2023-06-21 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 21 June 2023

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

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Community Affairs References Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Human Rights Joint Committee 1 Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 1

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

Second Reading 1 09:01 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria The coalition have introduced the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill because we believe the time has come to draw a line in the sand and put an end to gambling advertisements during live sport. Footy time is family time, and family time is precious—too precious to have it swamped by a rising tide of gambling ads. Watching and listening to live sport is a great Australian tradition, and we on this side of the chamber want to preserve that. The bombardment of betting ads takes joy away from that tradition. We know that because that's exactly what the community are telling us. We are listening and we are responding with this bill. The community are over this. We in the coalition are over this. As representatives of our communities we are beholden to act on their behalf. The time to act is now. That is why the coalition are taking strong steps to implement a ban on gambling advertising during live sport. We know that there is a problem. We are not going to wait for months, as the government has been signalling. We are not going to sit on our hands. The Prime Minister says he finds the ads annoying. He's probably a bit annoyed too that the coalition are once again providing leadership on this issue. We've seen reporting that several government sources have said that, while no decisions have yet been taken, the Leader of the Opposition's move has wrong-footed them. Frankly, it doesn't matter whose idea it was, a good policy is a good policy and should be supported. It would be petulant to quibble over whose idea it was first. It would be even more disappointing if this bill were not supported today in this chamber because of petty politics. Labor is hiding behind the parliamentary inquiry, which it says is due to hand down its report in the middle of the year. One suspects they'll try to rush it out sooner, given they've been left behind on this issue. But there is nothing stopping the government supporting this bill now today. The community want it and they expect their representatives to act. This is the second set of reforms from the coalition to limit the running of gambling advertisements during live sport. In 2018, the coalition government passed a significant body of reforms in this area, limiting when and where gambling ads could be placed during live sport. We have acted before and we are taking strong action again. The actions set out in this bill are straightforward. They require minor amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The changes would require industry codes of practice to be updated to incorporate the ban. There are industry codes which apply to the different sectors within the media, including for commercial television, commercial radio and subscription broadcast television. Online content is regulated separately, and the changes in this bill ensure that live streaming is also captured by the gambling advertising ban. Our bill allows for a transition period for the change. The minister would be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the industry transitions over to the new regime. The ban would commence one hour before the scheduled start of a match and end one hour after its conclusion. It would apply to television, radio broadcasting and live streaming of sporting events. This bill makes no changes to the existing exemptions on gambling advertising which apply to the broadcasting or live streaming of horse racing or other racing codes or to the advertisements or promotions for government lotteries, lotto, Keno or contests. In conclusion, we reiterate that footy time is family time. The coalition believes that it is wrong in principle that children are subjected to gambling advertising when they just want to enjoy a sporting event with their families. This bill would put an end to that. I urge all senators to support this important legislation. 09:07 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The Albanese government is committed to ensuring online gambling takes place within a robust legislative framework with strong consumer protections. Like many Australians, we are concerned about the extent of gambling ads and their impact, and it is one of the key reasons why we established the House of Representatives inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm to look at these very matters. The government awaits the recommendations from the House of Representatives inquiry, which is due to report in the coming weeks, as its recommendations will underpin the government's consideration of what further reforms are required to reduce gambling harms, including to the rules around gambling advertising. The committee adopted an inquiry into online gambling and its impact on problem gambling on 15 September 2022, following a referral from the Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Amanda Rishworth MP. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs has inquired into and will report on online gambling and its impact on those experiencing gambling harm. The House of Reps inquiry had regard to: • the effectiveness of existing consumer protections aimed at reducing online gambling harm • how to better target programs to address online gambling harm to reduce the potential exploitation of at-risk people, and protect individuals, families and communities • the effectiveness of current counselling and support services to address online gambling harm • the quality of and access to protective online gambling education programs • the impact of current regulatory and licensing regimes for online gambling on the effectiveness of harm minimisation and consumer protection efforts • the appropriateness of the definition of 'gambling service' in the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), and whether it should be amended to capture additional gambling-like activities such as simulated gambling in video games (e.g. 'loot boxes' and social casino games) • the appropriateness of current gambling regulations in light of emerging technologies, payment options and products • the effectiveness of protections against illegal online gambling services, including casino style gambling such as online blackjack and slot machines • the effectiveness of current gambling advertising restrictions on limiting children's exposure to gambling products and services (e.g. promotion of betting odds during live sport broadcasts), including consideration of the impact of advertising through social media, sponsorship or branding from online licenced gambling operators, and • any other related matters. I would like to acknowledge the advocacy on these issues by many across the parliament, and I would also like to acknowledge the significant and ongoing work of the House committee looking into online gambling harms, led by Peta Murphy MP. In recent months, the chair, Peta Murphy, has held inquiries questioning Sportsbet, Tabcorp and Entain—operator of the brands Ladbrokes and Neds—and the peak industry body Responsible Wagering Australia about whether industry is doing enough to limit the harm of online gambling in the Australian community. In doing so, the chair has stated: The AFL and NRL are major beneficiaries of sports betting, including through sponsorship and advertising, and receiving a proportion of each bet placed on their games. The Committee is interested in hearing how this aligns with the promotion of their codes as family-friendly and socially responsible organisations. She also said that, when we do act in this area, we want to ensure our approach is comprehensive. Further, the committee has heard from researchers and state and territory governments about the effectiveness of current online gambling harm minimisation measures and new approaches that may be necessary to reduce harm. Importantly, we need to consider the multiple channels through which advertising is delivered, which includes not only television, radio and live streaming but also social media, where these advertisements are sometimes most pervasive, along with outdoor advertising and branding. In the meantime, the minister has been working with her department to prepare for the release of the report and intends to respond to it quickly. It is safe to say that the coalition bill, from the government's point of view, is incomplete. It is only focused on radio, TV and live streaming and is limited to live sport. A harm minimisation approach needs to consider the multiple channels and situations through which advertising is delivered in this day and age, in particular social media. Any reform in this area must also be evidence based. These issues are being considered by the committee and that is why we, the Albanese Labor government, will await the House of Representatives inquiry's final report and the full suite of evidence it provides before proposing changes. The only reason we have any restrictions on gambling ads during live sport is that Labor acted when we were last in government and called for further restrictions while in opposition. The fact is that the Liberal-National coalition are the architects of the current arrangements—arrangements that they now claim they want to change—and the architects of restrictions which have now been proven to be inadequate. Research by the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, found that there was a 50 per cent increase in the total volume of gambling spots on television and radio following the introduction of the last set of gambling ad restrictions in 2018. Despite the fact that these figures from ACMA were released in 2019 and showed a 50 per cent increase in the volume of gaming spots on TV and radio, the coalition made no attempt to rectify the situation. They brought in the current gambling advertising rules and the commercial broadcasting tax, both of which were part of a broader deal struck with media companies that had little to do with harm minimisation. They took far too long to implement the national consumer protection framework, and, four years after the framework was established, only six of the 10 important measures had actually been implemented. They sat on their hands when it came to responding to reviews such as the 2020 Stevens review, which recommended addressing the regulation of gambling in computer games, and the 2019 parliamentary joint inquiry, which recommended banning credit cards for online gambling. Those opposite did too little too late on these issues. Within one year of government, the Albanese government has already taken a range of important steps to reduce gambling harms. It is the Albanese government that established an inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm. This is the government that announced that it would strengthen classification of gambling-like features in videogames, including loot boxes and simulated casino games, to protect children from exposure to harms. This is the government that has committed to legislate to ban credit cards for online gambling. This is the government that brought together state and territory ministers for the first time since 2017 to discuss what comes next to address gambling harms. And this is the government that will launch the National Self-Exclusion Register, BetStop. BetStop is the final element of the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering. Two other elements consist of gambling messaging and wagering staff training in March of this year. In light of the opposition leader's recent interest in addressing gambling harm, we look forward to the opposition's support as we progress towards reform in this area. We understand that reform to gambling advertising is important to the community. We will continue to progress our harm minimisation agenda to protect Australians who are vulnerable to gambling harms. So, while I commend Senator Henderson for this bill, the government will not be supporting it here today. In saying so, I hope Senator Henderson throws her support behind any future proposed changes to online gambling to protect those experiencing gambling harm. 09:18 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to speak to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023, and, in doing so, I welcome the opposition joining the calls for more restrictions and a better framework for gambling and the management of gambling in this country. Let me be really clear: gambling is insidious. It ruins lives. It ruins sport. And it should have no place on our television screens or on our children's devices. Let's be frank here: the entire business model of the gambling industry is to make profit out of people's addiction and suffering. We're a modern country. We know the health impacts. We know the mental health impacts. We know the social impacts. Review after review after review and inquiry after inquiry after inquiry have shown what it is that parliaments, politicians, ministers and governments need to do. We've got to ban all advertising of gambling. We should be cleaning up the insidious addiction pushed by pokie machines. We should be restricting and stopping the insidious pushing online of gambling into our children's hands as they are on their phones or their iPads. Gambling ruins lives, and it ruins sport. Something has to be done. Seven in 10 Australians, from recent polling, want gambling ads banned from all television—not just from an hour before to an hour after sport; they don't want it at all. Regular Australians know that the gambling industry has had it too good for too long, making profits off the back of people's suffering, addiction and mental health, and off the innocence of children. Why, in 2023, are we still debating this issue? It's because of the political clout and influence that the gambling industry holds over both major parties in this country—election donations, special dinners, mates rates, the sliding doors for advisers from the office of one minister or shadow minister into the gambling industry and back again. If you want to know why we have a gambling crisis in this country, it's because the gambling industry has had its foot on the throat of politicians for decades. It's time we stood up and said, 'Enough.' This bill is a very, very modest bill. We need to do more than this—much more. What I am incredibly impressed with is that regular Australians know that. Whether this bill passes or not, they will know that this is not enough. Regular Australians have seen their friends, their families, their loved ones and their work colleagues suffer at the hands of this bottom-feeding industry, which is desperate for profit at any expense and is all about sucking money out of the pockets of people who don't actually have it to give. If we're going to ban advertising on broadcast, we need to be really clear that we're not going to allow it to just continue to be pushed online. It's important that we remove gambling ads from live sport, but they also need to be removed from all hours that children are watching television or accessing entertainment and content on their devices. I call on the government to do more. We've heard from the minister today that the government wants to do this and wants to do that, saying, 'We'll get to this.' Move faster. Lift your game. Government have told us that they're waiting for the report from the House of Representatives committee. I look forward to seeing that report too, but—I can tell you what—it's going to say the same things that every report and inquiry has said for the last two decades. It's not a policy response we are missing; it is the political will to stare down this insidious industry and say, 'Enough.' It's the political will to turn their backs on their gambling industry mates. It's to have the political will to say, 'No, we will not take any more gambling donations to help us get elected.' That is what we need from either side today—not a tinkering around the edges and not pushing gambling ads from one small part of television broadcasting into the rest of broadcasting or online. We need the political will to pull the rug out from underneath the gambling industry and say enough. Stop taking our children for fools and feeding off their innocence, because that's what this industry is doing. They are feeding off the innocence of children, they are ruining lives and they're ruining sport. The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation reported that 148 gambling ads were broadcast between 6 pm and 8.30 pm every week night on free-to-air television. They also found that, on average, four times more gambling ads were played during sport than were played during non-sport. Children and young people were therefore considerably more exposed to gambling advertising when watching sport. When do children sit down with their families in front of the television to enjoy some family time? We increasingly know it is when their favourite team is playing. I understand the reason the opposition have brought this bill as it is, with this focus. But if we only do this, we risk pushing this insidious cowboy industry to target children even more in the hours when they are not with their parents, when they're not sitting down with family—when there isn't a parental filter. And that, I fear, will drive even more addiction and harm. We need a comprehensive response to this, and we know what the solutions are. We have the ludicrous situation where hundreds of millions of dollars is spent across this country responding to the health, the mental health and the social crisis driven by gambling addiction. Yet at the same time the public broadcaster SBS is allowed to run gambling ads on television between shows—a public broadcaster! The contradictions, the twisting of facts and the convenience of policy on this issue are just revolting. We need consistency. If we shouldn't be showing ads for gambling during the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide showdown then we shouldn't be showing ads that promote gambling at any time on a public broadcaster. We need consistency across the board here. I call on the minister today—we've heard the promises that you'll do this, you'll do that, you'll wait for this report—I want action and I want concrete evidence that you will act, and so do the Australian people. They're sick and tired of promises from politicians that someone will do something about the insidiousness of gambling and the harm and the suffering. Then it all gets too hard. The gambling lobby come knocking on the doors of ministers and shadow ministers, and on the doors of backbenchers in the party room, saying: 'If you do this we won't be able to donate to that campaign. Don't you remember when you came to that dinner?' Stare these buggers down! They have no place— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hanson-Young, a reminder to stick to parliamentary language, please. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I apologise, Acting Deputy President. This is an industry that feeds off the suffering of families and the innocence of children. It is disgusting. Hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money is spent cleaning up the mess that this industry makes, while pocketing the profits. They never get taken on because every time a political leader stands up and says they are going to take on the gambling lobby, they are threatened, the political campaign starts and politicians go weak at the knees. Yes, let's have a good debate about what we're going to do to stop the advertising of gambling on our television screens, on our devices, in our lounge rooms and in our children's bedrooms. I don't want to hear any more promises that we're going to get here or do this. I want to see legislation, and I want to see it now. The government is on notice on this. This bill is going to be debated for the next few days, I understand, so come out and tell us what you're going to do. Act—actions are much more important than words right now. We have heard the promises, election after election after election, and we have seen what happens. We have seen both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party make these promises and then get rolled by their political donors in the gambling industry. Is it any wonder why Sportsbet wanted to take the Minister for Communications, who is in charge of this regulation, to dinner—is it any wonder? We all know what a sick joke that was. Show us that it made no difference to you. Show us that you actually care about this issue and will do the right thing. I commend the opposition for bringing the debate to the chamber today because it is one that we have to have. But it can't just be political grandstanding; we actually need the political will to stop this industry in its tracks. 09:33 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The need to act is now. This bill, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023, is a start, and I hope the Greens will support it. A look at gambling statistics paints this frightening picture, but it is not a picture: there are real people, real lives, that are being affected. Australians have the largest per capita gambling losses in the world. It is everywhere and, conveniently, the gambling sector will come to you with 24/7 and mobile access, and it is there when you are watching your favourite game. TV advertising is particularly effective in grabbing the attention of young people. One report found one in five young women, 19 per cent, and one in seven young men, 15 per cent, started betting for the first time after seeing or hearing an ad on television. Fellow South Australian Senator Hanson-Young raised important reasons to act now for my own home state. In South Australia, 40,000 locals engage in high- or moderate-risk gambling each year. That is enough people to fill the Adelaide Oval. Sixty-five per cent of South Australian adults gamble. In the 2021 financial year alone, the loss was a record $1.52 billion. The cost is a whopping $1,052 for every single South Australian adult every single year. When gambling is a problem, it is because you have gambled more than you can afford, prioritised gambling over essentials or become secretive about your gambling to varying extents. It can be with devastating financial, human and social costs. The incidence of problem gambling and addiction is trending in completely the wrong direction. I support the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 because it is a prevention approach to reduce exposure to risk. It places a ban on all gambling advertising during live sporting events, and it would begin one hour before the start of the match and finish one hour after the end of the match. It would apply to television, radio and live streaming. It's a start. It makes sure that sports enthusiasts who simply want to watch the game are not exposed to gambling. It protects children from being directly and indirectly exposed to gambling. Innocent and vulnerable children will benefit from this bill. Parents, grandparents and carers will benefit from this bill. This is about less exposure to temptation for gamblers and for everyone. Risky gambling affects debt; affects the health and wellbeing of individuals, families, children, and relationships; reduces performance at work and study; and causes cultural harm and even criminal activity. Problem gambling is increasingly an addiction of the South Australian government. It secured a $120 million revenue windfall in 2020-21 from gambling. It is, of course, most likely that other states and territories are also reaping massive revenue windfalls. Alarmingly, only three per cent of South Australian gamblers seek help for gambling harm, and, when they do, it's most often when they've reached crisis point. The Australian Institute of Family Studies alerts us to the association between child abuse and an increased risk of gambling problems in adulthood, according to a new systematic review published recently in the journal Child Abuse & Neglect. The association between child abuse and an increased risk of gambling problems in adulthood was significant for multiple forms of maltreatment, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and psychological maltreatment. The legislation will help protect our children. Also, evidence, though limited, regarding the extent to which adult problem gamblers are at risk of maltreating their children showed associations between problem gambling and the physical abuse of children. Gambling rates are much higher among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples than in the wider Australian population, and we know their passion for sport means they are also vulnerable. Opposition leader Peter Dutton said in his budget reply in May that we need to have this bill passed. The research tells us we must act on this bill. The ban would build on previous changes legislated by the former coalition government in 2018 to reduce the level of gambling advertising during sporting events. This necessarily goes further. Only last year, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs began an inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm. In a submission to that inquiry, South Australia's Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, Dini Soulio, cited studies that indicate that exposure to gambling advertising contributes to the normalisation of gambling as complementary to the enjoyment of sport. That shouldn't be true. It is associated with an increase in gambling behaviour, including risky gambling behaviour, and it impacts children's perceptions and future intentions regarding gambling. Now I'd like to alert you to advertising spend. Audience insights, data and analytics by Nielsen research shows the gambling industry spent $287 million on advertising in Australia in 2021, not including in-stadium advertising or sponsorships—so they spend much more. The opportunity to reach every single Australian is endless, through smartphones, apps, social media, traditional broadcasters and digital streaming outlets. There's no escape. We need to make sure there is. For prime-time family viewing spots, Nielsen research found that an average of 148 gambling ads were broadcast on free-to-air TV between six and 8.30 every night—that's 148 gambling ads children could be exposed to. You only have to turn on an AFL football match to watch the Crows or Port Adelaide after 8.30 pm, and, at every opportunity, there will be a gambling advertisement. In his federal government inquiry submission, the South Australian liquor and gambling commissioner highlighted: … Australian children aged between 8 -16 years found they could recall gambling advertising (for sports betting) in detail, had learnt how to place a bet, and could recall betting specific technical language. I'm talking about children between eight and 16 years of age. I tested this. One of my own staff asked her son, a 14-year-old teen, what he knew. To her surprise, and to ours, even with that evidence, yes, he was able to rattle off a long list of gambling sites and advertising slogans without hesitation—he didn't miss a beat. There are also YouTube channels sponsored by gambling organisations that our children watch, and ads are streamed on digital platforms during television news. We cannot let this continue. Responsible parents who supervise their children cannot protect them alone. Parents and carers who are struggling need our help. Organisations that work to support problem gamblers need us to do the prevention work to slow the growing volume of problem gamblers that they need to help to rebuild their lives. All of them need our help. They need this legislation. As was shown in a survey of 2,300 South Australian adults by researchers from CQUniversity in 2021, most adults, 92 per cent, believe it is important to speak to children about the risks involved