﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-06-20</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Tuesday, 20 June 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economics References Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Migration Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Meeting</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Defence Force</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Tabling</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to table a document relating to an article 15 communication to the International Criminal Court which calls on the International Criminal Court to investigate the responsibility of senior ADF officers for potential war crimes committed in Afghanistan.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to express obviously at least the willingness on behalf of the opposition—and I imagine of the government as well—once we have seen the document, to consider whether we can give leave for it to be tabled, Senator Lambie. Those are the normal courtesies.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Both the government and the opposition have indicated they haven't seen the document and would like an opportunity to do so. It's up to you if you wish to rise again, Senator Lambie.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Lambie moving that the document be tabled.</para></quote>
<para>Yesterday I called on the government to acknowledge and take responsibility for the shocking lack of accountability at the top of our Defence Force. The government didn't support my call to admit that we have a problem, and we have a massive problem. I have been asking for a meeting with the Minister for Defence for months to talk about this. Like the Chief of the Defence Force and the top brass, the government are, no doubt, hoping this will all just go away. They're hoping that Australians will forget that, when alleged war crimes in Afghanistan were investigated, our senior commanders got a free pass while the diggers got thrown under the bus. Well, we don't forget. I won't forget. Lest we forget.</para>
<para>There is a culture of cover-up at the highest levels of the Australian Defence Force. It is the ultimate boys club. Today I say enough is enough. There will be no more marking your own homework. There will be no more throwing our diggers under the bus. When the war crimes investigation was formed, Major General Brereton ruled out investigating senior commanders, and the previous government said: 'Yes, sir. No worries.' But what do you know? This government is following suit. Let's be quite clear here: the senior commanders have not been examined through the hard-core legal lens that they have put our diggers through.</para>
<para>When the Chief of Defence was asked in estimates if his command accountability review was an investigation, he admitted that it was not. So I guess it was just another 'marking your own homework' exercise. It seems that those who are most responsible are the least accountable. There is evidence from multiple sources—independent of the Brereton inquiry—including witness testimony before a civil defamation trial, which said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The leadership knew. This went beyond the patrols. This was known up the chain.</para></quote>
<para>Some of these sources confirmed that the leadership knew for years about the allegations of unlawful behaviour, including an SAS patrol commander. The incident was reported all the way up the special forces chain of command. The former patrol commander says that he was told by a senior officer:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the regiment is bigger than an individual and the integrity of the regiment must come first … he informed me the regiment will handle this internally.</para></quote>
<para>The former SAS patrol commander had one message: 'Everyone knew.' Everyone knew, and still our government is silent. Worse, they put the guy who gave the senior commanders a free pass the top job at our National Anti-Corruption Commission.</para>
<para>So this morning we are taking action. We have filed with the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Hague an article 15 communication. This asks him to look at Australia's higher commanders through the lens of command responsibility. An enormous amount of work has gone into this. I thank all of them for their contribution, especially Dr Glenn Kolomeitz, veteran and lawyer. The law of command responsibility is a method of criminal liability where commanders have failed to do their duty. The International Criminal Court is a court of last resort. It isn't an easy task to get them to investigate. They can only do this if the state party, in this case Australia, has failed to investigate high command for their breach of duty.</para>
<para>Alexander Downer fought hard to get Australia to sign up to the International Criminal Court. I'm sure he never considered that we would need the International Criminal Court because Australia was shielding its own military commanders from accountability. But that is what has happened. Australia has in effect set up two systems of criminality—one for Australia's top military commanders and another for commanders from the rest of the world.</para>
<para>Quite frankly, I feel embarrassed that Australia is in the situation, so I am helping the government today. I am giving you a second chance to get this right and fix this mess. It is your turn. You are the government of the day. I want to see what leadership you have. With a heavy heart once again, I am asking you to allow me to table these goddamned documents, because high command needs to be held responsible. Please allow me to table these documents.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I commend Senator Lambie for her submission to the International Criminal Court. I support her on behalf of diggers and members of the SAS Regiment. If any Australian is going to be put in jail for war crimes, the first ones to be jailed should be the generals and politicians that led us into illegal wars based on lies. Where is the command accountability for the allegations? Where is the accountability for the war criminal John Howard, who led us into an illegal war based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction?</para>
<para>Tony Blair in Britain, George W Bush in America and John Howard in Australia said that there were weapons of mass destruction, justifying our invasion of Iraq. Just a short while later, they admitted there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Not one politician, to my knowledge, has held any of those three accountable—not one. They put our diggers, our young men and women, in harm's way and asked them to do state sanctioned killing. Where's the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell? He's ready and willing to throw the diggers, the men who were on the ground and in contact with the enemy, under the bus. Here is, in action, the theatre of war. The accountability comes from the top. That is the Yamashita standard. It is enshrined in international law. Our parliament is saying, 'To hell with that.' General Angus Campbell cleared himself. After Angus Campbell investigated himself, he found he had committed no wrongdoing and that command accountability didn't extend to him. War is different from any industrial enterprise.</para>
<para>But let me tell you about my belief, my position, as a mine manager of several underground coalmines. If a junior person were hurt on night shift while I was on holiday in Fiji—not that I've been on holiday in Fiji—I've always considered it to be my responsibility that that young person were injured. A 17-year-old new-starter on night shift would be my responsibility, even if I weren't at the site, because I would be responsible for the systems and the culture that caused that injury. Whether it's a slight injury or a serious injury, I am responsible. That same thing applies to the Australian defence forces. It applies to this building. Let me tell you another story. I can recall Alexander Downer—Senator Lambie mentioned him—on his last day in parliament. He appeared on <inline font-style="italic">The </inline><inline font-style="italic">7</inline><inline font-style="italic">.</inline><inline font-style="italic">30 Report</inline> that night, and he told us the story of John Howard coming back from America after the Twin Towers collapsed. He said that John Howard walked into cabinet and said, 'We're off to Iraq.' Is that the way that things are done around here? I commend Senator Lambie for what she has done. I remind everyone here of a statement she used just recently: 'Those most responsible are often not accountable.' We need accountability. If you want accountability amongst the diggers—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was me.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My apologies to Senator Shoebridge, through you, Deputy President. I'll say it again: those most responsible are often not accountable. If we want accountability in the diggers, it must come from accountability in the brass and it must come from accountability in this building. We support the diggers, and we say this on behalf of the diggers.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie is seeking to suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent her from tabling certain documents. The Australian Greens have been provided with these documents, but it was literally within the last two minutes that we were provided these documents by Senator Lambie. There are numerous documents in the bundle that Senator Lambie would like to table, and many of those documents are very lengthy. I haven't had a chance to count the pages, but I wouldn't hazard a guess that there are hundreds of pages of documents here.</para>
<para>The Australian Greens take a very generous view on tabling documents, but we do have a threshold, and that is that we will support the tabling of documents if we believe it is in the public interest for those documents to be tabled. We apply that threshold with a very generous view because we genuinely believe in transparency. I want to place on the record that Senator Shoebridge has worked very closely across the aisle with Senator Lambie on matters associated with the ADF leadership, and that constructive relationship, I have no doubt, will continue. We thank Senator Lambie for, within the last couple of minutes, providing us with those documents; however, we have not had enough time to satisfy ourselves that tabling these documents is in fact in the public interest. So we're not going to support this suspension right now, but I do say to Senator Lambie that we're very happy to engage constructively with her and very happy to work with her to deliver on the things that she is trying to achieve in this space. The Greens have expressed many similar and, in some cases, identical views to Senator Lambie about matters associated with the ADF—in particular, senior leadership in the ADF. We are absolutely committed to continuing that close working relationship with Senator Lambie and to prosecute the issues that need to be prosecuted in the space. So even though we can't support the suspension right here, I place it on the record that we will engage with Senator Lambie. Now that we have received those documents, we will engage with Senator Lambie and work with her on those issues.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I largely echo the sentiments of Senator McKim. As I indicated when Senator Lambie sought leave, at that point we hadn't seen the documents. I understand there are a series of documents. I've been trying to look at them on my phone in the chamber in the time since. At a superficial level, I would imagine that if they are public documents and they serve the case that you are seeking to make, Senator Lambie, we would be in a position in the next little while to grant leave. But we do just need long enough to actually have a glance at the documents.</para>
<para>We have nothing but respect for the passion and focus that you bring to these issues. We do understand and appreciate that and in no way seek to impede your ability to prosecute that. We don't always agree, but we certainly respect the approach that you bring and the conviction that you have attached to these matters. So we will not be supporting the suspension at this time for the reasons that Senator McKim has outlined, but we certainly will give it prompt consideration and I indicate that we will come back to you. I would anticipate that, barring any problems with the documents, we should be in a position to grant that leave.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I concur with Senator Birmingham and Senator McKim as well in terms of our approach to this issue. We, too, understand Senator Lambie's passion and the importance that she places on these matters. We understand they are important to her and many people across the country. We do, however, follow a normal protocol where we get the chance to peruse these documents before we make a decision. That's what we would be asking for in this circumstance. But, similar to the opposition, we would be hopeful that that can be resolved as soon as possible today so that these documents will end up being tabled.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>4</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>4</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6991" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>4</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The committee is considering the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 as amended. Yesterday evening, divisions were called on various amendments. The votes on these amendments will now be held, starting with amendments moved by Senator Henderson. So we will come to sheet 1937 revised 2, moved by the opposition. The first question is that amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 1937 revised 2, moved by Senator Henderson, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [12:22]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is now that amendment (1) on sheet 1937 revised 2, moved by Senator Henderson, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [12:26]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 1965 revised, moved by Senator Henderson, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [12:34]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We now come to sheet 2017.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the amendment on 2017, an amendment of Senator David Pocock. The opposition no longer wishes to proceed with the division. I understand that last night we were the only ones who indicated we would be voting against this, but because it was contingent on another division—another amendment—there was some uncertainty about this. So the Opposition doesn't wish to proceed with division. I believe Senator Pocock may have an amendment in relation to this?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendment (2) on sheet 2017:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The STARTUP-HELP Guidelines may require higher education providers that provide *accelerator program courses to conduct internal audits, or to arrange for audits, of compliance with the STARTUP-HELP Guidelines with respect to the courses. The Guidelines may prescribe any or all of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) circumstances in which audits must be conducted or arranged;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) requirements in relation to when and how audits must be conducted or arranged and reported on.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 34 (line 5), at the end of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">reversed</inline> in subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (f) section 128-40 (provider non-compliance).</para></quote>
<para>I'm amending my amendment, changing 'may' to 'must'.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So there are two instances of 'may' in the document—we need to be absolutely clear. This is for the benefit of Hansard, Senator Pocock: I note that in your amendment on sheet 2017 you are seeking to delete 'may', which appears twice, and insert 'must'. I am going to proceed with the amendment to the amendment—this is for the benefit of the chamber—and then I am going to proceed with the amendment as amended, and, with the will of the chamber, unless anyone calls for a division, the call will hold. I intend to call in the affirmative, I am indicating, unless voices persuade me otherwise. Does anyone have any objection to that course of action on the amendment to the amendment on sheet 2017, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, to replace the word 'may' with 'must'? I now proceed with the amendment as amended, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock. Nobody has indicated they now wish to proceed to a division.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We now come to sheet 1931 revised, standing in the name of the Greens, as moved by Senator Faruqi.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Could I request that the question on amendments (1) and (2) be put separately?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, you can, and I am happy to do so unless anyone objects. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1931 revised, as moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [12:43] <br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>42</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the committee is that amendment (2) on sheet 1931 revised, moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [12:48]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>12</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>38</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Bill, as amended agreed to, subject to requests.<br />Bill reported with amendments and requests; report adopted.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Honourable senators, please be aware that as the bill is subject to requests, there will be no third reading today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6946" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill. This is a bill that, like so much of what we're seeing now, does look familiar. Much of the content of this bill contains the pro-growth, pro-small to medium-sized business agenda that typifies and typified the coalition's approach to the economy, and we strongly support those components. We strongly support initiatives such as the Digital Games Tax Offset, the Technology Investment Boost, the Skills and Training Boost and the initiatives to reduce red tape. This is a good thing—from tax incentives to support the digital economy to reducing red tape for large and small businesses, improving integrity around superannuation, supporting small and medium-sized businesses to digitise and train their staff.</para>
<para>However, we do have deep reservations about other parts of this bill. It is important to note that this bill could have sailed through this parliament with bipartisan support months ago. Instead, at exactly the same time we should be delivering certainty to business, this Labor government has stapled into this bill a number of politically contentious measures, classic wedge politics that do nothing to advance the interests of Australian businesses or consumers. This includes billions in spending for transmission projects that have not been recommended by the energy operator; a hidden $1 billion fund for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to circumvent the independent Clean Energy Finance Corporation processes; and legislative changes that remove safeguards for investment in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.</para>
<para>Schedule 8 seeks to implement a change to remove the safeguards around spending through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It modifies the CFC Act to enable the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to receive additional funds to implement Rewiring the Nation, establishes the Powering Australia Technology Fund and streamlines the ability of the government to provide the CFC with additional funds in the future. This schedule also clarifies the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's governance arrangements in specifying its nominated minister. The explanatory memorandum of the bill clarifies that this is an $11 billion allocation of funding with an additional $1 billion going to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to fund projects that would not meet the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's criteria.</para>
<para>A remaining $8 billion will be credited to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, at a later date, to meet the $20 billion election commitment. However, the government has not identified what these projects would be. Critically, the schedule amends several operational revisions of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act. The legislation seeks to remove the requirement for the government to legislate additional funding for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, allowing them to great additional accounts within the Clean Energy Finance Corporation simply via general appropriations acts.</para>
<para>The coalition has concerns about this schedule. This means, in practice, that Minister Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, will be able to sneak in changes without consulting parliament. At a time when businesses need certainty, this is a Labor government playing games, and businesses will pay the price for this. Therefore, while we support many of the schedules in this bill, the opposition will be moving amendments to remove schedule 8.</para>
<para>Where urge the crossbench and government to support this amendment, to ensure that this bill is bipartisan and can be progressed quickly to the benefit of all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Greens, I can indicate we support the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 but have specific concerns in relation to schedule 9, the taxation of military superannuation benefits, which deals with what has become known as the Douglas decision.</para>
<para>Acting Deputy President Walsh, as you'd be aware, veterans have made immense sacrifices for this country. Many have had their lives changed irreparably, and those who are impacted by this bill have sustained lifelong injuries from their service. That's what this schedule applies to, veterans who we know have permanent, lifelong injuries that are referable to their service. Those injuries often have widespread impacts on their lives and their families, and particularly impacts on their loved ones. We should be doing all we can to support what is, unquestionably, a vulnerable group of Australians.</para>
<para>Schedule 9 of the bill seeks to amend various taxation laws to, on one part, confirm the tax treatment of certain defined benefit pensions, following the full Federal Court decision in Douglas, but it goes beyond that. The schedule also provides a non-refundable tax offset for recipients of invalidity benefits paid in accordance with two of the schemes, the MSBS and the DFRDBS, to ensure that they do not pay additional income tax because of the Douglas decision. I note the minister's second reading speech, in which he stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9 to the bill will ensure that veterans affected by the Full Federal Court decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Douglas will not face worse income tax outcomes as a result of the court's decision. The government's objective is that nobody is worse off. The legislation will preserve the preferable tax and outcomes for affected veterans as a result of the decision.</para></quote>
<para>This bill introduces a new non-refundable tax offset for members of the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme. That ensures that those individuals who would face adverse tax outcomes, as a result of the court's decision, will not pay higher taxes on their superannuation invalidity benefit. That is good. This offset will also apply to spouse and children's pensions paid to a spouse or child following the death of a member if they had otherwise been affected by the Douglas decision. That too also good.</para>
<para>Schedule 9 provides that any benefits that the Douglas decision may apply to, beyond those two schemes, will continue to be taxed as superannuation income streams by amending the legislative definition of superannuation income streams. This is where concerns have been raised by veterans. The measures also includes a transitional provision to ensure that certain non-military invalidity benefits that received lump-sum status prior to that Douglas decision are not disturbed by the reversal.</para>
<para>Schedule 9 seeks to implement the government's commitment of their 25 July 2022 announcement that no veteran would be worse off as a result of the Federal Court decision in Douglas. Indeed, the government said, on introducing the bill, that that is the commitment for the government. I appreciate the government's efforts and the Greens appreciate the government's efforts to improve the taxation situation for veterans. I note the work of the minister recently in announcing a pathway to fix these convoluted, overlapping veterans entitlements schemes. That's vital work, and the Greens will continue to engage with the government to make life better for veterans—better, simpler, fairer.</para>
<para>With this in mind, I note, though, that there are two areas where there are significant concerns amongst the veteran community in relation to schedule 9 of the bill. They are, firstly, that schedule 9 will only apply to those whose invalidity payments commenced on or after 20 September 2007. It won't extend to members whose invalidity payments commenced before that date, so those veterans won't have access to the same tax benefits. That is an inequitable outcome. Secondly, the super schemes covered by schedule 9 are restricted to those referenced in the schedule—that is, to members of the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme. This means that newer members of the ADF will be unable to access this beneficial tax benefit treatment, again generating an inequitable outcome.</para>
<para>These unjust outcomes run counter to the government's commitment that no veteran will be worse off. I strongly urge the government to, over the coming months, review where they've landed so as to extend the beneficial effect of the Douglas decision to both of those classes of veterans: those whose invalidity payments commenced before 20 September 2007, as well as newer member of the ADF who are on the ADF cover.</para>
<para>I also note that there are significant concerns in the veteran community that this schedule may indeed leave some veterans facing worse outcomes. I've previously raised these concerns with the minister's office and note that in the last 48 hours we've had a more detailed response from the minister that addresses some of those concerns. I'll deal with that correspondence in a moment. I want to personally thank those veterans and organisations who have engaged with my office on this bill and on related issues. I give a particular shout-out to Peter Thornton; Stuart McCarthy; Pat McCabe, who is the President of the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex Servicemen and Women; Ian Lindgren; Bradley Campbell; John Pauley, the President of the Australia Council of Public Sector Retiree Organisations; and John Lowis, the President of the Defence Force Welfare Association in Queensland.</para>
<para>Given the evidence we've heard through the ongoing Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, it's essential that these veterans' voices are heard when legislation like this comes through parliament. It's also essential that the government responds to it, because time after time governments have failed to properly support veterans—and we know that, tragically, those failures can end in lost lives.</para>
<para>The Greens will support the bill because, as the government has noted, it ensures that veterans affected by the Douglas decision—the great bulk of them—will not face worse income tax outcomes as a result of the court's decision. But it doesn't answer all of the concerns. I do note Minister Keogh's communication to my office after it raised these concerns. In responding, he stated, in part, this: 'The proposed amendments in the bill currently sitting before the Senate seek to ensure that veterans negatively impacted by the Douglas decision are not left worse off and that veterans who benefited from the decisions retain those outcomes. The Australian government, through its announcement of a proposed bill, has sought to respect the court's decision by leaving the beneficial change in tax treatment for veterans in place while maintaining the integrity of the rest of the superannuation system. As such, the proposed legislation retrospectively and prospectively ensures that all other schemes and benefits, other than those specifically changed by the court's decision, will continue to be taxed as income streams as was always previously intended and understood to be the case. The implementation of this legislation will be subject to passage of the bill.' It says further: 'This approach is consistent with the intent of the current superannuation tax law and reflects the longstanding policy of successive governments that most common-law pensions should be treated in this way. There is no intention for a broader change to the tax treatment of any common-law pensions beyond the court's decision.'</para>
<para>I place on record my office's gratitude for the engagement with the minister on this matter, but I finish my contribution by saying this: yes, this bill resolves many of the issues that arose under the decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Douglas, and it prevents a significant number of veterans being worse off as a result of that decision, but there remain those two classes of veterans who have not received an equitable benefit as a result of this decision. I again urge the minister and the government to review what's happened to ensure that all veterans have equal and equitable access to fair military pensions when they suffer injury in the course of their duty.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the outset I should note that I share some of the concerns raised by Senator Shoebridge with respect to the schedule in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 which is seeking to address the so-called Douglas decision. I would like to note that I also have received many representations, which I have passed on, from veteran groups in relation to their concern about equity in this regard.</para>
<para>In particular, Senator Shoebridge raised issues in two areas which are not supported by the legislation. I would like to quote from the submission from the Defence Force Welfare Association national office, dated 31 January 2023, to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Areas which are not supported:</para></quote>
<list>Restrictive date:</list>
<list>The proposed amendments only apply to those veterans whose 'invalidity pay commenced on or after 20 September 2007'. This enshrines inequity under legislation, where date of payment of invalidity benefits determines whether a veteran will receive preferential tax treatment. Same service, different outcome.</list>
<list>Superannuation schemes covered:</list>
<list>The amendments specifically cover the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 and the Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991. Since 2016, new members of the Australian Defence Force have no option to join these schemes, and instead have access to ADF Cover and ADF Super. This means that newer veterans will not be able to access the preferential tax treatment which recognises the disability and lack of employment options for which the payment has been received.</list>
<para>So there are real concerns in the veteran community in this regard, and I think the government, and senators of all political persuasions, need to reflect upon this. We should achieve an outcome, ultimately, where with the same service you get the same outcome and where there is equality of treatment across our veteran communities, notwithstanding when they may have enlisted or when their service was completed. The same service should result in the same outcome.</para>
<para>So I support many of the comments of my friend Senator Shoebridge in this regard. I commend the minister on his engagement with respect to this. I think this needs further engagement, further clarity and further simplification, and I think we need to do better than this. We need to do better than this for our veteran communities. Whilst I will support the bill, there does need to be some reflection on this, because I don't think it's entirely satisfactory, to be frank.</para>
<para>The second point I'd like to make in relation to the bill is to touch on some of the concerns raised by my good friend Senator McGrath in relation to the billions and billions of dollars in spending for transmission projects that have not been recommended by the Australian Energy Market Operator but which have made their way into schedule 8 of this bill—billions of dollars We also see a hidden $1 billion fund for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to circumvent the independent CEFC process. We need those independent processes to test the robustness of investment cases, and it is very disappointing to see a $1 billion fund introduced into this bill which is not subject to those independent processes.</para>
<para>I also note that there have been legislative changes that remove safeguards for investments in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Again, we need that independent rigour in this legislation, and we just don't see it. We actually see an undermining of it, and that is deeply concerning to the coalition opposition. There will be amendments, as I understand it, which will be moved in that regard.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's an interesting phrase, to badly paraphrase one from a movie: a TLAB is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get! This is a little bit like that. We heard raised again—and the senator is agreeing with Senator Shoebridge way too often in this place!—the same representations made around Defence. I think the senator raised a good point, to look at a more equitable solution over the coming months and, potentially going back to the place where Senator Shoebridge came from, looking at New South Wales Police superannuation. They have disability payments made and it lowers their ability to conduct funds into their own superannuation. Maybe we could expand that to ensure that all our services are getting looked after in the right way.</para>
<para>This Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 is fairly benign and has some very good things in it. I will speak about the digital gaming tax offset and how important that is. It's a long-forgotten industry that's worth billions and billions of dollars. It is as big as the film industry, and having an Australian presence in it is important. I note that the industry was waiting on this bill coming through; there are tax benefits kicking off for them on 1 July and it will give them the certainty to go out and start hiring. Importantly, they can get these projects on the books in Australia.</para>
<para>I had the great benefit of going with IGEA, the interactive gaming & entertainment association, to a number of software firms which are set up and waiting for this to come off. We saw Naresh Hirani from Riot Games, the maker of <inline font-style="italic">League of Legends</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">Valorant</inline>; my son tells me that <inline font-style="italic">Valorant</inline> is a very good game, but I haven't tried it. They have their offices set up and they're waiting to make commitments with staff. They're looking at the benefits this will bring, very similar to the film industry. They're modelling on the Canadian experiment, where Montreal and Quebec put some tax benefits in. They're called the 'Silicon Valley of the North', with thousands of people employed across that area. It's good.</para>
<para>We met with Edward Fong from Ubisoft on exactly the same point. Ubisoft is the maker of <inline font-style="italic">Assassin's Creed</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Far Cry</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">For Honor</inline>—<inline font-style="italic">Far Cry</inline> is a very entertaining game, for those who enjoy that. They're waiting on this, and this will give them certainty. I also met with James Lockrey and Nico King from Chaos Theory Games. They've been a software-for-service employer and maker, but they're about to launch one of their first bigger-budget games, <inline font-style="italic">Cra</inline><inline font-style="italic">b</inline><inline font-style="italic"> God</inline><inline font-style="italic">: the Mother of the Tides</inline>, based on a crab on the reef keeping their patch healthy and raising their kids out of danger. This step will benefit them.</para>
<para>These are the good things in this box of chocolates; these are the hazelnut whirls to me! These are the things in this bill which are important. But, as Senator McGrath pointed out, the turkish delight is there as well: billions of dollars for infrastructure and transmission lines, and the billion-dollar fund for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. All that is in there, and it's not right. This is a bill that, as Senator McGrath said, we will try to amend—to improve, we would say. As Senator Shoebridge said, there's scope to look at further things in schedule 9, and we would like to change schedule 8. This government has picked up the digital gaming tax offset bill of the previous government. It is needed, it is wanted and it will lead to massive investment and good employment. I commend the bill to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senat</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>or RICE () (): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022, and I want to thank my colleague Senator McKim for his important work on this legislation and in the Treasury portfolio more broadly.</para>
<para>We could think that the TLAB is dry and dusty, and is just about economics and Treasury. But it's absolutely at the core of the decisions that the government makes, and absolutely core to the choices the government makes. And we want to see this government do more, using the powers and levers that it has to work towards economic justice. Sadly, although this government talks about not leaving people behind and talks about achieving justice, we have seen this government unwilling to take action on a whole range of fronts. That includes action on rent freezes, for example, and on other fronts.</para>
<para>I'm speaking on this bill because of the intersection of this TLAB with online gambling. I also want to thank Mr Wilkie from the other place for the work that he has done on this issue. The amendment I'm moving today is essentially the amendment that Mr Wilkie moved in the House, which would ensure that the digital games tax offset is not available to games that include a digital container of randomised virtual items that can be obtained, commonly known as a loot box. Loot boxes in online games set up someone, often at a very early age, to normalise gambling—that this is what you do; it is just part of life that you spend money on gambling and you lose money. We know that gambling is deliberately constructed for people to lose money. It is deliberately constructed so that the person loses out and the house always wins.</para>
<para>This amendment would address this issue at the very least. It is the very smallest of actions that we could take to address the problems of gambling harm in this country. At the very least we should not be facilitating and supporting games that include loot boxes, which as I said, are just normalising gambling. We know that we need to do more to address loot boxes.</para>
<para>The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found that 'loot box engagement, including viewing, opening and especially purchasing, was associated with problem gambling and internet gaming disorder'. In 2018 my colleague Senator Steele-John chaired an inquiry into gaming microtransactions for chance based items, and the first recommendation from that committee was that the government undertake a comprehensive review of loot boxes in video games. Sadly, it's a recommendation that the former government didn't take up. We're hoping that maybe this government might consider it. But, even without taking up that recommendation to do a comprehensive review, the very least you could be doing is making sure that this digital tax offset isn't available to games that include loot boxes.</para>
<para>Of course, when it comes to problem gambling and the harm form gambling, there's a lot more that needs to be done. The minister was receiving donations from the gambling lobby. Although we now have a commitment from the minister that she is not going to receive further donations from the gambling lobby, we haven't seen a commitment from the government to take the comprehensive action that could be taken and that is needed to address gambling harm.</para>
<para>The Greens want to see real action on gambling. The amendment that I'm going to be moving to this bill in the committee stage is one action. Another action we want to see is a national independent gambling regulator to take meaningful action and ensure there's a coordinated approach to tackling gambling harm so that companies can't exploit differences in frameworks between jurisdictions. We want to see the government regulate online gambling to reduce gambling harms, with mandatory precommitment and a universal exclusion scheme across all platforms. We want to see a ban on all gambling advertising, including television, radio and online. We want to see regulation—not just removing a tax offset—of gambling in videogames, and the prohibition of loot boxes being accessible by people under 18. We want to see the end of the grip of the gambling industry on politics, by banning political donations from the gambling industry and restricting politicians and public servants from working for the gambling industry.</para>
<para>This change is possible. There's nothing impossible in what we're pushing for. It is the government's choice. It's the Labor government's choice as to whether they take these actions—whether they choose to side with the gambling companies, who are making billions of dollars, or side with community members, who want to see gambling harm reduced and family members saved from the dangers of gambling.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022. I was just going to focus on one area, as I suspect many of us perhaps have been doing. Before I get started on that, though, I do think it's important to address some of the misconceptions and/or overreach that we are hearing in this debate about loot boxes. I will say that in my younger life I was a gamer, possibly the first or maybe the second generation of video gamers to ever exist. I know my way around a video game, though I'll leave that up to my kids these days. But the mere consideration of a random choice is a very low threshold to set for gambling. That would make a lucky dip gambling. That would make a lotto wheel, where you win a frozen chook at your pub, gambling. That's a very, very low bar. Just because it's in the digital realm, I'm not sure why merely having consideration for a random choice is gambling.</para>
<para>I'm a strong believer in parental controls, as people in this place know. I have three young kids, and I absolutely believe in parental controls, particularly on devices. I absolutely believe that parents should be able to control expenditure on devices and in games. I believe we should have age-appropriate games and that the classifications should reflect that. But this approach of tagging everything that is effectively randomised in an online environment as being gambling, I think, fundamentally misunderstands gaming. There is inevitably an element of randomisation in gaming. That is what makes games games. If games were on train tracks all the time and there were no randomisation, then they would stop being games.</para>
<para>I know, certainly, in my young life down at the farm we spent many, many hours playing card games—not for money, but they were gambling games. We played poker. We played rummy. We even played solitaire. Solitaire started off as a gambling game. And Monopoly—is Monopoly gambling? I mean, it's for money. When we were young, my sisters and I managed to somehow lose all the money out of the Monopoly set very early on. I'm not quite sure how that happened. I have no real memory of it; I just blame my sisters! But then we used 1c and 2c coins. Does that suddenly fall into the category of gambling because real money was involved?</para>
<para>I think we've got to be very careful not to enter the realm of demonising particular aspects of video gaming merely because they have some passing association with gambling or a random chance. I don't think that shows an understanding of the nature of video gaming. The industry must take a very responsible perspective on this. As I say, I am a strong believer in the importance of age-appropriate games, parents being given the tools by which they control both the amount and the types of games that children interact with and, if there is any financial aspect to those games, parents certainly having control over that.</para>
<para>I do wish to get to the bill, however. This is an omnibus bill, and I'm going to focus on one particular area. But it is important to note that this brings together a number of outstanding coalition commitments from the March 2022 budget, including the tech investment boost, the skills and training boost and the digital games tax offset. The coalition supports most of the measures in the bill, as they replicate the policy we took to the last election. I wish to just focus on one of those because it is important to know that it relates to a very important industry for Australia. It's a small but growing industry in my home state of Western Australia, and that is the digital games industry. Of course, I'm talking about schedule 1 of this bill, the digital games tax offset.</para>
<para>As part of the previous government's Digital Economy Strategy, in May 2021 the then government announced a 30 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible businesses that spend a minimum of $500,000 on qualifying Australian development expenditure from 1 July 2022. In the 2021-22 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the coalition government provided an additional $19.6 million over two years, from 2023-24, to expand the digital games tax offset to include ongoing development work—known as live ops—on digital games following their public release. Draft legislation was released prior to the election, and a consultation period was held between March and April this year. These measures received widespread support from the Australian digital games industry when first announced by the coalition—support which remains today.</para>
<para>The measure also aligns with the coalition's continued policy focus on growing our technology and digital sectors in a very, very competitive global environment. The digital games sector continues to expand rapidly. Worth $240 billion globally in 2020, the market is set to reach $294 billion in 2024. Australia is home to a growing games industry. In 2021, the sector generated $226 million in revenue, an increase of 22 per cent on 2020, and 83 per cent of revenue is from overseas markets. So this is a big export earner for this country.</para>
<para>Using tax offsets is a proven method, which countries such as Canada and the UK have used to increase the size of their digital games industry. The Digital Games Tax Offset will help Australia become a global player in game development. The local industry has already seen investments worth more than $270 million since late 2020 and has the potential to grow into a billion-dollar industry within the next 10 years. In addition to direct economic benefit, games production can add a range of talent and skills that are transferable to other areas of the economy.</para>
<para>I'll give you an idea, again, of the scale of this industry in Australia. It is a small industry, and remember that we are growing off a very low base in Australia, but we did see, according to the industry association IGEA, $284.4 million of income generated by Australian game development studios in 2021-22. This increased by 26 per cent over the previous year, an extraordinary rate of increase. There are 2,100 full-time employees. That is small in terms of the overall economy, but these are high-paying tech jobs, which are obviously of great benefit across the economy in terms of skills transfer and development and keeping talented people in this country who may have, in previous decades, had to go overseas to find opportunities in this sector. So we see there an increase of 59 per cent of professionals in the industry over a one-year period.</para>
<para>We can see that this really is an area that could move into the future if we get the settings right, if we can encourage the talent and if we can encourage businesses to see Australia as being a good point to host their development work—we could really see this industry grow over the years ahead. Sixty-nine per cent of studios are planning to hire new staff in 2022-23. If that is reflected in reality, this would mean that we would see something like more than 300 new staff enter this industry. Again, it is from a low base, but these kinds of growth rates really do augur well for the future.</para>
<para>So 47 per cent of respondents in the survey of their members are projecting significant growth in income, and 27 per cent of respondents are projecting a growth in their income over the next year. Eighty-five per cent of respondents to the IGEA survey are developing their own IP within Australia. So here we have games companies actually owning the intellectual property rights to the material that is being developed in this country. Obviously, again, that offers great opportunity for export dollars if some of those particular IP developments end up being used elsewhere. Even if they're used with a larger company overseas who can perhaps get to a much larger audience, we can see those benefits flow back through those IP arrangements to the Australian industry. So that is very important.</para>
<para>And this is an export focused industry. I've stood up in this place a number of times and spoken about the export focused industries that are close to my heart—in terms of mining, oil, gas and agriculture—but this is an export focused industry as well. It's one where we look to massive overseas gaming markets for the material and the unique perspective that Australian games can bring to those markets. So this is an industry with a very bright future. As I say, I was one of those young blokes in, I think, 1982, who was pretty taken by the Commodore 64, and, yes, I spent far too many years, when I should've been studying at high school, in front of a computer screen. But it was a very enjoyable part of my life.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Brockman, you will be in continuation. That concludes your remarks.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>14</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Live Animal Exports</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Gee, what a day!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Bilyk</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Tell us about your youth!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I'm not going to continue on video games, because I'm going to continue on the other topic that's of great interest to me—perhaps not quite as good a news story, but one that is very important to my home state of WA, and that is how bad this Labor government and the state Labor government are for the bush. It really is disgraceful that we have a Labor government in Canberra seeking to shut down the great Western Australian sheep industry. Australia and Western Australia rode on the sheep's back not that many decades ago, and now we have a federal Labor government that is hell-bent on closing down the live-export component of the trade which feeds directly into the overall economic viability of the sheep industry, not just in my home state of WA but over the entire country.</para>
