees to be more consistent with the recovery of debts. On that basis, the coalition will be supporting the passage of this bill. 11:13 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023, but I note there is so much more that needs to be done. These are three minor measures that will improve the ability of single parents and their vulnerable children to receive child support. But I think the scale of what still needs to be done is indicated by the fact that this bill is estimated to recover up to $164 million in child support debt, whereas it is estimated that there is $1.59 billion of unpaid child support. So there is an awful lot more to be done to support vulnerable single mothers and their children. We've got deception from partners; we've got unequal onus of proof; we've got ex-partners not lodging tax returns; we have got misleading on how much income they've got; we've got care arrangements being difficult to prove; and we've got really awful interactions with the family tax benefit, where single parents—mothers in particular—are presumed to be receiving child support when in fact they're not. We know that the women this is most affecting are those that have been subject to family violence. They have left their partners, and those former partners are continuing to mistreat them and their children. So we will be supporting this bill, but we note there is still an awful lot more work that needs to be done. 11:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank senators for their contributions. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023 will make it easier for Services Australia to collect child support debts and help prevent future debts by improving income accuracy for low-income parents. The changes in the bill are unlegislated measures— The PRESIDENT 112096 It's now 11.15, Minister, so this debate is interrupted. NOTICES 20 NOTICES Presentation 20 Postponement 20 11:15 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young for today, relating to the inquiry reference of the Middle Arm Industrial Precinct to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, be postponed till Monday 19 June. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 20 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 20 Report 20 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the 6th report of 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 6 OF 2023 15 June 2023 MEMBERS OF THE COMMI TTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell A/g Secretary: Ivan Powell 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 6 OF 2023 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 14 June 2023 at 7.12 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Disclosure of Information) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 July 2023 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (b) the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 August 2023 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Creative Australia Bill 2023 Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2023 Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms and Other Updates) Bill 2023 Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023 Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023 Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023 Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023 Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023 Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023 Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022. 5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement: Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 15 June 2023 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bi ll to a committee Name of bill: Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Disclosure of Information) Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Complicated issue Possible submissions or evidence from: Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected. Committee to which bill is to be referred. Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): Up to Committee Possible reporting date: 26 July 2023 (signed) Wendy Askew Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Complicated issue Possible sub missions or evidence from: Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected. Committee to which bill is to be referred. Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): June -August Possible reporting date: 23 August 2023 (signed) Wendy Askew Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move the following amendment: At the end of the motion, add "and the following bills not be referred to committees: (a) Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023; and (b) Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023". 11:16 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I wish to amend the amendment proposed by Senator Chisholm. I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 July 2023". Ramming complex and highly technical legislation through the Senate without proper scrutiny is becoming all too much of a hallmark of this government. We were promised a new way of doing business. The Prime Minister said he would change the way that politics operates in this country, but we're not seeing that in reality. The giving documents and other measures bill introduces new and highly ambiguous concepts like 'substantial compliance' and 'substantial prejudice' into the Migration Act. The interpretation of these terms will ultimately be subjective and legally complex, and there are no review rights for decisions made by the department under these new provisions. This legislation has the power to significantly impact on things like families being able to stay together or be torn apart and has the capacity to impact meaningfully on a range of elements in the lives of significant numbers of people. It really should be referred to an inquiry so that we can hear expert submissions and so that the Senate can come to grips with the complexity of this legislation. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator McKim to the opposition's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:22]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:24 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm to the Selection of Bills Committee Report be agreed to. Senator Shoebridge. 11:24 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens oppose this amendment for reasons that have been articulated by my colleague Senator McKim. This is the amendment to not refer the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 to an inquiry. As we understand it, the rationale for not referring it is that the PJCIS—the secret spooks and harm committee, the organised spooks and injury committee of this parliament, that only the coalition and Labor get to sit on—is going to have a nice, secret inquiry amongst the club. The club are going to go and hear from the national security apparatus. They are going to say why they desperately need yet more coercive powers to monster people in the country. It'll be secret. It'll be in the usual club. There'll be the cigars and the heavy carpet in the smoke-filled room. Out of that secret inquiry, which you can only go to if you have membership of the Labor Party or the coalition, despite the law saying that's not how the committee should operate, will come a recommendation that this set of most recent antiterrorism laws are absolutely necessary for the protection of the country. We could write the report now, because the club always writes the same report. Because those guys like extra secret powers, they are giving more and more ways of spooking on Australian citizens. They like all of that stuff. And if anyone comes into that committee and they have a little bit of gold braid on their shoulders or a little bit of gold piping on their sleeves, they all just bow down. They lie down and say: 'Please, sir. Please, madam. How can we give you more power? How can we give you more money? We promise not to check how you use it? You can flush the money down the toilet. You can abuse the powers. We promise not to ask any hard questions, because we love you.' That's what they say—'Come here with braids and we'll lie down and you can have whatever you like, however much public money you like, whatever new powers you like, because that's what the club does.' It may surprise them that as a party on the crossbench and the third-biggest party in this place we think that's cooked. It may also surprise them to know, if they ever lifted their noses away from the sort of gold-braided, smoke-filled rooms that they love making these decisions in, the rest of Australia thinks it's cooked too. They don't trust them making these kinds of decisions in smoke-filled rooms where no-one gets to see what's happening. They see what happens when they do it. They've seen how they have these little secret meetings. They hear from the military brass and then we wake up one morning and they have committed $368 billion to a bunch of nuclear submarines that are likely to never turn up. We have seen that. We all went to bed one night thinking we had a $200 billion problem with nuclear submarines and we woke up and found out that those guys, in secret, had cooked up a $368 billion problem with nuclear submarines. We have all seen how they have mismanaged public funds on the Hunter frigate disaster. They started by saying they wanted a $30 billion program, and then they let the same Defence officials pull the wool over their eyes, not even doing a costed tender, and we woke up with a $45 billion problem and we still don't even have a boat in the water. That's what happens when they do it in secret. That's what happens when Labor and the coalition just give Defence and the security apparatus whatever they like without asking any tough questions. What is there to be scared of in having a public inquiry into this? I will tell you what they are worried about. They are worried that business as usual is going to get some scrutiny. They are worried that the obvious, apparent failings of the club are going to be exposed. We believe that, if there's merit in this legislation, we should take it to a proper inquiry and test it in the public light, and then we will see about passing it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I put the question on this amendment, I remind senators that calling out is disorderly, and even more so when most of the senators who were calling out are not even in their correct seats. The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm to the Selection of Bills Committee Report be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:34]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 25 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Duniam, J. R. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 14 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.

 BUSINESS 25 BUSINESS Rearrangement 25 11:36 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That general business notice of motion No. 241 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 25 NOTICES Postponement 25 COMMITTEES 25 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 25 Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 25 Reference 25 11:37 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I, and also on behalf of Senators Canavan, Cadell, Fawcett, McDonald, Henderson, McKenzie, O'Sullivan, Duniam, Scarr, Chandler, Ruston, Cash, Rennick, Antic, McGrath, Reynolds and Kovacic, move: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 February 2024: The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government's compulsory acquisition of Calvary Public Hospital, with particular reference to: (a) the impact on health services in the ACT and surrounds; (b) the effects on other private healthcare providers; (c) the ACT Government's consultation process before making the decision; (d) the legal and economic implications of a compulsory acquisition of this nature; and (e) any other related matters. 11:37 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 ACT government's decision to build a new, larger, modern northside hospital is a decision for the ACT Legislative Assembly and is appropriately a matter for them. It would be wholly unusual for the Commonwealth parliament to launch an inquiry into a matter that entirely relates to the decision of a state or territory government. 11:38 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Over the last month I've heard from hundreds of Canberrans, both expressing support for and raising concerns about the ACT government's decision to acquire Calvary Public Hospital. There are genuine concerns, such as how the decision may impact our already small health workforce here in the ACT and what this means for our other faith based institutions in Canberra. These are questions that deserve answers. I believe that there should be an inquiry but that it should be held at the level of government that made the decision. We recently considered the Restoring Territory Rights Bill, which passed this chamber with broad support. We cannot support territory rights and then continue to cherrypick issues to be the subject of federal interventions where there is no federal jurisdiction over that issue. I will stand up for my community at every step, but I will not undermine our rights to self-government. I've written to the ACT's Chief Minister and Minister for Health asking them to undertake an inquiry into this issue. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Canavan and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Smith, D. A. 28 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 26 BILLS Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023 26

Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023

First Reading 26 11:46 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 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 27 11:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows — The Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023 (the Bill) would amend the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012 (the GEMS Act). The GEMS Act has been in effect for more than ten years now. Its principal purpose is to provide a streamlined nationally consistent approach to appliance energy efficiency while effectively reducing energy use, power bills and greenhouse gas emissions. Over the life of the GEMS scheme, it has produced significant economic benefits. At a national level, between 2012 and 2021, GEMS initiatives are estimated to have reduced emissions by between 40 and 60 mega tonnes of CO2 and to have saved households and businesses between $11.8 billion and $17.8 billion in energy costs.[1] Further to this, in 2021-22 labelling and standards are estimated to have saved Australian households and businesses between $1.3 and $2 billion in avoided energy costs. They were estimated to deliver emissions savings of between 4.1 and 6.3 million tonnes in 2021-22—this is equivalent to about a quarter of South Australia's annual net emissions.[2] The GEMS scheme also has direct benefits at the consumer level. In 2019, the Independent Review of the GEMS Act found that regulations under the GEMS scheme save the average Australian household between $140 and $220 on their electricity bill each year[3] We only expect this to get better as we look to expand the number and type of products regulated under the GEMS Act and see consumers looking to purchase higher energy efficient products to save even more. GEMS helps all of us make informed choices, so we can use more energy efficient appliances in our homes and our businesses, and better equipment in our industries. As we consider our energy transition, it's time to update the GEMS Act, and modernise it to make sure it fits with today's technologies, appliances, and energy demands. To move forward, we need to expand the GEMS Act to gather more information, set more minimum performance standards on a broader range of appliances and products to meet our climate and energy needs into the future. We need to build in flexibility into the GEMS Act to be ready for the future, and to support better choices. This Bill introduces a first phase of GEMS Act amendments, targeted to streamline the implementation of the GEMS scheme, and to reduce unnecessary burden on our regulated community. GEMS is one tool of many in the pursuit of finding smart ways to manage demand to not just use less electricity but to use it when it's cheapest and cleanest. Modernising and updating the GEMS Act would support the National Energy Transformation Partnership—an agreed national plan between the states, territories, and the Commonwealth to enable Australia's massive energy transformation, including by helping to make homes and appliances more energy efficient. It would be a tool to help deliver the National Energy Performance Strategy (NEPS). The NEPS will provide a framework and supporting policies through which the government provides clear guidance on longer term direction for energy performance. The NEPS will build on existing energy efficiency policies in place to improve energy affordability, such as through the Trajectory for Low Energy Buildings, and the GEMS Act. These initiatives will be integral to reaching our emissions reduction targets. The amendments in this Bill, while minor, support the achievement of the objects of the GEMS Act by giving flexibility to help more energy efficient products be available in the Australian market. It is a start to improving and modernising the GEMS Act as recommended in the Independent Review of the GEMS Act released in 2019. The Review found that while the GEMS Act is achieving its purpose, reform is required to adapt to changing market conditions and requirements. This Bill will introduce changes to build on the already significant outcomes of this successful program. Many of the changes in this tranche have already been considered by States and Territories and stakeholders. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the GEMS scheme, the Ministerial Council is responsible for approving proposed amendments to GEMS Act legislation. State, Territory and industry stakeholders support this Bill. The amendments are seen as necessary and not controversial. The International Energy Agency describes energy efficiency as the 'first fuel', noting it 'provides some of the quickest and most cost-effective CO2 mitigation options while lowering energy bills and strengthening energy security'.[4] Demand-side measures including improving the energy efficiency of appliances and equipment supplied in Australia can support Australia's net zero target. The GEMS Act regulates appliance energy efficiency to deliver significant savings and abatement and we want to continue this and build on the excellent outcomes GEMS has already delivered. If passed, this Bill will improve the GEMS Act, enabling changes needed for today's energy operating environment, reducing the burden on business and industry, and paving the way to get more energy efficient products into the Australian market. [1] Energy Consult (unpublished), 2022, GEMS Data Modelling Project 2022 Final Report, report to the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, p. 2 [2] Emissions by state and territory I Australian National Greenhouse Accounts (climatechange.gov.au) [3] Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy, 2019, The Independent Review of the GEMS [4] Energy Efficiency-Analysis—IEA Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. BUSINESS 28 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 28 11:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That standing order 110 be suspended to enable the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 to be passed without a roll call. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 28 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 28 Order for the Production of Documents 28 11:48 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 10 am on 16 June 2023, the letter in respect of the Great Barrier Reef addressed to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Director-General Audrey Azoulay, as referenced in the UNESCO media release of 6 June 2023. Question agreed to. Treasury 28 Order for the Production of Documents 28 11:49 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 6 pm on Wednesday, 21 June 2023: (a) all documents (including background material, agenda papers and minutes) relating to the meeting convened on 10 March 2023 by the Treasury with industry participants in respect of possible changes to the gas transfer pricing rules and the petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT); (b) a list of all individuals who were invited to the meeting on 10 March 2023, and the organisations they represent; (c) a list of all individuals who attended the meeting on 10 March 2023, and the organisations they represent; (d) a list of all individuals who signed non-disclosure agreements in respect of possible changes to the gas transfer pricing rules and the PRRT, and the organisations they represent; and (e) a copy of the non-disclosure agreement in respect of possible changes to the gas transfer pricing rules and the PRRT. 11:49 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. Senator McKim JKM This will be good. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 They're always good statements, Senator McKim. The government will carefully consider this motion; however, departments regularly hold confidential discussions with industry and disclosing these discussions risks undermining future consultations and policy development and, therefore, would not be in the public interest to disclose. Question agreed to. Attorney-General's Department 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:50 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Cash, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on 20 June 2023: (a) all communications between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, in relation to the resignation of Fiona Meagher as president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), announced on 1 December 2022; (b) all documents, including file notes, minutes and briefing materials, relating to any meetings between the former AAT President and the Attorney-General or his office; and (c) all documents, including correspondence, file notes, minutes and briefing materials, relating to any meetings between the former AAT President, the Honourable Fiona Meagher, and the Department. 11:50 Senator CH 39801 Queensland ISHOLM (—) (): I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Fiona Meagher resigned as president of the AAT last year, and Senator Cash now wants to confect some kind of outrage around this. Why is that? Fiona Meagher was appointed to the AAT without any merit based selection process, and who was responsible? You guessed it—Senator Cash, as Attorney-General. Over nine years, Senator Cash and other Liberal attorneys-general appointed at least 85 other Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and close Liberal associates without any merit based selection process whatsoever. Senator Cash and the Liberal Party's motives are clear. This order for the production of documents is about protecting the Liberal Party's shameless stacking of the AAT. The Senate should not support Senator Cash's self-interested and disingenuous efforts to protect some of the most disgraceful exhibitions of political cronyism Australia has ever seen, which has come at enormous expense to taxpayers and to the credibility of Australia's administrative law more generally. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 247, standing in the name of Senator Cash and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:55]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

PricewaterhouseCoopers 30 Order for the Production of Documents 30 11:58 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 21 June 2023: (a) all communications between Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) partner Mick Fuller, including, but not limited to, emails, text messages and similar, from 1 July 2022 to date; (b) all documents, including, but not limited to, correspondence, file notes, minutes and briefing materials relating to any meetings between Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw and PwC partner Mick Fuller from 1 July 2022 to date; and (c) all documents, including, but not limited to, file notes, minutes and briefing materials relating to communications between Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw and PwC partner Mick Fuller provided to or held by the Attorney-General and his office, the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department or the Attorney-General's Department from 1 July 2022 to date. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business motion No. 248, standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:00]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

DOCUMENTS 31 DOCUMENTS Infrastructure and Transport Ministers' Meetings 31 Order for the Production of Documents 31 12:02 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, 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 1 pm on 21 June 2023, all papers circulated for discussion at the infrastructure and transport ministers meeting held on 9 June 2023, including: (a) the agenda; (b) any briefing papers or agenda papers on the items listed on the meeting agenda; (c) any attachments or consultant reports providing additional material to support briefing papers; (d) minutes and action reports of previous meetings; (e) any PowerPoint presentations provided either with the agenda papers or during the conduct of the meeting; and (f) any other document provided to the full membership of the infrastructure and transport ministers meeting for consideration at the meeting on 9 June 2023. Documents 1 Defence and Veteran Suicide—Royal Commission—Interim report— Government response and ministerial statement Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 2 Global Methane Pledge—Orders of 26 October 2022 (61 and 62)—Letters responding to the orders Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 3 Infrastructure Australia—Report for 2021-22 Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 4 Productivity Commission—Report for 2021-22 Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 5 Productivity Commission—Report no. 99—Lifting productivity at Australia's container ports: between water, wharf and warehouse Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 6 Murray-Darling Basin Authority—Basin Plan—Report for 2021-22 Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 7 Closing the Gap—Anniversary of the Apology to the Stolen Generations— Ministerial statements and documents Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 8 Freedom of Information Commissioner—Resignation—Order of 22 March 2023 (183)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) responding to the order and raising public interest immunity claims, and attachments Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 9 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamations) Act 2020—Review on the operation of the Act Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 10 Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016— Quarterly reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman for the periods 1 July to 30 September 2022 and 1 October to 31 December 2022 Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 11 Fair Work Act 2009—Quarterly reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman for the periods 1 July to 30 September 2022 and 1 October to 31 December 2022 Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 12 Resources—Ministerial statement by the Minister for Resources and the Minister for Northern Australia (Ms M. M. H. King) Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 13 Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023—Order of 27 March 2023 (199)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) responding to the order, and attachments Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 14 Proposed superannuation changes—Order of 22 March 2023 (193)— Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) responding to the order, and attachments Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 15 SmartCard scheme—Order of 21 March 2023 (184)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Trade and Tourism (Senator Farrell) responding to the order and raising a public interest immunity claim Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 16 Regional budget statement—Ministerial statement by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Ms C King) Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 17 MRH-90 helicopter—Jervis Bay incident—Order of 27 March 2023 (200)— Letter to the President of the Senate from the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator McAllister) responding to the order, and attachment Adjourned debate (13 June 2023). 18 Australian Education Act 2013—National School Resourcing Board— Annual review of state and territory compliance with section 22A of the Australian Education Act 2013—Report for 2020 Adjourned debate (13 June 2023). 19 Australian Research Council—Grant recommendations—Letter of advice pursuant to the order of the Senate of 27 February 2020—April 2023 Adjourned debate (13 June 2023). 20 Department of Home Affairs—Protection visas—Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 14 November 2019—April 2023 Adjourned debate (13 June 2023). Committee reports and government responses 1 Community Affairs References Committee—Ending the postcode lottery: Addressing barriers to sexual, maternity and reproductive healthcare in Australia—Report Adjourned debate (13 June 2023). *2 Scrutiny of Bills — Standing Committee — Scrutiny digest 6 of 2023 Adjourned debate (14 June 2023). *3 Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum — Advisory report — Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 — Government response Adjourned debate (14 June 2023). 4 Procedure—Standing Committee—First report of 2023—Confidential review of documents subject to PII claims Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 5 Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Adaptive sport programs for Australian Defence Force veterans—Report Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 6 Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making—Report Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 7 Environment and Communications References Committee—Oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo Basin—Final report Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 8 Cost of Living—Select Committee—Interim report Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 9 Community Affairs References Committee—The extent and nature of poverty in Australia—Interim report Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 10 National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee— Report—NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission—Government response Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 11 Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—Report— Adequacy and eff icacy of Australia's anti-money laundering and counter- terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime — Government response Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 12 Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Report— Budget Estimates 2022-23—Government response Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 13 Economics References Committee—Report—Systemic, sustained and shameful: unlawful underpayment of employees' remuneration— Government response Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 14 Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Annual reports referred to legislation committees—No. 1 of 2023 Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 15 Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—208th report—International Labour Organization Convention concerning the elimination of violence and harassment in the world of work (No. 190) Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 16 Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—494th report— Inquiry into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's crisis management arrangements Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 17 Northern Australia—Joint Select Committee—Inquiry into the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool—First report Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 18 Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—Review of item 250 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022—Advisory report Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 19 Economics Legislation Committee—Report—Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills [Provisions]—Additional information Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 20 Human Rights—Joint Statutory Committee—Human rights scrutiny report 4 of 2023 Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 21 Scrutiny of Bills—Standing Committee—Scrutiny digest 4 of 2023 Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 22 Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee—Examination of the Australian Federal Police annual reports for 2020-21 and 2021-22— Report Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 23 Work and Care—Select Committee—Final report Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 24 National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee— Report—Independent assessments—Government response Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 25 Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee— Report—Adequacy of Australia's biosecurity measures and response preparedness, in particular with respect to foot-and-mouth disease and varroa mite—Additional information Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). 26 Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee— Fisheries quota system—Report Adjourned debate (11 May 2023). Auditor-General's reports 1 Audit report no. 27 of 2022-23—Performance audit—National Indigenous Australians Agency's management of provider fraud and non-compliance: National Indigenous Australians Agency Adjourned debate (13 June 2023). 2 Audit report no. 31 of 2022-23—Performance audit—Administration of the Community Health and Hospitals Program: Department of Health and Aged Care Adjourned debate (13 June 2023). Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 34 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 34 Reference 34 12:02 The PRESIDENT 112096 The Senate will now deal with a deferred vote relating to a closure motion moved yesterday by Senator Liddle concerning a proposed reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Liddle, that the question by now put, be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senators Colbeck and Cadell be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:10]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 34 Reference 34 12:11 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 September 2023: Indigenous identity fraud caused by: (a) circular definitions in Australian law, like 'an Aboriginal person is a person of the Aboriginal race'; (b) self-identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person by ticking a box on a form or through a statutory declaration; and (c) any other means and any related matters. The need for a robust and objective definition of an Indigenous Australian is fundamental to all policies and legislation related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, especially the Voice to Parliament. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Indigenous identity fraud exists. That is why I am calling on the Senate, the members here, to refer this to a Senate inquiry, which needs to be held. I am absolutely disgusted, as are many Australians, that you have ignored the call of Australians to call out the fraud that is happening with identity. People who are not Indigenous are making claims in welfare, education, housing loans and business loans. You know the fraud is going on, yet you do absolutely nothing about it. We are facing what are the most important issues in this country in the lead-up to the referendum. That could change the whole identity of our democracy and this parliament, yet you are reluctant to ensure that people are of Aboriginality. If you want them to have a voice, than make sure that they are Aboriginal. Even the Indigenous people themselves are complaining about people claiming Aboriginal identity who are not Aboriginals themselves. You are ignoring this. I've got to ask the question: what is your ulterior motive? You can't tell me that every Labor member on that bench agrees with this. You go along with Albanese's wish, the Prime Minister's wish. You're not representing the people of this nation. Billions and billions of dollars have gone out, and you stand here like crocodile tears saying the money hasn't got where it's needed. Well, it hasn't, but what have you done about it? Absolutely nothing! You see people living in poverty in some of these were remote communities. How many of you have actually been there? I tell you, I have, and I have seen it. The best of schools are built, but the kids don't go there. You have sexual abuse, but nothing happens. You shut it down. You keep talking about the Stolen Generation, because you're frightened to do anything about it because you're called racist. That's not representing these people. Your answer to it is bringing the Voice to Parliament. What? Put 24 nominated people in—selected, not elected! How do you know their identity? How do you know that they are really the people to represent Aboriginal needs. We have that many bodies now—we've over 3,000 Aboriginal corporations and land councils, with billions of dollars going to them. Identity fraud—you have the census and, since the 2016 to 2021, it's increased by 25.2 per cent. That means the Australian people are fed up with everyone claiming Aboriginality, and the fact is they actually tick the box. So you're giving funding out to these organisations based on the census figures, which you can't prove are true. You talk about people that are disadvantaged, and you only talk about those people disadvantaged because they are actually Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. There are many Australians who are disadvantaged and living in their cars in poverty. The Smith Family says there are two million Australian children living in poverty. I have so much contempt for the members in this parliament who are not representing the Australian people to the best of their ability. Truth and honesty? You talk about truth-telling? I don't see you truth-telling in this place whatsoever. That is what disgusts me. I have a lot more to say on this, but at the moment I won't be able to continue my remarks. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hansen, it being 12.15 pm, we are at a hard marker. STATEMENTS 35 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 35 12:15 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to make a personal statement under standing order 190. Leave granted. Senator THORPE 280304 Yesterday I made remarks in relation to another senator. I then had to withdraw them because the rules of the Senate do not allow you to speak about someone's character, only about something they have said. So today I will speak about my experience of parliament. When I started I was a new senator. As all women that have walked the corridors of this building know, it is not a safe place. You are often alone in long corridors with no windows and in stairwells hidden from view where there are no cameras. This was my new workplace. This is the workplace women in this building know. I experienced sexual comments and was inappropriately propositioned by powerful men. One man followed me and cornered me in a stairwell, and most of this was witnessed by staff and fellow members of parliament. No-one witnessed what happened in the stairwell, as there are no cameras in stairwells. I know there are others that have experienced similar things and have not come forward in the interest of their careers and fear they would be presented to the world by the media in the same way that I have been today. There are different understandings of what amounts to sexual assault. What I experienced was being followed, aggressively propositioned and inappropriately touched. I was afraid to walk out of the office door. I would open the door slightly and check the coast was clear before stepping out. It was to the degree that I had to be accompanied by someone whenever I walked inside this building. That is how the Greens supported me, and I thank them for that. To me, it was sexual assault, and the government at the time recognised it as such. At the time, I spoke to the President of the Senate about it. I spoke to my colleagues about it. I spoke to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, about it during her inquiry. I spoke to senior leaders in the Liberal Party and was assured the Prime Minister was informed. At the time, I was convinced that the government believed me. Their actions in immediately moving the person's office reassured me that they understood the seriousness of what I experienced. I did not make the incident public at the time, because it was during the time Brittany Higgins had made her experience in this building public. I did not want to have anything taken away from Brittany's experience and her bravery in coming forward. I believe that was the right decision. My faith in the Liberal Party was not the right decision. Until yesterday, I thought they had taken this matter seriously. But then, yesterday, I had to listen to a senator who has made me feel unsafe speak on how important it is to keep women safe in parliament. Silence is violence, and yesterday I could not stay silent as someone who has knowingly made me feel unsafe had the gall to stand up in front of parliament and preach about protecting women. This was not an isolated incident. There are others I could name who have inappropriately touched me, invaded my space and knowingly made me feel unsafe. I am disappointed by the reaction of the senator. Instead of stepping up and taking accountability for the fact that he made me feel unsafe, he denied it. He asked his lawyers to send a letter—the same lawyers who represented Christian Porter. This type of behaviour makes it harder for other women to come forward. The standard we walk past is the standard we accept for ourselves too. We have a situation in parliament where parliamentary staffers come to me to speak up about their own experiences of abuse, rather than go through the formal channels. This is not surprising. When women, girls and gender-diverse people—especially black women, sistergirls and brotherboys—seek help from authorities, we are so often met with negligence, dismissal or further violence. Too often these conversations remain in closed spaces where the allegations are covered up and the silence on gendered violence is maintained. This only serves to uphold a system of abuse that avoids legal and political consequences, where the legal system is used to intimidate and silence, backed with the threat of money and time. Accountability in this country remains a theoretical, academic pursuit—a nice talking point; a lovely aspiration—but I will not passively accept this. My testimony is one of action and resistance every day in this place. Violence against women, girls and gender-diverse people is the product of gender inequality and systemic gender based discrimination. On average, one woman a week is killed in this country. One out of every five women in Australia will be sexually assaulted or raped in their lifetime, and, if you are not white, those statistics are even higher. Perpetrators are made by certain conditions. If we want change, we need to change those conditions. I will not pursue legal action against the senator. I will not go to the police. This is my choice. But I will continue to speak out against the abuse and harassment that happens in this building. That is my choice. I want to focus on making this place safe for everyone, and at this moment it is not a safe place for women. I call on the government to immediately increase the number of security guards in the building and cameras in the corridors and to consult women who work here on what measures can and should be taken. I send my love and solidarity to all women, girls and gender-diverse people out there who have experienced the many different forms of sexual violence. To all those survivors: we must continue to stand strong, stand together and never be silenced. BILLS 36 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023 36

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 36 12:23 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I commend this bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 37 12:24 The PRESID 112096 ENT (): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 12:25 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Creative Australia Bill 2023, Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 37

Creative Australia Bill 2023

Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 37 12:26 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to speak on the Creative Australia Bill 2023, which is cognate with the Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. The purpose of the Creative Australia Bill is to put in place legislation, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, to provide for Creative Australia as a modern entity with expanded functions, responsibilities and new governance structure. Creative Australia will oversee support for contemporary music and safe and respectful workplaces for artists and arts workers, as set out in Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place, Australia's national cultural policy. As the EM goes on to explain: The Bill continues the body corporate previously in existence under the Australia Council Act 2013 (old Act) but under the new name, Creative Australia. The Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 (Transitional Bill) accompanying this Bill will repeal the old Act, in addition to providing for various transitional matters.The Bill establishes the new Board, and the Board is the governing and accountable authority for Creative Australia. Very confusingly, I have to say, it says: The Board will retain the name "Australia Council Board" to maintain its connection to the creation of the Australia Council by the Whitlam Government in 1975. This gives rise to the question: why not just keep calling the entire body the Australia Council? We now have a situation where Creative Australia has been formed, creating a new entity, but is very confusingly maintaining the name of the old agency by calling the board the Australia Council Board. This is, frankly, less than desirable and extremely confusing, to say the least. We are advised that the new Australia Council board will oversee support for contemporary music and safe and respectful workplaces for artists and arts workers. This bill also outlines responsibilities for Music Australia and creative workplace entities, which would be subject to the internal procedures and rules of Creative Australia. The Creative Australia board may give directions to entities. Several aspects of these new arrangements are quite troubling. The first is that we are seeing a reweighting of spending towards the proliferation of Commonwealth arts officials at the expense of real frontline arts activities. According to the budget, the average number of staff of the Australia Council will increase by 32 per cent, from an estimated 108 in 2022-23 to 143 in 2023-24. The government has announced $199 million of funding for the new body over these four years. It is, as I said, concerning as to how the government has even structured these arrangements. But what is particularly concerning is the reallocation of so much funding from frontline artists, from performers—from those who bring the arts to all Australians—to more bureaucrats. That is a very regrettable decision. This funding that I reference, the $199 million, has been redirected from a number of places, with the government having cancelled several programs funded under the previous coalition government, including the temporary support fund and the balance of the Location Incentive Program. Every dollar which goes to fund more bureaucrats is a dollar which cannot go to artists, performers and people in the arts sector who provide real ascetic experiences for Australian. This kind of inexplicable tinkering with arts budgets is an increasingly familiar feature of Minister Burke's administration of the arts portfolio. Consider, for instance, the perplexing appearance and disappearing of Minister Burke's Live Performance Support Fund. This was announced in the 22 October budget as part of a $38.6 million Supporting the Arts program. It was supposedly going to deliver funding for plays, concerts and festivals from November 2022 through to February 2023. But after that announcement absolutely nothing more was heard of it, and the May budget confirmed the demise of the program—extraordinarily, without a dollar being spent. There is a very clear difference between the Albanese Labor government and the coalition when it comes to how we fund the arts. The coalition's focus was on stimulating as many new events, shows, festivals and productions as possible and making sure that as many Australians as possible could enjoy what the arts sector put on offer, no matter where it was—in the big cities, in regional cities, in small towns or in remote communities. In fact, very proudly, under our $200 million Restart Investment to Sustain and Expand Fund, known as the RISE fund, 540 shows and events all around Australia were funded. The coalition even allocated a further $20 million towards this program in the March 2022 budget, but the new minister cancelled it. He didn't just cancel it; he actually killed it dead. This was $20 million which could have been put to work as early as May or June of last year towards stimulating more arts activities. So, it's very, very disappointing that this further investment announced by the coalition was cut by the now Albanese government. It now appears that the Albanese government is more interested in supporting bureaucrats in the arts industry than the frontline performers and artists who desperately need this support. Allocating arts funding is not easy. We understand that. Whatever the government does, we appreciate that some people will be disappointed. But certainly those Australians who felt our nation was suffering from a dire shortage of Commonwealth arts officials are few and far between. In my travels, wherever I go—and I'm sure this experience is shared by my coalition colleagues—I don't have too many people coming up to me and saying, 'Please, can we have more funding for Commonwealth arts bureaucrats.' So this decision is very, very disappointing. During the coalition's time in government, I can confidently say that when Minister Fletcher was the minister for the arts he was never once approached by an Australian saying: 'Minister, do you know what we need? We need more Commonwealth arts officials.' Another very concerning aspect of this government's approach to this new entity is what we are likely to see when it comes to the continuity of members of the Australia Council. Of the current 12 members, quite a few have only recently been appointed and have only served a very short term. We are very concerned that we will see at least some of those members, particularly those perceived as being ideologically tainted by any hint of an association with the coalition, being dumped by this minister. We are very, very concerned that the government will seek to highly politicise this new body and not pay due respect to those members who have been appointed to the Australia Council. I say this because, on coming to government, the Albanese government and the Prime Minister in particular made a commitment to Australians that the government would not play politics, that the government would continue its promise to Australians to be transparent and to conduct its government with appropriate integrity. But through a series of terrible broken promises and very bad decisions over more than 12 months we have seen the government fail that transparency test over and over again. Frankly, we believe that Australia is already rich with arts bureaucrats. We do not believe that this country needs any more. We believe that, in terms of the funding that is available, this country needs more support for our artists, our frontline performers. That would help support a new wave of artists in an industry which is tough at the best of times. It's really tough as an artist. No matter what sort of artist you are, there is a lot of time when you are not on stage, when you are not performing and when you're not exhibiting. So we think that every single dollar matters. That's particularly so during Labor's cost-of-living crisis. While we see the government prioritising a name change and a larger board, we see so many Australians struggling with skyrocketing costs of living, skyrocketing bills, dramatic increases in mortgage repayments, dramatic increases in rents and dramatic increases in their HECS debt. The coalition, despite all the rhetoric from the current minister, has a very, very strong record of support for the arts. In the 2021-22 financial year, when it was so tough during COVID and the arts industry was hit so hard, our Liberal-National government delivered record arts funding of over $1 billion. No Labor government has ever matched this level of funding for the arts. While the coalition government's focus was on stimulating more arts activity, the present government has a very different focus. More arts officials is their solution to all the so-called needs. So the two bills before the Senate are reflective of the very different philosophy and very different focus of the current government compared to the previous government. While we are supporting these bills, we remain profoundly disappointed in the government's focus and lack of focus on the arts funding that is desperately required in this country. 12:40 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to speak in favour of this particular package of bills today—the Creative Australia Bill 2023 and the Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. This is an important step forward. Our arts industry and creative workers right across the country have suffered over a decade of funding cuts, dismissals and being ignored. That all came to a crunch, of course, during the COVID period. It was the arts and creative workers whose jobs were cut and workplaces were shut down literally overnight. They were the first to be caught in the COVID lockdowns, and they were the last to come out and start recovering. In those first crucial months, it was disappointing to see the former government, the Morrison government, do very little to support artists and creative workers to get through. It was only by dragging the former government kicking and screaming that they finally acknowledged that some support was needed. But, of course, that was just the tip of the iceberg. It had been a decade of running down our cultural institutions, of dismissing the importance of the creative industries in our broader economy, of dismissing and ridiculing even the support for the creative education programs, whether music, art or drama, in our schools and broader education institutions. It had been attacked, cut, attack, cut for well over a decade. Hundreds of thousands of workers in this country are in our creative industries. They contribute hugely to our national economy. Their contribution to our national identity, to our global democracy, to our soft diplomacy, to our education and to our community social cohesion is priceless. Yet, year after year, we see our creative industries put in the too-hard basket and at the bottom of the pile when it comes to government funding. I welcome this piece of legislation. It is one small step to starting to restore the huge amount of pressure our creative workers have been under for far too long. But it's important to acknowledge in this debate today that there is a massive funding shortfall in relation to delivering the promises that have been made by the current government. This Creative Australia Bill creates a new framework for what has previously been known as the Australia Council. It broadens the ability for this particular agency to ensure it touches on a broader range of workers and important elements and programs of our creative industries, but the bill doesn't have the funding that is going to be needed to really make this new agency zing. The incorporation of Music Australia under this new banner is a very welcome move, something the Greens campaigned for long and hard. But, again, a new agency, a new program and a new set of legislative instruments are only as good as the funding given to make sure they can actually do the job and get the outcomes intended. Artists' jobs are real jobs. The creative industry is an industry of genuine, real workers and businesses. In fact, the creative industries are made up mostly of small business across this country—often sole traders or small businesses working hard to contribute not only to their local community but also to the broader economic success of this country. There are also more women employed in our creative industries than almost every other industry in the country. Most creative workers struggle because they are the first, the original, gig workers. We hear a lot about the gig industry in the tech space these days. But, broadly speaking, the creative industry was the original gig industry, and they still continue to struggle with the gig-to-gig arrangements. We to get that fixed as well. Our artists, particularly our performing artists, deserve minimum pay. They deserve a minimum wage for the work that they do. I note that that is not part of this package—but it is something that the government needs to consider. If there is a Labor government in office, surely the Labor government of the day should be considering a minimum wage for creative workers, just like we expect a minimum wage for everyone else. Our creative industries are the future of our economy going forward. Our creative industries ensure innovation, creative thinking and problem solving—all skills that we desperately need in our new economy and for future jobs. It is disappointing that, when the Minister for the Arts, Mr Tony Burke, announced Labor's policy, which included the Creative Australia package, that there was no extra support for arts education in our schools. If we want to ensure that our kids have the skills and the abilities for what the future economy and future workforce looks like we need to make sure that they have access to creative learning. That means art classes, music classes and drama classes. Every child in this country should have the right to learn music and art, and at the moment they don't. It might be okay for those kids whose parents are able to afford the private school fees. But, if you are one of the majority of Australian young students, you don't go to private school; you go to the local public school. At the local public school there is no guarantee that you can learn art, drama or music—and there should be, If we want the brightest minds, the most creative thinkers and the most innovative workers for the future, all of the science, all of the studies and all of the evidence shows that arts and creative learning is the best way to achieve that. The Greens will support this package. There are lots of good things in here, but we need to ensure the funding gap is met. I urge you: if you really care about the next generation of creative workers in this country, start funding art classes in schools. Make it a right of every student in this country—every child—to access music classes, art classes and performance classes. We will have a much better generation, fit for the future workforce, if we do that. I commend the bills to the Senate. 12:50 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The Creative Australia Bill 2023 and the Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 are part of a series of bills that will support the implementation of Australia's national cultural policy, Revive. It's a policy we are deeply proud of, and it will start turning around a decade of neglect. Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place is a comprehensive suite of policies designed to empower our talented artists and our organisations to thrive, to grow and to feel empowered, unlocking new opportunities for artists to reach different audiences to tell their stories in their own compelling ways. We believe Revive will bring the drive and direction that we need and a vision back into a $17 billion art industry in this country. There has been a lost decade of federal policy drift, funding neglect and just a shameful neglect of the cultural beating heart of this country. The arts and culture sector deserves— Senator GROGAN 296331 Point of order: I sat and listened painfully to Senator Henderson, and I would suggest she does the same. The policy is supported by $286 million in dedicated funding over four years. It will support the revival of respect and investment in this critical industry. The four interconnecting pillars of this policy are the framework to build and to grow upon. Pillar 1 is First Nations first; pillar 2 is a place for every story; pillar 3 is centrality of the artist; pillar 4 is strong cultural infrastructure; and pillar 5 is engaging the audience. They work together to give us the framework to build, to improve, to respect and to grow. Revive recognises the important role of culture and arts in developing our national identity, enabling reconciliation and healing, promoting social cohesion and encouraging economic growth. At the centre of Revive is the establishment of Creative Australia, which will be facilitated by the passage of this legislation. Under this legislation, Creative Australia will be the government's new principal arts investment and advisory body—not just public servants, as has been suggested. Creative Australia will expand on and modernise the work of the Australia Council. The additional funding of over $200 million over four years will restore significant swathes of money cut by the previous government. Creative Australia will strengthen the capacity of the Australia Council and provide for a greater strategic oversight and engagement across the sector to ensure that funding decisions continue to be made on the basis of artistic merit, at arm's length from the government, which we believe is the appropriate way to do it. It will also include the establishment of the independent bodies and funds for First Nations arts and culture, contemporary music and writers as well as a centre for artists and entertainment workers. Later this year the subsequent bills will introduce and formally establish Music Australia and the centre for arts with it. These bodies will be critical to bringing forward this vision for a stronger arts sector, and that is critical. The Albanese Labor government is committed to improving the quality of Commonwealth investment in the arts sector and to strengthening access to support for artists and art organisations. A properly resourced Creative Australia is key to delivering on these commitments. In February the Senate referred the inquiry into the National Cultural Policy to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee. We have had a hearing and had a range of submissions which have, so far, overwhelmingly supported the intent and the plan moving forward from the cultural policy. I want to thank all the organisations that have submitted to the inquiry, and the organisations who came along and engaged with the committee over this policy. As I say, they were overwhelmingly supportive of Revive as a policy, noting that the National Cultural Policy is a welcome first in developing contemporary and sustainable approaches to supporting Australia's arts, entertainment and cultural sectors. We heard significantly of those who had lost funding or had funding cut; that's all laid out in the evidence that was put to that inquiry. I want to thank the national cultural institutes for their work and the evidence they provided. We were proud to announce in April that the National Library would receive a further $33 million in funding over four years, with Trove to be separately provided $9.2 million. Trove is such a critical resource, such a loved and valued resource, and it was left desperately underfunded due to the neglect of the former coalition government. Without this funding injection, Trove would not have been able to continue. I want to thank Trove for their commitment and the important work they do. I also want to acknowledge the impressive work of my dear friend and colleague Senator White in supporting the National Library and advocating for that important institution. We also announced a significant amount of funding, $535.5 million, to nine key collecting institutions over four years—institutions that had also been significantly neglected, like the National Library, the National Gallery, the National Museum of Australia and the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House. To ensure they can keep going, doing their significant work, we have to invest in them. I know that is important to a vast number of people in this chamber, and I thank each and every one of them for their advocacy on this issue. Throughout the hearings we also heard from a range of live performance and music sector artists who are continuing to suffer following the COVID-19 pandemic and the decimation to their incomes and their livelihoods through the inability to perform live through that time. There were shutdowns, disruptions and supply chain issues, and extreme weather events were another factor—along with last-minute ticket sales, which have changed the shape of being able to project what income might be and how you break even on some of those gigs and festivals. We acknowledge the struggles of the sector and the struggles they have gone through in the last few years since the beginning of the pandemic. We are confident that the establishment of the Music Australia Council to sit within Creative Australia is going to make a difference to the planning, to the cohesion, to the opportunities that are there for those people. The Albanese government is so proud of Australian culture. I am so proud of Australian culture. The beating heart of who we are and how we express ourselves as a country is inspiring. The National Cultural Policy is going to mark a new future, a new opportunity for us moving forwards to build that trust back, to build the opportunities and to make a fundamental difference to our arts and cultural sector in this country. I commend the bill to the Senate. 12:59 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Creative Australia Bill 2023, which will effectively establish Creative Australia. I can guarantee you one thing, and that is that, if you go to the public service and ask for advice on how to streamline agencies, processes and principles, the answer will always be to create another agency—because more bureaucrats is always the solution. I get it; I totally understand: you want to create further career opportunities and pathways for yourselves. But it is not always the right thing to do. I do support the Creative Australia Bill, because I support the intent of what the Creative Australia Bill is setting out to achieve. There are certainly aspects of the bill which are very welcome, including the recognition not only that we need to tell our own stories but also that Australians, regardless of heritage, background or geographic location, deserve to be able to access art, practise art, produce art, write their stories, sing their songs and perform on their stages. But, as always, the devil will be in the detail. This bill creates the Australia Council Board, which will oversee Creative Australia. The Australia Council is being wound up, but we're still going to name the board the Australia Council Board. It is going to increase board from 12 to 14. That might be okay. They are going to be appointed by the minister. There is nothing in my reading of it that says it has to be a merits-based selection process or anything like that. This is a typical ministerial appointment process, which we on this side don't actually disagree with—because, as a minister, you are elected to make these tough decisions. We get lectured constantly from those on the other side that ministerial appointments are only jobs for the boys; yet, every time they set up a new body, they go down this path of having ministerial appointments. So what is it? Is it jobs for the boys, or do you actually agree that ministers are smart enough to make merits-based appointments? With a new board of 14, I certainly hope that there is a more genuine geographic distribution than is currently on the Australia Council board. They are all imminent people, but there is only one member of the current board based outside of a capital city. That is Mr Philip Watkins from Alice Springs, and he is absolutely deserving of being on this board. But wouldn't it be good if there were more than just one regional voice on this board that is looking at and advising—to use the terminology from Senator Grogan—an investment body? It is an investment body and this board will advise them. Wouldn't it be good if we had more than just one regional voice? I will tell you where art begins. It begins in the grassroots. It begins from the very foundation. As Senator Hanson-Young said, it begins in the classroom and it begins at home. But it doesn't matter whether that home is in Bondi or whether it is in the red dirt of Central Australia—there are amazing stories. I can attest to one story of a fabulous little organisation, Outback Theatre for Young People, which is headquartered in Deniliquin, my hometown. Yes, once upon a time I was on their board and I was associated with them as a chair. They have a staff of 1.5 full-time employees. They manage a turnover of around $300,000 to $400,000 in a good year. It's all grants based. So those 1.5 employees have to write the grants, have to come up with the programs, have to source artists to embed, because their practice model is that they embed in regional communities. They've done circus works at Balranald. They've done work with the School of the Air out at Wilcannia. They've worked with new migrant Australians in Swan Hill to help create art that creates understanding, that works with people to bring them all together. And this is with 1.5 people. When you're talking regional arts, the return on investment is phenomenal. But, when you're talking about people who come from our capital cities, who look at how many audience numbers they can get, they look at the black and white—What is the audience number? How much can the audience pay? What's our return on investment in dollar value? It's incomparable. You can't compare arts in low-socioeconomic areas where mums and dads can't afford to pay $20 see their child on stage. But they want to see their child on stage. They can't afford to pay for lighting and big production costs, but old Fred from down the road is happy to turn the spotties in his ute on to light up the back of a flat bed truck so those kids can perform on that stage. That establishes a sense of community and fosters dreams. A lot of the kids I'm talking about who've worked on these productions through this little organisation have gone on to do other things. They dream big, and that's a great thing. Where do you think you get the Australian Ballet ballerinas? They're not all born and bred in leafy suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne. Some of them went to the Dubbo Ballet School. Good on them! We want to see more of that. What I can't see in the detail of this bill is how we're going to make sure that grassroots arts are funded and that they're absolutely supported. How is this bill making it easier for organisations like the Outback Theatre for Young People to put in grant applications so that they're not competing against the big city based theatre companies? It should be more like for like that they're competing against. I do appreciate and acknowledge that in the Creative Australia brochures that have been put out there is a commitment to increase the regional arts funds. I absolutely welcome that, but I will be watching very closely to see how that's rolled out. One thing we do know is that, while much is being made about the new body getting an extra $199 million over four years, it's not new money. It's money that's been taken from other areas. It's been redirected from a number of places. The current government has cancelled several programs that our government established specifically, as Senator Hanson-Young said, for during COVID, when the arts industry was on its knees. Some of them, like the RISE Fund, were very welcome and very good at achieving their intent of funding artists on the ground, of getting artists out and practising. It wasn't funding to pay for an extra 32 per cent increase in staffing, as the current budget has identified. The average staffing level for the Australia Council will go up by 32 per cent in 12 months. That's not artists being supported. That's not artists practising their art. That's not audiences getting to enjoy Australian culture. That's just the version of streamlining that we see repeatedly over time. As I said earlier, I will be supporting this, because I really do genuinely support the intent. But I will be looking at the detail and its implementation. I will be watching the results, and I will be asking at estimates, as I do and as I have done for the last four years, how much of the spend is going to hit the ground in the regions, and how much of our representation and how much recognition are we giving to our really good artists in the regions who can step up, who have the skills and the knowledge, so that they can be represented on the Creative Australia board. So I will support it. I will watch it closely. I thank the government for their significant consultation on preparing this bill. But our support for this bill today is not a blank cheque to ignore artists and just fund more public servants. 13:11 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many amazing people who make up our great Queensland community—our one great Queensland community—I rise to speak on the Creative Australia Bill 2023. It is legislation that is so out of touch that it's my duty—indeed my pleasure—to make remarks on this legislation, which implements a previous bill to modernise the Australia Council. 'Modernisation' is a word few Australians wish to hear when it comes to the arts. Modern art, with its ugly exterior and substandard political shouting, is the reason so many Australians turn their back on the local arts community, sadly, choosing instead to seek their cultural fix overseas, amongst the historical buildings and ruins and the splendour of Western civilisation. A single marble pillar from the Roman age holds more fascination to the typical Australian than the entire offering of last year's Australia Council. Despite the terrifying amount of money spent on the arts, it's not the beating heart of Australian culture. It's a desert of talent, accentuated with outcrops of brutalism, obscurity, absurdity—installations made from literal trash, the obscene, the lazy and the inconsequential masquerading as talent. Creative Australia celebrates the primacy of left-wing controlled politics over entertainment, humour, culture and class. Minister Burke has taken up his position on the throne presiding over this self-indulgent mess—this slop. To stop the overpaid leaders of the art world snapping at his ankles, he's decided to throw even more taxpayer money at them. It's a terrible shame, because the real artists and writers of Australia are forced to leave our country and seek a career overseas, where the merit of their work is valued above the artist's identity. Creative Australia and Minister Burke are failing the real arts community and, with that, failing everyday Australians, failing our country. Remember, this is the era when local councils erect bits of junk in the town square while tearing down bronze and stone statues—works of real, actual art, erected to honour the real builders of Australia. Our so-called arts community is busy deconstructing its historical betters while replacing them with nothing of lasting merit. It's no wonder the Australia Council had to spend money on surveys, trying to work out why their performances are empty and, as a result, changing their name, not their product. That's what seems to be the outcome. Modernisation, the key part of this proposal, can be best illustrated by using a scene outside the Melbourne art gallery. By the way, yes, this really happened. Imagine this: customers were queueing to gain access to a collection of Renaissance masters while a modern piece of installation art outside involved adults dressed as sheep, pretending to eat the grass and baa baaing at the customers. Can you believe this! Senator McGrath 217241 Yes, I do! Senator ROBERTS 266524 That's the sad part! Considering this was before the age of COVID, perhaps we should have taken that as a warning for how eager modernity is to embrace a sheeplike existence. Suck it up! In the middle of an economic crisis, as a result of government overreaction and wastage in the COVID years, the government has decided to undertake an unnecessary refurnishing of the arts, using money taken from places where it would have actually done some damn good. Modernising the arts and needlessly rebranding its bureaucracy is something a bored government does on a slow day when it's rolling in a surplus, not when we're in a crisis—a financial crisis, an economic crisis, a moral crisis, a social crisis. First, we sat through Minister Burke and his 14 town hall meetings, worth $40,000, so that he could introduce himself to the cultural sector, apparently forgetting that he is caretaker of an existing and well-known department and not a freshly appointed CEO with a fragile ego. Instead of spending $40,000 of taxpayers' money on himself, perhaps Minister Burke could have given that money to the cultural sector and sent out a few tweets saying, 'Hi,' or maybe 'G'day,' and called the whole thing done. Maybe that's what he could have done. The rest of the legislation behaves like the Tim Tam genie's infinite arts grants. We are told that in order to deliver the national cultural policy, of which this legislation is in service, $286 million will be provided in the next financial year—$286 million in 12 months. That's more than a quarter of a billion dollars. For perspective, $200 million is roughly the cost of the one million mental health appointments that the Labor government decided to cut from Medicare last year. Labor has looked at where that money should be spent and decided it's better off being handed over to this new Creative Australia and not on psychology sessions for Australians struggling with mental health. What is it that the Australian taxpayer gets for that $286 million, aside from a bloated bureaucracy that spends its time drinking champagne and shaking hands, perhaps calling patrons of fine arts 'sheep' again? When was the last time the Australia Council showed some real diversity and inclusion and funded artworks and cultural endeavours from conservative artists? Where are the grants to preserve colonial artists and the enormous work they did recording Australia's pioneer days? What about artworks dedicated to the Western values of liberty and individualism? What could be more important? Artists protesting against the cruelty of big-state authority and abuse during the COVID years perhaps? That'll be a long wait, a very long wait. Their voices are exiled from this so-called inclusive publicly funded boondoggle. The sort of arts and culture funded by the previous Australia Council is not rich and diverse; it's a saturated market of climate-apocalypse propaganda, seen through the prism of race and religion and ideology. Their corporate strategy says exactly that: It includes emphases on access and equity, advocacy for the vital role of arts and culture, and investing in arts and creativity that reflects and connects the many communities that make up contemporary Australia. It doesn't say, 'We are committed to funding excellence and achievement for talented individuals in the arts community.' It doesn't say that. The Australia Council even threw in some World Economic Forum propaganda for good measure, stating: The technologies of the fourth industrial revolution are transforming and disrupting industries, economies, and how we interact with our world and each other. Wonderful! This isn't art. It's politics—international, unelected bureaucratic politics and ideology of the elites, the globalist predators, masquerading as art and funded by taxpayers. What was it doing on the Australia Council website? Why? What was it? And will Creative Australia adopt the same fealty to foreign powers? Two hundred and eighty-six million dollars is the reward for hijacking the arts sector to promote a woke ideology over an artistic one. I'll say that again: a woke ideology over an artistic ideology, an artistic culture. The inclusion of Aboriginal art as the predominant destination of Creative Australia funding suggests this is another bribe to support the Voice. It's coming at us from every angle. That shows that they're actually desperate. Creative Australia is advocating that the arts become all about 'a place for every story and a story for every place'. I'm sure the public is trembling in anticipation of that agenda—'agenda' being the operative word. It suggests the government is doubling down on woke and calling it art. The government hasn't realised that, in order to increase the reach of arts and culture, you let the free market direct the program. That ensures that the program meets people's real needs. You allow the people to reward artwork that appeals to and connects with them. That ensures that it meets people's real needs. Artists that produce rubbish should not be funded simply because they flatter the Labor-Greens-teal government. Their work is drowning out more deserving artists who are rejected because Creative Australia does not like their politics. There's a reason working-class families in Australia save up for years to fly to the other side of the world and stand beneath Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling. When was the last time a product of the Australia Council left millions of international tourists in awe, questioning the human limits of skill and vision? The answer is never—never—because you cannot buy culture, no matter how much taxpayer money Minister Burke throws at it. 13:22 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I rise today with some cognitive dissonance, as a boy from the Hunter Valley who grew up on sports, particularly motor sports and rugby league and who is a member of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee that examined these bills and similar ones. As the previous speaker, Senator Roberts, mentioned, the minister has been spending $40,000 worth of taxpayers' money, familiarising himself with the arts. I've got to say my wife, the good doctor Bethan Cadell, has spent thousands of dollars familiarising me with the arts over the last few months, to her great joy, going through my wages that the taxpayers give me. We've seen Come From Away in Newcastle, we've seen MAMMA MIA! in Sydney and, also, Tina the musical, just over the last three months. As well as that, I've really enjoyed meeting new graduates from arts colleges, talking to them about their futures, how they see money being spent and what gaps they see in that market. At this point I'd like to thank the chair of the environment and communications committee—which is meeting right now—Senator Grogan. Something that came out of that was that inquiry is that there is no single library anymore of plays for semiprofessional or amateur theatres to be able to go to; there is no single source for grabbing licensed works that they can operate. There is no single website where these people can go and apply for auditions, see what's open, and those sorts of things. That has been progressed through this committee, as I have been slowly educated in the ways of those more cultured than me. Senator McGrath 217241 A quick learner! Senator CADELL 300134 I'm trying, Senator! But I take up some of the points of the previous speaker. What is art? What is culture? This is what it comes down to. We don't live to work; we work to live—and we live to love. And art should bring joy, art should make you think and art should educate, but art should be balanced. For so long, the arts and culture area has gone along in trends and waves, and ups and downs. It's not about one government or other. There are creative bursts. There are things to talk about. There are discussions that go on. So it's an area, as I am becoming familiar with it, that we must support. The coalition will be supporting this bill today, as I said. But, as Senator Davey previously said, let us not forget the regions. I think Senator Henderson also said this, but, out of all the people I've engaged with who are teaching me what I need to know, none of them have said that we need more bureaucrats—not one. I think this bill increases some of the departmental staff by 32 per cent, but that's not what they're seeing. They're seeing more help at the beginning of their careers. What was really interesting was the difference across different genres. If you're in film, screen or TV, there is help right at the beginning with things such as YouTube, self-made videos and self-made promotions. There's help at the top and a gap in the middle, in that transition from amateur to professional. Yet an industry just as big in the arts and cultural portfolio is computer games, and that is coming through. I think there's a Treasury laws amendment with a digital games tax offset that will help that. There are directors and sound technicians that cross over, and all the things that happen there cross over into the film world. I look forward to that bill hopefully coming in next week before the financial year ends, which will assist them. They have help at the middle and top, but that beginning phase is difficult. We need to open this access to all. I think there are different focuses to the funding that the coalition would have done, but we welcome any more funding going into this. We welcome the industry going into this area. What we would really like to see is some certainty in funding over an ongoing period, to allow people to make times and to see a certainty in their future. I still owe Aysha Galloway and her writing crew and some friends in Sydney. They gave me some tips, some pizza and a sit-down about where they see this going and what's going on in the future. What is interesting is that art is not a thing anyone can define other than in the way that they see it. Culture is the same. For me, going to Mount Panorama, of all places, and seeing that white stone installation on the side of that hill moved something in me. It might not be what other people would see. Senator McGrath 217241 It's auto art! Senator CADELL 300134 It may be. It's a fine thing, but that is it—it's in the eye of the beholder. Culture is in the eye of the beholder: 'This is important to this; it makes me feel.' So I am very supportive of all things that we can do to do that. As I said, and as Senator Henderson said, there are differences in what we would spend on—maybe there would be some more grassroots spending. I hope and look forward to the department, especially the minister and Senator Grogan, helping us deliver this for the beginners. Even schools came to me. I went and saw some school drama teachers. I was never overly good at drama. In school, if people had to wag, they would run away and get caught. I'd go and wait in the principal's office, because that's where people thought I would be normally, and I'd get away with it! But drama wasn't something I habitually attended. In talking to these people now, I understand that they see its role. A drama teacher from Belmont Christian College—I met her at an Anzac memorial—brought the kids to do some readings. She was talking about how drama sets you up for life and gives you the confidence to stand up somewhere—like here today—and talk. It's about having the confidence in yourself to learn, to be able to project and do these things. So it is important, and this bill is important. As I said, there are minor differences. I'm proud to support it. The true thing going forward is that we have that continuity. If we develop the emerging talent and they don't have to travel overseas, as was mentioned before, and can stay in Australia—I know there are lots of things about content quotas and everything going forward at the moment—we will make that industry big enough. It's not just theatre, screen and film, live performance or music. It is everything. But we can work across these areas. We're seeing film as an industry getting bigger. Having more Australian cultural content and defining what that is is important, because then we can go and produce the latest Marvel movie on the Gold Coast or Sydney. We produced Superman, I think, at NESCA House—a building at Newcastle university—but you couldn't recognise it as Newcastle. It was just a generic scene. So there is that difference between Australian made and Australian culture. I think this bill will go some way towards helping define that. I think there's more work to be done. I don't think more bosses telling people how it's done will additionally help, but the process will start. We'll have a structure in place and we'll have a way to move forward, and that's why I commend this bill. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Order! It being 1.30 pm, we will now move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 45 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Pharmaceutical Industry 45 13:30 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Today Western Australia is served by over 600 pharmacies that provide a central, community-based health support for all Western Australians. So many of them have contacted me in recent weeks about the Labor government's shameful 60-day dispensing policy. All of them have been in complete despair and genuine despair. Sadly, their concerns have fallen on deaf ears, of not only their local Labor MPs but also their Labor senators. The simple truth about this policy is it will result in closures and job losses in pharmacies right across Western Australia. What Labor have forgotten is that most pharmacies are family-run small businesses—families and business with mortgages, struggles with the increasing cost of living and 12 interest rate rises under Labor over the last 12 months—and it is a complete disgrace. They were not even consulted on the implications and the impact of this policy. The following is what Labor would have heard had they bothered to ask pharmacists in Western Australia and, I am sure, in the rest of the nation. Pharmacy owner Nikki in Western Australia said real pharmacies like hers will be the hardest hit. They won't be able to afford to pay both their staff and their mortgage. Perth pharmacist Daniel says, "Our industry has been thrown under the bus." His pharmacy, like so many others, will lose more than $200,000 per year, which is the equivalent of three staff that they will have to sack. Paul's rural pharmacy is the only one in town. He will lose 50 per cent of his net profit, which means sacking local, regional staff. So many others will be forced to reduce opening hours, stop after-hours deliveries to aged-care residents and increase the price of non-prescription medicines for all Western Australians. There are other ways for the Labor government to provide cheaper medicines—and it is not too late—without hurting the pharmacies. (Time expired) Childhood Educators 45 13:32 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Last week, early childhood educators made the first ever national application for supported multi-employer bargaining in the Fair Work Commission. In doing that, they made history—with 65 employers and 12,000 educators. It was educators who stood up for the Secure Jobs, Better Pay laws that are actually allowing this to happen. They told their stories to us here in the parliament, stories about how much they love their work educating future generations and about how hard it is to stay in their jobs because, as they put it, love just does not pay the rent. They told us their stories about their dedication, their professionalism, their commitment to their work and how, despite that, they are still treated and paid like babysitters in our society today. They told us their stories that explain why our essential, highly-skilled educators are leaving the sector in droves—because they just can't afford to stay. Educators advocated for these laws and now they are making history by taking their case to Fair Work. In doing so, they are standing up for their own professional wages but they are also standing up for the children in their care, who need dedicated, highly-skilled educators to stay in the profession. I am proud to stand with them today, and I congratulate every educator who is part of this, because properly valuing your work will be critical for you and also for all Australian families who rely on your highly-skilled expert work. Renewable Energy 46 13:34 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland After a decade of denial and thumb twiddling, the renewable energy transition is happening in earnest. Managed properly with robust, transparent and early community engagement, the prior and informed consent of traditional owners, worker protections and careful consideration of its environmental impacts, the energy transition will lower our climate emissions, provide reliable and cheap energy for centuries to come and lead a renewal of regional Australia. I can tell you that my own community of Gladstone in Central Queensland, which still bears the scars of fossil fuel boom and bust cycles, is incredibly excited about its bright future as a renewable energy hub. Those watching proceedings in this place over the past couple of days would have been treated to the somewhat surprising spectacle of coalition senators expressing shock and dismay that some energy projects may have an adverse environmental impact. I for one am delighted that, after years of not giving a flying fox about biodiversity, the destruction of the reef or species extinction, the coalition seem to have finally come to their senses. They are of course correct that large-scale projects of any kind carry with them a variety of risks, which is why the Greens have long been calling for an overhaul of our broken environment laws. I expect that, with their new-found concern about sediment run-off and native vegetation loss, we can count on the coalition's future support for a more robust environmental protection regime. As newly-minted environmental activists, my Senate colleagues may also be dismayed to learn that the extraction and burning of coal and gas, which they have championed and defended for so long at the behest of their fossil fuel donors, is the primary driver of runaway global heating. Welcome to the environmental movement, comrades. Domestic and Family Violence 46 13:36 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The investment is significant and yet the statistics remain staggering. The Northern Territory Police this week responded to 597—I repeat: 597—domestic and family violence callouts in just seven days, and that number is most definitely underreported. Seventy-nine women are formally recorded as having been killed by a former or current partner in the Northern Territory since the year 2000 and 74 of them were Aboriginal. These are real people, and one of them is my sister. Hundreds of millions of dollars of additional taxpayer funding are going into the Northern Territory right now to address the ever-increasing statistics in a population of just 247,000. This week the Northern Territory coroner opened an inquiry into why the deaths of four Aboriginal women who endured long-term domestic violence had not been prevented. The coroner highlighted systems that failed not only the victims and their families but the individuals working to help them. Also impacted by this trauma are children—children who are likely, if not already, to be well represented in the youth justice and child protection statistics. Amidst this crisis the Albanese government has still not delivered the promised 500 much-needed frontline community workers across Australia. Two hundred workers were supposed to be on the ground by the end of June and yet by 30 June there is not likely to be a single new worker. With the lack of a transition plan with the ending of the cashless debit card, the lifting of alcohol restrictions and hundreds of millions of dollars going into Central Australia, the wellbeing of local children is not being measured to understand the change. There's not nearly enough peer review or independent evaluation of new and existing programs to ensure maximum impact from this investment, and it's well past the time for much-needed further investigation. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 46 13:38 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory On the weekend we celebrated the Barunga Festival. I'd like to read the Barunga declaration from the four land councils. It states: We, members of the four Northern Territory Aboriginal land councils, acknowledging our elders and old people, have gathered again at Barunga, the site of the historic Barunga Statement in 1988 and the Barunga Agreement in 2018, with pride in our own laws, cultures and ceremonies, looking to the future. We, who have been dispossessed and subjected to punitive controls by governments, who have never ceded sovereignty over our lands and waters, resolve with one heart our determined support for the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. We must right the wrongs of the past and deal with the serious issues impacting First Nations peoples, empower First Nations peoples and unite our country. We call for the recognition of First Nations peoples in our still young constitution by enshrining our voice to the parliament and executive government, never to be rendered silent with the stroke of a pen again. We need to be heard and urge our fellow Australians to stand with us and vote 'yes' in the forthcoming referendum, for the sake of a better future for all of us. Mental Health 47 13:39 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania We're all mindful of the importance of mental health—how to be aware of it and when to reach out for help. But being vulnerable and opening up to someone isn't an easy thing to do. It's important to find a person, a place or a community that makes you feel safe. Across Australia, the Men's Table is doing just that—creating a safe and healthy community where men can be heard and supported while also being able to support others. The co-founder of the Men's Table, Ben Hughes, is based in Tassie. I've watched the amazing work he has done to take the Men's Table from a single meeting of 12 men to 137 tables across the country. So what do I mean when I talk about a table? A table is a group of a dozen or so men who meet at the same place at the same time each month over a meal. It gives them an opportunity to make lifelong friendships and have connection and belonging. It's a simple yet very effective model. Participants say the Men's Table has positively impacted their families, friends and the wider community around them. In my home state of Tasmania, a high rate of all suicides are committed by men. Men often become isolated and struggle to make friendships, and this is more obvious in rural areas, where men tend to work by themselves. That's why this program is so important and has grown rapidly over the past four years. There's a genuine need out there for something like the Men's Table. I truly believe that the work Ben and his team are doing is making a big difference in the lives of men in Tasmania and across the country. When we look at funding for health, more money for doctors, nurses and psychiatrists is essential, but it's also worth looking outside the box at the benefit of programs like the Men's Table. This community-building program is changing lives. I think that's worthy of support from all levels of government. Budget 47 13:41 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I compliment Senator Tyrrell on that very good contribution. It's something we should be extremely concerned about, so thank you, Senator. I'd like to talk about another big spending, big taxing Labor budget. This one is in my home state of Queensland, where the state budget was just brought down. We're seeing the same old saying from the Labor Party in my home state of Queensland. St.George Bank came out and said that the budget will provide 'further upside risk to inflation and ultimately result in more stickiness in price pressures'. It is another Labor budget—another big spending, big taxing Labor budget. The extraordinary thing about this Labor budget is that the Queensland government, which had put up royalties on the coal industry, had estimated—and we all laughed when they made this estimation—that the increased royalties would provide an additional $765 million of revenue in the next budget year. We all laughed at that—anyone who was watching commodity prices. And what has happened? That increase in coal royalties, which has led to international concerns about sovereign risk in Queensland, has brought in $10.5 billion of additional revenue. Has the Queensland government used that revenue to pay down debt? No, of course not; that would be too sensible! That would be the obvious thing to do—pay down your debt whilst commodity prices are so high! Where's the money going? It's going to an extra 100 people being employed in Annastacia Palaszczuk's own department. That is an extra 100 public servants in her own department. Queensland needs more police, more nurses and more frontline workers, and we need to get rid of this sad and sorry Palaszczuk government. Road Safety 47 13:43 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania What Australians woke up to on Monday morning was devastating and life altering for hundreds of people impacted by the tragic death of 10 people in a bus crash in the Hunter. This year has been a traumatic year on Australian roads, with the number of deaths far too high. But yesterday we had the opportunity to recognise some incredible road safety advocates and experts and the important work that they do every day to try to curb the road toll and save Australian families and communities the heartbreak of learning a loved one has been killed on our roads. The Australian Road Safety Awards, organised by the Australian Road Safety Foundation, are in their 12th year, and I would like to take some time to congratulate the winners. The Founder's Award went to the Mornington Peninsula Shire for their Safer Speeds on rural roads project, which saw a 68 per cent reduction in deaths on the shire's rural roads. The shire also went home with the Rural and Regional Programs Award for this project too. The Queensland Police Service took home the Community Programs Award for their Rockhampton speed survey project. The School Programs Award went to bstreetsmart for their bstreetsmart 2022 program. The Eurobodalla Shire Council—who I know are in the building today—were awarded the Local Government Programs Award for their Kings Highway Road Safety Partnership. Kidsafe Queensland went home with the Corporate Fleet Safety Programs Award for their free child-seat checks. Main Roads WA were awarded the State Government Programs Award for their work in the Regional Road Safety Program. The Innovation Award was given to the South Australian Police for the SA Police Fatal 5 True Stories feature. Finally, CreativiTek won the Technology Award for their work in engaging parents in children's road safety. Congratulations again to all award winners. Juvenile Detention 48 13:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Albanese government can't continue to turn away while the states and territories lock up and abuse children. Despite decades of evidence, inquiries, reports and recommendations regarding the appalling abuse suffered by children in detention facilities, we've seen no national plan for reform and no action to fund or implement evidence based alternatives. In just the last few days, fresh evidence has emerged of the horrific conditions that children have been exposed to in Perth's Banksia Hill youth detention centre. Western Australia's Inspector of Custodial Services warns that the prison is in a state of emergency, with appalling rates of self-harm and attempted suicides and stretched mental healthcare services. The situation in Queensland is also in crisis, with First Nations children vastly overrepresented and subjected to inhumane, abusive conditions. Of approximately 291 children in prison in Queensland right now, 195 are Indigenous. That's 67 per cent. In the Northern Territory's Don Dale and Alice Springs youth detention centres, more than 90 per cent of imprisoned children are Indigenous, and on some days it's 100 per cent. Children's Commissioner Anne Hollonds states that youth justice across Australia is in a state of 'crisis', and she points out that the jurisdictions with the laws toughest on crime have the most problems with youth offending. These things are connected, and I commend her for her national review. The system is brutal and it's broken. Instead of being helped and healed, kids in prison are being subjected to abusive conditions and inhumane treatment, which exacerbates their trauma. I recognise the vital work of organisations such as the Aboriginal Legal Service of WA and Social Reinvestment WA, who are working collectively for an effective and connected approach to justice. But they all need more funding and support. I call on the federal Attorney-General to end his silence, put in the funds and show the national leadership needed. Lindenmayer, Professor David, AO 48 13:47 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I wish to correct the Hansard if I may. For some reason I said earlier that Professor David Lindenmayer worked with the Climate Change Institute. David Lindenmayer AO is a professor at the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the ANU. He is a world-leading expert in forest ecology and resource management, conservation science and biodiversity conservation. He has a staggering 1,030 publications and 73,706 citations and has published 48 books. His decades of work in the mountain ash forests in Victoria have helped build a picture of the impact of native forest logging. At the ANU, he and his team have been studying hundreds and hundreds of sites on farms in the temperate woodlands, helping farmers understand the impacts that their land management practices are having on biodiversity, which will help farmers be part of the solution when it comes to the loss of biodiversity here in Australia. Lawrie, Ms Jean Louise 48 13:48 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia It is with great sadness that I rise to acknowledge the life of Jean Lawrie, who passed away on 29 May, aged 95 years. Jean was born on 25 February 1928 and grew up on her parents' farm in the Hindmarsh Valley. She studied at teachers college and worked at Mount Compass and Smithfield primary schools. She later enlisted with the Women's Royal Army Corps and served with distinction as a corporal. She met the love of her life, Mac, and they raised their family in Port Adelaide. She was an exceptional sportswoman and a foundation member of the South Australian Women's Electric Light Cricket Association. She captained the Riverside women's team for 21 years and led them to an amazing 14 premierships. Jean was also a long-time supporter of the South Australian Women's Memorial Playing Field Trust and made an incredible contribution to the advancement of women's sport. In 1968, Jean joined the Liberal Party and was one of our most dedicated and hardworking members. She stood as a candidate for Price, and for the federal seat of Port Adelaide a record seven times. In 1998, to her great credit, Jean received the Liberal Party's Meritorious Service Award and in 2016 she became only the 20th member of the South Australian Liberal Party to receive its Distinguished Service Award. The Port Adelaide community and the Liberal Party will greatly miss Jean. I thank her for all the support that she provided me in my career in public life. My thoughts are with her family, especially her children Raelene, Sue and Jock. Rest in peace, my friend. Parliamentary Standards 48 13:50 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I have to comment today on Senator Thorpe's remarks in this chamber with regard to the safety of this building. I first entered parliament when I was first elected as an independent, and no-one felt more alone than I did at that stage. I've been an independent woman in the lower house. The parliament is a safe place. I have no problems with it and have never had any problems with walking the halls and in this chamber. What I find offensive is her remarks and her crocodile tears. I'm not going to defend Senator Van because I don't know the circumstances. But I do know that this is coming from a person who is the most abusive woman, in one case to a respectable Aboriginal elder, Aunty Geraldine Atkinson, who had to receive medical attention. There was her abuse of Senator Hollie Hughes, and there were cases of abuse involving other senators here—'All the war; this is war.' The fact is that to lay yourself in front of a Mardi Gras truck or you stand on the streets of Melbourne, in a criminal space with a lot of criminality, and abuse men there at three o'clock in the early hours of a Sunday morning. I made a comment to a woman of this chamber and I got a reply: 'Fuck off.' The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Hanson, I believe there are some personal reflections that would be considered to be against standing orders. I will refer it to the President to review, but I will give you the opportunity now to withdraw any comments made to assist the chamber. Senator HANSON BK6 Unless you point it out, what I'm talking about is factual of a person. I don't think that what I have said is reflective because, when this chamber is used and abused by a certain senator, I will stand up and defend this chamber and what this chamber stands for, as well as every other senator in this place that has been abused by her. I don't believe her crocodile tears. I just want to put that on the record. This is a safe place in the chamber. And another thing I will say is that if you have an issue— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Hanson, please take your seat. Senator Hanson, that is a reflection on a senator, which we all understand in this place is against standing orders. Thank you. You may proceed. Senator HANSON BK6 The message that must go out to all people is: if you have a claim of sexual harassment, go to the police. Her message today to the people who may be affected by sexual abuse and harassment was not that. Don't say it on the floor of parliament. Take it to the police, where it belongs. PricewaterhouseCoopers 49 13:53 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia The PwC tax scandal is just one example of the unethical behaviour our inquiry into the integrity of consultants is uncovering. Every day brave whistleblowers contact me with stories of conflict of interest, unethical conduct and problematic internal culture rife in the big firms. There are so many examples. Last week it was revealed that PwC was contracted by the federal government to review the prices of medical implants. This is despite PwC previously advising multinational companies supplying Australia's $12 billion medical device market on how to set those prices. Private Healthcare Australia chief executive Rachel David accused PwC of advising private companies on transfer pricing for medical implants that inflate the cost of these devices and minimise tax. This is a threefold conflict of interest, one that increases PwC's profits every step of the way, from advising private companies on setting prices to advising the government on how it prices the same things and to helping these multinational companies to minimise the tax they pay in this country. We are being taken for mugs, and it has to stop. This is far from a one-off example. This is the business model of those who aggressively seek to profit and lack any shred of integrity. So many Australian taxpayers share my outrage. My office is inundated day after day with people calling for urgent reform to the regulation of the big four and to restore a robust public sector. We cannot rely on empty assurances from firms like PwC that they are managing conflicts of interest. We need to hold these entities to account through urgent structural reform. This is why today I've given notice that I will be pushing to have PwC as a partnership deregistered as a tax agent for two years. PwC's tax business has Australians wanting real change, and we must see it. (Time expired) Tasmania: Infrastructure 49 13:56 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The Albanese Labor government continues to fail the people of Tasmania. Yesterday I put on record how disappointed people are about how the Tasmanian federal Labor team have prioritised a stadium over health and education funding, something that I continue to receive correspondence about. It's a great disappointment to me, but today I want to turn my attention to the electorate of Franklin, which is occupied by Ms Collins, the cabinet minister who failed to get a guarantee that the stadium funding would be exempt from GST. It's a real travesty for our state and for the people of Franklin, who will not be able to access health services because of this dodgy dud deal that they can still fix, I might say. In Franklin, though, at the last election, there was a project, the Mornington roundabout, for which the Albanese Labor government committed $30 million. It was of interest to me, and I wanted to know exactly how they came to this funding figure. So I thought I might ask the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport: 'How did they cost this particular project, Minister?' Indeed, the answer was forthcoming. He had no idea, because no-one contacted the state government about this project, which, of course, they would have to build and complete funding for. As it turns out, in response to a query, instead of a paltry $30 million dollars going to this roundabout, it's more likely going to cost $100 million. Not only are we ripping $240 million out of health and education in the state of Tasmania and doing a dud deal for the people of Tasmania because we prioritise a stadium over hospital beds but we're going to rip the people of Tasmania off by more than $70 million because, you know what, we'll build you a roundabout; we just won't pay for it. What kind of representation is that? They should be ashamed of themselves. Postcards to the Front 50 13:58 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I rise to speak about Postcards to the Front. Started by Tamara Levit in Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, this initiative invites people from around the world to send short messages of hope and solidarity via postcards to the brave Ukrainians on the front line of the war with Russia. These frontline heroes include not just soldiers but also doctors, nurses, aid workers and many others who are risking their lives to help their countrymen and defend their country against Russia's illegal and immoral invasion. The Australian branch of this volunteer-run initiative has sent over 2,000 postcards. The campaign is picking up, with more than half of these cards sent in the last month. Recently I invited all members and senators to participate in this campaign by posting them a blank postcard with a reply-paid envelope and a covering letter with suggestions of what to write. I sincerely thank the more than 33 members and senators who have so far returned cards to my office, including the Prime Minister. These postcards may seem like a small, even token, gesture, but they are important. Ukrainians have fought with admirable determination, and I believe the courage and fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people has been a key to their success in the war. Together with the substantial material support we are providing, the postcards are a reminder that the world stands with Ukraine and has not and will not forget their struggle. Any member or senator who has not yet returned their card in the post can drop it off at my parliament suite, where I also have a supply of blank cards. All you have to do is write your message on the card and leave it with my staff. My office will then forward it to Postcards to the Front Australia, who will ensure it gets delivered to the front line. STATEMENTS 50 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 50 14:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, Senator Van is going to make a statement, and I am requesting that he is listened to in silence. 14:00 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Let me say this in the clearest possible terms: Senator Thorpe's allegations are concocted from beginning to end. Nothing that she has alleged about me is truthful. No such exchange occurred between us. There is no interaction that could conceivably resemble what she described today. Making false allegations in the Senate today is disgraceful and brings the Senate into disrepute. Her insincere commentary of her right to not complain to the police evidences her consciousness of guilt that what she said is false, because, if it were true, she would not be cowering under the umbrella of parliamentary privilege to make such a scandalous and serious claim so carelessly without notice. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, it is not appropriate in a statement to make a personal reflection upon another senator. I would ask that you withdraw that. Senator VAN 283601 I withdraw that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator VAN 283601 I have acknowledged publicly that I moved offices after an allegation from Senator Thorpe that I made her feel uncomfortable. That is what was put to me—an allegation that I denied then and deny today. I agreed to move offices to ensure the avoidance of any misconception. No incident was ever alleged by her. I agreed to protect myself against her irrational concerns and ensure the effective and smooth running of the parliament. I do not wish this matter to stain the Liberal Party that I fought so hard for. So I accept that I will no longer be sitting in the party room. There should be and must be an investigation into these outrageous claims so they can be proved to be false. I will fully cooperate with investigators and answer any questions that they may have of me—and Senator Thorpe should do the same. I will answer any questions put to me by my own party as well. Finally, the allegation of intimidation by my lawyer is unfounded, and I will table the letter that was a sent at 5:01 pm yesterday. In that letter Ms Giles demands that Senator Thorpe retract her allegation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, resume your seat for a moment. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU The senator will need to seek leave to table. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, I was aware that the senator needs to seek leave. I was going to remind him at the conclusion of his remarks. Please continue, Senator Van. Senator VAN 283601 I will seek leave at the end of my statement. It should also be said that Ms Giles operates a specialist practice and has acted for Miss Brittany Higgins and Senator Hanson-Young and presently acts for members of every political party in this chamber. That slur on her was irrational and unjustified and should also be withdrawn. I call on you, Madam President, to review the senator's most recent statement, as I believe it reflected personally on me every bit as her allegations did last night after naming me yesterday, and it should be withdrawn as per standing orders as a reflection on a senator. I seek leave to table that letter. The PRESIDENT 112096 Is leave granted? Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU After the usual courtesies of the whips looking at it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, if you could give it to the whips. Senator Van, thank you for those comments. I was intending to make a statement. I wasn't aware until later that you were going to make a contribution. So I will make a statement later and I will take into account the remarks you have made about withdrawal. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Members Of Parliament: Staff 51 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong. On 4 June 2021 in a Senate committee hearing, when confronted about whether Senator Gallagher knew of allegations of an alleged assault before they became public, she said, "No-one had any knowledge. How dare you?" Over the last few days she has admitted in this chamber that she did know about the allegations before they became public and received information about them. Minister, will you ask Senator Gallagher to admit that she misled the Senate and to simply correct the record? 14:04 Senator WO 00AOU South Australia NG (—) (): Again, I do not accept the assertions that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate makes in that question. Senator Gallagher made a statement to the Senate this week and has been asked multiple questions. She has made clear what her knowledge was and has responded to, I think, basically the same question that Senator Birmingham has put to me today. She has responded to that directly. I would make a point here about respect, if I may. We seem to have forgotten, in this debate and in this chamber, about what actually occurred here. Those opposite seem unable to accept their own responsibilities and unable to accept that one of their own staff felt disrespected in her workplace. They seem to be unable to accept that she might have exercised her own agency and told her own story in her own voice. Now they compound that disrespect with the use of personal text messages and other confidential information being leaked to the media. I think the message that many Australians looking at this will take is that those opposite are willing—instead of accounting for their own actions—to punish those who speak out. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary? 14:05 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia In the same estimates committee hearing on 4 June when you and Senator Gallagher were continually asking questions about this very matter in the parliament, you also made the statement, 'I had no knowledge of this until that night.' Minister, will you simply correct the record? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I made clear in my statements to this place, and publicly, that I did not know the full details of Ms Higgins allegations until she chose to tell her story, and I have made clear that I and Senator Gallagher played no role in making this matter public, as was asserted by Senator Reynolds that night. Her assertion was incorrect. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary? 14:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, when did you first learn that the alleged victim was going to reveal her allegations to the media? Specifically, when did you learn that she would reveal those allegations to the media, and who did you discuss that information with, if you learnt it before they were revealed to the media? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I refer to my answers yesterday about this, and I again say that I did not know the full details of Ms Higgins allegations until she chose to tell her story in reports published on Monday 15 February. Also, to the best of my memory, I did not know her identity until after these reports. I had no contact with her, her partner or her supports. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X President, I have a point of order on direct relevance. Yesterday, questions were asked, which the minister responded to, about the breadth of her knowledge or when she received information. Today, this is a very specific question that goes specifically to when she learned that the allegations would be revealed in the media. I ask the minister to be directly relevant to that question, which I repeated twice: to be very clear and specific about when she learned the allegations would be revealed in the media. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I believe the minister is being directly relevant to the question. I will invite her to continue, and I will continue to listen to her answer. Senator WONG 00AOU What I would say is that there are those on the other side who knew a lot more a lot earlier. The question is— Senator WONG 00AOU I will take the interjection: 'It's not about us; it's about you'. The former Attorney-General has really been very clear about this: it's not about us, it's about you. That's what it is all about from those on that side. It's not about Ms Higgins. It's not about women who are watching— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! On my left! Senator Ruston, I have just called the chamber to order and you have completely disrespected that request. Your constant interjections are disorderly. I am asking you to stop it. Climate Change 52 14:09 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. The Liberals and Nationals wasted nearly a decade with denial and inaction on climate change. It created uncertainty for industry and left Australia without a clear pathway for our energy future. How is the Albanese Government investing in futureproofing our energy system and taking action on climate change? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Payman for the question. This is one of the big differences between this side of the chamber and the other side of the chamber. They— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, it's true that we don't have our climate policy determined by Barnaby Joyce; that's true. We are taking action on this side of the chamber to ensure Australia's positioned to become a renewable energy superpower. The budget funds critical investments to save Australians money on their energy bills and to support nation-building new industries. Everyone knows that, for too long, Australians were left behind, under the Liberals and Nationals, while the rest of the world moved to take advantage of the economic opportunities that come with action on cleaner, cheaper energy. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU Now the Albanese government is acting on the mandate of the Australian people—which I know Senator Hughes has a lot of difficulty with—who clearly voted for action, particularly in Victoria, on climate change last year. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Watt! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, I've called you to order three times. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU As I said, the Australian people clearly voted for action on climate change last year, and this government is responding to that call from the Australian people. We are rewiring the nation: we are funding the Rewiring the Nation plan—a $20 billion investment in connecting landmark renewable energy projects with the grid— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU so they are powering Australian homes and businesses. This budget also provides funding for the capacity investment scheme, underwriting investment to bring on new supply of clean dispatchable power across the country. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, across the chamber. Senator WONG 00AOU Let's remember what their legacy was: four gigs out, one gig in. Let's remember: that's what you delivered to the Australian people. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a first supplementary? 14:11 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Can the minister please explain to the Senate how these investments will strengthen our economy and create employment opportunities? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The government's plan, the Albanese government's budget, isn't just a plan for cleaner and cheaper energy. It's an economic plan, because those opposite might like to continue to fight the wars of times past, but the reality is: Australia fell behind the pack in the global race for new energy jobs and investment, and across this country we need to support businesses and governments— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Hughes, and a lot of people on my left and across the chamber on my right: the interjections are disorderly, and particularly across the chamber. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I know it's difficult for them to hear something positive on climate; they've always found it hard. And, eventually, the Australian people just said, 'Enough is enough.' In Australia we need to support businesses and governments to harness their immense potential to build new industries and create jobs, which is why we are establishing a new Net Zero Authority. It will help workers in emissions-intensive sectors to access new employment skills and support, as the net zero transformation continues. The authority is about ensuring no-one is left behind. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a second supplementary? 14:13 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Thirteen months in, and our government hasn't wasted a single day—great to hear! The Liberals' and Nationals' delay— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, please resume your seat. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left. Order! I could not even hear the question. Senator Payman, please start your question again. Senator PAYMAN 300707 I won't mention the first comment. The Liberals' and Nationals' denial and delay on climate action left industry with no certainty. How does the Albanese— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, please resume your seat. I've just sat Senator Payman down and called for order, and almost immediately, when I invited her to continue with her question, the disorder started again. That is disrespectful. Senator Payman, please continue. Senator PAYMAN 300707 The Liberals' and Nationals' denial and delay on climate action left industry with no certainty. Minister, how does the Albanese government's budget invest in new, job-creating industries? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Members of this government understand the immense potential our country has as a renewable energy superpower. It's why we're investing $2 billion in the Hydrogen Headstart program— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Why do they hate clean energy and renewable energy so much? That is the question, isn't it? Listen to them. Why do they hate clean energy and renewable energy so much? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McAllister! Order! This is question time. I should not have to be calling the chamber— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick! Most of the comments so far have come from the President. It is not question time for me—or comment time for me—it's question time across the chamber, and I am constantly having to call people to order. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU This government is investing $2 billion in the Hydrogen Headstart program to bridge the commercial gap between the cost of hydrogen production from renewables and its current market price for early projects. It aims to support two to three flagship large-scale projects to deliver up to a gigawatt of electrolyser capacity by 2030. In turn, Australia will be able to take advantage of the immense jobs and investment potential of the technology. This is about secure jobs with a long-term future and Australia being a global leader in hydrogen. Members Of Parliament: Staff 54 14:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, I refer to the allegations of sexual assault that were the subject of intense questioning by you over the months from February 2021. Did you or your office seek any briefing from police or prosecutors on evidence and procedural laws to ensure that your pursuit of those allegations in the parliament and the media did not affect any investigation into this matter? Senator Wong 00AOU President, I raise a point of order. This parliament and this chamber has had a lot of focus on these issues in these last days, and, as I said yesterday, I have taken the view that it is appropriate for questions to be asked and answered. But I would ask you, as chair, given the number of questions that have been asked, to recall President Hogg's ruling in 2014 in relation to the scope of questions, making it clear that questions about historical events before a senator became a minister are not in order. Now, we've not chosen till now to put that to you, but given that yesterday we had a question about a wedding, I think it's probably time that the Senate started to look at whether or not the questions in fact comply with the rulings of Senator Hogg. Senator Birmingham H6X President, in considering the point of order, I would invite you to consider that, in the previous parliament, more than 50 questions were asked directly on these related issues to then ministers and that the questions that have been asked over the course of this week relate to statements that were made by Senator Gallagher and by Senator Wong in the parliament and statements that they've subsequently made outside of the parliament in response to media queries as ministers—and there are a range of precedents that determine the validity of the questions that have been asked—and, through that, to consider the reasonableness of them continuing to be asked if necessary. These questions could have been curtailed had we indeed had a situation where Senator Gallagher acknowledged that she had misled and, having acknowledged that, simply corrected the record. However, that has not been the case, so the opposition has chosen to ask what we contend to be reasonable questions, consistent with existing practice and precedent and, within that, consistent very much with the type of prosecution we've seen of similar matters before. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham and Senator Wong. I'll seek the advice of the Clerk. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber! Senator Wong has raised an order by previous president Hogg, and Senator Birmingham has made comments. I am advised that the link is tenuous, and I'm going to invite Senator Gallagher to answer the question to the extent that she thinks is necessary. I will also take the matter on notice and, if necessary, come back to the chamber with a further statement. Thank you. Minister Gallagher. Senator Gallagher ING Can I ask that Senator Cash repeat the question? Senator CASH I0M I refer you to the allegations of sexual assault that were the subject of intense questioning by you over the months from February 2021. Did you or your office seek any briefing from police or prosecutors on evidence and procedural laws to ensure that your pursuit of those allegations did not affect any investigation into this matter? 14:20 Sena ING Australian Capital Territory tor GALLAGHER (—) (): The formulation of our questions was done in the normal way, through our own processes. I would say that throughout those questions we were always conscious of making sure that our questions didn't go to issues that may be raised and considered through further or future investigations. And I have certainly not—and I can check the record on this—there was no feedback from any of those authorities that they were concerned about the questions we were asking. I mean, we are in the Australian Senate. I don't know how many times people vet their questions through other organisations, but— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, I completely reject that. I completely reject the weaponisation allegations. I reject the allegation and the assertion just made by Senator Ruston that I am a disgrace and that I don't hold myself to the same standard as them. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. A serious question has been asked. The minister is, in a very genuine way, attempting to answer it, and then there are interjections, and then there are interjections across the chamber. That is disrespectful. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. I think I've addressed the question, and I would say that the only time when we considered and changed our approach was when Senator Reynolds sought our assistance. I think if you go back and check the record you will see that we responded to those requests, made in front of Senator Ruston, that we did consider the request that was put to us and change our approach. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash and Senator Henderson, I don't know how many times I have to call you to order, and you are being disrespectful of the authority that I carry in this chamber. I would ask you to reflect on what you're saying and I would ask you to treat questions and answers with respect. Senator Cash, a first supplementary. 14:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, in relation to the allegations of sexual assault that were the subject of intense questioning by you over the months from February 2021, did you or your office seek any advice on whether your decision to pursue those allegations over months in the parliament and the media could hinder the prospect of a fair trial and damage any prospect of conviction? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I refer to my earlier answer, and I would say again: the allegations that we sought to ask questions about were allegations that a young woman had something dreadful happen to her in this building that we work in. Is anyone suggesting that there shouldn't have been questions asked about how that occurred? That is the issue here. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash and Senator Henderson! Senator GALLAGHER ING There were public allegations made about two Liberal staffers in a minister's office which had traumatised a young woman to the point that she went public— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I'm asking you to refrain from interjecting. And once again, I'm asking you, Senator Henderson and Senator Cash, to do the same. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING So the suggestion that we shouldn't have asked questions, I think, is unreasonable. I am answering the question. Senator Ruston 243273 You should answer the question. Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Ruston, I am answering all of the questions. But the idea that we shouldn't have asked questions is unreasonable. (Time expired) The PRESIDE 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:24 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Did you or your office, in relation to the allegations of sexual assault which were pursued, seek any advice on whether your decision to pursue those allegations over months in both the parliament and the media could be damaging to the privacy, health and wellbeing of the very many people involved, including others in this building? 14:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We asked reasonable questions that I thank the public would have expected us to answer, considering the seriousness of the allegations that had been raised. Senator Cash I0M It is a protection racket! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Gallagher, please resume your seat. Minister Wong, did you have a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU I was asking Senator Cash to perhaps cease for a moment in her interjections while the senator was on her feet. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! These are serious matters. I've said that over and over again. I am being fair across the chamber. I want the questions asked in silence and I want the answers responded to in silence. It is legitimate to call points of order, but it is not legitimate to keep calling out across the chamber, and I think it's not fair to make me the arbiter of your behaviour. You're in control of whether you shout out or not, and I will keep sitting the minister down and drawing it to the chamber's attention. I'm asking you to listen in respectful silence—from both sides of the chamber. I don't think that is an outrageous ask. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. We were mindful of people's health and wellbeing. We considered that deeply, but we also had to ask questions that needed to be asked about something that happened in this building. Senator Henderson ZN4 It was prejudicial. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left particularly! Government sen ators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 And on my right! Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING So we asked reasonable questions at that time. We were mindful of people's health and wellbeing. When those issues were raised directly with us—and Senator Ruston knows this—we responded appropriately. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 56 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Political Exchange Council: United States 56 14:27 The PRESIDENT 112096 I want to draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 36th delegation from the United States of America, led by the Hon. Zachary Ista. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 56 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Health Care 56 14:28 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. The Senate inquiry into universal access to reproductive health care found that it was a postcode lottery. Consensus cross-party recommendations to improve access were made, including that all public hospitals be equipped to provide abortions or timely referral to an affordable local provider. Will this government consider a return to their 2019 policy of requiring publicly funded hospitals to provide the full range of reproductive healthcare services? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Waters for the question about a very important report to the government from this chamber, Ending the postcode lottery: addressing barriers to sexual, maternity and reproductive healthcare in Australia. The short answer is that the government will respond to the report. We welcome it. We acknowledge that there is an inequity in the health system when it comes to maternal and reproductive health care. We acknowledge there's a lot of work to do, particularly when we inherited a healthcare system in the state that we did—particularly in primary care, where many women access maternal, sexual and reproductive health care. We are working towards tabling our response to the 36 recommendations within the usual time frames, which is around 25 August. I'd like to thank all the committee members who sat on that inquiry, under, I think, the leadership of Senator Smith. It's a very important inquiry. It's got a lot of recommendations—36 recommendations. We have made some investments in women's health in this budget. Assistant Minister Kearney and Health Minister Butler are very focused on looking at what we can do to make sure we are providing the right support to women where they live, and are working through those issues. Unlike the former government, we will take responding to committee reports seriously. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:30 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland What will the government do to ensure that people who are refused an abortion at their local hospital can get timely and free access to an alternative service? Will you commit to funding the alternative pathways to provide affordable abortions referred to in the Senate inquiry report? 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We will work through the recommendations, as I said. We come from a position where we acknowledge that, depending on where you live and what services are available, there is a lack of fairness in terms of access to services across the country, and that particularly women living outside of major metropolitan areas struggle to access affordable reproductive health care. We will be working through those. Again, I would say some of the intention of the government can be shown in the way we are making substantial investments in the area of women's health care, and we will continue to do that in our future budgets. We see access to reproductive health care as an essential healthcare service for women, and we will work through those recommendations as the ministers finalise those and take them through our cabinet process. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, second supplementary? 14:32 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Minister, in countries where contraception is free, there are fewer unintended pregnancies and fewer sexually transmitted diseases. Will the Labor government follow the lead of France, the UK and others, and make contraception free? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We will wait for the recommendation to the report. That hasn't been the government's position at this time, but we are working through the report, and the issues, and the submissions to the report. It hasn't been our position to date. I think, once you get our response to the committee report, that will make clear the government's position on all those matters. Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement 57 14:32 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. On 31 May 2023 the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement entered into force. According to the minister's media release to mark the occasion: The Albanese Labor Government prioritised legislation in the Parliament to bring this trade deal into force in record time, delivering on our commitment to help businesses diversify their trade and help bring down the cost of living for Australians. How will this free trade deal benefit Australian exporters, families and young people? 14:33 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sterle for his very good question. I know he's got a great interest in trade, particularly as he comes from Western Australia. The trade agreement with the United Kingdom is one of Australia's most comprehensive and ambitious. The agreement eliminates tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian goods exported to the United Kingdom. Two-way merchandise trade with the United Kingdom was worth $10 billion in 2022. The removal of tariffs significantly increases opportunities for Australian agricultural exports, including beef, sheepmeat, wine and sugar, as well as manufactured products such as auto parts and cosmetic products. The deal supports service trade worth over $4 billion by making it easier for service professionals to do business in the UK market. From January 2024, Australians applying for the UK's Youth Mobility Scheme will see the maximum eligible age rise to 35, and they will gain the ability to stay in the United Kingdom for up to three years. The agreement underpins and deepens our already strong bilateral investment relationship with the United Kingdom, which is the second-largest source of foreign direct investment in Australia. The deal will help to lower the cost of living for Australian families by making consumer goods cheaper and reducing the input and running costs for businesses. It is a great deal that will benefit all Australians. The government is now focused on implementation and advocacy to support utilisation of this gold standard agreement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, a first supplementary? 14:35 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia With the historic free trade deal with the United Kingdom now in place, can the minister please provide an update on trade negotiations with the European Union? 14:35 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia (—) (): Thanks, Senator Sterle, for your follow-up question. Yes, I can update you on those negotiations. The Albanese government is currently focused on securing the best possible outcomes in a trade agreement negotiation with the European Union. The EU is a massive high-income market of around 450 million people, with a GDP of $24 trillion. Last week in Brussels I met with my EU counterpart, Executive Vice-President Dombrovskis, as well as the EU agriculture commissioner. The key message I conveyed was that Australia could only sign a deal that delivered new commercially meaningful market access for our agricultural products. We will persist and persevere, even if it means negotiations extending beyond mid-year. Our world-class producers, exporters and workers deserve the best. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, a second supplementary? 