in sports betting, but only one in five adults—that's 20 per cent—have actually done so. Evidence is important, but it's not needed to act here. We already have it. Delay in acting will delay the sector change and delay change for those that need it most. In talking directly to parents in South Australia since coming into this place, I know they would support this, and probably every single one of us in this place knows that, too. A three-year study from La Trobe University found that 78 per cent of the 50,000 respondents felt they should be able to watch sports on TV with no gambling ads. Families shouldn't have to think twice about turning on the television and watching tennis or any other sport because they worry about the exposure of their children to gambling. Instead, they should be focused on their favourite players, barracking for their team and watching the play, the fun stuff, as Senator Hanson-Young said, the family stuff. Labor has done very little to clamp down on the gambling sector since its election other than an inquiry into online gambling and its impacts. Parents and carers will want this, and vulnerable children will benefit from it. I encourage those concerned about gambling to seek help and for the Senate to support this bill. A couple of weeks ago, it was reported that I went to Alice Springs, my home town. It was really sad to watch the number of people sitting around in Alice Springs gambling, and they'd been there all day. The kids were hanging around their parents, watching the gambling. Even worse, I took a walk through the casino, where there are heaps and heaps of photographs of people enjoying having a bit of a flutter, and a walk through the casino in Alice Springs shows you, without needing to be branded stereotyping people, many of those people can't afford to gamble that much and weren't working that day because they were spending welfare on gambling. You only have to go to my home state and look at what has happened in Ceduna. I can't wait to see the statistics that show the increase in gambling with the abolition of the cashless debit card. I will certainly be continuing to look for those statistics. But, again, I don't need the evidence of another report to say, 'Act now.' You just need to listen, you just need to read, you just need to ask and you just need to get on with it. On that basis, there is no need to delay it. We need to act now. Shame on the Albanese government for not supporting this right now. 09:45 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria I love sport. Like many Australians, I love watching a good match of just about anything. But being a senator from Victoria I particularly like AFL. Perhaps a little-known fact is that in a previous life I served on the board of the MCG Trust for Australia's best sporting stadium. Unusually though for a Victorian I don't have an AFL team. I always just like supporting the winner! Along with my interest in sport, I'm also a proud member of the group Parliamentary Friends of Gambling Harm Reduction. My love of sport and my conviction about reducing the harm that comes from gambling means I'm particularly interested in Senator's Henderson's private senator's bill and what it seeks to do or, perhaps more accurately, what it doesn't do. On the face of it, Senator Henderson's bill sounds like a pretty good thing from a gambling harm reduction point of view. The bill seeks to take a stand on all gambling advertisements during live sporting events from one hour before each sporting event to one hour after its conclusion. I'd wager that this sounds pretty good to the average punter. I think that is what Senator Henderson and the Liberal Party are trying to achieve with this bill—they are trying to look as though they are doing something on gambling harm reduction by introducing this bill. They are seeking to address the very rightly placed community concern about the impact of gambling advertising on young people, children and the vulnerable because they want to seem like they care, but the truth is that how this bill proposes to deal with the issue of gambling advertising in Australia is like looking at a tapestry through a drinking straw. The broadcast of live sporting events does not represent other channels through which gambling advertising is proliferated, such as social media and through sponsorship and branding, including on sporting uniforms and merchandise and at outdoor advertising at sporting events and other public places. Senator Henderson's bill does very little to address the issues at hand because its remit is so small. That, in essence, is why the government does not support this bill. As the communications minister has said publicly, the status quo on gambling advertising isn't good enough. Australians, particularly young Australians, are being bombarded by gambling advertising more frequently, particularly during sporting matches. Betting companies are seeking to make gambling synonymous with the Australian experience of live sport and are using Australia's proud sporting culture as a clever and manipulative way of justifying and minimising what is in fact a harmful and pervasive problem. The normalisation of the slogan 'Sportsbet's same-day multis', ringing in our ears every time live sport is playing, is the result of a near seamless integration of gambling with sport. I have to admit I don't know what a same-day multi even is! As far as that integration of sport and gambling goes, this bill works to make a bit of a difference. But the fact is that a whole range of other channels exist to advertise gambling during sporting events and also when there are no events on. Gambling advertising on social media is pervasive. Online advertising, which casually frames gambling as if it were an exciting game and nothing more, is having the effect of putting casinos on our phones. There are concerning similarities between betting companies targeting children to set them up for developing gambling habits and the tobacco industry targeting young people to produce another generation of nicotine addicts. A similar case can be mounted for their targeting of the poor and the vulnerable. This cannot be a good thing, because the fact is that most people lose. Frankly, the terms and conditions of gambling apps are rigged against everyone really winning big and certainly are rigged against anyone winning consistently. As the well-known saying goes, the house always wins—eventually. The research shows that this move from the opposition won't solve the problem of gambling. It will just push the advertising from one timeslot to another, when children are particularly targeted. In fact, when you look at the data you see that the last round of changes to the regulatory framework, which the now opposition in 2018 labelled as 'reforms', has actually increased the volume of gambling spots on TV and radio. The effect of the coalition's reforms has been to make gambling advertising more pervasive during times when children are more likely to be consuming media, when movies and comedy are scheduled. The effect of this massive net increase in gambling advertising over the last few years has been revealed in some concerning research released from the Institute of Family Studies, which has already been referred to. It suggests that, when people were exposed to wagering advertising, 21 per cent were prompted to start betting for the first time, 28 per cent tried a new form of betting, 29 per cent said they placed bets on impulse and a third of people increased their betting. It also found that three in four Australians gambled at least once during the past 12 months and, of those, almost half were classified as being at some risk of harm from wagering. These are pretty devastating statistics in my view. Those numbers suggest to me that, whatever we have been doing and whatever it was the coalition did in 2018, have failed Australians in terms of their economic and social wellbeing. As gambling has become more accessible and more intensely advertised, the harms associated with gambling have also increased. When Labor came to government we committed to address this problem and look at ways to better reduce gambling harm. A parliamentary committee chaired by the member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy, is underway and is due to report its findings soon. I have been following the committee with interest. The videos Peta Murphy has posted on Twitter of her relentless questioning of executives of large betting companies have been particularly informative and have contributed to exposing the disingenuous practices of those companies and exposing further the problems that surround gambling and gambling advertising in Australia. That's why we need the committee process. It has looked not just at the small remit of this bill we are debating today but at the whole range of channels through which gambling advertising is consumed, both in a sporting context and elsewhere. It has also looked at other jurisdictions' actions to reduce harm in gambling advertising across physical platforms as well as in broadcasts and online. There are good models in Europe and other parts of the world that are worth looking at and which, of course, go a lot further and are a lot more thoughtful than what Senator Henderson has punted up here today. Of course it's also worth pointing out that, after a decade of inaction and the coalition ignoring warnings of the harm being caused by the exploding online gambling industry, Labor has already begun to act. The Albanese government is strengthening classification of gambling-like features in video games, including loot boxes and simulated casino games, to help protect children from exposure to harmful gambling practices and developing concerning gambling habits. The government has also committed to ban credit cards for online gambling. This is a sound policy that means people cannot spend money they don't have on online gambling platforms. It makes sense to me that, if you are gambling with credit, you likely shouldn't be gambling at all. I've heard some horror stories of Australians getting into serious trouble and serious debt by gambling with credit cards. This shouldn't be allowed to continue. The government will also launch a national self-exclusion register known as BetStop. BetStop will allow Australians to actively exclude themselves from all online wagering and betting services in a single step for a minimum of three months and up to a lifetime. This is a huge reform which will allow Australians who recognise they have a problem with online gambling to take positive and tangible steps in protecting themselves from further gambling harm. Ultimately this bill goes some of the way to reform the problems Australia faces with gambling advertising, but, given how pervasive and harmful the problems are which gambling advertising triggers, it doesn't do enough. Television and radio advertisements during sporting matches are only one element of a much larger issue of gambling advertising. The world has changed, and online advertising on social media and on our phones has to be seriously looked at, along with traditional advertising practices on TV and radio, and advertising on merchandising, in print and also in stadiums. The government is committed to addressing this problem and the harm it causes. I know that the minister intends to move our own comprehensive reforms after the House inquiry into these issues reports back to parliament in a few weeks time. This strategy is formed by evidence, actually seeks to address the problem and will do more to protect Australians from gambling harm than Senator Henderson's piecemeal bill. The government wants to get gambling harm reduction right rather than support a knee-jerk reaction, which is why the government is not supporting the bill. 09:55 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I'd like to thank Senator Henderson and the opposition for bringing this bill forward. Any constructive attempt to deal with gambling harm is to be welcomed, and any debate in this place that emphasises and elevates the issue of gambling harm is to be welcomed, because gambling causes harm. Gambling destroys lives, and gambling destroys families. The fact that gambling has been normalised in our society is just insidious. There's a reason as to why gambling has been normalised in our society; it's because some of the most powerful people in our country, some of the biggest corporations, are making a huge amount of money from it. And those people are very influential, politically. The level of gambling donations to both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party is extraordinary. State governments are addicted to money from poker machines, and other governments are addicted to revenue from gambling. It's why we have not seen action on gambling. Anybody with an ounce of sense looking at the absolute escalation of gambling and gambling harm that has been occurring in Australia would see that there's a very sensible way forward, and that's to actually acknowledge that gambling causes harm and that gambling needs to be managed on a harm minimisation basis. If we had governments doing that, there would be a whole suite of measures that would be brought into play to manage gambling, with a harm minimisation approach. The bill that we are discussing today is just one small thing that could be done. It is rather ironic to hear the people from the opposition now speaking out about the harms of gambling. It's almost as if they weren't in government for the last nine years. There was so much that could have been done by the previous government that wasn't done. It's also extraordinary to hear the government talking about the things that they are doing—'Yes, we're going to be doing this'—knowing how much they have been dragging their feet. They're not treating this with the urgency that is required. Senator White just talked about BetStop. How long is it taking for BetStop to be introduced? It is extraordinary. Questions were asked about it at estimates and it is very much on the backburner. The rollout is happening extraordinarily slowly. We have seen the conflicts of interest from this government—just like previous governments—because of the donations that they accept from gambling companies, how they are dragging their feet in taking action. The minister meeting and taking donations from gambling companies is just the most obvious example of that in recent times. We need to be managing gambling with a harm minimisation approach. We need to be taking action because, as I said, gambling is destroying lives and the community knows this. The community knows that we need to be taking action on gambling advertisements. We need to be banning all gambling advertisements, just like, with a harm minimisation approach, we banned advertising for cigarettes decades ago because we knew that advertising and normalising those cigarettes was doing harm and encouraging people to smoke. That is what is going on with gambling advertising, and it is causing a huge amount of harm. I do, however, think that's it good that we have—and I congratulate—the House of Representatives inquiry into online gambling and reducing gambling harm, which is happening at the moment. I really want to thank the people who have taken the time to be putting submissions into this inquiry, particularly the Alliance for Gambling Reform for their powerful submission to the House of Representatives inquiry. They have done some excellent work in collecting information about what the impacts of gambling advertising and gambling are. It's really powerful to read their submissions and to hear the stories, of people who have experienced gambling harm, which were collected in their submissions. What's really important in this debate is to recognise the lives that are being damaged. From my time as a local councillor, when we were having to deal with planning applications for poker machine venues and were hearing the stories from local residents who were having their lives destroyed by having a pokie venue on every corner, the thing that really struck home was that gambling has real-life impacts. Gambling advertising and that insidious normalisation of gambling has real-life impacts. I want to share with you some of the stories that the Alliance for Gambling Reform shared in their submission. The first story is from Mark in Victoria. He says, 'I have been exposed to some form of betting all my life, in one way or another; however, the betting problem became more prevalent from the mid-nineties onwards. Looking back, it probably became a serious problem from 2006 onwards, but it was not a serious financial issue until I lost my main source of income in November 2012. 'The constant advertising of betting agencies and easy access to credit cards saw me accumulate a large debt, which I did not have the ability to repay, and ended up with me stealing money from my employer to feed my addiction. It was not until I was sentenced to three years in jail that the reality hit me. I have lost a reputation which took me 40 years to build, lost my home of 20 years, lost my 23-year marriage and am currently classified as secondary homeless.' Mark says, 'From my experience, I feel there are two main ways of reducing the impact that gambling is having on society. First, we need to get the banks to put a block on transfer of funds from credit cards to betting agencies. This includes using credit cards at poker machine venues. Secondly, I feel we need to get government approval to speak to 15- and 16-year-olds at school and warn them of the dangers of becoming addicted to gambling and the consequences they face if they go down that path. Yes, we can talk to people who are already struggling with this disease, but I feel it is more important to help not get started in the first place.' Then he says, 'I applied for my working-with-children card to be renewed and, if successful, would be only too pleased to be involved with educating the teenagers of today.' These are really constructive suggestions from Mark, and they go to the need to be stopping the harm from happening in the first place. Just like nicotine addiction through smoking, the recognition that we need to stop young people taking up a smoking habit leads to all of the measures that are being put in place to stop that addiction occurring—similarly, with gambling. If you have the constant barrage of gambling advertisements, it is just encouraging young people—and older people—to see gambling as something that is a normal part of life and leads to their addiction. Another story is from Jacob in New South Wales. He says, 'I am 34 -years old and I have suffered from a sports gambling addiction for 15 years. Since quitting gambling in 2017, I have shared my story to raise awareness around gambling harm. Whilst this is never easy and involved a huge amount of bravery and vulnerability, I did this because I believed it needed to be done. My gambling addiction crept up on me, and it was a slow and gradual demise. I believe this can happen to anybody. Not only did gambling impact me financially but it also impacted me in many other ways. Relationships with partners, family and friends all suffered. 'My working career suffered because I often gambled whilst I was at work. Gambling became my safety blanket, so any troubles in my life were ignored, and gambling at the time seemed to solve those issues. But, of course, they were only making them worse. Most importantly, gambling made me become a truly horrible version of myself. Through recovery, I have learnt so much about myself: what are my strengths, weaknesses, best traits. When I gambled, I was selfish, grumpy, shut off, unhappy. I didn't know who I was as a person. Gambling halted both my personal growth and my career growth without even realising. 'I tried to stop gambling multiple times. Sometimes I would go weeks, even months. There were several times when I was trying to stop when gambling companies would email or SMS, enticing me to bonus bets if I deposited again with them. I also remember having a dedicated VIP manager who would often contact me with bonus bet deals and offers if I deposited a certain amount with them that weekend. 'At the time I wasn't aware how I can now look back and see how wrong this is. This is still going on today. It makes me feel sick thinking about it. The amount of gambling-related advertisements in Australia is not only worrying but sickening. Whilst the ads will not entice me to ever gamble again, they do normalise gambling and provide a constant reminder of gambling. The frequency needs to be reduced and there need to be restrictions on when ads can be aired. Exposing families with young kids to gambling during the six o'clock news or The Bachelor is wrong. There needs to be further education for children around the harm that gambling can cause. We have a lot of work to do. Gambling is ingrained in Australian culture, and there needs to be work done to ensure that our younger generations aren't falling into the same trap that I and many others do.' I have another story that I don't think I'm going to have time to share with you today, but it's very clear that the impact that gambling is causing, the harm it is causing across this country, is real and it is destroying people. What would it mean to be managing gambling, to actually be doing something to address that culture of gambling in Australia? As I said, the first thing we need to do is to acknowledge that gambling is causing harm, that gambling is addictive and that, as a harm, it needs to be managed under a harm minimisation approach. I have asked the Department of Health and Aged Care whether they are doing anything looking at gambling as a health issue, and the response has been absolutely blank stares. Clearly, from governments of both sides, this basic way forward, of looking at gambling as a harm and something to be managed using a harm minimisation approach, is not occurring. There is a lot that we could be doing. What's being proposed in this bill, to limit gambling advertising, is a start. The Greens' position is that we should be banning all gambling advertising, including on TV, on radio and online—everywhere. Particularly, however, we need to be taking a really comprehensive approach. We need a national independent gambling regulator who will take meaningful action and ensure that there's a coordinated approach so that companies can't exploit different frameworks between jurisdictions. We need to be regulating online gambling to reduce gambling harms, with mandatory precommitment and a universal exclusion scheme across all platforms. We need to be regulating gambling in video games, with a prohibition on loot boxes being available to people under 18. In particular, we need to end the grip of the gambling industry on politics. We need to ban political donations from the gambling industry and restrict politicians and public servants from having that revolving door of working for the gambling industry. These changes are possible, and they are necessary if we are going to tackle the scourge that gambling is causing in our society. We can be doing more. We must be doing more. Otherwise the harm is just going to continue. People's lives are going to continue to be destroyed. The level of losses is extraordinary. I've got some data on the losses. This is just for poker machine losses as an estimated proportion of annual gross income by local government areas in Victoria a few years ago. This is just poker machine losses. The municipality in Victoria which has the greatest losses is the City of Greater Dandenong, which is not a rich municipality. Most people in Greater Dandenong are just getting by. But, for people who are gambling on poker machines in the City of Greater Dandenong, the average loss was over 20 per cent of their income. I think about how many of these people would be just existing either on minimum wages or on income support, already living in poverty, on poverty payments. Yet they are shelling out 20 per cent of their income on poker machines, and you can bet those bottom dollars that that's not going to be their only gambling losses. If they are losing 20 per cent of their income on poker machines, no doubt they are gambling on sports and across the board as well. This is causing huge harm. It's a huge economic harm for us, and we've got all of the personal harm that's being felt across the country. Think of that money that is being spent on gambling that is going into the pockets of these massively wealthy gambling companies. It's money that is not being spent on other more constructive things. It's money that's not being spent on food. It's money that's not being spent on other productive activities in our society. This is a really core issue that we need to be facing as a parliament. The Greens are up to taking the actions that I've outlined. Let's use this level of interest in addressing gambling to actually get serious, to actually take the comprehensive approach to reduce gambling harm and to get the action that we need so that we can be minimising gambling harm, we can be helping people to recover from gambling harm and we can be really getting action on this incredibly important issue. 10:10 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Why is it that when a private senator's bill is put forward that proposes something positive—it's an incremental change, but it would make at least a small difference—we can't just all get behind it and support it to make that change? Why can't we just get behind it and support it? This Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 would make a positive difference. It shouldn't matter who's proposing it. It shouldn't matter if it's proposed by the government, the Greens, the opposition or anyone on the crossbench. If it's a positive change, why can't we just all get behind it and support it so that change can be made now? There hasn't been a single argument put against what is being proposed in this private senator's bill—not a single argument. Why can't we just support it, get behind it and implement it now? Why do we have to wait for further reviews? There might be further waves of reform, but why can't we make that change now? Why? This is why people get frustrated with the political process. There hasn't been a single argument of substance against this change. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 241710 Thank you, Senator Scarr. The time for debate has expired. Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 11

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022

In Committee 11 10:12 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 The committee is considering the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022. Yesterday evening, divisions were called on various amendments. The votes on those amendments will now be held, starting with the amendments moved by Senator David Pocock on sheet 1926. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1926, moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [10:17]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 28 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:25 The CHAIR 287062 We proceed to another deferred division, amendment (3) on sheet 1852, as moved by Senator McGrath. The question is that schedule 8 stand as printed. The committee divided. [10:26] (The Chair—Senator McLachlan)    

The committee divided. [10:26]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 24 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. (Teller) McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:30 The CHAIR 287062 The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 12 10:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023 12

Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023

In Committee 12 10:32 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 The committee is now considering the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Yesterday evening a division was called on opposition amendment 2 on sheet 1991, moved by Senator Paterson. The CHAIR 287062 We are on sheet 1991. The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.    