<para>And what's this based on? This is based upon, supposedly, the government's claim that somehow the industry has 'lost its social licence', whatever that means.</para>
<para>Yet, let's look at the ABC Vote Compass. I'm not sure anyone in this place would say that the ABC Vote Compass is massively leaning our way. What percentage of respondents on ABC Vote Compass said they voted on animal welfare issues? Anyone want to guess? How about zero per cent—that's the level of interest from the Australian people that was expressed on the ABC's own Vote Compass as to this industry. Now, we've seen surveys from respected bodies—funded by the industry body LiveCorp, but independent surveys—that show that only 35 per cent of Australians actually want to stop the trade, and that is on the basis of a lot of misinformation in the public domain.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator. Senator Bilyk, you have the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Earlier this week, we sat and debated the urgency for increased social housing, in this well-heated Senate chamber, wearing our fine woollen suits and jackets and scarves. It was pretty easy to forget that today also happens to be the eve of the winter solstice in Australia. Tragically, during this coldest time of the year, many Australians are sleeping rough, in cars, in tents or on park benches.</para>
<para>And what happened while we were having this debate the other day? The Greens, for all their ideals and high morals, became completely detached from the reality of those they claim to champion, because they sided with their new best friends, the coalition, to delay the Housing Australia Future Fund. Not only are they playing with political fire, but they are playing with people's lives.</para>
<para>In my home state of Tasmania—also the home of two Greens senators—there was a 45 per cent increase in homelessness between the 2016 and 2021 censuses. There are also currently more than 4,500 individuals and families on the social housing waiting list, including 569 children. But the Greens were happy to delay 1,200 new Tasmanian homes, because they would rather give people nothing than something.</para>
<para>Never has the need for government investment in affordable and social housing been more urgent. Yet, after almost a decade of utter failure in dealing with the housing and homelessness crisis while in government, the coalition continued to drag their feet by delaying this vital legislation. And, shamefully, the Greens voted with them. They've decided to become part of the new coalition, tarring themselves with the same brush of inaction and indifference when it comes to addressing the issues of social and affordable housing. So I don't know how the Greens can even see what's happening down here in the real world, because their moral high ground is so high, I think they need an— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Unlimited rent increases should be illegal. We are in a rental crisis. A third of the country rents, and, across the country, renters are facing soaring costs of renting. People on income support are particularly hard hit. They're routinely paying more than half of their meagre income on rent and are living in dread, knowing that they are only one rent increase away from being homeless.</para>
<para>Analysis of rental listings in 2023 found that zero per cent of rentals were affordable for a single person on JobSeeker. The tiny increases in the budget to JobSeeker and rent assistance meant that the number of homes that are affordable for a single person increased by exactly one across the country. Before the budget there were exactly four houses in the country that were affordable for a single person on JobSeeker and now there are five.</para>
<para>This crisis is a test for Labor. It is wall-to-wall Labor governments across the mainland, so rent rises are their responsibility. Just like the government acted to cap energy bills by bringing the states and the territories together, they can do the same on rent controls to make unlimited rent increases illegal. We know that rent caps, which would mean that unlimited rent increases would be illegal, won't just help renters; it will stop the public, social and community housing waiting list completely blowing out.</para>
<para>We welcome the $2 billion—that was due to the Greens' pressure—that will be spent from now on community and affordable housing, but, without tackling rental increases and without making unlimited rent increases illegal, the number of people on those waiting lists will completely balloon and it will be impossible to get on top of it. Come on, government. We can work together, but the ball is in your court. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor can't manage money, which means they come after yours. Already we've seen this Labor government break a promise not to touch super or franking credits. Labor is now even further divided and is looking for an excuse to come after your income tax relief due in July next year. So Labor is now going to come after your income. Now it seems it's also going to come after local road funding too.</para>
<para>At least 124 projects in Queensland, with a total cost of $16.2 billion, are now at risk from Labor's infrastructure investment program review. Labor want to reduce the number of projects in Queensland, breaking another promise. Some clearly won't make it into the 10-year pipeline of infrastructure investment. At the same time Labor are looking to bring in 1.5 million more people in the next five years. So at the same time they want to bring in 1.5 million more people they're looking to cut back on the infrastructure needed to ease congestion.</para>
<para>Residents on the Gold Coast, including in the electorate of Fadden, should be aware that one of these projects is the next stage of the Coomera Connector. The Coomera Connector future stages business case is in planning and subject to Labor's infrastructure investment program review. This planning project will investigate the future stages of the Coomera Connector. It will complement the current approved commuter project. So $22 million has been committed, but this funding is only to plan the project. Now Labor are even reviewing having a plan, so welcome to modern Queensland where the state Labor government are doing nothing and the federal Labor government are doing nothing. If you live on the Gold Coast and you live in Fadden, good luck because Labor aren't going to do anything for you except deliver some really interesting candidates. I'll have more about that tomorrow. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What utterly disgraceful scenes there were in the Senate yesterday with the Liberals and the Greens teaming up to deny 30,000 social and affordable homes for those in our community who need it most. It was politics above people at its worst. It was a betrayal of the people in our community on public waiting lists and the people in our community who are calling out for housing. Labor wants to build more houses and the Greens want to play student politics with people's lives.</para>
<para>The Housing Australia Future Fund has been backed by numerous stakeholders, including housing experts, community housing providers and housing ministers. They've backed it because it will make a real and substantial difference in people's lives. It may not suit the Greens' politics, but this isn't about the Greens—this is not about them. I'm extremely disappointed on behalf of the members of my community calling out for housing and calling for us in this chamber to do something to increase housing supply. Members of my community would expect this kind of politics—this rubbish—from the Liberal Party, but they didn't expect it from the Greens. But I will tell you one thing, Acting Deputy President Polley: this shameful effort from the Greens and Liberals to delay 30,000 desperately needed homes won't stop us from doing everything we can to get on with the job. On the weekend the Prime Minister announced $2 billion to deliver thousands of new homes across Australia, meaning more housing for more Australians in more parts of our country. We have an ambitious agenda to help those in our community who are desperately calling out for housing supply, desperately calling out for this chamber to do something. The Liberals couldn't give a toss, and the Greens need to grow up.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tamil Refugee Council</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I stand in solidarity with the Tamil people and am particularly grateful to have been invited to the opening over the weekend of the Tamil Refugee Council's first office in my home state of New South Wales. The Tamil Refugee Council does vital work for the Tamil diaspora by providing individual advocacy, doing vital educational work and campaigning for the rights of individuals and refugees. I thank them for the incredible work that they do, and it is an ongoing privilege and honour to stand in solidarity and work alongside them. And it was particularly timely to have the opening this last weekend because last month marked 14 years since the Mullivaikkal massacre, when tens of thousands of Tamils were trapped and killed on the beaches of Mullivaikkal in an offensive against the Tamil struggle for a homeland in the north and east of the country. Fourteen years have now passed since this horrific event, yet there has been no accountability for those who were responsible for the killings, many of whom remain in senior positions of leadership within the Sri Lankan government and military.</para>
<para>The Australian Greens condemn the ongoing systemic violence directed against the Tamil people, as we condemn all aggression and acts of violence against peaceful struggle. We affirm the right of the Tamil people to self-determination, safety and security. Since 2009 the Eelam Tamil community in Australia have faced a constant battle in receiving adequate information, understanding and assurance of what the outcome will be for refugees in Australia. Tamil refugees face one of the highest rejection rates of the Immigration Assessment Authority, and every year thousands of Tamils in our country live in fear of the prospect of deportation. Across the globe the cost of war and climate-driven disasters is disproportionately borne by people with the least economic power. This is a truth that should guide us in our work in this place on climate justice and refugee rights, not least for the Tamil community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mining Industry</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today we have seen yet another no-substance announcement from this Labor government. The update to the Critical Minerals Strategy had the opportunity to set out the plan for developing Australia's critical minerals sector into the future and to compete on the world stage for investment and Australian jobs. The coalition remain committed supporters of this sector. With policies developed by former ministers Pitt and Canavan we set the foundations for growth for the sector. Programs like the $2 billion Critical Minerals Facility, the Critical Minerals Research and Development Centre and the $200 million Critical Minerals Accelerator were all created to support investment in Australia's critical minerals.</para>
<para>Not only have Labor cut $100 million in funding for the accelerator but they have failed to announce any new programs to directly invest in projects within Australia. Their supposedly new investment of $500 million under the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is in fact reallocated funding from the coalition's $2 billion increase. Ironically, two of the new focus point for the strategy are on increasing a skilled workforce and investing in infrastructure to support the sector. Yet, what is Labor's track record on this? Labor has cut tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure projects and programs. Further, the government is trying to push through destructive IR legislation that is at odds with our nation's mining sector, so, despite the big announcement by this government, this strategy has failed to provide a plan for the sector on its future. It has failed to add minerals like copper, zinc, aluminium, potash or phosphate to the critical minerals list. Without another review until 2026, Labor will fail to provide certainty to the industry on the future of the sector, and Australia and Australians will miss out on future investment, tax income and well-paid jobs.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia Police Force</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This month, in Western Australia, we've seen the loss of a very brave police officer, Anthony Woods. On 8 June, Constable Woods and his partner were alerted to a vehicle displaying stolen numberplates. They followed and made a vehicle stop. The stolen car reversed at speed, trapping Constable Woods under the car and effectively murdering him. His police partner and responding officers made very valiant attempts to keep him alive until help came; however, he succumbed to his injuries on Sunday 11 June. The tragic loss of this officer in the prime of his life is indeed a sobering reflection of the risks that our police officers face in the course of their duties every day. As we know, everyone deserves to go to work and come home safe. I know that he is remembered by his family as a funny, hardworking man who loved the West Coast Eagles and mucking around with his mates, bringing light and laughter to every situation, and who had a wicked sense of humour.</para>
<para>I want to thank Police Legacy for the work they do supporting the colleagues and families of brave officers like Anthony Woods. I met one such officer on 9 June, travelling back down from Broome to be with his work colleagues—as it turned out, just a couple of days before Anthony passed. On behalf of WA federal MPs and senators and everyone here, I'd like to express our sorrow and support for this devoted husband and loving son, brother, uncle and colleague, who was taken too soon. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Oil and Gas Exploration</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to read out a post today from Surfrider Foundation Northern Beaches. I'm a surfer, and surfers all around the country represent all political demographics. They say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Our coastal communities in NSW ask that MPs from ALL sides of politics work together to cancel the PEP 11 lease once and forever, and pass legislation that prevents fossil fuel mining off our coastline. No grandstanding, no wedging, just quiet cooperation to get this done legally, legislatively and above all—permanently.</para></quote>
<para>What they're referring to is a bill before the New South Wales parliament, an act to amend the Petroleum (Offshore) Act 1982 and other legislation to prohibit the granting of development consent and the granting of permits and licences for the purposes of seabed petroleum exploration or recovery, or development intended to facilitate seabed exploration or recovery. This bill was introduced by the New South Wales Liberal Party, who, previously in government, promised to kill PEP-11, petroleum exploration permit 11, once and for all. What is state Labor going to do? Are they going to bring this bill on for debate? I urge them to do so—to pass this bill, ban petroleum exploration permit 11 in New South Wales once and for all and reflect the wishes of the community.</para>
<para>Our current Prime Minister promised in opposition that a government he led would kill petroleum exploration permit 11—no ifs, no buts. Twelve months after the election, we've still seen no action from Mr Albanese. Remember this is the exact same petroleum exploration permit licence that Mr Scott Morrison, in the other place, used his extraordinary secret powers to also kill. It's time now to finish petroleum exploration permit 11, to look after the interests of community, to look after the environment and to take climate action when it's most needed at this critical time in history. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak for a fellow Canberran, Diana, who joins us here today and is absolutely desperate. Diana's son Brandon has multiple disabilities. Diana could not be more proud of her son, but sometimes when he's angry or upset he is very hard to care for. He has been approved for residential care, but there aren't many services that can look after him safely. In the past, he's been hurt while in a residential placement and he has hurt others. Brandon lives with his mum at the moment. She has a support worker during the day, but at night she's on her own because the house is too small. The situation isn't sustainable. Brandon needs a house close to his mum with enough space for her and a support worker to sleep over. Our office has been speaking with Housing ACT, and Brandon has been approved for priority placement, but nobody knows how long he'll wait, because they don't have enough houses.</para>
<para>Brandon's story is repeated across the ACT and across the country. The shortage of specialist disability accommodation is part of the bigger crisis around social and affordable housing. It's why the Senate needed to pass the HAFF—so that more people like Brandon can have social and affordable houses built for them. I hope that some of the $50 million announced for the ACT last weekend can go towards addressing this immediate need, giving the people in our community who need it most a safe, affordable and appropriate place to live, because that is their right. Housing is a human right. In this place, we need to do more to uphold it and we need to work to ensure that every Australian can afford to have a safe home in their community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: King's Birthday Honours</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to highlight just a few of the Tasmanians who were recognised at this year's King's Birthday Honours and to illustrate the depth of talent we have in our state by sharing their stories. Unfortunately, I don't have time to acknowledge and share all recipients' stories. However, one was Terese Ann Binns from Longford, who received an OAM. She has dedicated her life to ensuring the continuation of the Northern Tasmanian Lighthorse Troop service, which commemorates animals such as camels, pigeons, dogs and horses. Another worthy recipient was John Malcolm Crosse, who received an OAM. He's from Brighton and has spent many years of his life in service to his passion of fly-fishing. In 1971 he joined the Tasmanian Fly Tyers Club and was awarded life membership in 2011. In 1989 he joined Fly Fish Australia and pursued fly-fishing as a competitor and captain at a state, national and international level. While Mr Crosse spent his years traversing Tasmania's many world-class waterways in search of elusive fish, Susan Reppion-Brooke was creating an intergenerational symphony with her dedication to youth education. Mrs Reppion-Brooke, from New Norfolk, is a shining example of the power of creativity and music for young people. She was awarded an OAM for her work in the often undervalued teaching sector.</para>
<para>These mostly unsung heroes, who might be well known in their local areas, are now recognised alongside the likes of national local heroes such as comedians Judith Lucy and the late Barry Humphries. They are also named alongside more familiar household Tasmanian names, like winemaker and property developer Josef Chromy, who received an AM, and Sheffield based beekeeper Lindsay Bourke, who received an AM and whose leatherwood honey was recently named the best in the world. I say to the 40 Tasmanian recipients recognised in the Kings Birthday Honours List that each one of you has played an invaluable role in your communities and to the social and economic fabric of Tasmania. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate over the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament is exposing the great divide that exists in Aboriginal Australia. On the one hand, we have Indigenous Australians experiencing genuine disadvantage in remote and regional communities, with poverty, domestic violence, unchecked child sexual abuse, poor services and poor outcomes. On the other hand, we have self-serving and self-loathing elites with a vested financial interest in entrenching this disadvantage. The real problem is not a lack of taxpayers' money. The real problem is the lack of the will to act.</para>
<para>Elites will not act effectively because they do not want to derail the gravy train. They are exploiting the truly powerless for their own agenda. They hate the skin they are in and have contempt for the people they claim to represent. Rather than accept responsibility for their own deliberate failures, they blame non-Indigenous Australians. Sexual abuse of children in remote communities is not blamed on the perpetrators of the abuse, as happens in the rest of Australia, but on the whitefella. These elites, like Thomas Mayo, Senator Lidia Thorpe, Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton, to name a few, spew hatred for the whitefella. They need to take a good long look in the mirror.</para>
<para>All Australians need to understand the Voice will not empower the genuinely disadvantaged Indigenous people we want to help.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know that it's not within the standing orders to deal with the content of what is a pretty hateful contribution, but there was at the very least a negative reflection on at least one senator and I would ask that that be withdrawn.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr on the point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President, I don't think that was a legitimate point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Ayres.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And that shouldn't happen.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I will remind senators not to reflect on other senators in this place, and I ask you to mind that and heed that, Senator Hanson, if you would care to finish your contribution now.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They need to take a good long look in the mirror. All Australians need to understand that the Voice will not empower the genuinely disadvantaged Indigenous people we want to help. It will not stop the crime, the sexual abuse or the poverty in remote communities like Doomadgee, Aurukun or Hope Vale. It will only empower the self-serving and self-loathing elites who deny their people the agency and assistance they truly deserve. Vote no.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I speak on the urgent need to get more people the mental health care that they need—more community based peer led programs and more appointments under Medicare. I hear from my community regularly about the challenges they face accessing mental health support: difficulty accessing appointments, relevant practitioners and affirmative treatment plans. The reality is that over 44 per cent of Australians aged between 18 and 85 have experienced diagnosed mental health conditions in their lifetimes. That is almost half of our country. Considering the significant barriers to diagnosis that exist, we can only assume that the number of people experiencing mental health distress is actually far higher. Getting access to affordable, timely health care would make an incredible difference to their lives. The availability of mental health care in this country has become so scarce that even those with money and privilege are struggling to access care. Where on earth does that leave everyone else?</para>
<para>We know the devastating, preventable reality of this system. The latest numbers tell us that at least nine people have unalived themselves every day in Australia. Mental health is time sensitive. These are preventable deaths. People need culturally safe, appropriate and affirmative mental health care urgently. The way to do mental health in Australia needs an urgent change. The way we do it needs to be remade, and it needs to be done now. I do not want to see a single person suffer or die unnecessarily. The brain and mind are part of the body and should be covered under Medicare. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, well, well. What a wicked web we weave when we set out to deceive. Not only do we have a cost-of-living crisis in this country; we have an accountability and transparency crisis in this country as well. Just in the last month, we have seen the Albanese Labor government fail to disclose how many aged-care nurses are in aged-care centres, despite it being an election promise that they would have nurses in aged-care centres 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We see the Minister for Aged Care refuse to disclose how many nurses are actually in aged care.</para>
<para>Then just last week we saw the Albanese Labor government vote against an inquiry into the social and economic impact of renewables on farmland and marine life. This side of the chamber, I know, cares very much about the environment. If Labor and the Greens were serious about caring for the environment, they would have an inquiry into the impact on the farmland and our precious sea life. Then we also tried to move a motion to actually get the Productivity Commission to benchmark electricity prices, because what gets measured gets improved. Yet here we are again, in a cost-of-living crisis and an energy crisis, and the Labor government aren't interested in tracking energy prices. I wonder why. Is it because it's going to reveal that basically power prices didn't drop by $275, despite that being a Labor election promise?</para>
<para>Then we had the dishonest statements from Minister Gallagher about what happened over the Brittany Higgins rape allegations. Ultimately, what happened there was weaponisation of something that should have remained a sensitive personal matter. Then we spent all last Friday night in the chamber trying to get some detail on the Voice. Did we get any detail? No—nada, zip, zilch, nada—because the Albanese Labor government doesn't know how to be honest with the people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>19</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ministerial Standards</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, in response to a question regarding whether a brief or any form of advice was ever provided to you or to your office on the claim or proposed settlement as envisaged by guidance note 7, you said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">From my memory, I did not receive a brief or any advice from my department. I think it was quite detailed in terms of any other advice that may have come to the office. I would just want the opportunity to check that.</para></quote>
<para>Minister, have you checked whether you or your office received such a brief?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of whether there was a brief or any form of advice provided to me or my office on the claim or the proposed settlement and as outlined, I think, by guidance note 7, I think was Senator Cash's question, I can confirm that the answer to the senator's question is no.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In response to a question regarding whether you ever declared a conflict in relation to any aspect of the matter, including the proposed settlement, or if you ever sought advice in relation to a potential conflict, you said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If it had come to me, I would have declared a conflict, but it didn't. It didn't cross my desk. I did not get a brief. If there is anything further that I can update the Senate about on that, I will.</para></quote>
<para>Minister, is there anything further you can update the Senate on in relation to this issue?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No. I refer you to the answer I gave last week and the answer I've just given now. I did not receive any brief, including as envisaged by guidance note 7, so I had no conflict to declare.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNI</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>AM (—) (): In response to a question regarding whether you or your office had any communication with the Attorney-General or his office, in relation to the proposed settlement of the matter, you said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I certainly had no contact with the Attorney-General. Again, just for the purposes of being absolutely clear to the Senate, I will take other aspects of that on notice, because that would require me going and speaking with other people. But, from my point of view, no.</para></quote>
<para>Minister, do you stand by your answer and can you advise the Senate if your office had any contact with the Attorney-General's office in relation to this settlement matter?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can certainly say that from—I certainly had no contact with the Attorney General's office. I must say, I thought I'd answered this last week. But I certainly haven't. I will come back if there is anything further I can advise.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Senator Farrell. The Albanese Labor government has set an ambitious agenda delivering housing for vulnerable Australians, Australians who were left behind by a decade of inaction on housing and homelessness under the former Liberal-National government. Can the minister, please, outline some of the measures the Albanese government is delivering to help address the housing challenges for Australians needing a safe and affordable place to call home?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator O'Neill for her question and her deep interest in this issue. The Albanese government wants every Australian to have the security of having a roof over their head.</para>
<para>The Albanese government's ambitious housing agenda is already delivering solutions, like the $2 billion social housing accelerator to deliver thousands of new social housing homes right across Australia. Secondly, it provides an extra $67.5 million to states and territories to help tackle homelessness. Thirdly, it introduces incentives to increase investments and build-to-rent accommodation. Fourthly, it increases the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent. Fifthly, it establishes a new National Housing Accord, making up to $575 million available through the National Housing Infrastructure Facility for more homes, and invests an additional $2 billion in financing the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to buy a program to help more people by a home sooner. Finally, it will expand the Home Guarantee Scheme.</para>
<para>This brings the Albanese government's investment in housing and homelessness to more than $9.5 billion in this financial year. At every opportunity the Albanese government has built on our housing work because we know that our nation's housing challenges are serious. Others in this place may want to play political games with housing for those in need, but the Albanese government will not be deterred. We will continue delivering to ensure more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PR</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Neill, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Minister, for that expose of practical action that's making a big difference in people's lives. Many of the government's initiatives are underway and already delivering new homes. Can the minister provide an update to the Senate on how the Albanese government's ambitious reform agenda is delivering new homes now for Australians who need them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I can, Senator O'Neill. The Albanese government has hit the ground running and is already delivering on its housing commitments. The Minister for Housing has announced and visited many of the new developments and homes our reforms are delivering, projects delivering new social and affordable rental homes in places such as Westmead, Adelaide, north-west Tasmania, Brisbane and Parramatta—and that's just the start. The additional $2 billion social housing accelerator we have announced will deliver thousands of new social housing homes right across this country. And while the Greens are prepared to band with the coalition to play political games, the Albanese government takes Australia's housing affordability challenges seriously, and we are not wasting a day to deliver those solutions.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very glad to hear about all this across the country and particularly glad to hear about Parramatta, where I was born. Are there any other initiatives the Labor government is seeking to pursue further that would further address housing and homelessness for vulnerable Australians? What's preventing these initiatives from coming into effect, and what will this mean for those people in need of more affordable housing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, we saw the Greens stand with their new partners, in the Liberals and Nationals, to reject the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. They've rejected it, and the 30,000 social and affordable rental homes that it would deliver in the first five years. They've rejected the ongoing pipeline of funding each and every year. They rejected funding for crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children leaving family violence. They rejected safe and suitable housing for First Nations Australians—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'Neill</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Shame!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, shame. And they rejected funding for homes and services for Australian veterans. It's now up to the Greens and the coalition to explain to Australians in need of affordable housing why they stood in their way. The Albanese government will instead be getting on with the job of delivering the homes that Australia needs.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Members Of Parliament: Staff</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, last week you told the Senate that you first heard about sexual assault allegations in the week prior to them becoming public on 15 February 2021. Today the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> newspaper reports that, in late January and early February 2021, Mr Martin Fisk, whose wife, Sandra, is the ACT Labor Party's operations manager, told the ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner that he was working with a young woman who was about to make a sexual assault disclosure that 'would likely attract media attention'. Minister, did Mr Fisk or his wife Sandra ever raise these allegations with you or your office prior to 15 February 2021.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I raise a point of order as to whether that question is in order. These are—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take that interjection. Senator Gallagher has answered question after question on this and has been upfront and transparent with the Senate. I didn't take objection to the nature of the questioning, with reference to President Hogg's ruling, for two days, after which time I drew the President's attention to it. We are now at the point where the opposition, in their desperate attempt to continue this tactic—despite what the DPP has said about Ms Higgins's mental state at the conclusion of her trial—are asking about alleged conversations about which the minister has made no statement. I respectfully submit that the question is not in order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, in relation to the point of order by Minister Wong, it is clearly in order for, as President Hogg's ruling makes clear—as have subsequent rulings—a minister to be asked about statements they have made as a minister and, in particular, to be asked about statements they have made as a minister in this chamber. This question was premised first and foremost by referencing Senator Gallagher's statement—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Order on my left and my right! Senator Birmingham, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This question was premised first and foremost by referencing Senator Gallagher's statement to the Senate last week, and, as has been the case with questioning in relation to this, it is seeking to ascertain the veracity of those statements, given the deep concern about the minister having potentially misled the chamber. That is the basis upon which these questions have been asked and where this question is presented: testing the statement of the minister to the Senate in her capacity as a minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRES</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've had a contribution from both leaders. I am going to refer back to the rulings that Senator Hogg made and I'm going to invite Minister Gallagher to answer that question in whatever way she thinks is relevant.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have tried over the last week and a bit—and, indeed, longer than that, in relation to the media—to be accountable and helpful to the Senate. I am mindful of the ongoing distress of this political tactic that is being played in this chamber, despite my statement I've made.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Wow!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hollie, you can stop saying 'wow', because I am being absolutely upfront here. But you are now asking me things that if—and I'm happy to answer. The answer to the question is no. I'm happy to answer that because, even though it's not relevant and it's not relevant to my statement, I know what you would do if I didn't answer it. I know exactly what you would do, Senator Henderson and others. If you would like me to go through my telephone book and show you who's in my contacts, other diary appointments and things like that, we can continue to play this game. But in the meantime—and we have to be serious. We cannot stand here and say that we are creating a safe environment for staff, a safe workplace or an environment where women are encouraged to come forward and raise complaints about the way they were treated if—</para>
<para>Government senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order on my right! The minister was answering, and those interjections were disorderly. Minister, do you wish to make a further contribution? Thank you. Senator Henderson, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, again noting your statement to the Senate of last Tuesday, did anyone other than Ms Higgins and/or Mr Sharaz approach you or your office prior to 15 February 2021 regarding these allegations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would again remind people, from those who have signed up to the <inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">espect@</inline><inline font-style="italic">W</inline><inline font-style="italic">ork</inline>report and the <inline font-style="italic">Set the standard</inline> report to those who attend morning teas and breakfasts and continue to say how they support women to come forward and raise their complaints in this workplace and others—all of you who do those things—to reflect on the line of questioning you are pursuing, which is over and above the issues that I responded to in my statement last week and the concerns that have been raised around my comments in estimates. The answer to the question is 'no'. I'm continuing to answer them because I know exactly what will happen if I don't. But I would also say that there are some other questions that need answers in this place. How did text messages get leaked? How did a draft statement of claim for compensation get leaked? How did all of that get leaked?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Urquhart</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>From there—from over that side.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How did court documents get leaked?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my right!</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left and my right! Senator Henderson, a second supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, last week you also told the Senate that you did absolutely nothing with the information provided. Prior to 15 February 2021, did you discuss any of the information with anyone other than Ms Higgins or Mr Sharaz?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer you to the statement I made and the questions that I have answered in the past week.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environmental Conservation: Plastic Pollution</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to Senator Wong, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water. Plastic pollution in our oceans is one of the world's biggest environmental problems and challenges. The problem is getting worse, not better, largely because plastic packaging production is unregulated around the world. Minister, in recent weeks, negotiations for a global plastics treaty to eliminate plastic pollution from our environment took place in Paris. I understand that the minister attended in person because she was concerned that the treaty would be watered down and that some big producers of plastics were pushing for industry led approaches rather than legally binding, mandated schemes. Can you please update the Senate on the outcomes of these recent treaty negotiations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do recall the minister making a public statement about that, and I think I probably signed off on the credentials for the delegation. I don't have a brief in front of me that goes into detail to some of the questions you asked, so I will ask the environment minister to give me some advice if needed in order to add to my answer. It is correct to say that the minister did attend the discussions in relation to the development of a global treaty to end plastic pollution by 2040. I understand, both publicly and in terms of the advice I've been given now, that it was Australia's position that the treaty should be legally binding and include strong targets. That is also a view that is shared, as Senator Whish-Wilson would know, by many of our Pacific neighbours. If you'll indulge me with a small anecdote: when I was younger and used to do a lot of scuba diving in South-East Asia, it was bad then. I can only imagine that it has got a lot worse since.</para>
<para>Having said that, I don't have an update as to precisely what the conduct of the negotiations yielded. I will obtain advice on that, Senator Whish-Wilson, but I would make the point that we do have an environment minister, in Ms Plibersek, who is deeply committed to ensuring that in government we do all that we are able, whether it's in relation to plastics or more broadly, to repair nature and is committed to making sure that there is a measurable difference, as a consequence of the work she is doing, to our environment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, your first supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister Wong. Respectfully, isn't it a bit rich for our government to be taking a leadership position in these global negotiations on a legally-binding global plastics treaty while we still have big business in Australia driving voluntary waste and reduction schemes—schemes which, I point out, have failed miserably over more than 20 years to achieve any of their objectives?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Firstly, I would say that we know, after a decade of those opposite, that we are in a far worse situation than we were over 10 years ago. I think that in the last decade—or just over a decade—we've seen plastic waste double. That's between about 2010 and 2021. I agree with you, Senator Whish-Wilson, that the voluntary targets and design guidelines aren't doing what we would want them to do. I'm advised that Minister Plibersek, at a recent Environment Ministers Meeting, obtained agreement with the states that packaging would be subject to strict new government rules aimed at cutting waste and boosting recycling. This is in order to help make sure packaging waste is minimised in the first place and that, where packaging is used, it is designed to be recovered, reused or recycled. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, your second supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, the Albanese government is in consultation stages for a potentially mandatory or legally-binding scheme for packaging in Australia. Given you will be consulting with the big packaging and retail businesses that are the cause of this pollution—and, may I say also, are big donors to your political party—will you confirm to the Australian people and commit to regulation that holds them to account and actually makes a difference?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's almost impossible, isn't it, to get a Greens question without a suggestion that, somehow, government policy is changed because of political donations. You may think that, but that is not how we operate. As I said to past senator Milne, when she and I were contesting over the carbon price: 'It is possible that we may just not agree with your position.'</para>
<para>But, in relation to this, the advice I have is that the minister has sought agreement that there would be mandatory packaging design standards and targets, including for recycled content; that we would double the recycling capacity in Australia; that we would reform the regulation of packaging by 2025; that, at her instigation with the states, the ministerial advisory group would be formed; and that the minister has announced the regulation of recycling solar panels. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the Albanese government's $2 billion investment in the Social Housing Accelerator program is a significant commitment to improving housing outcomes for Australians. We all know that housing is one of the most important policy areas right now, after a decade of neglect by the coalition government. Given that women, particularly single mothers, are disproportionately affected through housing insecurity, could the minister elaborate on how this investment will specifically benefit women and contribute to addressing the housing challenges they face?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pratt for the question. The Albanese government's $2 billion investment in the Social Housing Accelerator program is a significant step forward towards addressing Australia's housing challenges. This investment will deliver thousands of new social rental homes across the country. With this investment we are working to reverse the decline of national housing stock that we've seen over the past decade—a decade of neglect and little action from those opposite when they were in government.</para>
<para>Now we've inherited this situation, with extensive waiting lists for public housing across state and territory governments and a massive shortfall of supply. But the government is working hard to meet these unfulfilled needs. Our investment will be of particular benefit for women, who are disproportionately affected by housing insecurity and are more likely to experience housing stress. Women are less likely to be able to save for a deposit, are less likely to own their own home and are the fastest-growing cohort at risk of homelessness. Homelessness is of course a particular risk for women who need to flee domestic violence situations.</para>
<para>Our investment in social housing will directly benefit women experiencing housing stress or at risk of homelessness by increasing the supply of affordable homes. The government's $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator program allows for a range of approaches to boost social housing stock right across the country. This means we can target the areas of greatest need, including areas where single mums, older women and women and children fleeing domestic violence live.</para>
<para>Furthermore, our investment in social housing is part of a broader housing agenda that includes measures specifically designed to support women. We're providing $67.5 million to states to help tackle homelessness, and $350 million through the Housing Accord to build 20,000 new affordable rentals in the next five years. We could do more if the Housing Australia Future Fund passed the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pratt, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Could the minister please advise the Senate on how the Social Housing Accelerator program works alongside other initiatives of the Albanese government to improve housing outcomes for women. Here I am thinking that women on low incomes, women fleeing domestic violence and older women. How will these initiatives by the Albanese Labor government assist all these groups of women?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pratt for the supplementary. The Social Housing Accelerator program is just one part of our comprehensive housing agenda, which is being led by Minister Julie Collins. In 2022-23 the Albanese government will spend $9.5 billion to help address our nation's housing challenges. As the senators will be aware, there is the $10 billion Housing Australian Future Fund, which is designed to build 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes in its first five years, but unfortunately that bill has been postponed in the Senate and so that fund has been prevented from being established because of the Senate's refusal to debate and finalise that bill. This means that 4,000 housing properties specifically for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness are not able to be delivered.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pratt, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, how does the Albanese Labor government's investment in social housing compare to the efforts of the previous government to address housing insecurity among women? We know there has recently been a decade of neglect and waste from the coalition and that our government is playing catch-up, but can be minister compare and contrast the two governments?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pratt for the supplementary. In the Albanese government there is a government that's interested in social housing and that's interested in making sure that we work with the states and territories to respond to the significant challenges being faced across the country when it comes to housing affordability and access to affordable rental properties. That is in contrast to the way that the former government engaged with states and territories on the housing agenda. This $2 billion investment in the Social Housing Accelerator program is the largest investment that has been made in social and affordable housing, and we know from the advice of states and territories just how important this investment is going to be to make sure that they can deal with some of the more urgent and unmet needs that were allowed to grow over the past decade because of the failure of the former government to address this need and work in partnerships with the states and territories, as we intend to do.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a question to the Minister representing the Minister of Housing, Senator Farrell. When will the government release an issues paper and commence consultation on the National Housing and Homelessness Plan? This was a Labor election commitment, and, with the delay to the Housing Australia Future Fund package of bills, how will the government deliver on its commitments under outcome 9 of the Closing the Gap statement?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pocock for his question. This morning I heard you on ABC radio just before I did the Bevan show in Adelaide, and I congratulate you on your comments and your sensible, progressive attitude to this, which contrasts so dramatically with the Greens and their allies the coalition.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson-Young</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Porkies!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, Senator Hanson-Young, if you'd read the bill, you'd understand why what you said on the ABC today—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, I've called you about five times.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order at the back of the chamber. Those interjections are disorderly. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I'm running out of time here, but I will answer the very sensible question from Senator Pocock. To particularly answer the direct question, we will soon launch the formal consultation on the plan, which will set out the 10-year strategy to inform housing and homelessness policy in Australia. The Minister for Housing, Minister Collins, who's doing a terrific job, I might add, in the most difficult of circumstances, remains committed to the housing commitment in the housing portfolio under Closing the Gap. Through the housing reform agenda, the Albanese government is committed to reducing overcrowding for Indigenous Australians and to seeing improvements in all states currently experiencing overcrowding. But we accept, Senator Pocock, your fundamental proposition that there is a lot more to do. The Albanese government is committed to working with our state and territory counterparts to ensure more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home.</para>