14:36 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia In addition to the negotiations to secure a trade agreement with the European Union, could the minister please outline other action taken by the Albanese government to diversify trade and investment opportunities? 14:37 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Sterle. Yes, I can deal with those issues. The Albanese government is delivering on our election commitment to diversify trade and investment opportunities for Australian businesses, including by strengthening economic ties in the Indo-Pacific. Last month, I participated in a ministerial meeting in Detroit to advance negotiations on an Indo-Pacific economic framework. It was a successful meeting which concluded negotiations to strengthen cooperation and supply chains. Negotiations are on track to finalise the remaining pillars of the framework this year. Australia and India are actively progressing an ambitious, comprehensive economic cooperation agreement that will build on the ECTA market access outcomes. On the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans‑Pacific Partnership, ministers are scheduled to meet in Auckland next month to admit the United Kingdom. (Time expired) Tasmania: Family Law 58 14:38 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. On 25 May, legal practitioners on the north-west coast of Tasmania were advised the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia could no longer operate out of Burnie because there are no suitable premises available. It has since been revealed that the court has not had a permanent home in Burnie since 2021, when it was squeezed out of the Burnie Magistrates Court. Since coming in to government, why hasn't Labor found a permanent home for the Federal Circuit and Family Court in Burnie? 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. I am aware that this has been a longstanding issue, and I recognise the advocacy that you have undertaken on this, along with a number of Labor senators, I must say, to ensure that the community of Burnie in the north-west of Tasmania receives the services it needs. Senator Scarr 282997 What about us? Senator WATT 245759 I'll take the interjection from Senator Scarr. The reason we are having this discussion is that it wasn't fixed under the previous government during the 10 years that they were in government. So any time you want to ask that, feel free. But this is a serious matter, Senator Tyrrell. People deserve proper access to family and circuit court services no matter where they live. I will undertake to provide you with some information about that, but I'm sure you're aware of the efforts that the Attorney-General in particular has undertaken to boost Family Court access for all Australians no matter where they live. We remember that under the former government not only did Burnie and the north-west of Tasmania not have those services, but in fact it was the former government that abolished the Family Court. That's how little they cared for the Family Court, whether it was in Burnie or anywhere else. And it would appear they're unrepentant of their action to abolish the Family Court. And it has been proven that this action has created worse outcomes for Australians. We, of course, recognise that the Family Court does need improvements and did need improvements, but the solution to that was not to abolish the court in its entirety, which was exactly what the former government did. Senator Scarr 282997 It was a merger! Senator WATT 245759 You can dress it up however you want, but you abolished the Family Court. That came at the expense, in particular, of women and children fleeing domestic violence who needed the services, the specialist services, that were able to be obtained through the Family Court. But as I said, Senator Tyrrell, I'll come back to you with the precise information that you're seeking. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:40 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I've heard from a constituent, let's call her Linda, who's a single mum in Smithton who doesn't own a car and so has to now go and take a six-hour one way—that's worded wrong. She has a six-hour, three-bus journey one way to get to a Family Court hearing. How is it she's spending more getting to court than the federal government is spending on getting a court at all? 14:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Tyrrell. I understand from my very good friend and north-west Tasmania's greatest champion Senator Urquhart—some in fact describe her as the minister for Braddon, that's how good an advocate she is for the north-west of Tasmania—that local governments in the region are working to find new premises to ensure those services can be made available, and that the movement from the Burnie Arts Centre is due to refurbishment needs of the existing premises. Obviously, that's not a satisfactory permanent solution. It sounds to me like those premises probably needed refurbishment some time ago, and there are a few people from Tasmania sitting on the other side of the chamber who might have liked to take the opportunity to do that, but, yet again, we step up to the plate with the support of people like Senator Tyrrell. Action is being taken to find those new premises to ensure that people get the services they deserve. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:42 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I've got to ask: how is it that you've found $240 million to fund a stadium in Hobart that nobody wants but you can't find a single lonely cent to fund the Family Court in Burnie, which Burnie actually needs? 14:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Tyrrell. Just to add to the information I've provided to you already, my understanding is that the court and its representatives went down to Burnie last week to source a new location for the court, to find a new and safe location for the circuit when it goes to Burnie. The Attorney-General is monitoring the situation closely, and his department is working closely with the courts. We certainly acknowledge that not having a Family Court circuit presence in Burnie is a problem, and this will be treated as a priority. I did hear some interjections from some members of the opposition about the comparison you made to the stadium investment. I make the point that some of those— Senator Colbeck 00AOL Not from me! Senator WATT 245759 I'm not talking about Senator Colbeck, of course, because we know Senator Colbeck supports the stadium. It's just that some of the others don't support the stadium. What might have been nice is those who are now interjecting to have done something during their 10 years to ensure that Burnie had the services it needed. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Staff 59 14:43 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, in your statement to the Senate on Tuesday, and repeatedly since that time, you've acknowledged you received information about Ms Higgins's sexual assault allegations but did nothing with that information—absolutely nothing—in advance of it being made public. But on Tuesday you couldn't, or wouldn't, answer questions about whether you provided feedback on The Project interview, as has been widely reported. You've refused to explain whether you provided questions to Mr Sharaz, as his text messages suggest. You've avoided answering whether you communicated with any other person about questions to ask the former government. Minister, there are very straightforward answers to these questions. If it's true that you did nothing with the information, why can't you answer basic factual questions about your involvement in this matter? 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator McKenzie for the question. I have answered questions in this place. In fact, I've answered probably more questions than many of the people who knew much more than me. The other point I would make is that when I give a commitment to someone around confidentiality I keep it. I don't breach confidentiality arrangements. I am prepared to withstand this line of questioning and the coverage from the media because I have— Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Rennick, I don't imagine women come to you with claims and concerns about sexual assault, but they come to me, and I will not breach their confidence. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, I am going to ask you to withdraw that comment about Senator Rennick. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 It is a personal reflection in my view. I ask you to withdraw it. Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm happy to withdraw. But women do come to me raising concerns about sexual assault, sexual violence, sexual harassment, and one of the things I tell them is, 'Your confidence is safe with me.' If I were to breach that and start splashing it all around the place, then I would be breaching that confidence, and I am not doing so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Minister, despite repeatedly being asked basic questions of fact in this chamber over the last week, you have not been able to confirm whether you ever received TheProject interview before it was made public, whether you communicated with any other individual about the allegations before they were made public, and whether you encouraged the complainant to go to the police. Why do you refuse to be held accountable to this chamber, and why can't you answer basic factual questions about your involvement in this matter? Honourable senators interjecting — Senator Watt 245759 Today of all days to be asking this! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Watt! Minister, I haven't called you yet; I'm waiting for silence on my right. Minister, please continue. 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, I think that's the same as the first question. I refer you to my statement. I would say I am very disappointed at this week. After the work that we have done on Jenkins, on Respect@Work, on asking women to come forward when something happens to them, to then treat women the way they are being treated right now—it says something about this. And I am sorry Senator Reynolds is clearly upset about what happened to her. I am sorry about that, and I told her that. I told her— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Henderson ZN4 She did everything right, Katy! The 10000 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong 00AOU What about Ms Higgins? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Henderson— The PRESIDENT 112096 It's not interjection time. There are plenty of opportunities across the week for you to make whatever statements you want within the standing orders of the Senate. Question time is not one of them. I'm asking for respect in this chamber from both sides. Senator Watt, your constant interjections, quite frankly, are very unhelpful, as are those on my left. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING But I am also very sorry for Brittany Higgins. I'm sorry that documents about her personal life have been leaked. I'm sorry that a confidential draft claim for compensation found its way into the front pages of a national newspaper. And I am sorry for all the women— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? Senator Ruston 243273 You started it, sister! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I heard that. That was very unhelpful, and once again it is a disrespectful interjection. Senator McKenzie, please ask your second supplementary. 14:49 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Minister, in response to a question yesterday about whether you were invited to Mr Sharaz's first wedding, you said: I think I was Chief Minister. I got a lot of invitations to a lot of things. Minister, you ceased being the Chief Minister in December 2014; the wedding was in 2018. Do you now wish to correct your statement to the Senate? Why can't you answer basic factual questions about your involvement in this matter? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I will refer you to the ruling I made yesterday in relation to that question. My ruling was that it was not appropriate and quite unrelated to the first question that was asked. The minister was invited to answer that question to the best of her recollection. Sena 207825 President, just on your ruling, I am not asking about the actual event. It was the fact that the minister made a statement in the chamber that referred to a 2018 event by saying that she was still chief minister. Her information to the chamber was incorrect, and I'm giving her the opportunity to correct that. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will seek the advice of the Clerk, and I apologise if my ruling was incorrect. The Clerk has reinforced that my ruling was correct, and I will invite the minister to answer as much of your question as she feels able to do or wants to do. 14:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory To be honest I didn't know when the wedding was. I hadn't linked the two events. If I had given an incorrect answer then I would correct that. I was making the point that I get a lot of invitations to a lot of things. If it wasn't in my role as chief minister but in another role then so be it. I did not attend the wedding; the invitation was declined. But I get thousands of invitations to things, and many of them I can't go to. I would just say again because the insinuation around the questioning today has been that we caused harm to Senator Reynolds or that that is what she feels, and so I would say that, when that was drawn to our attention—and it was—we took that on, and when we were asked to stand back from Senator Reynolds— (Time expired) Indigenous Australians 61 14:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. Minister, I know you have had a pretty tough week, so all I want is a yes or no to the question, if you can, please. Does the Albanese Labor government acknowledge the existence of Indigenous identity fraud? 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The way the Albanese government deals with Indigeneity is with a three-part test, which has been widely accepted and hasn't changed. We apply the following common law criteria for the purposes of determining eligibility for First Nations-specific services: that a person is— Senator Hanson BK6 Point of order: there is no reference to my question that was seeking an answer. Do you acknowledge the existence of Indigenous identity fraud? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hanson. I think the minister is being relevant, and I will ask her to continue. But I will continue to listen very carefully. As you know, I can't direct the minister to answer, but I can draw her attention to the question if she is not being relevant. She is just a few seconds into the answer. I will listen carefully, and, if she is not being relevant, I will draw her attention to the question. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, because I think this does go to answering the question. In order to determine eligibility or to be eligible for First Nations-specific services, a person must be of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent, identifies as an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which they live or have previously lived. This is a widely accepted test by government agencies, First Nations organisations and community organisations. It is a commonsense approach. The way it works in law is well established. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, a first supplementary? 14:54 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland That was not an answer to my question. Considering the evidence that Indigenous identity fraud exists, and evidence has been brought to Minister Linda Burney's attention, what measures has the Albanese Labor government put in place to prevent, identify, investigate and prosecute Indigenous identity fraud? 14:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, I am not across what Senator Hanson alleges has been provided to Minister Burney, but the approach that we take is a positive approach around how to test eligibility for First Nations services, and if that eligibility criteria isn't met—one of those three—then that eligibility would not be— Senato BK6 I'm not talking about eligibility. My question was what has been put in place to actually address the issues? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, if you are raising the point of order then you need to stand and make the point of order clear. If you were raising a point of order, then the minister is being relevant to your question. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Again, the eligibility is as I set out. The government doesn't recognise identity fraud. I'm sure that Minister Burney is dealing with all of the matters that are raised with her in her role as Minister for Indigenous Australians carefully and competently, as she does with everything. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, a second supplementary? 14:56 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Again, not answered. Considering the evidence that Indigenous fraud exists, which has been reported numerous times, and in courts, will the Labor senators support my motion to refer this vital matter to an inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee or any other committee? Are you prepared to actually address this problem that we have in Australia so that people who are actually of Aboriginal and Indigenous background can receive the benefits that many other Australians can't get? (Time expired) 14:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (—) (): Firstly, the answer to the question is no, we will not support that. Secondly, we don't recognise identity fraud. Thirdly, I don't believe it is up to an individual in this place to decide who gets to be an Aboriginal person in this country. First Nations people have lived here for over 65,000 years. We should all be really proud of that, of sharing the same country with the longest continuing civilisation in this country. And the Albanese government's priority, apart from ensuring adequate funding, resources and co-design processes for services to support First Nations Australians, is to ensure recognition is done through constitutional amendment, through a Voice to this nation's parliament. That is our priority. We look forward to every Australian having the opportunity to cast a vote on that later this year. (Time expired) Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement 62 14:58 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. Our agriculture sector relies heavily on good trading relationships. We export around 70 per cent of what we produce in Australia, and the industry has a goal of growing the agricultural sector to $100 billion in farm gate value by 2030. I listened intently to what Minister Farrell said, but can the minister also outline how the recent entry into force of the UK FTA will benefit the agriculture industry and assist it in reaching that goal of $100 billion by 2030? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator White, who I think has asked me more questions about agriculture than the entire National Party. So it is good that there is one party in this chamber that actually cares about agriculture and cares about regional Australia. They could few tips from you, Senator White. Well, I am very pleased to say— Honourable senators in terjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber. Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 Thank you, President. I haven't even said 'colour-coded spreadsheets' yet! Imagine when I get to that. I am pleased to say that, following the agreement reached between Prime Minister Albanese and British Prime Minister Sunak, the UK-Australia free trade agreement entered into force a fortnight ago on 31 May. This is one of the most comprehensive, innovative and ambitious free trade agreements ever concluded by Australia, and I'm pleased to say that our Aussie farmers, food producers and exporters—the kind of people that Senator White cares about and asks questions about—are some of the big winners here. Tariffs have been eliminated on over 99 per cent of Australian goods exported to the United Kingdom, including short and medium grain rice, wine, honey, nuts and olive oil. Tariff-free quotas for beef and sheepmeat, sugar, wheat and meslin, long unbroken rice, barley and dairy will provide immediate benefits for farming communities. Within 10 years of entering into force, tariffs on all agricultural goods will be completely eliminated—again, terrific news for our producers. The potential value of some of these key outcomes in the first year of entering into force include $465 million for beef; $215 million for sheepmeat; $37 million for sugar; $200 million for dairy, cheese and butter; and $50 to 55 million Australian wine. In addition, the free trade agreement includes outcomes which will make it easier for farmers and exporters to take advantage of these great opportunities, like a reduction in costs and red tape by making it simpler for traders to prove the originating status of their goods, faster customs clearance time frames providing greater certainty for exporters and transparent trade and investment rules so savings can be made on administrative costs. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator White, first supplementary? 15:01 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Thanks, Minister, for acknowledging my great interest in agriculture and the many questions that I have asked; my count is at least 10 to 0. The UK FTA is a huge achievement and a great win for Australian agriculture and our farmers. Can the minister give an update on other market access improvements resulting from trade agreements that will benefit our Aussie farmers—because I'm sure they're listening at home to your answers. Opposition senators interj ecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In fact, I'll take that interjection from Senator Scarr. I had the great pleasure of milking a cow in Northern Tasmania recently. A number of senators, including the Nationals, probably haven't been on a dairy farm for a long time, but I was on a dairy farm only this week. I'm happy to go and introduce the National Party to dairy farms if they'd like to come along! I'm happy to introduce the National Party to a cow! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator McKenzie! Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 All I can say is thank God for Senator White. Thank God for Senator Ciccone. Thank God for Senator Polley. Thank God for all the senators in this chamber who have an interest in agriculture, an industry that we thought the National Party cared about, but they need to be escorted onto a dairy farm to actually have an opportunity to milk a cow, it would appear. As I say, the UK FTA is not the only opportunity for Australian producers. The India free-trade agreement is also opening up massive opportunities that we're taking advantage of. We've already got avocados going in there. There's going to be a lot more. This government is opening new markets without the help of the National Party, and we're going to get on with it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator White, a second supplementary? 15:03 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Minister, we know the agriculture sector relies on negotiating technical market access conditions with trading partners, including biosecurity and food safety requirements, all of which were canvassed in last year's RRAT inquiry. Can the minister give an update about recent technical market access achievements that he and the government have been involved in? 15:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator White, and I think that does bring it to 10 questions about agriculture—10-nil, as you say—and I can only hope the Socceroos have a similar result when they play in Beijing tonight. Again I thank you for your interest. The Australian government is committed to expanding and diversifying access to export markets in support of the industry's ambition to grow to $100 billion in farmgate value by 2030. We are ably assisted in the cast by hardworking officials of the department of agriculture and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who work quietly behind the scenes to satisfy the technical requirements set by each free-trade agreement that we enter. In the first half of this financial year alone, the department of agriculture recorded 51 technical market access achievements, worth nearly $5 billion, potentially, to Australia's food and fibre industries. So it is a whole-of-government effort that we're putting into this. We're not being particularly well supported by the National Party. In fact, the Leader of the Nationals and shadow minister for agriculture, Mr Littleproud, didn't even show up for the debate on the agriculture budget this week, just as he didn't last year. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, is leave granted to table Senator Van's document or have you not had a chance to look at it? Senator Wong 00AOU Give me 10 minutes. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 63 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 63 15:05 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. The biggest issue facing Australian families right now is how they pay their bills. It's very, very tough for people right now in this country. They are very much struggling to keep their heads above water. Power prices are going up. Interest rates are going up. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Canavan, I have a point of order. Senator Pratt I0T Deputy President, this is the take-note debate, where we have a debate to take note of questions asked and answered. I don't recall any issues on the cost of living relevant to the question that Senator Canavan asked. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The motion was to take note of all answers to all questions, as I understand it. Senator Canavan? Senator CANAVAN 245212 There were questions asked on cost of living today. In particular, Senator Payman asked questions around the government's energy policy, related to cost of living, and I'm getting to that in my contribution. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 So we're clear: it's all answers to all questions, no matter where they came from. Senator CANAVAN 245212 As I was saying, the government seems somewhat ignorant of these pressures, as was evidenced by that intervention, but people are struggling right now. What is worse, the government has no plan to help them—no plan at all. They promised us a year ago, at the election, that they would cut power prices. The now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, promised 97 times that he would lower our power bills by $275 a year. They said that it would be cheaper under them, that life would be easier under them, and instead things have gotten much harder. Not all of this is because of government actions, of course. There are global pressures here. There are issues around the Ukraine war. There are issues resulting from supply chain pressures post coronavirus. The problem is that the government's excuses here are wearing incredibly thin and have no more substance to them anymore. For example, the government continues to blame the war in Ukraine for our shocking loss of competitiveness on energy, even though global gas and oil prices are much lower today than they were when Vladimir Putin illegally and barbarically invaded Ukraine. They are much, much lower on a global level today than they were just over a year ago. The reason our power prices are high in this country is not what is happening in Europe; it is decisions we are taking here in this country. We have abundant energy resources here. We don't need to rely on Russia, Germany, America or any other country for our energy needs. We have abundant energy. But instead the government has sat idly by while the Liddell coal-fired power station shut in New South Wales, a month ago, and others have shut, and we no longer have adequate power to provide ourselves with relief. The month after Liddell coal-fired power station shut, power prices in New South Wales went up by 70 per cent. We just do not have enough power right now. As we heard from the government today, all they can talk about is renewables. We don't have a shortage of renewable power. We've got plenty of solar and wind. In fact, we have been installing solar and wind at a rate that is four times higher per person than they have in North America and Europe, and that was under the former coalition government. There is plenty of that. Senator Wong mentioned, in one of her answers, that we have only installed one gigawatt of power in the last 10 years and we've removed four gigawatts. That doesn't include the renewables. Those figures she mentioned were baseload power. That is the coal-fired power stations and some gas. That's where that deficit has come from. Yes, Senator Wong is right. We are down by three gigawatts of reliable baseload power. But you're not going to be able to fill that gap with unreliable, weather-dependent energy. It doesn't work, and we're clearly showing how it doesn't work by having to pay more and more for power every time a bill arrives. Australians are also suffering from interest rate pressures. Just since the election last year interest rates have gone up by 400 basis points. For the average mortgage in this country, that means people are paying $15,000 more a year. Again, there are reasons that interest rates have had to go up, to control inflation. I'm not blaming the government for everything there. But right now the fight against inflation is a one-man band. The only person taking any action against inflation right now is the Reserve Bank governor—who helped create this, I must say; he has a bit of the blame for all this. But he at least now is trying to fix it. This government is looking for excuses and doing nothing to help the Reserve Bank governor control inflation and get the cost of living down for Australians. For example, in the budget they released last month, in May, this government increased government spending through policy decisions at a rate higher than in any budget since Rudd's government stimulus, except for those during COVID; obviously the COVID ones were different, having to respond to a pandemic. But for the last 15 years, in normal times, this was the biggest-spending budget ever. And we currently have an inflation fire going on. Why would you add $21 billion of spending to that inflation fire while people are struggling today? That's what the government did—$21 billion of new government spending decisions taken to add fuel to the fire, making the Reserve Bank governor's job harder. It is no wonder he has lifted interest rates twice again: one in the week before the budget—he knew what was coming—and one just this month as well. He has had to respond to the government's complete lack of control on their own spending. They've got to try and help Australian families here, to drop the excuses and come up with a plan to help people pay their bills. 15:11 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania We know that those people on the other side keep coming into this chamber trying to rewrite history. This budget that was brought down by Treasurer Jim Chalmers was a budget that actually assisted Australians. When we talk about the governments of the past, in talking about the cost of living, let's not forget the billion dollars that was gutted out of hospitals by the former government. But, as I said, we have those on the other side who come into this chamber regularly rewriting history, and we've seen that all week, with all the questions to Minister Gallagher and to Senator Wong. But to put into context those on that side, and when we're talking about the alleged assault, it is really important to remember some key issues. Ms Higgins was a Liberal staffer in a Liberal minister's office. So, obviously those people on that side of the chamber knew far more about that allegation, the cover-up, the clean-up. The assertions that have been made this week in this chamber have really surprised me, because the message that is coming out of this federal parliament to Australian women and to Australians generally is that we have huge issues in this place. That alleged assault, the leaking of private text messages, the politicisation of this entire issue, another allegation yesterday that was withdrawn, and another statement today—I just want to remind people that the Australian people out there are worried about the cost of living. They're worried about interest rates. But they want us in this place to talk about issues that affect them directly. And when there's an issue around an allegation of sexual assault, we've got to remember that that impacts on our communities, on other women who have had that experience, and on those we have been trying to encourage to come forward, with confidence that they are going to be supported and that any personal information is not going to be used for political purposes. To put this in context, the Prime Minister of the day, when that alleged assault happened and it was made public, the calibre of that prime minister was he had to go home and talk to his wife to get an understanding and to put it into perspective—how would you feel if it was one of your daughters? That is why we had to have the Jenkins report, because it is absolutely astonishing that a man who rises to be prime minister of this great country had no concept of that himself. So there is little wonder that those opposite left a young woman, who made a— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Scarr, on a point of order? Senator Scarr 282997 A personal reflection on the member in the lower house, the former Prime Minister—Senator Polley referred to his not having any concept at all with respect to the relevant subject matter. That's necessarily a personal reflection, and Senator Polley should withdraw. The DEPUTY 10000 Senator Scarr, I'm not sure it's entirely a personal reflection. I just warn Senator Polley that in making that commentary, just be careful. Senator POLLEY e5x Thank you for that guidance. If people are offended when I made that comment in relation to the former Prime Minister, it is the comment that was repeated to me in far more plain English at the time of their disappointment that the prime minister of this country had not had the understanding that we would all expect each and every one of this chamber would have understood. This was a serious allegation. This was one of your own. This was one of his own staff. This was a Liberal staff member. Heaven help anyone else who came forward. The really disappointing thing is there's been another allegation made, and, frankly, I think that is shameful. It is so sad that we have not moved on. Quite frankly, the disrespect in this chamber over recent years is really disappointing. The unfortunate thing is it is reflected on all of us. Absolute disrespect. There is no-one with more humanity and who I have more respect for in terms of her authentic role that she's had in trying to support women than Katy Gallagher. 15:17 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia We spend a lot of time in this chamber debating serious subjects, but sometimes there's the opportunity for a game, if you will. Earlier in May of this year, the Prime Minister made a comment, 'Labor has real lasting plans for …' Let's play a game. Let's see how this pans out with three options. Let's see if these fit in? Would you finish that sentence with: (1), higher energy costs, (2), a divisive constitutional change, or (3), higher interest rates? If you answered (1), (2) or (3), you'd be entirely wrong. The answer to that question in finishing that sentence is the Prime Minister actually said, somewhat incredibly, was 'cheaper mortgages'. On 2 May, the Prime Minister said, 'Labor is real lasting plans for cheaper mortgages in this country.' They're real words and hard to believe. They're particularly hard to believe in circumstances where, since May of this year, we've have seen a 400 basis point increase on interest rates, which equates in real dollar terms to, as Senator Canavan pointed out earlier on, $15,000 extra in annual mortgage repayments for your average mortgage holder in this country. It seems hard to believe anyone could possibly construct that sentence in those circumstances. The question is: why have we seen 11 interest rate rises since the 2022 federal election, since the Australian Labor Party took government in this country? Why are we here? The one major reason we're here is of course the word inflation, which we don't seem to hear a lot from the other side of the chamber anymore, but that's the reality. What we do hear consistently from the other side of the chamber though is how they're here to fight for the worker, the little guy. And what's the thing that's hurting the average Australian, the little guy, the worker, so much at the moment? Inflation, mortgage increases, cost-of-living increases. They are the things that they are really interested in. They're not interested in a constitutional change and a Voice to Parliament; they are interested in why it is that there is less money to go around and less opportunity to put food on the table. Let's have a look at those who have been particularly hardest hit by this. First home buyers moving from fixed interest rates—if it is not happening at the moment, it is going to happen soon—are the people who are particularly being belted at the moment. They are the hidden victims of a financial shock and it is hitting them in increased numbers. Thousands upon thousands of first home buyers are now seeing their interest rate payments triple as they revert to variable rates because of successive interest rate rises. We know that those opposite love to try and distract with smoke and mirrors like the Voice or whatever the issue of the day may be, but this is the stuff that is really biting out there in our communities. One part of the inflationary puzzle has been the increase in power prices across the country. Just today, I was reading the ever-reliable, ever-interesting and ever-accurate Adelaide Advertiser newspaper, which is a favourite of mine, for its interesting stories about real estate agents, who the best hairdresser is, where you get the finest stock agent and whether a footballer is selling their home. It has lots of great stuff in there. Occasionally, they nail one, though. How about this one today: 'SA small businesses pay more for power than the rest of Australia'? What is the common factor in South Australia for South Australian businesses to be paying more for power than anywhere else in the country? We've had more Labor government. So we now have two Labor governments—one at a state level and one at the federal level. Senator Scarr 282997 It's the same in Queensland. Senator ANTIC 269375 Well, you need to catch up then, Senator Scarr. I will take that interjection. We are now leading the pack on that dubious honour of having the highest power prices in the country. We in South Australia are also one of the earliest adopters of renewable power—the home of the September 2016 blackout, the blackout that stopped the nation. It stopped the state, anyway. We know that for sure. In any event, South Australian small businesses, as reported in the Adelaide Advertiser article, are now pay more for the electricity than anywhere else in the country. As the article notes, SA businesses forked out $8,490 in the year to April on electricity—the highest in the nation—while, for example, Victorian counterparts, who also have a Labor government but less of a reliance on renewables, paid $5,480. Gas bills in South Australia have also risen at the fastest rate anywhere in the country. We are now a Labor-led economic basket case. The worst part of it is that it will only get worse because we have at least two more years or dual Labor governments. 15:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I want to take note of all the questions asked today in relation to assaults in this building. Senator Pratt I0T Point of order— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The motion that is currently before us is to take note of all answers to all questions. So, Senator Pratt, Senator Waters is entitled to focus on that particular answer. Senator Pratt I0T But you are not changing the question before the chair, which is all— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Correct. Senator WATERS 192970 Thank you, Deputy President. On that theme of assaults in this building, I would like to stand in support of Senator Thorpe following her statement made in the Senate earlier today. I commend her on speaking out about these issues and I commend and stand in awe of the strength and courage of all survivors of sexual harassment, abuse and assault. Senator Thorpe's statement today reflects what she disclosed to the Greens' leadership two years ago. She was greatly distressed. We backed her and supported her and sought solutions alongside her through discussions with the Senate President at the time, the Liberal Senate leadership and the Prime Minister's office. When people raise issues about their treatment in this or any other workplace it is important that those around them take action. Everyone has a right to a safe workplace, yet the statistics show that discrimination, harassment and abuse are rife. The Set the standard report found that one in three parliamentary staffers in this building had experienced some form of sexual harassment, as had many female parliamentarians. It was the courage of survivors speaking out that led to the Set the standard report. Until last week I really thought we were making progress, but all this week we have seen the appalling politicisation of the allegations made by Brittany Higgins, a most courageous and dignified young woman. This has been an incredibly distressing week for so many of us and for so many survivors. Support services have said what a chilling effect this rampant weaponisation of a young woman's alleged rape will have on victims-survivors everywhere. The behaviour on display here and this week only serves to validate the concerns of victims-survivors that they will be ignored, that they will lose their jobs and that they will not be believed. The Canberra Times today reported that a survivor of sexual assault in Parliament House has told them that the conduct in this place this week was 'challenging any confidence' that she had left in the legal system, politicians and the media. Instead of politicising an allegedly sexual assault, we should be focused on implementing the recommendations of the Set the standard report, strengthening justice system responses and making sure that when women do come forward they get the advice and support that they need. The ultimate test of whether we have successfully changed this place's toxic culture and implemented the Set the standard report is whether staff feel safe and respected at work, whether new senators feel safe and respected at work, whether all workers in this building feel safe and respected at work and whether people watching this place think that parliament is somewhere that they might like to work. We must ensure that staff and survivors continue to be involved in our response to the Set the standard report, that it is expedited and that those staff and survivors feel supported to tell us when we're not doing enough. Question time this week has been an absolute abomination. I hope that we can all actually set a standard that we are proud of going forward. 15:27 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Today's question time was again an unedifying experience from the point of view of support for victims of sexual assault both in this place and in the message sent to the nation more broadly. Rather than reflecting on and responding to the questions asked by the opposition of the government today, in order to pivot to the real issues of the day affecting Australians affected by the cost of living what did they choose to do? Not to take note of their questions to Senator Gallagher but rather to take note of questions asked by the government of government ministers on issues like the cost of living. That was nowhere on your agenda today. You didn't raise the cost of living once in any of your questions. Instead, you sought to create trap and trick questions for Senator Gallagher about whether she declined a wedding invitation in 2014 or 2018 and whether it was misleading parliament to remember the date on which she had declined an invitation for a wedding she didn't even go to. In my experience, having worked with Senator Gallagher at the time, for example, when the Brittany Higgins allegations were first aired on the television, what was actually going on inside the Labor Party among Labor staff who were responding to what was, frankly, a frightening, triggering allegation and episode for many people in this building, including many female Labor staffers, was dedicated attention to that work of creating a safe working environment in this place. That is exactly what was going on. It was creating a safe place for women in this building who had witnessed or experienced sexual harassment, bullying and abuse right across the parliament. That is where Senator Gallagher was focused. How do I know this? I know it because that's exactly what was being discussed by Labor women, including with male colleagues and with younger staff who might have been sexually harassed in this building. That was the absolute focus of our attention, and the seriousness with which Senator Gallagher takes these issues today is the seriousness with which she has taken those issues right from the very start, which is to support victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault and sexual harassment. 