The committee divided. [10:37]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 27 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:41 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Before I move my amendment, I wanted to ask one or two very brief further questions of the minister. Minister, I note that it's possible that you were only part way through an answer when we hit the adjournment debate last night, but it's also possible that you weren't. I did want to take the opportunity this morning to ask you the following question: if this bill passes, what will happen to humanitarian visa applications made by dual citizens that have already been found to be invalid under current legislation and are awaiting ministerial intervention? 10:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I had concluded my answer last night, but I might take this opportunity to respond to a couple of things we took on notice. To provide further clarity, the High Court in Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth held that actions of the staff of the department are subject to constitutionally entrenched judicial review. Accordingly, a person affected by a decision of a departmental officer under the new provision will have the ability to seek review of that decision in the courts. The courts will have a role in interpreting the scope of the substantial compliance provision, which will be binding on departmental staff. In terms of changes to the migration regulations flowing from this bill, they would be disallowable. The bill does not allow for the specific making of regulations to further define terms contained within the bill. I have not been able to get to a specific answer on the number of noncompliant notices in the time frame, but where a notice has been found to be defective it will be reissued. We will endeavour to come back to you with a more fulsome answer at a later date. In terms of the question just put then, regarding the provisions of this bill and their impact on humanitarian visa applications by dual citizens, a dual national who has made an application for a visa, where a finding as to their dual nationality is pending as at the commencement date, will not need to make a new application. Their existing application will become valid, subject to them meeting all other criteria. A person who has previously made an invalid application for a protection visa on the basis of a finding that the person is a dual national will need to make a new application for a protection visa and will need to meet all other validity criteria. The department will directly contact those persons with pending requests for ministerial intervention, to notify them that they can make a new application, and the department will publish information about making a new application on its website as well. 10:44 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Can I express my appreciation to the minister for reverting back to the Senate on some of the questions that I asked him last night and also for his response to the question I asked this morning. I acknowledge that the minister for immigration has provided for that to happen. I thank both ministers for that. The last question I have is: while the department is drafting the regulations required by this bill, will the government commit to consulting with the sector as part of the drafting process? 10:45 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We remain committed to undertaking appropriate consultation with the legal sector on the substantial compliance framework for this bill and in the future. 10:45 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I would note that it would be helpful if the department would consult on this with the refugee sector as well as the legal sector. Once again, I thank the minister for his constructive responses to the questions I asked him both last night and this morning. With that, I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item. (2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 10 (line 6), to be opposed. 10:46 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I want to put the government's position on these amendments in that we will note the concerns raised by Senator McKim but will not be supporting the amendments. The bill creates a stronger, more coherent notification framework and addresses a number of technical deficiencies which have been identified in recent court judgements. The amendments in this bill will give greater certainty to visa applicants, visa holders and those whose visas have been cancelled, as well as to decision-makers in relation to notifications given under the Migration Act and regulations. 10:46 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I briefly want to state on record that, as I said in my second reading speech, the opposition is supportive of the majority of this bill, save for schedule 2, which has now been dealt with by way of our unsuccessful amendment, and therefore we will also be opposing the Greens amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.    

The committee divided. [10:51]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Dean Smith)

 26 AYES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

 Third Reading 15 10:55 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 15

Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023

Second Reading 15 10:56 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023. The coalition will be supporting this bill. The coalition stands for lower taxes, not higher taxes. We believe it's important to have a tax system that encourages people to get out, invest, take risks, work hard and get rewards for it, and that is absolutely central to our core beliefs. But we also recognise that an effective tax system is a requirement for effective government. Australia, when compared to other advanced economies, already collects an awful lot of tax. In the 2021-22 financial year, the Australian government collected $550 billion in tax receipts. As a percentage of GDP, we collect more income tax than most of the G20 economies and almost all of South-East Asia—more income tax, for instance, than South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and New Zealand. For the majority of Australians, tax is the main experience of the coercive power of government in their lives. For this reason, discussions about tax go beyond the technicalities and to the very essence of what our country is and what our democracy is, so it's critical that governments keep their promises on tax. Governments should always keep their promises on tax, but that's something we haven't seen, sadly, from this government. It's critical that governments get their tax settings right, and that means ensuring our tax system is simpler and fairer for all individuals and families; making sure our tax system facilitates rather than blocks economic activity, investment, work and risk taking for small businesses and sole traders, as well as big employers and heavy industry; and making sure that our tax system provides certainty and predictability for our retirees, for investors and for our not-for-profit sector. Fundamentally, it's critical that governments never lose sight of who pays our taxes. There is no magic money tree that the ATO can shake as it pleases; there are just Australians and the businesses that employ them. Tax is paid by individuals, hardworking families, small businesses, employers, service providers, manufacturers, producers and consumers. But on this side of the chamber we know that we can't tax our way to prosperity. In contrast, when those opposite talk about tax reform, we know what they mean: they mean higher taxes. On this side of the chamber we know that tax reform is not simply increasing taxes. We should talk about how to make the tax system fairer, simpler, to better support aspiration and enterprise in this country for everyday Australians. That's what we need to focus on when we talk about tax. When it comes to this bill, and this has been brought forward by the government, the good news is that we do see some of the coalition's advice being followed. That should come as no surprise because not one, not two, but every measure in this bill is an initiative of the former coalition government—from double taxation treaties to equalising tax treatment across entities, streamlining charities and administration, and cutting red tape for small business and brewers. This is a bill that extends the coalition's proud record of cutting and lowering the cost of doing business and streamlining our tax system. This is something we haven't seen enough of yet, from those opposite, but we are very pleased that this has come forward. In fact, the last bill of this nature sat in limbo for over six months and just passed only this morning. Small businesses have been forced to wait, by this government, for certainty around tax incentives that they were promised back in May last year. This is despite the fact that the government is expediting all sorts of interventions in our economy or cultural priorities. The DGR status, for instance, for the Voice was rushed through. Unprecedented market intervention in our gas market was rushed through. Re-regulation of the labour market was rushed through. But the tax incentives for small businesses?—delay, delay and more delay. So we see where the priorities of those opposite lie. They are very clear. But at least this bill is something we can get behind and support. Sadly, while this bill has many measures we can support, it doesn't make up for Labor's broken promises on franking credits, on superannuation taxes and on taxing unrealised capital gains. That's really opening up a whole new area of taxation—a can of worms, a Pandora's box—which, I am sure, Labor are looking forward to getting themselves stuck into. Many small businesses will be captured by Labor's superannuation changes and their attack on unrealised capital gains. Many retirees will lose out on Labor's broken promise on franking credits. It's a full-blown assault on franking credits—something they promised they wouldn't do, prior to entering government, but now they're there, it's clear that it's happening. Labor's broken promise on superannuation taxes mean that, with soaring cost-of-living pressures, Australians will be worse off as they look forward to their retirements. This is not just a broken promise but it undermines the confidence that we have in our superannuation system, our superannuation system that relies so heavily on certainty of regulatory settings, of taxation settings. Australians have placed an enormous trust in politicians, in this place, that they are not making changes that would breach the trust of the Australian people on money that is put away for very long periods of time—potentially, for over 40 years. Despite promises of no changes to superannuation, before the election, this government is now proposing to double taxes on superannuation on one in 10 Australians. That's their numbers. By the time people retire it could well easily be more. The government is stopping companies from offering franking credits to Australian investors, to super funds and to charities. It's important to remember that franking credits are not there for the benefit of the company; they're there to benefit the individual, the investor, the person who takes the risks investing in that company. This tax bill cannot be debated in isolation from the fact that this government wants to raise taxes on super, on franking credits and, for the first time, it wants to tax unrealised capital gains, and no doubt many other things are on the taxation agenda of this Labor government. Despite claiming that fewer than 80,000 Australians will be effected by the superannuation tax, independent research has shown that by retirement age more than 500,000 Australians will be hit by this tax. That's not refining tax, that's not improving tax, that's just making our system more complicated and casting a wider net. It's capturing more and more people into the superannuation taxation system. What's even worse is that the government can't explain how this system will work. The truth is, we haven't had any real explanation of these policies, simply announcements. The Assistant Treasurer has no capacity to explain these policies. They certainly don't refine and improve our tax system. They don't make taxes lower or simpler or fairer. The Prime Minister said they'll only impact one in 200 people, while the Minister for Finance said they will impact one in 10. If the government can't explain it, how can Australians understand it? Australians are right to be wondering what Labor will do next. Small-business owners were shocked to see that this was buried deep in last year's budget, when those opposite were ending the extension of the instant asset write-off. This is a really big deal for small businesses. If that's the government's version of refining the tax system, we should be deeply worried. The substantive issue at the heart of this bill is to refine and improve our tax system, but it boils down to one key question: how can Australians trust Labor when they say one thing before an election and, the moment they're elected, do exactly the opposite? Labor's promises on tax were very, very clear. There were to be no changes to franking credits. There were to be no changes to superannuation taxes. They've broken those promises alongside promises on cheaper mortgages and $275 off your energy bills. Remember the promise of lower inflation? All those promises have gone. Indeed, I think it was Minister Burke who said prior to the election that Australians would feel the change in government in their bank accounts. Well, they certainly do but for all the wrong reasons. While the coalition will support this bill, we call on the government to stop breaking its promises on taxes and energy and to support Australian small-business owners with more red tape reduction, more incentives to grow their businesses and more support to resolve labour market shortages before this cost-of-living crisis gets completely out of control. 11:06 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I want to use my second reading contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 to speak about two matters. Firstly, I have some brief remarks on schedule 3 of the bill, regarding the administration of deductible gift recipient registers. I'd just like to place on the record the Greens' appreciation for the minister, Dr Leigh, and his office for their constructive engagement on this bill, particularly in relation to DGR status and the charity sector. My colleague Senator Rice has consistently heard from advocates and community organisations that they have welcomed the minister's approach to this portfolio and, in particular, the changes in leadership at the ACNC. We particularly welcome the minister's willingness to make the technical changes to the bill that were identified during the committee process and understand that they do go a long way towards addressing a specific set of concerns held by charities working overseas. I also want to speak to schedule 2 of this bill and the amendment that has been circulated on sheet 1925 in my name, and I do foreshadow that amendment. This amendment would require the minister to make regulations that require the Future Fund to, on a six-monthly basis, publish details of where it has invested $250 billion of money that is actually money that belongs to the Australian people. Australians have a right to know how the Future Fund is investing their money, and $250 billion is obviously a significant sum of money that belongs to the Australian people. For too long, the Future Fund has been operating behind closed doors and making investments that have, frankly, had calamitous environmental and human rights impacts. Organisations had to resort to FOIs to reveal some investments of the Future Fund in weapons manufacturers. We also had to dig into Senate estimates to reveal that the Future Fund was investing in fossil fuel corporations that are complicit in cooking the planet. Those FOI requests revealed that the Future Fund had invested in arms companies with links to the Myanmar military. We found out through estimates that the Future Fund had $3.4 billion of Australian taxpayers' money invested into the 50 biggest fossil fuel companies in the world. Australians' money was being used to fund arms manufacturers with links to the junta in Myanmar, and Australians' money was being used literally to cook the planet. It is completely unacceptable that the Future Fund invests in those things, and it's also unacceptable that the only way the Australian people found out about how their money was being invested was through FOI work and through the work of Greens at estimates committees. Mandatory disclosure, which this amendment would establish, will reveal whether the Future Fund is still investing in weapons manufacturers and fossil fuel corporations, as it has regularly done in the past. It shouldn't be as hard as it is today to hold the Future Fund to account, and it shouldn't be as hard as it is today for the Australian people to find out how their money is being invested by the Future Fund. These amendments will shine the disinfectant of sunlight on the operations of the Future Fund, and they will ultimately bring about a change in the Future Fund's investments and hopefully force them, finally, to become an ethical investment fund. As it stands, there is no requirement for the Future Fund to proactively report on what it's doing. Proactive disclosure would increase the pressure on the Future Fund to make investment decisions in line with the values of the Australian people, and that is not too much to ask from a fund that is the steward of $250 billion-plus that actually belongs to the Australian people. The reporting rules will be a legislative instrument that is subject to disallowance by the parliament. I refer the Senate to the supplementary explanatory memorandum issued by the then Minister for Finance, Senator Birmingham, to the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 in respect of the proposed amendments to that bill on sheet ZC133 for a more detailed explanation of the clauses in this amendment. I look forward to the Senate's support. 11:12 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to make some brief remarks about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023. In doing so, I would like to draw the chamber's attention to schedule 2, which deals with the Future Fund. The Future Fund is one of the most significant achievements of Australian Liberalism. It has set up a structure which allows for Commonwealth governments to offset the liabilities of public servants' superannuation schemes, which are a significant liability on the Commonwealth. That sort of long-sighted policy is rare in our national life, and it has been well managed over the time. Of course, one of the quirks of the Future Fund's management is that it's a sovereign wealth fund, and the convention is that sovereign wealth funds don't pay tax. So effectively these changes clarify that, when the fund is investing into certain investments, its subsidiaries also do not pay taxation. Effectively, it puts a level of certainty on the Future Fund's operations, which I think is highly desirable, given the fund's mandate has been expanded by successive governments. It has been expanded, I think, by governments of both persuasions because it has a track record of success and its governance is sound, so it has been entrusted to do more and more things. It has not been afraid to invest into different asset classes, as to which, perhaps, in another time and place, a government agency may not have been so bold. So providing the certainty on the tax treatment is desirable. That's what this bill does. I note the long-standing bipartisan support we now have for the Future Fund, and, of course, we hope that, in future, the liabilities are reduced and that there are efforts made to try and improve the long-run budget position, because the Future Fund, of course, can only do so much here. It can only do so much in carrying the burden of our long-term fiscal position. Now, that is something that has taken the Labor Party some time to arrive at. At various times, I think there have been threats that the Future Fund could be opened up. But my sense is that now there is a political consensus that the idea is sound. So we welcome the government's intervention here to provide this tax certainty for the Future Fund, and we look forward to supporting this bill. 11:16 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023. Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953, giving effect to the new tax treaty between Australia and Iceland. This treaty—the first between Australia and Iceland—is in our national interest. It will provide Australian individuals and businesses with increased opportunities to access capital and technology from Iceland by reducing tax on cross-border income and will provide greater tax certainty. It will also facilitate labour mobility, to strengthen our cultural ties with Iceland. The treaty builds on Australia's existing tax integrity measures designed to combat international tax evasion and avoidance, ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the law to exempt wholly-owned Australian incorporated subsidiaries of the Future Fund Board of Guardians—the Future Fund board—from corporate income tax. Currently, the Future Fund board is exempt from income taxes, but this exemption does not extend to its wholly-owned subsidiaries. Extending this exemption will remove the administrative burden associated with the payment of tax by these subsidiaries and the subsequent claiming of a refund by the Future Fund board. The legislation will not change the net position of either the Commonwealth or the Future Fund—that is, no income tax is collected by the Commonwealth from the Future Fund board. Schedule 3 to the bill transfers administration of four unique deductible gift recipient, or DGR, categories to the Australian Taxation Office, the ATO, and repeals current provisions relating to the maintenance of departmental registers. These changes will streamline application and reporting requirements across the 52 DGR categories and reduce DGR approvals for the four unique categories from up to two years to around one month. Eligibility for DGR status is not intended to change as a result of this bill. Transitional provisions will apply so that organisations that are currently endorsed as DGRs under these categories will continue to be endorsed, so long as they continue to meet the existing eligibility criteria. The government is proposing to make amendments to this bill to ensure that the transitional provisions operate as intended for overseas aid organisations. These amendments are consistent with the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee and recommendation 2 from the additional comments from the Australian Greens. The government has also noted recommendation 1 from the Australian Greens around the role of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the ACNC. The ACNC will continue its important role as a national regulator of charities. The ACNC has responsibility for registering organisations as charities, which continues to be part of the eligibility criteria for each of these four DGR categories. Schedule 4 to the bill provides deregulatory benefits to small and medium businesses that engage with the fuel or alcohol excise system or import excise equivalent goods. Instead of the existing ability to apply for weekly or monthly reporting and payment, such businesses can also apply for permission to lodge and pay their duty quarterly. This measure will reduce administrative burdens and help small and medium-sized businesses with cash flow. The proposed amendment will commence on 1 July 2023. Eligible businesses with less than $50 million in aggregated turnover in an income year who pay fuel and alcohol excise or customs duty on excise equivalent goods will then be able to apply to the Commissioner of Taxation or the Inspector-General of Taxation to move to the new reporting schedule. Currently, businesses are required to lodge and pay excise and customs duty on excise equivalent goods when goods enter home consumption unless they have permission to defer lodgement and payment. This permission can only be given for lodgement and payment weekly or, for certain eligible businesses, monthly. This new quarterly schedule will better align fuel and alcohol excise and customs duty on excise equivalent goods with other indirect taxes like GST on the business activity statement, or BAS. Schedule 5 to the bill provides deregulatory benefits to retail and hospitality venues who repackage beer from bulk quantities into small containers for immediate retail sale. From 1 July 2023 this measure introduces a targeted exemption from alcohol excise licensing requirements for the repackaging of the first 10,000 litres of beer from kegs into non-pressurised containers of no more than two litres capacity for immediate retail sales at a particular premises in a financial year. Currently, businesses that package duty paid beer into these containers are required to hold a manufacturing licence for excise purposes and pay duty again, in effect paying double duty. These licences carry significant obligations which are more appropriate to entities fermenting, brewing and/or repackaging beer on a commercial basis in order to protect the lower alcohol excise rate of a keg beer; however, filling specified containers in retail settings does not pose this integrity risk. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 19 11:24 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet ZB222 together: (1) Schedule 3, item 20, page 18 (line 32), omit "fund; and", substitute "fund.". (2) Schedule 3, item 20, page 19 (lines 1 to 4), omit paragraph (3)(d). (3) Schedule 3, item 20, page 19 (lines 5 to 13), omit subitem (4), substitute: (4) On and after the commencement of this Part, treat the public fund as having the principal purpose set out in item 9.1.1 of the table in subsection 30-80(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, unless or until there is a change to the principal purpose of the public fund. These amendments address an unintended consequence regarding the transitional provisions for existing overseas aid organisations. The amendments ensure that overseas aid funds continue to be endorsed or remain eligible for endorsement as deductible gift recipients under the new requirements. The amendments are consistent with the recommendations of the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee and address concerns about transitional provisions raised by the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Council for International Development in submissions to the inquiry. Question agreed to. 11:25 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1925 together: (1) Clause 2, page 1 (after table item 3), insert: (2) Page 6 (after line 16), after Schedule 2, insert: Schedule 2A — Periodic investment reports by Future Fund Board Future Fund Act 2006 1 Section 5 Insert: reporting rules means rules made under section 55B. 2 After Division 6 of Part 4 Insert: Division 6A — Periodic investment reports 55A Periodic investment reports (1) The reporting rules may require the Board: (a) to prepare a periodic investment report for each reporting day; and (b) to make the report available on the internet throughout the period (the publication period) ascertained in accordance with the reporting rules. (2) The publication period must not begin until at least 90 days have elapsed after the reporting day concerned. (3) The reporting rules may empower the Board to make a periodic investment report available on the internet before the start of the publication period concerned. (4) For the purposes of this section, periodic investment report for a reporting day means a report that: (a) relates to the investments held by or on behalf of the Board (whether under this Act or any other Act) as at the end of the reporting day; and (b) sets out such information as is specified in the reporting rules. (5) If the reporting rules prescribe the way in which information must be set out in a periodic investment report, the information must be set out in a periodic investment report in accordance with the reporting rules. (6) For the purposes of this section, reporting day means a day ascertained in accordance with the reporting rules. (7) A reporting day must not occur before the commencement of this section. (8) The period: (a) beginning at the start of a reporting day; and (b) ending at the start of the next reporting day; must be at least 6 months. 55B Reporting rules (1) The nominated Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules (reporting rules) prescribing matters required or permitted by this Division to be prescribed by the reporting rules. (2) The nominated Minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the first set of reporting rules are made as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Division. (3) If the first set of reporting rules have commenced on a particular day, the nominated Minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure that reporting rules are in force at all times after that day. 55C Board to be consulted on reportin g rules (1) Before making or amending reporting rules, the nominated Minister must: (a) send the draft reporting rules or amendments to the Board; and (b) invite the Board to make a submission to the nominated Minister on the draft reporting rules or amendments, as the case may be, within a time limit specified by the nominated Minister; and (c) consider any submission that is received from the Board within that time limit. (2) If: (a) the nominated Minister makes or amends reporting rules; and (b) the Board made a submission to the nominated Minister on a draft of the reporting rules or amendments, as the case may be, within the time limit specified by the nominated Minister; the submission is to be tabled in each House of the Parliament with the reporting rules or amendments, as the case may be. Note: For tabling of the reporting rules or amendments, see section 38 of the Legislation Act 2003. (3) A time limit specified under this section must be reasonable. 11:25 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria For the sake of the chamber, the opposition will be opposing these amendments. The coalition won't be supporting them because, while we support appropriate transparency and reporting measures for public agencies and entities, it's not clear at this time that the impact or the broader public benefit of these amendments would deliver the outcomes you are seeking. 11:26 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I indicate that the government will be supporting these amendments. The amendments relate to periodic investment reporting by the Future Fund. These amendments are identical to one that the previous government introduced into the last parliament but never implemented. So we will be supporting the amendments. 11:26 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Just very quickly in response to Senator Hume's comments, as Senator Brown has just pointed out, this is exactly an amendment that was introduced in the previous parliament by the previous government. So this is a backflip by the opposition away from the position they held in government. They put that in place because they were seeking to offset the backlash they were getting from their moves to exempt the Future Fund from the Freedom of Information Act. I just need to be clear. I could go into detail about what these amendments will do, but I think it is more of a philosophical objection from the opposition than an objection to the detail and so I don't propose to do that. I just need the Senate and people who are listening or perhaps reading this debate later to understand that this is an amendment that was introduced in the previous parliament by the previous government. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 20 11:29 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023 20