<para>I was able to talk this morning on the ABC about the fact that, in South Australia alone, projects are being delayed as a result of the crazy— <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time </inline><inline font-style="italic">expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How many houses does the government modelling show will be built as part of the recently announced $2 billion accelerator program?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Order! Senator Ayres, the minister was on his feet. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator project, which the government announced on the weekend, will deliver thousands of new social homes right across Australia. This investment will build more housing for more Australians in more parts of our nation. This, of course, includes—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber. Minister Farrell.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thousands—it's going to deliver thousands of new social homes across Australia. I can't be any more specific than that. In fact, through the Social Housing Accelerator, the Albanese government will deliver $50 million to the ACT to immediately begin boosting social housing stock. We've done this because the Albanese Labor government knows a secure home will give more Australians the foundation for a better future. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, your second supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the government continue to negotiate with the Greens and bring back the Housing Australia Future Fund package of bills after the winter break?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They don't want a deal.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong. I'm going to call minister. Minister.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for your second supplementary question, Senator Pocock. The future of this bill now is entirely in the hands of the people over there and the people down there. I described yesterday, I think, accurately—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator David Pocock</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just interested in whether the government will—this is on answering the question—bring it back. I'm conscious there are 40 seconds left.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe the minister was beginning to answer that question. I'll continue to listen. Minister Farrell.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will bring this back as soon as we understand that either the Greens have come to their senses or the coalition have changed their attitudes and we can get this through. There's no point wasting—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know the Greens are really upset and embarrassed by the decision to line up with the coalition, but, the moment we get clarity that the Greens are going to back this legislation, it's going to be back here. I know, Senator Pocock, that you've got the common sense to support this legislation. If only the Greens had the same common sense. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. One of the key architects of the government's Voice to Parliament Thomas Mayo said that First Nations groups should 'punish politicians that ignore our advice'. Does the minister agree with this statement?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has been clear that the referendum is about recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution through the Voice. It's about recognition and listening: about recognising the 65,000 years of shared history and culture that we should all be very proud of and about setting up the Voice so that we can improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by making sure that they are heard. We have seen some of the best of this approach and some of the concerns raised through the debate in this chamber over the past week or so, but I think all of us, now that that bill has passed, need to proceed with the discussion about the referendum with respect and care for each other and seize the opportunity that comes from the generous Uluru Statement from the Heart about working together for a better future. That is something that the government are keen to do. We are focused on it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Canavan?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Canavan</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam President, I have a point of order on relevance. The question was very clearly related to some particular comments reported this week. I don't think the minister has gone anywhere near responding to those at this stage.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">T</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Canavan. Minister Wong?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order: I also make the point that Senator Gallagher is appropriately responding within the portfolio she represents to what has been put to her. I appreciate that those opposite wish to go after people outside of this chamber, but that is actually not within her portfolio. She is responding appropriately within the portfolio she is representing.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe that the minister is being relevant. I will continue listening carefully to her response. Minister Gallagher.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much. As I was saying, the Voice is about recognition and listening. It's a moment that's bigger than politics. It's about moving the country forward together. As senators know from the debate we had over the past week, the Voice will be an advisory body. It will be made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, who will give advice to government on issues that affect their community. It's that simple. It's the process from years of discussion, consultation and hard work by those on the working group and others, including those involved at Uluru in 2017. It is a patient and gracious ask of Australia. We know that the Voice will help to close the gap by giving communities a say in the matters that affect them so that better policies can be made. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Nampijinpa Price, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note the minister's failure to back away from the statement. The government claims that the Voice to Parliament proposal is modest, yet, as per recent reporting, Thomas Mayo also said, 'We keep going, we maintain this momentum, until we change the system, until we tear down the institutions that harm our people.' Does the minister agree with these comments?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't want my answer to be misrepresented. I haven't seen the comments that Senator Nampijinpa Price referred to, but I have listened to Mr Mayo in the past. I have always found him an articulate and passionate advocate for the Voice. I accept that that is not a voice that Senator Nampijinpa Price agrees with, but this referendum is an opportunity to bring the country together not to divide it. It's about working together, showing each other respect, listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about matters that are relevant to them, about policies that are relevant to them, around programs that are relevant to them. It's also, importantly, about recognising our First Australians and our proud history in our Constitution. It is that simple.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Nampijinpa Price, your second supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the minister condemn Mr Mayo's comments, or is it true that this is not a modest proposal and instead is a divisive, harmful change to our nation's rule book?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't agree with Senator Nampijinpa Price's view on the Voice or on the process around the referendum. I categorically reject that view. I think this is an opportunity to bring the country together, to say yes to recognition, to say yes to the Voice and to unify the country, and, as the Uluru Statement from the Heart says, to say yes to a better future. It is bigger than politics. Now that that bill has passed this place this is a matter for the Australian people. It's a matter for which they deserve respect, they deserve honesty and they deserve the correct information so that when they go to cast their vote they are voting on accurate information—not misinformation that might suit the purposes of the 'no' campaign but isn't an honest reflection of what the Uluru Statement from the Heart sought or what the Voice will be.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Defence Force</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Earlier today I sought to table in this place the article 15 communication I have lodged with the International Criminal Court regarding the command responsibility of Australian military high commanders for alleged war crimes by Australian forces in Afghanistan. I have done this because successive governments have not supported Australian diggers or my call to admit we have a massive problem with senior command. Does the government now admit we have a problem with high command within the Australian Defence Force?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was aware, Senator Lambie, and I believe the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence is also aware, of the matters that you informed the Senate of earlier today, which is that you have filed an article 15 communication to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. What I would say is that I'm advised that Australia is taking all appropriate steps to investigate allegations concerning the conduct of members of the ADF in Afghanistan, including by establishing the Office of the Special Investigator, and I think the senator has been briefed about that.</para>
<para>In relation to the Brereton report, it is a hugely significant document and there are very substantial allegations contained within it. The government has been focused, since taking office in May 2022, on ensuring that the recommendations of that report are implemented to the fullest possible extent. That work is ongoing. I am also advised that, as part of that work, the Chief of the Defence Force has considered the command accountability of current and former serving ADF members who held command positions during the periods in which the Inspector-General of the ADF found credible information of incidents of alleged unlawful conduct, as identified in the Afghanistan inquiry. The CDF has presented the relevant material to government for consideration. The Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister for Defence, is considering the recommendations and seeking advice as appropriate. I am advised that the Deputy Prime Minister has offered to meet with you to discuss these matters.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australian diggers have been dragged through the wringer for allegations of war crimes for almost a decade now. Recently I heard that the AFP is unable to use evidence supplied by the Inspector-General of the Australia Defence Force in its investigation into Afghanistan. This is an absolutely monumental stuff-up. How can the government have any confidence that due process and natural justice can be achieved now for the men living under the cloud of these allegations more than a decade after the events that are said to have taken place?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the assertion regarding the Australian Federal Police, I'll provide the information I have, Senator Lambie, which doesn't entirely accord with the assertion you've made in that question.</para>
<para>I'm advised that the Office of the Special Investigator is working with the Australian Federal Police to investigate relevant allegations. I am advised that the OSI remains focused on conducting its work expeditiously, thoroughly and fairly. Those working on these matters are obviously conscious of the importance of Australia's national interests and—and this is the issue which Senator Lambie is particularly concerned about and rightly so—the potential impact on those affected by investigations. I understand this was traversed at estimates on 23 May 2023, and the OSI's director-general made clear that a number of investigations are ongoing, and, where appropriate, briefs of evidence will be referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In estimates a few weeks ago, the Chief of the Defence Force admitted to marking his own homework when it came to the awarding of his Distinguished Service Cross, an award he received for commanding troops he has abandoned. Unsurprisingly, General Campbell judged himself fit to wear that award. Will the government once and for all remove General Campbell's award, strip him of his medal and finally issue him with a notice to show cause for removal from his command?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I first would say, Senator Lambie, that obviously there are a number of assertions again in that question that the government does not accept. I appreciate that that is the position you've put, including in estimates, to the CDF. I'd make the point that the CDF is seeking to act on the outstanding recommendations of the Brereton report. I'd also make the point that the decision to cancel any award is made by the Governor-General. There's currently a process in relation to that, and I'm not in a position to pre-empt that process. I wasn't at estimates when these questions were being asked, but I do understand that the Chief of the Defence Force responded to a number of the assertions, including those that you make today, about the role he has played.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tertiary Education</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, Senator Watt. We know that increasing the skills of Australians is a key part of the Albanese government's plan to lift productivity. How is the government's fee-free TAFE initiative helping to build the future workforce and give Australians the skills and training they need to harness the jobs and opportunities of the future, and what has been the uptake of fee-free TAFE courses so far?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator Sterle. I know that you're a very strong supporter of the TAFE system in your home state of Western Australia. When the Albanese government was elected just over 12 months ago, it was clear that not only had we inherited a trillion dollars of Liberal and Nationals debt with nothing to show for it but also, after a decade in government, they had left behind a massive skills deficit. There used to be 153 occupations on the skills shortage list in Australia, but under those opposite it jumped to 286, almost double.</para>
<para>According to the OECD, Australia is experiencing the second most severe labour shortage in the developed world. It is an embarrassing legacy of a decade of coalition government. Projections are that nine out of every 10 new jobs over the next five years will need a post-school qualification. The Albanese government recognises the urgency of the skills crisis facing our nation. Strong and accessible higher education and vocational education and training sectors are crucial to tackling this skill shortage. It's also vital to boosting Australia's productivity. Our government has a plan to make our economy stronger and more productive so that we can lift incomes and lift living standards, because we don't want Australians to have to work harder for less money.</para>
<para>That's why we took immediate action after the election by bringing together Australians, unions, employers and civil society at the Jobs and Skills Summit and by working with state and territory governments to fund 180,000 fee-free TAFE places in 2023. I am pleased to update the Senate that in the first quarter of 2023 the Albanese government has supported almost 150,000 Australians to enrol in fee-free TAFE. The most popular courses have been in skills priority areas like early childhood education, nursing, support work, cybersecurity and construction. We have also seen a strong uptake by women, while more than 25,000 students currently enrolled in fee-free TAFE are from households that speak a language other than English at home. This marks the start of a once-in-a-generation reform of the TAFE and VET sector. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sterle, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know access to education and training for students and workers to reskill or upskill in areas of demand can be life changing. It also increases the likelihood of a good, secure job with career progression. How is the fee-free TAFE initiative helping students to access training while also providing cost-of-living relief?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks again, Senator Sterle. The government's fee-free TAFE and VET plan is helping to reduce cost-of-living pressures, with students saving thousands of dollars on course fees while upgrading their skills. To give you a few examples, students undertaking a Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care in Victoria are up to $8,700 better off. Students undertaking a Diploma of Nursing in Western Australia—your home state, Senator Sterle—are up to $10,451 better off. Students studying a Diploma of Building and Construction in South Australia are up to $10,600 better off. Students undertaking a Diploma of Information Technology (Cyber Security) in New South Wales are up to $4,060 better off with fee-free TAFE. Students undertaking a Diploma of Agriculture in my home state of Queensland are up to $4,500 better off. It is the same throughout the rest of Australia. In Tasmania, students studying landscape construction are over $2,000 better off. Students studying cybersecurity in the ACT are over $3,000 better off. In the Northern Territory, students are over $3,000 better off— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sterle, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, we know not everyone supports our plans to deliver cost-of-living relief to students and opportunities to train in areas of high demand. What has been the response to our fee-free TAFE policy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You would think that the ability to deliver the skills that Australians need, the productivity improvements the economy needs and cost-of-living relief would be something that everyone in this chamber could get behind. But according to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for skills and training, Ms Ley, fee-free TAFE is 'wasteful spending'. I suppose that shouldn't be surprising given the coalition had cut more than $3 billion out of the TAFE system since 2013. You can't take that much money out of TAFE and then complain about a skills shortage. But, of course, that's exactly what the coalition are doing.</para>
<para>When comparing the Treasurer's budget speech and the opposition leader's budget reply speech last month, it was very clear who actually cares about upskilling Australians. On this side, we spoke about creating 300,000 fee-free TAFE places to train Australians in critical and emerging sectors. The opposition leader didn't mention TAFE once. When they are in power they cut funding to TAFE; when they are out of power they say it's wasteful spending. We are getting on with the job. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The release earlier today of minutes from the last Reserve Bank board meeting showed that the board assessed 'finely balanced arguments' but decided just three weeks after the Albanese government's second budget on a 12th interest rate increase. How could Labor's expansionary budget, which included $185 million of new spending, have done anything other than tip the balance in favour of another interest rate increase, leaving Australians facing the highest RBA cash rate in 12 years?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator McGrath for the question. I also note that in the minutes released it said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Members noted that the new policies announced in the Australian Government Budget had not had a material effect on the staff forecasts for economic activity and inflation.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">Members observed that it was understandable that the lowest paid workers would be compensated for high inflation …</para></quote>
<para>There was a whole range of issues noted in this statement, but, consistent with the evidence that the governor gave at estimates and consistent with the evidence that the Secretary of Treasury gave at estimates, the budget actually took pressure off inflation—and it did so through the Energy Price Relief Plan, which those opposite opposed.</para>
<para>This was a carefully calibrated budget. We had to do a number of things in this budget. We had to clean up some of the terminating measures that were dropping off, where funding wasn't going to be provided any longer. We had to provide cost-of-living relief, where we could—where we could make investments into Medicare and the care economy, where we could support women, and where we could also make sensible investments into those growth opportunities for the future but where those investments didn't add to inflation. The evidence from economists, the evidence from the governor, the evidence from the Secretary of Treasury, the detailed budget papers—all of that is consistent with the minutes that have been released today.</para>
<para>Inflation is the key economic challenge. We understand how it impacts on households, and how interest rates impact on households, but also how high prices impact on households, which is why it's so important that the budget works alongside the efforts of the Reserve Bank to bring the inflation rate back to the target range, which is exactly what this budget sought to do.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath, a first supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With inflation having a seven in front of it for three quarters under the Albanese government, and cost of living running out of control, how could Labor's removal from the budget fiscal strategy of the objective to immediately address inflation have done anything other than tip the balance in favour of another interest rate increase, leaving Australians facing the highest RBA cash rate in 12 years?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, of course, the highest quarter of inflation was in the March quarter of last year, which actually was the end of your government, and the interest rate increases that we've seen commenced under your government. They are the facts. And what Australians know is that they have a government that is focused—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Honourable senators interjecting—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The old caretaker argument: we didn't have a government.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat.</para>
<para>Honourabl e senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, across the chamber. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>on responsible economic management, that's focused on making sure the budget is actually used as a vehicle for investing in the things we need to do now but also in the things we need to do in the future; that we are looking, sensibly, at where our investments are going, to make sure that they are timed, in a way—</para>
<para>An honourable senator interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and I take the interjection from—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, the entire budget was, and we went through this in estimates with Senator Hume, who also tried to run this line that a clear fiscal— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator McGrath, a second supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In Senate estimates, it was confirmed that the Prime Minister has not received a briefing on the economic challenges Australia faces from the Treasury Secretary. Has the Prime Minister subsequently received a briefing? When will he prioritise his time and policies to addressing the cost-of-living crisis confronting millions of Australians?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Wong! Order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong. Order! The question—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator McGrath. Both of you—Senator Wong and Senator McGrath.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, that wasn't actually confirmed at Senate estimates. The Prime Minister has been repeatedly briefed, and the Secretary of Treasury also confirmed this, through our standard processes, through ERC and other committee processes; it was made clear that the Prime Minister had been briefed—had been consistently briefed; was involved in all of those discussions. So it's just wrong to say that.</para>
<para>And, for the first time, we actually have a prime minister that's doing his job, not taking everybody else's job, and leading a government whose sole focus is on how to manage the economic circumstances we currently live in—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Wong!</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>whose 150 per cent focus is on making sure that this government is mindful of the lives of the Australian people. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. The LNP twiddled their thumbs while their energy policy chaos saw dispatchable power leave the grid. The Albanese Labor government took urgent action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of global energy price spikes. Could the minister outline how the Albanese government is working to drive down household and business energy costs while also making homes and businesses cheaper to run?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Payman. I'm very pleased to get this question, and can I say this at the outset: the senator asserts that those opposite twiddled their thumbs whilst in government. Well, it was worse than that, wasn't it? They were entirely focused on their internal conflict, entirely focused on having their fight—Barnaby Joyce versus those who actually understood that there was a problem. They had 22 energy policies, and guess who has to clean up the mess.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, I have just brought your side to order. Minister Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There were 22 energy policies and a market which saw a reduction in dispatchable capacity. Then, to add insult to injury, who voted against energy price relief? The 'no-alition'. That's who voted against energy price relief.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order! Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know it's triggering for those opposite to realise that their tactics led them to the position where they have to say to the Australian people, 'We support higher prices.' That's what those opposite were saying: 'We don't want to vote for price relief.' I don't think Australians will ever forget.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know it's difficult for those opposite to accept. We know that they suddenly had anxiety thereafter, because they tried to pretend that they didn't actually vote against it when everyone knows they did. Well, unlike them, we are committed to doing the work to deliver cheaper, cleaner energy for Australians. In less than two weeks, millions of Australians will start to benefit from energy price relief rebates which those opposite opposed—five million households and a million businesses around this country, an Albanese government initiative that we are delivering despite your opposition.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Payman, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for her response. In addition to those great Albanese government initiatives, the small-business energy incentive will help up to 3.8 million small and medium-sized businesses save energy and save on their energy bills. Can the minister please explain to the Senate what has been the response to this announcement from the Albanese Labor government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The small-business energy incentive starts on 1 July. That's an initiative of this government, and it will help 3.8 million businesses. I'm not sure if they voted against that one or whether they weren't able to actually vote against it because we were able to implement it. But they might have if they could have, because they vote against pretty much anything. Three point eight million businesses will from 1 July benefit from this incentive.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Repeated interjections are disorderly. I'm going to ask you to listen in silence, and I call the minister again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Businesses with an annual turnover of less $50 million will get an additional 20 per cent tax deduction on spending that supports more efficient use of energy, helping small businesses make investments such as electrifying their heating and cooling systems, upgrading to more efficient fridges and installing batteries and heat pumps. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has praised the incentive, with Mr Willox correctly identifying its benefit as threefold:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a triple dividend by lowering bills, emissions and the pressure on our energy systems as they transition.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. Senator Payman, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government is partnering with state and territory governments to provide up to $3 billion in electricity bill relief for eligible households and small businesses through the Energy Bill Relief Fund. How will Australians benefit from this measure, and how many Australians will benefit?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Payman for the question. I can confirm that households across this country are benefiting from our intervention and the rebates announced. In New South Wales, families who receive the rebate will get a total saving of $843.</para>
<para>Opposition sen ators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's remember, that's a saving you didn't want them to have, an eight per cent decrease in what their bill was last year. In Victoria, families will benefit by approximately $555. Again, that's a saving you didn't want them to have. In Queensland, families will benefit by about $819. Again, that's a saving you didn't want them to have. The reality is that five million households across this country will be eligible for—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Order on my left! And, Senator Watt, your interjections are disorderly. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Five million households across this country will benefit from the initiative of this government, and everyone knows those opposite voted against it. They voted against price relief for Australians, and they stand condemned for their constant opposition to sound policy and sound intervention. On that, President, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT</title>
        <page.no>32</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Questions without Notice</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday Senators Birmingham and Wong asked me to review the tape in relation to some questions. I've done that—and I thought it was you as well, Senator Birmingham, but I think was just Senator Wong, so my apologies. So Senator Wong asked me to review questions from Senator Hume about the budget, to assess whether her first supplementary questions were in order. The primary question asked whether recently announced payments were reflected in the budget, while the supplementary question went to budget assumptions about the cash rate. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Birmingham, suggested that both questions went to the accuracy of budget forecasts. With the benefit of that explanation, the connection between the questions is clear; however, I'm not sure that it was obvious from the questions themselves. I draw senators' attention to the statements I made on 1 August last year, encouraging senators to make the connections between the primary question and answer to the supplementary questions clear.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>32</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In question time yesterday, I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Cox in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Resources. I've written to Senator Cox to provide additional information, and I table my letter for the information of all senators.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>32</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator McGrath today relating to the budget.</para></quote>
<para>I realise that, when those opposite came in from opposition to government, it was a bit like when Cady Heron had to come out of homeschooling and move into a high school environment, to then learn that 'on Wednesdays, we wear pink', but to sit there and say that it was immaterial, was the commentary made by the Reserve Bank, when it comes to interest rate rises—I mean, it's like trying to make 'fetch' happen. What they're actually saying is that you have your foot on the accelerator at the same time as the Reserve Bank is trying to put its foot on the brake. What you are doing with your increased spending is putting increased pressure on the Reserve Bank and its levers when it comes to increasing interest rates, which affect the third of Australian people who are mortgage holders. Not only do those mortgage rates impact our homeowners—middle Australians trying to pay off their homes every day—but they're also putting increased pressures on our renters and on our small businesses, as their interest rates continue to climb.</para>
<para>Those opposite don't seem to understand that everyday Australians, and particularly working Australians, are finding it increasingly difficult every single day to meet the demands of the cost of living, to put food on the table, to pay the rent, to pay the mortgage, to pay the school fees, to put clothes on their kids' backs and to pay for school supplies. All of those things are increasing pressures for families across the country. Those opposite literally seem to be one step off telling Australians that it's better than ever before and that they're actually better off than they were 12 months ago. I asked in this place one week ago: 'Bring me one Australian who is better off today than they were 12 months ago.' My office has been inundated with emails from people saying: 'Absolutely not—I am considerably worse off. My mortgage has doubled. My power bill has doubled. The price of putting petrol in the car has doubled. The grocery bill has continued to climb and climb.'</para>
<para>There is absolutely nothing that those opposite are doing to alleviate any of these pressures. In fact, every single measure that they are taking has increased costs for all Australians and small and medium-sized businesses and is putting pressure on supply chains. We are now in a cycle of increasing inflation, increasing costs and increasing pressure for Australian families.</para>
<para>We learnt today that one of the things that is being spouted by those opposite is the investments they're making in things like the care industry. They're going to boost the wages of nurses—but not aged-care nurses. We've now learnt that over a quarter of those aged-care nurses actually won't be eligible for any increase in their wages. What they're actually not honest about either when they talk about lifting wages is that aged-care services are generally owned by private providers. So the government is saying, 'We're just going to give these private providers a chunk of money, with the expectation that they're going to pass it on to their nurses to provide higher wages.' It is an absolute furphy to say to the Australian people that they are delivering higher wages, because we learnt today that a quarter of nurses are not going to get any pay rise at all.</para>
<para>There is absolutely nothing that this government is doing to make cost-of-living pressures easier, but they are continuing to stick by the line that they are somehow or other contributing to bettering the environment for Australians. But, when it's put to them that it's not better for everyday Australians, they try and claim the Moscow problem: 'It's all in Ukraine. That's why there's a problem.' These are Canberra based problems. The problem is that these guys haven't understood that they have come in from the jungle. They've come in from home school, they're now in high school and they're running the government. They don't get it yet, because they still think that they can stand there after two budgets and over 12 months in government and go, 'But when you were in!'</para>
<para>We were also in during the COVID pandemic and maintained a AAA credit rating and incredibly low unemployment rates and kept workers connected to their workplace. Without any of the shackles of a global pandemic, every single decision that those opposite have made has made a bad situation worse, and they continue to do so day after day. Remember that 97 times we were told $275 was going to come off people's power bills? If you listen today to some of the talkback radio, which I heard this morning, families who put solar panels on their roof are now having their off-peak power increase because coal still generates three-quarters of our electricity, so the off-peak rates have gone up. Their power bills have now gone back to what they were pre the implementation of solar panels. So they've now got the same power bills, but they're also paying for solar panels.</para>
<para>Those opposite are selling the Australian people a lie when they talk about renewable energy being cheap or free—it is neither. It is also neither reliable nor firming for the system. To those opposite: just remember that, when the rolling blackouts start, when you can't turn on the heater, when you can't turn on the air conditioner in summer and you can't afford your power bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will also take note of the answers to questions asked by Senator McGrath today, but I do want to note that it's interesting that those opposite haven't chosen to take note of answers to other questions that they asked in this Senate. It's interesting to me; perhaps they had a period of reflection over the weekend about the direction that they need to take in this place and the things that they need to concentrate on—a period of reflection that means that they're not taking note of those questions in relation to the allegations made by Ms Higgins but a period of reflection not long enough to make them cease asking questions that have a chilling effect on women who want to come forward with those types of allegations.</para>
<para>But, with five minutes to go in question time, we did eventually get to the economy, and that was a good thing because it gave the very, very capable Minister for Finance an opportunity to talk about the budget, the economy and the decision by our government to hand down a budget purely focused on putting downward pressure on inflation that started under the previous government. It gave the finance minister an opportunity to talk about the fact that, in the RBA minutes that have been released today, the minutes noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the new policies announced in the Australian Government Budget had not had a material effect on the staff forecasts for economic activity and inflation.</para></quote>
<para>Members of the board observed that it was 'understandable' that the lowest-paid workers would be aided. But there were a whole range of issues that were noted in the statement. This evidence in the minutes today is consistent with evidence given by the RBA governor and the Secretary of the Treasury at estimates that the budget actually took pressure off inflation. That's what the budget was designed to do and that's exactly what this government is focused on doing.</para>
<para>Now, of course, if those opposite really care or want to do something about the rising cost of living and inflation, I have a few ideas for them. I have a few things that they could do if they're very concerned. Instead of coming in here and asking throwaway questions at the end of question time to veil the fact that they're barely interested in the economy—they've got other things on their mind—if they really cared about housing, rents and the cost of living, they could come in here and do some pretty easy things. They could reverse their position on the Housing Australia Future Fund. They could allow this government to do what it said it would do and deliver more affordable and social housing. They could reverse their position on the energy price relief that's delivering valuable relief for millions of Australian families at a time when they need it the most. But those opposite voted against that price relief and against putting more money in the pockets of Australian families.</para>
<para>They could also come in here and end their ideological opposition to renewable energy. I don't think we're going to see that today, but it would be a helpful thing for those opposite to do if they really care about this country moving forward and about the cost of living. We know that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power, and, after 10 years in the valley of death under those opposite, this government is finally moving ahead with delivering more renewable energy. We have approved double the number of renewable energy projects in the first year of our government alone. Those opposite could end their ideological opposition to that.</para>
<para>They could come in here and support low-paid workers if they wanted to. They could come in here and say that they support minimum-wage rises, they support aged-care workers getting a pay rise and they support workers who want to bargain fairly with their employers to make sure that they can get good, secure, well-paid jobs. But that's not what they'll do. They talk about industrial warfare and this and that, trying to do anything to prevent working people having the opportunity to sit down and get a fair wage rise in the middle of this inflation.</para>
<para>But I've got very good news for those opposite. On 1 July, in a matter of days, this government is delivering cheaper child care for Australian families. We are focused on delivering these cost benefits to all Australian families. In just over a week, cheaper child care will start. We took it to the last election and now we are delivering it. Cheaper child care, as we know, is good for families, good for women and good for the economy. Those opposite had 10 years to deliver an economic plan to make sure that child care was affordable, and they failed to do so. That's what this government is doing, and, on 1 July, cheaper child care will start.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's interesting to listen to the other side claim that they care about the economy and they care about the workers, because, if they really cared about the workers, they would let them keep their superannuation. At the end of the day, it is wage theft. It is blatantly wage theft. Paul Keating said, in a speech in 2007, that it is wage theft. It is taking money from people, and they were never given a choice. In 1992, had Paul Keating told people that, by 2025, 12 per cent of their income would be taken and given to someone they'd never met—and they may or may not get it back when they're 65—do you think that would have got up in a referendum? Of course not. But did they have a referendum on compulsory superannuation? No, they didn't, because, had they done that, the result would have been the same as what we saw in New Zealand in 1997, when they voted against it, 92 per cent to eight per cent.</para>
<para>Instead of wasting money on the Voice, why don't you have a referendum on superannuation and ask people if they would like to keep their money now? Out in the real world now there are tens of thousands of Australians who are doing it tough and need their money from superannuation. They're sleeping in the back of their car while the fund managers are gouging $30 billion a year from the $3.3 trillion parked away in superannuation. People are shivering in the cold because they don't have access to all of their income. I'll tell you who gets it—the union backed industry funds. They don't give their members a chance to elect the board—they're selected, not elected. That tells you all you need to know about the Labor Party. These guys opposite us in the Labor Party aren't interested in empowering the workers. If they were, they would let the workers keep their money.</para>
<para>What are they doing with the RBA? Who have they appointed to the RBA board? None other than Iain Ross. Iain Ross was an architect of superannuation, along with Bill Kelty and Paul Keating. He mandated—he snuck it in the back door—that they would take two per cent of your income, slowly increase it to three per cent of your income and then take another per cent and then another per cent. It was just like the vaccine mandates. Iain Ross was the Fair Work Commissioner when that came in, and he also supported mandates. Now we have him on the RBA board. The Labor Party appointed their mates, rather than actually sorted out the problem by using other levers apart from just qualitative easing, such as quantitative easing and macro prudential controls.</para>
<para>Let's not forget why we have this massive housing debt and this problem in this country. It's because in 1985 Paul Keating relaxed capital controls on foreign investment. That meant that foreign debt went from $8 billion in 1985 to $800 billion in 2008. What was that $800 billion lent against? Housing. So house prices went up from four to five times earnings to 13 times earnings. Of course, now we have interest rates going up on this massive debt it is killing the worker.</para>
<para>What's Labor's response to all of this? 'Let's go on a little junket and spend tens of millions of dollars holding a referendum on the Voice, which completely ignores the real issue of the cost of living, and then let's import billions of dollars worth of renewables while we leave hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal in the ground.' The Labor Party used to stand up for the coalminers of this country, but not anymore. They would rather serve their global masters and import renewables from other countries that have shocking labour practices in the development and production of these renewables.</para>
<para>Do Labor care about the worker? No, they don't. Do they have any solutions whatsoever for this inflation problem? Absolutely none. What was their response? In the budget they went on a spending spree. They went on a spending spree whilst at the same time not giving an income tax cut to the people who matter the most, the people who get out of bed every day, put their nose to the grindstone and supply the goods and services. When demand is higher than supply it causes inflation, so why don't you increase supply by cutting tax on the people who supply goods and services?</para>
<para>To make matters worse they've now got a high immigration rate of 400,000 people. I think the total population growth was just shy of half a million people last year. They talk about their housing fund. That's going to build 2,000 or 3,000 houses. That is a long way short of providing houses for the new 400,000 immigrants. Are the immigrants building houses? Of course not. They're going to university, not building houses.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's always interesting to follow Senator Rennick. It takes me a while to try to understand what he was really saying. He jumped around a bit there. If those opposite were really interested in the economy of this country, they would not have spent the last week and a half coming in here thinking somehow that they were going to gain a scalp, that they were going to get some benefit by continually asking questions of Senator Gallagher about—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Rennick</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She misled the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I beg your pardon?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick, just—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That needs to be withdrawn, I think, Deputy President. It's not true.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised it was an interjection that wasn't a statement to the House. Carry on, Senator Bilyk.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick, sometimes you just make me wonder, you really do. You need good luck on the weekend, I understand. Good luck there.</para>
<para>What did we have? We had a question from Senator McGrath. It was a bit of an own goal, really, wasn't it? It was a bit of an own goal because, as we know, the budget actually took pressure off inflation and it did so through the Energy Price Relief Plan, which those opposite opposed. We had a very carefully calibrated budget and we had to do a number of things with regard to it to make sure that funding wasn't going to be provided where it wasn't needed any longer, that we weren't supporting the rorts from the previous government and that we were cleaning up. They had to have the former prime minister take over the economic portfolio, as well as everything else, so we had to make sure we knew where everything was and what was going on.</para>
<para>We on this side do understand the impact that interest rates have on households, but the centrepiece of our budget was a $14.6 billion cost-of-living package. It was over four years and it would ease pressure on Australians while putting downward pressure on inflation. If those opposite really cared about how people are going—Senator Rennick said, 'People are sleeping rough in their cars,'—let me ask you: why did you come in here and not support our Housing Australia Future Fund? Why did you come in here and not support it? You and the Greens cuddled up. It's a new coalition and it's an interesting coalition. I've got to say, it'll be great to see how it pans out over time, because eventually the opposition will realise that they can't meet the moral high ground of the Greens and they'll have a little tiff and we'll all go back to where we were before.</para>
<para>I really think that if those opposite really cared they would ask more than one or two questions in a week and a half about the economy. As I've said, they came in here and they've hit an all-time low, as far as I'm concerned. This is my 15th year in this place, and I've got to say that I've seen some pretty disgusting acts by some people in this place, but an all-time low is thinking he's somehow going to get the scalp of Senator Gallagher.</para>