15:31 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia We have one more parliamentary sitting day tomorrow. Unusually, we will sit on a Friday. I don't recall whether we will have a question time, but if there is a question time, I'm hoping to have the opportunity to ask the question that I wanted to ask in question time today. Coalition senators would have seen me jump to my feet shortly after three o'clock in the hope and with the expectation that I would be able to ask my question. On this point, unfortunately, my Western Australian colleague Senator Pratt is wrong, because my question was going to be about the cost of living. Now, of course, I won't detail for Senator Wong or opposition senators the exact nature of that question. That will be an element of surprise tomorrow. But Australians are ready for us to start talking about issues that are important to them. That is not to diminish the importance of the conversations and the questions and the other matters that are being raised in this Senate chamber this week. But the world is changing very quickly—too quickly for many Australian families—and just this week we saw for ourselves in the Sydney Morning Herald exactly what is happening to Australians' perception of their financial security and financial wealth. The Sydney Morning Herald reported this week that 64 per cent of Australians now expect their wages will fall in real terms and 33 per cent of Australians now believe that the RBA should be taking greater responsibility with regard to interest rates and inflation, but 44 per cent of Australians think it's time for the government to step up and tackle inflation. Interest rate rises in our country are a direct result of whether or not the government is handling the inflation challenge. Eighty-two per cent of Australians now expect more interest rate rises into the future and 67 per cent of Australians expect inflation to get worse. Outside of this chamber, across the suburbs and communities, life is getting very difficult for Australian families. Australian families are getting nervous about their financial future, and there's good reason for that anxiety, because the most recent statement of monetary policy released by the RBA is very, very sober reading. It identifies that if there's not more effort by the government to tackle inflation then inflationary expectations are going to cement themselves in the Australian psyche. Already, we're told in the Sydney Morning Herald that 67 per cent of Australians are expecting that inflation will get worse. Once people start to expect inflation to get worse and that starts to cement in their minds, this inflationary challenge is not a blip but becomes a permanent stain. Inflation makes you poorer. Inflation makes the poor poorer. It eats at your savings. It eats away at your superannuation. It is a curse, and we are lucky in this country that for a long period of time we have not had to take inflation seriously, because we've been operating in a very low inflationary environment. That is changing, and guess who is going to wear the pain the hardest? Guess who is going to wear it earliest? First home buyers. Twelve months ago, in Perth, on 2 May 2022, Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, was introduced by the former premier of Western Australia Mark McGowan. In front of that Perth audience, remembering that the Labor Party did very well at the last election in Western Australia, the Prime Minister—then opposition leader—said to Western Australians, speaking to the whole country, 'Life will get cheaper.' Don't just believe me; here it is in the Australian newspaper. It says, '"Life will be cheaper under me", says opposition leader Anthony Albanese.' Well, 12 months later it is not, and in 12 months time it will be significantly worse. The question for Labor is: what is their plan and what is the plan now? People are starting to feel the pain. Question agreed to. Indigenous Australians 68 15:37 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted for five minutes. Senator BK6 I asked a question today of the government: do they believe in Indigenous identity fraud? The answer I got from the government was no, they don't believe in fraud. I asked also: would they support a motion that I put for a parliamentary inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee or another committee to actually investigate it? On both counts I got a no. I think this needs to be drawn attention to because we have a referendum coming up with regard to the Voice to Parliament. Therefore, you're going to have 24 people who will be nominated to represent the Indigenous people. In all fairness, if we are asking for a Voice to Parliament there should be an Aboriginal voice, but there's no clarity by the government. Let me state the cases here. In 1997-98, there was a case where the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre went to the Federal Court to challenge the eligibility of 11 people to stand for election to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The head of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, Michael Mansell, declared that there were more phoney than real Aborigines in Tasmania, and more than half the voters in the 1996 ATSIC election were not Aboriginal. Mansell said that if properly investigated about 60 per cent of Tasmanian Aborigines would be rejected and nationally up to 70,000 self-proclaimed Aborigines would be denied their claimed identity. We have another case, which is a court case from July 2000. Alan Appo of Bundaberg, Queensland, was charged in the Townsville Magistrates Court with a breach of the Fisheries Act by illegally catching undersize and female mud crabs. He was represented by Townsville Aboriginal Legal Aid and argued that, because he was an Aboriginal, fishing restrictions did not apply to him. However, a cousin of his, who was the daughter of an Aboriginal man, told the fisheries officers that Appo was not of Aboriginal descent and that his family's heritage was purely Sri Lankan. She complained that the 66-year-old and more than 100 members of his extended family had been practising the deception for more than 30 years. In that time, they had received millions of dollars worth of benefits, including housing loans, business loans, study grants, employment preferences and legal assistance. These are just a number of cases. We also have the much-publicised recent scandal of Bruce Pascoe's fraudulent claim to be an Aboriginal man. Nothing is new or unique. Pascoe's forbearers are all English, mainly from Cornwall, and his genealogy contains no Aboriginal ancestry at all. However, this has not concerned the judges of the state premiers' lucrative literary prizes supposedly reserved for Indigenous writers or the academic committee at the University of Melbourne, who disregarded Pascoe's lack of any postgraduate qualifications or contributions to academic journals. The numbers go on. There was another one who actually claimed to be Aboriginal—Bobbi Sykes, a one-time teenage striptease dancer who, on the strength of her journalism and activism, became well-known as an Aboriginal identity and advocate for the black power. Even though she had no undergraduate degree and left school at age 14 without finishing high school, she applied for and won a scholarship to America's top university, Harvard, with all expenses and accommodation paid, plus a generous living allowance. This hallowed institution awarded her a PhD in education. In 1983, Sykes was widely hailed as Harvard's first Aboriginal graduate. There are many, many cases of it. For the government to deny there is no Aboriginal identity fraud when you actually have—and I pointed out here. In a matter of one year, you had $1.03 billion in 1,500 grants that were given out. No real qualifications are applied for. Who's getting these grants? And this is what is happening. If you really care about the people out there, then people must prove who they are. If you are an age pensioner, you have to prove your age. If you are on a disability pension, you prove you have a disability. Why don't we ask for the same means test? How can you tell the Australian people out there that, because you're not Aboriginal, you don't get these benefits? People are doing it tough with the cost of living. They're living in their cars, homes, caravans—whatever they can—to provide for their families. And you are blatantly denying the fact that we have a problem here. It's disgusting on this government. You're covering up everything, because all you care about is the 'yes' vote. BUDGET 69 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 69 15:42 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the respective chairs, I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates: Budget estimates 2022-23 (Supplementary)— Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information. COMMITTEES 69 COMMITTEES Treaties Joint Committee, Human Rights Joint Committee 69 Report 69 15:42 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee's report entitled 209th report: Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Czech Republic. And on behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present Human rights scrutiny report 6 of 2023. DOCUMENTS 69 DOCUMENTS Consideration 69 COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 70 Report 70 15:47 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The way that Australia sends troops overseas is broken. It is undemocratic. It is unaccountable. Most concerning of all, it lacks any transparency and is deliberately vague, to the point of deliberate secrecy. In school we are taught that the Prime Minister, the Governor-General, the federal Executive Council make the decision to go to war. But the reality is that the major parties abandoned this process decades ago in favour of a system that allows the Prime Minister and the defence minister to wage war unilaterally, without any checks or balances or direct safeguards. It is this process that has lead Australia again and again into war after war without any clear goals. Without any forethought for the damage that we might cause, or the perpetration of injury that we might participate in, to both the civilian populations and the veterans asked to fight in those wars. Millions have been killed in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria. We have helped create generational wounds for both the people that live in these places and the troops that we have sent there without a single declaration of war, a single vote of this parliament, or indeed, even so much as a proclamation issued by a Governor-General. People in positions of power are able to do this because they make use of a vague amendment in the Defence Act which says that the defence minister has the ability to give orders on the general administration of the defence force. This amendment was passed in 1975. It was an amendment that was clearly not intended to give the defence minister or the prime minister the unilateral power to wage catastrophic wars across the world. What legal advice does either party rely upon to defend the claim that such use of such an amendment is even constitutional? If you ask them they refuse to say. The report before the Senate at the moment is a report that for the first time—because of the weight of evidence given by community members, by academics, by legal scholars—was forced to acknowledge that this interpretation of the Defence Act is questionable. Finally, after decades, they were dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge this tiny part of reality. In response, the report says that it is preferable that Australia make the decision to go to war in a more constitutional way and, indeed, undertake the process of consulting with the Governor-General. I don't know about you, but 'preferable' doesn't quite cut it for something so important as the decision to put our troops in harm's way and the decision to invade another country. Reading this report, you're left with the searing impression that it is in fact a stunning example of the cowardice of the Labor members of this committee to have made an election promise to hold an inquiry into this process—an inquiry which found massive problems with the current system—and yet then to refuse to recommend any substantial changes to that broken system, regardless of the reality that a majority of submissions overwhelmingly called for significant reform. The Greens have long held the position that the decision to send ADF personnel overseas must be made by the parliament and, by extension, by the people of Australia. If a mother has to worry every night that her child is deployed in Iraq even though that child wasn't even born in 2003, then the very least her local MP can do is take the responsibility of being there and explaining why they had to go. It was the Howard government that last got involved in an illegal and immoral war, but it is the Albanese government today ensuring that it can happen again because of their refusal to act in a way that would prevent it when they had the chance. So the next time a Liberal government is in power and they sign us off to go to war alongside the US to create a humanitarian disaster, the blood of that conflict will be on the hands of both parties, for they have failed in this moment to place safeguards— I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 71 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 72 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Consideration 72 PETITIONS 72 PETITIONS Housing 72 15:53 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia by leave—I table in the Senate a non-conforming petition from Glenunga International High School's Amnesty International Club with over 250 signatures from students calling on governments to respond to the urgent housing crisis. In the students' words: 'If the government can find $368 billion for nuclear submarines it can find less than $5 billion to eliminate homelessness in South Australia and across the country.' COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 72 Report 72 15:54 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I wanted to rise today to make a brief statement on the recently concluded Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee inquiry into universal access to reproductive healthcare. The report was titled Ending the postcode lottery. We made the decision to call it that because we know that woman's healthcare services are a postcode lottery. We know for women across our country, particularly in rural and regional Australia, accessing the health treatments they need can be really difficult. I've spoken many times in this chamber about why this issue matters to me, about my family member who was separated from her baby for 17 weeks because she couldn't access the maternity care services she needed close to home. Since I was elected in 2019 I've travelled around our state, and it has been shocking to me that the experience my aunty had isn't something in the distant past; it's something that women continue to experience. Women are being forced to leave their communities to give birth to their babies, have ultrasounds and receive the pregnancy care that they need. It happens across South Australia too regularly, where we have birthing services provided in the local hospital and then, due to workforce or other issues, when an obstetrician or midwife leaves the community, those services are withdrawn. And it is extremely disruptive for the women in those communities who not only have to then endure the risk of travelling many hours to have their babies but are also separated from their families, support networks, other children, elderly parents and, often, partners who aren't able to take time off work to travel with them to the community where they need to have their baby. These are really concerning issues for women in our regions, and they're not just concerning; they can be dangerous. And that's why the committee really wanted to take a dive not just into reproductive healthcare services but into maternity care services as well. It's really important that women have choice and options when it comes to their health care. That has to include the broad spectrum of women's health issues, and sometimes maternity care is missed out of the conversation. We have many health practitioners across our system who are able to support women when given the opportunity to work to their scope of practice, an incredible workforce of midwives and nurses who are enthusiastic and ready to provide these services. And, while I don't dismiss the challenges in workforce when it comes to maintaining provision of maternity care services, perhaps one of the paths through is around scope of practice, around how we can utilise different parts of the healthcare workforce to provide the services and support that women need, in a way which is safe for women and their babies. So that's one of the recommendations we looked at. There were over 30 recommendations. It was a big report. We had 350 submissions to the committee on what are sometimes very sensitive issues that go to the heart of conscience and to the heart of people's passions and values. I want to thank every single submitter who made a contribution to our inquiry. What was really clear to us, as we were doing this work, is that when it comes to women's health issues you don't have to dig too deep to see how the health system is letting women down when their health isn't being prioritised. We also did a lot of work in this report around access to contraceptive care. Again, it's an issue which can be a bit uncomfortable to talk about—it's not a frequent topic of debate in this chamber, for sure—but we do know that women, again, when it comes to contraceptive care, don't have the choice that they probably should have in Australia. And that's something that we did a lot of work on in the committee. We made some strong recommendations around that, particularly around making sure that women and families with complex needs, suffering from cancer or other health conditions, are able to access the support that they need in respect of that. In conclusion, I want to thank everyone for their contribution to the recommendations. I want to thank Senator Waters, who initiated this inquiry, as well as all of the other committee members and everyone who took part in our work. I think there are some bold recommendations before us. There is a lot of work ahead. I will continue to raise the flag on the issues around maternity care because they are very urgent indeed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Law Enforcement Joint Committee 73 Report 73 15:59 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise as chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to speak about the committee's report examining the Australian Federal Police annual reports of 2020-21 and 2021-22 and the important work of the Australian Federal Police in relation to combatting the terrible crime of child exploitation. One of the committee's key roles is to provide oversight of the Australian Federal Police by examining each of the AFP's annual reports. The role recognises that agencies which have been granted strong, cohesive powers, such as the AFP, should be subject to additional oversight. As chair I'm pleased to report that the committee has not identified any major areas of concern. The AFP met almost all of its performance criteria during the reporting periods and continues to make a valuable contribution to our community. Like all Commonwealth agencies, one of the challenges faced by Australian Federal Police in recent years has been the COVID-19 pandemic and the outcomes that have arisen on a global scale from the global pandemic. As people began to spend more time online, the AFP responded by ramping up its efforts to combat online child exploitation. This included releasing a podcast called Closing The Net to raise community awareness about the serious risk children face online. The committee also heard that the recent Operation Molto was the largest to be coordinated by the AFP led Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. It resulted in 114 people charged and 44 children removed from harm. That's 44 children removed from harm in Australia. It's easier than ever for predators to reach out to our children. We live in a world that demands an online presence. It is expected that our children will play online games and be familiar with social media from a young age, but what danger is this online presence presenting to the safety of our children? There are real concerns, no doubt. We, as parents and carers, teach our children not to talk to strangers on the street or in a park, but how do those rules differ online? Well, they really don't. Children spend a considerable amount of time playing online games. These games do provide a creative outlet for children and are seen as a bit of fun. But predators have realised that children often aren't monitored closely enough. Only too often, parents and carers aren't familiar with the games. We know that in some of these online games children are coerced into going into another room within that platform, and that's where, unfortunately, grooming of those young children can take place and unfortunately does take place. We need to build resilient children that are aware of the dangers of social media platforms, and, just as importantly, we need to educate parents and carers about those real dangers. The growth in end-to-end encryption on social media platforms has caused the committee some concern, obviously, and that concern is certainly shared by our law enforcement agencies. End-to-end encryption stops anyone except the sender and the recipient from being able to see the content of the messages, which means that, even with a warrant, law enforcement cannot search messages for child abuse material. We're conducting an inquiry at the moment into child exploitation, and that has carried on from the last parliament. We have invited and requested various platforms of social media to come before us. Yesterday, we heard evidence in camera that was given by Twitch, and for those who don't know what Twitch is—because I really didn't until recently—that's an online platform for playing games. That process means that when you're playing that game it is actually open to everyone and it is public. But the reality is that we know that live streaming of child exploitation material and the abuse of children is happening. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 74 Additional Information 74 16:05 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I'm proud to chair the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. Senate committees like RRAT provide an opportunity for organisations and individuals to participate in policymaking, and it's important to have their views placed on the public record and considered as part of the decision-making process. It's my honour to be able to play a role in advancing matters critical to our agriculture, fisheries, forestry, transport, infrastructure and regional development through the committee. One of the most significant challenges facing the agriculture portfolio is biosecurity, which is why last year the RRAT references committee conducted an inquiry into the adequacy of Australia's biosecurity measures and response preparedness, in particular with respect to foot-and-mouth disease and varroa mite. We all know that the arrival of new pests and diseases in Australia can have devastating and long-lasting impacts. With the ever-increasing volume of travellers and trade across our borders we need sophisticated and well-functioning biosecurity systems to protect our plant, animal and environmental health. A strong biosecurity system is vital for exports, vital for jobs and vital for our way of life. This inquiry was important given the significant risk of foot-and-mouth disease and varroa mite to Australia's biosecurity. I was overwhelmed by the level of engagement with the inquiry, and I would like to acknowledge the significant contributions made by officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; state and territory government officials; industry organisations; producers; research organisations; community groups; and members of the public. I'd also like to acknowledge Minister Watt, who undertook a review of arrangements for exotic animal disease preparedness in response to FMD threats, which was undertaken by experts in both of his departments in August last year. It has been reassuring to see that many of the recommendations made by the Senate inquiry mirror those in Minister Watt's own review, and I understand that actions against the recommendations are well underway. It is important to state that Australia remains FMD- and LSD-free. There have been no reported cases of FMD or LSD, which is lumpy skin disease, in Australia. There is an estimated 11.6 per cent chance of an FMD outbreak within the next five years. An outbreak of FMD has an estimated direct economic impact over 10 years of around $80 billion. The government is committed to a responsive, resilient and sustainably funded biosecurity system. The Albanese government knows that agricultural trade supports jobs and regional economic development and that this relies on a strong biosecurity system. Through the inquiry we learned that the response to the biosecurity threat is focused on a three-pronged approach. One is strengthened measures at the border. Two is working with partners in the region, particularly Indonesia. And three is ensuring our response plans are up to the challenge should an outbreak occur. New legislation passed through the parliament late last year: the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill, which increased powers for biosecurity officers and increased penalties for those that do the wrong thing, with new infringements of $5,500—the highest ever. I understand that more legislation to strengthen the Biosecurity Act will be introduced to the parliament shortly. Direct support of $4.33 million has been provided for WA, the Northern Territory and Queensland to fund a new Northern Australian Coordination Network. The government has made a significant investment in livestock traceability to provide cover for all red meat species, sheep and goat, valued at $46.7 million. It's invested in vaccines and support for Indonesia, PNG and Timor-Leste, including four million doses of FMD vaccine; training for over 850 Indonesian vets, para-vets and other personnel; and technical support, including training of Indonesian and Timor-Leste biosecurity personnel in Australia. Another $134 million of extra funding was added in the last budget, for extra officers, more detector dogs, increased surveillance, foot mats, biosecurity response zones and a meat ban. During the inquiry we heard from many stakeholders. I'd like to highlight some of the recent feedback on the government's performance on biosecurity, but I will have to do that at a later time. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 75 Government Response to Report 75 16:10 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I speak to the government's response to the Economics References Committee report Systemic, sustained andshameful: unlawful underpayment of employees' remuneration. Quite clearly we've seen the weaponisation of anti-union behaviour. One of the consequences that we've seen is the underpayments that are happening right across a whole series of companies in various markets around the world. In this country we've seen it happen in certain places, like in McDonald's—and there's $250 million worth of wage theft presently before the courts. These are some of the introductory jobs in the retail sector. You'd think as a parent—and I'm a parent of two great kids—that, when kids go to work for McDonald's, there's some sense of responsibility. It is a large employer. Tens of thousands of people are employed across the McDonald's franchise and in direct employment through their business model. We trust those tens of thousands of people to look after our children and to give them their first opportunity to experience working in a work environment and being paid for their endeavours. It's a first opportunity for them to be skilled for future opportunities. What have they actually been skilled for? Some union-busting strategies at McDonald's actually went to a $250 million underpayment. McDonald's have been saying that people can't take their breaks. In fact, having a 10-minute break after doing a long shift on your feet at McDonald's is important. Those who have worked in the hospitality environment know that five hours is a pretty damn long time to be standing behind a counter—in my case it was behind bars serving customers—without a break. These McDonald's workers worked for a number of franchisees—and one in particular—who allegedly have been involved in union busting because they didn't want those workers to stand up for their rights, for what they were entitled to. This is one of the reasons why we have so much wage theft in this country. It's not a cottage industry; it is actually a business decision about how they operate their business—either they don't invest enough in making sure that there are proper checks and balances or they stop investing and leave it to the algorithms of the technology to look after it rather than exercise the social and corporate responsibility they have to make sure that people are appropriately paid. They outsource it to somewhere where they don't have to take responsibility, just as McDonald's and their franchisees have done. Heather, a supervisor for a McDonald's in Murray Bridge, South Australia, recently settled a case after an illegal five-year union-busting campaign by that particular large franchisee, which owned many businesses, had many hundreds of workers and ultimately has thousands of workers going through their business. Heather said to the Australian Financial Review: I was pressured into resigning my union membership—they made me frightened I would lose my position as a supervisor. Then, after I gave in to the pressure to give up my SDA membership, my hours were slashed because I raised a workplace safety concern. In case after case when people raised concerns and issues, particularly with this particular franchisee of McDonald's, they were actually intimidated, set upon and targeted. The consequences of not being able to get the appropriate pay and the appropriate breaks were all part of the safety issues. Those underpayment issues and those wage-busting issues tend to take place in these companies. What they don't understand on the other side is that our community, our kids, our next-door neighbours and sometimes, heaven forbid, even our parents and extended family are union members, and they're union members so they can be active and make sure that they have a voice at work. A voice at work is about making sure you get appropriate payments and appropriate wages and being able to say to your employer, 'This is not right.' Sometimes it's not right. Sometimes you have to be able to make sure there's a system that backs you up. But, of course, when it was under their watch, those on the opposite side did nothing about wage theft. Senator Cash I0M You voted against it— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Order! Senator SHELDON 168275 In actual fact, they refused to put a piece of legislation forward that would address wage theft— Senator Cash I0M We brought it into the Senate, and you voted against it— Senator SHELDON 168275 because they did not have the guts to move an amendment— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Sheldon, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, your behaviour is disorderly. I call you to order. Senator SHELDON 168275 If Senator Cash wants— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Sheldon, you have the call. Senator SHELDON 168275 My apologies. If Senator Cash wants to defend wage theft and the wage thieves, then she can go right ahead because she has been doing it for a decade. Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Sheldon, please resume your seat. Senator Cash I0M You voted against it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Cash, I just called you to order. I told you that your behaviour was disorderly. Within seconds of Senator Sheldon receiving the call, you returned to that behaviour. I call on you not to repeat that. Once again, it's disrespectful to the Senate. Senator SHELDON 168275 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 76 Report 76 16:16 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania This Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report is on adaptive sport programs for Australian Defence Force veterans. I want to talk about an organisation in my neck of the woods, in Ulverstone in north-west Tasmania, called Due South. Due South is a self-funded organisation. They set their sights on delivering world-class wellness initiatives for veterans and first responders. It's an amazing place actually. I've spent quite a bit of time there. In fact, Matt Thistlethwaite, who is the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and I are going to open their community wellness and reconnection centre, which has a hydrotherapy pool attached to it, later on this month. Peter and Barry basically set this up by buying a motel that funds the operation of what they do in the other parts of Due South. They have a 90/10 principal, where 90 per cent of any funds that are raised or donated are put back into the resources et cetera and no more than 10 per cent of the money goes into admin. The last time I spoke to Peter, which was only a couple of weeks ago, he indicated to me that there had been no funds to come out in relation to admin at all, so everything had been put back in, and they were being run by volunteers. They have a motel, which they use, but they also have a function centre. That is all operated by volunteers. The organisation also owns three homes around the township of Ulverstone, which is my hometown. For six months of the year, they use those three homes and the motel facility to house seasonal workers who come for the seasonal worker program on the north-west coast. Part of the income that they get for those rentals also goes back into running the property. For the other six months of the year, the houses and the motel are opened up to first responders and veterans from all over the country. They have a lot of mainland veterans who come down for R&R, rest and relaxation, support. Among the services that they provide there, they have a farm, they have a wellness centre, and they have an off-grid property. They take the veterans and first responders on all sorts of support programs. They take them fishing. It's amazing what they do. They're about to open a range of support services at the property at Ulverstone that will be around mental and physical health, advocacy services for veterans, wellbeing and legal support. Importantly, part of what they do is about social connection. One of the mantras that they have is to invite the community in. They are very proud and insist on opening the doors for the community to come in. One of the things they talk about when veterans are discharged through health or whatever—they quite often have operated for quite a few years in a veteran community, and they come back to their hometown and they feel very isolated. They are used to a regime, and it's very difficult to adjust. This allows them to have some social connection and provides support for them, but it also, as I said, provides a lot of other opportunities for these guys to support people. It's a very unique property. It's a very unique organisation. The fact it is run by volunteers and has all sorts of different possibilities for veterans and first responders is amazing. It's the only place that I know of its kind in the country. It is the only place where both veterans and first responders are welcomed equally. I know that a lot of first responders I speak to, whether they be paramedics, firefighters or police, quite often need some of that reality, away from their job, to do things. This is a great organisation, and I can't wait to get there to open it. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MOTIONS 77 MOTIONS Calvary Public Hospital 77 16:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes the concern of many Canberrans about the significant legislation that the Australian Capital Territory Labor-Greens Government has passed to compulsorily acquire the Calvary Public Hospital; (b) notes the ACT Government has attempted to avoid any scrutiny of the acquisition legislation, by developing the bill in secret, deliberately avoiding any consultation or exposure draft process, and expressly refusing to hold an inquiry into the legislation; (c) notes the timeframe from the tabling of the ACT legislation to the acquisition of a major public hospital is extraordinarily short and unnecessary; (d) notes public statements by the ACT branch of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation expressing concern over the lack of any consultation, which may not be consistent with the obligations in the ACT Government's own enterprise agreement; (e) has grave concerns with this attack on religious institutions and on the ability of private and religious health care providers to care for the sick; (f) calls on the Albanese Government to introduce legislation to stop the forced acquisition of the Calvary Public Hospital; and (g) requests the President of the Senate to formally provide this notice to the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory. The sad thing today is we didn't need to have this debate. Why do I say that? Because if we had a prime minister of Australia who had any form of backbone, he would have already passed legislation to stop what is one of the most egregious takeovers of a religious body that is providing health care to thousands of people within the ACT. But guess what? Because the Prime Minister of Australia (a) doesn't have a spine and (b) is himself not opposed to this takeover, he has sat by and done absolutely nothing. What is the clear message that he is sending to the residents of the ACT that are crying out for this Commonwealth government to show some leadership and step in? I'll tell you what; he is sending a very clear message to all religious and private healthcare providers around Australia: 'I will not stand up for you. I will not stand up for your beliefs. I will not stand up for the service that you provide to so many people who come to you for care, because I don't care.' Let us be very careful; it is the Prime Minister of Australia's inaction that has meant, today, we stand in this place and have to express our disappointment at the ACT government for what they are doing. This is nothing more and nothing less than an ideological approach to a hospital that provides care to thousands and provides religious based care. It is nothing more and nothing less than an ideological approach. I say to the ACT government: shame on you. Shame on you for undertaking what is nothing more and nothing less then a legislated grab; that is exactly what they have done. They haven't been able to come to an agreement with the good Calvary Hospital, and because they could not come to an agreement—let me tell you what they've done. They basically say in their own legislation that they've had to do this because an agreed position between the ACT government and Calvary was not reached. This sends a very, very clear message to all Australians that, if you don't give the ACT Labor government what they want, they will actually come in and forcefully take it, with no negotiation, no transparency and no committee inquiry into what they are doing. They will just rush legislation through their parliament. And they are going to take away the right of the Calvary hospital to provide their much-needed service to so many thousands of Canberrans. But it's not just about this, and this is the problem. It is not just about this particular takeover. This should actually send a shiver down the spine of anyone in Australia who believes in freedom of religion. Make no mistake: the Prime Minister of Australia not showing some spine—unlike Peter Dutton, who has spoken out and backed the Calvary hospital—is making it very clear to people all around Australia that he will not stand up for you. He does not believe in freedom of religion. Under his watch, this is what his government is allowing. It is preventing a religious organisation from caring for the sick, the frail and the aged. This is an absolute disgrace. Not only that but where are the ACT federal members and senators? I know where they were today when we asked for an inquiry into this. They voted no. Guess what? Senator Pocock, an ACT senator, actually abstained from the vote. He could not actually show his true colours as to where he stands on this important issue. Well, guess what? In this place, you get to take a side. You are either for or against. This is an absolute disgrace. The Prime Minister has shown absolutely no spine and, quite frankly, should hang his head in shame. If he is not prepared to stand up for the rights of religious bodies in this country then, quite frankly, shame on him. 16:27 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia In contributing to this debate, I think it is important to say at the outset that there are important principles being discussed this evening in relation to this motion. I object to the motion. The Greens will be voting against it. It gives us as a Senate the opportunity to discuss two significant points of principle, however. The first is the right of this chamber to inquire into the workings of legislatures at the state and territory level. It is my view that this chamber as a chamber of the national parliament does have the right to inquire into the workings, decision-making and policy of other chambers of the Commonwealth because, at the end of the day, we are all here representing all of the people of Australia. However, there is an important threshold that must be met before such an investigation or inquiry should appropriately be launched by this chamber. Firstly, there should be compelling evidence of systemic failure negatively impacting upon the people of one of the states or territories of the Commonwealth. Secondly, there should be compelling evidence that there is an active effort to cover up that systemic failing driven by corruption or other motives. In this case, neither of those thresholds have been met. For the coalition to suggest any differently is ridiculous. The ACT government, proudly and ably contributed to by three Greens cabinet-level ministers, have taken the decision to run their health system in a way that best serves the people of the territory, as is their right and their commission on behalf of the voters that contribute to the constituencies of the ACT Legislative Assembly. This chamber recently passed a territory rights amendment bill to give to the territory full rights to govern itself. Yet the Liberals bring this motion into this place today to backseat-drive them, to question them, to present to this chamber the idea that we should be meddling in the way they run their services. Well, that is just not on, particularly in the absence of any evidence that those two thresholds have been met. Now, let us go to the substance of what is actually happening in the ACT at the moment in relation to public health care and the hospital system. The ACT government has made the decision to acquire the land of Calvary Hospital, to acquire the staff and operations and to bring them into the governance of the ACT structures for the public health system. This is a decision that has been made by the ACT government, which is made up of a coalition of Greens and Labor MPs, and it is one the federal Greens fully support. It is a necessary decision that has been made to enable the effective delivery of healthcare services across the ACT. The ACT should be supported to get underway in building a bigger, modern hospital as part of a single network, on the north side, that provides all Canberrans with the healthcare services they need, close to their homes. That is what this is about. It is about the people of the territory getting the health care they need, when they need it and where they are, in the most effective way possible. While this decision was made by the chief minister, the decision was made at the cabinet level, with your Greens MLAs at that table. The acquisition is also subject to scrutiny from various committees on which the Greens have MLAs sitting. A single-network health system will mean better efficiencies in the delivery of public health services in the ACT, better mobility of services and staff across the three hospitals, and clearer clinical governance. These are all good things that should be welcomed and supported. The ACT government believes that a single-network health system is the best option for the territory—and they are right in this belief. They are being guided by the evidence. This will create a more effective and integrated health system, benefiting patients, staff and the community for decades to come. Now, I do understand that there are concerns held by staff at Calvary and by some patients and hospital administrators as to the nature of the transition. I want to assure you that in particular the ACT's mental health minister, Emma Davidson, is committed to ensuring that staff have the ability to go to work on the day of the transition in the same team with the same manager in the same building and keep their workplace and pay conditions. This is something to which the minister is absolutely committed. Such individuals are also being encouraged to make use of the CHS info kiosk at the Calvary Centre to raise their concerns and also to make use of the hotlines that have been created to talk through what this will mean for people. I've had the very great pleasure to work with Minister Davidson personally for years. She is a human being of integrity and of extraordinary intelligence and determination. I have every faith that every fibre of her being and every inch of capacity in her office is being put to work to enable this transition to be the success that the ACT needs it to be. Concerns held by the community should be openly shared with political representatives. That's their job. And the appropriate role of political representatives from the other side of parliament is to encourage those members of the community to reach out and to engage with the government in the ways that have been offered. Finally, I would just make this observation: the ACT Liberal Party—that moribund and inept organisation which, for many decades now, has completely failed to win the support of Canberrans to govern the territory—could learn a lot, I think, from the example being given to them by the Greens in the government, in the way that they are ensuring that the public health needs of Canberrans are centred. Rather than endlessly entering the Assembly with nonsense motion after nonsense motion in a continual attempt to delude themselves into a sense of relevancy they no longer possess, they would be much better served taking their time and energy to sit down and think about who the hell they want to be in the context of the ACT Assembly, because they are no longer relevant to the vast majority of Canberrans. This attempt to whip up a fear campaign in this community will not work. It will not give them the sense of purpose that they seek. I commend the ACT government, and Minister Davidson particularly, for the work that they are doing to create a better public health system for Canberrans. 16:36 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Cash for this opportunity and I welcome her concern for the health system in the Australian Capital Territory. I also thank Senator Canavan for his motion earlier for an inquiry. I know he has experience in the ACT. He has been to Calvary and he does hold genuine concerns. But let's call this out for what it is. This is just wedge politics here. We finally have some concern for the territory. Where has that been for the last 10 years? We have seen 12 City Deals and not a single one to the ACT. We have seen our national institutions run down to the point where the roof is leaking—with $6 billion of national collections at the National Gallery at risk from water leaking because the previous government didn't think that it was worth investing in Canberra. Now, all of a sudden, they care. I circulated a motion earlier to actually say to the ACT government that there should be an inquiry into this, because I believe there should. There are genuine concerns when it comes to the way that this has happened in the ACT. But stop trying to infringe on our territory rights. These have been hard-fought rights as a territory to stop the Commonwealth from reaching into our own affairs. An inquiry should happen, but it should happen at the territory government level where the Liberals, Labor and the Greens who sit on those committees will be able to probe, ask questions and find out about the concerns that have been raised by Canberrans—the concerns about the effect that this will have on the health system in the ACT and the concerns about consultation. We know that there are many health challenges here in the ACT when it comes to our health system. We have one of the lowest GP-to-population ratio in the country. It is lower than many rural and remote areas. That is something that the federal government can help out with. I have been making representations to the health minister and speaking to his office and the department about what can be done in that area—because it is of real concern to Canberrans. We have one of the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country and one of the biggest gap fees rate. Talk to Canberrans who are trying to find a GP or find a specialist. It is very hard to do. Those are genuine concerns. I do think that there should be an inquiry, and I've written to the Chief Minister and the health minister asking them to consider an inquiry at the territory level. So, whilst I do appreciate that the opposition is now concerned about this, it is not for the Senate to reach into the territory's concerns on something where there is actually no federal jurisdiction. I've written to the Chief Minister and the health minister asking them to consider an inquiry at the territory level, but it is not for the Senate to reach in to the territory's concerns on something where there is actually no federal jurisdiction. I want to thank the people who have got in touch, spoken to me around Canberra, sent emails or made phone calls to my office, both in support of this move by the ACT government and many others raising concerns about what this means for health care, the lack of consultation with doctors and what this potentially means for other religious based organisations here in the ACT. These are all valid concerns, as I said, but the inquiry deserves to happen at the territory level, as it happens in the other states. As for the opposition to be running this line that I am somehow against an inquiry! And after I wrote to the Chief Minister and to the health minister and put forward a motion to amend Senator Canavan's motion that would have had the President asking the ACT government to actually run an inquiry, which I believe is the fitting role of the Senate here. The question remains, because that wasn't supported: does the opposition genuinely want an inquiry, or do you want seven months—which will be six months after this has taken place—to be able to run your agenda? Are we actually about outcomes here and ensuring that Canberrans are heard, or, now that's something has happened where you can see the wedge, are you going after it? Canberrans, people in the ACT, fought long and hard, for 25 years, to overturn Commonwealth laws that constrained the territory. We're almost half a million people now. We are grown-up enough to legislate for ourselves, and, at the next territory election, people will be able to decide. My role as a federal representative is to advocate for the people of the ACT, not to reach into legislative assembly affairs and try and override things. I would urge other senators in this place—there are so many issues that we have to deal with. There's no shortage of issues, and today we're spending this time and time voting on a motion seeking to reach into matters that sit firmly with the territory. I move: That the motion be amended as follows: Omit all words after 'That the Senate' and insert: (a) reaffirms its commitment to territory rights, including upholding the rights of the people of the Australian Capital Territory to elect and hold to account a territory-level government; (b) notes the concerns of some Canberrans expressed about the ACT Government's decision to compulsorily acquire Calvary Public Hospital, including the concerns of: (i) certain stakeholders, that the Bill was not subject to consultation nor an inquiry process within the ACT Legislative Assembly; (ii) parts of the ACT healthcare community about the impact it may have on the health workforce, including losses of staff from the ACT's hospital system; and (iii) people of faith about the continuing role of religious institutions in delivering for-purpose services, including in the healthcare, aged care and education sectors. (c) notes any inquiry into this matter is most appropriately initiated and facilitated at the territory-level. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you on not responding to any interjections from around the chamber. You were very orderly in your speech. Thank you very much, Senator Pocock. 