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023

Second Reading 20 11:30 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023. The coalition largely supports the bill and its intent of protecting workers' entitlements, although we will identify a number of areas of serious concern. This bill deals with issues that both employer and employee groups have had with the operation of the Fair Work Act. It also includes the government's election commitment to introduce a right to superannuation in the National Employment Standards. The bill is broadly supported by both employer and employee organisations. However, employer groups do have some specific concerns with certain draftings of the relevant schedules. To address these concerns, I foreshadow that the coalition will be moving a number of amendments to improve the operation of the bill. Schedules 1 and 4 propose what are termed as 'technical' amendments, and the coalition does not raise any issue with them. Schedule 1 proposes to introduce a new provision into the Fair Work Act which clarifies that migrant workers in Australia are entitled to the benefit of the Fair Work Act, regardless of their migration status. This means that migrant workers, and that includes temporary migrant workers, would be entitled to wages and entitlements under the Fair Work Act, a modern award or an enterprise agreement for work that has been performed as an employee. Schedule 4 proposes a minor technical amendment that would confirm the common understanding of how workplace determinations and enterprise agreements interact. This proposed change is consistent with the Fair Work Commission's approach in relation to this matter. However, it is not currently stated in the Fair Work Act. Schedule 2 deals with unpaid parental leave. This makes changes to the taking of flexible unpaid parental leave. The coalition supports parental leave, both paid and unpaid, as a means of ensuring that Australians are able to balance their work and family responsibilities. We believe that parental leave greatly assists women, in particular, to remain connected to the workforce. Businesses of all sizes work closely with their employees to plan for periods of paid and unpaid parental leave, which will often last for a significant period of time. Different businesses, of course, will have differing needs when it comes to planning for when an employee takes parental leave. We believe that employers and employees working together to plan for these periods is actually in the best interests of both the employer and the relevant employee. Flexible unpaid parental leave can be taken as a single continuous period of one day or longer, or separate periods of one day or longer each. The bill proposes to increase the number of days that can be taken as flexible unpaid parental leave from 30 days to 100 days. This equates to an increase from a six-week absence from work to 20 weeks, which can be taken as flexible, unpaid parental leave from the employee's entitlement of 12 months, or 52 weeks. We, as the coalition, believe there is merit in employees being able to take the parental leave more flexibly. But such increased flexibility will pose practical challenges for employers. That is why we will be moving some amendments to address what these practical challenges are for both the employers and their employees, working together to ensure that it works for both of them. The coalition amendments will see the increase in days that can be accessed flexibly balanced by insertion of a reasonable requirement to provide employees with greater details at an earlier point as to when the employee intends to take the flexible leave. This is so that employees can make arrangements to cover for the absence. Our proposal is a relatively modest expansion of the current notice provisions to assist employers to manage the implementation of what is a significantly expanded employee entitlement. A greater period of notice of a proposed absence will obviously help mitigate some of the associated practical challenges that employers have raised with us in discussions that we've had with them, but also in the submissions that they made in relation to this bill. In schedule 3, the bill implements the government's election commitment to introduce the right to superannuation into the National Employment Standards. Currently the only way for many employees to pursue unpaid superannuation is through the Australian Taxation Office. This bill means an employee with an entitlement to superannuation contributions pursuant to a modern award or an enterprise agreement can pursue unpaid superannuation guarantee contributions through the Fair Work regime, and a failure to make adequate contributions constitutes a breach of the Fair Work Act. Some employer groups, again in their submissions on this bill but also in discussions that we've had with them, have identified concerns with the way in which this particular proposal itself is drafted. For example, AI Group have identified a number of issues relating to, in the first instance, the unfairness to employers of being subject to multiple and potentially inconsistent enforcement efforts in different jurisdictions in relation to the same obligation, and the likelihood that the proposed approach will undermine the efficacy and utility of the constructive role that the Australian Taxation Office currently plays in providing guidance to individual employers or industry related to complex superannuation obligations. We agree that greater clarity is needed, so our amendments will deal with four items in this schedule specifically. Firstly, they will ensure employers are not exposed to competing enforcement activity from two different regulators over the same matter. Secondly, they will protect employers that rely on an ATO binding guidance. Thirdly, they will limit the capacity of the ATO to pursue matters ventilated in the workplace relations system. Fourthly, they will limit the capacity of the Fair Work Commission to deal with disputes over the operation of superannuation legislation. Schedule 5, in relation to employee authorised deductions, is probably the most concerning of the bill. It is the most concerning change in this bill and will see an actual impact to workers' take-home pay, and that is what we are concerned about, in particular given the current state of the economy and the cost-of-living crisis that Australians are currently feeling—those on the cliff because of the mortgage payments they have to make every month, the food inflation and the cost of energy. People are having to pay more. This change, the employee authorised deduction schedule, will actually have an impact on their take-home pay. This is of significant concern to us. In a bill that purports to protect workers entitlements, this schedule may actually encourage a reduction in a worker's take-home pay, and that is why we need to explore this in more detail. The coalition believes that Australians should be able to keep more of the money that they earn and it is important that any deduction from their take-home pay by an employer should be closely scrutinised. Currently under section 324 of the Fair Work Act, there are various types of permitted deductions that may be made from an employee's pay by an employer where the deduction is (1) authorised in writing by the employee, (2) principally for their benefit and (3) the same amount as specified in the authorisation. What does the bill seek to do, though? This is where the issue arises. As currently drafted, this bill will allow for amounts to 'vary from time to time' without additional approval by the employee for the increase. That is the issue that we have. This could actually lead to deductions being made from salaries that greatly exceed an employee's own expectations. I had a discussion the other night with a woman, a single mother. She has a full-time job. She has now taken on a second job at night because she is one of those Australians on the cliff. When she reaches that cliff shortly, she will have to find an additional $1,000 per month. She is a single mother working a full-time job—and it is a good full-time job—but, because of the cost-of-living crisis and the interest rate that she will soon be paying, she has now taken on a second job at night to put away money to find that $1,000 extra a month. Can you imagine if she opens her pay packet and suddenly there is a deduction that is higher than what she thought it was going to be and if that is actually a tipping point for her that month? We say: sorry, that should not be allowed. This proposal put forward by the government does not outline a clear problem which it is seeking to address. Given the lack of impetus for this change, employer groups and the coalition are rightly concerned that this is simply an attempt to facilitate—let's call it for what it is—unions increasing their fees without obtaining explicit agreement from their members. You need your members' explicit agreement if you're going to increase their fees and then take the money out of their bank account. This is from the government's playbook, unfortunately. Requiring an employee to provide a new written authorisation when the amount of an authorised deduction from their pay changes—that provides certainty not just for the employer but also for the employee, who can say: 'I know what is coming out of my bank account. It's my bank account and it's my money. I should be the one approving any deduction.' This is necessary for employees to understand and authorise the impact of the relevant deduction on their take-home pay and for employers to ensure that they do not breach the Fair Work Act and find themselves liable for the significant and increasing penalties that can be imposed for employee underpayments. Further, while an employee might agree in general terms to a percentage or capped amount increase to their authorised deductions over time, this may not be indicative of their consent to any particular increase in a particular time period. For example, while an employee may authorise a 10 per cent increase to their union fees over a five-year period—anticipating an increase of around two per cent per year—if the union fee suddenly increases by eight per cent in year 1 of that authorisation, the employee may not be agreeable to that; they actually may not be able to afford that increase, notwithstanding that the amount is within their pre-authorisation provided to their employer. The coalition considers it unreasonable to place the burden of communicating increases in fees or premium amounts on employers, rather than on the service providers who benefit from those deductions, such as health insurers or trade unions. The proposed amendments will not reduce purported difficulties for employers processing deductions; rather, what we consider they will do is create new difficulties and reduce the protections for employees that section 324(3) of the Fair Work Act is intended to provide without discernible benefit for either party. Making changes to deductions is a time consuming and costly task for employers, and we would want assurance that any change imposes no further cost on business. When an electricity provider, a health insurer, a bank or a streaming service such as Netflix increases their price, it is only appropriate for consumers to be notified of that increase and then have the opportunity to reconsider whether they are actually receiving value for money. Employees should have similar protections for their take-home pay deductions. Unfortunately, on the current drafting of this schedule, it does not provide that assurance. My worry is that the government is merely making this change to ensure that the unions are able to increase their membership and that the employees, ultimately, are not notified. As I said, with the current cost-of-living crisis, that is just unacceptable. The employee should be able to authorise in writing the exact amount on a monthly basis. In relation to schedule 6, we will propose some amendments to that to ensure that 'eligible wages' includes casual loading, to address the confusion that the schedule currently has and to ensure casuals are treated fairly under the scheme. As I said, the coalition has a long history of protecting workers entitlements while balancing the need for businesses to work as efficiently as possible. We are largely supportive of this bill, but we have had a number of operational concerns raised with us. As I said, we'll be moving amendments to actually improve the efficiency and operation of the bill. 11:45 Senato BFQ South Australia r BARBARA POCOCK () (): I rise to signal the Greens' support for the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023, which makes several simple and common-sense but important changes to the Fair Work Act: clarifying the rights of migrant workers under that act, expanding access to unpaid parental leave and ensuring that casual workers in the mining sector have fair and equal access to long service leave, alongside other technical changes that provide clarity on the operation of the commission and that simplify and streamline a number of processes under the act. While these are all worthy goals, and I support them, I feel that it's important to place on the record my interest in a greater level of ambition and a change to the scale and pace of reform in this area, which needs to be larger and faster. There are many long-overdue improvements that could be made that could secure a better deal for workers. At last year's election, Australians voted for change to workplace relations, like so many other issues, and they are waiting for some real change in their pay packets and, for so many, greater security in their jobs. After a decade of inaction, many Australians can't afford to wait any longer. While their wages are stagnating, they've watched climbing prices eat away at their quality of life, and they've shouldered hit after hit, as the increases to their rent have outstripped inflation and as big business saw the cost-of-living crisis as an opportunity to engage in rampant price gouging and profiteering that even the Reserve Bank has recognised this week. Further, I want to foreshadow that I do not find the arguments for the various amendments just put forward by Senator Cash convincing, and I don't expect that we will be supporting them. In March of this year, the Select Committee on Work and Care published its final report, which, amongst other recommendations, included a call for major reform to Australia's workplace relations laws to address the needs of parents and carers. We're yet to see enough action on those recommendations, despite the proposals receiving the broad support of government senators on the committee—alongside, of course, the Greens. The committee set ambitious targets for reform, and they are essential for so many working carers: roster justice; the right to disconnect from technology when your working day is finished; access to a paid holiday and paid sick leave for all workers, including casuals; and government leadership on the move towards a four-day working week. Witnesses at the committee's hearings frequently singled out working hours and working time as critical issues and major challenges that they face as parents and carers. Witness after witness spoke about how they were being failed by laws that haven't kept pace with the changing nature of work in the 21st century. Workers seeking flexibility are often locked into casual work without access to the critical, basic right to a paid holiday and paid sick leave, which every parent and every working carer knows is so important. Those who need greater certainty and predictability in their working hours often find themselves in situations where their hours of work are subject to change without notice, and that means a change not only in your hours of work but also in your pay packet. As the shift towards working-from-home arrangements accelerated in recent years, workers have increasingly been expected to be available around the clock to field work-related phone calls and monitor their inboxes when they're off the clock. This wage theft and this constant availability, in the form of availability creep, continues unabated, as workers face mounting demands that they be available by phone, email and text out of work hours and without compensation. Productivity gains made by our contemporary workforce have been absorbed by business profits, while wages have stalled—at a time when record profit-taking has been highlighted by Australian researchers and the OECD as a major driver of inflation. It's time to restore balance and review Australia's hours of work. While other major economies have forged ahead with reductions to working hours, Australia has lagged behind. We led the world in the 1840s. It has now been 40 years since we've seen any reduction in working hours for Australian workers, and, in those 40 years, we've seen a massive change in who's at work on any day of the week—increasingly, women; increasingly, people who are responsible for the care of someone else. We need to renovate our workplace relations regime. Trials of a four-day working week around the world have been enormously successful. In a recent Australian study published by Swinburne University of Technology, none of the 10 businesses that participated in a four-day-week trial experienced a loss in productivity. Seven of the 10 saw improvements in their productivity. The Swinburne study is consistent with other very large trials around the globe in many countries and in Australia: better morale; improved staff retention; less use of sick leave; growth in productivity. If the Albanese government is serious about the rights of working people, then all of these issues need to be prioritised. Workers need protected rights to request predictable hours of work if they need them, and to turn off their phones and computers outside of work hours if they're not being compensated for being available. Casual workers need access to paid leave. There are significant changes in this bill to help protect the rights of migrant workers, and the clarification that it provides for migrants who are working beyond their visa conditions is important. It's important that people are being permitted in their visa conditions to work; that's very important to better protection from exploitation for those migrant workers, and it was a key recommendation of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce. It is vital that these workers have the same access to legal protection as other workers, regardless of their migration status. However, more needs to be done to support migrant workers providing essential services in our community. I'm frequently contacted by people whose skilled worker visa applications have been severely delayed as they attempt to renew temporary visas or to proceed along a pathway to permanence and citizenship. These are diligent and hardworking people—many of them, in teaching and health care occupations; many of them, carers in our care workplaces—who are being pushed into insecure work, outside of their areas of study, as many employers are cautious about employing staff on bridging visas. International students have also contacted me to share their concerns about their ability to cope with work restrictions for student visa holders which return on 1 July. Amidst the cost-of-living crisis, international students face an enormous struggle to make ends meet on limited hours against a backdrop of stagnant wages and exorbitant rent increases. It will be of little comfort to student visa holders that their rights under the Fair Work Act will be protected, when cost-of-living pressures force them to work beyond the 48-hour-a-fortnight cap. The provisions in the bill to provide expanded access and greater flexibility to those taking unpaid parental leave are a clear improvement. It's important to stress, however, that Australian parents' access to paid parental leave remains woefully inadequate, and Australia still has such a long way to go to catch up with comparable countries in terms of paid parental leave. It will be some time—many years—before Australian working parents can access increased paid parental leave that approaches the international standard. It will be some years before they get to just 26 weeks paid leave, which is well below the 2022 OECD average, which, currently, is 51 weeks. If Australia proceeds at the rate of progress the government seems to consider satisfactory, it will be nearly 2040 before Australia finally catches up to the rest of the developed world, in terms of giving people the rest and support they need when a new child, a baby, arrives. After a decade of stalled progress on workplace relations, major reforms are now needed to improve the work-life balance and the circumstances of a changing workforce, and we need changes that will safeguard workers' standard of living. Voters sent a very clear message last year, issuing a call for urgent action. Insecure work and sluggish wage growth continue to undermine prosperity, and they make prices rises, rent increases and ballooning mortgage repayments bite that much harder, affecting so many households and so many workers. Australia's workers are looking to Labor for a lifeline, for the decisive action that was promised in the last election campaign. It's time for the Albanese government to deliver on a more ambitious set of reforms, a much more fundamental set of reforms, that will address the current circumstances and real experiences of Australian workers in our diverse households and workplaces. 