<para>What you need to remember is that for two years people on your side knew what was going on with regard to that alleged issue, and you did nothing. It happened to a Liberal staffer in a Liberal minister's office under a Liberal government, and you guys did nothing. You didn't support her and you didn't back her. You set a precedent that is going to take years to repair, where people can no longer feel safe in coming forward. I've had people contact my office saying that although they've been Liberal voters most of their life, it is an issue that you keep coming in here trying somehow to get a scalp from us when it all happened on your watch, in one of your Liberal minister's offices, with your staff. Yet you come in here and try and somehow blame us. That's atrocious. If people can't keep a confidence in this job, there is a problem.</para>
<para>On <inline font-style="italic">Inside</inline><inline font-style="italic">rs</inline> it came out that a couple of your people have kept a confidence, too. I think the moral standard on that side has gone below the gutter. If I could think of a word that meant below the gutter, I would use it, but I can't. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Perhaps 'subterranean' might work. I want to go to the matter of cost of living. To those at home and in the gallery, listening to the other side, you'd be thinking how good you've got it. It's an own goal to ask questions about the cost of living, because it is so good right now. It's so wonderful that $14.6 billion would solve all the problems. If only that was the case. There was a mention there about how the Greens and the coalition have teamed up here and stopped this bill that would fix everything. No, the problem is that this bill won't fix anything. That's why they've stood in and done this.</para>
<para>It's because people are waking up to what's going on. They're waking up to a government focused on talking points and not the basis points that raise their interest rates. We're talking about a government that got in and had a honeymoon because the Australian people are naturally optimistic, and had hope. So many things were promised and so few things are being delivered. When you're sitting here, or at home, looking at your gas bill—I must admit that I went a little off-focus in question time and I ordered my new gas bottle from Supagas, the one I was paying $68 for about two years ago and which is now $163. That's for my 45-kilogram gas bottle. If we talk about prices from March last year to March this year, milk is 16.1 per cent higher. If we talk about fruit, it's more than 10 per cent higher. But, 'Oh, how good you have it,' according to this government.</para>
<para>People had this hope and wanted a better thing—this thing, this policy, that allegedly we voted against on gas pricing. It wasn't a policy that worked, it was a short-term sugar hit. If we look at the world's gas prices, they're falling across the world. That was not done because this chamber and the other chamber voted on this. These people need our help and they are there. If they get someone into their house to help with a job and it takes more than 12 months—and we've had more than 12 months of this government—they start to ask questions. Can they trust this government to live up to what it said it would do to make their lives easier? Can they trust this government to look after the future? Are they confident that this government will make their lives easier? The answers are starting to be no.</para>
<para>We can be lambasted about what we didn't vote for, but it's what this government hasn't delivered. We can be told what we could do to make the cost of living easier, but, what's the government doing? In a year, 18 months or two years, the people of Australia will have their say again. Will it be that their lives have been made easier? Will it be that their lives have been made more affordable? Will it be that their children have the same or better options than when the government was elected? That's the question and that's what all of us in this chamber want. I'll be talking tomorrow about this in senators' statements, but I feel that our method of government, here for three years, is about the sugar hits. It's those sugar hits, where we look at the polling numbers as to whether we're doing well and not at the people of Australia as to whether we're doing well. Is Australia more equitable? Is it happier? Is it better? Those questions come second to popularity and voting intention—to all of those things.</para>
<para>There are many, many good people in this chamber who I like. There may be a couple who we think might be a little bit ratbaggy, but, as a whole, this is a good place. If we were in a football team and had these people on the field, and we were failing to deliver, we'd start to question the game and we'd start to question the coach. Let's not come in here and say it's because of how we voted on a bill or because we were in government then; let's look at the things that really matter. Let's get this country going better. Let's not pretend that Australians are having a great time out there and that everything has been solved by $14.6 million in the budget, or that it could be better if we voted on the housing bill or that it would be better if we gave $2 billion, $5 billion or $10 billion to homeless people. There are many, many problems out there which I personally feel that we need to address. We need to be more serious about them; we need to look at them and to stop pretending they aren't there.</para>
<para>When we go forward, we look at the cost of living—and times are tough. We get it, we hear it and we understand it. We've got to stop pretending it's anything else and we've got to stop pretending we can fix it overnight too. It will take time, but it will take more policy on this point and not just a couple of things that look good but don't do good.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Plastic Pollution</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to plastic pollution.</para></quote>
<para>I ask Senator Wong if she could get a response to my first question from the department, which I think she offered to do. In the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> on 28 May—just recently—there was an article entitled 'Australia steps in to stop countries watering down plastics pact'. The Minister for the Environment and Water, I read in this article, flew to Paris for critical talks on a proposed global plastics treaty, saying she was concerned that countries were trying to make the targets for reducing plastic voluntary instead of legally binding. She was looking for a high-ambition pact, which I think we're all looking for. So I ask Senator Wong if she could get a response from the department.</para>
<para>I want to put on record today that the plastic pollution in our oceans is one of the biggest global pollution issues we face. We currently produce around 480 million tonnes of plastic, mostly plastic packaging, every year, and current estimates are that that is set to triple by 2060 if we don't do something about our consumption and production of plastics. Plastics are found all through our oceans. As they break down because of physical and other processes in our oceans, they become microplastics. We've now found them all through our food chain. We've found them in plankton in the Antarctic.</para>
<para>I always used to point out to my students, when I taught economics at university, that environmental problems are usually caused by business activities and economics, and it's the government's role to step in and regulate externalities. There is no bigger externality, in my opinion, than climate change, and then comes the scourge or the toxic tide of plastic pollution. It was what I spoke about in my first speech to the Senate, and it was one reason I actually came to parliament and the Senate. I've spent more than a decade in this place doing whatever I can, working with great people around the country, to actually try and get some action on this.</para>
<para>But now, when I speak to people as a politician, I actually say: 'You know what? Environmental problems aren't what you think.' I used to tell people they were economic problems, but actually, first and foremost, they're political problems, and we should see them as political problems, because only politics and parliaments can solve them. One way—in fact, the only way—we can solve this scourge of plastic pollution in our oceans that does so much damage to our marine life is to regulate the packaging industry. In this country we have had self-regulation or voluntary regulation around plastic packaging, so the big packaging companies, the retailers and the brands have set their own targets. They have consistently missed them for decades, and there's never been a consequence. It's been an absolute farce, and this has happened all around the world. That is why Minister Plibersek, as I read in this newspaper, went to Paris: to call for a legally binding treaty—in other words, government regulations. But here's the rub: we don't have that in Australia. So I just pointed out that it looks like hypocrisy to go and try to lead a global negotiation when you can't do it in your own country.</para>
<para>In Minister Plibersek's defence, she's only been in government for 12 months, and this is a problem I've been harping on about now for a very long time. I want to credit the Liberal Party for taking, when previously in government, the first steps towards better product stewardship schemes so that we at least have an architecture to use. But they never went as far as actually intervening and saying to the big plastic polluters, 'We are going to regulate you because this is useless.' The minister has said in many comments that she will step in and regulate if the industry doesn't act, and she's gone further recently and said she is now consulting with industry on mandatory product stewardship schemes for things like plastic packaging.</para>
<para>However, that means consulting with the big companies who are responsible for this, and I can tell you they do not want government regulation. They have fought it tooth and nail. We've had two big Senate inquiries into this in the last 10 years. They oppose regulation. They do not want to be responsible for the pollution that they cause. The only way we're going to stop this is for government to have the guts and the courage to step in and solve this externality and this political problem. That is what the Australian people want, I absolutely guarantee. This issue cuts across all political divides and all demographics. No-one wants to see our ocean turning into a toxic tide. Only we can fix it.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>37</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>38</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence be granted to Senator Dean Smith for today, 20 June, for personal reasons.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>38</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>39</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Reporting Date</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. I shall now proceed to formal motions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>39</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I seek leave to move government business notice of motion Nos 1 to 3 proposing references to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Department of Defence—Facilities to support JP9101 Phase 1 enhanced defence high frequency communications system—'Project Phoenix'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Department of Defence—Fishermans Bend redevelopment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">National Capital Authority—Commonwealth Avenue Bridge (Canberra, ACT) renewal project.</para></quote>
<para>I table statements in relation to the works.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>39</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>PricewaterhouseCoopers</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>39</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Barbara Pocock, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 28 June 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) all documents, including but not limited to correspondence, file notes, minutes and briefing materials relating to any communication between the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in relation to the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) tax scandal, from January 2016 to date;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all information, including but not limited to emails, notes and correspondence shared by the ATO with the AFP from January 2018 to July 2020 in relation to the PwC tax scandal; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) all documents, including but not limited to correspondence, file notes, minutes and briefing materials relating to the decision by the AFP and the ATO that there was insufficient information to refer the PwC tax scandal to the AFP for investigation.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will not support this motion. The government's deep concern about PwC's conduct is well known, evidenced by the Treasury secretary's referral to the Australian Federal Police. The production of documents sought by this motion has the potential to prejudice the AFP's current assessment of that referral and any potential legal action that follows. It is not in the public interest for this motion to succeed. I urge those opposite to carefully consider the consequences of ordering documents that relate to a police referral.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF URGENCY</title>
        <page.no>40</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF URGENCY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Industry</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today, as shown at item 12 on today's order of business:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"The failure of the Albanese Labor Government to consult with the community pharmacy sector, particularly small and rural and regional pharmacies, prior to the announcement of their 60 day dispensing policy, which may see hundreds of community pharmacies closed, thousands of jobs lost and free access to critical primary healthcare ripped away from vulnerable Australians."</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The failure of the Albanese Labor Government to consult with the community pharmacy sector, particularly small and rural and regional pharmacies, prior to the announcement of their 60 day dispensing policy, which may see hundreds of community pharmacies closed, thousands of jobs lost and free access to critical primary healthcare ripped away from vulnerable Australians.</para></quote>
<para>Today, I stand in support of the motion that I've moved in this place in relation to the failure of the Albanese government to consult properly—or even at all—on a very important new measure that's going to have a very significant impact on the lives of many Australians, most particularly vulnerable Australians and those that live in rural, regional and remote communities. We're calling out the government because it doesn't consult. We're calling out the government because it doesn't do its homework and it doesn't do the detail. And we're calling out the government because it does not consider the secondary effects of these announcements. They're all headline and no substance.</para>
<para>First of all, I want to put on the record very, very clearly that the opposition has always supported and continues to support Australians having access to affordable medications. But the government's failure to consult has been borne out time and time again since this ill-conceived policy was put into the public domain back in April. It was a great headline, but the consequences of this policy were completely ignored in the policy's development. First of all, we know that there was no real consultation when it came to the development of the impact analysis. We have a letter from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Office of Impact Analysis about this proposal, and I want to put this on the public record:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To have been assessed as 'good practice' under the Guide, the IA—</para></quote>
<para>impact analysis—</para>
<quote><para class="block">would have benefited from more recent public consultations on potential stakeholder impacts, particularly for small businesses and pharmacies in rural and remote areas. Moreover, where stakeholder impacts are difficult to ascertain at this point in time … the IA would have benefited from a more detailed evaluation plan that outlines metrics and data required to monitor the impacts on stakeholders following implementation.</para></quote>
<para>It's a very damning letter about the basis of the impact assessment that was undertaken by the government. I have to say I reckon a 12-year-old could have written a better impact assessment than the one we've got here. But most damning in the assessment is on page 28, where the government's own impact assessment on its 60-day dispensing policy says, 'The community pharmacy sector will be significantly impacted by this proposal,' and some pharmacies may even experience cash flow and purchase problems for stock. This is their impact assessment, but they still decided to go ahead with it. There was no regard for the knock-on impacts, but, most distressingly, there was no modelling done. No modelling was done. The Minister for Finance, who was representing the minister for health at estimates, actually admitted to the fact that there had not been any modelling done.</para>
<para>We now find out through the work of the Pharmacy Guild—and it's not just the Pharmacy Guild, to those opposite who will probably try and discredit the Pharmacy Guild; it's also the Australian Patients Association, Painaustralia, the National Pharmaceutical Services Association and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia—whose name has gone onto a very credible document that has been written by an eminent economist, Henry Ergas, that the very people who were most likely to be the most negatively impacted by this are elderly people with chronic health conditions and regional Australians. They are the ones who are going to suffer. We've found out that 665 pharmacies are likely to close, but potentially another 900 will be at risk of closing, and some 20,000 Australians who currently work in the pharmacy sector are likely to lose their jobs.</para>
<para>Time and time again we have asked this government to guarantee that no Australian patient will be worse off either financially or with regard to access to pharmacy by this measure. It's no wonder they've never given us a straight answer; they've just run around the subject because they know that not only will the pharmacy sector be significantly negatively impacted by this but many patients will be negatively impacted as well. I think one of the most distressing things is just how many secondary impacts are likely to result from this: pharmacy closures, reduced hours and reduced services. Services that were previously provided for free will now have a charge. How is this government going to enable shortages to be addressed? What about wastage? That's before we get to pharmacy viability.</para>
<para>We've got a situation here where a government has rushed to a headline policy. They have had no regard for the potential impacts. The possibility that this particular policy is going to have significant negative impacts on many millions of Australians has been completely disregarded, despite the fact that the impact assessment clearly outlines it and subsequent evaluation has highlighted it, and there has been no consultation at all— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government says that pharmacies are running a scare campaign—that pharmacists want to 'clip the ticket'. That's just not true. I've spent the past few weeks talking to my local pharmacists in Tassie, and some of them have been in tears. They're scared. At worst, they're looking down the barrel of a policy that will see a lot of them close their doors, and, at best, the policy will see some small-business pharmacies cutting services, cutting staff and reducing opening hours.</para>
<para>This is what they've told me. Rhys told me about the long shifts his staff did during COVID. When the 60-day dispensing policy comes into effect, he'll have to look his staff in the eye and say, 'Thanks very much for all your hard work and all your efforts, but I'm going to have to let you go.' Maree says health minister Mark Butler should visit her pharmacy in East Devonport to see what pharmacies actually do. She said that the minister needs to see the vital services they offer for free to people that need them and how much staff care about their customers. Luciana told me that the loss of income risks the late-night service she provides. She says it absolutely breaks her heart that she won't be able to offer her customers the support they need. Everywhere I go at home I'm reminded of just how much our communities rely on these pharmacies. In areas like Dover, New Norfolk and Westbury, shutting a pharmacy would be shutting a healthcare lifeline.</para>
<para>The minister need to go back to the table on this policy. The government should increase the dispensing fee for pharmacists in the community pharmacy agreement to cover the revenue lost by this policy. The government say they are investing $1.2 billion back into pharmacies, but when the cost of these cuts is around $3.5 billion something doesn't add up. I want people to have cheaper medicine, but ripping the guts out of community pharmacies isn't the way to do it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens have always supported cheaper medicines. In a cost-of-living crisis where people are literally making choices between paying rent, paying for their medicines, paying their bills or putting food on the table, the Greens have been supportive of measures that will ease these cost-of-living pressures. The government has informed the community that the purpose of the proposed changes to the PBS is to make it easier and cheaper for people to access the medicines that they need. Making it easier and cheaper for people to access medicines that they need is obviously something the Greens support. We believe in the depths of our souls in the importance of the public healthcare system, of a universal healthcare system that covers everything from your teeth to your brain—every part of your body—free at the point of use for all.</para>
<para>As part of our consideration of 60-day dispensing, I have spoken with pharmacists all over the country and heard many concerns about the impact that they feel these measures may have on the local pharmacies they run and also on community members who rely on community pharmacies. After hearing these pieces of feedback from people, I would very much agree that the Albanese government has not consulted effectively with community pharmacists on how these changes will impact on them. I have heard that there will be significant impacts. It's my view that a way forward would be for the government to bring forward the negotiation of the community pharmacy agreement and start talking with pharmacists now to minimise any adverse impacts from this measure.</para>
<para>One of the concerns raised by pharmacists is on the impact of reduced dispensing fees. We are encouraging the government to find a way forward on this, for the minister to consider the doubling of dispensing fees until a new pharmacy agreement has been finalised or to commit to reimbursing any losses at a community pharmacy that can be proven as an unintended impact of the 60-day dispensing measure.</para>
<para>The Greens will not be supporting this urgency motion today, but I do want to reiterate—and I want to speak directly to the minister in this statement—that this should not be taken as a final position of the Greens in relation to the proposed regulation. The Greens party room will continue to negotiate to ensure that these regulations do not have unintended consequences and that they actually achieve their intended goal. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, too, rise to highlight the government's failure to consult in relation to a policy that has the potential to destroy lives and livelihoods in Tasmania and across Australia. The Albanese Labor government's change to 60-day dispensing for some medicines could cripple our community pharmacists. In a poor attempt to save consumers money in a cost-of-living crisis, the Albanese government announced its 60-day dispensing reforms in the days before the May 2023 budget. While this announcement was greeted with much fanfare from those on the other side of this chamber, there were many who were not celebrating.</para>
<para>As has been stated earlier, the coalition strongly supports affordable access to medicines for all Australians. In fact, in government, we committed to lowering the cost of medicines, and approved more than 2,900 new or amended listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, at an overall investment of around $16½ billion. However, we do not support affordable medicines at the expense of pharmacists. Within hours of this announcement, I had received emails from community pharmacists who feared for their futures and the futures of the businesses that they had worked hard to build, in communities around my home state of Tasmania. These emails multiplied in my inbox, as pharmacists in incredible distress called my electorate office and dropped in to voice their concern. When I arranged to meet with two pharmacists, as part of a Senate tour with my Tasmanian Liberal colleagues, we were met by 12 from the state's north and north-west, all of whom were desperate to share how these changes would impact them.</para>
<para>Community pharmacies in rural and regional areas will be disproportionately impacted by the changes to 60-day dispensing—so much so, that many will be forced to reduce their opening hours, cut the services they offer, or even close altogether. Without pharmacies and bulk-billing or permanent GPs, small rural and regional towns, like so many in Tasmania, are at risk of becoming healthcare deserts. This will mean that many more people will present to emergency departments because they can't access the local healthcare services that they need, which we all know is not going to save anyone money in the long run.</para>
<para>Pharmacists see their patients significantly more than doctors, especially older customers, who regularly seek advice around medicines and symptoms they're experiencing and need ongoing monitoring for chronic conditions. This proposal will cost pharmacy owners thousands of dollars, with a likely 30 per cent drop from their bottom line. One pharmacist calculated that this policy would cost them $104,000 annually, while, for others, it was up to $500,000 per annum. That's a lot of money for a small business.</para>
<para>These pharmacists told us that they would be forced to charge for services they currently provide at no or minimal cost to patients. These are important services, like preparing Webster-paks; reviewing medications, often in the patients' homes; servicing aged-care facilities and nursing homes; doing home delivery for those who can't make it to the pharmacy; filling prescription requests; and doing blood pressure checks, triage and doctor referrals. The 60-day dispensing plan could also drive up the cost of other pharmacy items, as pharmacists try to recoup the funds they have lost as a result of this policy.</para>
<para>Those opposite will tell you that they are reinvesting into community pharmacies, but we need to read the fine print on that promise. For example, doubling the regional pharmacy maintenance program won't help the thousands of pharmacies that are already ineligible for it, and not all pharmacists are geared for vaccination services.</para>
<para>The 60-day dispensing policy is billed as a cost-saving measure, but it is a measure that will be introduced at the expense of pharmacists, their patients and the wider community. And, in many cases, it won't actually save money for the people who need it the most, because, once they've reached the safety net, their medications are often provided free.</para>
<para>So who is really benefiting from this poorly-thought-out plan? The government, who are banking the savings and making pharmacists wear the pain. So something promoted as a saving for consumers risks the viability of our local community pharmacies, leaving us with community pharmacies running on skeleton staff, opening fewer hours and offering fewer services to customers who they've served in their local community for many years. It does not make good business sense. The government's failure to consult, prior to their grandstanding announcement in the lead-up to the budget, will result in poorer service provision to our rural and regional communities.</para>
<para>The coalition does support cheaper access to medicines, but not at the expense of small business. This is just another clear example of the consequences of this Labor government's policy brain-snaps have never been properly considered or consulted on.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to oppose the motion moved by Senator Ruston. This motion is nothing more than a scare campaign against the Albanese Labor government's cheaper medicines policy, which will halve the cost of more than 300 medicines for millions of Australians. From 1 September, everyone with a Medicare card will be able to save up to $180 a year if their medicine is eligible for 60-day dispensing. This policy has been enthusiastically welcomed by health organisations, including the Consumers Health Forum, the Heart Foundation, the Lung Foundation, the Breast Cancer Network, the rural Doctors Association, the AMA and the RACGP.</para>
<para>Many countries, including New Zealand, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland and Norway, have well-established dispensing quantity policies of up to three months, one month more than what we are proposing. Despite this, the 'no-alition' still say no—no to cheaper medicines, no to cost-of-living relief and no to what's best for Australians. Let's not forget that this policy was first recommended to the former government, in 2018, by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. And what did the former government do? Absolutely nothing, which cost Australians hundreds of millions of dollars in lost savings. Fast forward to 2023, and instead of supporting our plan for cheaper medicines they jump on a scare campaign, claiming the pharmacists will lose their jobs and pharmacies will close.</para>
<para>Let's set the record straight. Australian pharmacies do so much more than just dispense medicine. The Albanese government is supporting our trusted pharmacists to play an integral and even more central role in the health care of Australians, not to mention the fact that every dollar the government saves through 60-day dispensing will be reinvested into community pharmacies.</para>
<para>This $1.2 billion reinvestment includes increasing the budget for community pharmacy programs under the Seventh Community Pharmacy Agreement, introducing nationally consistent pharmacy payments for opioid dependence treatment services, subsidising community pharmacies to provide vaccines on the national immunisation program and increasing support for aged-care residents through community pharmacy programs. The government has also taken steps to alleviate the pressure on pharmacies by implementing the policy in three tranches, giving pharmacists adequate time to transition to the new dispensing arrangements.</para>
<para>In recognition of the vital role of pharmacies in our regions, I am also pleased that the government will introduce targeted programs to ensure rural and regional pharmacies can successfully adjust to the changes. Those opposite would like you to believe that this policy is bad for the regions, yet the National Rural Health Alliance has endorsed the policy, saying it will reduce the cost, travel and time for rural and remote people to pick up repeats or new medications.</para>
<para>As part of the package of reinvestment, the government is also doubling the total budget for the Regional Pharmacy Maintenance Allowance. There are currently over 1,000 pharmacies in regional, rural and remote Australia that access this allowance, and, under the increase, Australia's most rural pharmacies may be eligible for almost $100,000 in government assistance.</para>
<para>Senator Ruston has also claimed there has been a lack of consultation with pharmacists. Firstly, it's a bit rich, coming from those opposite, moving a motion about lack of consultation when they don't even want First Nations people to have a voice. Secondly, it's completely untrue. The Albanese government has worked and continues to work with all parts of the pharmacy sector on the implementation of this policy. I have met with numerous pharmacists in my home state of WA. I have listened to their concerns and I recognise their vital contribution to the health of our community. I will also be hosting an online forum next Tuesday for the pharmacists who have contacted my office.</para>
<para>I can assure you that we will continue to engage constructively with all stakeholders, because what we want is for Australians to have access to cheaper medicines while ensuring pharmacists feel valued for the work that they do. While those opposite focus on scare campaigns, we will continue to focus on delivering real solutions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Sena</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>tor CAROL BROWN (—) (): I'd like to, firstly, congratulate Senator Payman on what was an excellent contribution and also congratulate her on the work that she's doing in her great state of Western Australia. It's not as good as Tasmania but you can't have everything! This MPI that we are discussing today is about the Albanese government halving the cost of medicines for around six million Australians. The government supports affordable medicines, and the opposition, through this motion, is more interested in scare campaigns. The Albanese government understands that many Australians are doing it tough. That is why we are determined to take the pressure off household budgets wherever we can and that is why we're making medicines cheaper for millions of Australians. On 1 January, for the first time in the 75-year history of the PBS, the general co-payment was reduced from $42.50 to $30. In the first three months of this year, 5.1 million prescriptions have been cheaper, saving Australians more than $58 million. For Tasmanians, that is over 185,000 cheaper scripts and over $2 million saved. That is money that's in your pockets to help ease the cost-of-living pressures.</para>
<para>In this budget, we've gone further. The budget includes a measure that will allow millions of Australians to buy two months worth of medicine—for the price of a single prescription—for hundreds of common conditions. From 1 September this year, with a staged implementation, general patients will be able to save up to $180 a year if their medicine is able to be prescribed for 60 days—$180 a year. After a decade of inaction by the previous government, Labor is making medicines cheaper for Australians, and that's why this policy has been welcomed. Let's have a look at some of the organisations that have welcomed this policy: Arthritis Australia, Diabetes Australia, the Heart Foundation, the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine, the National Rural Health Alliance, the Rural Doctors Association, the Council on the Ageing and the Breast Cancer Network.</para>
<para>The Australian Medical Association says this policy is 'a win for patients' that 'should lead to better medicine adherence and ultimately better health outcomes, with reduced pressure on the health system'—not like what is being peddled here in this motion. The president of the College of General Practitioners said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This change has been recommended because it is in the best interests of patients, and I am pleased that the Government has heeded the expert advice.</para></quote>
<para>The policy has been welcomed by the Consumers Health Forum, who have said that the policy 'shows the government is listening' to health consumers and that 'every dollar saved at the pharmacy is money that can be spent on groceries or rent'. There we have it. We have the AMA, the College of General Practitioners, the Consumers Health Forum and so many other organisations welcoming this policy. We know that making medicines cheaper is good for the hip pockets of Australians, but it's also good for their health. That's not me saying it; the AMA is saying it and other organisations are saying it. In Tasmania, I know that these changes will make a significant difference to so many.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I must say that I find it incredibly concerning that Senator Payman has compared industry consultation with the Voice to Parliament. Is she honestly suggesting that for consultation to be true and proper we need to constitutionally enshrine organisations to be able to consult with them? It was a farcical comparison, absolutely farcical, and it's exactly what we see from this government, time and time again—particularly when it comes to policies that impact rural and regional Australia most significantly. The decision to change the current dispensing policy without proper consultation with the very people who it's going to impact the most, being community pharmacies, is just the last in a long line of disastrous decisions for our regional communities.</para>
<para>Let me say from the outset that I am absolutely all for cheaper medicines. That's why I'm very proud of the record that the Liberals and Nationals had in government of approving PBS medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, saving literally thousands of dollars from the pockets of our sick Australians. But we did that with no impact—zero impact—on the bottom line of community pharmacies. The government makes big noises about saving patients $180 a year on their medicines through this policy. What about the $180,000 a year, per pharmacy, that will be stripped from their business bottom lines? That's money they use to pay rent, utilities and staff.</para>
<para>Respected economist Henry Ergas has estimated that about $4.5 billion will taken from community pharmacies. That puts at risk 665 pharmacies and as many as 20,000 jobs. In regional areas, like where I live, pharmacies are often the first and only medical support in a country town. Across Australia, there are 320 towns that don't have a doctor but they do have a pharmacy. And I ask: what will the savings mean to the people of those towns if they lose their pharmacy and they have to get in the car and drive a two-hour round trip just to get their scripts filled? It makes a mockery of the $180 a year the government claims will be saved.</para>
<para>I met recently with Port Macquarie pharmacist Judy Plunkett, who told me of the services her pharmacy provides. It's not just filling scripts; she takes blood pressure; she helps to set up CPAP machines for people with sleep apnoea; she give vaccinations; she goes into the aged-care homes and delivers and dispenses their pharmaceuticals; and she fills Webster-paks for her aged clients. A lot of these services she does for free because she can afford it, and that's because of her business bottom line. But she won't be able to afford it if $180,000 a year is stripped from her. And the Capital Chemist in Braidwood, which currently employs eight staff and is open for extended operating hours, will not be able to continue to service that community at the same level if they lose $180,000 per year. We know already, because we've been told , that the banks are circling the pharmacists because they're seeing the impact that this bad policy will have. The Albanese government must confront the fact that the changes will drastically affect Australians' ability to access health care through pharmacies, particularly in regional areas.</para>
<para>We are, of course, supportive of the intention to reduce the cost of medicines on Australians, but we must ensure that people have access and equity of access. It's so that I can access a pharmacy in Deniliquin just like someone living in Chatswood or on the North Shore can access their pharmacy. There is absolutely no point in having two months worth of dispensing if the pharmacist in your town closes down.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the urgency motion, as moved by Senator Ruston, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:18]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>28</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>32</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                <name>White, L.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>45</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tibet</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A letter has been received from Senator McKim:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a leader of peace, compassion and non-violence in Australia and the world; the severe violations of religious freedom in Tibet and the policy of sinicising Tibetan culture and religion is concerning, and; decisions regarding the selection, education, and veneration of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders are exclusively spiritual matters that should be made by the appropriate religious authorities within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and in the context of the will of practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism.</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I begin this debate by acknowledging that we're on the stolen lands of the Ngunnawal people and by noting the parallels of invasion and occupation of the lands of our First Peoples with the violent invasion and occupation of Tibet by the Chinese government 60 years ago. I acknowledge Sikyong Penpa Tsering, the chief minister of the Central Tibetan Administration, the democratically-elected government of Tibetan people living in exile. The Sikyong is visiting our parliament today. He is going to join us in the gallery, hopefully, within a number of minutes.</para>
<para>I want to deeply thank the Sikyong and all of the Central Tibetan Administration for their hospitality in April when members of the All-Parliamentary Group for Tibet visited Dharamsala in India, where the CTA headquarters are located. I found our visit to Dharamsala to be deeply moving. I, the Deputy Speaker of the House, the member for Macquarie and the member for Mackellar met with a huge range of Tibetan leaders and had the privilege of having an audience with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who, as the motion we are debating today notes, is a leader of peace, compassion and nonviolence in Australia and the world.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the Sikyong now and all of the Tibetan delegation. Thank you, Sikyong, for visiting Australia. It's important you do, and it's a privilege to be debating this matter of public importance while you are in our parliament. I also acknowledge Karma Singey, who is the Australian representative of the Central Tibetan Administration.</para>
<para>There are many in this parliament, including all members of the Greens, who are very concerned at the actions of the Chinese government that have violated religious freedom in Tibet. As part of that approach the Chinese government have committed a prolonged attack on the Dalai Lama and have done everything they can to diminish his power. Tibetans inside and outside of Tibet continue to be persecuted by Chinese authorities for their culture and their beliefs and have become a minority in their own country.</para>
<para>Particularly worrying is that the Chinese government have made it very clear that they intend to interfere with the succession of the Dalai Lama. It is enshrined now in Chinese law that the Chinese government must approve all reincarnations of senior Buddhist Lamas, including the Dalai Lama. The Chinese government have form in this regard. Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the Panchen Lama, the second most senior figure in Tibetan Buddhism, was taken by the Chinese government 28 years ago, at only six years old. Many human rights organisations call him the youngest political prisoner in the world. His whereabouts are still unknown. I've consistently noted my concerns about the disappearance of the Panchen Lama. I will continue to push for the Australian parliament to only recognise a Dalai Lama appointed by Tibetan Buddhist traditions and practices without interference by the Chinese government.</para>
<para>We believe that universal human rights are fundamental and must be respected for all peoples and in all countries. As the 10th Panchen Lama, Choekyi Gyaltsen noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Once a nationality's language, costume, customs and other important characteristics have disappeared, then the nationality itself has disappeared too—that is to say, it has turned into another nationality …</para></quote>
<para>Tibetan sovereignty has never been ceded. I call upon the Chinese government to immediately cease its human rights violations and the prolonged attack on religious freedom and to respect the human rights of Tibetan people. We specifically call upon the Chinese government for the resumption of talks with the Dalai Lama or his representatives to resolve the ongoing Sino-Tibet conflict.</para>
<para>We urge the Australian government to oppose any effort to interfere with the practices of Tibetan Buddhism and to raise these human rights violations directly with their counterparts at every level. We call upon the Australian government to specifically put a policy in place and to advocate for the Chinese to protect the succession of the 14th Dalai Lama without any interference from the Chinese government.</para>
<para>Despite the dark history of Tibet and the countless callous attacks on the Tibetan people, I'm constantly amazed by the light, the warmth and the resilience of the Tibetan people and the community. I want those listening, including our special representatives in the gallery, to know that the Greens and I are committed to keep working side by side with you and with our allies around the world until we achieve justice and freedom for all Tibetan people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, too, rise to speak in support of this motion. I also welcome the Sikyong and the Tibetan delegation here today. Human freedoms are universal and must always be fought for both here and overseas. Today these freedoms are under threat globally and nowhere more so than in Tibet. The coalition remains deeply concerned about the detention of Tibetans for the peaceful expression of political views, for restrictions on travel and China's sinicizing of policies on Tibetan cultural rights, religion and heritage.</para>
<para>Today I address increasing global concerns about severe violations of religious freedom in Tibet and the deliberate sinicizing of Tibetan culture and religion—in other words, cultural genocide. Australians will be shocked the hear that the Chinese government is forcing Tibetan children into boarding schools. In fact, it is now believed that up to 80 per cent—80 per cent!—of Tibetan children between the ages of six and 18 have been systematically separated from their families and sent to what the UN called 'colonial style' boarding schools with little or no access to their parents.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, UN experts expressed alarm at this practice, which they referred to as:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… what appears to be a policy of forced assimilation of the Tibetan identity into the dominant Han-Chinese majority through a series of oppressive actions against Tibetan educational religious, and linguistic institutions …</para></quote>
<para>The UN experts' report describes these schools as:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… "colonial" in design and practice, serving the Chinese Communist Party's goals of "Sinicizing" Tibetans through immersion in Mandarin Chinese instruction and a "highly politicised curriculum."</para></quote>
<para>The UN experts have also highlighted the coercive nature of these schools. And, shockingly, Tibetan parents are often faced with no choice but to send their children to these residential schools because of school closures and consolidation, and in some cases, accompanied by fines or threats of non-compliance. This is clearly a fundamental violation of the rights of Tibetan parents and children by interfering with their right to preserve the integrity of their own family units and stripping them of their right to choose the education, the language and the cultural features of their children.</para>
<para>The Chinese authorities appear to be pursuing a large-scale action to literally assimilate Tibetan culture and language—as I said, cultural genocide—assimilation by the state education system that forces children to be enrolled in Putonghua language in government schools that do not provide for a substantive study or if any at all of Tibetan history and culture. Enrolment in these residential schools is often made under pressure, and, in some cases, Tibetan parents and children are left without a choice. Many parents, it is reported, now barely see their children if at all.</para>
<para>As a result, Tibetan children are, increasingly, losing their native language and the ability to communicate easily and readily with their grandparents and now, in many cases, with their own parents. They have become extremely vulnerable, living in these very large residential homes, and they are losing their connectivity with their history, their culture and their very Tibetan identity. This residential schooling is forcing the separation from their families. It is producing deep and serious negative psychological and social impacts on these children—of any age—who, literally, have been ripped away from their families.</para>
<para>Reports are coming out that it's now about 80 per cent. That's eight in 10 Tibetan children who have been removed from their families, permanently. You can imagine that loss of family connection resulting in apathy, anxiety, interaction disorders, feelings of loneliness, isolation, alienation, terrible homesickness and pretty much any other form of physical or emotional distress that you could imagine. All of that has been done deliberately—to make sure these children grow up not as Tibetans but as Han Chinese.</para>
<para>The UN and the USA have both acted on this issue of cultural genocide in Tibet. I now call on the Australian government to do the same and—like the United States has done—to consider Magnitsky sanctions against the Chinese officials responsible for heinous and gross abuse of Tibetans.</para>
<para>Colleagues, the time for us to act is now. The fight for individual liberties and freedoms is enduring, wherever it occurs, here or anywhere else in the world. I support this motion. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired) </inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too acknowledge the presence in the chamber of Sikyong Penpa Tsering and the delegation of the Tibetan community and from Tibet.</para>
<para>I want to thank Senator McKim for advancing this matter of public importance motion for debate in the chamber today, and I have to agree with everything in his statement. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a leader of peace, compassion and non-violence in Australia and the world; the severe violations of religious freedom in Tibet and the policy of sinicising Tibetan culture and religion is concerning, and; decisions regarding the selection, education, and veneration of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders are exclusively spiritual matters that should be made by the appropriate religious authorities within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and in the context of the will of practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism.</para></quote>