16:43 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Unlike the Labor Party during question time! The issue that we have before us today in response to some of the commentary that we just heard from Senator Pocock is much bigger than the issue that he makes it out to be. This is a very dangerous precedent that has been set by a territory government in relation to the rights of an institution to provide services to a community. It sets a precedent that says that, if you don't do what a government demands that you do, then we will just take over your assets. So, whilst I understand and respect the perspective that Senator Pocock puts on the rights of the people of the ACT, I think he fails to recognise there's a really serious dangerous precedent that this sets. It's a really disappointing situation to find ourselves in here, in the ACT, where a government would seek, in such a predatory way, to usurp the assets of a private organisation. But it's equally disappointing to see that the federal Labor Party, who is in power, who is the national government of this country, has made no attempt whatsoever to defend the rights of the organisation that has been predated on. The Prime Minister's weak acquiescence to this situation is a very sad and disappointing reflection on him and his preparedness to stand up for the rights of organisations such as Calvary. This hospital has had a proud history of providing services to the people of the ACT for a number of years. It has provided quality health care and provided an alternative for people who live here in the ACT when it comes to their health care. Yet last week we saw the ACT government rush through a piece of legislation that allowed it to compulsorily acquire the assets of this organisation, with no regard whatsoever to a whole heap of consequences. All Senator Canavan and the rest of us who have put our names to this motion today that we're speaking to want to find out are some of the details around the likely impact of this action on the people of the ACT. It's all well and good to say that this is a matter for the ACT and the ACT government should look into it and inquire into it. The ACT government have made their intent very clear. Their actions cannot be questioned in terms of their intent. They clearly have moved to make sure that they get their own way by using their legislative power to run over the top of an institution that in this instance was providing health care to the people of the ACT. Unfortunately, I don't have the faith that Senator David Pocock has in the ACT government doing anything at all about investigating the consequences of the action of the ACT government, because by their very actions they have shown that they actually don't care. We know also from consultations and discussions that we have subsequently had with people who are likely to be impacted by this—like the doctors, the very people who operate in these places and care for people in the ACT—that they weren't consulted. It's a really sordid tale we're hearing today. When the ACT government didn't get its way—when the ACT government sought to cut short a lease that was in place for 76 years and the Calvary hospital pushed back against that—the ACT government said, 'If you're not going to play ball, we're just going to take your assets.' The underlying principle here that we believe is so fundamental and so important for us to be arguing for is that it attacks the very basis of freedom of religion and the ability for those organisations who have a religious basis to provide services to our community. That's what this is all about. This is not just about the acquisition of the Calvary hospital here in Canberra; it's about the ability of governments to compulsorily acquire assets of all organisations—in this instance a faith based organisation—without any regard whatsoever. So when we look at it where will it end up? Is it a precedent for faith based schools? Can they just take those over? What about faith based aged-care providers? Are they going to go in and take over those as well? There is the potential for a grab on just about anything any government wants by using their might, power and legislative advantage in government. I think every Australian should be very concerned about what we have seen here. As I said, it's a very dangerous precedent and the question has to be: where are governments going to go next? Anybody listening should think very carefully about supporting a government that would take this kind of predatory action. Once again, it's very disappointing that the ACT Supreme Court has dismissed Calvary's challenge. Obviously we acknowledge that that decision was a decision of the court. The court confirmed today when it brought down its decision that it really was an absolutely appalling use of public power for ideological reasons but it was lawful. We do not dispute the fact that the ACT court has found the actions of the ACT government lawful, but we do say that the actions of the ACT government are appalling in terms of their abuse of their public power. Guess who's likely to lose out from this? It won't be the ACT government; it will be the residents of the ACT who will lose out. The fact that the ACT government is prepared to implement these standover bullying tactics just because it can't get its own way, is, I think, a very sad indictment. If the ACT government was half as good as it seems to think it is, why on earth couldn't they have gone and negotiated an outcome with Calvary Hospital? That is the way most business deals are done in this country. That's the way this country operates. We're a free country and a free economy. If you want something, you go and do a deal for it. If you don't get your own way, you don't—basically—steal the assets of another organisation. It is a sad fact that I have to stand here today and condemn the ACT government. I have to condemn them because what they have done is shown the rest of Australia that if governments want to have their own way they can do it lawfully, without any regard for the people that it impacts and without any consultation with the people that it impacts. They can just take things and leave communities without any support whatsoever or any recourse for these sorts of things. That is why we are calling on the Prime Minister to intervene: unless the highest power in this land actually says, 'This is something that we do not accept should be able to happen,' this precedent can be repeated elsewhere. If the Prime Minister actually had the strength of the office that he holds, he would be standing up and saying, 'This is an attack on the freedoms of private organisations in this country, and we can't stand for it.' But he didn't. He said absolutely nothing. So, despite the Prime Minister repeatedly promising to deal with the issue of religious discrimination, we stand in here today, when the first real test of the Prime Minister was put before him, and he did nothing. Under his watch, this government is preventing a religious organisation from caring for the sick, the frail and the aged. This is an absolute disgrace and the Prime Minister should be ashamed that he has stood by and allowed these standover, bullying tactics to predate over an organisation that has provided a service to this Canberra community for the length of time that it has. We believe that there should be a Senate enquiry, because we believe this chamber has the ability to shine some light on the unbelievable lack of process in place for this action to be taken. Despite what Senator Pocock might say about the ACT government, it is absolutely clear that unless a body is able to look at this in an impartial way—without the damage to this particular organisation being the direct result of the actions of a government, that being the ACT government—we will never get to the bottom of the flaws in this policy. I commend Senator Canavan and others for seeking to take this matter to a Senate committee, so that we can get some sunlight on this, get some transparency on this and get to the bottom of the actions of the ACT government, so we can make sure that this doesn't happen again anywhere else around Australia. 16:53 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Colleagues, I think I should welcome to the Senate former senator Zed Seselja, who I see in the public gallery. His former colleagues may not have welcomed him, but I thought I should do it just in case he missed out! It's very nice to see you back here. I only ever see you in the night-time on television. It is good to see you are out and about during the day! This, colleagues, is an issue—as all of us know—that is unique to the Australian Capital Territory. It arises from a decision of the Australian Capital Territory government and, of course, it is and should be a matter for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The decision reflects the unique nature of the ACT's public hospital system, a small jurisdiction that only has two acute public hospitals. It would be highly unusual for the federal parliament or this Senate to launch an inquiry into a matter that entirely relates to a decision of a state or territory government. Of course, under the National Health Reform Agreement, state and territory governments are wholly responsible for the operation and management of public hospitals within their jurisdiction. That responsibility includes decisions around using private or not-for-profit providers to operate public hospitals. Under the National Health Reform Agreement, the Commonwealth government pays its share of every bit of activity that happens in a public hospital. The Commonwealth government also pays for public patients being treated by private providers, such as the Calvary hospital. But the government does not intervene in these sorts of decisions. The states and territories are the system managers of their public hospital systems, and that includes responsibility for the purchase and operation of public hospital sites. So this is entirely a matter for the state and territory governments. The National Health Reform Agreement recognises that state and territory governments are indeed the managers of their own public hospital systems. That's all I have for you. 16:56 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I realise this debate is limited in time, so I'm going to keep my remarks short so that my other colleagues who I know want to contribute to this debate have the time afforded to them as well. This is a very sad state of affairs, and I want to say in the very strongest possible terms that I am deeply concerned about and condemn the ACT government for this unprecedented move against Calvary hospital. I want to strongly express my dismay that the Prime Minister is not doing what he should be doing, and that is to stand up for this organisation and, indeed, for the community in making sure that the transfer of ownership of this hospital doesn't go ahead. It's very disappointing indeed. Mr Barr's government is behaving like a Third-World dictatorship, frankly, in ramming a new law through the ACT parliament, because they forced their way, with no consultation. The Prime Minister said that he would lead for all Australians and work to unify Australia. Where is he? Where is the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister said: 'The ACT government are expanding their public hospital service delivery and restructuring healthcare provision as a result. It's not seen as providing any precedent by the ACT government and should not be seen by anyone else in that way.' How weak is that, frankly? Let's be clear. This is a direct attack on the Catholic Church and its institutions. This is an attack on religious freedoms. This is an attack on people of faith. The message here is that, if you don't submit to their ideological left-wing governments, they will come after you and your freedoms. Archbishop Christopher Prowse was correct when he said: I find myself wondering if I understand the purpose of government in Australia any longer. If the Catholic Church, despite long years of service, is a target for government takeover, who is safe from similar predations? He's right. What is the purpose of government? I tell you that it is certainly not to make premeditated attacks on organisations that do good in our communities. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent that we're seeing here. I condemn the ACT government for this, and I strongly urge the Albanese government to step up, do what is right in this case and protect religious organisations such as this, which has been delivering wonderful services to Australians for 44 years. It has 76 years left on the lease that it currently has. That was, in fact, established by the Chief Minister at the time, Senator Gallagher. This is an outrageous attack. This is an issue that has concerned Australians, not just those that reside here in the ACT but, indeed, people from all over Australia. I have received a countless number of emails from constituents in Western Australia who are very concerned about the precedent that this creates. I was going to read a few of the emails, but I am going to allow my colleagues to finish off this debate. This is a serious issue. It sets a dangerous precedent, and I urge the government to do something to remedy this situation and block it from happening. 17:00 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our wonderful Queensland community, I support this motion from Senator Cash, Senator Canavan and fellow senators to refer the takeover of Calvary hospital to a committee inquiry. This blatant attack on religion in health care has caused trouble for 'PAN AM'—or Canberra, as some still call it. Legislation to seize the hospital from the Catholic Church has passed the Australian Capital Territory parliament—legislation developed over a long period of time, partly in secret. In fact, this is the second attempt ACT Health autocrats have made to force Calvary out of health care. The only God autocrats respect is the god of power—power used in pursuit of a genuinely evil agenda. The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules, which has inflamed ACT autocrats. Nobody is going to get in the way of the health autocrats' agenda to murder babies and murder our elderly—and now considering murdering children and the severely handicapped. As an aside, the right to die, as we are seeing in Europe, will become an obligation to die. There are 14 Calvary hospitals in Australia delivering health services in a faith-based environment, healing of millions of Australians since their start in 1885. Churches around Australia provides hundreds of aged-care homes. Each of these must be looking over their shoulder at what Canberra Health autocrats are trying to do at Calvary. My public address to a pro-life rally in Rockhampton two weeks ago and a subsequent video on this topic has been met with an interesting response from the Left—the control side of politics. I will address that now. The common reply, repeated verbatim from a legion of social media bots and mindless zombies, is this: there is no place for religion in health care. It seems to me that this is a most hypocritical statement. When religious groups protested drag queens exposing themselves and reading adult sex stories to kids in libraries in 'drag queen story time', religious groups were told, "If you don't like it, don't go." Well, let me direct your argument right back at you: if you don't want religion in your health care, don't go to a Christian managed hospital. While we are at it, if you don't like religion in aged care, go to another aged-care facility and, if you don't like religion in education, don't send your kids to a religious school. See how it works? It's freedom of choice. That's what is irking the Canberra bureaucrats—freedom. We know how much autocrats have embraced utilitarian agendas and how COVID has normalised such behaviour. Clearly, these health bureaucrats have no intention of surrendering powers obtained dishonestly. I imagine they can't wait to tear that cross off the front of the Calvary hospital. Calvary hospitals have treated millions of Australians who are happy to be treated in a religious hospital. Federal parliament has precedence over ACT law. This matter is rightly within the Senate's purview, and I am strongly in support of Senator Cash and Senator Canavan's motion. This is partly about property rights and partly about freedom of choice. Property rights are fundamental to human progress, fundamental to innovation, fundamental to freedom and fundamental to responsibility. Federal Labor, in this term of government, has nationalised the gas industry. The federal Liberal and National parties stole farmers' property rights in the Howard-Anderson Liberal and National government. Now the ACT wants to steal churches' property rights and nationalise religious values. We need a Senate inquiry. The federal Constitution has powers to deal with religion. My message to Canberra health autocrats is simple: God decides who lives and dies, not you. 17:04 Senator CANAV 245212 Queensland AN () (): It's a great privilege to speak on this motion, and I do so as someone who proudly lived in Canberra for around five to six years. My wife and I had three kids here. We bought our first home here. It's a lovely town, and we thoroughly enjoyed our time here. One of the things that was great about living here around 15 to 20 years ago were the world-class health services that were on offer here in the ACT. Obviously the ACT, being a relatively small and self-contained jurisdiction, doesn't face the same challenges as other jurisdictions in providing health services over vast landscapes, but the ACT government did a good job of providing health services. We had a child at the Calvary hospital, two others at Canberra Hospital—all fantastic, all great. I particularly want to take this opportunity to thank the nurses and doctors and midwives at the Calvary hospital, run by Little Company of Mary. They provided a really dedicated service. You could tell it was run by a faith based or community based organisation. They took a lot of pride in their local hospital and the services that they provided, so it has been disappointing, on a personal level, to see how the Little Company of Mary has been treated—and, by extension, the 1,800 dedicated people in the health workforce at the Calvary hospital that's just a skip, a hop and a jump from where we are today. As I said, I haven't lived here for 15 years. Although sometimes it still feels like I do at different times, without kids and family being here I'm not as connected to the situation of the health services here today. I do still know a lot of people who live here, a lot of families and friends, and it has been sad to hear from them about how far health services in the ACT have fallen over the past 10 or 15 years. You only have to read the Canberra Times from time to time and you can see the crisis that is going on in the obstetrics ward at the Canberra Hospital and the issues with the emergency overflow ward that's been built and has not ever been used. It's really being mismanaged down there at the Canberra Hospital. There are a lot of issues. I recognise that the ACT, while being a small jurisdiction, now has to cope with the growing populations of Jerrabomberra and Queanbeyan—they often come in to use the services of a different jurisdiction. And while that creates pressures and difficulties, something is going wrong with the management of the health system in the ACT. I don't see how this quite shocking, rushed decision on the Calvary hospital will in any way help deal with those serious issues which are affecting local Canberrans today. It's very important to make sure everyone understands what happened here over the past few weeks. It is shocking to see a government come in and use its quite draconian compulsory acquisition powers to take assets off private entities, and the way this has been done and the haste which it has been pursued gives rise to serious questions about what the hell is going on here? It was only a couple of weeks ago that the ACT pushed—or rushed—this legislation through the Legislative Assembly. There was no inquiry into it. There was only a day or so of sittings to consider the legislation. And not only that, but the proposal—let's wait to see if they actually do it—is they will march into the Calvary hospital on 5 July, within five weeks of the legislation passing, and take over the whole hospital. They'll set up a whole new payroll for 1,800 workers. And what about the workers there? There has not been any mention of this from the other side, which is apparently the party who represents nurses and unions and the health sector. Not a word from them about how the workers have been treated. A lot of those workers have chosen to work for Little Company of Mary rather than a big bureaucracy. We all love and want to work for different people, but some people don't like working for a big government bureaucracy. There are certain cultural and other issues that go with having to work for a government bureaucracy, so some of those workers made the choice to work at a smaller organisation at Belconnen. Their lives have been thrown into disarray by this decision, and so now they have to make a choice within weeks on whether to take a redundancy or continue in the job that they love in caring for people in their community. It's just shocking that people have been treated like this for no good reason. There haven't been any good reasons given about why this has to be done within five weeks. They want to do it now. They could have had a one-year or two-year transition plan and had some consultation sessions with the doctors and nurses to find out what they wanted to do. The advice I've been given is every one of those 1,800 workers currently at Calvary now has the option to take a redundancy. You would imagine that, like in all redundancy processes, there will be a significant number of those 1,800 who will take the money. They'll take the redundancy. Some might be getting towards the end of their career. Some might not, as I say, want to transfer to work for a government. They'll go. They'll take the money and run. Where does that leave the people of Canberra? How are they going to be served by proper and adequate health services if hundreds of qualified nurses and doctors suddenly leave the health system? I don't know if the ACT government is living on a different planet, but all of us right around the country, not just in Canberra, can see the massive pressures that are on our health system and services at the moment. There is not a surplus of qualified health workers sitting and waiting, lining up to take vacant positions in a hospital anywhere in the country, let alone here in the ACT, which always has low unemployment and pretty tight labour markets. So how are they going to replace these people if a few hundred leave? Apparently the ACT government are hoping—hoping—that 85 per cent of people don't leave. Even then you're still talking about a couple of hundred vacant positions, so that figure seems optimistic. Who is going to replace these people? How are Canberra people going to continue to have adequate health services if the ACT government fails here? As has been discussed by other colleagues, the Little Company of Mary had an 88-year contract to provide services at Calvary hospital. There are still 76 years of that contract to run. That contract was actually signed by this ACT government. It wasn't Kate Carnell. It wasn't a former Liberal government that signed that agreement. It was signed by the Labor-Greens government that's still in power. It was signed, in fact, by the now finance minister, Senator Gallagher. In good faith, the Little Company of Mary signed that agreement for 88 years, and, 12-odd years into it, it has been ripped up—ripped up with five weeks notice. Is that any way to treat a partner, a long-term partner, that has existed in the ACT and done a very good job in the ACT for almost 50 years? Is that any way to treat someone like that? It's just abominable behaviour. When we come back to this question of compulsory acquisition, yes, the ACT government have this power, which is delegated to them by the Commonwealth government and effectively replicates provisions and powers we have under the Constitution. But these kinds of draconian powers must be used very carefully and very rarely, in extraordinary circumstances. The powers are there; we know that. The powers are there. But, if they're abused, that will destroy the social contract and trust we have with the community and the people. Even our own Constitution recognises this, obviously, at a high level, when it says that acquisition of property must be 'on just terms'—on just terms. The ACT (Self-Government) Act says the same thing in section 23. It replicates those provisions. The ACT government can acquire property, but it has to be 'on just terms'. There are serious questions about whether or not the ACT government is acquiring these assets on just terms, when it is doing so in such a hasty fashion, when it has given 1,800 workers just five weeks notice for whether to take a redundancy or not and when it is doing so in a way that provides no opportunity for the local Canberra community to have their say, to contribute to an inquiry and to put a spotlight on why and how this decision has been made. I should say the Little Company of Mary have not even been given a price. They don't know yet how much they're going to be paid. Apparently there will be some amount worked out. There will have to be, given the legal obligations of the ACT government. But that hasn't even been decided yet. How is that at all on just terms? This parliament delegated that power to the ACT parliament. They are a unicameral parliament. They do not have an upper house like the federal parliament. They are subject to the constitutional provisions that flow through that ACT (Self-Government) Act. I do think it's incumbent on us, given that we have delegated those powers to the ACT, to ensure that they have been properly applied and not abused, because this is a great power. It is a very, very significant power for any government to be able to step in and take away someone's assets, take away someone's business. It's an extremely grave power. And with that great power comes the great responsibility to use it prudently, diligently and carefully. We should play a role, as parliamentarians, to make sure that representative governments are held to account, to their own people, in using such great powers. That is why I proposed a Senate committee inquiry and why I think the 1,800 workers at Calvary Public Hospital and the 350,000-odd Canberrans who live here and rely on those health services deserve to have their say through an inquiry into such an extraordinary intervention by the ACT government. Unfortunately, that inquiry did not get up today. I've got great respect for Senator Pocock, who seems like a good guy, but he's been pretty soft here, not to be able to give his own local constituents a platform and a voice that they've been denied by their own territory government. There was no way that our Senate inquiry could stop the ACT government. It couldn't. There has been a total mischaracterisation by people who don't want an inquiry, to somehow suggest an inquiry would stop this or take away their powers. We can't do that, obviously, as senators. We can't even do that through legislation of our own—obviously, the House has to do it as well. All an inquiry would do would give Canberrans a chance to make a submission and to appear before an inquiry. It would give the nurses and doctors a chance to have their voices heard. Obviously, the ACT government doesn't want this. They don't want an inquiry. They don't want to feel uncomfortable by having direct criticism of their decisions. But I think democratically elected politicians should be made to feel uncomfortable sometimes. That's how our system should work. They shouldn't get an easy ride when they make decisions of this gravity. They should have to face up to the furnace of a public inquiry examination of their decisions, which is not happening here. Senator Pocock tried to rescind my motion, tried to move an amendment to get rid of any inquiry and, instead, request that the President of the Senate write a letter to the ACT government relaying the local Canberrans' concerns. Senator Pocock, that's the equivalent of playing touch footy, not rugby. Sending a letter is a soft touch. It's the softest thing you can do. If you've got a constituent and you don't know what you're doing, you send a letter. You're not doing much at all, whereas having an inquiry would put a blowtorch onto the Barr government and the decisions and roles that the bureaucrats have played here in Canberra. That's taking real action for your constituents. Some other constituents might be unhappy about that, but at least it's giving them a voice. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to support a particular option, but you're helping them have their say through a democratic process. It's very unfortunate that we have resolved, as a Senate, not to help and assist Canberrans, not to ensure that decisions made by democratic parliaments are properly scrutinised. I'll see what I can do next week, while we're here, to continue to hold this decision to account, because it is concerning, not just to Canberrans but to everyone around the country. As I say, we have great power as elected governments to compulsorily acquire assets from time to time, but we must ensure that those powers are used properly and prudently, and that has clearly not happened in this case, so we've got to take action here. Otherwise, if nothing happens here and we're a soft touch in this decision, it'll be a big green light to other governments that might think they can bully businesses and local community groups to get their way. I would hate to see our country go down that path. What's happened here in the ACT is regrettable. We could play a small role in helping to fix that and give local Canberrans a voice. It's very disappointing that we haven't chosen to do that in the Senate here today. 17:19 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise in relation to this matter to support the comments of my colleague Senator Caravan. I listened very carefully to Senator Pocock's remarks. I understand and empathise with his desire, that this is a matter which should properly fall within the province of the ACT government. But I would say to him—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—have a look at how the ACT government has dealt with this matter. When this legislation was first reported upon, I went and read the legislation. I haven't seen anything like this anywhere in Australia. It is extraordinary. The fact that this legislation would be introduced and passed without an inquiry within the ACT parliament and inadequate consultation with the faith based institution is just extraordinary. Senator Canavan has talked about the impact on employees being forced into this terrible situation. The compensation is to be worked out sometime in the future under regulations. It's just extraordinary. Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, I say to Senator Pocock: I have seen nothing like this. Our offices across Australia are being inundated with concerns about this. Many people involved in faith based institutions, be they hospitals or schools, are concerned this will happen to their institutions. This has caused a lot of concern across the whole of Australia. Across state and territory borders, there's a lot of concern. I personally have a deep concern as to whether or not the ACT government would do this if it weren't a faith based institution and whether or not they think a faith based institution is an institution that can be subject to this sort of predatory behaviour, as it was described by Senator Ruston. That causes me deep concern. Religious based institutions have been providing health care and education services for centuries. In many cases they were the only provider of those services for centuries. And here we have the ACT government adopting such a belligerent approach. It is absolutely extraordinary. I have read Senator Pocock's amendment. I would say to Senator Pocock—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—they had no desire to have an inquiry at all. Perhaps there would have been a way through this if they'd said, 'Let's give them the opportunity to have their own inquiry first before we act.' Perhaps that would have been a pathway forward. But they have absolutely no desire whatsoever to have any inquiry. The end result of that will be, if the ACT doesn't determine to have its own inquiry, that the people of the ACT will be left with no inquiry at all. The fallback option, because the ACT assembly doesn't have an upper house, is this Senate. I would have been reasonably satisfied if it were a fallback option, if there weren't an inquiry in the ACT where all the parliamentarians of all the parties within the ACT had conducted their own inquiry and all Canberrans had the right to have input with respect to a public inquiry. But they have been denied that opportunity. So, unless there is an inquiry here, there will be an inquiry nowhere. That is the issue. I come back to the point that to have passed this legislation the way it was passed and for it to be put into effect on such short notice is just extraordinary. There was no consultation with those employees. They were given five weeks notice to determine whether or not they wanted to take redundancy or continue within the organisation. I have no idea as to whether or not the ACT government has really thought through all of the different issues arising from such a complicated compulsory acquisition of this nature—that is, acquiring a hospital. You have the physical assets. You have all of the contracts and relationships between contractors and the hospital and between patients and the hospital. There's staff. This is extraordinarily complicated. There are the privacy issues. It is just extraordinary. I genuinely find it nearly impossible to fathom that a government of any state or territory would go down this path. I find it absolutely nearly impossible to fathom. I think there should be an inquiry somewhere. There needs to be an inquiry somewhere. The reality is, if it's not in this place, there won't be one. If the ACT government—and maybe Senator Pocock can continue his discussions with them—refuse to have an inquiry, given an opportunity, then I think Canberrans deserve to participate in an inquiry somewhere else. If the ACT isn't prepared to do it, I think this Senate should be used as the vehicle to deliver it. 17:24 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to also share my deep concerns about the decision of the ACT government regarding Calvary Hospital, which is callous and reckless to the extreme. It is astonishing to me, when reading the legislation, that the ACT government has the power to bring in the police if the transition is not made in an orderly way as it requires under the legislation. This is appalling for this wonderful institution, which has served the people of Canberra and the ACT so well for such a long period of time. And Senator Pocock, I too want to express my disappointment that you did not support an inquiry. Senator Canavan put forward a very important motion in the Senate today to support an inquiry into this shocking attack on Calvary Hospital, and it is incredibly disappointing that you weren't able to stand up for the people you represent and allow a light to be shone on what is happening here, allow the appropriate transparency. No matter whether you agree or disagree with this decision, surely it would have been appropriate to give your constituents the opportunity to understand with a sufficient degree of detail and to scrutinise this terrible, terrible decision. And I have to say, as shadow minister for education, that I am deeply concerned that this may lead to further attacks on schools of faith. We know that the Albanese government, after announcing an inquiry into religious educational institutions and antidiscrimination laws, has, in concert with the ALRC, put out a consultation paper, which has attracted scathing criticism from legal experts and religious schools, who have expressed serious concerns about the proposed restrictions on freedom of religion. Look what's happened in Victoria. The Andrews government has attacked independent schools by providing, in its latest budget, that they will no longer be exempt from paying payroll tax—which of course also constitutes a terrible attack on schools of faith. So, I say: shame on the ACT government; shame on those senators who are not standing up to the ACT government. This is a shocking abuse of a public hospital in the ACT, the best-performing hospital in the ACT, which had some 76 years left to run on its lease. How arrogant of Mr Barr, who said, 'You've got 76 years to go, but we'll let you stay for 25 years.' And of course now the death knell has sounded on this hospital. We proposed today to attach scrutiny to this decision, to hold the government to account, and it is incredibly disappointing that this proposal for an inquiry did not succeed. There is no doubt that this is an attack on religious institutions. I very much doubt that the ACT government would have taken these steps if Calvary was not a hospital underpinned by strong religious convictions and faith. This sets a very dangerous precedent, and it is no wonder schools are worried. It is no wonder other faith based hospitals are worried. It is no wonder other faith based institutions, no matter the religion, are worried. This sets a very dangerous precedent, and I condemn this decision in the strongest possible terms. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The time for debate has expired. Senator Stewart 299352 I seek leave to have item No. 23 on page 14 under reports remain on the Notice Paper. Leave granted. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 86 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Members of Parliament: Staff 86 17:29 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, before we move to the next matter, I indicated to the chamber earlier today that I would make a statement on events. As senators would be aware, yesterday the Deputy President referred to me comments made by Senator Thorpe containing serious allegations about another senator. After being made aware of those comments, I contacted Senator Thorpe and, in accordance with standing order 193(3), asked her to withdraw, which I thank her for doing so swiftly last night. I contacted both senators involved and extended the opportunity to make a personal statement. I encouraged both Senator Van and Senator Thorpe to access the services of the Parliamentary Workforce Support Service, and I would urge any other senator or staff member to avail yourself of the PWSS services if you feel there are issues for you. The PWSS provides independent and confidential support to all those who work in parliament and to all parliamentary workplaces. Their specialised staff are well placed to provide trauma informed counselling, support and advice. I have heard the request from Senator Thorpe regarding additional CCTV and security presence in the building. I will raise the proposal with the Speaker of the House, as we have joint responsibility for the building. At the request of Senator Van, I have also reviewed the statement given by Senator Thorpe and confirmed that it meets the requirements of the Senate standing orders. BILLS 87 BILLS Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 87

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 87 17:32 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland In 1967, Australians considered a question at a referendum that proposed alterations to the Constitution to remove discrimination against Aboriginals and to include them in the national census. Brought by Australia's 17th Prime Minister, the Liberal Party leader, Harold Holt, the successful referendum was a culmination of a bipartisan campaign to bring Australians together. The question was overwhelmingly supported, with 90.77 per cent of 4.5 million Australians voting yes. Now, contrast that with the process employed in the 2023 Voice referendum led by Anthony Albanese, which is dividing Australians before a ballot has been cast. In response to legitimate questions regarding details of how the Voice would be structured and give effect to the proposed constitutional amendment, the Prime Minister ridicules the questions and tells people to do their own research. He has called opponents 'Chicken Littles'. He tells people that voting yes is the right thing to do, insinuating that voting against the Voice will make you wrong. This is not the way to approach such major, permanent and groundbreaking reform—reform that has been characterised as modest and generous but is neither. This constitutional amendment would be a radical and permanent change to our founding document and our governing principles. I want to quote Ian Levy, in a letter to the editor in the Australian. He said: Constitutions are rigid, slow-evolving frameworks, much like our bones, and governments are elected to keep the body politic in shape. The insertion of a permanent voice into the Constitution is adding another vertebra to our nation's backbone and can only be done with total disclosure if there is the slightest risk of paralysis. Like surgeons, governments must endeavour to do no harm. In modifying our Constitution, the precautionary principle requires complete public disclosure of all legislation and costings. A last-minute or post-referendum disclosure after months of emotive persuasion would be an act of gamesmanship, not statesmanship. Prime Minister Albanese has not provided Australians with the detail of what legislation for the Voice would look like. Instead, he's asking everyone to trust him, with the 'nothing to see here' attitude of someone who has already broken many of the promises he made only a year ago. The Prime Minister cannot or will not tell us what the Voice mechanism will cost, how many bureaucrats will be employed, what powers the legislation will provide, how the members will be identified and appointed and what areas the Voice will have application to. The failure to provide all the details—in fact, any of the details—shows a lack of trust in the Australian people, and, if the government don't trust us with the detail on how the Voice looks and works, how can we trust them to bring forward legislation that will be the consequential part of this constitutional change? On 30 May, the Cairns Post reported the results of a reader survey. It said: One common concern expressed by Indigenous people who said they would vote no or were undecided was the Voice would not sufficiently represent the diversity of Indigenous communities and therefore ignore the differences between them. This is an important point because Indigenous communities are not all the same and have unique issues and views; however, the Prime Minister has provided no clarity or guidance on how the vast number of Indigenous cultures would be represented by the Voice. The ABC recently reported what a Doomadgee resident said: But out here, in our communities, no one is talking about it. It wouldn't be in the top five issues on the minds of our people. The Post also interviewed two people from Wujal Wujal who had never heard of the Voice. It is hard to comprehend how this government came to believe that its Voice model will represent all the Indigenous cultures across Australia, especially when it hasn't consulted with people in these diverse and remote areas. Remember, what I've described as just a snapshot of one region of Australia. How many more people in remote areas around the country aren't aware of the Voice? How many more communities question whether someone from another community will accurately represent them? Another Doomadgee resident told ABC Radio, 'I don't know why we're going back to the Voice when we've already got a voice. If we've got already got people talking to us and they don't like us, they're not going to talk to us. It's happening now. It's happening in our community now. If you don't like you, you get nothing. All our leaders do that.' If you're an Indigenous person from one of these remote communities whose views are inconvenient to those who hold the power, you risk being sidelined and marginalised. This Doomadgee resident's comments underline the fact that new power structures will only entrench these divisions. I attended the annual Eddie Mabo oration in Townsville—the first time it had been held outside Brisbane in its 31 years. The guest speaker was one of the authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and I was keen to hear a well-articulated argument in support of the 'yes' campaign. The speaker is a constitutional lawyer, an Indigenous woman with a strong and powerful story of her own. For the 400-odd people in the room, the speaker was a wonderful demonstration of success in her life through hard work, opportunity and mentorship. There is an awful assumption in the Voice amendment that being Indigenous is to be forever disadvantaged and that the lives of all Indigenous Australians are somehow less—less successful, less inspiring and less hopeful. There is no recognition of all the Indigenous Australians who have led fulfilling lives, raised families and pursued careers, and become leaders in their families, their communities and their industries: sporting identities, business leaders, members of parliament and even senators. The Prime Minister conflates disadvantage with indigeneity, rather than disadvantage born of geography and poverty. To return to the 'yes' speaker, it was really disappointing that the speaker couldn't articulate anything more in her argument than 'there is disadvantage, and we need to do something about it', because not all Indigenous people are disadvantaged. Disadvantage is not a race issue. It is largely down to geography, poverty and education. Where you live has more bearing on your fortunes than who you are—your access to good health care, to education, to roads to get you to bigger communities, data and voice connectivity, reliable electricity, air fields upgraded and mental health services. These are all matters that the coalition and the Nationals in particular work hard on, trying to prioritise additional spending at each budget, the very expenditure that Labor should be pushing if they genuinely want to reduce disadvantage in rural, regional and remote Australia. Instead, they have paused spending on infrastructure in the very remote regions that need it. Some Australians may have considered voting for the constitutional change to enshrine the Voice because they are told it is the generous thing to do and they are thinking, 'Why not? We have to do something.' But the better question is why? Why should we adopt a radical change to our Constitution? Australia's story is an Indigenous one followed by waves of migration, first by the British and then other Europeans. South-East Asian migrants followed, and those from the Middle East and Africa have all arrived. They were all lured by the dream of living in a free democracy, working as one towards a better future. They came here because of our opportunities for all, regardless of race. We have something unique in Australia—a rich tapestry of multiculturalism. Those waves of new Australians have given us so much besides different foods and architecture and style. Most importantly, they have given us a culture that is humble, prepared to lend a hand to our neighbours and which has a strong sense of a fair go. Some would tell you that Australia does not have a culture, and perhaps we don't, not in the way of a country with low migration and clearly unique language, food and buildings. But to say Australia does not have its own culture is never to have celebrated Anzac Day, experienced chicken salt, swam at our pristine beaches or hung clothes on a Hills hoist, to have felt a sigh of homecoming on landing in Australia, heard rain on a tin roof or cheered your team on with a crowd. As has been said, 'I can travel all over the world, but no matter how far or how wide I roam, I still call Australia home.' Australia aspires to a fair go for all by not having different levels of citizenship, and that is something worth celebrating. Having an equal say is an important premise in our democracy, one which will be replaced should a new body be established that grants additional rights to some citizens over others based on race. Making this change to the Constitution would enshrine the new Voice body forever, whether it's doing a good job or not. The beauty of our Constitution is its simplicity. It describes broadly the House of Representatives, the Senate and the powers of the parliament. The introduction of another body will, by its nature, provide additional uncertainty and an increase in bureaucracy and cost. It will not fix geography and poverty. The legislation that would need to be passed by the parliament to put flesh on the bones of the skeleton Voice, as established in the Constitution and as yet undescribed by the Prime Minister, could not legislate away the powers of enshrined Voice which would be determined by the decisions of the High Court. This proposed constitutional change will make the High Court of Australia the determinator of the influence and importance of this proposed body, not the elected representatives of Australia and, subsequently, Australians. Opinions from some of our brightest legal minds on the Voice's powers are already divided, a sign of future years of expensive legal battles. Since 1972, there have been three iterations of a voice, which all ended up being disbanded for various reasons. The most recent was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, ATSIC, which was abolished in 2005, not only because it was ineffective in helping Indigenous Australians but in large part because of allegations of corruption and mismanagement amongst the leadership. We currently have numerous Indigenous bodies providing advice to the federal government. These include the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council, the Torres Strait Regional Authority, the Northern Australia Indigenous Reference Group and the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, all of which have specific areas of focus. There is also the Coalition of Peaks, Empowered Communities and thousands of Aboriginal corporations and service providers all able to give advice, to give voice, via their elected MPs and senators. Anyone who claims that Indigenous Australians are not consulted on policies that affect them is being disingenuous at best. For good or bad, a nonconstitutional body can be abolished, reshaped or replaced. This ability to reform when things aren't working as they should is an important part of democracy and good governance. The coalition has made clear its opposition to the Voice. It will simply add another layer of bureaucracy that will inhibit the practical, local measures that need to be taken to improve Indigenous people's lives, especially those living a long way from the capitals and in regions with limited work opportunities. It will instead soak up attention and funding that could be spent on the ground. Furthermore, elected coalition MPs and senators take seriously our duty to represent all constituents regardless of race. Governments shouldn't decide how to allocate resources and attention based on race instead of need. The issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, particularly in remote areas, are numerous and complex. It's difficult to see how a new body made up of 24 persons appointed rather than elected, from different parts of the country and with different priorities will be able to present a consensus opinion to the government in a timely manner. Australians have already, in this, the 47th Parliament, sent 11 Indigenous Australians to parliament. These men and women have been appointed not by bureaucracy but by their communities. They sit in two chambers alongside representatives of our newest arrivals and descendants of those who settled here earlier. This is something that Australia can be proud of. Changing the Constitution is a big deal. It would have permanent outcomes. Change to the Constitution in an ill-considered way is not generous; it is unwise, and it risks the stable and successful nation that Australia is today. I cannot support this change to our Constitution. 