11:54 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023. This continues much-needed reform to industrial relations in this country and reaffirms the Albanese Labor government's commitment to improve pay and conditions for Australian workers in every workplace across the country. I rose in this place last year to speak on the historic Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs Better Pay) Act 2022 and its important reform to lift wages, improve job security and close the gender pay gap. Our government IR reforms are about improving awards, improving enterprise agreements, improving bargaining and creating better workplaces for Australians. This year, 2023, is about closing the loopholes that some businesses use to undercut such arrangements. This bill commences that process. This bill is about protecting workers' entitlements, including by enshrining the right to superannuation as one of the National Employment Standards. And how important is superannuation to Australian workers? It is so terribly important. Again, it's something that was introduced by a Labor government. The bill will also promote gender equality. The amendments to the unpaid parental leave scheme will provide families with greater flexibility so that work and care responsibilities can be more easily shared. That's so important to our national economy. The bill will also deliver reforms to improve fairness in the workplace relations system by protecting all workers, regardless of their visa status, and ensure that casuals in the coalmining industry are on par with their permanent colleagues with respect to long service leave—fundamentally important for all Australians. It continues the work of the government to align other IR reforms that create a fairer Australia. The bill amends the Fair Work Act 2009 and related legislation, to improve the workplace relations framework, by providing greater certainty for the work status of migrant workers, by dealing with inaction between the Fair Work Act and Migration Act 1958. That's an election commitment that we are delivering, as we are with our election commitments—unlike those opposite when they were in government. We are making sure there is greater job security and opportunities for all Australian workers by providing stronger and more flexible access to unpaid parental leave, that aligns with the recent changes to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, a Jobs and Skills Summit outcome. We are inserting an entitlement to superannuation in the National Employment Standards—again, an election commitment—clarifying the operation of Fair Work Commission determinations and enterprise agreements. We are expanding the circumstances in which employees can authorise employers to make valid deductions from payments due to employees, where the reductions are principally for the employee's benefit, and we are ensuring that casual employees working in the black coal mining industry are treated no less favourably than permanent employees in their accrual, reporting and payment of their long service leave entitlements under the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Scheme. Fundamentally, this should always be happening. But what happens? You have to wait until there's a Labor government, because we know that when those on the other side were in government their policy was to keep wages low and do nothing for workers. It is crucial that the provisions in the bill relating to unpaid parental leave commence by 1 July 2023, to align with the commencement of changes made by this government to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Act 2023. Again, who has taken that next step to ensure that paid parental leave is able to be shared by both parents? A Labor government. This will ensure that parents can access weeks of unpaid parental leave equivalent to their government paid parental leave entitlements. Some parents may be unable to access government parental leave pay without access to additional unpaid parental leave. That is so important. When you have babies and young children, ensuring both parents in the workforce have that leave is good for the parents, the family and the economy. This reform was recommended by both the Migrant Workers Taskforce and the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into the government's secure jobs, better pay legislation. Reports responded to concerns by advocates for temporary migrant workers that it is unclear whether Australian workplace laws and conditions extend to temporary migrant workers. It has also been argued that such confusion may mean that temporary migrant workers do not seek information or assistance from official sources, such as the Fair Work Ombudsman. All workers working in this country are entitled to and deserve protection from exploitation. It's the view of the government that the Fair Work Act should be clear that it also applies to migrant workers. Anyone working in this country who is not an Australian citizen deserves the same rights and protections. Doubt has been raised about this, and the government is acting now to fix this and address it, unlike those on the other side when they were in government. Parental leave reforms from our government are a significant step towards ensuring that there is fairness in the workforce and that we have strong economic participation by parents sharing parental leave and the same protection for migrants working in this country who are here on temporary visas. This parliament has recently passed the largest expansion to government funded paid parental leave since the scheme was established in 2011. The changes in this bill go hand in glove with those changes made by the Minister for Social Services. These changes provide commensurate employment rights to ensure that the government's changes to paid parental leave have real meaning. So the women and parents of Australia should rejoice because these reforms will improve the lives of working families. The bill will also protect workers superannuation entitlements by including superannuation in the National Employment Standards. Australians are quite rightly very proud of our world-class superannuation system. Thank you very much to former prime minister Paul Keating for that. Superannuation is a key part of workers being able to build a financially secure retirement, which is the right of every working Australian. Currently, the Fair Work Act does not have an explicit requirement for an employee to pay superannuation to their employees. As the minister pointed out, this is a loophole that needs to be closed. In almost every instance of wage theft, superannuation is also part of how workers have been ripped off. I've seen that happen time and time again, even in my own state. Even people I've known who owned businesses didn't pay superannuation to their workers. They used it to buy themselves a better home. It's outrageous. It has taken a Labor government to close those loopholes. Superannuation is a very important part of our economy. It's important for Australian workers to build that security as they move into retirement. This amendment is about making sure that a worker can recover both superannuation and wages in an underpayment claim under the Fair Work Act. That is critically important. Every Australian deserves a secure job and better pay, but there is no point in having a secure job and better pay if a loophole exists within the industrial relations system that undermines workers entitlements. This bill starts the process of closing many loopholes in the system. It goes a long way towards ensuring that Australian workers have their entitlements, that they get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, that their superannuation is protected going forward, and that people with families have their entitlements to be able to spend time with their children during that very critical time. That helps those families. It certainly helps those children. It also helps the parents. But just as important as all of that is that it helps our economy. It builds a stronger, more highly skilled workforce. But despite this bill and these changes, as proud as I am to stand here, there's still so much to do in this area. I don't have the voice to go into the gig economy and the issues around making sure that there's safety at work. There are so many issues that we still have to address in this area of workers to protect their rights and ensure that they have a safe and secure job and a very safe workplace. There's a lot more to be said about that in the coming pieces of legislation, but I commend this bill and I urge those in this chamber to support it. 12:05 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023. Before I speak to the specific provisions of the bill, I wish to make a few comments in general about our industrial relations system and clear up a few misconceptions that we continually hear from those opposite in this space. The first misconception they pedal is that the Liberal Party are anti wage increases. In actual fact, when we were in government, over our nine years of government, we actually delivered—and, Senator Scarr, I know you know this—real wage increases, wage increases above inflation. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Senator Sterle is mocking that, but that's the reality, Senator Sterle. It's the reality. What has this Labor government delivered in its first 12 months? Declining real wages—in fact, real wages plummeting at the fastest rate in decades. Why? Inflation. This government has no clue as to how to handle the inflationary pressures in the economy, and that is demonstrated quite clearly by the fact that the Reserve Bank had been raising interest rates, it paused, Labor delivered its second budget, and the Reserve Bank took a look and raised interest rates again—a very clear causality path. The Labor government did nothing. In fact, they spent big and they put upward pressure on inflation, causing the Reserve Bank to have to act. They're leaving all the heavy lifting to the Reserve Bank in the economy, and the impact of that, on peoples' mortgage interest rates and flowing through the economy in so many ways through high inflation, is directly the responsibility of this government. They cannot turn their backs and walk away and say 'Oh, inflation is not our problem.' Inflation is their problem. They're in charge of the budget. They are the ones who have significant levers of influence in this economy to deal with those inflationary pressures. So that is misconception No. 1. Real wages went up under the coalition government. Real wages are plummeting under the Labor government. On flexibility, those opposite want you to believe that Australian workers and Australian families, including Australian mums and dads, don't want flexibility in employment arrangements, when in actual fact they have voted with their feet over 30 years, indicating that they do want flexibility in employment arrangements. 'Flexibility' is not a dirty word. It's a good word. It's good for workers, it's good for the economy and it provides people with the sorts of jobs they want at times in their lives when they want them. Flexibility is not a bad thing. In fact, inflexibility is an economy killer. If you want to be truthful about the history of this nation and the loss of the big manufacturing industries, such as the car industry, it was labour market inflexibility and the inability to scale up technologically that killed those heavy manufacturing industries in this country. It wasn't the direct policy position of any particular government, but it was inflexibility in our labour markets in the 1980s and 1990s that killed heavy industry in this country. Inflexibility is an economy killer. Flexibility provides the economy with the flexibility it needs. Flexibility is a positive in this economy, and workers have shown over the last 30 years that they care about flexibility. They actually want flexibility in their employment arrangements. This idea that somehow the economy has suddenly become filled with gig workers or casuals is a nonsense. If you look at the data, you will see that the broad balance in the economy between permanent, casual and part time has roughly remained the same over the last 30 years, since the 1990s. What was the spark that rebalanced the economy to the current position in terms of full time, part time and casual? It was the fact that the inflexibility in the labour market in the 1970s and 1980s and into the early 1990s was an absolute economy killer. Inflexibility is an economy killer. The third misconception I want to clear up before I get to the bill proper is this idea of wage theft and that, in some way, businesses, particularly small businesses, go out of their way to rip off their staff. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a problem in our system, and that is that the sheer complexity of the system causes people to make mistakes. Let me just give you two examples to show you that those mistakes are not just being made by small businesses against a small number of employees that they potentially employ. Maurice Blackburn, the so-called labour lawyers, with literally hundreds of IR specialist lawyers on their team, underpaid workers. They got the rules wrong and had to re-fund the lowest paid workers they employ. That's because the system is so complex even the labour lawyers can't get it right. How do you expect a small business—mum and dad running a cafe, a news agency or a fish-and-chip shop—to get it right when the labour lawyers can't get it right? The system is too complex. This is not wage theft; this is people making mistakes because the system is so complex. There is some criminality, of course, and those people should be punished. But the fact is that, when you see a law firm like Maurice Blackburn full of people who are specialists in this area of IR law and in prosecuting these kinds of supposed wage theft doing it themselves, you've got to say the system is wrong. The system is too complex. Who else is involved in so-called wage theft? The ABC. The ABC got it wrong. The ABC, with its $1.1 billion of funding from the Commonwealth government, could not get its wage bills correct. They underpaid their staff. Why? Because they were out to deliberately steal money off their staff? If so, you guys should be looking at cutting their budget, because that is a pretty disgraceful act. I don't think so. I think the system is so complex they made a mistake. They rectified it, and that is as it should be. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Senator Henderson, you may have a slightly different opinion to me on that. But I believe that, in the vast majority of cases, mistakes are being made because the system is too complex. The system requires, particularly small and medium-sized business owners, to have a level of experience and skill in these areas that is very difficult to get. It is very difficult to acquire it internally and, if you have to pay for it, it is very expensive. If you are a small-business owner and you have to go to external consultants to get IR advice, guess where that money is coming from? That is coming directly out of your take-home pay as the business owner. Barriers that make it harder for businesses to employ and that make it harder for employees to choose flexibility in their working arrangements are government policy that is keeping inflation high and doing nothing to bring it down. All these things, combined together, are hurting Australian workers and hurting Australian families. They're bringing extra unnecessary pressure on Australian families at a time when there are economic headwinds ahead. As we said when we were in government, there were economic headwinds clearly on the horizon. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Brockman, you will be in continuance. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 27 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Road Safety 27 12:15 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia It's timely that I speak on one of my favourite subjects. Everyone in this building knows—everyone knows!—my passion for the Australian transport industry and our supply chains. No-one would doubt where I'm coming from and no-one would ever say that I sneak up on them, because I've been coming for 46 years on this angle and I'm not changing now! I want to talk about some anomalies, particularly on the east coast of Australia. I love the rail industry and I love shipping, when it has Australian seafarers and Australian ships—and there are those poor, exploited foreign seafarers who have finally caught up with their employers and will be paid properly; that's a good thing. We're an island and we rely on transport. I know that this industry is about nine per cent of GDP and that we're integral to every conversation in this nation. I say 'we' because I'm still a truck driver. I still run triple road trains between Perth and Kununurra, and all ports in between. I can't wait to escape here and get out there. I do it for charity; every single cent I earn is passed on to charities of my choice. I don't get to touch the money, and nor do I want to touch the money. My mates say, 'We're so short of truck drivers, if you help us out what charity do you want the money to go to?' A lot of it goes to victims of domestic violence in Aboriginal communities, helping out kids with sporting activities and helping out the old people by supplying them with used furniture—all free of charge. Everyone knows my history with the road transport industry, even up to today, and when I talk about the road transport industry my feet are firmly planted in those steel capped boots at the end of the Kenworth accelerator pedal. And I love every minute of it! But I want to raise some anomalies while we're here. The average age of our truck drivers now is 53. Think about that: 53 years is the average age. I have to tell you that by the time the men and women out there with a steering wheel in their hands are 53, their bodies are starting to hurt at every angle. They're still sleeping in their trucks in the middle of the summer and still sleeping in their trucks in the middle of winter. Most of us haven't been to university. I say, quite proudly, that it's great for kids who want to, to go to university. I know that back in 1975 the two wasted years of my life were years 11 and 12, because I did not want to be there. I couldn't wait to follow in the footsteps of my father and become a long-distance truck driver. And I'm so proud to say that I didn't leave school, I escaped! A lot of our truckies did the same. And I'm so proud to say that my 32-year-old son is a triple-road-train operator. He's been pulling triple road trains now for 12 years, following in his old man's footsteps. But I have to say that a lot of us didn't leave school because we were dumbos; a lot of us left school because we just wanted to get out and start working. A lot of us wanted to get into an industry where we could start making a living—where we could start carving out a living—where we could, for goodness sake, even start earning money! And mum couldn't wait for us to get out too, so she could charge us board! So I took this decision by the time I finally reached year 12 that I didn't want to be a brain surgeon, I didn't want to be an archaeologist or a— Senator Scarr 282997 A lawyer? Senator STERLE e68 Or a lawyer—although you need them now and again, especially in this job! And I didn't want to be a cardiothoracic surgeon. I followed in my old man's footsteps. But I want to raise a few things with you. There is nothing more important to our men and women in the road transport industry than road safety. We live and breathe road safety every single second of the day. We live and breathe it while we're sitting behind the wheels of our juggernauts going down the highway. Our wives, partners and families at home live and breathe that same fear of that phone call which may come in the dead of night or at some time during the day. Trust me, I've experienced that. But I never experienced what my father put my mother through in the 60s while she was trying to raise three kids and he was running east-west across the Nullarbor when there were no mobile phones and no internet. You had to rely on getting to a phone. My dad had to ring his boss to say: 'Tell mum, when she comes with the kids on Friday in the EH station wagon, to pick up me pay cheque. I'm still alive and I'm somewhere between Sydney and Adelaide.' Or he'd be between Adelaide and Perth. That is how we lived. I never realised, when I followed in my father's footsteps, the fear I had put into my mother's heart, 'Is he all right out there?' By then we had a telephone, but I wasn't ringing mum. I was a young truckie, and I tell you what: I was 10 foot tall and bullet-proof. I didn't think about the fear every time they heard there was a truck accident in the north of WA: 'Is he all right? Is he still in touch?' It never hit home until my son picked up the steering wheel, and I started thinking, 'Oh, my God, 40 years ago my mum was going through this with her husband and then her son.' No-one can ever, ever accuse the industry or even dare think that the road transport industry, the truckies and the trucking industry do not have road safety at the forefront of their minds. I am all for making our roads as safe as possible. I wear the badge of the SARAH Group proudly on my chest, as I did for years in my previous role as the shadow assistant minister for road safety, because it's something I believe in and am passionate about. How is it that we can kill 1,200 Australians a year on our roads, and yet we think this is just part of business? If 1,200 Australians were being killed in another industry, could you imagine the outrage? Let alone the 100-odd truck drivers we lose each year in rollovers or in crashes, and people just think, 'Well, it is a road statistic, part of doing business.' It is not part of doing business. I want to raise some anomalies with you while I stand up to support our truckies and their families in road safety. I say, if anyone does the wrong thing, throw the book at them. But I want to highlight a very dear friend of mine. He's an interstate owner-driver who's been running interstate on the triangle between Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane for 20-plus years, a really good operator. His name is Frank Black, and a lot of people in the trucking industry know Frank Black. We are very dear friends. Frank and I were having a conversation in Sydney a couple of weeks ago, maybe a month ago. I'm not putting the blame on the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, which has to enforce crappy laws. If I have to, I'll retract that statement; it is not the one I was going to use, but I will use that one. It's their job to enforce the laws, but they don't make the laws. I want to highlight some of the stupidity in New South Wales, and it's not just confined to New South Wales; the same goes in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. You have to have a logbook. Everyone knows long-distance truckies have to have logbooks, and you can imagine how many logbooks long-distance truckies fill up over 20 or 30 years. There are two blocks on the front of the logbook. One asks: where does your truck live? Where is it based? That's fair enough. The other one asks: who are you and where do you live? That's also fair enough, although most of the owner-drivers have their names plastered all over their trucks and their names are on their licences, so it's not hard to work out. But in this crazy situation on the eastern seaboard, when you get your new logbook, if you don't fill out the one block asking where you live it is a $711 fine. Do you know that, on the eastern seaboard, if you fill your logbook out and you make a spelling mistake, you're going to cop a $700 fine? That's a week's wages for a lot of truck drivers. Seriously, are you going to go home and tell mum that you can't pay this week because of the NHVR gorilla? That's what I'm going to call it. This is what happened to Frank, the gorilla went through Frank's truck from back to front. Frank is an ex-diesel mechanic, so you could eat your dinner off his engine and have the sweets off the diff. I'm telling you, he's a top operator. This gorilla went through his truck from back to front trying to find something, and all they could find was he hadn't filled out his name in his new logbook. Even though his licence says who he is and his truck says who he is, they done him. I want to give you a couple of other stupid, ridiculous example of what goes on in New South Wales, while they are out there picking on our hardworking men and women of the road transport industry. Here is a classic. If you are driving quickly, so quickly you can't stop at a school crossing sign—a pretty serious charge—the fine is $603, not $711. Crazy, right? If you fail to comply with a hand-held stop sign—we call them the lollipop operators in WA, the people who stop traffic for the kiddies crossing in a school zone—the fine is $603, not $711. This nonsense carries on all the time. There is another one in Sydney and Melbourne where the tram stops are. If you go through the tram stop and you don't stop—I believe it's law that you've got to stop there; we don't have trams in WA, so I don't know, but this is what I'm told—when the tram pulls up and people are alighting from the tram, the fine is $200. Our truckies are being pinged for logbook infringements for $711 for a spelling mistake or for not putting their name on the front because it's about the 50th book they've had. Where in the world does that improve road safety? Some inspectors on the side of the road are trying to reach a KPI. I'm writing to all the ministers, police and transport and road safety officials all throughout the eastern seaboard. This nonsense has got to stop. Parliament 29 12:25 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales As I rise today, I note that tomorrow is the last day of my first 12 months, my first season, down here. Honourable senators: Happy birthday! Senator CADELL 300134 I'd like to thank the people of New South Wales for giving me the opportunity and the people of the National Party for giving me a chance. Upon reflection, some of the values we have in the office are 'continual improvement' and 'be inquisitive'. I think they said it on an episode of Ted Lasso, when Ted Lasso was throwing darts at the board in the Crown & Anchor. I want to talk about where we're at and what we're at. I'd never worked in a government office before, I'd never worked in parliament before and I'd never worked in the Public Service before I came here. Potentially—or definitely—my aspirations have outmatched my ability in this place so far. I raised this in a few different speeches on the Voice last week and also when taking note yesterday. I think that there are many things we're looking at here and there are things we could always be better at. There's 'he said, she said'. I'd like to thank the people in this chamber. So many of them are good people, really have this country's interests at heart and want good things. But forget which government; over the last 15 or 20 years, we haven't been doing as much as we could be or should be. I note that only one prime minister has served term to term in the 15 years since John Howard, and I think that's indicative of where we are. It is time that we looked at our democracy. It's time we looked at these institutions. I think it's time we had a good look at what we're doing here. It has been 120 years that this place existed in one form or another, and change is constant. In those last 15 years that I'm talking about, with 24-hour media, Facebook and all these social media things, it has never been easier for misinformation or disinformation. It has never been easier to scare. It has never been easier for things to go around— Senator Scarr 282997 To bully. Senator CADELL 300134 Or to bully—exactly that thing. I think it's as a result of that that governments over this period are governing more and more to stay elected, not governing to make a better Australia. We do not argue about the size of the pie. We argue about who gets the pie, who gets what slice and how we carve it up, but we're not talking about a bigger pie. We're not talking about a better pie. We're talking about how much we can take and give to other people. My reflection is that it isn't the fault of the people in this place that want good things; it is an understandable part of human nature to want to survive—or, in this place, to win. I think it is time we had a really good look at how we do things. Nothing I will say is endorsed by my party today. Nothing I say is endorsed by the parliament. It may be subsequently. Senator Scar 282997 Is that why you're laughing? Senator CADELL 300134 Yes. I haven't got a preselection for another couple of years! But is it not time we looked at the length of our term of parliament and having fewer elections? I know people say four years; I'm thinking five. I know England isn't a great example of that at the moment, but— Senator Urquhart 231199 Six years. Senator CADELL 300134 Six across the road! Any advance on six? If we had a government elected for a five-year term, they'd have the ability to come in and make decisions in the long-term interest of our country, without the fear of being voted out in two years or 18 months. They'd have the ability to do some things that hurt a bit to make our nation better, where we don't judge success or failure based on the polls but we judge it based on fairness, we judge it by our GDP or we judge it by the happiness of our nation. Like kids—I always like to include a thingfrom Mary Poppins or another movie!