<para>That statement is wholly and completely acceptable to any person who believes in the fundamental human right of individuals to hold a faith and to gather together to honour and celebrate that faith.</para>
<para>It was only in recent days that I spoke in this chamber regarding the movement towards a referendum acknowledging support of all of the faiths, in public statements, for our movement towards that referendum and a voice for Aboriginal people in this country. They have suffered exactly the sort of situation described by Senator Reynolds: the loss of family connection, the removal of language capacity, the diminishing of an entire culture and abrogation of the sense of right to identity that, clearly, belongs to the Tibetan people.</para>
<para>I'm very pleased to say that in my time here in the parliament I had the opportunity, with others, to have an audience with his Holiness the Dalai Lama, and I cannot think of that encounter without smiling. I think the joy, the peace and the happiness that is manifest in the way his Holiness interacts with the world has been instructive for the cause of peace in our time. That is why it is very important that we continue to stand and speak, to this issue, in sites such as our parliament that are beacons of democracy.</para>
<para>I'm pleased to say that the Albanese government speaks clearly and consistently in support of human rights around the world. We bring all aspects of Australian power to our foreign policy, and we employ every strategy at our disposal towards upholding human rights, consistent with our values and with our interests. The Australian government has been very clear and consistent in raising serious concerns about human rights in Tibet, publicly and privately, directly with China and in multilateral forums. The foreign minister, Senator Penny Wong, has consistently raised Australian government concerns about the erosion of rights and freedom in Tibet with her counterpart in China, and she will continue to do so. On 1 March, the assistant foreign minister, Minister Watts, delivered Australia's national statement at the high-level segment of the 52nd session of the Human Rights Council, expressing Australia's concerns about reports of the erosion of educational, religious, cultural and linguistic rights and freedoms in Tibet.</para>
<para>The government is very concerned about and very aware of disturbing reports by UN experts about the separation of Tibetan children from families in government run boarding schools. On 6 February this year, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said the UN special rapporteurs had found one million Tibetan children separated from families in government run boarding schools, in a policy described by a term that's too familiar to Australians who study our own history—a policy of assimilation. We are gravely concerned also by reports of Tibetans being detained for peaceful expression of political views. The suppression of Tibetan religious expression, excessive security measures, mass surveillance, restrictions on travel and China's policies on Tibetan cultural rights and heritage are of concern, and they will continue to be of interest to the people of Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in solidarity with the Tibetan people as a sovereign person of this country, to the sovereign people of your country. What is happening in Tibet is cultural genocide. It's what happens here as well, under this government and the last government. They continue cultural genocide today, here, on us. We are with you.</para>
<para>The Chinese regime is oppressing educational, religious and language institutions, which is against the cultural rights, the freedom of religion and belief, and the rights to education of the Tibetan people. Tibetan children are being forced into boarding schools run by the Chinese Communist Party and separated from their religion, families, culture and tradition. We also have 23,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children that have been taken from their mothers, and the government here still won't do anything. Again, we are in solidarity with you. To the sovereign people of Tibet I want to say that we see you, we hear you and we feel you. As First Peoples of this country now called Australia, we know exactly what it is like to have our children ripped away by a system that tries to erase you. That's what this place has tried to do to my people here for over 200 years.</para>
<para>To the federal government I say: nice speeches, but it's time to set up against the cultural genocide in Tibet and engage internationally with our allies to support the UN investigation into China's policy of acculturation and assimilation—we know Voice is assimilating us. Through the ancient Tibetan traditions and practices, that self-determination, and to the Tibetan community here: we are with you. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also very much welcome our visitors to the Senate. I rise to speak on this matter of public importance regarding Tibet. The Albanese government speaks clearly and consistently in support of human rights around the world, including in Tibet. We bring all aspects of Australian power to our foreign policy, and we employ every strategy at our disposal towards upholding human rights, consistent with our values and with our interests. Our guiding objective is to achieve meaningful outcomes.</para>
<para>One lever is our diplomacy, which is often more effective when we partner with other countries to send a message. We have appointed an ambassador for human rights. We have expanded the role of the Ambassador to Counter Modern Slavery, People Smuggling and Human Trafficking. But, when dialogue does not progress, we look for other ways to send a strong, clear message. Sometimes we partner with others, sometimes we engage directly and sometimes we apply pressure. Our task is to do what we can to lessen the injustice in this world. We take the world as it is and dedicate ourselves with great seriousness to the questions of how we can shape it for the better.</para>
<para>That brings me to the question of Tibet and this matter of public importance before us today. The Australian government has been clear and consistent in raising serious concerns about human rights in Tibet—publicly and privately, directly with China and in multilateral forums. The foreign minister has consistently raised Australian government concerns about the erosion of rights and freedoms in Tibet with her counterpart in China and will continue to do so.</para>
<para>On 1 March, assistant foreign minister Watts delivered Australia's national statement at the high-level segment of the 52nd session of the Human Rights Council. There he expressed Australia's concerns about reports of the erosion of educational, religious, cultural and linguistic rights and freedoms in Tibet. The government is aware of disturbing reports from UN experts about the separation of Tibetan children from families in government run boarding schools. On 6 February this year, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said that UN special rapporteurs had found that one million Tibetan children were separated from families in the government run boarding schools—horrific—in what has appeared to be a clear policy of assimilation. We're also gravely concerned about reports of the detention of Tibetans for peaceful expression of political views; the suppression of Tibetan religious expression; excessive security measures; mass surveillance; restrictions on travel; and China's policies on Tibetan cultural rights and heritage.</para>
<para>We are aware of disturbing reports from the UN experts of forcible labour through transfers of Tibetans to vocational training programs. On 27 April this year, UN independent human rights experts reported that labour transfer and vocational training programs in Tibet threaten Tibetan cultural identity and may lead to forced labour. The government is committed to ensuring that the supply chains we use do not promote, condone or financially support forced labour. On 9 May, the government announced it would provide $8 million over four years from 2023-24 and an ongoing $2 million per year to establish an antislavery commissioner. The commissioner will work across government, industry and civil society to support compliance with the Modern Slavery Act, to bring transparency to supply chains and to help fight modern slavery in Australia and abroad.</para>
<para>The rapporteurs also mentioned, of course, the disappearance of the Panchen Lama, who has been disappeared and has not been allowed to be raised in the Tibetan tradition for 28 years. It's critically important that we strongly express our condemnation and repeated requests for information on the fate and whereabouts of the Panchen Lama. We strongly express our concerns about the ongoing erosion of educational, religious, cultural and linguistic rights and freedoms in Tibet. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to begin this speech, as the Greens foreign affairs spokesperson, by also acknowledging the presence of the Tibetan delegation and of the Sikyong in the chamber. You are most welcome. I also want to reaffirm the Greens' support for this matter of public importance offered to the chamber today, very much crafted by my esteemed colleague Senator Rice, who is one of the most passionate and stalwart friends of Tibet in this chamber. I want to thank you, Janet, for your continued support of the Tibetan community and for your tireless advocacy here in the Senate for Tibetan independence and sovereignty—and, broadly, for a free and peaceful debate.</para>
<para>The Greens will be joining, I hope, with the entire Senate this afternoon in supporting the words of this motion. I particularly want to lend my support to the sections going to the absolute importance of the selection, education and veneration of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders being treated exclusively as spiritual matters dealt with by the appropriate religious authorities within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, and in the context of the will of the practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. It is critical that the Chinese government does not interfere with the process of selecting the next Dalai Lama, and that this process is done in accordance with Tibetan Buddhist traditions, principles and practice. The Chinese government has indicated that it intends to control the process, and this isn't new; they kidnapped the then six-year-old Panchen Lama some 28 years ago and he hasn't been seen since.</para>
<para>The opinion that I just voiced to the Senate is not a controversial one; it's an opinion which supports the basic religious freedoms of Tibetans and is in support of human rights for Tibet and globally. I would hope that all senators can join me in supporting this motion.</para>
<para>I also want to use this moment in time to highlight that no less than six UN special rapporteurs have written extensively about their concerns in relation to the use of forced labour involving Tibetans. They have written specifically to the Chinese government, outlining the specific nature of these concerns, and I want to quote them to the Senate. They said that they are seriously concerned about the extensive labour transfer programs in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, placing rural workers into low-skilled and low-paid industrial jobs, allegedly eroding Tibetan minority languages, cultural practices and religion.</para>
<para>It is time that Australia joined with other countries, including the United States, and stopped the import of products that have been made by forced labour from coming into Australia, including when they're manufactured by forced labour in Tibet. Australia can no longer be complicit in this activity, as we have been for so long. It's heartening to hear the words of Senator Sheldon in relation to this regard, and they should be backed up by the official position of his government. The Australian government should not allow the importation of products made by forced labour. The Greens have an amendment right now which would enable that goal to be achieved; amending the Customs Act would send a clear message to all countries that Australia sees modern slavery as unacceptable, and that our community will not accept goods that have been produced by forced labour.</para>
<para>We are joining with the community in this call, and would ask the government to support the Greens amendment to the Customs Act to achieve this goal, as they did in opposition. It is time to do the right thing and support this amendment, to see that no product in that is made by forced labour is sold within our borders.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens want us to take a stand for the religious freedom of Buddhist monks in Tibet, and rightly so. I agree with that. But what about the freedom of the Catholics right here in the ACT. Just up the road their freedoms are being trashed. It is interesting that the Greens, to my left, want to pontificate on the rights of the Dalai Lama but are keeping mum on the rights of Catholic health professionals to maintain Calvary Hospital right here in our nation's capital. If we care about religious rights, how about we call on the Labor government to end its immoral takeover of Calvary? How about demanding that the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, respect the religious rights of Catholics and Christians? Or perhaps my friends over here care more about Buddhists overseas than Catholics right here at home?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a disgraceful contribution that was from Senator Babet! I acknowledge Senator Rice, a longstanding friend of the Tibetan people, for suggesting this motion today. I also acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the delegation of the Central Tibetan Administration, the democratically elected government of Tibetans in exile, and especially Sikyong Penpa Tsering. You are most welcome in the chamber today. Thank you for honouring us with your presence.</para>
<para>Since 1959 the Tibetan people have faced brutality, invasion and the attempted destruction of their culture. They have faced attacks not only on their people, their monks and their monasteries but on their culture, their expression and their freedom. Critically, and courageously, they have never ceded sovereignty over their country. The Chinese government must immediately end its human rights violations and respect the civil, political and religious rights of the Tibetan people. The Chinese government should also immediately release the Panchen Lama, who they kidnapped 28 years ago.</para>
<para>Our government, the Australian government, needs to have an honest conversation with the Chinese government, our biggest trading partner. Our government should make it clear that the Chinese government should not interfere any further in the succession of the 14th Dalai Lama. Any such interference would be completely unacceptable.</para>
<para>Since the leadership of our former leader, Senator Bob Brown, the Australian Greens have supported the Tibetan people in their brave and courageous fight for self-determination and to reclaim their country. That will always continue.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>50</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dental Services in Australia Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>50</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the interim report of the Dental Services in Australia Select Committee inquiry on the provision of and access to dental services in Australia, together with the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>The Senate Select Committee into the Provision of and Access to Dental Services in Australia conducted an extensive survey to gather insights from the community regarding their experiences. I am thrilled to be able to share with the Senate that an astounding 17,000 people actively participated, underscoring the urgency to transform oral health in this country. I want to thank every single one of the, in fact, over 17,000 people who took the time to complete the committee's surveys and share their experience with us as a committee. I also want to thank the fabulous committee staff and secretariat that enabled this interim report to be created in such a comprehensive manner. Thank you so much for your time and for your energies.</para>
<para>The survey results showed that 98 per cent of the community supports the notion of expanding dental care services—critically, the notion of expanding free dental care services. The resounding message from the community is that a significant proportion of individuals only seek dental treatment in emergency situations. Escalating cost-of-living pressures are increasingly causing people to delay dental visits. The lack of dental coverage within Medicare has far-reaching consequences for our broader healthcare system. Preventable dental conditions contribute to some 83,000 hospitalisations annually, and a staggering 750,000 general practitioner appointments each year are attributed to dental problems. Inclusion of dental care within Medicare has the potential to reduce hospitalisations and make GP appointments more available for everyone.</para>
<para>Investing in prevention and broadening the scope of Medicare to encompass dental care has widespread support from the Australian community and from advocacy and healthcare organisations. The committee has heard submissions from people across the country, and I will share with the Senate just some of those stories now. There was one that really stuck out for me, and I will quote it directly:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I was quoted $8960 … there was no way I was able to pay … My teeth are extremely damaged, decayed, and another tooth has fallen out. I have pain in my mouth almost daily … I am not able to eat all foods … Currently, my wife and I are saving for a house … At this point it would be a house deposit—</para></quote>
<para>a deposit for a home—</para>
<quote><para class="block">or fixing my teeth, not both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Making access to dental care free would have a tremendous positive impact on my life. I would be able to rid myself of pain, sleeping troubles, and the shame around my teeth.</para></quote>
<para>Another story shared with us says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I began my apprenticeship in 2016, and like many adult apprentices, I struggled to make ends meet. The meager income I received barely covered my living expenses, leaving me with no room for additional costs such as dental care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Those years of forced neglect have now culminated in a diagnosis of Advanced Late-Stage Gum Disease, I am only 30 years old. I discovered this 6 months ago, after saving for three months to afford the cost of a check-up and clean which cost $290 including 1 x-ray. The dentist referred me to a periodontist gum specialist who had a waiting list of 6 months. That appointment cost $350 just for the initial 30-minute consultation—</para></quote>
<para>$350, after a six-month wait, for a 30-minute initial consultation.</para>
<quote><para class="block">I ate 1 meal a day for 2 months to save for the appointment and lost 11kgs in that time. I was already thin to begin with, now I just look—</para></quote>
<para>emaciated.</para>
<quote><para class="block">The cost of treating my gum disease is staggering. Restoration of the gum is expected to cost upwards of $2,500 for just one area that has gum recession. Facing this reality, I have come to the heartbreaking realization that I cannot afford this treatment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Many Australians, especially those in low-income and disadvantaged situations, face similar challenges in accessing affordable dental care. The consequences of neglecting dental health can be severe, impacting not only our oral health but also our overall well-being, self-esteem, and quality of life. I'm becoming increasingly depressed and suffer from anxiety.</para></quote>
<para>These are just two of the multitude of stories that have already been shared by Australians with this committee.</para>
<para>The evidence to this inquiry so far indicates that Australia's public dental and oral healthcare system is fragmented, under-resourced and overstretched. Australians are paying more for dental care than people in many other countries, but with poorer health outcomes than in many of those countries, and access to dental care services remains deeply inequitable.</para>
<para>The problems are clearly defined and well understood, and a number of the possible solutions have been articulated over the recent decades. But, despite this, very little has changed. Health organisations, the Australian Dental Association—and I acknowledge that they are here in the chamber today—peak bodies, think tanks and individuals who have submitted to the inquiry have advocated for systemic reform. They are urging the Commonwealth and the states and territories to implement radical reforms to the way oral and dental health care is funded and coordinated. It is time for transformative, systemic reform. The time to bring dental care fully into Medicare has come.</para>
<para>The Greens have long been calling for this reform. In 2012 the Green secured dental for kids to be brought into Medicare. Now we're pushing to ensure that everyone in our community has access to free dental services, prioritising prevention and treating oral conditions before they turn into serious illnesses. And, with that, I seek leave to continue my remarks.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economics References Committee</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>51</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present an interim report of the Economics References Committee on the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate adopt the recommendations contained in the report proposing orders for the production of documents.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>The Economics References Committee has been undertaking an inquiry into the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and the reason that that inquiry has been commissioned is because corporate lawlessness is a major problem in this country as is white-collar crime, and the PwC business is probably not a great surprise to many because what you see is a litany of scandals that happened across corporate financial professional services, and these issues are not addressed properly by the regulator. I would say that we have a very, very weak corporate regulator, and therefore we decided to have an inquiry into ASIC, with the support of the Greens. I note that the government opposed this inquiry. Since the inquiry was commissioned in October, there have been well over 100 submissions, and as a key component of this inquiry we have been asking questions of ASIC—109 questions to ASIC about how they were going with law enforcement on real cases.</para>
<para>We can sit here and talk about the regulatory architecture, we can look at twin peaks, we can go back to Wallace or Murray and the Hayne royal commission, or we can look at cases in the economy today. We could look at some of the malfeasance that has happened and we could look at the action or the inaction. As a result of those 109 questions, we have decided to take the unusual step of tabling an interim report. The reason we are tabling this interim report is that ASIC's approach has been to obfuscate and to refuse to answer questions on these key case studies. This report, which is a multipartisan report, sets out the obfuscation. It sets out that ASIC has not wanted to provide information about closed cases. I want to make a very important distinction to the Senate: I think it would be unreasonable for a Senate committee to try and unearth case files and documents from ongoing investigations because that could disrupt the work of the regulator.</para>
<para>But when you have closed cases, I don't understand why the Senate could not receive documents that show how ASIC has gone about its business of being a law enforcement agency. I think everyone in this parliament accepts that ASIC could do a better job. So what we've tried to do is ask questions about Nuix and insider trading allegations, ask questions about ALS and fake gold allegations, ask questions about insider trading in Magnis and insider training in superannuation funds.</para>
<para>We've asked all these questions. And what have we received? I remind the Senate, again, these are closed cases, not open cases. We have received public interest immunity claims. That's what we have received. The endless use of public interest immunity claims has led to a massive disruption of the Senate's work. The Senate is not able to investigate the way that the investigations have been undertaken by ASIC. We cannot see the transcripts. We cannot see the legal advice. We cannot see how decisions have been made and taken. The key decision, here, for a law enforcement agency is whether to prosecute: Should we enforce the law? Should we try and put these people in the clink? We can't get access to any of these files, even though they're closed.</para>
<para>As a result, we've tabled this interim report. Now the Senate has agreed to force the production of documents in relation to cases: Magnis, ALS, Nuix and Super Insider Trading. A common theme here is insider trading. I would say that if you engage in insider trading in Australia you will get away with it, because ASIC will not prosecute you. You will not go to jail. You will not face a sanction. ASIC does not want to use the criminal penalties that are available to it.</para>
<para>Unless we can get access to these documents we will never understand what process they go through. We know, from newspaper reports, that when insider trading is alleged to have happened and there are whistleblowers—often very brave whistleblowers—who provide information to ASIC, ASIC take the information, look into the case and say, 'Actually, there's nothing to do. We have no further role here. We're not going to enforce that part of the Corporations Act. We'll just go back to business.' And people wonder why you have problems like you see with PricewaterhouseCoopers.</para>
<para>The report, in conclusion, sets out three major components. It sets out the interference that ASIC drove here in this building when the Senate was considering whether to establish this committee inquiry itself. It canvasses that interference. It then canvasses our attempts to get access to closed case files. Finally, it canvasses and seeks now an order for production of documents, in relation to the interaction between ASIC and the Treasurer and the Treasurer's office, because there is a very strong possibility here that the Treasurer's office is complicit here in the mass use of public interest immunity claims.</para>
<para>Public interest immunity claims have been used here to obfuscate the Senate's work. So I very much thank the Senate for the opportunity to make these remarks today and for the multipartisan report, which has been tabled, that sets out in detail the mass obfuscation of the Senate's work. Unless we can get to a situation where the corporate regulator is feared and people think, 'I might go to jail if I break this law,' then we're never going to have a situation where white-collar crime is diminished in Australia. It's in everyone's interest that we have a law enforcement agency in Australia that is feared.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you seek leave to continue your remarks, Senator Bragg?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Bragg</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I seek leave to continue my remarks.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Select Committee on Work and Care</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Additional Information</title>
            <page.no>52</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present addition information received by the Select Committee on Work and Care and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>Through the Select Committee on Work and Care, I asked Treasury whether they have undertaken any analysis of the high effective marginal tax rates, which are driving women out of the workforce on days 4 and 5 of their working week. In the response that I've just tabled, Treasury indicate that effective marginal tax rates certainly reduce the financial incentive for someone to work or to increase their hours, particularly after factoring in their out-of-pocket childcare costs. Treasury acknowledges that in dual income households with children these disincentives may play a stronger role in affecting decisions about whether and how much to work for women, who tend to be the secondary income earners and who bear more caring responsibilities.</para>
<para>It is clear, based on the Treasury response, that the cost of child care drives up the effective marginal tax rate. The work and care inquiry received evidence of structural features in Australia's tax and transfer system that can discourage parents from working additional hours. The combination of progressive income tax rates, reduced family support payments at higher income levels and childcare costs can result in very high rates of effective marginal tax for working parents. This outcome is particularly punishing for working women, who provide most of the unpaid care to kids and work disproportionately part time.</para>
<para>The Work and Family Policy Roundtable, for example, which brings together Australia's best researchers on work and care, noted that the design of Australia's tax and transfer system has a 'strong gendered impact on families, directly shaping household decision-making about who works and who cares'. The Grattan Institute called this the 'workforce disincentive rate', which is the combination of tax, welfare settings and childcare costs. The institute noted that the workforce disincentive rate 'can be particularly punishing for the fourth and fifth day of work for the primary carer, still generally a woman'. They concluded:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Working an additional day for no or virtually no take-home pay is understandably not a choice many find attractive.</para></quote>
<para>Professor Miranda Stewart, a member of the Work and Family Policy Roundtable and a national expert on our tax system, recommended several policy measures aimed at lessening the work disincentives for second income earners, which arise from those high effective marginal tax rates, including establishing a universal and affordable public early childhood education and care system. There was strong evidence from a broad range of witnesses to the work and care inquiry calling for universal and affordable quality child care. It should be free. It is a basic infrastructure for those who go to work and have caring responsibilities. As a result, the final work and care report put to this Senate recommended that National Cabinet 'progress the implementation of a universal, quality, place-based and child-centred early childhood education and care (ECEC) system'. The report was a majority supported report with support from the government.</para>
<para>Through the inquiry we heard story after story of the impacts of inaccessible and expensive early childhood education and care—the impacts on kids, on women, on families and on our labour supply. The evidence is very clear that the current work and care system is creating a barrier to women returning to work or increasing their hours of work. We need to think of it in the way that the absence of a road prevents people from going to work. It is as real as blocking half the roads in Australia. If we said half the roads were going to be out of commission for the next five years and people wouldn't be able to get to work half the time, that would be seen as a national disaster, yet that is exactly what is happening in relation to child care across so many of our country towns, our regions and our suburbs.</para>
<para>When women can't participate in work, it has a huge spillover effect on the labour supply crisis across our country right now. We are paying a big price that's personal for carers in terms of being unable to increase their hours of work and a big price for the economy and labour supply. This is even more urgent in view of our cost-of-living crisis, where people all over the country are facing huge financial pressures. We have to fix early childhood education and care. It needs be free and available to everyone who needs it. It needs to be quality care, and the educators need to be fairly valued in terms of their pay and conditions. We need to address and reduce the high effective marginal tax rates that fall so hard, especially on mothers and women workers and their families. With that, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral Matters Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>53</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>McGRATH () (): I present an interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the conduct of the 2022 federal election, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>Australia's position as a successful democracy is reliant on a robust electoral system. Australia's successful electoral system and related institutions have been developed over many years. They are trusted by Australians, who understand that they are independent, impartial and non-partisan. The electoral system and related institutions protect the democratic rights and freedoms of all Australians. It is critical that any changes made to Australia's existing electoral system are made to improve our democracy for all. They must not be motivated by partisanship.</para>
<para>The coalition will not support any changes that favour a particular political party or cause. The coalition believes that any proposed electoral changes should be assessed on the following principles: equal treatment of all political participants; fair, open and transparent elections; encouragement of political participation without fear of retribution; and recognising freedom of thought, belief, association and speech as fundamental to free elections.</para>
<para>The coalition believes that those who join or actively support political parties, like those who support civil-society movements or not-for-profit organisations, do so on the basis of sincerely held beliefs and a genuine desire to participate in their democratic society. Members of established political parties are not less worthy than those who support other forms of political communication movements or civil-society causes.</para>
<para>In addition, changes to regulations at federal and state levels of government have increased the regulatory burden on political parties, making it harder for active grassroots participation. This is not a good outcome for democratic participation in Australia. Financially stable political parties with active memberships representing the broad political spectrum are important foundations for a healthy democracy. The governing legislative and regulatory framework for political parties should ultimately encourage grassroots participation, not make it harder.</para>
<para>The recommendations of the coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters are about improving Australia's democracy and making it easier for everyday Australians to be actively involved in politics. What I will do is to go through the proposed recommendations from the coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The first recommendation is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Coalition members of the Committee recommend that the Electoral Act be amended to allow for the obligations of Registered Political Parties to be applied to independent candidates where the Australian Electoral Commissioner believes those candidates are conducting their activities in a manner consistent with a Registered Political Party.</para></quote>
<para>Our report goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It has been recognised through the course of the Committee's inquiry that the 2022 Election saw a series of successful independent candidates, now known as the Teal Party, contest a number of seats.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There has been evidence presented to the Parliament, and through this inquiry, that suggests that this was done, in part, as a coordinated effort and that this coordination was either not presented in a transparent manner, or was unable to be categorised under the current electoral law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is concerning that allegations of this activity were made, while the candidates in question claimed to be unaffiliated independent candidates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The statement from Teal members of parliament and candidates that they are not a political party is as offensive as it is wrong. Creating a level playing field between established political parties and the Teal Party will ensure equal treatment and limit the ability of 'political players' to game the system.</para></quote>
<para>Our second recommendation is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Coalition members of the Committee recommend that the Government give consideration to the adequacy of the current electoral regulatory framework to nominate as a candidate at a Commonwealth election, and in particular any measures that could be implemented to strengthen the integrity of the system.</para></quote>
<para>Our report goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee, and the Parliament more broadly, has heard evidence in relation to the ability for the nomination of large numbers of candidates for election that create burdens on electors, barriers to entry for some candidates or parties, and the potential for candidates to be utilised purely for preference distribution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is imperative that electors are provided a choice of candidates that is reflective of the community support and that the system of nomination is transparent and effective.</para></quote>
<para>Our third recommendation is that the pre-poll period be limited to:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a maximum of one week prior to election day and that the Australian Electoral Commission provide parties and candidates with the earliest possible advice about prepoll locations.</para></quote>
<para>The report goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The reason for the proposed reduction is twofold. Firstly, a reduction in the length of the pre-poll period would sizeably reduce the administrative burden on both the AEC and election candidates. Secondly, reducing the length of the pre-poll period would also allow for voters to make their voting decisions with the most current information.</para></quote>
<para>Our fourth recommendation relates to the intimidation of voters. In particular, we recommend:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… that a new offence of 'electoral violence or intimidation' be added to the Electoral Act. This amendment is fundamental to address behaviour arising in an election such as violent, obscene or discriminatory abuse, property damage, and stalking candidates or their supporters to intimidate them or make them feel unsafe.</para></quote>
<para>It goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">No one should feel unsafe while participating in our democratic process.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Over an extended period, the Committee and the Parliament has been presented evidence that political volunteers and supporters have been subject to politically motivated abuse, violence or harassment. The strength of our electoral system rests on the contestability of ideas and the presentation of that contest to electors. But this contest must be safe for the participants engaging in it. There is no greater importance than securing this contest in the electoral system for the ensuring of free and fair elections.</para></quote>
<para>Our fifth recommendation is that the AEC should return all electoral practices to pre-COVID standards. It goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Following the removal of any restrictions that were placed upon electors who are participating in Commonwealth elections relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Coalition members of the Committee believe there is no justification for any measures that were put in place to ensure the conduct of pandemic-elections …</para></quote>
<para>The sixth recommendation is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Coalition members of the Committee recommend that vote counts after polling day for each electorate should be carried out in the electorate itself, not transported considerable distances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Coalition members of the Committee strongly support the counting of votes in locations within local electorates as far as possible. The Commission made extensive comment about their support for local campaign workers in the electoral process, including the scrutiny of the vote.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">By removing votes for counting at other and distant locations, campaign workers who are unable to travel for those counts do not have the ability to participate in the scrutiny of their local electorate. This is an important part of the democratic process, and the Australian Electoral Commission should recognise and support that participation, particularly at the point of scrutiny of the vote after polling day.</para></quote>
<para>The coalition members of the committee also made a number of comments in relation to the substantive report and its recommendations by the government members of the committee. While I do not have time to go through those, I would say that the coalition will not be supporting any changes that seek to impose a financial gerrymander on the Australian electoral system, a financial gerrymander that would benefit one side of politics at the expense of the other.</para>
<para>We would call upon electoral reforms to be reforms that are consistent with the four principles that I outlined at the beginning of my speech—that is, that there should be equal participation for all participants and that participation should be fair; that there should be open, transparent and fair elections; that people should be encouraged to participate without fear of retribution; and that we should recognise freedom of thought, belief, association and speech as fundamental to free elections. We will be using those four principles in any discussions we have with the government regarding any reforms that they bring forward following the presentation of this interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to take note of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters interim report that has been tabled. The Greens have been campaigning for years to clean up politics and make parliament better reflect the community that we represent. The 2022 election made it clear the public agrees, with the lowest vote share for the major parties in 75 years and the public returning a parliament that's more diverse than ever. The Labor and Liberal parties have a track record of teaming up to look out for their donors and maintaining the two-party system that benefits them while knocking out other voices.</para>
<para>The interim report includes recommendations relating to electoral expenditure caps, donation caps, truth-in-advertising laws and donation disclosure and transparency, but with no detail. And, with these matters, the devil will be in the detail. Time will tell whether Labor genuinely wants to level the playing field of elections and end the corrupting influence that big donations have on our democracy or whether Labor and the Liberals will act in lockstep to bolster a dying two-party system.</para>
<para>Big money has been flowing to both of the big parties for decades, and we have seen decisions being made in parliament that benefit those donors to the detriment of people and the planet. Without efforts to close the loopholes in donation laws, capping donations would still leave millions in membership fees, subscriptions to business forums and cash-for-access events for the large parties. The Greens want to see these loopholes closed. The Greens maintain that we need to ban donations from the fossil fuel sector, the banking sector and other industries with a track record of seeking policy outcomes that benefit their bottom line. While big money still flows from those sectors, we will continue to see a handbrake on climate action and progressive reforms.</para>
<para>But cleaning up politics doesn't stop with donation caps and spending caps. We must tighten up the rules for lobbyists and ensure that ministers and their senior staff don't walk out of parliament and straight into lucrative lobbying jobs.</para>
<para>Measures to improve engagement of First Nations voters should be expedited to maximise participation in both the Voice referendum and all future elections. The government squandered an earlier opportunity to do that, and we urge them now to reconsider on-the-day enrolment, phone voting and removing restrictions on prisoners voting.</para>
<para>Trust in politicians and our democracy remains at an all-time low, and any changes to electoral laws must make our democracy and our parliament more transparent, more accessible and more reflective of the voices in our community. Critically, campaign finance reforms must be delivered as a whole, not piecemeal. The Greens will not accept partial reforms that leave loopholes and back doors for hidden and dirty money to continue and to further entrench major party advantages over third parties and Independents. One in three voters chose to vote for someone other than a large party at the last election. They deserve to see their votes result in representation in our parliament. This will be our measuring stick for what constitutes good reform.</para>
<para>Democracy is best when it's conducted in the open and when the community feels confident that politicians are accessible to everyone, not just those with big wallets. When people feel like their political system isn't working for them, they lose confidence in democracy itself. I've lost count of the number of times that I've spoken in this place about the erosion of public confidence in Australia's democracy. Every scandal, every report detailing millions in hidden money and every time a politician leaves parliament and walks straight into a cushy job in an industry they regulated barely moments ago has led the community to believe that parliament doesn't work for them; it works for the big parties and career politicians. It's led them to believe that parliament doesn't represent the people; it represents political donors.</para>
<para>We have been campaigning for years to clean up politics and make this parliament better reflect the community that we represent. We have called to get big money out of politics, to expose the hidden money, to prevent misleading campaigns, to remove barriers to running for election and to address the incumbency advantages that stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system. As I said before, the last election made it perfectly clear that the public wants this too. One in three people did not vote for one of the two big parties. We saw the lowest share, as I said earlier, for the major parties in 75 years. The two-party system is now in terminal decline, and democracy is the better for it.</para>
<para>With electoral reform the devil is in the detail, and there was no detail in this interim report. I think that the Special Minister for State really belled the cat when he said in a media release today that electoral reform should be undertaken in a bipartisan manner—not multipartisan, I might add, but bipartisan. Forgive me if I worry that bipartisanship means ignoring the calls of the Greens and the Independents. Given that when we look at the track record of the Labor and Liberal parties teaming up to look out for their donors and to maintain the duopoly that benefits them, locking out other voices, you can forgive my suspicion. Any legislation to deliver electoral reform must ensure that it strengthens democracy for everyone. The Greens will not support an approach which props up the political fortunes of the big parties and excludes anyone who seeks to represent the one-in-three voters who did not vote for the Labor or Liberal parties.</para>
<para>Big money has been flowing to the big parties for decades, corrupting decision-making and putting a handbrake on reform. The community watched as fossil-fuel donations contributed to a decade of climate inaction and subsidies to open coal and gas projects in a climate crisis. The parties sought donations from the financial and gambling sectors and we were not at all surprised when the regulation of those sectors was put off or watered down. And the community watched as donations from consultants were rewarded with millions in contracts at the expense of the Public Service.</para>
<para>The committee's recommendation to lower the disclosure threshold for donations and to increase the speed with which the public gets to know who is donating was one of the few recommendations for which there was cross-party support. There is also broad support for a review of the definition of 'gift'. Those are important measures to close loopholes which have led to millions in hidden money being gifted to political parties each year. But the benefit of donation caps and greater disclosure will be undermined if donors can continue to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars as subscription fees, or memberships of party-affiliated business forums or expensive cash-for-access dinners, and not report those as donations. The current rules are absolutely farcical, and closing the most egregious of loopholes is critical to the success of any reform. Labor's proposal to provide 'appropriate' exclusions for subscriptions, membership and affiliation fees leaves the door wide open to get around any future donation caps. We want to see these loopholes closed once and for all.</para>
<para>On donation reform: where are the strong measures to ban donations from the fossil fuel sector, the banking sector, big Pharma, defence, gambling, tobacco and all the other industries with a track record of pushing their own interests in policy decisions? We're pleased that the member for Curtin and Senator David Pocock have also called for industry bans, but while big money still flows from those sectors we'll continue to see public interest reforms stalled by industry heavyweights.</para>
<para>The interim report also calls for election spending caps and an increase in public funding so that candidates don't need to beg for campaign funds from those who could later expect their generosity to be rewarded. Such reforms could stop candidates pouring millions into campaigns that flood the public space and drown out their opponents. However, unless they're well designed, spending caps can lock in advantages to the larger parties and exclude Independents and minor parties. Spending caps will go some way to levelling the playing field for Independents and smaller party candidates, but they must be complemented by other reforms to remove the advantages enjoyed by incumbents: access to party resources; government advertising budgets and grants programs; corporate donors; administrative officers; and media profiles. Unless those advantages are addressed, spending caps could disproportionately impact on new entrants. We also need to ensure that reforms don't stifle public advocacy and make it harder for charities to engage in campaigns. Non-government organisations enrich our democracy as a voice for communities in the public interest, and they help to inform the public conversation. Reforms must be designed to ensure that they're not shut out of political debate.</para>