17:47 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I, too, am rising to speak to the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, a bill supposedly centred on recognising the First Peoples of this country, the oldest continuing culture in the world. This week the Labor government opposed my motion to take action towards treaty. They have refused to define sovereignty, they have refused to acknowledge First Nations sovereignty and they have continued to ignore my repeated requests to meet with the blak sovereign movement in this country. I had publicly stated that I would abstain from voting on this legislation and that I was open to discussing the bill with the government. They have not listened to blak voices—even the blak voices in the parliament who actually have some power. My position on the Constitution amendment bill is now as clear as the air before colonisation. This bill is for a referendum that Labor and the Greens are using to absolve colonial Australia of its responsibility. They have presented it as a great solution to the stain on the nation that is the poverty and incarceration of First Nations people. The Voice, they have promised, will give First Nations a say, and, with that, all will be well with the Aborigines; the Aboriginal problem will be fixed. But the truth is: it is just constitutional recognition, with a powerless advisory body as window dressing. The government is claiming the referendum will bring all of us together, but that is not what is happening on the ground right now. This referendum has already given space to and elevated some of the most vile racism this country has ever seen—and that's saying something. Many have expressed concern and support for First Nations people on the receiving end of this heightened racism. We don't want your sympathy; we want the racism to end. Standing up to racism means respecting First Nations people, and in order to respect us you must recognise our sovereignty. This bill fails to recognise the sovereignty of our people. It is an intended failure because, if the government actually recognised that we are sovereign, it would also admit that it is not, that our lands were invaded, that our people were unlawfully conquered, massacred and oppressed and that this government and all governments preceding it were illegal according to their own laws. The government claims that this bill and the referendum resulting from it will not impact our sovereignty. It is easy for them to say our sovereignty won't be impacted because they only see it as a spiritual notion. It is far from just a spiritual notion. I have put forward amendment to this bill which would, once and for all, recognise our sovereignty—our actual sovereignty—which is an unceded right held in collective possession by the members of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations which confers usage, access and custodianship of the lands, waters, minerals and natural resources of what is now known as Australia, and the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to exercise an unimpeded and collective self-determinant governance over there political, economic and social affairs. That is what we are talking about when we talk of sovereignty. That is what sovereignty is. It provides a foundation to negotiate a treaty. The bill before us is trying to establish a Voice to parliament under the pretence that it is self-determination. Today I am bringing you a sovereign perspective on the Voice truly borne out of self-determination. I am not just standing here as Lidia Thorpe but as a representative of the Blak sovereign movement. I am guided by actual Blak sovereigns, voices such as those of Aunty Jenny Munro, founder of the Redfern embassy; Uncle Michael Mansell, author and lawyer; Uncle Michael Anderson, founder of the Aboriginal tent embassy; Aunty Dr Mary Graham, professor of history and politics; Uncle Adrian Burragubba, musician and former political candidate; Ned Hargraves, Warlpiri elder; Les Malezer, Australian human rights medal recipient and UN committee member; Robbie Thorpe, my uncle and editor, presenter and activist; Gary Foley, professor of history and founder of tent embassy; Professor Chelsea Watego, professor of Indigenous health; Lynda-June Coe, PhD candidate and New South Wales upper house candidate; Aunty Gwenda Stanley, educator, dancer and cultural ambassador—and so many more elders I could spend the whole time on this speech telling you about. Your accolades are in our history and our culture. These are the people that you don't listen to or won't listen to. Here is a small sample of what these voices have had to say on the referendum. Michael Mansell says, "By merrily advising parliament that the Voice endorses the right of others to decide, the advisory voice is at complete odds with sovereignty." Gwenda Stanley says: "Our sovereignty has never been ceded. We have never given consent to this process. This movement has repeatedly asked to meet with the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Attorney-General to discuss genuine concerns with the proposed referendum, yet our calls remain unanswered." This government doesn't want to hear First Nations people's voices who don't support their agenda. That is why I am here today—to make sure that a sovereign perspective on this proposed Voice to parliament is known. The government promotes the Voice as a mechanism for self-determination that will finally give First Nations people a say in this country. What is self-determining about a referendum where a majority of 97 per cent of the population who are non-First Nations get to decide about what is best for us three per cent? It is the opposite of self-determination. You quote polls stating that most First Nations people support the Voice. Most polls are asking if First Nations people should have a say in policies. They do not ask about constitutional recognition. When you are starving, taking a crumb does not mean you support the system that starves you. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was by no means a consensus statement. In fact, for speaking up about our concerns and raising treaty and sovereignty, some of us received tribal death threats and had to sleep out in the desert that night for fear of our lives, and I was one of those. A disabled elder was arrested and taken away in a divvy wagon from one dialogue in Blacktown in Sydney. Look that up. That is not a unifying moment. That is not a moment of peace, and it does not pave the way for it. Megan Davis boasted about the dialogues at the National Press Club, saying 'we also banned significant leaders from the movement because of their cynicism about the government'. Despite this, recent documents released through a freedom of information request clearly show that what our people were primarily calling for during the regional dialogues was treaty. There were many at the regional dialogues who insisted that any body must be stronger than just an advisory body to parliament. Many ideas were floated about how we could actually get a real say and some power, such as designated seats in parliament. Yet nobody talks about that. Instead, what the Labor government is putting forward is the weakest of all versions—an advisory body without any real influence. The parliament will retain supremacy over the Voice and can decide who it is and what it does. Tell me, where is the self-determination in that? My people are sick of spending their lives advising those in decision-making positions, just to have their advice ignored. Just look at the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the Bringing them home report. They were self-determined pieces of advice provided to—an even commissioned by—government. Yet, decades later, their recommendations are still not implemented. Traditional owners in the Beetaloo advised that they do not want their country fracked. The government ignored their voice and fracking is about to begin. If the government, or any of the previous governments, were serious about listening to us they had every opportunity along the way, and they have failed. I was, and am, prepared to constructively engage with the government around the Voice and around urgent action we need to see in the meantime, which would actually make a difference to our people's lives. The government could save lives by implementing the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The federal government has jurisdiction over a number of these recommendations. Health care in prisons equal to that in the community was a key recommendation from the royal commission. Many, many deaths in custody occur due to untreated and preventable conditions. This could easily be addressed by the government through bringing Medicare, PBS and NDIS into prisons. Another action the government can take today is to provide increased funding to Aboriginal legal services across the country, as they are struggling to meet increased demands. We all know that if our people cannot get adequate—or any—legal support, they will be more likely be locked up and locked up for longer. Higher incarceration ultimately leads to more deaths in custody. Our kids don't belong in prisons. The government has an opportunity to raise the age of legal responsibility to 14. And there has been no progress on implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The referendum process has not come close to the requirements of free, prior and informed consent. So far, the government has shown no good faith to progress any of these actions or show that they actually want things to improve for our people. Therefore, in the name of the black sovereign movement, I will be voting no the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The government has failed to show good faith. I cannot support a referendum that does not acknowledge our sovereignty. A step away from recognising sovereignty is not a step in the right direction. I cannot support a referendum that is merely intended to make colonisers in this country feel better about themselves while not giving us any real say. I cannot support a referendum that is gammon and not actually improving our lives. I cannot support a referendum that is already dividing and hurting our communities. Instead, I will continue to fight for real change and to turn things around in this country. I will continue to work to achieve treaty. The government repeatedly said they are committed to all elements of the Uluru statement, and that included treaty. I'll leave it up to the audience as to how genuine this government is about treaty if it can vote it down in a second. Treaty is commonly understood to be an agreement between two or more sovereigns and therefore requires recognition of sovereignty. Agreeing to a treaty process is a step in the right direction towards recognising First Nations sovereignty in this country. Recognition of our sovereignty is a foundation of respecting First Nations people. Each time our sovereignty is denied, this government chooses to continue the colonial legacy of violence and oppression. I long for the day when we can celebrate an end to the war here—the war between the colonial government and First Nations people. It is a very one-sided war, but it is most definitely a war. We demand to meet as equals, sovereign to sovereign, to negotiate treaty. Treaties, when negotiated and not imposed, have proven to be effective at ending hostilities and providing long-lasting peace. We need that peace and justice, and that is what I will continue fighting for up to and beyond this referendum. Treaty is an opportunity for us to unite, heal the nation and move forward together. 18:01 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I too rise to speak on this momentous bill, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I first acknowledge and pay my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples on whose land we're meeting today. I also acknowledge and pay my respects to the Wurundjeri people whose land I work and live on back home. It's time. That's the view of Aunty Geraldine Atkinson. Aunty Geraldine has been working in Aboriginal affairs for the last 50 years. A proud Bangerang and Wiradjuri woman, she is co-chair of the First Peoples' Assembly of Victoria. She says: As First Peoples, we know that for too long we have had policies made for us and to us but not by us—by politicians who don't really understand, or worse, don't respect our culture. She's right; it's time. It's time for Australians to come together and support a momentous change but also a very simple one. In 2017, the Uluru Statement from the Heart was delivered with three important asks: voice, treaty and truth. The statement was informed and led by more than 1,000 First Nations delegates from each state and territory. Delegates at the regional dialogue in Naarm, or Melbourne, asserted with pride their survival in the face of struggle. They agreed on the importance of real recognition, not just tokenism. These dialogues led to the statement that will change history. With these powerful words, the Uluru statement reads: In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. This bill is really about accepting that generous invitation to walk forward together. We took to the 2022 election a commitment that we would implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. Now, a year into government, we are committed to holding a referendum later this year to recognise First People in the Constitution through a voice to parliament. This bill is the first step of our commitment. This is really not about politicians or partisanship; this really is about the Australian people. For 60,000 years, First Nations people have looked after and continue to look after and protect country. We live alongside the oldest continuous living culture in human history, and that is worth all of us recognising in the founding document of our nation. It's long overdue. For too long Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continued to face disadvantage because of colonisation, because of top-down government policies and because of intergenerational trauma. The gap in health, education, criminal justice and life expectancy is just not closing fast enough. The Uluru Statement from the Heart states: These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness. It's time for a different approach. It's time for an approach that gets to the structural nature of the problem. It's time for an approach that is about self-determination and real change. We know that outcomes are better when First Nations communities lead the decision-making about their own communities and lives. We know outcomes are better where there is genuine partnership, genuine listening and genuine respect. Marcus Stewart is a proud Nira illim bulluk man of the Taungurung nation and fellow co-chair of the First Peoples Assembly of Victoria. In his words: A change in our lives requires a change in the existing systems that have continually failed us. With a voice, it is not hard to imagine a world in which things such as health, housing and incarceration receive tangible, real and lasting action. Tangible real and lasting action is something we can all not just hope for but work towards together. Marcus says that the Australian people are hungry for change. I agree. As a non-Indigenous Australian, I am hungry for the future that we can build too. Recognition of First Peoples through a voice will be good for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, for all Australians, for people who want to live in a country that is united, for people who grew up in a time in this country where our origins were barely spoken of and barely acknowledged, for people who want to live in a country that can be proud of the 60,000 years of culture and heritage offered by our First Peoples and for people who know that we can do better together if we accept the invitation of Uluru to walk together for a better future. To quote the great senator Pat Dodson: It would be a momentously unifying moment for all of us. We will no longer remain diminished as a nation. A successful referendum will signal a new and unifying era for this great country. Senator Dodson also said: 'We are capable of doing better.' I know we are, and I commend this bill to the Senate. 18:08 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise this evening to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The moment in time we have before us today is a deliberation we, as the elected lawmakers in this country, will make perhaps once in our time in this parliament—a deliberation about whether to change our foundation statute, our nation's most important legal document. Each word and each phrase of this document can be open to interpretation in the way we conduct the matters of our government, in a delicate symbiosis between the executive arm of government and the judicial arm, in the form of the High Court of Australia. I stand here today as someone who has declared my fervent support for reconciliation and for recognition of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. If the referendum question was dealing with either separately or independently, I would be able to support that question. But this government has chosen a different path that conflates the issues, confuses the topic and confounds good government and constitutional amendment. Many of us have been on this journey for a long time, and my record as a National Party member, as a senator and as a minister is testimony to this. I changed my view on these topics as a result of my engagement in the Joint Committee on Constitutional Recognition—the very first one that was set up on this topic, chaired by former senator Nova Peris and Ken Wyatt. And, whilst minister, I was able to negotiate the Barkly regional deal with the then Northern Territory Labor government following the rape of a two-year-old in Tennant Creek. I stand here as the leader of a party in the Senate that supported our most successful referendum in 1967, when, as Harold Holt declared in May of that year, all three political leaders—the leader of the Country Party, Mr McEwen; the leader of the Labor Party, Mr Whitlam; and himself—had joined together to prepare the official 'yes' case. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are the founding part of the cultural and social fabric of our communities, and we acknowledge their essential and ongoing contribution to our nation. The Nationals, including members of the Liberal National Party and the Country Liberal Party, have represented regional, rural and remote Australia for more than a century. And our party has proportionately more Indigenous within the boundaries of our electorates than any other political party. Never let it be said that my party does not have a deep and abiding concern for the rights and welfare of Indigenous Australians. But today I stand in this chamber to express my concerns and opposition to the proposed change to our Constitution outlined in this bill. This bill has garnered significant attention. And while it professes to address the needs of Indigenous Australians, I firmly believe that its implementation poses great risk to our democratic institutions, to the decisions of future governments and to national cohesion. My concerns are twofold. Firstly, I fear it will fail in its stated aim of being the final and ultimate cure-all for the problems affecting many Indigenous Australians, particularly those in the remotest part of our country—in health, in welfare, and in educational and opportunity outcomes. As my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price wrote earlier this year: We have every right to question, seek clarity or outright disagree with a vague proposal that's being sold as a completely new approach to resolving disadvantage. There is zero proof the voice proposition will be successful. Second, this change will have unintended consequences for the delicate fabric of our democracy. You've heard from those opposite that these concerns are completely unfounded—'Just trust us.' Well, I'm no lawyer, but when I was reading the submissions on this bill, in the hastily conducted inquiry set up by the government as a shroud, as a veneer of sensibility, I was drawn to a submission by Mr Gyles, who said: 'Much of the commentary that denies that proposition seems to be based on the commentator's personal opinion or upon the commentator predicting what the High Court may or may not decide. That is a most insecure method of reasoning when considering inserting a new chapter in the Constitution that entrenches forever an entity with a stated function of making submissions to executive government.' That is the learned opinion of somebody trying to give us as lawmakers very sound advice about what some of those unintended consequences could be from inserting a Voice into our Constitution. My concerns are shared not just by constitutional experts but also by many Indigenous Australians who also do not want our founding document to be permanently divided along the lines of race and culture. Again, proponents of the 'yes' case refuse to listen. It's all about the Voice—but only if you're speaking with certain words and favouring certain opinions. In a liberal democracy like ours, all voices should be respected equally, and all perspectives should be considered and heard, and then each individual can determine their own views. I'd like to quote from the dissenting report on the inquiry into this bill, which warns: If proposed s 129 is interpreted by the High Court in a way that imposes on the Executive either a duty to consult the Voice or consider its representations, this will have profoundly disruptive effects on the operation of government. These assessments were made by none other than former justices of the High Court Robert French and Kenneth Hayne. Let us recall Mr French's comments: Given the immense range of matters in which there might be an interaction between a proposed policy or practice and impacts on Indigenous people in one way or another, to imply a duty to consult across all of that range would really make government unworkable. I don't think the High Court is in that business. This proposed change opens a proverbial Pandora's box and could result in significant delays in government decision-making, ultimately leading to dysfunction and inability to effectively address the needs of all Australians. The Australian Constitution is the cornerstone of our legal framework. That is why amendments to it should be approached with immense caution and why Australians of all political persuasions are incredibly conservative—that is 'conservative' with a little 'c'—on changing our founding document from the past. Each word and provision within it can be open to interpretation. By incorporating the proposed Voice, we will expose our Constitution to legal challenges and once practical decision-making could be at the mercy of the High Court. We cannot predict what a future High Court will decide when the Voice seeks to challenge a law, a policy or a future direction of government. Despite the promises that the risks of those interpretations are low, history would show us otherwise. In another submission, again, from Roger Gyles: … neither the government nor any expert can give those unequivocal assurances … Justice Callinan warned: It would be imprudent to underestimate the capacity of any future High Court for ingenuity or originality. As a constitutional conservative, who believes the Westminster system of government is the best form of democracy that we can have, I believe we should be slow to transfer authority out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the courts because the courts do not represent the people. The vagueness of the Voice demands that we trust future courts to act in Australia's best interest. The fundamental basis of our democracy is trust, and we elect our representatives to act on our behalf. With the knowledge of that, if they make the wrong decisions, we can vote them out. But the deficiency in the process of this referendum shows a deficiency in that trust. The Labor Party has not been up-front, nor has it been inclusive, and it has approached the whole referendum from a position of superiority and self-righteousness, bypassing the normal conventions of a constitutional change. It has been dismissive of any concerns raised across the community, within this chamber and in the inquiry process itself. The reason we have conventions embedded in how a country like ours approaches constitutional change is so that all voices and perspectives can be heard and the sovereignty of the Australian people is paramount—they will have the information available to them; they'll be able to assess its impact against their own personal values and philosophy and vote accordingly. Putting those measures in place meant that the 1967 referendum was an overwhelming success because Australians knew it was a change that they wanted to make and it reflected their own personal values. Denying that public debate, that respectful conversation, and asserting that people that don't agree with this constitutional amendment are somehow racist really does not respect the sovereignty of the Australian people. I think it doesn't give the Australian people the privilege and responsibility of knowing the details and impact of this proposition and of being able to discuss and debate that openly and respectfully to therefore make their own decisions. It is a failure of this Labor government to run from that. You've got to ask yourself why they have chosen to do that. Why didn't the government choose to legislate the Voice? If it's the answer to the problem, legislate it and enshrine it later. My party, the National Party, holds to democratic principles and the trust in the processes that are unique to the 10 oldest democracies in the world. We are therefore cautious about any measure that involves transferring authority away from people and putting it in the hands of unelected high courts. We acknowledge the importance of democratic representation for Indigenous Australians by Indigenous Australians—something that has advanced considerably in this chamber since 1967. As so many have made reference to in this debate, the Australian people elected 11 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives in both the Senate and the House and, proudly, from all political philosophies too. I think that is quite incredible and shows the journey that everybody has been on. Just as the potential legal quagmire is an issue, the lack of transparency around the operation of the Voice is deeply concerning. The Australian people are being asked to vote on a permanent change to our Constitution without knowing precisely how it will operate. Either they don't want to describe the impact, or they don't trust the Australian people. Either way, it is not the way a government that is operating in a liberal democracy should actually work. Once it's enshrined it will become exceedingly difficult to reverse any negative consequences or make adjustments to its operations. The National Party wants to address the serious issues impacting Indigenous Australians by delivering frontline evidence based and place based solutions that will help the most marginalised in our communities. We should be striving to bring Australians together, not creating further divisions. By enshrining a body solely for one specific group of Australians in our Constitution, we perpetuate divisions based on race and culture rather than resolving them. And as Faith Bandler, a prominent Indigenous civil rights activist and campaigner, said in the lead-up to the 1967 referendum: 'There is only one Australian, and his colour doesn't matter at all.' It was this unity of purpose that meant that was an incredibly successful endeavour in changing our Constitution. The limited time and inadequate comprehensive hearings of this inquiry have deprived Australians of the opportunity to engage in a robust and inclusive discussion. I just want to go to Justice Callinan. He said: It is an irony that so many of the proponents of the Voice, well-intentioned and highly-regarded as they are, should be echoing the language so often and infamously used by the late Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen to reporters seeking information about government, "don't you worry about that". I am firmly committed to addressing disadvantage. I am a very respectful no, but a firm no nonetheless. 18:23 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak in support of the Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill. I acknowledge and pay my respects to the First Nations people with us here today, especially Uncle Major 'Moogy' Sumner, an honoured elder and leader of the Ngarrindjeri and Kaurna people of South Australia. This bill creates a pathway, a pathway with still more steps ahead, to finally, constitutionally, recognise Australia's First Nations people. It responds to the eloquent and considered call of First Nations Australians for that recognition and for a voice. It is a first step. Beyond it, we have much more to do: to teach our children our real history, to understand that history and all it's meant for generations of First Nations people, to clearly see the cost of colonialism and the long legacy of frontier wars in our country, and to move to create treaties. Today, our children, including my own grandchild, learn songs and words in Kaurna language, the language of their place. Our public events begin with Kaurna words spoken on Kaurna land in Adelaide. That was not my history, my learning, and it's taken many decades to change the old ways and begin to pay respect to the true history of our nation and our First People. I grew up as a country kid in Mallee country—what I now know was the land of the Ngarkat people. I had a great public primary education at Lameroo area school, but that education was of its time. It didn't tell the truth of our history. It did not recognise First Nations of this country. It did not recognise a 65,000-year-old history. It did not recognise the deep culture of our place or the role of First Nations Australians across our history—the first agricultural cultivation, the management of fire, the care of country. It did not recognise contributions made in history and in contemporary times to arts, culture, sport and music in Australia. It did not recognise the role of our First Peoples in the long war of resistance to invasion and loss of land and livelihood. It did not recognise a frontier war fought to protect and defend the children and families of First Nations people. And of course we failed to recognise for so many decades the roles of First Nations people fought in wars since invasion. The kids of my generation were raised on British history. But it was whitewashed. It's time to tell the truth and move to makarrata—to treaties that recognise First Australians and their associations and deep connection to land and to sea and to water. Although I spent merely a decade and a half of my childhood on our farm and on that country, I have no trouble understanding First Nations people's deep connection to country. For me it was a connection borne of a mere century of occupation and a short three generations. I don't compare that short experience and attachment to country with the deep legacy of thousands of years lived on country by First Nations people. But I live in awe of the kind of connection to country that exists for First Nations people, arising from their custodianship over thousands of years and hundreds of generations. I'm delighted to be making this contribution with Uncle Major 'Moogy' Sumner with us. Uncle Moogy was my Senate running mate in 2022. I didn't know until then that when we were both 11, Uncle Moogy lived just 120 kilometres away. And, while I was enjoying all the freedoms of farm life, his family were required to have a pass to travel by bus from Raukkan at the Coorong to Adelaide, where their movements were tightly constrained as they collected clothes and blankets. Uncle Moogy has taken me and so many others to Raukkan to tell that history for truth-telling. I acknowledge and thank Uncle Moogy and his Ngarrindjeri and Kaurna community, and, indeed, all South Australia's First Nations communities for their great generosity in telling us of this painful and unequal history. It is never too late to tell the truth of our past. This legacy is, of course, not behind us as we engage in this important new conversation about truth, treaty and voice—and as we come to the Voice in this bill. When I've asked Uncle Moogy about the voice, treaty and truth, he has spoken of the need to come together, to walk together, to create a new voice for First Nations South Australians and to celebrate the culture, contribution and the past and future of our place and our people. When Uncle Moogy welcomes us to Kaurna land, his mother's country, he calls up all our ancestors—from all directions—to come together in respect and to guide our meeting for good, to take away bad energy and to help us work together to build a better future for all of us. We could have done with some of that energy in recent days in this place. Constitutional recognition of First Nations people is a first step. It is our duty, it is long overdue and it is essential. And we need to do more than that. We have to ensure that First Nations Australians have a clear voice into this parliament and into parliaments across our country. There are too many examples of the failure to listen. In South Australia, as I speak, First Nations people are in the Federal Court contesting a decision by the previous coalition, now being joined by Labor, to build a nuclear waste dump on their land—the land of Barngarla people near Kimba—without their consent and, indeed, without the consent of most South Australians. The Barngarla people have yet to be consulted, a decision that compounds the awful history and intergenerational trauma of British nuclear testing at Maralinga and at Emu Field on country then actually occupied by First Nations people—a trauma with consequences that reach across the decades to today. In October this year we celebrate, we mark and we remember 70 years ago when the nuclear testing occurred—we do not celebrate it; we remember it—at Emu Field and the long consequences which were drawn to this parliament's attention this week by a visit of First Nations people and veterans from that country, who told us about the intergenerational legacy of this terrible testing. That is why we need a voice, and we need a voice that is heard. We are overdue for recognition of Australia's First Nations peoples in our Constitution and for a real voice for them in all the matters that affect their lives, including in relation to nuclear waste dumping. We must create this Voice, and, most importantly, we must listen to those voices and do no fresh harm by ignoring their wishes and their connection to country. We are not honestly facing the truth of our past if we fail to respectfully listen now and create that Voice and amend our Constitution to recognise First Nations people. We are a better country for telling the truth of our history and hearing the invitation at the heart of the Uluru statement, which, I'm proud to say, the Greens were the first party to support in full, and which, I'm often told, so many South Australians passionately support: 'Tell the truth, create treaties and ensure a First Nations voice to our parliaments, rooted in the truth.' The Uluru Statement from the Heart brought together First Nations people from across the country to reckon with the past and create a better future. The statement provides a powerful call for action to the whole country. It says: We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country. The Greens support progressing all three calls to action in the Uluru statement: truth-telling, treaty-making and the Voice. The Voice is just one part of the story. A successful referendum will be the start of decades of change for First Nations people, as we move towards truth-telling, treaty-making and self-determination. This proposal for change comes after many years of other kinds of effort and many disappointments. The Barunga Statement of 1988 calls on the Commonwealth parliament to create a treaty recognising First Nations' prior ownership, continued occupation and sovereignty. Bob Hawke committed the Australian government to delivering that treaty, but it never happened. What we need now is action. That is the responsibility of every one of us, all of us, as we go to vote, from Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in remote communities, our regional centres and our cities to the decision-makers in government. First Nations people have answers to the challenges that impact on their lives, and the Voice to Parliament will allow those answers to be heard. Securing a 'yes' vote at the referendum will recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of this continent by establishing a body that has a say on matters that affect us—all of us. We have an opportunity to change things for First Nations people in this country, and that means a better country for all of us—for all who grow up here and for all the kids to come. They can live a life with full knowledge of our history, all the history, which includes progress towards treaties that recognise First Nations' prior occupation and gives a voice to First Nations people—a voice that is heard and a voice from the oldest living culture in the world. This must be a unifying moment for all Australians. South Australia has already taken its first clear steps to achieve that goal. I'm proud that our state has moved ahead and proud of the very moving ceremonies—some of which were led by Uncle Moogy, welcoming us to his mother's country. They were widely participated in by so many citizens in our state. South Australia became the first state in March to legislate a First Nations voice to parliament, and, in the wake of the bill passing parliament, Uncle Moogy said, 'First Nations people have got to have a voice right across the country—a say in everything, from land care to health outcomes.' This country is changing, and I stand with my fellow Greens senators and so many others, like the majority of South Australians, who want a different future. We want to come to terms with how we all came here. We want a country that treats people fairly and faces up to disadvantage—one where everyone's voices are listened to. It's an opportunity for treaty, for truth-telling and for voice. We must reckon with the truth of our history and move forward together through treaty and through that voice and constitutional recognition. That is the only viable path. 18:34 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The need for constitutional recognition of First Nations people is, in my mind, unquestionable. The invitation from the Uluru statement was to the people of Australia—all of the people of Australia. It says: We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. It is a generous and heartfelt call to put aside the hurt and the harm caused by the violent colonisation of this country—not to forget but to make good; to remember and to celebrate the 60,000 years of stewardship of this country; and to acknowledge the 200 years of deep and unconscionable injustice. I am proud to stand here and say yes—yes, I will walk beside you. Through this referendum, as a nation, we all have a choice. But, in making that choice, one of the biggest challenges that we are facing is a flood of misinformation and divisive, nasty campaign tactics. We should be better than that. A yes vote is a profound step towards reconciliation with First Nations people. A yes vote is a statement that we are committed to acknowledging and addressing the injustices of the past and creating a more equal and inclusive future. A yes vote will give us a body enshrined in the Constitution to enable First Nations people to have their voices truly heard and their perspectives truly considered in the decisions that affect their lives. If the referendum is successful, we will be a better country. Why shouldn't First Nations people secure a formal structure through which it provides advice to the parliament and the government on matters which affect them? There's nothing threatening here. The sky won't fall in. As we have seen in South Australia, this process that has been put in place is going very well. It is a chance to heal, a chance to be better. This Voice is a vehicle to provide that advice to the parliament and the government. Importantly, it will be accountable and transparent and will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. Parliament will be unencumbered in its law-making functions. There is nothing to fear here. By protecting the Voice, in our founding document, we ensure its enduring ability. There is no doubt government policies have failed First Nations people. They have entrenched poverty, incarceration and child removals. The Closing the Gap data released this week shows us, alarmingly, that only four out of the 19 measures are actually on track. That is a statistic that we should all be deeply alarmed by. The structures that we have have not succeeded in addressing this unconscionable gap. I've worked in those structures, often with some really good people with some really good intent, but never with that true engagement and value of First Nations people. It's a very simple, simple structure. It's a very simple concept. The evidence tells us overwhelmingly that those structures have not worked. So we have to do something new. A successful referendum will signal a newer era, a unifying era, and a path to genuine reconciliation. We can do better as a country. We can do better as a parliament. We can do better as individuals, and we must do better. A permanent voice with a singular focus on such matters will help achieve better outcomes. The past two decades have seen consultations, reviews, inquiries and processes to develop models for recognition. There have been reports, so much work and so much effort to find a structure and a model that both is acceptable to First Nations Australia and works within the framework of Australia's public law and governance. I believe we've found it. In 2017, this process culminated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and I would urge anyone who hasn't read it to read it. It was a constitutional convention bringing together Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders at the foot of Uluru in Central Australia to provide a generous invitation and a pathway forward. We cannot let it fall on deaf ears. During this convention, the majority resolved to call for the establishment of a First Nations voice in the Constitution. The Uluru statement is a catalyst in a long-running movement for Indigenous constitutional recognition. We must now honour the resolution of this convention and enshrine a voice into our Constitution. While today we're focused on implementing the Voice, tomorrow we must implement the other deeply important elements of the Uluru statement: treaty and truth. The Uluru Statement from the Heart also seeks a makarrata commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations to facilitate truth-talking about First Nations history. In the October budget, the Albanese Labor government set aside funding for the establishment of that commission to advance treaty and truth. While it is important to enshrine a First Nations voice to the parliament now, we will not forget the other elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. As explained in the explanatory memorandum, the constitutional alteration bill that we are debating here tonight has four key elements—not a range of the other things that are being bandied around but four: (1) to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia; (2) to provide for the establishment of a new constitutional entity called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; (3) to set the core representation-making function of the Voice; and (4) to confer upon the parliament legislative power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. Last month we saw the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum hand down their report on the bill. They received more than 3,000 contributions from across Australia, and a significant majority of those submissions were supportive. They were supportive of the proposal for a voice enshrined in our Constitution. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders passionately expressed the importance of being recognised as the first Australians in the Constitution and expressed their hope that the Voice would fundamentally alter and improve the lives of current and future generations. Witnesses told the committee that they were concerned that the lives of their children, their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would not improve without change. The evidence would tell us that they've got a solid point there. We have to make change. We have to do better. We have to do different. Those people said that what they would like to be able to do is see that, when they're adults, or when their great-grandchildren are going through school, they are not sitting there having the same conversations that we have been having for decades. Let's make this happen. Let's respect the deep culture and knowledge and let us finally deliver on recognition and reconciliation. I am proud to stand here and say yes, and I urge you to stand with me. I want to thank and pay my respects to all the people who for decades have fought for First Nations recognition and justice. In particular I want to send a shout-out to Senator Dodson, who cannot be with us today, for his unswerving dedication to this critical issue and to thank him for his inspiration. I pay tribute to his tireless work and the tireless work of my other colleagues, particularly Senator McCarthy, and various other people in this building who have worked so hard to get a respectful conversation and a decent pathway through to do the work that we need to do for true reconciliation, for true recognition, to truly hear the voices of First Nations people and to do better. 