—a spoonful of sugar is what we're giving the nation at the moment. We fix the squeaky wheel. We say what we're doing is better is better than it actually is. It's human nature. This government's not our government; it is people. And I know this: you cannot virtue-signal your way to a better nation. You have to do the work. You can't spin your way to success. You have to do the work. I have been disappointed in my first 12 months here about the ability I've had to impact that as a senator in this place. I have six years. We work in these committees. We work in this area. I said in my Voice speech the other night that I am going to see a psychologist for the first time since my divorce because I am disappointed about my abilities to deliver here. But the game has changed. It is everything. It is reaching down through the separation of powers in our Constitution and doing things that are meant to be the responsibility of the states because they are popular and they win us votes on these sugar hits. So many things have changed over the 122 years since this federal government has been here, and it is time to look at that. I am counting the number of senators here and working out if I can run faster than them and say, 'Is this place still relevant to that document?' We have the NACC and all these other accountabilities coming in. But I love the fact—and from the other side, from the government, I thank the offices and the people of Senator Farrell and Senator Ayres, who have been great taking on the consultancy—that we ourselves talk in the hallways and fix problems, and in our committees we talk and fix problems. At the risk of saying something improper, which I normally do, we come into question time and half the time act like unmedicated patients in a facility. It's not good enough, because that is the fear of what we put in. So I want to do more to make Australia better. I know most people here do. I think we are hamstrung by the rules. There is a great business that talks about the theory of cohesiveness. It looks at management. It looks at sporting bodies. It looks at these things and at the longevity of time working together, of self-promotion and of having the ability to influence stuff. This parliament and this government are hamstrung by this. Let's face it: you get in, and in year 1 you put in your election agendas; in year 2 you fix up the mistakes that were in your election agendas; and in year 3 you govern to get elected again. Where is the time to make the hard decisions? It's part of the media. We do not fund our media enough. We don't value it enough to do investigative things. What is now journalism is that we cut and paste press releases, and that makes news. The value we put on print media and investigative journalism is gone. It is not acting as a barrier to this misinformation that is so pervasive. People don't go on the net to look for news to be informed. They go to be emboldened and validated in their views, no matter what they are. So our society has changed but we have stayed the same. All this time there is a bureaucracy and a civil service—people working hard who are always there. They have career progression. They start off at the bottom and they work through, and they have increasing power, as they are the knowledge base that continues no matter who wins in each election. I look at the efforts—as I said, not having been in office before—of my staff, my EOAs, and I look at what they do in this job. If anyone is listening at home, you get four staff—soon to be five staff—in an office, and they are almost regulated in where they are and how they go. There is almost no career progression for them if they're working in this space. I think they're underpaid by 15 to 20 per cent compared to what they would get in the corporate world. I think they are desperately undervalued for the abuse they sometimes get on the phone and for the efforts they put in. I think there needs to be better remuneration. We're talking about Fair Work and flexibility and these things. I think we as a parliament are cashing in on the belief of these people in what we do in not paying them a fair wage. I think it is potentially wrong. Because they have no career progression, they are there and we lose them. This is part of the cohesiveness, the longevity and the way forward that we don't have in this parliament. I don't know what the way forward is. In my first 12 months I have loved the learning. There is so much information here. We are looked after, from this chamber with the attendants and the clerks to the drivers and the Parliamentary Library. Senator Scarr 282997 The cleaners. Senator CADELL 300134 The cleaners. Everyone is great to us, and I thank you for that. I have loved my time. But we can't do what we need to do for this nation, and it is not the fault of the people here. I describe this as 'never working longer to achieve so little in my life'. I went to the conference for the National Party on the weekend and I was asked, 'How are you finding it?' I said to many of the farmers there: 'Imagine getting up in the morning, getting in your tractor and driving up and down the fields for 14 hours every day but not ploughing, not planting and not fertilising. A lot of it is like that.' So I will continue to learn, continue to do my very best and continue to try to do what I can for Australia, but I think overall we need to look at the game. Abortion, Universities: Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault 31 12:35 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Today the Western Australian parliament will introduce laws to remove significant barriers to accessing abortions. As the last remaining state jurisdiction with elements of criminality around abortion, this change is very welcome. It will remove outdated restrictions that require women to get mandatory counselling and consult two doctors before making a decision about their own body. The new laws will also ensure that doctors with a conscientious objection are required to refer people seeking an abortion to another doctor willing to help them with what is a straightforward legal procedure. On the downside, this week it has been one year since the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision in Roe v Wade, the court ruling which had since the 1970s protected abortion access in America as a universal right. The overturning of Roe v Wade has sparked a significant regression in policies around abortion by state legislatures across America. I'm really pleased that in Australia we're heading in the opposite direction, with states strengthening the rights to access reproductive health care. The recent Greens-initiated Senate inquiry into universal access to sexual, maternal and reproductive health care delivered a strong cross-party statement on the importance of access to abortion, but that inquiry also heard that much more needs to be done to remove the practical barriers faced by those experiencing an unintended pregnancy. We heard evidence about the postcode lottery for access to safe abortion that sees many women, particularly in regional Australia, travelling hundreds of kilometres and paying hundreds of dollars to get a termination. We heard about the shortage of surgeons trained to provide abortion services and restrictions preventing GPs from prescribing medical abortion drugs. Regional areas are often served by fly-in doctors rather than having a local provider, meaning that they might not be available when they're needed. We heard that conscientious objectors don't always refer to other providers. In regional areas if your only local doctor has a conscientious objection, a referral can mean travelling far from home. Limited access can mean patients are waiting up to six weeks for abortions—a critical delay for a time-sensitive procedure. It should not be this difficult to access health care. Until barriers are removed, universal access on paper is not the reality for far too many women. The Greens believe that abortion care is basic health care that should be free and available through the public healthcare system. The Senate inquiry recommended public hospitals provide surgical terminations or a timely and affordable local pathway to an alternative provider. But unless those alternative pathways are fully funded, people who can't access a termination through their local hospital are at a significant disadvantage. Again this has the biggest impact on people in rural and regional Australia and those without a Medicare card. The federal government should commit to ensuring abortions are available through public hospitals or commit to fully funding the alternative local pathways. The patchwork of different laws across the country also creates a barrier to access. The laws introduced in Western Australia today will bring that state much closer to best practice, but women really deserve harmonised, consistent, best-practice reproductive healthcare laws across Australia. The federal government could and should be driving that harmonisation push. The Australian community is strongly pro-choice and has been so for decades. Thanks to the tireless efforts of so many staunch advocates over many decades, much progress has been made, but much more needs to be done. Abortion is health care. It should be accessible, affordable, safe, legal, compassionate and free from stigma. The Greens will keep fighting until we get there. Staying on women's rights over their bodies, in August 2017 the Australian Human Rights Commission released its landmark report Change the course: national report on sexual assault and sexual harassment at Australian universities (2017). The report found that 21 per cent of university students were sexually harassed, and 1.6 per cent were sexually assaulted in a university setting in 2016. It found that sexual assault survivors often struggled to access adequate support services and that university responses were failing to meet their students' needs. This remains a shocking statistic. University can be an overwhelming time and it's often a young person's first experience living away from home. Universities have a clear responsibility to provide a safe environment for students to learn and to prevent sexual violence and to respond appropriately when it happens. In the wake of the Change the course report, what did the universities do? The answer is, not nearly enough. Despite years of students speaking out, hoping that sharing their traumatic experiences would lead to action, and despite the tireless efforts of advocates like End Rape on Campus and Fair Agenda to hold universities accountable, the most recent national student survey revealed that little has changed. Far too many students, particularly female students, still feel unsafe and unsupported by their university. There are 275 students reporting assaults on campuses across the country every week. Without major changes and independent oversight of university responses, thousands of students are at risk. End Rape on Campus says that most universities are failing students at every point of responsibility. They're failing to provide evidence based programs to prevent rape on campus. They're failing to provide timely trauma informed support to students who report rape on campus. They're failing to provide basic measures, like making sure survivors don't have to sit in the same classroom as the person who assaulted them. They're failing to ensure that tutors and staff don't have a history of sexual violence. They're failing to make adjustments to assist students at risk of falling out of their course while dealing with trauma. Some students are having to show multiple letters from doctors and counsellors just to get an extension. Funding was allocated to Universities Australia 12 months ago to develop an on-campus prevention program to be rolled out in O-Week of this year. Peer-led resources were under development but they were delayed. I was very concerned to learn in estimates, a few weeks ago, that this program was scrapped and replaced with internal materials on responses to assault complaints. Universities Australia made that unilateral decision to change direction against the advice of experts on the advisory panel, including End Rape on Campus. Whilst improving responses is clearly important, that change of focus leaves students at many universities without much needed consent and prevention education. After waiting for years and with repeated surveys confirming that work needs to be done, prevention work at universities is still woefully inadequate. There has been some welcome progress on consent education in schools, and this chamber passed laws to establish positive duties to provide safe workplaces, but there's a gaping hole in the response, in that period in between, when students are at uni and at significant risk of assault. No student should ever have to drop out of uni because they feel unsafe, but unless students feel protected by their university they can be too scared to go to campus. They don't go to class or to the library or to academic support services. They drop out at higher rates and put their academic dreams on hold, sometimes with lifelong consequences. Universities must take this matter seriously. They need genuine zero tolerance policies for sexual assault. They need transparent, timely complaints procedures and appropriate support to students from the moment they raise concerns. They must ensure that residential colleges have professional, trauma-informed staff and clear accountability for enforcing sexual harassment policies. They need expert-led prevention programs rolled out urgently, on all campuses, co-designed by peers and students so they land. Universities must also ensure that they address the distinct challenges faced by people of colour, migrants, First Nations people, LGBTIQ+ communities and other marginalised groups on this issue. The current review of the Universities Accord is a critical opportunity to reassess what universities are doing and, finally, get some change. NAIDOC Week 32 12:44 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We're one step closer to finally recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our nation's founding document—here's hoping; fingers crossed—after the Senate passed the Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 Bill this week. It's certainly the final hurdle here in the parliament. And although the 'yes' campaign has a long road ahead in the coming months, it's important to stop and reflect on how far we have come. I am particularly mindful of this in the lead-up to NAIDOC Week, in the first week of July. Regardless of whether you support the Voice or not, or are undecided, NAIDOC Week is a time to simply pause and celebrate. It's an opportunity for all Australians to learn about First Nations cultures and histories and participate in celebrations of the oldest, continuous living cultures on earth. And, amidst a barrage of all sorts of stories, it's so important to pause and celebrate it. I certainly encourage you all to support and get to know your local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities through activities and events held across the country. This year's theme for NAIDOC Week is 'For our elders'. Across all generations, elders play such an important role in our communities, families and our nation as a whole. Our elders are trailblazers and they carry important cultural knowledge through generations. They are our educators, community leaders and carers. They are our loved ones, whether they are biologically related or not. They're often at the forefront of staunchly making sure that their community concerns are heard loud and clear. They're always there to pick us up when we're down and often to bring us into line when needed, and the struggles of many of our elders help to move us forward. The equality and recognition we fight for is also found in their fight, despite the many challenges they face, including in the health and complex issues they manage in our communities. I want to take this to talk about some of the elders who've influenced and impacted my life and pay my respects to them. Firstly, there's my great-grandmother, Dinah Norman Marmgawi, who is the leader of our people in the Yanyuwa clan in Borroloola. She's been around a long time. We don't know actually know how old she is. Her memories go back even to the stories of her parents and the Macassans and how the Macassans would trade with the coastal people of the north. They'd come in their canoes. We learned from them, through listening to the stories from my great-grandmother, the way the ropes were used. And we'd teach them about the particular trees they could use to make their ropes on their voyage. Then we learned from them about the sails that are used to make it that little bit easier so that you didn't always have to paddle. These were the things that were exchanged with the Macassans. The Macassans would stay with us sometimes from one season to the next. In the Top End, we have what many people would know as the wet season and the dry season. As I've spoken about a few times in the Senate, we have the stories about the Macassans as they arrived to the area and the diplomatic exchange that would occur. They probably wouldn't call it diplomatic then, but when we make reference to that exchange, there was very clearly an international exchange between one country and another. There would also be intermarriages when the Macassans would stay with us from one season to the next before they ventured back to Macassar. It was only five to 10 years ago that a trip was made from Macassar to the Arnhem area to relive some of those stories. It was not just valuable for our elders in Australia but also important for the elders and the descendants of the Macassans to know that the relationship was there. I went to Macassar towards the end of last year. After the G20 Health Ministers Meeting in Bali, I flew to Macassar to have that cultural connection and reconnect with them about those stories and the importance of how that is a very real story of our country's history. I pay homage to my great-grandmother Ngowagi Dinah, in this year in particular, but always. I'd also like to mention my grandmothers as some of the women in my life as we reflect on preparation for NAIDOC Week for our elders. My grandmother Nancy McDinny is an incredible artist, known for her artwork but also known for her passion for fighting for country, fighting for her families and fighting to know that when she's not around the young people have a future on country and have a future in the community and the region of the Borroloola area. Kurdi Maria Pyro, who, while raising seven children, worked hard to become a teacher and was perhaps one of our two qualified teachers as a local woman from there, has inspired me greatly and I certainly look to her still for much-needed advice at various times. To Dad Noel Dixon, one of the longest-serving Aboriginal police officers in the Northern Territory: he served in the Borroloola region for decades and had to combine his role as a Garrwa ceremony man with how to work with all the families and clan groups and still try and bring about some peace and harmony between not only the clan groups themselves but also between police and the general community, in terms of trying to keep a bit of law and order. They were difficult times for him. I have no doubt that, if ever he were to write a book, many people would value the wisdom from his journey in having had to walk that road. It was a road of his choice, as he learned from others in his family about being able to serve the community both as a cultural lawman and working in his capacity as an Aboriginal police officer. To Mum Miriam Charlie: she's one of my incredibly inspiring elders. On renal dialysis three days a week, she still wants to keep studying and learning and doing her artwork at Nungalinya College in Darwin. She lives in a hostel because she knows she has to be in Darwin to access renal dialysis. I'm hoping that, at some point when we do see renal chairs rolled out more in our communities, people like Mum Miriam Charlie will be able to return to country and have the facilities they require. I also want to mention Mum Jeanette Charlie, who has raised so many children, along with her two children—one of whom now is a police officer like her dad, Noel Dixon. When my natural mother passed away, Mum Jeanette was next in line. My mother was one of 10 children to my grandparents, and Jeanette was there to keep us all going and keep us all on track. In our culture, you take on the children of your sister's children and their grandchildren to be