<para>But cleaning up politics doesn't stop just with donations and spending caps; we need to tighten up the rules for lobbyists and ensure that ministers and their senior staff don't walk out of parliament and straight into lobbying jobs. The obscene decision to give $1.9 million to the Middle Arm development—that gas export hub—at the behest of fossil fuel interests is just the latest example of how damaging those relationships are, both for the climate and for the broader public. We need to publish ministerial diaries and to strengthen the register of interests. We need stronger rules about government advertising and the use of electorate office resources. We need to prevent pork-barrelling by ensuring the independence and rigour of grant allocations; by continuing to resource the Australian National Audit Office to audit grant programs; and by giving the National Anti-Corruption Commission the power to investigate allegations of misuse of public funds for electoral gain. We also need to remove constitutional restrictions that disqualify dual citizens and public servants. We need to reduce candidate nomination fees to introduce proportional representation into the House of Representatives.</para>
<para>The Greens will stand firm against proposals that sound good in principle but in practice leave loopholes for hidden and dirty money and further entrench major party advantages over third parties and independents. I seek leave to continue my remarks.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>57</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>URQUHART (—) (): On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report on its review of the Auditor-General's fourth report of 2021-22, relating to the Defence Industry Security Program.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Administrative Appeals Tribunal, National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>57</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table documents relating to the orders for the production of documents concerning the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment and Communications References Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee, Public Works Joint Committee, Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee, Treaties Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>57</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of various committees.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senato</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>r GALLAGHER (—) (): I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Environment and Communications References Committee —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Reynolds</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Duniam</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating member: Senator Reynolds</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade — Joint Standing Committee —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Van</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Senator McLachlan</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">National Capital and External Territories — Joint Standing Committee —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Van</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Senator O'Sullivan</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Public Works — Joint Statutory Committee —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Van</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Senator Rennick</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation — Standing Committee —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Van</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Senator Reynolds</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Treaties — Joint Standing Committee —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Van</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Senator Fawcett</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7023" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from the House of Representatives</title>
            <page.no>58</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Home Affairs Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7050" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Home Affairs Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Assent</title>
            <page.no>58</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6946" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>58</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make some remarks or perhaps to deliver some remarks on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022. This is a run-of-the-mill Treasury bill which canvasses a number of different issues. I want to talk about schedule 2, which deals with the taxation treatment of digital currency. Digital currency has the potential to reduce costs and improve agency in the economy, and that is why it was a priority of the former government to progress these matters.</para>
<para>On the weekend I read in the papers that people are complaining about the high cost of remittances. That's because the banks have a monopoly over remittances. There is the prospect that new ideas—new technology—could heavily reduce those costs or in fact eliminate those costs if people were able to avail themselves of money transfers using cryptocurrencies or digital-asset-based solutions.</para>
<para>So it is a priority, I would have thought, to regulate this sector. It's a priority not only to deliver new ideas to the economy and lower prices but also to protect consumers, because, for anyone who has taken any time to look at these issues around digital assets and cryptocurrencies, there is a considerable consumer risk here. The longer that these assets are not regulated, the greater the likelihood that people lose their shirts and lose, unnecessarily, their hard-earned money because it's unregulated. There is a massive regulatory arbitrage which exists in Australia today, where you can go into a financial services institution and access a financial product which has to meet thousands of different belts and braces of regulation, but you can go and get access to digital assets and cryptocurrency products and face a regulatory barrier of zero.</para>
<para>The point of all that is that the government have decided that they will not prioritise the regulation of digital assets and cryptocurrencies. These products and ideas would have been regulated in part by now had we won the election. The government, of course, have every right to reprioritise, but every day that there is no cryptoregulation in Australia is another day that people not only miss out on lower prices and new ideas but also are exposed to the market risk of unregulated products. That's what we're talking about here.</para>
<para>As part of a process to junk our policy, the government have decided that they will cherrypick one small idea, which was not recommended by any of our processes. They have decided that they will introduce a measure to change the tax treatment of digital currencies because El Salvador has adopted bitcoin as its legal tender. So, rather than regulate digital assets because we want to see Australians have access to cheaper remittances or because we want to protect Australian consumers, are we just going to cherrypick one random thing adopted by El Salvador and change the tax treatment?</para>
<para>So that's what this bill does. It means that, following El Salvador's decision to use bitcoin, it will not be treated as a foreign currency. It will be treated for tax purposes as, effectively, an asset, and that's what the bill does. The bill also introduces a regulation-making power so that a minister—the Treasurer or the Assistant Treasurer—can make a regulation in this space. We think that cherrypicking this one small element is not the way to go—that there should have been a comprehensive law-reform agenda adopted.</para>
<para>To the government's credit, they have maintained the Board of Taxation's review of these matters. These are complicated matters—I'm not saying that they're easy—but cherrypicking one idea and then making it retrospective is, we think, the wrong approach. In fact, if you go through the Senate committee report and look at all the industry feedback, you will see that the industry does not support this. The industry thinks this is a bad idea, because, in putting the cart before the horse, we end up with more regulatory uncertainty.</para>
<para>Who's to say that this is the right way to go about it? Who's to say that necessarily moving the tax treatment from being a foreign currency to being treated for income purposes is the way to go? We haven't had the benefit of the Board of Taxation report, and the parliament is being asked to consider this issue. So the question then is, 'Why is this being done?'</para>
<para>Minister Jones has been in the job for over a year and he has been in the job whilst there have been collapses of various cryptocurrency organisations and he has not had any regulation he can point to. This is not going to solve that problem. This is just going to resolve a minor tax issue with a country that Australia does very little business with. Treasury in their evidence were not able to sufficiently make the case that it is an integrity issue, because, when Treasury were asked whether this is necessary for revenue purposes and for integrity purposes, their view was that this is 'unquantifiable'.</para>
<para>So this is not going to introduce any new consumer protection. This is not going to improve the capacity of Australians or temporary residents who want to get access to cheaper remittances. It's not going to solve any budget problem. The industry is against this idea. The industry thinks this is cherry-picking something that requires careful judgement. So rushing to this solution—and that is what it does; it forces it out of where it currently is in terms of it being a foreign currency—we don't think is the right way to go.</para>
<para>I want to be efficient here. In conclusion, we will be moving amendments to remove this schedule from the bill, not because we think it's necessarily a terrible idea but because our view is that this is the wrong sequence. We haven't seen what the Board of Taxation are recommending and we don't want to introduce regulatory risk here, given that we are competing for global capital. We do want to allow Australians to avail themselves of these new technologies. This feels like a very old-fashioned way of trying to deal with a dynamic issue in our economy. So I flag in conclusion that we will be moving amendments in the committee stage to remove this bad schedule.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens support the Treasury Law Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022. I particularly want to address schedule 2 of the bill. It's the part of the legislation that Senator Bragg was just speaking about. This schedule seeks to clarify the tax treatment of digital currencies and to maintain the status quo. This is ostensibly in response to the decision that Senator Bragg referred to—the decision by El Salvador to treat bitcoin as legal tender, which would give it foreign currency status in terms of its tax status. As I said, we support the bill, including schedule 2, but this was a pretty close-run thing for us.</para>
<para>We note the submission the Gadens lawyers made to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry that laid out some of the fundamental issues. They state:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill proceeds on the unreliable assumption that cryptocurrency is a form of property.</para></quote>
<para>They go on to explain:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is no current Australian statute that anoints cryptocurrency with property status. Accordingly, to be treated as a form of property, the status must derive from common law.</para></quote>
<para>This is a particularly complicated issue, and I think Senator Bragg acknowledged that in the contribution he just made. Because it is a particularly complicated issue it was a good decision that the previous government made—and colleagues know that I'm not one to very often or regularly get up and praise positions of the previous government—when they asked the Board of Taxation to undertake a review of the tax treatment of digital assets and transactions in Australia. That review is due to be completed in September this year. We anticipate that the Senate—and, for that matter, the government—could actually really have benefited from having the review before making decisions in what is a particularly complicated and nuanced policy area and one that has really only arisen over recent years or within the last decade or so. However, we do accept that the government, in proposing this schedule, is seeking to insure itself against the potential that, if bitcoin was to be treated as a foreign currency, investors may make claims for tax losses that could be considerably larger than would otherwise be the case. That is the basis on which we'll be supporting schedule 2 as it stands in this legislation.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge that schedule 2 is only one part of the bill that is before us. I thank my colleague Senator Shoebridge for his previous contribution in relation to schedule 9, the taxation of military superannuation benefits: reversing the Douglas decision; and also my colleague Senator Rice, who made a contribution with regard to schedule 1, the Digital Games Tax Offset. I refer colleagues to those contributions for a more detailed assessment of those particular provisions. With those comments, I can confirm again that the Greens will be supporting this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank colleagues for their contributions on this important bill.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>60</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>GALLAGHER (—) (): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill, which I think have been circulated.</para>
<para>I move amendment (2) on sheet PZ104:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 7, page 119 (line 1) to page 120 (line 18), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<para>This parliamentary amendment removes schedule 7 of the bill. Schedule 7 proposed to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to update the list of specifically listed deductible gift recipients. In order to ensure expedited passage of the measure to update the list of specifically listed deductible gift recipients, schedule 7 to the bill was reintroduced as schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022. As a result, schedule 7 no longer needs to be progressed as part of this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition will support this amendment, but only to correct the gross incompetence of the government's Assistant Treasurer in his coordination of this bill.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are there any other contributions? I'll put government amendment (2) on sheet PZ104. The question is that schedule 7 stand as printed.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move amendment (1) on sheet PZ104:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.</para></quote>
<para>This amendment is essentially consequential to the first one.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Rice, I move amendment (1) on sheet 1831, standing in the name of Senator Rice:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (after line 18), after subparagraph 378-25(7)(c)(i), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ia) a game that contains, or allows access to, a digital container of randomised virtual items that can be obtained for consideration (commonly known as a loot box);</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>McGRATH () (): I note this amendment is substantially the same as an amendment moved by the member for Clark in the House of Representatives. On the basis of an assurance of the government that was given in the House of Representatives, the coalition will be opposing this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will also be opposing this amendment. The key purpose of the DGTO is to promote the growth of the digital games industry in Australia and enhance the industry's international competitiveness. In our bill, games that are a gambling service, gambling or gambling like are already excluded.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move opposition amendment (1) on sheets 1858:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 2, page 32 (line 1) to page 35 (line 23), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<para>As I foreshadowed in my contribution to the second reading debate, this amendment excises the section which deals with the taxation treatment of digital currencies. It does that on the basis that there is a separate process underway through the Board of Taxation and this would introduce unnecessary regulatory risk in a very sensitive area. It will also do it on the basis that it won't be removing any consumer protections or, indeed, driving any new innovation.</para>
<para>Of course, the Treasury itself could not even explain whether there would be a quantifiable gain or loss to revenue. So I think it's a reasonable amendment for the Senate to consider in light of the evidence from industry that this is not a concept that they support at this point in time because it has been cherrypicked out of a broader reform agenda which should be, frankly, a higher priority for the government, because I think all of us want the government to be promoting new investment, new ideas and new competition, and we also want our governments to be protecting consumers as far as possible. So we think it's an appropriate and proportionate amendment to this bill, on the basis that we'll come back and provide a set of regulations and laws for digital assets as part of a comprehensive agenda rather than something that's being cherrypicked out of nowhere.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is the amendment on sheet 1858?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will be opposing this. Schedule 2 will provide taxpayers with clarity following El Salvador's decision to adopt bitcoin as legal tender from September 2021, which created uncertainty about the tax status of bitcoin in Australia. Schedule 2 should not be removed. It seeks to maintain the status quo in the taxation of transactions involving digital currency. Repealing schedule 2 would pose a revenue risk, as ongoing uncertainty could see taxpayers in similar situations adopting different tax treatments, with some deliberately choosing the most favourable interpretation.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is one of those ones where I have to put the question in the affirmative. Even though the government are opposing what Senator Bragg wants, they will be voting yes and the opposition are voting no.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're able to ask a question. I'm just clarifying. You can continue questions on this matter in committee. I haven't closed it off.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I guess my main question is whether Treasury now knows how much revenue might be gained or lost.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Because the measure is to keep the tax treatment the same, it is difficult to cost. I think we did go through this at estimates, so there is no update to what was covered—or it might have been another committee, but it's certainly been discussed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The point here, then, is that this measure is designed to be an integrity measure, but the Treasury have no idea what revenue is at stake here. Is that right?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg is right about it being an integrity measure, so that is the point of this amendment. I am advised that that decision by El Salvador has created uncertainty about the tax status of bitcoin in Australia and specifically whether it can be considered a foreign currency for tax purposes. This uncertainty could affect a large number of taxpayers. Over one million Australians are expected to report on crypto assets in their 2022-23 tax returns, and bitcoin is the most popular crypto asset in Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you provide some more information on the regulation-making power that the bill includes and maybe explain what you think that might be used to do?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The digital currency space is constantly evolving. We are confident that the legislation is broad enough to capture the digital currency it needs to. However, having a regulation-making power allows us to quickly deal with unforeseen circumstances—for example, if a country adopts digital currency that may not be captured by the proposed definition. The policy for the legislation is clear: digital currencies are not foreign currency for tax purposes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can those regulation-making powers be used in the future to determine that a particular asset is either an asset or a currency? How will that be used in the future? Will it be used to allocate, effectively, and define digital assets?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that the regulation power doesn't determine whether something is a currency but whether something is a foreign currency.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, is that what the regulation-making power does or is that what the bill does? I'm just unclear on what the regulation-making power therefore is.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg, just to be clear, and so that it's on <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>: you asked a question and there was a response.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, sure. My understanding, and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, is that we believe the legislation is broad enough to capture the digital currency it needs. However, in the event that there is a similar situation to the one that has arisen, which has led to this amendment, then the regulation power would allow us to deal with that. It is, in a sense, an unforeseen circumstance that is yet to occur.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the chair is that schedule 2 stand as printed.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:11]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>33</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>26</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1859 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 39 (after line 21), after subsection 328-445(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Limit on deductions relating to training provide</inline> <inline font-style="italic">d by non-registered training providers</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) Despite subsections (1) to (3), the total of your deductions under this section for an income year in relation to expenditure that is not covered by subsection (3B) cannot exceed $20,000.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3B) This subsection covers expenditure you incur for any of the training mentioned in section 328-450 provided by a particular provider if, at the time you incur the expenditure:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the provider is a registered body of any of the following kinds:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a registered higher education provider (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011</inline>);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a NVR registered training organisation (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011</inline>);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) a registered education and training organisation (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Education and Training Reform Act 2006</inline> (Vic.));</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) a registered training provider (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Vocational Education and Training Act 1996</inline> (WA)); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the provider is a registered body of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii), (iii) or (iv)—the training is within the provider's scope of registration for that kind of registered body.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 4, item 1, page 40 (line 10), omit "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 4, item 1, page 40 (lines 15 to 22), omit paragraph 328-450(1)(b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 4, item 1, page 40 (lines 31 and 32), omit the note, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Paragraph (c) means this section will not apply to expenditure for training provided by you in house.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 4, item 1, page 40 (line 33) to page 41 (line 11), omit subsection 328-450(2).</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will be opposing this. The amendment would remove the requirement that training must be delivered by a registered provider to be eligible for the bonus deduction, and small business could claim a 20 per cent bonus deduction for expenditure on training delivered by a non-registered provider up to a maximum bonus deduction. The bonus deduction for expenditure on training delivered by registered training providers would remain uncapped. The Skills and Training Boost introduces the bonus 20 per cent tax deduction to support small business with annual turnover of less than $50 million to train and upskill employees using registered training providers. The registration requirement is an important safeguard that supports the quality and integrity of the training provider. It ensures that training that is eligible for the Skills and Training Boost is delivered by providers that are regulated and meet rigorous government standards. This approach is consistent with that proposed by the former government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the chair is that amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1859, as moved by Senator Bragg, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:17]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We now come to an amendment on sheet 1926, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock. Senator Pocock.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move amendment (1) on sheet 1926:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 5, item 1, page 46 (after line 4), after section 328-460, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">328-465 Additional technology investment boost deduction</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Normal or late balancers</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">deduction for 2023-24 income year</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) You can deduct for the 2023-24 income year an amount that is equal to the sum of the lower of $20,000 and 20% of the total amount (which may be nil) of your expenditure to which subsection 328-470(1) applies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Early balancers</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">deduction for 2024-25 income year</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if your 2023-24 income year starts before 1 July 2023. Instead, you can deduct for your 2024-25 income year an amount that is equal to the sum of the lower of $20,000 and 20% of the total amount (which may be nil) of your expenditure to which subsection 328-470(1) applies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">These are bonus deductions under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1997</inline> has effect as if this section and section 328-470 of this Act were provisions of Division 25 of the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax As</inline><inline font-style="italic">sessment Act 1997</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Sections 8-10 and 355-715 of the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1997</inline> do not apply in relation to a deduction under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">328-470 What expenditure qualifies for the additional technology investment boost</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This subsection applies to an amount of expenditure if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) you are a small business entity for the income year in which you incur the expenditure; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) you incur the expenditure in the period starting on 1 July 2023 and ending on 30 June 2024; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) you can deduct the amount of the expenditure under a provision of a taxation law (other than section 328-465 of this Act) whether or not in, or wholly in, the income year in which the expenditure was incurred; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) you incur the expenditure wholly or substantiallyfor the purposes of your digital operations or digitising your operations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the expenditure is on acquiring, or acquiring a right to use:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a product covered by subsection (3), in circumstances where you did not use the product (or a different version of the product) in your operations before 1 July 2023; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an upgrade, of a product covered by subsection (3) that you were already using in your operations, in circumstances where the upgrade includes one or more substantive additional product features that provide you with a new digital adaptation capability; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) if the expenditure is on a depreciating asset:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the only balancing adjustment events that occur for the asset at a time during the period referred to in paragraph (b) when you hold the asset occur because you stop holding the asset because of an event or circumstance referred to in subsection 40-365(2) (about involuntary disposals) of the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1997</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) you start to use the asset, or have it installed ready for use for a taxable purpose, before 1 July 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Working out whether you can deduct an amount of expenditure on a depreciating asset</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), in working out whether you can deduct an amount of expenditure on a depreciating asset, assume that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) you will continue to hold the asset throughout its effective life; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) throughout that effective life, you will use the asset for a taxable purpose to the same extent as you use it, or have it installed ready for use, for a taxable purpose in the income year in which you start to use it, or have it installed ready for use, for a taxable purpose.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Covered products</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The following kinds of products are covered by this subsection:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) digital business management tools;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) digital accounting tools;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) website creation and/or management tools;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) e-commerce tools;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) digital end-to-end retail solutions tools;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) digital analytics tools;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) digital marketing tools;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) cybersecurity tools.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Excluded expenditure</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to the following kinds of expenditure:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) salary or wage costs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) capital works costs for which you can deduct an amount under Division 43 of the <inline font-style="italic">Income T</inline><inline font-style="italic">ax Assessment Act 1997</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) financing costs, including interest, payments in the nature of interest and expenses of borrowing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) training or education costs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) expenditure that you incur that forms part of, or is included in, the cost of your trading stock.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For deductions relating to training or education costs, see section 328-445.</para></quote>
<para>I thank the government for bringing the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill, the TLAB4, before the Senate. I would like to talk about the amount of time that small business will have to make use of the Skills and Training Boost and the Technology Investment Boost. These are great measures for small businesses to help them digitise to drive genuine productivity among small businesses, but they have two weeks to make use of this funding. We're told that it will be backdated to March and small businesses can keep their receipts and claim it, but every small business we in my office have talked to has had no idea about this scheme. It seems that it won't have much effect, and, potentially, the only people to benefit from this will be the government's bottom line, given that there was money budgeted for it.</para>
<para>This amendment seeks to ensure that small businesses do have a year to digitise and claim some of that back on tax. This is incredibly important for our small businesses who are seeking to become more efficient, to increase productivity, and indeed we hear a lot about productivity from both sides of politics at the moment. I thank the former government for their work on this, targeting small businesses and ensuring that they are being supported in digitising and getting their systems up to speed. We know that a lot of small businesses are still doing it tough coming out of COVID. They are under pressure, so this amendment seeks to ensure that they do have 12 months to be able to use this measure.</para>
<para>Minister, I understand that the original cost of this measure was $1 billion. However, I had it recosted by the Parliamentary Budget Office, and the revised costing came in at $600 million. I'm wondering whether the government has recosted this measure over the course of the financial year.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is it hasn't been recosted. I think your question is about whether the existing measure has been recosted, and I think the answer to that is no. But I am advised that the extension for an additional year would have a cost impact of $650 million, so I think that aligns a bit with the costing you got from the PBO.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given this was a budget measure, will the government support this extension to ensure that small businesses can digitise?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Sen</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ator GALLAGHER (—) (): In answer to your question, the government will not be supporting it. I think it is important to acknowledge that the Technology Investment Boost as it stands is backdated to 29 March 2022, which does mean that any eligible expenditure from that date will count when tax returns are lodged from 1 July. There are a range of other small-business measures acknowledging the importance of small business across our economy, which have been introduced in the latest budget, including the Small Business Energy Incentive, cash flow through the $20,000 instant asset write-off, the Cyber Wardens program and an industry growth plan that will help small businesses to innovate, adopt, and adapt to digital technology specifically, and that is in the order of $393.4 million in addition to this measure.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Sen</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ator DAVID POCOCK () (): Given that I haven't been able to find a small business in Canberra that has been aware of this measure, I was wondering if the government had created a strategy to actually inform small businesses of it. Given that most small-business owners are flat out at the best of times, was there a strategy developed? Which stakeholders were engaged in that strategy to actually inform small businesses that there was this incentive to drive productivity?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that advice about this program has been on the ATO website all year in anticipation of this measure being passed, which is the normal way that these types of incentives would be advertised.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, how is it driving productivity to give small businesses two weeks of this being valid—being passed by parliament—and then saying, 'It's backdated to March, so, if you did happen to spend something, you can claim it back'? You're simply rewarding people who have done something, rather than actually incentivising small businesses to digitise and to spend money on things like cybersecurity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've gone through the additional measures that we have put in place, and I would say that this was a measure that we picked up from the former government in their March budget of, I think, last year. At the time that this was reintroduced post the commencement of this parliament, we didn't have the support to get TLAB 4 through for a variety of reasons—not related to this measure, specifically, but for other reasons. Ideally this bill would have passed the parliament earlier than now, but the reality is that most businesses, when they're doing their tax—and most businesses I deal with—are used to dealing with, essentially, claiming for expenditure that has occurred over the previous financial year. I don't think that is unusual. But I am not stepping away from the fact that, ideally, this measure would have passed through the TLAB earlier if we'd had the support.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given that the government doesn't want to extend this, will the government commit to reinvesting any savings in measures that will drive productivity among small businesses in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would say that we look at that in every update, whether it be MYEFO or the budget. We are always looking at what happens in specific programs and how we can support small business. That's the work that Minister Collins does. She will continue to do that and to consult with small business, which is why we have the instant asset write-off, the industry growth plan about digital technology, the Cyber Wardens program—again, at the request of COSBOA—and the small business energy incentives. These are all measures that have been sought, and argued for, by small business.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to follow-up on that, Senator, there is a $400 million saving here that the government will probably pick up due to the way that this has come through parliament. Can the government commit to actually investing that in small businesses and ensuring that we are driving productivity? We've seen the Reserve Bank governor raise concerns about productivity. It seems like this is money that has already been committed in the budget that could go towards that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure where your $400 million of savings comes from. We won't know the impact of this measure until all those tax returns are put through, because it's essentially revenue forgone. It's not a funded budget measure in the sense of appropriating cash for it. You've got a costing from the PBO. I haven't seen it, but I don't think there's any understanding or expectation that there is a $400 million underspend. We won't know that for some time. And I remind senators that those other measures that we have put in place are designed for small business and are implemented through this budget as well, in addition to this measure. This is over and above.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to clarify, my understanding is that the original cost of this measure was a billion dollars. We've had it—given the shorter time frame—costed by the PBO at $600 million. You've said $650 million, so it seems like there will be $350 million to $400 million left that could go to small businesses. I'd argue that it should go there, given the importance of small businesses to our economy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just note that. It was a comment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition will support this amendment. Driving digital uptake in small businesses is a crucial productivity measure. The government's failure to legislate this measure in a timely fashion has had a chill on investment and left small business with enormous uncertainty about whether they can make these investments. The ATO website currently actively discourages the use of this measure, stating:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These measures are not yet law. You cannot claim the boosts until the law is enacted.</para></quote>
<para>This amendment goes a long way to addressing the government's inaction on this measure.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If no-one else is seeking the call I'll put the question. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to. It being past 6.30 pm, we will defer that division until tomorrow.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move opposition amendment (3) on sheet 1852:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 8, page 121 (line 1) to page 122 (line 2), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<para>This schedule modifies the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act to enable the CEFC to receive additional funds to implement Rewiring the Nation, establish the Powering Australia Technology Fund and streamline the ability of the government to provide the CEFC with additional funds in the future. The explanatory memorandum clarifies that this is an $11 billion allocation of funding with an additional $1 billion going to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to fund projects that would not meet the CEFC criteria. A remaining $8 billion will be credited to CEFC at a later date to meet the $20 billion election commitment. However, Labor has not identified what these projects would be.</para>
<para>Critically, the schedule also amends several operational provisions of the CEFC Act. The legislation removes requirements for the government to legislate additional funding for the CEFC, allowing them to create additional accounts within the CEFC simply by general appropriations. The coalition has concerns about this schedule. There are billions in spending for transmission projects that have not been recommended by the energy operator and a hidden $1 billion fund for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to circumvent the independent CEFC process. However, following the Economics Legislation Committee's review of this legislation and recommendations on this schedule, the opposition is seeking to remove this schedule to ensure that the parliament continues to have oversight of the funding mechanisms for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will be opposing this amendment. The Treasury laws amendment bill is crucial, and this amendment is crucial to providing additional capital to the CEFC to implement our Rewiring the Nation fund. Accelerating the uptake of cheaper, cleaner and more reliable electricity helps us to lower energy bills and reduce our emissions. That's why we are investing in critical transmission projects across Australia through the Rewiring the Nation fund.</para>
<para>The CEFC has been highly successful in bringing forward clean energy investment over the past 10 years, despite attempts to abolish the organisation. Over that period, the CEFC has invested with a lifetime transaction value of $42.8 billion, with $11.7 billion of lifetime commitments achieving leverage of $2.62 for every dollar invested. The CEFC needs the additional capital in this bill to invest in the first round of Rewiring the Nation investments that are coming to a financial close in the coming months, and the transmission is critical to the energy transformation. It will enable more renewables and storage to be connected to the grid, driving down energy prices. Rewiring the Nation will provide that $20 billion in low-cost finance to upgrade, expand and modernise our grids. It will lower the cost of new transmission projects and accelerate delivery, and we are working to co-invest with state and territory governments in these projects. Individual investment decisions will be made by the CEFC in accordance with its statutory independence and its Investment Mandate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As no-one else is seeking the call, I will put the question. The question is that schedule 8 stand as printed. A division is required and will be deferred until tomorrow. Senator McGrath?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just note that I can't move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1852 until tomorrow after we resolve that particular division that has been deferred.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's correct, because it's contingent on the first one.</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7039" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>68</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which amends the Migration Act 1958 and is designed to improve and clarify the intended operation of the legislative framework for the giving of notices and other documents, and to remove restrictions on certain noncitizens from lodging a valid application for a protection visa.</para>
<para>There are three elements to this bill. The first seeks to provide certainty and consistency in the way in which persons affected by cancellation decisions are notified, including by requiring all cancellation-related documents to be given in writing and confirming that the regulations can prescribe methods for giving such documents. The second ensures that where the minister gives a document to a person under the Migration Act or the Migration Regulations 1994 and makes an error in doing so, the giving of the document is valid where the person actually received the document and the document is taken to have complied with the requirements as to the content of the document, where the minister has substantially complied with the content requirements, and the error does not cause substantial prejudice to the relevant person's right.</para>
<para>This essentially brings a common sense approach to the administration of the complex migration framework by providing certainty to the minister and to the recipients in relation to the giving of documents. This change is intended to reduce the administrative burden on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and on the courts arising from litigation founded on technical or inconsequential disputes over the giving of the document.</para>
<para>Collectively, these first two elements will streamline and strengthen the notification process, reduce procedural ambiguities that can lead to appeals and generally improve the operation of the legislative framework for the giving of notices and other documents. Ultimately, these changes facilitate the fair and efficient administration of the visa cancellation framework with a greater degree of transparency, certainty and consistency. For these reasons the coalition supports the first two changes proposed under the bill.</para>
<para>The third element of the bill will repeal subdivision AK of division 3 of part 2 of the Migration Act to remove the prohibition on noncitizens who are nationals of two or more countries and certain other cohorts making a valid application for a protection visa. The coalition is concerned about this element of the bill because it removes the requirement for prospective protection visa applicants who are nationals of two or more countries to seek a bar lift which then needs to be assessed and considered by the department and the minister. We are concerned that by allowing the department to be the initial decision-maker rather than the minister, individuals could potentially avail themselves of additional legal avenues and thereby impede the fast and efficient processing of protection visa applications. Ultimately, we want the decision to remain with the minister. While this may necessitate additional workload for the minister, it would potentially prevent decisions being subject to additional judicial processes—processes which can create further administrative burden and run counter to the intent of the bill to create administrative efficiencies in protection visa processing.</para>
<para>I note that the <inline font-style="italic">Bills Digest</inline> on the bill, prepared by the Parliamentary Library, explains that a statutory bar that prevents a person from making a valid protection visa application, which the government is now trying to remove, was introduced in 1999 via the enactment of the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Act 1999. The specific provisions were not included in the original bill but were passed by the Senate with the support of the then Howard government and the opposition. As noted in Labor senator Chris Schacht's speech in the second reading debate, the amendments were intended to prevent forum shopping by persons seeking to enter Australia. Senator Schacht said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Clearly there is evidence emerging that forum shopping is about how people, with the assistance of people smugglers, try to make arrangements to end up in the country of their first desire, where they think would be the nicest place for them to go, and the place that would provide the best facilities and the best future. We cannot blame people for having that view; that is a natural human reaction. But when it gets to the stage where, in one form or another, the international and national procedures for dealing with refugees are being, if not abused, at least bent, so that countries like Australia are unnecessarily targeted, we have every right as a nation to make laws in respect of those arrangements.</para></quote>
<para>This is reflected in section 91M of the Migration Act, which states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This Subdivision is enacted because the Parliament considers that a non-citizen who can avail himself or herself of protection from a third country, because of nationality or some other right to re-enter and reside in the third country, should seek protection from the third country instead of applying in Australia for a protection visa …</para></quote>
<para>The minister said in his second reading speech:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government's position remains unchanged: those who can avail themselves of protection from a third country because of nationality or some other right to re-enter and reside in the third country, should seek protection from the third country instead of applying for a protection visa in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>Why, then, is the government seeking to remove the prohibition on nationals of two or more countries from lodging a valid application for a protection visa? Labor should explain this change of heart. Reducing the minister's workload is not a good enough reason to remove a statutory bar that was enacted with bipartisan support and is in line with the government's unchanged position. For the reasons that I have mentioned, the coalition supports the first two elements of the bill but will not support the third change, as we believe that the minister should still retain that discretion to allow noncitizens who are nationals of two or more countries to apply for a protection visa. That's why, when we move to the committee stage, I will move an amendment which seeks to remove schedule 2 of the bill in its entirety.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This legislation was introduced in the other place, the House of Representatives, during estimates—while the Senate wasn't sitting. It has now been brought on for debate in the Senate without providing the Senate with an opportunity to refer it to an inquiry. This is not what a transparent and accountable government looks like and certainly doesn't live up to Prime Minister Albanese's promise to change the way that politics operates in this country.</para>