18:45 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I firstly want to put on the record in this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 that I am very passionate about improving the livelihoods of and prospects for Indigenous Australians. I've tried to contribute in my small way as a senator for Queensland and as a minister in the former government. We helped settle the very first loan from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to an Indigenous business to establish the very first fully-owned iron ore mine by Indigenous Australians in Western Australia. I set up the northern Australia Indigenous advisory panel, which I think is being continued by this government. There are some fantastic Indigenous Australians on that. I thank them for their work, particularly around economic opportunities in northern Australia. There are a lot of positive things going on for some Indigenous Australians across this country, because there are a lot of entrepreneurial Indigenous Australians, especially young Indigenous Australians, who are taking the opportunities that this great country does present to lots of people. We're not a perfect country—of course, we're not—but we are I think one of the best places in the world. You have won the lottery if you are born here and have the opportunity to pursue your own form of happiness, have a family and provide for that family through the great employment and business opportunities we have in this nation. There's no doubt that, unfortunately, across generations we as a country though have failed to provide equal opportunities to Indigenous Australians, and we still fail today. I think the best that could be said for this proposal to have a Voice to Parliament is that it's an unnecessary distraction from our shocking failures to deliver for Indigenous Australians. As I will try to outline this evening, I cannot see how a bureaucratic body here in Canberra can unpick the complex problems that Indigenous communities face across Australia. This is, at best, a distraction from the action that needs to be taken—not talk, not the Voice. In its word there's a problem. It's about a voice here. This place is all about talking. A lot of talking goes on in Canberra, and this will be another place that does a lot of talking. But it's action that's needed to solve the issues for Indigenous Australians, and I don't think this body will do that, with all respect. The worst this body could be is a trojan horse for radical activists who seek to bias Indigenous policy in particular and probably broader policy settings in this country in a certain direction that even, I would say, most Aboriginal people do not support but some activists among us have an agenda to pursue. One reason why I'm sceptical about whether this Voice will actually contribute practically to help Indigenous Australians is that we continue to ignore the Indigenous voices that are in this parliament—in this chamber and in the other place. We had a clear example of that over the past few months when the shocking explosion in crime occurred in Alice Springs. Alice Springs is perhaps one of the most overrepresented towns in this parliament. There are actually two members from Alice Springs in the parliament. My colleague Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price lives there and was a deputy mayor in Alice Springs. Also the new Labor member for Lingiari, in the other place, is from Alice Springs. There are about 30,000 people in Alice Springs and there are two representatives in the parliament—that is, about 15,000 people in Alice Springs per parliamentarian. Not too many other towns in Australia have that level of per capita representation in the Australian parliament. Both of those representatives—both Senator Price and the member for Lingiari—have been warning for months that the government's decision to end the cashless debit card, and the Northern Territory government's decision to end our coal restrictions, would lead to absolute disaster in Alice Springs. They have been warning that for months. They have been using their voice as elected representatives to say these things. But the government and the parliament as a whole completely ignored them and ran roughshod over their views and pursued, at a million miles an hour, this ideological campaign to get rid of the cashless debt card, and we all saw what ensued as a result. Thank God, some of the alcohol restrictions have come back. The government are desperately trying to find a solution on welfare payments that doesn't amount to them having to embarrassingly back down on the cashless debit card. But we ignored their voices. We ignored the Aboriginal voices that exist here in this parliament. So would we listen to any other voices? We don't know how they will be selected or elected in this Voice body. But there is a broader issue here than just whether or not the Voice itself will be effective. It is very clear that some of those pushing the Voice have a radical agenda in mind—and only sometimes this iceberg is exposed above the surface. Yesterday it was very clearly exposed at a conference in Cairns—a long way from here. The Lowitja Institute put on a conference in Cairns on health issues yesterday, and Professor Marcia Langton addressed that conference. I have a lot of time for Professor Langton, I appointed her to a board looking at the future for the resources sector, and she has made great contributions there. But I do disagree with her on some things—and she clearly has quite a radical agenda when it comes to the Voice. The Lowitja Institute tweeted yesterday that Professor Langton had said in her speech: "People who are opposing the Voice vote, are saying that we are destroying the fabric of their sacred Constitution. Yes, that's right. That's exactly what we're doing." Professor Langton went on to say: "First of all, our Constitution is racist. It was designed as a racist constitution. The slogan was 'Australia for the White man.'" Professor Langton is not just a commentator here in this debate; she helped design this legislation that is before us. She helped design that for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Her clear words are that this is exactly about 'destroying the fabric of our Constitution'. So when government members stand up and say "This is modest; there's nothing to see here," why is it that one of their key advisers for designing this Voice says that, actually, the intent of the Voice is to 'destroy the fabric of our Constitution'? I am a proud Australian. I think we are a great country, and I think we should cherish our Constitution. The fact is that we are one of the longest-serving democracies in the world. Democracy is a very recent thing. We are not the longest-serving democracy but we are up there as one of the longest-serving continuing democracies, with effectively the same Constitution—with very few changes—the same parliament and very stable institutions. I think we should actively oppose anybody seeking to destroy the sacred fabric of our Constitution. It is a part of the foundation which makes our country great, which gives us freedom and which guarantees our prosperity. Yet we have here a codesigner of the Voice saying that our Constitution, our foundations as a democratic country, should be destroyed. That alone should ring massive alarm bells for anybody considering their vote on this referendum. The government are, clearly, not being forthcoming with the details. They are open about that. They are not willing to put forward any detailed legislation before us about what the Voice would look like. They are saying, "We'll work that out after the vote." So what is going to be in this wooden horse after the vote and we have to open it up? We are not being told. The only way to stop that, the only way to prevent that door of the Trojan horse being opened, is to vote no so that we do not get a voice designed by politicians in Canberra in their own interests, not yours. That is the only rational decision that can be made, given the radical agenda that has been exposed, given the fact that the quiet part has been said out loud, yesterday at this conference and in a few other examples around the country. I do think that, even if my concerns about a radical agenda are not forthcoming and maybe this is just a somewhat modest and probably ineffective talkfest here in Canberra, the broader problem is that this ultimately does divide our community in an unnecessary way. We would be introducing a provision into our Constitution that divides us along racial lines. As I said at the start, I do recognise the unique circumstances that Indigenous communities find themselves in. I do think we should pursue very strongly policies that help and support those communities. I think that introducing the concept of race into our founding document as a nation is incredibly dangerous, because we are and should be a country based on the principle that it doesn't matter what the colour of your skin is and it doesn't matter what DNA you have in your body. What matters is who you are as an individual human being, and every Australian individual human being should be sacred, should be supported and should be helped. There is no need to divide our country along these lines. People marry different people. People in the same family will have different voting rights in our country. I don't understand why we need to do that. We had a great referendum in 1967 which did improve our Constitution, which was all about uniting us as a country and treating all Australians as equal. It wasn't about voting rights, which is often wrongly said, but it was about making sure that everybody is counted properly in the census and treated equally. That was a great change which united everybody. It actually treated everybody equally in this country, regardless of skin colour or race. This would do the exact opposite, and it would take us back to a pre-1967 situation when there were some racial elements in Australian policy that were wrong and that we should leave in the rear-view mirror. I don't think we should bring those back into the policy debate. If this is about uniting our nation, why hasn't the Prime Minister made good-faith efforts to show some compromise on the design to try and build a bigger level of support for the Voice beyond the narrow partisan support he has from his own party and some of his allies in the Greens? He has made no effort to do this. There have been good-faith attempts from politicians on this side of the chamber who support a voice model but are concerned about, for example, the proposal to have the Voice advise the executive government, potentially giving rise to more constitutional legal challenges, where this will ultimately be decided. There are others who are very passionate supporters of the Voice, but they're concerned that this model creates a new chapter in the Constitution that's not subservient, at least in a hierarchical sense, to chapters I or II in the Constitution—chapter I being the parliament, chapter II being the executive. There's a question about why this Voice isn't under either of those chapters. It's meant to be. We're told the Voice is meant to be something that can't just run off and do its own thing; it's ultimately subject to the laws of this place. That's what we're told. Why is it in a separate chapter of the Constitution, which potentially, again, gives rise to concerns that an activist High Court could interpret this as its own somewhat separate body under our nation's Constitution? Those are all very reasonable points, and not ones that would in any way undermine the spirit of the Uluru statement or the sentiments of some supporters of the Voice in the Indigenous community. But there has been no attempt to seek compromise on those views, no attempt to reach a broader level of support. So we as a nation are facing a situation now where, even if the Voice were to get up, it looks like it would do so on the narrowest of margins. It won't be a uniting event for our nation if 51 or 52 per cent of people in a slim majority of states vote for this model. It won't be. There will be a very large minority opposed to it. It'll be a divisive moment for our country, which is very unfortunate. That is a consequence of how the government has approached and gone about this proposal, in a 'my way or the high way' fashion. But we are where we are now, and the Australian people have this choice to make. I think we should, given these unanswered questions, given these undelivered details, not say yes to this particular model but, perhaps even more so now, given the Voice is potentially even facing defeat, the government should consider pulling this referendum. They have not done enough groundwork here to build wide public support, and, perhaps to avoid embarrassment, they should put it off and think of another way of how we could recognise Indigenous Australians and actually unite our country together on what should be a central pursuit of this parliament and our nation to improve the lives and prospects of all Indigenous Australians, not just a few that seem to share a radical agenda that wants to tear down the founding institutions of this great nation. 19:00 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak in strong favour of this bill before us today, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. Before getting into the detail, I would like to clearly and sincerely acknowledge the land that we stand and have this discussion on tonight, the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, paying my respects to their elders past and present. I also want to acknowledge the Aboriginal people and nations in South Australia, the state that I am proud to represent. I live and work on the lands of the Kaurna people. I want to thank and acknowledge them for caring for the land that they share with us for tens of thousands of years, land that they are deeply connected to, land that they have cared for with compassion, deliberate action and thought, and lands that they continue to struggle for the rest of us to care for as well. I want to pay my respects to the resilience and strength of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country. We know the real truth of Australia's history is one of colonisation, of violence and dispossession. That, of course, is the recent history. Yet, in spite of all of this, Aboriginal people have survived, they continue to care for this land that we all call home and they are still here, loud and proud. I want to acknowledge in the chamber today that we have Senator McCarthy and Senator Cox, colleagues of mine who know this struggle better than most, who know deeply the meaning of connection to country, of care for the land and the desire for unity through this particular referendum. The Greens have long been a party that stands for First Nations justice. We have fought alongside traditional owners to protect their country and ensure better respect for our environment, our animals and for all people. We believe in the right to self-determination and have fought with First Nations people for the rights on a range of issues but particularly for this land that we all call home. We have always listened and valued the voices of First Nations people and sought to walk alongside them. Now this parliament and this country, very soon, is being asked to do the same. We're being asked to listen, to understand and to walk together with our First Nations people, to enshrine in our Constitution an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, a voice that cannot be taken away at the whim of politicians or political parties, a voice that will ensure that First Nations people have a seat at the table on the issues that affect them and their communities. In my time in the Senate, I have been lucky enough to work alongside many distinguished leaders from a variety of sectors, but no-one has inspired me and counselled me and shared their wisdom in quite the same way as Uncle Moogy Sumner. Uncle Moogy is a proud Ngarrindjeri man, a teacher, a cultural ambassador, a unifier. He also happens to be the leader of the original Greens, our First Nations Network in South Australia. He's here in the chamber tonight, and I'd like to give him a big thank you for all of the teachings and understanding that he shares not just with me and my family, but our entire community. I first met Uncle Moogy at the mouth of the Murray—his country, his home. It was at the height of the millennial drought. There was a trickle of water running down the river, not enough to keep the river alive, and there was Uncle Moogy standing on the banks crying out for his country, for his land and for his people. He clearly articulated that the problem that existed, the problem that had been created, was a problem of greed. No respect for the land; no care for the river. Selfishness and greed had drained the river dry. Uncle Moogy was right. And if we listened a little harder and a little better to our First Nations people our rivers, our oceans, our forests, our communities would be better. They'd be safer, they'd be cleaner, they'd be healthier. Uncle Moogy reminds me that the First Nations people of this land are the original Greens: caring for the country, a deep connection to the land and knowing that, as humans, we are simply part of this incredible ecosystem of the environment. We must learn to respect it and each other. Uncle Moogy has explained to me why the Voice is important to him and his people. He says: 'The Voice, for me and my people, is very important. It's important so that we've got a say in how this country is run, how we look after the land and who looks after the land, but also to talk about things that are happening with our communities. For years we weren't allowed to have a say. We were told to sit down, and told by others that they'd make the decisions on our behalf. What we need now is to have a say.' Thank you, Uncle Moogy, for your leadership. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a generous invitation from the First Nations people of this land to walk with them towards a better future for all of us. That's why we're debating it here today, because this is about the type of country we want to be. This is about us as Australians, as a community, as a nation of people and what we stand for and what we care for. The Uluru statement is clear. It's generous and it says clearly: We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish … We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination. That's the kind of country I want to live in. That's the type of nation we should all strive for. That is the type of Australia that this referendum is seeking to deliver. The Uluru statement has three clear asks: truth and treaty and, of course, voice. It is the voice that we are discussing here in this referendum—to deliver a voice to parliament. We know there is much more work to do. The Greens were the first party to endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and we support progressing, of course—and desperately know it's needed—truth-telling and treaty-making alongside a constitutional voice. This referendum is a chance for us to be on the right side of history. It's a moment that won't come again easily, and it is essential that we win this 'yes' vote this year. A vote for 'yes' is a vote for a fairer, kinder future, one where we are able to talk openly and honestly about the truth of our history and the impact that it has on our present. It is an issue that should not be politicised, but, sadly, once again, the rights and recognition of our nation's First People are being politicised and used to divide. The nasty politics that seeps through the walls in this place and over the airways of our media is already rolling with a drum beat. It is with utter disappointment I note that the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, is not a man fit to lead this country with the views he holds on this particular issue. Mr Dutton is a man of form. He has form on this issue. He walked out on the apology to the stolen generation. He turned his back on First Nations people 15 years ago and he's turning his back on them now. He will be given fanfare and prominence by others who wish to see this referendum fail. I say today: don't be fooled by the disinformation, the division, the fearmongering. Be aware of the naysayers, the spivs, the fearmongers, the very same people who, for generations, have benefited from the status quo. They're the ones who don't want this referendum to succeed. Well, let me say this: the status quo isn't working. It's not working for First Nations people, it's not working for Indigenous kids and it is not working to deliver the type of country Australia needs to be if we want to be a modern, strong, robust, compassionate nation. It is time for us to right the wrongs of the past, to take the next step, to give the First People of this nation the simple proposition of having a say over their own lives and to propel us, as a country, to come to terms with our own real history, the damage that has been done, the violence, the dispossession, the trauma that has endured. It is time for us to say enough is enough. We need unity, we need compassion, we need understanding and we need learning. It is not a complex proposition to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a say over their own lives, the true recognition they deserve in our nation's Constitution, the chance to believe that this is an Australia for all of us and as Australians that we are all safe and respected and can hold compassion. This is why the referendum is important. This is why voting yes is important. It is not for today day; it is for tomorrow. It is for all of our children: our First Nations kids and our non-Indigenous kids. They deserve a country unified, proud, compassionate and caring, and that is what 'yes' is all about. 19:15 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the lands upon which we meet and work here in Canberra, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, and their elders, past, present and emerging. I'd also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Noongar people of the Whadjuk nation, where my home town of Perth is located, and their elders past, present and emerging. The Whadjuk Noongar people have been the traditional owners of the south-west of Western Australia for at least 45,000 years. Finally, I'd like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the traditional custodians of the Kimberley region, where I work extensively. The traditional custodians of the Kimberley are made up of more than 100 First Nations communities who speak over 40 Indigenous dialects. Specifically, I'd to acknowledge the traditional owners, past present and emerging, from the following countries and peoples: Nyikina, Mangala, Bunuba, Gooniyandi, Walmajarri, Wangkajunga, Gija, Yawuru, Miriwoong and Gadjirrawoong, and pay my respects to their rich cultures, their communities, their leadership, and the many friendships I've made with the leaders from these groups over the years. Thank you for letting me walk your land. I am pleased to make a contribution on this bill, as it is an extremely important step forward for our country, for reconciliation and for achieving real and meaningful outcomes for our First Nations Australians. The purpose of this bill, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, is to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First People of Australia and establish an advisory body to be known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. It will also give parliament the power to pass legislation related to the Voice. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have lived on the land and waterways of this place that we now call Australia for over 60,000 years. They represent the oldest continuous living cultures in history, yet still our founding legal document, the Constitution, does not recognise them. Instead, until the Mabo judgement in 1992, Australia and Australian law was based on the fiction that this continent was unoccupied prior to European settlement. Not only is the Constitution based on this fiction, but there has also been explicit exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for the entire time the Constitution, as it is currently written, has been in place. The constitutional amendment in this bill will put an end to that explicit exclusion. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our founding legal document and listening to their views on the laws and policies that matter to them will make a significant difference. Schedule 1 of this bill sets up the text of the proposed alteration to the Constitution, specifically establishing a new section 129 of the Constitution that would be headed, 'Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'. The proposed new section 129 would have four key features: recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia, giving constitutional authority for the body to be known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, providing for the Voice to be able to make representations to the parliament and executive government on matters related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and, finally, giving power to parliament to legislate on matters relating to the establishment and operation of the Voice. I ask, what is so bad about that? For decades, there have been calls for an enduring representative body. The long list of reports and inquiries into this issue all stress the importance of a representative body to improve the development and implementation of laws, policies and programs that impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Only this morning the Australian reported that new data has revealed that poorer outcomes were still occurring in poorer communities and in those who are more distant from urban and regional locations. Furthermore, just four of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are on track. This is why we need the Voice. We need structural change to ensure that grassroots Indigenous voices are heard in Canberra, to help direct better outcomes, including Closing the Gap. I want to take a moment to really home down into what the Voice is. This is not a Labor Voice. The Voice will be an independent and permanent advisory body which would give advice to the Australian parliament and government on matters that affect the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples—pretty simple. Before the Uluru Statement from the Heart was written by 250 delegates from all across Australia, there were extensive Australia-wide consultations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, called regional dialogues. Twelve regional dialogues occurred between 2016 and 2017, at Darwin, Ross River, Torres Strait, Cairns, Brisbane, Dubbo, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and Perth. The Voice was developed through these dialogues by Indigenous leaders and representatives. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was formalised in 2017, when 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from across the country gathered in Mutitjulu, in the shadow of Uluru, and put their signatures on a historic statement. The Uluru Statement from the Heart, addressed to the Australian people, invited the nation to create a better future via the proposal of key reforms, which included the development of a Voice to parliament. Reconciliation Australia makes the point that for close to a century Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have called and fought for a seat at the table. Over this time their aims have remained resolute: to represent First Nations peoples in matters that affect their communities and to ensure that their perspectives are heard in the development and implementation of policies and programs, because they know that, when First Nations peoples are in the decision-making seat, outcomes for their communities are better. The Voice to parliament will help to achieve exactly that. Despite what some on the other side might say, the Voice will not be required to make representations on every law, policy or program. Don't believe the scare tactics that the opposition are trying to spread in this respect. In fact, the Voice will determine when to make representations by managing its own priorities and allocating its resources in accordance with the priorities of First Nations people. In the words of Paul Keating, from his famous speech at Redfern in, 1992: … there is nothing to fear or to lose in the recognition of historical truth, or the extension of social justice, or the deepening of Australian social democracy to include indigenous Australians. There is everything to gain. And that must be our mindset when we're thinking about this legislation and the referendum itself. Australian and First Nations peoples have everything to gain by having a seat at the table through a Voice to parliament. Constitutional or other legal mechanisms that ensure representation of Indigenous peoples above or beyond election franchise, like that granted in Australia by the 1967 referendum, are common worldwide. Representative mechanisms akin to the Voice can be found in OECD countries, in developing countries and in free and unfree states. Indeed, many other Commonwealth countries have long since enshrined representation for their Indigenous people. To those both in this parliament and in the wider community who say that we should just legislate for a representative body and get on with it, I have one simple message: the only way this parliament could achieve that would be to use the race powers contained in the Constitution. What message do you think this would send to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? What would that say about us? It would clearly say, yet again, 'You are to be excluded, not recognised.' Furthermore, representative bodies established by legislation are easily abolished if the government of the day disagrees with them. In fact, since 1998, national Indigenous representative bodies have twice been abolished or defunded in favour of non-representative bodies, both times at the hands of a Liberal government. In 2005, ATSIC was abolished by the Howard government and replaced by the National Indigenous Council, the members of which were hand-picked by the then Prime Minister. We remember that, in 2014, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples was defunded and then closed down by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Like Mr Howard before him, Prime Minister Abbott then installed his own hand-picked advisory body. What did that do for Indigenous advancement? Others that are opposed to the Voice, like my Western Australian colleague Senator Cash, are fond of saying—and I heard this yesterday—that you wouldn't buy a house without a plan. I don't know about Senator Cash's experiences of buying a house, but a lot of us Australians start by purchasing a block of land and then work on the design and eventual build of our new house. That is exactly what we are being asked to do here. In fact, for the keen lawyers that are members of the Senate, including the former Attorney-General, I remind you that the only institutions that are recognised in our Constitution are the federal Executive Council, the High Court, the Inter-State Commission and, of course, the federal parliament. For example, the Federal Court is not mentioned in the Constitution. When the social security powers were inserted into the Constitution in 1948, the government of the day did not lay out all of the details in the Social Security Act. I could go on. The power to make grants to the states, including the GST top-up payment to Western Australia, is not specified in detail in the Constitution. Colleagues, it is long past time for us to correct our founding legal document, address the historical fiction of terra nullius and rightfully recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian Constitution. We can do this this year. We must, and I believe we will. It is not a secret in this place or out there that I have a long and passionate involvement with the people and communities of the Kimberley. I made my living driving road trains from Perth to Darwin and regularly stopped in the communities of Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Kununurra and others. When I entered the Senate as a representative of WA, I made a commitment that I would give back to the communities who helped me make my living. This commitment started with yearly visits up to the Kimberley. As I developed relationships with elders, Aboriginal corporations and local community service providers, those visits became much more regular, and I now run charity road trips as often as I can to support families and communities in need, with much-needed second-hand furniture, clothing and bedding, which has been generously donated. I love the work I do with the people and organisations on the ground and the relationships I have built doing this work in the 18 years I have been in this Senate. It has meant a great deal to me personally. But what still troubles me to this day—whether it's from talking to the leaders of Aboriginal corporations, Indigenous cultural health organisations or women's refuges—is that the most constant questions I still receive include the following: 'Why doesn't anyone ask us what we want?' And I get: 'Why doesn't anyone ask us what we think?' Another one I always get is: 'Why doesn't anyone ask us what we need?' The Voice will provide the answer to these most basic and honest questions. Our bureaucrats in government departments mean well, but they don't see or experience what it's like on the ground in communities every day. As unfortunate as it is, they don't have the time, but this is precisely the problem. I honestly believe that the only way livelihoods and outcomes more generally will be improved for Indigenous people will be if the decision-making is put in their hands and if they get to have a say on the laws and policies that affect them, their families, their communities and their futures. The Voice will deliver just that. We need to keep this front of mind during this debate and right up until the referendum and remember that the Uluru Statement from the Heart is an invitation to the Australian people. We have been invited by First Nations Australians to walk with them together in a movement of the Australian people towards a better future, and I look forward to joining that walk. In conclusion, I'd just like to pay tribute to a very dear friend of all of ours in here, a proud Yawuru man and senior mudja: Senator Pat Dodson. Pat, we thank you for your guidance and leadership, mate, and your energy and wisdom. You are truly inspirational. You are the father of reconciliation. 19:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise to contribute to the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I start by acknowledging the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and the traditional owners of this land for more than 65,000 years. I also acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. They are the traditional owners of this land, but they were never recognised in this land's Constitution. This is the bill that sets out to change that. It sets out to enable an amendment to our Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, another step towards honouring the commitment we made not just to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but to all Australians. It is a bill to give all Australians the opportunity to vote for a better future, a future in which our nation recognises the First People of this land and where First Nations people are consulted on matters that affect them. The Voice will be an advisory body made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who will give advice to government on issues that affect their communities. It is that simple. The referendum working group guided government on the constitutional amendment and the question as well as the design principles of the Voice. Those principles are: the Voice will give independent advice to the parliament and the government; the Voice will be able to make representations to the parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the Voice can do that proactively, and it can respond to requests from the parliament or the government; and the parliament could also seek input from the Voice early in the development of laws and policies. The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities. It will not be appointed by government or parliament; it will be chosen by locals, serving a fixed term to ensure regular accountability. The Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, will be gender balanced and will include youth, ensuring that women and the voices of all of those generations will be heard. Members will be chosen from each of the states, territories and Torres Strait Islands with specific remote representation as well as representation from the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. The Voice will be empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed. The Voice will consult with grassroots communities and with regional bodies to ensure that the representations it makes are informed by their views and experience. The Voice will be accountable, transparent and subject to standard governance and reporting requirements. The Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures, respecting their work and contribution, and the Voice will not have a program delivery function nor a veto power over this parliament. If the referendum is successful, there will be a process with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the parliament and the broader public to finalise the Voice design. Those are the details. It is the result of years of work and years of consultation and discussion with and within communities. It is the result of more than 1,000 meetings that took place ahead of the First Nations constitutional convention held at Uluru six years ago. It is the result of discussions born out of a need for change because, for too long, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have not been heard. For too long, policies designed in Canberra and imposed on First Nations communities without meaningful consultation have failed to deliver outcomes. I've been here for many years, and I've heard many and given many Closing the Gap speeches. The reality is we have tried to close the gap without listening to the voices of First Nations people. The consequences of this are evident in the stagnant and grossly disproportionate rates of disadvantage suffered by First Nations peoples, with Indigenous Australians living on average nine years less than non-Indigenous Australians, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boys born in the Northern Territory having a shorter life expectancy than boys born in Iraq or Libya. As Professor Marcia Langton said earlier this year when speaking about the need for the Voice: This has to change, people's lives have to improve. We know from the evidence that what improves people's lives is when they get a say and that's what this is about. The Albanese government is committed to that change, to listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and to the full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I've been privileged through much of my time here to have been guided by Labor's First Nations caucus: former senator Nova Peris, Senator Jana Stewart, Dr Gordon Reid, Marion Scrymgour, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, Senator Patrick Dodson and Minister Linda Burney. I want to particularly acknowledge Senator Pat Dodson, the Father of Reconciliation, for his generosity not just with me but with our caucus, the parliament and indeed the whole country. Sadly, he can't be here for this debate and vote on this bill, as he is on leave to receive medical treatment. But I want to honour him and his contribution by sharing with the Senate in my speech some of the words that he sent me for this debate, so I quote Senator Dodson. He said: This Alteration is profound because it is facing up to Australia's legacy of colonisation and assimilation. It is in response to the generous invitation of First Peoples in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. A response to those communities who have been oppressed, de-stabilised, and who never ceded their sovereignty. Through a successful referendum, Australians will finally acknowledge those injustices of the Crown and will do so without undermining the integrity of our political and institutional framework of our nation. This move to recognise the First Peoples of Australia in the Constitution is part of an action of restorative justice. Doing this will give a sense of honour for all Australians, as we collectively stand with courage to face these past legacies and ensure that they are not bequeathed to future generations. This is one commitment our generation can make. The next steps will be Makarrata, a process of truth-telling and agreement making, where we can reflect on the various narratives that exist in relation to our history over the past 200 years and build on a new foundation together. I continue the message from Senator Dodson: In the Yawuru, we have a dreaming called the bugarrigarra and in that we have three sorts of pillars. We talk about mabu liyan—that is a goodness. A goodness of a spirit. It transcends normal feeling. It goes to liyan—and that is what we in This Place are trying to do. Not only create good feelings in the Australian population, but to create what we call in our Yawuru language—liyan ngarn—coming together of both our spirits, in a way that is respectful. The second thing we talk about in Yawuru is mabu ngarrungunil—good community. Good people to live with. Good society. A good race of human beings. And that is what we are also talking about in the referendum. A good nation. A population of people with the best and highest interest, for the care of everyone and for the betterment of everyone. And the third thing we talk about in Yawuru is what we call mabu buru—that is good country. A good place. A better world, a safer world, a better economy. But a place, where we and all Australians can enjoy our environment and grow up knowing we have a rightful place, having resolved the differences between the First Peoples and ourselves, as we go towards the Makarrata. I am deeply grateful to Senator Dodson for providing his contribution for me to include in my remarks this evening, and I want to underline the opportunity his words reveal. I urge those in the 'no' campaign, arguing against the Voice, to meet that opportunity, to not use the soul and fabric of our nation as a political battleground, to resist putting political self-interest over the national interest, because we must have greater ambition not just to close the gap but to achieve our full potential as a nation, and we can only fulfil our potential when every Australian has a chance to realise their own. The closing line of the Uluru statement said: We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. I would like to invite those in the 'no' campaign and those opposite to reconsider this ask. 'We invite you'; it is a gracious and patient ask of us as Australians. It is an ask seeded by a grassroots movement and the culmination of years of discussion, consultation and hard work, including consultation with 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is an ask supported by eight in 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Already, this gracious call has been answered by organisations across Australia—faith groups, sporting clubs, national sporting codes, universities, the business sector, trade unions. The call has been answered by every single premier and chief minister across the political spectrum. We have an opportunity to vote 'yes' for constitutional recognition, to vote 'yes' for the form in which it has been requested—a voice to parliament. We have an opportunity to vote 'yes' for that better future. With the hope that this call for empowerment will be answered with the same ambition and grace with which it was issued, I commend this bill to the Senate. 19:41 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia As we all rise in this place to speak on this bill, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, we all bring unique perspectives and we all probably reflect on our own backgrounds, our own experiences, our own history. In thinking about my position on the referendum, I couldn't help but go back to the tales my father told me and the interactions I had with Aboriginal stockmen on our coastal lease west of our farm in Pemberton—in particular with one good friend of Dad's, Charlie Burns. Charlie was a remarkable character, a real legend in the Manjimup-Pemberton area. Charlie was the first Aboriginal boy to go to Guilford Grammar School. He served in World War I in the 10th Light Horse Regiment. He was recognised for his gallantry in his service to the nation. He was a great friend of my father's. He spent many months, probably even years, out on the coastal leases on horseback, camping rough with my father, and led the most remarkable life. He was certainly always welcome— Th DYU Senator Brockman, just resume your seat. If senators are not contributing to the debate, could they please either sit in silence or leave the chamber. Senator Brockman. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 He was certainly welcome at our dinner table and was a close friend of my father's, but he also dined in the Governor-General's house in Western Australia—a remarkable life. I say this not to pretend that the past was better than it was or that Charlie didn't face racism in his life—I have absolutely no doubt that he did—but to say that I was raised to always look to the individual, to always look to what the individual brought to the conversation, to always consider the value of humanity as based on that individual value of the person. This bill will easily pass parliament; that has been clear for a long time. And that is right. It is up to the Australian people to make judgements as to the nature and the words that make up the Australian Constitution. But I will vote 'no' in the referendum, and I wish to put on the record why that is so. The Australian Constitution is the fundamental bedrock of our democracy. It is the foundation upon which our democratic and legal institutions sit, and from which our society has grown. We must take any change to that foundation with the utmost seriousness. Our Constitution is a living document; it's designed to accommodate change. But that change has to be made thoughtfully and that change to our great federation has to be made by the majority of Australians, but also by a majority of states. This was an important provision that reflected our desire, Australia's desire, to preserve our institutions, to avoid changing our Constitution unless strongly supported by most Australians. In practice, changing our Constitution requires a supermajority. This has prevented significant overreach by governments in the past. You don't have to look far through the list of failed constitutional amendments to see that the Australian people have a lot of common sense in this regard. For example, we would have seen a significant, an unprecedented growth in Commonwealth influence if it had been given the power to take control of any industry or corporation deemed to be monopolistic. Australians, in their wisdom, defeated this attempted overreach. Another example: the referendum in the early phase of the Cold War to give specific Commonwealth power to regulate communism. This was defeated, at perhaps one of the tensest points of that war, because the Australian people were wary of giving government more power to control political thought. We, as a Western democracy, are a part of the great Enlightenment tradition. The Enlightenment ideals—the need to separate and limit power; checks and balances to avoid the tyranny of the majority; equality of the individual as a key source of freedom; a robust federalism—turned sceptical ideas into a robust and meaningful set of institutions—our parliaments, our courts and, at the heart of Australia, our Constitution. Enlightenment thinkers distrusted mob rule and revered the rule of law. The Enlightenment project is the origin of the modern world and of modern Australia, but it has never claimed perfection. That is why we need mechanisms like referenda; to give us the ability to change, albeit with caution, our foundational document. As my good friend Senator Paterson described much better than I could, and I would encourage you all to listen to or read his contribution, there is a stain on our foundational document in the race power. Like Senator Paterson, in preparing for this debate and clarifying my own thoughts, I went back to the constitutional conventions of the 1890s and read the words and the justifications for that race power. From a modern perspective they make uncomfortable reading. For someone who, like me, is a proud defender of our constitutional norms the justification for that power was blatantly racist in nature—not directed at Aboriginal people I should add, but at others mostly outside this country. Some leading proponents of the Voice today were, just a short decade ago, calling for the repeal of that race power, for it to be taken out of the Constitution. I would endorse that view. Though now, strangely, that has been silenced in the face of this amendment to the Constitution to enshrine a permanent Indigenous Voice to Parliament. So while I acknowledge that stain on our founding document, it is also worth hypothecating for a moment. In one of the first acts of the new Commonwealth, the White Australia Policy was implemented. One of its chief proponents, Chris Watson, first Labor Prime Minister of Australia, used his position on the then crossbench to secure its passage. A few years earlier, he'd tried unsuccessfully to be elected as a Labor Party delegate to the Constitutional Convention. If views like his had had a more prominent position, might we have seen that White Australia Policy more directly enshrined in our Constitution? If so, how and when would it have been removed? The Constitution is difficult to change. The fact that the race power there is an anachronism. It should go. But, as I have said, the enlightenment project is an ongoing one. Our Constitution can be improved, but the current referendum proposal does not do so. Sadly, it seeks to divide, not unite. It does not elicit universal principles of equality and a steadfast defence of the individual, regardless of heritage. Over the 19th and 20th centuries we've seen many manifestations of anti-enlightenment thought from both the far right and the Left, from fascism to communism. Today's anti-enlightenment movements are less obvious. They reject inquiry and debate as the centrepiece of democracy. Instead, they claim all virtue, as though it comes by way of instinct, as a quasi-mystical driver of our decision-making, and all those who disagree are wrong if not evil. This is the new methodology of the anti-enlightenment. They claim a purity of will while silencing what they deem as unacceptable speech. We need to return to core principles of liberty, progress, toleration, constitutional government, equality, citizenship and primacy of the individual. This constitutional amendment does not achieve those ideals. The Senate transcript was published up to 19:51 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.