their mentor, to be their guide and to continue to love them and teach them. I pay my respects to Mum Jeanette Charlie, who's raised so many other children—nieces and nephews and grandchildren—and continues to this day to want to see the best for them. This NAIDOC Week is for our elders, and there are so many more I could talk about standing here all night, as I'm sure so many of us can about people who have inspired us and continue to do so. And I call on all Australians to use that week of NAIDOC Week as a really special time to understand and to reach out to more of the people close to you, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. Our elders are precious. I think of my dad's family and the McCarthys. My grandparents on the McCarthy side have also inspired me, and I will certainly treasure this time in NAIDOC Week. Ipswich: Waste Management 34 12:54 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland As is usual, I can't resist complimenting Senator McCarthy on her contribution. I can't imagine how proud those elders would be of you, and especially the way you conduct yourself. As I have commented in the past, if all Australians conducted themselves with your tone and temperament as we go on this pathway towards the referendum, that would be a wonderful thing. I stand up for the people of Ipswich today once again in relation to the New Chum landfill site, which is operated by Cleanaway, an ASX listed company. I gave a speech last September in relation to the horrific ordeal so many people in the Ipswich region were battling with concerning the odour emanating from this landfill site. It was disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful. Can you imagine that it was so bad that residents could not even leave their homes at certain times. They would do the washing, hang it out and then go out to get in the washing and have to redo the washing—that's how bad it was. What triggered my contribution in the Senate at that time was the fact that Cleanaway gave all of the senior executives 100 per cent of the incentive attributed to environmental performance, at a time when there were thousands of odour complaints—-absolutely unbelievable and difficult to fathom. What has happened since then? The first thing that happened was that the shareholders of Cleanaway registered their dissatisfaction and voted against the remuneration reports, so Cleanaway got their first strike on the remuneration report. That's the first thing that happened. The second thing that happened was that Cleanaway is now subject to charges which have been brought by the Department of Environment and Science in relation to those matters which I discussed in this place. These are serious charges: one offence, contrary to section 441 of the Environmental Protection Act, one offence contrary to section 432 of the EP Act, 10 offences contrary to section 433 of the EP Act for contravening a condition of an EA, and the prospective penalties are millions of dollars. Those charges were brought in March 2023. The third thing that has happened is that the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland brought down its decision just yesterday in relation to Cleanaway's application to actually expand their activities on the New Chum landfill site. At a time when you would think their focus would be on remediation, rectification and an orderly shutdown, Cleanaway was actually progressing an application to expand their operations on that site. I made the point that in the annual report Cleanaway had issued they made an assumption that they were going to be successful in the court case. At that time I called that 'a courageous assumption', and it actually surprised me as somebody who used to be a company secretary of an ASX listed company. Well, guess what? They weren't unsuccessful, and the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland has now brought down its judgement. I call upon all of the directors of Cleanaway to reflect on that judgement. Don't just read a summary. I call on the directors: you read the judgement that was brought down by his Honour Judge Michael Williamson KC. You read the whole judgement and then you decide whether or not you will seek to appeal this judgement. What happened in this case was the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland upheld the decision of Ipswich City Council to knock back this expansion of activities on this landfill site. The court of planning and environment knocked back the application to expand the facilities on the New Chum site. I want to read the findings. Again, this is something the board of directors of Cleanaway need to reflect upon when deciding whether or not they will take this to the next level of appeal. In relation to environmental risk of expanding the activities, this is what the court found: … I am not satisfied the evidence demonstrates: (a)      the environmental risk associated with the proposed development is acceptable; So the judge, after listening to expert witnesses and considering hundreds and hundreds of pages of expert reports, found that he was not satisfied that the environmental risk associated with the proposed development was acceptable. Secondly, he was not satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that: … conditions imposed on any approval for the proposed development can be implemented and maintained to manage environmental risk at an acceptable level. So the judge actually found that—notwithstanding what were put forward as mitigating factors and processes et cetera—he was not satisfied that the environmental risk could be sufficiently mitigated. So that is the environmental risk. The other risk is the risk to amenity. Now, what does 'amenity' mean? 'Amenity' means: families living in proximity to this landfill site, going about their day-to-day business and having a look at this mound of landfill every day of the week, 24/7—that's what the amenity risk is. And this is what the judge said as to amenity risk: It has not been established the proposed development can successfully manage its impacts on residential amenity. So you've got the environmental risk and you've got the residential amenity risk, and, as to that amenity risk, the judge said: First, an approval would delay the rehabilitation of the land and lead to an adverse visual impact, albeit of a limited and uncertain duration. This delay is the direct product of the vertical extension— that means they're building the landfill up; it means it's going higher— proposed to the landfill facility, which the evidence: (a) does not establish is required to rehabilitate the land; (b) establishes will cause the facility to become more visible … The judge went on to say: Second, given the nature of the use (a waste facility), and given the circumstances traversed in paragraphs [348] to [354] and [358] to [366], an approval would be inconsistent with a reasonable community expectation— 'inconsistent with a reasonable community expectation'. And it's because of that community expectation that Ipswich City Council, in part, made the original decision to knock back the development application and has had to fight to defend its decision, with millions and millions of ratepayers' dollars being spent to try and defeat Cleanaway—and they were successful in their application to overturn that original decision. The board of directors of Cleanaway need to reflect very, very deeply on their next steps. And I ask them: given what this judge found—and I should say that this is judge was not just a lawyer; he also had a professional qualification in quantity surveying, so he was well and truly across the expert evidence—over days and days of hearings, in a 100-page judgement, how could you, the board of Cleanaway, possibly sign off on this development? How could you possibly apply the precautionary principle and decide that it's the right thing to do to proceed with this development application? You couldn't. That is no reflection on the employees of Cleanaway or the managers and senior executives, many of whom joined Cleanaway after the event. Certainly, in terms of my interactions with the senior executives of Cleanaway in this matter, they've been very courteous, and, from my perspective, engaged in good faith in terms of communication. But this is about management of environmental risk and risk to amenity, and the judge has been very, very clear on both counts that, because of both the nature of the site—which is outside of the control of Cleanaway—and the nature of the risk, you simply cannot sign off on this development from an environmental risk perspective or an amenity perspective. I say to the board of Cleanaway: read the judgement. Don't read a summary of it; read the judgement. And, if you read the judgement, you could not possibly come to a conclusion that this development should proceed. Now is the time for Cleanaway to bring this sad and sorry saga to an end, to remediate the site, to consider its legacy and to end this misery for the people of Ipswich. Housing 35 13:04 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I want to begin my contribution this afternoon by thanking each and every one of the Greens volunteers across the breadth of this ancient continent who have come together in the last months to be part of our collective Green movement's housing campaign. From Queensland to Western Australia, the ACT, Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and everywhere in between, people have come together, joined together and organised together out of a belief that what is needed from those in positions of power in response to the housing crisis is real action. They have been rewarded by an incredible victory this week. The government, after spending month after month telling the Greens here in parliament and telling Greens in the community that there was no more money to be spent on housing, was forced to cough up $2 billion to be invested in social and community housing, with tens of millions for WA alone. Every single one of those dollars belongs to the campaigners, the organisers and the community members who joined our Greens campaign, our community grassroots effort, to put that pressure on the government to deliver more for the community. They have demonstrated by their commitment, their action and their collaboration that pressure works, that people power works and that, when those in positions of power say, 'That's all there is,' it is not up to the community to simply accept it. If it isn't good enough, people can band together, work together and push to get what is needed. They have demonstrated that grassroots activism in Australia remains strong and powerful. I have been part of so many of these events and actions, and it has been a joy to be part of this campaign. When I have gone to events, whether they be in Perth, Fremantle, across Vic Park in Swan or many places in between, what has brought people together is a shared lived experience of the housing crisis. There have been people who have lived on the streets or who are fearful of being forced back there. There were people who are struggling with the reality of mortgages they're not sure how to repay now, thinking desperately that they might be plunged onto decades long public housing waiting lists or are, in fact, in that situation right now. To those folks in those particular situations, the announcement that was extracted from the government is a real win. There remains more work to do, because I am also really aware that as part of this campaign there are also many folks, representing the one-third of Australians who rent, who were driven to be part of the campaign because they understand from their lived experience the urgent need to freeze rents immediately and to cap them in the long term—to make unlimited rent increases illegal in this country. They are here as part of this campaign because they live in East Perth, where the median weekly rent is now $800, and $200 of that has come in the last year alone. If you live in Joondanna, the price of your rent has gone up by 17 per cent. If you live in Dianella, it's gone up by 15 per cent. In the city of Stirling, the weekly rent is $700. It has gone up 120 bucks a week in the last year alone. That is not sustainable. That is not okay. That is why the community are pushing their MPs to deliver a national rent cap and freeze. What has the reaction been of people like the member for Perth? It's not been to engage with their communities or to go to the Prime Minister and say: 'Hang on; we probably should use our federal power here. We probably should engage and negotiate.' No. He's gone on TV trying to sell this ridiculous plan that the government had been putting forward as something that is worthwhile and as something that should have just been supported. It's not good enough. His community will keep pushing him, and the Greens will continue to work with the community. Cost of Living 36 13:09 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise today to address the present economic challenge that's hitting hardworking Australians right in the pocket: the relentless rise in the cost of living and inflation. Those in the corner, the Greens, when they could actually do something about the cost of living and give relief to those who are homeless and families that are struggling to pay their mortgages and their rents, have decided to block the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation and put that off to October. Unlike the former Liberal-National government, the Albanese Labor government has a deliberate three-point plan: relief, repair and restraint. We are doing everything we can in these uncertain global economic times to ensure Australians are best placed to deal with this. Let's start with the relief because—let's face it—Australians could use some respite. The Albanese Labor government has provided desperately needed support in the face of the rising cost of living. Direct energy bill relief has prevented energy costs from skyrocketing for hardworking Australians and those most in need. Cheaper child care comes into effect on 1 July, in a matter of days, and cheaper medicine will ensure people are able to participate more readily in employment and are able to keep more of their own hard-earned money. Despite what those opposite would like you to believe, we've heard from the Governor of the RBA himself that these measures do nothing to stoke the flames of inflation. It's not just about fixes. It is time to repair the supply-side constraints that keep driving prices up. If we are permitted to by the axis of evil, the Albanese Labor government will establish a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund designed to build 30,000 new social and affordable housing properties for those most in need. What did we see on Monday in this very chamber? We saw the Liberals, Nationals and the Greens cosying up in bed with one another to block that legislation and to stop that legislation from being voted on. That's what they did. So through the winter people in my home state of Tasmania, particularly where I live in Launceston, will continue to live on the streets. They will continue to couch surf. Why? Because of the crocodile tears of the Greens that want to come in here and beat the drum that they are for the underdog, they are for those who are in most need and they are for the socially disadvantaged. When they had an opportunity to do something they failed at the first hurdle. We are about supply. But the Greens are just using it for their social media platforms when they know very well that it is not the remit of the federal government to put a price cap on rent. What we want to see is more investment in rental properties to help provide those houses that are so desperately needed. What we have seen in this place is taking me back, because we have heard this song by the Greens before. We have seen them dance before around the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Greens rejected that legislation because they want to be the creators of utopia and they want to have perfection in everything. What did they do? They voted against that. That's what they did. So what they did in their clever university politics was put off any real addressing of climate change in this country by a decade. That's what they did. They were welcomed very cosily at that time by the Liberals as well. That's what they did. When it suits the Liberals, they will get in bed with the Greens. When it suits the Greens, they will get into bed with the Liberals. When they go home tomorrow night to their cosy homes, which we in this chamber are all fortunate to have, they should think of those families who are living in cars, on the streets or in tents. I can tell you that's really tough. When we want to talk about changing Australia, the first step is to guarantee secure homes and safe places to live, to have secure well-paid jobs and to be able to support skills and training in this country. Those are all the things that those on that side failed on when they were in government. Unfortunately, they are very capable of getting into bed with the Greens and stopping a real investment in housing that is going to help so many Australian families and women and children experiencing domestic violence— (Time expired) Education Standards 37 13:14 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Despite a 60 per cent increase in schools funding over the last two decades, we have continued to see a decline in school standards. Making sure the education system is well resourced is vital, but, sadly, this is not translating to higher student performance. A focus on student outcomes is vital. We need to make sure that children are able to read and write at an early age. This is the best way to combat disadvantage. We need to provide intervention and support when they need it. We need to ensure that all children and teenagers have the opportunity to be their best selves. Under this Albanese government, there's evidence of an acceleration of decline in school standards. According to the OECD's PISA tests, the average 15-year-old today is at least 12 months behind in their learning compared to where they were in the year 2000. In mathematics, the slide is even greater, at 14 months. With each passing year, this gap widens. It is absolutely unacceptable that 20 per cent of students starting year 7 have the reading ability of a year 4 student, as found by the Australian Education Research Organisation, which, I have to say, is doing a range of incredible work—a very important initiative of the former coalition government. The budget papers show that the number of year 3 students in the bottom two bands for reading in NAPLAN has increased from 8.6 per cent in 2018 to 11.2 per cent in 2022. For numeracy, the percentage of students in the bottom two bands of NAPLAN has gone up from 11.5 per cent to 14.6 per cent. These are big jumps in poor student outcomes. So, while the Minister for Education, Mr Clare, talks a big game about lifting standards, what has he actually done? All we hear from this government is that it is running review after review. We do not hear about any action. It is critical right now that we adopt as a nation evidence based learning, such as explicit instruction and the teaching of phonics, in every Australian school. Many schools have stepped up and are doing a remarkable job, in this respect, but we know that these methods work—the research is beyond dispute—and that every Australian student deserves the very best methods of teaching. I do want to congratulate the Tasmanian Liberal government, which has a plan to mandate these methods of explicit instruction, but where are the other states and territories? As I said, parents do not want to hear about any more reviews. Parents have lived through the era of what I call loose learning—inquiry based learning—which does not work and which has seen Australian students falling further and further behind. This is embarrassing. Parents deserve action, and our students across this nation deserve a better way of learning. So the minister needs to step up and take responsibility for the state of education in this country. He has had over a year to take responsibility for education, but he continues to shirk his duty. We have seen no plan of action. We have only seen review after review, and this is not good enough. It's not good enough for students, teachers, schools and parents, who want to ensure that their children get the very best education. On behalf of the coalition, I will continue to fight for parents and their children, who deserve a quality education comparable with the best countries in the world that will prepare them for the future—an education which will stand them in good stead when they apply for jobs and enter the workforce and an education which will ensure that we are very much a clever nation. Without a proper grounding in the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, our children will suffer, our schools will suffer and our economy will suffer. So, as I said, we need action right now from the Minister for Education and from the Albanese government. I call on the minister to stop the talk and implement the much needed urgent action. Recreational Cannabis, Civil Liberties 37 13:19 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Around the world, countries are moving to legalise recreational cannabis. Recreational cannabis is already legal in Canada, Uruguay, Malta, 23 states of the United States and Thailand. Here at home, almost half of adult Australians have tried cannabis and are asking governments why on earth they are still locking people up for choosing a brownie over a beer. Recently, my office received a wave of support for legalising cannabis. Almost 9,000 people from across the country completed a detailed online survey about our plan to legalise cannabis, and 98 per cent of respondents supported the plan. Before you stop and say, 'Well, they're obviously all stoners,' recreational cannabis users made up only 57 per cent of respondents. Recreational users are an important voice in this debate, and, increasingly, they're being backed in by the broader public. The fact is that people across the country really want this change—and wanting to be able to chill out with some gummies is not the only reason. We heard from people calling for an end to the injustice of 80,000 people each year being dragged through the courts for cannabis possession. When it comes to cannabis, it's policing and the war on drugs that are destroying lives, not the plant. We heard from people who want clear labelling that reliably tells them the strength of their cannabis and where and how it was grown. They want mandatory standards that will take mouldy and pesticide treated cannabis out of the market and keep people far safer than leaving regulation up to bikie gangs and organised crime. We heard from medicinal cannabis users who already have a prescription but are still struggling with access and affordability and just want to grow a few plants at home. Our plan to legalise cannabis will give adults the right to grow up to six plants at home, giving these patients much-needed relief. Contrary to the stereotype that so many in this place cling to, the people fighting for legalised cannabis are generous and engaged and have a sophisticated understanding of the potential of this market and how we can legislate it to keep people safe. The support for this commonsense reform is only growing. The question for this chamber is: will it lead, or will it be dragged into the future? Speaking of unholy alliances between parties, here's one: the lockstep between the coalition and Labor in state and federal parliaments on crushing protest. They stand alongside coal and gas giants, logging companies and all those who are invested in continuing to destroy country and climate. Why are the old parties so invested in cracking down on students, forest defenders, unions and those fighting for the rights of First Nations peoples? It's