<para>The Senate has a constitutional obligation to scrutinise and judge the activities, policies and legislation of the government. We are being prevented from doing that by the government's rush to pass this legislation without a Senate inquiry. This is an omnibus bill, comprising two unrelated schedules. The only commonality between those two schedules is that they both seek to reduce the need for ministerial interventions, thereby reducing administrative burden and increasing visa-processing efficiency. That does sound reasonable, but, as always, the devil is in the detail or, in the case of some of the measures in this bill, the devil is in the lack of detail.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill will repeal subdivision AK of the Migration Act, which bars dual nationals from lodging protection visas. This will ensure protection for refugees, including children with dual nationality, who fear harm from more than one country. This reform is a good and long-overdue reform, and the Australian Greens welcome and support it. However, there is a lack of clarity here, and that is around what will happen to those whose applications have already been found to be invalid and are awaiting ministerial intervention. I will put that question to the minister representing the minister for immigration in committee of the whole.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of the bill—validating documents which do not comply with statutory requirements—ostensibly seeks to provide consistency regarding notifications on visa related matters. The government argues this reform will introduce efficiencies and consistency for all parties: the minister, the department and visa holders. But the issue is whether bureaucratic efficiencies and consistencies will trump the needs and rights of vulnerable visa holders. Schedule 1 contains highly technical amendments, and we are concerned about the potential for unintended consequences, which is, of course, exactly why this bill should have been referred to a Senate committee for inquiry, with proper scrutiny and evidence provided by legal and sector experts and those with lived experience of being a refugee. Sadly, that hasn't happened.</para>
<para>In the short time provided to consider the bill, the Australian Greens have concluded that there is the potential for proposed section 494E to be highly problematic. That section, titled 'When documents are taken to comply with content requirements', may well be titled 'Near enough is good enough'. This section provides that a document given to a person that doesn't comply with relevant requirements under the Migration Act will be considered to be compliant so long as there has been substantial compliance or the noncompliance does not cause substantial prejudice to the person's rights. Those concepts—'substantial compliance' and 'substantial prejudice to the person's rights'—are new concepts and are ambiguous concepts that are being introduced into the act. We have no idea how a court may interpret those terms. This ambiguity may diminish a visa applicant's right to challenge any defective notifications, as the interpretation of these terms will be subjective and legally complex.</para>
<para>This schedule is likely to cause prejudice and inconsistency for applicants and may also, despite the government's insistence, increase the department's administrative burden in assessing whether there has been substantial compliance and whether substantial prejudice exists. Worse yet, there appear to be no review rights for decisions made by the department under these new provisions. The bill also removes the requirement that notifications for certain visa cancellations ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the holder understands the content. This change, without justification, removes the appropriate burden on the department to notify with clarity. This isn't just rushed legislation; this has the potential to be unjust legislation.</para>
<para>The bill includes amendments to create consistency for visa cancellation notifications. This could be a positive reform, but we actually don't know for sure because this detail will be provided in regulations which we have not yet seen. As we won't be provided with an opportunity to debate any regulations that may be drafted, I want to take the opportunity to provide the government with some guidance on what the Australian Greens believe the regulations should provide for. The regulations must ensure that notifications affecting people's rights, particularly regarding visa refusals and visa cancellations, are clear and accessible and that people actually receive their notification documents. I'll just make the observation here that it's far too common that people do not receive their notification letters and consequently miss their deadlines and face devastating consequences.</para>
<para>These issues can be addressed by the regulations prescribing that the department takes all steps possible to ensure the affected person receives their notification letter and understands their notification letter. For example, people who are in immigration detention and criminal custody should be personally handed their notification documents by immigration officers, rather than via third-party contractors. Also, an explanation of the content of the notification must be provided, including a translation of the letter or via an interpreter, where appropriate. Notifications should also specify the date of a person's review deadline. The current system of calculating deadlines based on when a notification is deemed to be received is confusing and should be changed. Importantly, the Australian Greens want to take this opportunity to strongly encourage the government to agree with the refugee sector, the refugee legal sector and the human rights sector while drafting these regulations.</para>
<para>As the bill stands, we have concerns, in particular, with schedule 1. Unfortunately, rather than allowing the parliament to consider fully formed reforms and their potential impacts on people and on justice in this country, the government has again chosen to leave these important details to delegated legislation and, unfortunately, has, as I stated earlier, refused to allow this bill to be scrutinised by a Senate inquiry. Regardless of what the regulations may or may not include, there is nothing that could be drafted to fix the injustices that we believe are at risk from clause 494E of the bill, which is why I give notice of my intention to move the amendment on sheet 1997, as circulated under my name, to strike out schedule 1 of the bill.</para>
<para>I also want to take this opportunity to make it clear to the government that they are on notice from the Australian Greens on their policies regarding boat turn backs and the continuation of offshore detention. There are still 80 people in Papua New Guinea who were exiled illegally, as the Papua New Guinean Supreme Court found, to Manus Island a decade ago—by a Labor government, I might add. Those people are clearly impacted by the unfortunate situation where this current government has adopted the previous policies of Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton in washing their hands of responsibility for those people who remain in Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea.</para>
<para>I want to make it clear that many of those people are critically ill. In many cases, they are critically mentally ill. We shouldn't be surprised about this. They were subjected to a situation on Manus Island designed to deliberately dehumanise them, brutalise them and torture them. They witnessed death and disease. They were subject to attacks by Papua New Guinean armed forces. They witnessed murders. They witnessed other assaults. And they witnessed those things while being illegally detained in Papua New Guinea, as found by the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court.</para>
<para>There are also many hundreds of people from the offshore cohort who are now in Australia. The department and the government describe them as transitory persons. The Greens describe them as human beings. Many hundreds of those people have no pathway to permanent protection and no pathway to a free and safe place to call home. That's even if the opportunities remaining under the US agreement, the New Zealand agreement and private sponsorship opportunities in Canada are fully filled. There are still many hundreds of people from the offshore detention cohort who have no prospect whatsoever, as we stand here tonight, of permanent freedom and permanent safety. I remind colleagues that we signed up to provide them with those things when we signed the Refugee Convention in the 1950s. Those were the days when Australia was a global leader in human rights rather than the global pariah on human rights that we are today.</para>
<para>I note recent reports around the fact that the United Kingdom is now commissioning an Australian company to provide Hulk barges for the imprisonment of refugees in the United Kingdom. It wasn't that many centuries ago that people who were on prison hulks in the UK became some of the convicts that were brought to Australia in the early days of colonisation and land theft that occurred in this country. Now an Australian company—incidentally, I might add, the very same company that provides travel services to senators in this place—is a contractor to the UK government in providing prison hulks for refugees in the UK. I also note that the UK has entered into offshore detention agreements with third-party governments, once again demonstrating and proving that offshore detention is one of this country's most shameful exports.</para>
<para>This legislation, which relates in part to refugee status, can help us take a small step along a path that would ultimately address a very small part of the reputational damage that Australia has caused to itself and that we have caused to ourselves by our attitude to offshore detention, our attitude to boat turn-backs and our attitude to indefinite onshore immigration detention, which,    quite shamefully, we still engage in in this country. So that part of the bill will receive the support of the Australian Greens, and it will in a very minor way start to repair some of that damage. But, believe me, there is a lot more damage that is yet to be repaired, and this government has a lot more work to do before it can be considered a government that is on the side of people seeking asylum in Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this evening to make just a short contribution to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023. As my colleague Senator Paterson said, the bill before the Senate today amends the Migration Act 1958 to improve and clarify the intended operation of the legislative framework for the giving of notices and other documents, and to remove restrictions on certain noncitizens lodging a valid application for a protection visa. Again echoing my colleague Senator Paterson, I do want to put on the record the coalition's position on this bill. We are providing our support to major aspects of the bill, as the bill is generally administrative in nature and makes some sensible changes to streamline the notification processes around certain visas.</para>
<para>The first two areas of the bill make relatively minor amendments to the Migration Act and will reduce the number of applications for administrative review on minor matters, such as documents being sent to a wrong address or minor mistakes in correspondence. This bill makes clear the instances when the minister or the government must contact a person or persons who could be impacted by the cancellation of a visa, and a person affected by the cancellation of a visa must, under this bill, be notified in writing. It confirms that the regulations can prescribe methods for giving such documents. This both clarifies and reinforces the existing mechanisms within the legislation to help ensure that a person affected by a visa cancellation has the best chance of receiving the relevant documents. The amendments will also improve the operation of the act and reduce the number of matters that go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Federal Court on minor technical issues. As I stated previously, the coalition agrees with and is supportive of these amendments.</para>
<para>However, the coalition has raised concerns surrounding the third point of this legislation, which deals with the removal of the requirement for the minister to consider an application to allow someone to lodge a protection visa application due to dual citizenship issues. The coalition believe that this change will have unintended consequences, and therefore we cannot provide our support on this point. If the department is the initial decision-maker, we want to ensure that the change proposed in this bill does not lead to an ability for people to avail themselves of judicial rights just because a decision has been made by the department rather than the minister. It comes down to a case of workload. We believe that the minister, instead of delegating to the department, should rightly still retain that discretion to allow noncitizens who are nationals of two or more countries to be able to apply for a protection visa.</para>
<para>More broadly, it is important that we ensure our migration system remains current and can deal effectively with issues relating to migration into this country. As I said in my initial remarks, the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023 largely does do that. But, as I explained, the coalition holds some reservations relating to the unintended consequences of a specific element of this bill.</para>
<para>Our nation has a very long and very proud history of welcoming new migrants to our shores. You only have to look at our cities and our local communities to see the immense impact and positive contribution of our migrant communities. While we always come into this place and speak about our experience in our home states, because that's what we as senators are here for, I must say that in my own home state of Tasmania I'm very proud of everything that our migrant communities bring to our fantastic state. It is truly amazing that so many people from so many parts of the world can come together in one country, work hard, provide for their families and call it home.</para>
<para>It is incredibly important that our migration system is balanced in welcoming migrants but also ensuring that our borders are kept secure. Any legislation that comes to this place and seeks to make that process easier to understand for those attempting to navigate the system is, I think, a good thing, because when it comes to migration there are a number of questions on this front—particularly of late—that I think the government need to answer, in terms of how easy that system is to navigate and being able to solve any issues that individuals might have when they are trying to navigate that system.</para>
<para>I notice that recently my office has received calls from people who want to make Australia their permanent home and who, when going through the application process to make that a reality, can often find themselves caught up in a complex web of departmental bureaucracy surrounding their visa application. I am sure there would be many senators in this place who have had that experience of their constituents coming to them and seeking advice on how to navigate the visa application system. I've had calls from people complaining about the wait times when it comes to processing their visa applications. I've had people call to tell me that the department has provided them with the wrong information or in some cases hasn't even communicated with them regarding their application at all.</para>
<para>It's understandable why these people are so worried and feel the need to pick up the phone to their local politician. From what I've heard from colleagues and in the other place, it's something a lot of us are getting calls about, and these individuals often come to us as the last port of call. But the support that we're able to provide to them is somewhat limited, and I know from personal experience that that can be quite frustrating. This is especially the case when we as parliamentarians are trying to make representations to the government or to the department and are told that we're not in a position to inquire about a visa application on behalf of an applicant. I understand why, for privacy reasons, that would be the case. But, when we go back to applicants and tell them that we, as elected parliamentarians in this place, aren't in a position to help them navigate our migration system, it is effectively just adding to their worry and their concern.</para>
<para>So, in looking at the good things about this bill that we are debating here this evening, I note that it will make notification processes more streamlined. I think that that can only be a good thing in ensuring that individuals navigating the visa application process are appropriately made aware, in certain instances, of what is happening with their visa application.</para>
<para>I had one experience recently of being approached by an individual, a member of the Iranian diaspora community, because they were under the impression that they had to contact the Iranian embassy to get a police check as a requirement of the visa application. I raised this issue at the recent Senate estimates. Certainly, from looking at the information that I was provided with relevant to that individual's application and at the publicly available information on the department's website, it did seem to be the case. Thankfully, in Senate estimates the department was able to set the record straight on this issue and state that it wasn't necessary for these people to get in contact with Iranian authorities or go through the Iranian embassy as part of the application process. However, the fact that I had to raise the issue at Senate estimates does fundamentally highlight the confusion and the information out there that isn't always accurate when it comes to the visa application process. Like I say, anything that streamlines and simplifies this process is a good thing, but the bill that we're discussing here this evening does have to be considered within the prism of some of our concerns in regard to the ability of the minister to maintain a discretion in some specific instances. As I said, in this bill that we're debating here this evening that is a discretion to allow noncitizens who are nationals of two or more countries to apply for a protection visa.</para>
<para>I certainly think that this bill does some good things. There are some areas, as I've said, that the coalition does take issue with, and we will be moving amendments to that effect to try and make this bill as ideal as we would like it to be. That's because our migration system is important; it is important that people understand it and that people are able to easily navigate it. But, as I say, it is also important that we balance that up with the ability to ensure that the correct decision-makers are making appropriate decisions. With the minister retaining this specific discretion here, we think that that's where that decision would be most appropriately made.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank those members who've contributed to this debate. The Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023 will amend the Migration Act 1958. The amendments in this bill will support improved and fairer processes under the Migration Act. They improve the effectiveness of the notification of decisions and actions under the act and reduce inefficient processes relating to the making of valid protection visa applications for dual citizens.</para>
<para>The common sense amendments in this bill strengthen the notification framework for visa related decisions. They do this by reinforcing the existing mechanisms, ensuring that those affected have the best chance of actually receiving the relevant documents. It also mirrors other legislative frameworks by adopting a substantial compliance notification framework, providing greater certainty in relation to the notification of visa related decisions and actions for both the minister and the recipient of such notices.</para>
<para>The bill also removes the prohibition on nationals of two or more countries from lodging a valid application for a protection visa. Subdivision AK of division 3 of part 2 of the Migration Act currently prevents any person who is a national of two or more countries from lodging a valid application for a protection visa, but allows the minister to lift the bar if it is in the public interest to do so. The removal of this subdivision from the Migration Act will improve administrative efficiencies, minimising the risk of family separation and streamlining the process for dual nationals seeking protection in Australia.</para>
<para>The government's position remains unchanged: those who can avail themselves of protection from a third country because of nationality or some other right to re-enter and reside in a third country should seek protection from the third country instead of applying for a protection visa in Australia. This bill deserves support. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>73</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move the opposition amendments (1) and (2) on page 1991 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 2, page 11 (line 1) to page 12 (line 4), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<para>As I said in my second reading speech, these seek to omit schedule 2 from the bill because we are concerned about the unintended consequences of this. I outlined the rationale for that in my second reading speech and I won't detain the Senate by repeating that rationale tonight.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The removal of subdivision AK from the Migration Act will improve administrative efficiencies, minimise the risk of family separation and streamline the process for dual nationals seeking protection in Australia. The government's position remains unchanged: those who can avail themselves of protection from a third country because of nationality or some other right to re-enter or reside in a third country should seek protection from the third country instead of applying for visa protection in Australia.</para>
<para>The government is making commonsense changes to the act to build a migration system that works in the national interest, is administratively efficient and provides certainty for visa applications. Subdivision AK is not in line with these principles and it is disappointing to see the opposition stand in the way of efficient and fair visa processing. We will be opposing these amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens will likewise be opposing the opposition's amendments. I made it clear in my second reading contribution that in our view schedule 2 of this bill, which will repeal subdivision AK of the Migration Act, will provide for dual nationals to be able to lodge protection visa applications. I also made it clear that in our view this reform is a good one and, arguably, a long overdue reform to the Migration Act. On that basis it's welcomed by the Greens and we won't be supporting the opposition's attempts to strike out this schedule.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORAR</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're dealing with opposition amendment (2) on sheet 1991. The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed. A division is required, but the division will need to be deferred to another day of sitting. Given that amendment (1) is contingent, we will need to move on to other amendments.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have some questions for the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Firstly, proposed section 494E appears to create a loophole for the government to validate its own defective notifications to visa applicants and holders. We've got concerns that this will potentially result in people losing review rights, which in turn could result in things like permanent family separation, indefinite detention or refoulement. Given the potential for those consequences, which are pretty dire, why is the government proposing this section instead of simply working to improve its compliance with the current notification framework?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The introduction of a substantial compliance framework for notifications under the Migration Act will give greater certainty for visa holders and applicants, as well as the department's decision-makers, in relation to giving visa related notices. Specifically, the amendments will ensure notifications given in relation to all visa related decisions and associated actions will remain valid in spite of a potential defect in either the content of the document or in the way it is given, providing the defect does not cause substantial prejudice to the person's legal rights. Importantly, these changes ensure that people who receive visa notifications, including relevant information about any natural justice or review rights, will not be substantially disadvantaged. These changes provide greater certainty that notifications relied upon are valid and that a person's legal rights are upheld.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, but that didn't tell us anything we didn't know was the government's position already. But it does give me the opportunity to ask whether the minister can inform the committee as to who will be responsible for assessing whether there has been substantial compliance or substantial prejudice, in relation to defective notification, under section 22.</para>
<para>While you're taking some advice there, Minister, I do have a corollary question to that: how does the government justify an additional layer of administrative decision-making, given the fact that there are already massive and excessive delays in visa processing in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator McKim. In relation to the first point, the decision-maker would be the department, but any decision would be eligible for judicial review.</para>
<para>In regard to the second point, which was, effectively, about the speed of processing, I know that the government has put in an extra $50 million of resources to ensure that we can speed up the processing system, because we understand that there has been a backlog. That is the decision the government has made.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I consider myself a fair person and I will give credit where it's due. It has been refreshing to see the extra resources that this government has directed into the processing of visas. I do acknowledge that that has been done and congratulate the minister and the relevant officials in the department for a quite refreshing change that we have seen, since the change of government, in this area.</para>
<para>I would reiterate the Greens' concerns that the creation of the concepts of substantial compliance and substantial prejudice does have the capacity to create an additional layer of decision-making and, potentially, contribute to delays in visa processing.</para>
<para>Minister, it is evident that the notification framework requires an overhaul as it is confusing and overly rigid, in our view, towards visa applicants and visa holders and that that confusion and rigidity can result in dire consequences, including permanent family separation, indefinite detention and refoulement. Given the administrative review, reform, that is currently in progress, this is an opportune time to fix the notification framework. But why has the government decided not to legislate meaningful improvements to the notification framework and, instead, create loopholes that will provide for defective notification?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator McKim, for the question. This is the decision the government have made, at this time, which we think is an improvement. We'd certainly be happy to engage with you further on potential changes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister. Minister, under section 494E, exactly how will the department determine whether a document meets the tests of substantial compliance or substantial prejudice to a person's rights?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, these are some examples of how a defect or breach will be allowed to be made. A document may contain one or more breaches of a requirement, such as an error, omission, misstatement or misdescription, and, nevertheless, be found to substantially comply with the relevant requirements. The terms used in the new provision as examples of breaches—'error', 'omission', 'misstatement' or 'misdescription'—are intended to mean the following: 'error' is intended to capture a broad range of content related defects that could be made in the document; 'omission' is intended to capture missing information in the document, including grammatical omissions and omissions of parts of names, numbers, titles, subheadings or certain sentences or meanings; 'misstatement' is intended to capture incorrect statements made in the document, including those made about the person, addressee or legislation, or statements that are correct and relevant to the person or matter but placed under incorrect headings; and 'misdescription' is intended to capture the incorrect descriptions in the document, including those made about the person, addressee, actions, facts, legislation or rights. An example of where a document might be taken to substantially comply with content requirements would include a document that includes information on review rights but under the wrong heading. It's intended that the defect may not prevent substantial compliance.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister. Will any of those matters be quantified or expressed in regulation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, I can advise that we're happy to engage with you around the drafting process.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister. Minister, my assumption is that implicit in that answer is that there will be regulations that will cover these matters. I would appreciate it if you could confirm that verbally.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Correct.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Has the government made a decision about whether they will be disallowable, or is it clear in the provisions of this bill whether those regulations will be disallowable?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd have to take that on notice and come back to you, Senator McKim.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for that. I thank this minister and, via him, the immigration minister for his invitation to engage in those issues. I do appreciate that.</para>
<para>I turn to the rights of review. Minister, you did mention judicial review in one of your earlier answers. I don't want to verbal you here or assert that you said anything, but I want to be clear. Are there any rights of review for departmental decisions made under the tests of substantial compliance or substantial prejudice to a person's rights?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is the High Court has made a determination that the decisions of the department can be judicially reviewed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Are those rights expressly provided for in either this bill or the act?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They're not expressly provided for in this bill, because there is a general understanding that that applies to decisions of the department.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Did the government take any legal advice around the creation of substantial compliance and/or substantial prejudice? To make it clear, I'm not asking you to reveal what that legal advice is. I'm simply asking whether advice was taken and, specifically, whether advice was taken on how a court may interpret the terms of substantial compliance and substantial prejudice to a person's rights.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that legal advice was provided in relation to the legislation. I don't know if it specifically covered the issue that you raised but I'm happy to try to come back to you on that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for that commitment. Minister, you would have heard in my contribution to the second reading debate that the Greens are firmly of the view that this bill should have been referred to the Senate committee for inquiry, because these are potentially very complex matters—at least what that part of the bill deals with. Is the government able to explain what is so vital, or urgent or time sensitive about this legislation that it felt the need to present this to the Senate without supporting it being referred to a Senate committee for inquiry?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The urgency from our point of view was knowing that this would provide certainty for visa applicants, and we can only do that once this bill has been passed. From our point of view, that was the urgency and why we were keen to get this passed as soon as possible.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I'll just take this opportunity to reiterate the Greens' view that there's significant potential for unintended consequences that would have massive ramifications on people's lives, including, ultimately, being forcibly deported back into danger and also in terms of permanent family separation and indefinite detention. I do note the proposition that Australia engages in indefinite immigration detention was roundly and explicitly rejected by the Department of Home Affairs. I want to place on the record the absurdity of the department's position in relation to that when I presented it to them in Senate estimates recently. There can be no doubt at all that we detain people indefinitely in immigration detention in Australia. That proposition is actually supported by no less than the United Nations. But the department, somehow, has managed to convince itself—Lord knows how, and with what mental gymnastics—that we don't actually detain people indefinitely. Of course we detain people in immigration detention indefinitely in Australia. It beggars belief that the department could convince itself otherwise.</para>
<para>You may or may not have this information, Minister; if you don't have it, I'd be happy for you to take it on notice and see whether in fact it is something that could be provided. I accept that government departments have varying datasets and varying data storage and searching capabilities, so you may not be able to answer this, but you could commit to at least responding in some form to this question. How many documents or notifications have the department sent out that have been found to be noncompliant with current requirements under the Migration Act or the regulations? I'd be happy if you'd just address that in the time frame of the existence of the new government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We'll take it on notice and provide whatever information we can, Senator McKim.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate that, Minister. What is the government's policy argument for removing the requirement that notifications for certain visa cancellations ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the holder understands the content? Surely that's an appropriate burden on the department—to ensure that notifications received by visa holders provide them with clarity and, as far as reasonably practicable, that the holder actually understands the content? I don't see what's so burdensome on the department about that provision.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The requirement was relevant when information was provided to the visa holder orally. It is not applicable to written notifications. Instead, the visa notice would need to clearly set out why the relevant information is relevant to the visa cancellation.</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Natural Disasters</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last month I had the privilege of meeting with communities in the Adelaide Hills and Riverland who are recovering from the devastating bushfires and floods of recent years. As has been the case during all my visits to disaster affected regions as special envoy, I was struck by the resilience of the locals and the optimism of those who are getting on with the hard work of recovery. I thank all of those who have shared their experiences with me, and some of them were very personal experiences so I very much appreciate them opening up and having those conversations.</para>
<para>I met with the South Australian Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Joe Szakacs, and the Community Recovery Coordinator, Alex Zimmermann, to discuss ongoing recovery efforts and future disaster planning across South Australia. I toured Lobethal Bushland Park with representatives from Adelaide Hills Council, including CEO David Waters and Mayor Jan-Claire Wisdom, with whom I caught up again in Canberra just this week. Prior to the Black Summer bushfires, the reserve contained 188 hectares of significant remnant vegetation, nine kilometres of public walking trails, a play space, a picnic area and other public amenities. Sadly, over 95 per cent of the reserve was burnt in the Cudlee Creek fire, with all the playground, picnic and trail infrastructure either being heavily damaged or lost entirely.</para>
<para>It is great to see how the council has been able to rebuild the park with $150,000 co-funded by the federal and state governments through the local economic recovery program and to speak to members of the community resilience team who are responsible for delivering the Towards Community Led Recovery and Resilience and the Recovery Ready Halls programs. This important work is being funded through the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants Program and Preparing Australian Communities program.</para>
<para>These funding programs are also helping the local community in Mount Barker to recover from the Black Summer bushfires. I heard about two exciting projects from representatives from Mount Barker council. The Fire 2 Flourish team, funded under the Preparing Australian Communities program, are working towards two key outcomes: first, to increase community capacity to support disaster planning, response and recovery; and, secondly, improving landowners' management of fuel loads, including with the use of cultural burning. As the team described it: 'They are making sure that communities are even better positioned to respond if affected by a future event.'</para>
<para>The second project I heard about was the installation of a mural and augmented reality display piece in a local Wallis Cinema funded through the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants Program. The cinema was used as a safe haven for people during the 2019-2020 bushfires. The team hopes that the community will 'take positivity and encouragement from the murals' to aid with recovery. While the artwork had yet to be installed during my visit, I was able to view a video demonstration and hear from the local artist and animator, Luke Jurevicius. Congratulations to the teams involved in all these projects.</para>
<para>While I was in the hills, I also met with facilitators from Women Together Learning who received BSBR funding to run the Regenerate Rural Women program. The program is designed to focus on the wellbeing, identity and social recovery of women impacted by bushfire events. The facilitators told me that one of the participants in the program had said, 'I have lost myself and need to find myself.' WOTL's work is helping participants to do that, building their capacity and resilience for the future.</para>
<para>In the Riverland, I met with representatives from the Loxton council, Berri Barmera Council and the Renmark Paringa Council to talk about the ongoing recovery following the Murray River floods. We heard how their communities rose to the significant challenges presented by the floods, building levees and protecting homes and critical infrastructure. The flood stress tested their systems and seeded ideas about how to improve and prepare for future events. It demonstrated the strength of the community resilience that exists—a silver lining in a dark cloud. These communities, as David Pluckhahn from the Berri Barmera Council put it, just keep plugging away at recovery. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time </inline><inline font-style="italic">expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's been a lot of talk from Labor and the Greens about the so-called Voice, but my party, the Queensland Liberal National Party, won't be taking lectures from Labor about Indigenous voices. The Queensland LNP proudly selected not just the first Indigenous federal parliamentarian, Senator Neville Bonner in 1971, but the first-ever state MP, Eric Deeral in 1974. It took the Labor Party almost 45 years before they elected their first Indigenous representative to federal parliament.</para>
<para>Eric Deeral is best remembered as the member for Cook from 1974 to 1977, but his service to Queensland goes so much further than that. After leaving school at the age of just 13 in 1945, Eric worked as a labourer, a bush worker and a ringer. Through these experiences, Eric witnessed firsthand the severe troubles that Aboriginal people in North Queensland faced, leading him down a path of public service. In 1974, Eric ran as one of the two National Party candidates in a fierce contest in the Cook electorate. After a tight election campaign, Eric was able to fend off six other candidates and become the first Indigenous state MP in Australia. Having had family live in the Hope Vale region of the Cook electorate for over 20,000 years, Eric firstly considered himself an Australian from Queensland.</para>
<para>In his maiden speech to the Queensland parliament, Eric made it clear from the start that he was in parliament not to fight solely for Indigenous Australians but rather to fight for all the people of Cook, independent of race. Eric believed the best way to improve the lives of those living in Far North Queensland was to improve roads and boost tourism to ensure that all North Queenslanders could find work. He fought for more schools and increased access to health services to ensure that the people of Far North Queensland could live happy and healthy lives. He was everything a good local member should be.</para>
<para>Despite losing his seat of Cook in the 1977 state election, along with many of his Liberal and National colleagues, he continued to serve his community until he sadly passed away in 2012. Whether it be serving as the first chairperson of the Aboriginal Coordination Council from 1985 or working with the Queensland government on mechanisms to increase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' involvement in Queensland elections from 2003, Eric continued his service to fight for the rights of Aboriginal people through a variety of causes and bodies.</para>
<para>Eric's life since his involvement in parliament was one of service to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and more broadly to all the people of Queensland. Eric argued against the paternal policies of the Whitlam government, and he deplored the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as second-class citizens. In his maiden speech to parliament, he argued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The people responsible for handing out cash for no effort are condemning them—</para></quote>
<para>Indigenous Australians—</para>
<quote><para class="block">to oblivion. No man can continually accept hand-outs without losing his initiative and self-respect.</para></quote>
<para>Indeed, Eric Deeral will go down in the history of Queensland and Australia as a staunch advocate for the self-determination rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. He was an Aboriginal elder of the highest conviction who dedicated his life to improving the lives of not only First Nations peoples but all of those in Far North Queensland.</para>
<para>Today we should, and I do, honour Eric Deeral's contribution to the Liberal National Party and to Queensland more broadly, but we also should take his lessons going forward to the modern day. For Eric, despite growing up in the harshest of circumstances and having to leave school and start work as a labourer at the age of just 13, he fought hard against the government treating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people like second-class citizens. He fought for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We must do the same. We cannot separate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our founding document. We must support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, not from a place of division and racial separation but from a place of genuine care and direct assistance. In his life, Eric Deeral contributed significantly to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and to Queensland. His lessons cannot be lost in time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gymnastics Australia, Human Rights: Pakistan</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I have written to the Minister for Social Services raising significant concerns about the delay in Gymnastics Australia signing up for the National Redress Scheme. Since late 2020, Gymnastics Australia has been listed as an organisation intending to join the Redress Scheme. I'm advised the process usually takes three to six months but that it has still not been completed by this institution. With the Redress Scheme ending in mid-2027, every delay by institutions at this stage means more survivors who will not be able to access the scheme.</para>
<para>My office has spoken with survivors of abuse who have applied for redress payments from Gymnastics Australia but are still waiting, some for up to two years, for the organisation to complete the process of joining the scheme. Meanwhile, they get no information and no details—nothing from Gymnastics Australia about the delay. They are worried that Gymnastics Australia are only saying they will join the scheme to ensure they continue to receive federal funding from Sport Integrity Australia—funding which would be denied them had they not been in the process of joining the scheme. Obviously, if that is true, it is deeply concerning and cynical.</para>
<para>Across the country, there are a number of active criminal prosecutions against perpetrators from this organisation, Gymnastics Australia. It is a significant issue, and across the country there are likely hundreds of affected people, mainly women and girls, who are waiting for the sport to act and take responsibility. I say to the survivors now: you have a right to fair compensation. You have a right for the institution to take responsibility for what happened to you. The Greens are with you, and we'll fight for all of you to be heard, respected and provided with the redress and justice you deserve.</para>
<para>Since the ousting of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Imran Khan in April last year, we've seen excessive force being used against protesters, mass arrests of political opponents, prominent journalists going missing and civilians being tried under military law. All of these actions are contrary to international law. The Australian Greens remain deeply concerned about the escalating tensions in Pakistan, with growing protests and government led suppression leading to extensive violence. That dangerous cycle of violence must end.</para>
<para>These developments have impacted Australians as well. In 2020, Australian Hasan Askree was sentenced to five years in prison for the crime of writing a letter which was critical of a military official. Mr Askree was released last week only after prolonged advocacy by his family and by the Pakistani diaspora, who raised awareness of his case and continued to put pressure on to secure his release. I want to commend the work of my Greens colleagues Senators Steele-John and Faruqi, who, along with me, advocated in this place for Mr Askree's release. The Greens will always stand up for human rights around the globe, and we continue to urge the government of Pakistan to uphold the human rights of its people and hold those who violate them accountable under law.</para>
<para>My office has been hearing from the Pakistani diaspora, who are deeply concerned about the political situation in Pakistan, and today in this parliament I'm here in solidarity with them. The Greens urge the government of Pakistan to hear these calls from across the global Pakistani diaspora and commit to free and fair elections, open to all to nominate for election, because the people of Pakistan deserve the right to elect the representatives of their choice and to have their votes counted and their democracy respected.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Affordable housing is not something that all Australians have access to, and this has disproportionately affected high-risk communities such as women and children. Census data has shown that in my home city of Launceston 6.5 per cent of households are insecurely housed. This means that 6.5 per cent of the population are homeless, spending more than 30 per cent of their pay on rent or living in overcrowded houses. The wait time for social housing in Tasmania has blown out to over two years because we simply do not have enough houses to meet the demand.</para>
<para>The Albanese government took to the election a plan to address housing insecurity and lack of supply. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill would establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, to be invested by the Future Fund Board of guardians to create returns which would fund affordable social housing. This fund would help to deliver 30,000 new social houses, provide $200 million over five years for housing in Indigenous communities, $100 million for housing for women and children impacted by domestic violence and women at risk of homelessness, and $30 million to build housing for veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness.</para>
<para>Women across our country have spent decades contributing to Australian communities. But, instead of ensuring they have safe housing in the instances of domestic violence, job difficulty and job loss, divorce, illness and poor health, or the multitude of other reasons for which they may find themselves homeless, they have been abandoned by the Australian Greens.</para>
<para>And what have we seen again this week—in fact, for almost six months now? The Australian Greens are quickly going back to their old tricks. The Greens are not representatives of the Australian people, but rather are showing their true colours in this place. They have engaged in an axis of evil with the Liberal Party to stop the building of 30,000 social and affordable homes. They are a destructive political force who are willing to trash principles of strong government in favour of cheering on their small utopian base. While they engage in this small-minded politics, they are disadvantaging my Tasmanian community—those at risk of homelessness, looking for a home, and those who are already homeless, or women escaping domestic violence.</para>
<para>The Greens' vote yesterday to delay the building of 30,000 social and affordable homes across the country displays that they will not work in the national interest. They will not operate as adults in a political environment. They're not an adult political party. No, they are happy to operate on the fringe, with no intention to ever grow to the point of governing and making the difficult decisions. This is a good thing, because they are not capable of solving problems. They promise the world, deliver nothing and damage our country and its people in the process. I echo the words of the Prime Minister from the other place today. The Greens, he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… deal in protest; we focus on progress. They see issues to campaign on; we see challenges to act on. They want to build their profile; we want to build more homes.</para></quote>
<para>We are sent to this place to serve the people we represent. Yet the Greens want to play games with the lives of Tasmanians who just want a roof over their heads. So, as the nights get longer and colder, and more and more Tasmanians do whatever it takes to stay warm, I hope the Greens think about the homeless Tasmanians when they head off to rest their heads on their pillows in their very warm beds in their own homes, that they can afford and they have access to, while, at the same time, they're leaving too many Tasmanians—and not only Tasmanians—homeless and at risk of not having a home, and not giving them the security which is a human right. Those people down there talk about that endlessly, but, when it comes to actually doing something, they go running to their buddies over there in the coalition—the 'no-alition'—and get into bed quickly with them! Maybe they think they're warmer in there—maybe that's what it is; maybe they just provide that extra comfort for them at night. But I can tell you: it is not comforting to Tasmanian homeless people and those at risk.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gender and Sexual Orientation</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a letter that Ireceived from Paul Campion, the parent of a biological female. He writes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My name is Paul Campion, and I am the father of a beautiful 14-year-old biological female.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The fact I have to explain her biology is part of the reason I wish to be heard.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My daughter is facing an uphill battle on two fronts from this onslaught of gender ideology.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The first battle is at high school in Queensland.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the past year, public schools in Queensland have allowed biological boys to declare themselves to be girls, and this gives them the 'right' to enter the change rooms of young biological girls!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My daughter is a champion swimmer at her school and has been subjected to biological boys entering the facilities, with phones, here she and other girls dress and undress.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When my wife and I approached the school administration after our daughter told us what was happening, the school told us there are no boys in the change room, they are girls!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My daughter is not stupid.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">She can tell the difference between girls and boys, unlike many of the men and women in this parliament! Especially the Greens.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Those MPs and Senators should be ashamed of themselves; this is the most insane case of the emperor's new clothes the world has ever seen!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is a Marxist ideology disguised as the word woke!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Queensland Government is wearing a trench coat and exposing itself to young women and children.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's a disgrace!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The young ladies are not in cubicles; these are the old-style open change rooms with a bench.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These young girls are being denied a safe and secure place to change at school swimming events.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That's just not acceptable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Queensland government has declared anyone can identify as a woman.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The pathetic Minister for Women, Shannon Fentiman, actually said this: "anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This opens up a whole new set of issues, as any male teacher who decides he is now a woman could potentially enter the change rooms and toilet facilities of girls as young as 12.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My daughter's case is a case in point.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Her basic human rights as an adolescent girl are being denied by the school allowing trans boys into her change room.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">She has a right to privacy and safety while changing and using the facilities and so does every other young lady</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Young women and girls have enough to worry about while going through puberty, without having to worry about this child abuse from our own government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The threat, if not physical, is certainly psychological and these young impressionable biological females should not have to deal with the mental health issues and gender dysphoria of the opposite sex.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The second front my daughter faces is in her chosen sport.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Not only is she a champion swimmer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">She is also an aspiring tennis player who, if she persists, may be good enough to earn a living from the sport.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">However this may not be achievable following the comments made recently by Australian Tennis CEO Craig Tiley, who said he'd like to see trans women compete amongst biological women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The fact that biological men who play tennis as women will dominate and win all the money doesn't make it much of an opportunity for aspiring young biological female tennis players.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As her father I am offended.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">How dare this government abuse young children like they are.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The mental health of these young ladies is being abused and it will only be a matter of time until something more abhorrent happens to them physically thanks to this deranged ideology.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Let's stop using the Latin word 'phobia' and use another that is more suitable. This is not 'trans-phobia'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is 'trans fastidium'—fastidium meaning disgust!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Leave my daughter alone.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Let her grow into the beautiful young woman she wants to be without the threat of delusional and perverse men intruding on her life.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is sinister and those who support this ideology should be ashamed for not standing up for women and children!</para></quote>
<para>I commend Mr Campion for writing this letter to me, because this is the feeling of many Australians. I've tried raising this issue in this parliament—and I will raise it again—to call for a Senate inquiry into puberty blockers and everything else. Gender dysphoria needs to be spoken about. We need to debate it. We have to get it out of our schools and protect the young girls and women that we have.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Automobile Club of Tasmania</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the rites of passage for many young Australians on the road to adulthood is completing the requirements to hold a drivers licence. Sitting behind the wheel of a car for the first time is a core memory for many people, and the first time you drive on your own feels like freedom. The road stretches out in front of you, unfurling like a ribbon, and that realisation that you can go anywhere at any time is an exciting moment.</para>
<para>For many astute Tasmanians, the keys to that first car have often gone together with membership of the Royal Automobile Club of Tasmania. This year the RACT reached a milestone—100 years of operation—and, while it has undergone some significant changes over that time, the core values of the club have never changed. Today, the RACT has more than 200,000 members. Personally, I've been a member since I was 17.</para>
<para>The RACT was founded in 1923 by two men, accountant Raymond John Shield and lawyer Allen Crisp, who both loved cars, despite the fact that cars were only in their infancy. It wasn't really about the cars, though; it was about the camaraderie, the club culture and the community. Over a century, the RACT has become the eminent source of information on the best way to navigate and behave on Tasmanian roads. It developed the motorist's handbook, which provided technical advice and motoring material. The RACT has been at the forefront of ingenuity and history over the years, starting way back in 1923, when one of the most important inclusions was a distance table that helped drivers compare trips and assess their fuel needs. Fast-forward to the 1960s, and club membership had exploded to more than 12,000 members, and the advent of television along the way had revealed the allure of Tasmanian roads to others for the first time. During the 1962 Commonwealth Games in Perth, the RACT sponsored a vehicle to help other mainland clubs patrol the Eyre Highway. It was driven by patrolman D Goodwin, who helped cover the 776-mile highway in 44-degree weather for 31 days.</para>
<para>One of the most fascinating things about the RACT is that, yes, it started through a love of cars, but the organisation has always reinvented itself to improve services and outcomes for its members. The first notable example of this was in the 1960s, with the introduction of the RACT driver training service. This service is still used today by young people who want to learn to drive under teacher supervision. Another example came two decades later, in the 1980s, when the RACT introduced its signature roadside emergency service and insurance options. It was described by the RACT as 'arguably one of the most important single developments' in the organisation's history. The transition from acting as an insurance agent to being a locally owned private insurance company was a big change, but the RACT's constant focus on being a grassroots Tasmanian company interested in the betterment of the state meant they soon won the loyalty of many customers.</para>
<para>Over the years the RACT has worked with all levels of government to change the rules on intoxicated driving and bicycle reflectors and to push for better, safer and more sensible road regulations. In more recent years they have advocated better driver awareness and improvements to our road network. One of the things I admire about the RACT is that, while they're first and foremost a business, they have the Tasmanian community at their centre. For example, following the devastating bushfires at Dunalley—and I'm sure most of you have seen viral images from that time—RACT members and customers were among those who suffered loss but were also some of the first to swing into action to help. The RACT contributed $25,000 to the Red Cross appeal to support victims of the fire and delivered a $20,000 recovery grant scheme for small community groups affected by the fire. Roadside service was provided to all fire affected people, irrespective of their membership status, and the insurance staff were quickly on site at refuge centres in the hardest hit towns, supporting members and assessing damage.</para>
<para>Tasmanians rely on our extensive road network arguably more than people do in other states. With a disparate population and a less frequent public transport system, Tasmania has the highest proportion of drivers, according to the ABS. It's why we need organisations like the RACT to advocate change and be the voice that speaks up for motorists. It's fascinating to think that this membership organisation has spent 100 years doing just that and that, without them, our roads would not be as safe as they are today. I thank management and staff for their tireless work and look forward to their next 100 years.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Perth: Housing</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Right now, Perth is facing its biggest housing crisis ever, and it's hitting renters especially hard. We in the Greens have knocked on thousands of doors across Perth in the last few months and heard so many stories from people about how they are having trouble finding a new rental. There are home openings with hundreds of people, with bidding in rental exchanges and auctions, and people are now expected to bid as part of that process as a standard course, rather than an exception—and that is even if you can find a place you can afford at all. This is becoming more and more unlikely as places and prices to live increase drastically without any sort of control, forcing people into homelessness and financially ruinous situations. There are people who can't find a place to live and are being forced to compete with each other in bidding wars for a place to rent somewhere that is safe and clean.</para>
<para>In the suburb of East Perth, the median weekly rental price is nearly $800, and that has increased by nearly $200 a week in the last year alone. In Joondanna, prices have increased by 15 per cent over the same price period. In Dianella, prices have increased by nearly 17 per cent. In Balga and Stirling, rents have increased by $120 a week to nearly $700—that's $700 a week! This is completely unsustainable for people to endure. This is breaking human lives. What this means in reality, on its most human level, is that people in Perth are struggling to keep up with the cost of living and putting a roof over their heads. It is putting them more and more into a dire situation.</para>
<para>We've had stories from people like Alec and Emma, who live in Mount Lawley, who have seen their rent go up by over $200 a week in the last two years, and they have also recently been hit with HECS indexation. They could try and move, but any savings would be quickly swallowed up by the cost of moving house and transportation and being forced to live so far from work. Then there's the story of Justine, a single mother, who's been forced into homelessness after her landlord sold her rental to property developers and she couldn't find a new place to live.</para>
<para>These are the devastating stories that are no longer unique in the electorate of Perth. Everyone in Perth has a story or knows someone who is suffering right now because of the rental market in this country and its fundamental brokenness. It is not designed to work for renters; it is designed to work for property investors, and this government knows it. This government knows it and has actively chosen to do nothing that works for renters, to do nothing to be on the side of renters. Instead, they work in this place on behalf of their property development mates and their donors.</para>
<para>In the lead-up to the last election, the coalition and ALP took tens of thousands of dollars from property investors, real estate agents, corporations and developers. After taking this money, they then come in here and have the sheer, bald-faced audacity to try and pass off legislation that does nothing for renters as a solution to the housing crisis. I would say shame on you, but it is clear you have no shame. Renters in Perth are becoming homeless. People like Alec and Emma are struggling with massive rental increases on top of HECS debt increases. Yet we hear from people like the current member for Perth nothing but the opportunity to go on Sky News and have a go at people in his community who are pushing for more and better. Well, the Greens will continue to fight on the side of the renters of Perth and all those across the country in calling for rent freezes and rent caps now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lee, Mr John (Johnny)</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>John Edward Lee, or more fondly known as 'Johnny Lee', was a friend, father, grandfather, Carlton supporter and the staunchest unionist you would ever meet. I was proud to call him my comrade. Johnny Lee lost his final fight in the early hours of the morning of 3 June. While the loss of Johnny Lee is desperately sad for everyone who knew him and loved him, he wouldn't want to be remembered with any tears. Johnny had a very colourful life, working on various docks and ships throughout Australia whilst travelling the world. He had stories from every country he went to, accompanied by photos, VB in hand, and a list of lifelong friends that he made on the way. One of Johnny's proudest moments was becoming a delegate for his beloved union, the Maritime Union of Australia.</para>
<para>Johnny and I had quite a few things in common. But what many people didn't know is that it included having a tattoo of an anchor. You see, Johnny Lee loved his union and what they stood for so much that he got a tattoo of the MUA anchor logo on his bicep. While my anchor tattoo might have been pretty ill-advised—and, thankfully, it's hidden away from public view—Johnny Lee got his strategically placed on the inside of his bicep, so whenever he would raise his arm, clenched fist, at a rally or on a ship it would always be seen. To his friends, this became known as the chicken wing.</para>
<para>In addition to this ink, he took his role in the union very seriously—to the point where he would sign off any message with his union number instead of his name. 'Rank and file, Comrade,' he would say, if you ever questioned it. He was always ready to hold the line and wave the flag, even if a dispute wasn't his to be had. John was about workers' rights, through and through, and was passionate about mentoring our First Nations brothers and sisters into the industry.</para>
<para>John completed his delicate training and became a fierce advocate for the shipping industry. I recall one rally, in Cairns, were John doused himself in a liquid, that I could only describe as tar like, to demonstrate the effect of some of the industrial activities of his employers.</para>
<para>During his time at sea, not only did he fight for the rights of workers but also he created a family—his daughter, Cindy, and now two grandchildren. He was so proud of them, and they were so proud of him. When Johnny first began his fight against cancer three years ago, it didn't slow him down. While he did have to stop work, he simply gave more of his time to campaigning, not just for his union but for every union campaign he could get to. You would see Johnny arrive on his scooter, dog on leash, and he was set.</para>
<para>There was never a rally without Johnny Lee or his booming voice. Right until the very end, John fought for equality, workers' rights and, of course, his beloved shipping industry. It is very telling that his very last Facebook post was a post calling for support of the Voice to Parliament.</para>
<para>The union movement in Queensland and, particularly, in Cairns has lost a comrade and a friend and a smile that just can't be replaced. Johnny Lee made you feel great about being a union member, about being a fighter for workers and about standing up for your mates. My thoughts tonight are with the union movement, particularly the MUA, his very best mates, who he loved dearly. I want to make special mention of the MUA officials Paul Gallagher, Jason Miners, David Lyon and, of course, Steve Blacklow from the ACTU who practically nursed John in his last couple of weeks.</para>
<para>While we mourn the loss of this giant not just of Cairns but of all of Queensland, we can hear him say, 'Don't mourn for me. Organise.' So to sign off, as John would say, I will end with this: Giddy up, Comrades. Stay true, No. 5019045.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mackenzie, Senior Sergeant Craig, Malayalee Association of Queensland</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I begin my contribution, I would say to Senator Green that I'm sure Johnny Lee would have been very proud of that tribute you gave him. That was outstanding. I give you my hearty congratulations on that, Senator Green.</para>
<para>I have two good news stories to talk about. It's nice to have had some good news stories to talk about in the chamber over the last two weeks. The first is I want to pay tribute to Senior Sergeant Craig Mackenzie, who retired from the Queensland Police Service after nearly 40 years of service with the Queensland Police Service—just three weeks short of 40 years service. Senior Sergeant Craig Mackenzie served with the greatest of distinction. He received the National Medal with two clasps; the National Police Service Medal; and Queensland awards including the Queensland Police Service Medal with a 35-year clasp and the Queensland Police Meritorious Service Medal. His nearly 40 years in the Queensland Police Service included 22 years and four months as officer in charge of the Inala Police Station, which was an incredible period of service at that police station. It was in that capacity that I first met Sergeant Mackenzie.</para>
<para>What particularly moved me about Sergeant Mackenzie was not only his service to the people of Queensland but the relationship he built with the wonderful Queensland Vietnamese community. There was such a deep respect and esteem for Sergeant Mackenzie in the Queensland Vietnamese community, and I saw this manifest itself in the lead-up to Sergeant Mackenzie's retirement. I should note that, even after retiring, Sergeant Mackenzie is still attending Queensland Vietnamese events. From my perspective, that relationship between Sergeant Mackenzie and the wonderful Queensland Vietnamese community represents the very best and the very finest of what our Queensland Police Service does for the people of Queensland. I pay tribute to you, Sergeant Mackenzie. Good luck in your retirement.</para>
<para>The second good news story—and I know that Senator Watt, on the other side of the chamber, is very close to our wonderful Queensland Indian diaspora—is that it was the 25th anniversary of the Malayalee Association of Queensland this year. Namaskaram to all of my friends in the Malayalee community in Queensland. It is 13,000 strong in our home state of Queensland, and they are a wonderful community, hailing originally from Kerala in India. There were three events held to celebrate the silver jubilee: first, the Vishu and Easter function held on 23 April; second, the Badminton Indian Open held on 29 April; and, last, the culmination, which was the silver jubilee celebration held on 28 May. I was delighted to have the opportunity to attend all three functions. I'd like to pay tribute to Mr Vivek Menon and his committee and all of the organisers and volunteers for those outstanding events.</para>
<para>I'd also like to pay tribute to some of the award winners who were given special recognition at the silver jubilee celebration on 28 May. The first, for contribution to sport, was Mr Sravan Renjith, a chess prodigy in the community. The second, for outstanding contribution, was Professor Joseph Mathew, who has made an outstanding contribution to engineering asset management whilst also serving on the MAQ committee and being a badminton champion. The third was the music contribution by the wonderful Mr Ryan Feroz. We had the opportunity to hear Ryan play—just magical playing of the guitar. The last, for volunteering, was Mr Tom Jacob, who for over 20 years has been auditing the accounts of MAQ at no charge—an outstanding contribution.</para>
<para>I'd also like to pay tribute to some of the pioneers of the Malayalee community in Queensland: first, Mr Jacob George, who originally came to Queensland to study at my old school, Ipswich Grammar School, and then stayed in Queensland and established a very successful private small business; second, the wonderful Varghese family—who, again, Senator Watt would know very well—George and Annamma Varghese and their nine children. Before he passed away, George Varghese predicted that one of his sons would become high commissioner for Australia in India, and it proved to be true, with Mr Peter Varghese adopting that post. George Varghese did live to see his son Jim Varghese become the director-general of the Department of Education. The Vargheses are a wonderful, wonderful family who have contributed to Queensland and Australia in so many ways. Finally, I pay tribute to Mrs Thankamma George; Bala Warrier and Mrs Warrier; and Vimala and Ravi Menon. I pay tribute to each and every one of you as pioneers of the Malayalee community in Queensland. You laid the foundation for the success of that community in Queensland, and what a wonderful contribution our Malayalee community continues to make in Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Defence Force: Sexual Assault</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have heard a lot of victim blaming in this chamber in the last fortnight. Contenders for the gold medal for victim blaming could be the Royal Australian Navy and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Today when women raise a complaint of military sexual misconduct or apply for assistance from DVA relating to injuries sustained by sexual misconduct they are often subjected to the same culture of rape cover-up, victim blaming, slut shaming, gaslighting and coercive control—nothing has changed. Female veterans are still not getting functional or effective trauma-informed care or post-assault support from either department, and Defence and DVA deny its existence.</para>
<para>Instead, female veterans who have been assaulted and raped are often subject to decision-making processes that lack procedural fairness and often seriously breach their personal and sensitive information. As one of these women—whose story I'm going to tell you about tonight—put it: 'I felt like I was raped once and then raped again and again—re-traumatised by a culture of denial and cover-up.' These women have no escape. They are forced to stay connected and identify with the very government institutions that have denied them justice and then forced them to stay in a relationship with their abuser. The unequal power relationship between the victim and Defence or DVA, the boys club, keeps victims silenced, and they are powerless because they rely on Defence and DVA for their housing, their health and their pay cheque. What could possibly go wrong?</para>
<para>I'm going to tell you a story about Deb Morris, a young Australian who dreamed of a career in the Royal Australian Navy—a dream that turned into a nightmare worse than what Stephen King could write. As a straight-A student she was earmarked for leadership by the Navy from the very beginning, and she looked forward to a full and rewarding career. She excelled through her training, and her future looked bright.</para>
<para>Deb was sent to the Navy training school HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Cerberus</inline> at a time when we all know the place had a toxic culture of unfettered sexual predatory behaviour. At 23 years of age, Deb was raped by the officer in charge of her training. He was a little cunning bugger. He took her off base and when he took her back he told her not to tell anyone, warning that it would kill off her career. Her rapist told his mates that he had slept with Deb. He used a different word obviously, as you can imagine, that I will not use in here, but the implication was clear—she was consenting and, to his mates, a notch on his belt.</para>
<para>Deb didn't report the rape. In her words, 'At that time there was no-one to report it to—and there were rapes going on left, right and centre.' It was 2002 and there was no formal process to report a rape. According to a statement in 2022 from ex warrant officer and lieutenant Geoff D Kearney, the culture of the Royal Australian Navy training school was one of 'turning a blind eye from the lowest level to the highest level' and the training school was rife with 'sexual exploitation and bullying, and some instructors believed they were all powerful and their behaviour was not challenged'.</para>
<para>This is the world that Deb lived in. She was terrified of losing her job in the Navy. She decided she would just have to swallow the pain and soldier on, as she did. In May 2002 Deb Morris completed Royal Australian Navy recruit school and won the recruit of the intake award and the literacy award of the intake. Deb kept fronting up, but trauma leaves a mark. Nightmares kept her awake. She found it difficult to eat, and when she did she would make herself sick. That caused an eating disorder that still dogs her today.</para>
<para>In late August 2002 Deb decided she had to talk to someone. Her weight was dropping like a stone and she was experiencing suicidal thoughts. She decided to go to talk to someone. She was in the Navy and she was put in touch with an ADF psychologist. Deb kept trying to tell the psychologist what had happened, but the psychologist didn't want to hear about it—she kept cutting her off. The message was clear to Deb—the Navy didn't want to hear about what happened to her. Years later Deb FOI'd the report from the psychologist and discovered that this ADF health professional had labelled Deb 'a perpetual victim'. These defamatory comments, which were not clinical in nature, resulted in Deb being once again slut shamed and victim blamed. Deb was terrified to try to properly report the incident again. Even though Deb continued to reach out for the psychiatric help she needed, she was ignored.</para>
<para>Deb left Defence in 2005. Her dreams of a long rewarding career in Defence had been shattered. Over the next 20 years the impact of the rape and Defence's utter lack of care continue to impact every aspect of her life. She was a single mom living on social security benefits below the poverty line without help from Defence or anyone else. Worse, she had to watch a steady stream of Defence and Navy officials publicly proclaiming assistance for military sexual trauma victims and promising that systems have been put in place to stop this behaviour and to make sure that victims are looked after. Deb kept asking Defence to investigate what happened to her, but Defence rejected Deb's repeated requests for an investigation.</para>
<para>From 2012 to 2015, incidents of sexual misconduct were investigated by the Defence Abuse Task Force and the Victoria Police sexual assault unit, and Deb's was one of them. During that police investigation, Defence interfered with the investigation, refused to disclose evidence and pushed to share victims' personal information with the alleged perpetrators. Then the commanding officer, against the express instructions of Victoria Police, started an internal investigation. This contributed to the decision by Victoria Police not to proceed with prosecution. Deb was once again denied justice.</para>
<para>In December 2016, Deb attempted suicide and she had another three attempts in 2017. You can be earmarked for leadership and then, 15 years later, you can have lost your job and your home, and the institution that you thought would be a place of safety becomes the institution that destroys your goddamn life! Deb's complaint to the Defence Abuse Task Force was not trauma informed care, nor did Defence request informed consent to view, share or distribute Deb's personal information. Instead, her personal account of the incident was shared and viewed with more than 50 Defence members without her knowledge or consent between 2016 and 2018. She received the occasional update on the progress of her complaint, but once it was referred to the office of the Chief of Navy for investigation it was up to Deb to chase it up.</para>
<para>There was another slap in the face in 2018: Deb got a letter from the now current Chief of Navy, stating that no further action would be taken, even though a review was undertaken in 2017 which recommended that an officer inquiry into the complaint be initiated. In 2019, Deb lodged a second complaint about the initial noninvestigation into her sexual misconduct case. This process, like the ones before, retraumatised Deb as Defence continued to slut-shame, victim-blame and use facts that Defence knew to be untrue. In 2019, Deb wrote directly to the secretary of DVA but, instead of getting help, she experienced further cover-ups, slut-shaming and victim-blaming from that department itself. During this time, and without her knowledge or consent, over 100 DVA employees overtly discussed, ridiculed, criticised, viewed, shared and distributed private and sensitive information relating to Deb's sexual health and genitalia in connection to the sexual assault.</para>
<para>Finally, in 2021, and to her credit, the secretary of DVA actioned a review of Deb's DVA experiences. This was undertaken by an independent legal third-party. After the review, the secretary apologised to Deb for the treatment she had endured and encouraged her to consider options for a meaningful resolution. But even after Defence and DVA apologised to Deb, they continued the cover-up. Last year, after her attempts to speak to the minister were dismissed, Deb submitted a series of freedom-of-information requests. The responses she received were an absolute disgrace. Deb is one woman who has experienced significant trauma. Incredibly, she has had no less than six briefs raised about her to the office of the minister. This was without her knowledge or consent. At no time has the minister bothered to contact her or even speak to her. Shockingly, a backgrounder was sent from the current Deputy Chief of Navy to the office of the Minister for Defence Personnel, who, for good measure, also ensured that it was distributed to the office of the Minister for Defence, the secretary of Defence, the Chief of Defence and the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, as well as another four work areas within the ADF. It was full of incorrect, unreasonable and unlawful statements about Deb. This included, but wasn't limited to: falsely stating that Deb's recruiting documents reported self-disclosed drug use; misrepresentation of Deb's ADF mental health counselling reports, reporting her as unresponsive when in fact it was an ADF health professional who labelled Deb a 'perpetual victim'; falsely stating that Defence had referred the complaints to Victoria Police; falsely stating that ADFIS advised Deb that no further action was going to be taken, but ADFIS has never contacted Deb; not clarifying that Deb's change of mode of discharge was based on psychiatric conditions as a consequence of the sexual misconduct, which is absolutely rubbish; falsely stating that Deb undertook FOIs in 2021 when Deb had painstakingly undertaken FOIs since 2019 in order to piece together the mismanagement of her complaint because Defence refused to disclose the facts which they knew to be true; falsely stating that poor Deb was advised that a fact-finding inquiry—a fact-finding inquiry!—was conducted and determined that an internal inquiry would be unlikely to reach the balance of probabilities required to pursue an administrative sanction.</para>
<para>Deb has documents from Defence which demonstrate that a review was undertaken in 2017 which stated that there was enough evidence to investigate the predatory sexual behaviour that had happened to her, falsely stating that the IG ADF had undertaken an inquiry into Deb's complaint. I would keep going on but I'm running out of time: once again it's cover-up, cover-up, cover-up! I'm going on this, and the minister knows about it. Enough is enough, and it will be out there tomorrow.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice, COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight my remarks go to the path ahead. I serve my home state of Queensland, which is made up of many different people. Some came here first, others were born here and others have come here since. With the Voice referendum legislation decided, the cohesion of our Queensland community is threatened by the most divisive government initiative since the Vietnam War if not ever. Never has this country seen an issue that splits Australians right down the middle, where the vote will be won or lost on just a handful of votes in a handful of states. With the vote so close, every Australian must act with caution. Sadly—tragically—I see no sign that that is to happen. I'm deeply concerned that in the months ahead emotion will be deliberately triggered to leverage the emotional response for votes, which will continue hiding deeply troubled absent details. There will be appeals to fear and there will be shaming on both sides. These are evident now, and the campaign has not yet been called.</para>
<para>Above all else there will be disinformation, which will occur because the Prime Minister refuses to reveal the details of the Voice. By details, I don't mean the discussion document and the Uluru Statement that are legally irrelevant to the practical application of the Voice. Those documents do not form part of the vote and will not inform a legal challenge to a voice provision should one occur. I mean the legislation that will set out how the Voice will work in practice. If the implementing legislation is presented before the vote then without a doubt the High Court will hold the government to that legislation—no more, no less. That is why the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, will not release it. The less detail revealed, the more discretion the Prime Minister will have to introduce a woke political agenda under the cover of implementing the Voice, an agenda that will fundamentally reshape Australian society.</para>
<para>Don't take my word for it! Listen to the words of voice architect professor Marcia Langton who only last week said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">People who are opposing (the voice referendum) are saying we are destroying the fabric of their sacred Constitution. Yes, that's right, that is exactly what we are doing.</para></quote>
<para>I find it difficult to reconcile the words of the architect of the Voice, Professor Langton, with the words of Prime Minister Albanese, who called his proposal 'modest'. Destroying the fabric of our nation's Constitution modest? I thank Professor Langton for her candour, and I criticise the Prime Minister for his lack of candour, his cover-up, his deceit. Not that Professor Langton spoke truthfully out of a higher regard for the fundament principles of peaceful discourse—in fact, far from it. In 2019 Professor Langton said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It would be terribly unfortunate for all Australians if the debate sinks into a nasty, eugenicist, 19th century-style of debate about the superior race versus the inferior race.</para></quote>
<para>Who's doing that? Who's saying Aboriginal Australians do not deserve equal representation and do not deserve the same access to opportunity as anyone else in this country? Who's saying that those on the no side desire less for Aboriginals than they do for any other Australians. No-one is saying it; that's who—no-one. Those words in and of themselves inject a level of vitriol that the speaker has claimed is coming from the no side. Those comments invite hatred and violence against the no side. Those comments tell everyone who Marcia Langton is, not who we are. Labels and slurs are the refuge of the ignorant, the dishonest and the fearful. They reveal a lack of solid data, facts and logical argument.</para>
<para>I'm concerned that the hatred we are seeing from some in the yes case must lead to violence. I call on the Prime Minister to call out the personal attacks and restore stability to the debate coming from the yes advocates. It is a fundamental principle of One Nation that Aboriginals together with all who are now in this country must be treated fairly and offered equality of opportunity. Anyone who seeks to minimise, to harm, to malign, to deprive those who were here first has no place in One Nation. I implore all Australians to remember the golden rule of free speech, which is this: just because you can say something does not mean you should. I implore both sides to consider your words. Consider your memes and your signs at the rallies, which will no doubt occur. Consider that on the other side of this referendum we will still be the same country composed of the same people, and we will all need to get along.</para>
<para>To use an old saying: least said, soonest mended. This advice was first seen in writing in the 1606 literary classic <inline font-style="italic">Don Quixote</inline>. Ironically, like the Voice, <inline font-style="italic">Don Quixote</inline> is a cautionary tale of a man who does not see the world as it is but rather as he needs it to be, in order to justify his doomed quest to vanquish imaginary enemies for his own ego. One Nation will continue to advocate for measures that actually raise Aboriginal Australians up, through the provision of basic services, jobs and, above all else, opportunity.</para>
<para>As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I ask a question tonight: what is the biological function of the COVID spike protein? This question asks whether COVID injections are fundamentally safe, because we know that COVID injections contain spike protein that embed into our system a genetic instruction for human cells to make spike proteins for extended periods of time. Could COVID injections be instructing human bodies to make a substance that's making bodies sicker not healthier? Let's review the latest data.</para>
<para>First point: spike protein may replace a protein molecule called laminin. Laminin is found in the extracellular matrix, the sheets of protein that form the substrate of all internal organs. Laminin is critical to how our cells hold together. Interfering with laminin can cause our organs to fail. Laminin is shaped like a crucifix and is widely known as the 'God molecule'. When I met with Moderna in my office a few months ago, they were happy to admit that their spike protein was identical to the spike protein molecule in COVID. So, when studying spike protein, it does not matter what the source is. What matters is that, with the new study on the effects of that spike protein on the body, COVID injections are instructing body cells to produce spike proteins.</para>
<para>What we do know is that the spike protein is fusogenic, meaning its job is to bind cells together—think velcro. It does the same job that laminin does. Big pharma has tried to use spike proteins as an antigen for 20 years, and for 20 years they failed. The COVID injections were not a sudden success. Pharma simply lied and cheated on the clinical trials to use this thing they had spent billions on in an injection arranged to be rushed through approvals, and they made obscene profits in the process.</para>
<para>Now we're seeing symptoms that can be explained with the discovery that the spike protein replaces laminin in the extracellular matrix. Does the spike protein interfere with laminin? The answer is: we do not know. This is what happens when we do not know yet insist on playing God. The reason using spike proteins as an antigen has failed is because the spike protein mutates in the wild every few weeks. A COVID injection loses any claim to effectiveness very quickly and needs to be updated. This is why the COVID injections are being retired and new ones are being released continually.</para>
<para>Do you remember when we were told that the vaccines offered protection against new strains and to keep taking them? That was a lie—a bloody lie. There was no valid independent science to support that statement. The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, would normally prosecute a drug maker making misleading comments about their product without proof of the claim. In this case, though, it was the TGA making the misleading claims, so it's the TGA who should be held to account.</para>
<para>COVID injection effectiveness was knowingly misrepresented, and here's why. There's no pathway for an antibody and a serum—blood—to get into the lung. While we can deliver a drug to the lungs and it will get into the serum, it can't go back the other way, from serum to the lungs. The problem is that, in order to stop infection and transmission, the injections had to get into the lungs and the nose. The COVID injections simply never made it there. People who took the injection had levels of IgG antibody in the nose and lungs that were 1,000 times less than the levels in their blood. This is why the injections did not stop infection or transmission and never could have. The TGA knew, or should have known. This was the science, and they bloody well ignored it to promote injections that failed miserably and killed tens of thousands of people, melting down and exploding the database of adverse events.</para>
<para>Second point: spike proteins cause brain damage, leading to long COVID. Scientists at Macquarie University and the University of Queensland used mini brains infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to discover that the spike protein could trigger fusion in cells in both mouse and human brain tissue. The host brain cells are fused, possibly causing brain dysfunction, said Professor Lars Ittner, director of the Dementia Research Centre at Macquarie University. The discovery could explain chronic neurological symptoms such as headaches, brain fog, exhaustion and loss of taste or smell—even long after the initial infection.</para>
<para>Of course, spike protein from the injection was not included in the study, and yet, as Moderna themselves say, there's no bloody difference. The West has spent three years injecting people with the very thing that's most likely causing long COVID. Big pharma never researched the effect of their spike protein on the human body yet received approval for their sickening products anyway. How this happened is a scandal that must be referred to a Senate select inquiry immediately.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians: Identity</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Roberts. That was a great contribution. I enjoyed it thoroughly.</para>
<para>Yesterday, I planned to speak in support of Senator Hanson's motion on Indigenous identity fraud, but unfortunately, as is too common in this place, those opposite silenced the debate and stopped me from speaking. So here I am, ladies and gents, in this empty chamber at adjournment.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Scarr. I am here, almost by myself—there are a few senators here—to put on the record my views. We're going to put it on the record. We're going to get it done. We're going to make a great video for social media. It's going to go up, and people are going to see what's happening in here.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're going to go viral.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to go viral.</para>
<para>I supported the referral of this matter to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. The government's insistence on inserting race based rights into the Constitution of Australia is fraught with problems. We all know that. Why does it take a brown guy to tell you that? It is fraught with problems. In endeavouring to solve one problem, that of Indigenous disadvantage, which we all know is true, the government is creating more problems. That's all the government's doing—more problems.</para>
<para>The most obvious of these problems—I'll tell you what it is—is the question of who gets to identify as an Aboriginal and how. Who are they? We don't know. It is well established there is already a huge problem in our country with non-Indigenous people who go on to tick a box on a form and identify as Indigenous in order to take advantage of all the government benefits. In fact, the National Indigenous Times last year called for an investigation into Indigenous identity fraud. They were claiming that non-Aboriginals were stealing cultural and leadership opportunities from those who are obviously Australia's most disadvantaged people. Indigenous entrepreneur Dean Foley estimates that up to 20 per cent of people claiming benefits as Indigenous people are, in fact, not even Indigenous. If that is even close to being true then perhaps the only worse thing is the government's NDIS. It is perhaps the most attractive thing for fraudsters apart from the NDIS, which we all know is a complete shambles.</para>
<para>The 2021 census recorded there were 812,000 Indigenous people in Australia. That was a jump from 2016 of 25 per cent, just like that. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council chief executive Nathan Moran told the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney </inline><inline font-style="italic">Morning Herald</inline> that those numbers are a bit suspicious. That's what he said. I think he's probably right; it is a bit suspicious. How are we to believe that one in 25 people all of a sudden are Indigenous? It seems a bit far-fetched. Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania chair Michael Mansell was reported to have written in the <inline font-style="italic">Mercury</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… he found it 'unbelievable' that 5 per cent of Tasmanians now identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.</para></quote>
<para>He said that the increase in Aboriginals—I'll quote again—is due to:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… "identity seekers" who are "poor and white" and believe they will have more cultural cachet if they identify as Aboriginal.</para></quote>
<para>I can give you more examples of Indigenous leaders who allege rampant Indigenous ID fraud in this country. It is for that reason that I supported Senator Hanson's motion to clarify the way in which Aboriginal identity is identified. I think it's fair enough. If we're going to be pushing with the Voice and all sorts of other things, such as grants et cetera, then we should at least know who is an Aboriginal. We should solidify what that is.</para>
<para>If we are going to establish race based rights, which is what we're trying to do in this place, then we had better make sure that we get race right. That's probably fair enough. But wouldn't it be better instead if we had human rights rather than race based rights? Wouldn't it be better to help the disadvantaged on the basis of their need rather than the colour of their skin? It's crazy what's happening right now. Not only would it be a more equitable way of providing aid but it would put an end to race identity fraud. It's crazy what's going on right now. What if we helped the disadvantaged not because they're Indigenous but because they're Aussies? It's as simple as that. I know it's a crazy idea—it's a radical idea in our race obsessed nation! But just imagine this: we judge people on the basis of their need rather than their ancestry. It would be almost like it were a liberal democracy once again. That's what it would be.</para>
<para>Speaking of which, the Voice has no place in a liberal democracy. The government has already said that the Voice is step 1 in a process, outlined in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, that leads to truth-telling and then eventually to treaty. If we think we have problems with Indigenous identity theft now, senators, wait until treaty reparations begin; then we'll see a real problem. When you dispense money based on race, which—let's be honest—is what it's going to lead to, good luck sorting the genuine claims from the fraudulent claims. Solving the problem of Indigenous disadvantage with race based solutions does nothing to improve the lives of Indigenous people nor this country. It only serves to divide and invite unscrupulous actors to take advantage. The Voice is a mistake, but in this place this week we have made the referendum a reality. Ultimately, the Australian people will have their say.</para>
<para>We know that this government is determined to push ahead with race based changes to our Constitution. The least they can do is to diligently ensure that those identifying as Aboriginal actually are Aboriginal. Frankly, from my point of view, we really should not be giving people any special rights at all based on the colour of their skin or their ancestry. We should all be judged on the content of our character, as a great man once said. That's all I'll say about that.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 20:43</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>