particularly concerning to see Labor, in a state like South Australia, ram through protest laws warm off the photocopier in a late-night sitting. SA Unions said those anti-protest laws are a 'massive overreach and a mess of unconsidered consequences', and they're bloody right. Imagine if governments put this power and passion into dealing with the actual challenges that communities are facing. Rising rents and grocery costs never keep parliaments up until 4 am, and that's because those paying those costs don't own the major parties like coal and gas do. The Malinauskas government promised the gas corporations the state was 'at their disposal', and, boy, did they deliver. In case you think South Australia is out on a limb here, though, let's remember that New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania also have the unholy Labor and coalition duopoly working to smash protesters on behalf of their corporate mates and donors. So much of what is good in this country came as a result of protest and civil action, not from places like this but from the streets—from land rights to equal marriage; from the eight-hour day to voting rights. Protesters blockaded the site to stop the construction of the Franklin dam, and thank God they did, because we still have the Franklin River. In 1966, the Wave Hill walk-off saw 200 Gurindji stockmen, domestic workers and their families take action. Thousands took to the streets across the country and marched to support them, and those actions were powerful precursors to the 1976 land rights act. Standing up and speaking truth to power is fundamentally important for delivering social and environmental justice. The climate crisis and the cost-of-living crisis are here. Let's be clear: no matter what these laws say, those fighting for the future will still take to the streets. It's time for the old parties to start listening to those truth-tellers instead of jailing them. Freedom of the Media 38 13:24 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to bring to the chamber a concerning story that calls into question press freedoms in Australia. Matt Abbott is a globally renowned photojournalist. He has worked with major Australian publications, as well as the New York Times, Washington Post and National Geographic. He has won multiple Walkleys and is perhaps most well known for taking the iconic photograph of a property burning in the 2019-2020 bushfires with the shadow of a hopping kangaroo in the foreground. Matt Abbott is one of the best photojournalists we have in this country, because the stories he covers matter. Yet his voice and the incredible images he's able to capture are not always able to tell those stories. Late last year Matt was invited to visit the ceremonial camp of the Wangan and Jagalingou cultural custodians at the Adani Carmichael mine. He went to capture their demonstration against the mine, but within minutes of arriving at the camp a patrolling security vehicle with a video camera mounted on the passenger seat filmed Matt and his colleague. Matt thinks that they were able to run image-recognition software to identify him, because when he returned home he found a letter from Adani—who have been renamed Bravus in Australia, which actually turns out to be Latin for 'crooked', 'mercenary' or 'assassin'. The letter said: 'Bravus reserves all of its rights, including to recover any damages caused by the publication of material obtained or activities conducted during any unlawful entry on Bravus's mining lease.' In other words, they threatened to sue Matt and his colleague if they published the story and the photographs. According to the cultural custodians of that land, led by Gurridyula, also known as Coedie McAvoy, the story of the destruction of their land is not being told. According to Gurridyula, 'There is a stranglehold on news stories about our situation,' and, 'If media outlets tried to put our real stories out there, Adani's lawyers intimidate them. Adani is like that Karen who lives next door and keeps calling the police.' It is well documented that Adani has on other occasions and in other contexts sought to silence journalists with an attack-dog strategy. Commencing legal action and lodging complaints with the Press Council are some of the methods used to intimidate journalists in Australia and abroad. According to Gurridyula and other cultural custodians, two prominent Australian news outlets have visited the camp to take interviews, videos and photos but did not subsequently publish their stories, following legal correspondence from Adani. Matt has independently verified these allegations. The truth is that Adani, or Bravus, are not concerned about members of the public visiting the site. In Matt's words, 'The targeted intimidation of journalists is designed to prevent the wider reporting on the Carmichael mine operation, avoiding further public criticism of Adani's controversial coalmine.' In Gurridyula's words, 'Guests have a right to participate in the Waddananggu ceremony. Adani is making things up to scare people away, stopping this story from getting out.' These stories need to be heard. When one of our best photojournalists speaks out, we should all listen. I quote Matt again: 'I believe we have a problem when media outlets are intimidated to a point where they are self-censoring their stories. What does that say about our democracy, our culture of secrecy, that a litigious foreign-owned corporation can have so much influence in our press?' Press freedom is fundamental to a flourishing democracy. It's something that we should all care about. It's something that we should all stand up for. I seek leave to table Matt's story and photographs. Leave granted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU It being almost 1.30 pm, we will proceed to two-minute statements. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 39 13:28 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Like most Australians, I am strongly in favour of recognition for Indigenous Australians in our Constitution. As I've said, I think most decent-minded Australians are. It is simply the right thing to do. However, that said, I strongly disagree with the Albanese government's model for a voice to parliament. I truly believe that, if Labor were actually serious about getting constitutional recognition through, they would put two questions to the Australian people at the referendum: one on constitutional recognition and one on a model for the Voice. But I agree that Australians should have their say in a referendum on this matter, which is why I supported the referendum legislation on Monday. In Western Australia, 89,000 Western Australians identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Far too many of them have suffered historical injustices, and today many thousands endure intergenerational disadvantage and poverty, particularly Aboriginal women and children. I want, as I am sure everybody else in this chamber wants, to see an equality of opportunity for all Indigenous Australians so that, no matter where they're born or the circumstances of their life, it doesn't mean that they are going to be disadvantaged. But the current voice proposal put by Labor is risky, it is divisive and I have no doubt, sadly, it will make not a jot of difference in the lives of Aboriginals in Western Australia. You only have to go to any community. They don't talk to you about the Voice; they want their current voice to be heard. At Fitzroy Crossing, they want sewage to stop flowing into the local river, they want jobs, they want housing, women want to be free from domestic violence, and children want to have the same opportunities. It is the wrong— (Time expired) Housing 39 13:31 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia In my first speech in this place, I said: I do not know what it will take to end homelessness, but I want it gone. I knew I was elected to be part of a Labor team that took this issue seriously and would do whatever was possible to get roofs over vulnerable people's heads. Twelve months into the job, I'm still learning every day, and on Monday I learnt a very important lesson: that the Greens political party don't understand what progress looks like. To defer legislation that will create 30,000 additional social housing units, including for women and children escaping domestic violence, because they don't think it's enough? Come on. It's time you walk the talk. Despite the barriers the Greens have put in our way with the help of their new mates the coalition, the Albanese government has once again found a way to help: $2 billion for public housing across the country. This is only because the state and territory leaders know— Ho nourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator PAYMAN 300707 they finally have a government and a Prime Minister in Canberra who want to work together to deliver for those doing it tough. The Greens are claiming that this occurred due to their pressure. Give me a break. This announcement is consistent with the government's agenda and part of a broader plan for housing which we took to the election. The Greens like to claim they are the party of young people and students. Well, this has shown us that they are the type of students who do nothing on group assignments but still take all the credit. The Albanese government delivered our promises for action on environment, for aged-care workers and for wages, and we're delivering on housing, whether the Greens come to their senses or not. We care about social housing, while the Greens appear to care about social media. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Faruqi, just before you start your contribution, I just remind all senators of standing order 197, which says that interjections are disorderly. People have the right to be heard in silence in the chamber. Parliament House: Staff 40 13:33 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The safety of our parliamentary workplace was rightly in the spotlight last week. The Senate heard much about the need to make this place safer, with parliamentarians on both sides getting on their high horse about improving the culture and safety of this workplace. But after all this preaching we topped the week off with a marathon Friday night sitting which only wrapped up at 4.16 am on Saturday. That's a sitting day of almost 19 hours. This followed two late-night sittings. Much of the last few hours was a complete spectacle, I might say, with the coalition torturing Minister Watt—and all of us, quite frankly—with their bad-faith, repetitive questions. The Set the standard review found that long and irregular hours of work were a factor that exacerbates aggressiveness in parliamentary workplaces. Parliament's 'work hard, play hard' culture, involving long hours, particularly during sitting weeks, was found to contribute directly to bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. Importantly, the review heard that long hours were often unproductive and inefficient, particularly in the Senate, and were having a detrimental effect on staff safety and wellbeing. As a response, the government reduced the length of sitting days, but they've made a complete mockery of their own reforms in the last few sittings, with hours motions to extend sitting times until late-night rushed through. These were common last year too, at the cost of people's wellbeing. This is unacceptable. Staff inside this chamber and in the rest of this building should not be forced to put up with this. Our parliament should lead the way in creating a decent workplace, one where everyone feels safe, respected and valued and where people from all walks of life and backgrounds want to come to work and can leave work at a respectable time. This is not it. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 40 13:35 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia The Voice proposal is putting Australia at risk, and Australians are recognising it. This is all the more evident through the words that we've heard from Mr Thomas Mayo, a prominent Voice Referendum Working Group member and 'yes' campaigner. Mr Mayo is the National Indigenous Officer for the Maritime Union of Australia and other radical Labor unionists. If you read his comments, you hear pure vitriol. Mr Mayo referred to former prime minister Howard in the most disparaging terms and wants to 'punish politicians that ignore our advice'. If this is the attitude of Referendum Working Group members, I'm deeply concerned for what's to come if the Voice is permanently enshrined within our Constitution. Mr Mayo is clear that the Voice is a catalyst for reparations and compensation. I fear that, if the Australian government pursues the reparations pathway, we risk future cultural division, leading this country to a very dangerous place indeed. We must learn from the atrocities of the past while recognising that those who are here now do not owe the debt to others. Nobody is proud of the dark days of our history, but we cannot be held captive, forever hell-bent on avenging the past. As a nation we must look to the future and work together to improve the lives of all Australians. This includes creating opportunities and working towards better outcomes for all people, including Indigenous Australians. We must strive for unity as a country, but the Voice proposal has it all wrong, and, in my opinion, it is a risk to our country. If you don't know, vote no. Neal, Mr Alfred, OAM 40 13:37 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Canecutter, bush lawyer, pioneering unionist, local councillor, Medal of the Order of Australia recipient, Kuku Djungan elder, great-great-grandfather—Mr Alfred Neal was all of these things and more. Alf Neal—or Pop, as he was known to many—passed away last month in Yarrabah in Far North Queensland, and yesterday his family and community mourned this loss. I'd like to convey my condolences to the Neal family and to all of those who knew and loved him. At 101 years old he most certainly saw a lot in his lifetime. Undoubtedly there were things throughout his life that were tough. He was taken from his mother at age two, raised in dormitories and worked hard in the cane fields as a young man. It was on those sugarcane paddocks that he fought for better pay and rights for fellow Indigenous cutters, negotiating with farmowners. This theme would continue throughout his life. In the 1958 Yarrabah strike, when Aboriginal workers sought equal pay and equal living conditions, people naturally approached Alf for help. He was ultimately arrested for coordinating a meeting, but this did not deter his fighting spirit. In 1960 Alf was one of the founding members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advancement League, and, of course, he was instrumental in achieving the momentous 1967 referendum result, an effort for which he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in 2019. Alf was involved in setting up the Yarrabah Cooperative Society to develop business and encourage self-sustainability for his people. There is a long list of Alf Neal's achievements and advocacy, but just last year, on Gunggandji country in Yarrabah, Alfred Neal joined with First Nations delegates to deliver the Yarrabah Affirmation, a request of the 47th Parliament that First Nations people be heard constitutionally through a voice to parliament. To the very end, Alf Neal fought for Aboriginal people. Rest well, Pop. (Time expired) Education 41 13:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and of Australia and as a grandparent, I stand in defence of a child's right to innocence. Intentionally misleading children hurts and corrupts children, and exposing children to messages that steal innocence hurts and corrupts children. We live in a time when the World Health Organization has started a campaign to give our children sex education from birth; to show six-year-olds pornographic material and to give nine-year-olds practical sex education. We live in a world where men dressed as women can perform lewd acts or read lewd stories in front of children and, in so doing, achieve a measure of validation from impressionable children that society rightly withholds. And we live in an age when a boy can't look at a doll without risking a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and, with it, a lifetime of prescription drugs. A tomboy hasn't a chance in today's education system. There's something inherently inconsistent with the fundamental construct of gender dysphoria based on there being only two genders and saying, 'You, young child, were born the wrong one'. Matthew 18:5 to 6 offers this warning: If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble … it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. We have, rightly, replaced the age of millstones with the age of courts. Quoting this passage is not an incitement to violence. Those attending 'Leave Our Kids Alone' protests have demonstrated that Christians do not make war, Christians make waves. The voices of all denominations must be as waves on the sand, synchronised and unrelenting. I welcome the attendance of the Muslim community in these protests. Both our holy books stand in strong defence of parental rights and childhood innocence. Those who seek to destroy the family will certainly respond to my remarks with hostility. As a shield, let me offer Luke 6:26: Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! Leave our kids alone! Regional Australia 41 13:41 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Two minutes is not actually long enough to list the evidence of disregard that this government has for people living in rural, regional and remote Australia. Their actions since coming into government have absolutely proven that Labor does not care for regional Australians. One of the first things they did was to expand eligibility for the distribution priority areas, a system designed to help rural, regional and remote Australia access GPs. But now, thanks to Labor, it has been expanded to outer suburban areas, so Maitland is competing with Western Sydney for doctors. Bye bye doctors from the regions! Then they cut all our rural and regional investment programs. The Building Better Regions fund, that provided vital assistance for local governments and NGOs to invest in infrastructure or community building, mentoring and resilience programs, is all gone. Do we want to talk about Mobile Black Spot Program? A government who proudly declared they would end pork-barrelling decided—Labor decided—on where to put mobile black spot towers before they even got into government, before they even had a chance to look at what departmental recommendations were there. And where did they fund these towers? Surprise, surprise! They were in Labor-held seats. Regional infrastructure spending was cut, deferred or is being reviewed. Community pharmacies: let's just rip $180,000 from their bottom line. And water! I can tell you it's not for growing food or fibre, that's for sure. I could go on and on and on, but I'm out of time. Motor Neurone Disease 41 13:43 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I've just come from a wonderful event hosted by the Parliamentary Friends of MND Group, of which I am a proud co-chair, along with Mr Alex Hawke MP from the other place. During the event, parliamentarians had the opportunity to hear directly from people living with MND. I'd like to thank those parliamentarians who attended the event and I extend that thank you to the MND president, Samar Aoun, and the CEO, David Ali. I would also like to sincerely thank Phil, Janet and Melanie for so eloquently expressing the impact that MND has on their and their families' lives and the issues faced in getting support for a range of services. Currently in Australia there are 22,100 people living with MND. Today we had the privilege of launching the MiNDAUS patient registry, which will work to tell the stories of Australians living with MND. Even in its infancy, the registry is already an important collaboration between MND researchers, clinicians and organisations that will help governments across the country. It is truly a step in the right direction towards true collaboration and decision-making which is influenced by the lived experiences and care currently received by individuals with MND. The registry is bringing great hope to individuals and families living with the repercussions of an MND diagnosis. The Parliamentary Friends of MND group was created to provide a non-partisan place for members and senators to support the work of MND Australia. Today's event was a demonstration of just that. We'll continue to work closely with MND Australia to deliver informative events right here in support of people with MND. Mining Industry 42 13:45 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Just last week it was revealed that an unknown number of disused gas wells in 26 locations in my home state of Western Australia—in the Legendre gas field, which is 105 kilometres north of Dampier off the Pilbara coast—have been leaking for at least 10 years. To add insult to the injury, these leaks are apparently impossible to fix. These wells are owned by Santos, who are being sued over clean fuel claims, who were challenged in the Federal Court over their so-called consultation for their Barossa project and who were involved in the controversial LNG project in Papua New Guinea. These leaks were first spotted by an underwater remotely-operated vehicle in 2013—two years after work had been done to seal these wells permanently. So not only have these wells been leaking for 10 years but also Santos have actually known about this for 10 years, which begs the question: why are only now we finding out about this? CSIRO have, in fact, been engaged, and Santos have been providing their own solutions to the regulator. In fact, Santos has submitted a plan to NOPSEMA that rejected action to address the leaks, saying, 'It's not technically feasible.' In the opinion of Santos we should just keep watching these wells for the next five years. This is completely unacceptable. We cannot let these companies monitor themselves. This raises concerns about the number of wells that have actually been sealed and that are leaking gas into the ocean that we don't know about. There are approximately 873 offshore wells. How many of those are leaking? This is just another example of the social licence that these companies are rapidly dwindling. We need stronger laws and regulations. We need to move away from fossil fuels. Pornography 42 13:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Pornography is a multibillion dollar industry, and porn harms children. After decades of experimenting, our society has reams of research on the poison of pornography. Here's what we know. Porn users commonly report depression, anxiety and relationship insecurity. People who consume pornography tend to be sadder and lonelier. Partners of porn users show symptoms of depression and PTSD. Porn use actually leads to less sex and less sexual satisfaction. It reduces libido. It increases deviant behaviour. It breaks up families. Brain scans show that porn has an almost identical effect to a cocaine or heroin hit. Porn hijacks the brain's reward system, compelling users to go back for more. 'Porn isn't hurting anyone' has to be one of the biggest lies ever told. In the good old days the teenager behind the counter at Blockbuster Video would ask to view your photo ID if you tried to hire a movie with adult themes and even magazines in newsagencies were wrapped in black plastic to protect our youth. Now, at the click of a mouse or the swipe of a smartphone, children have unrestricted access to some of the most degenerate content you could ever imagine. The best thing that we in this place could do for our society and our children is properly regulate pornography in our nation. Anyone who opposes a sensible proposition like this must explain why they want porn's carnage to continue. Protect our children. Leave the kids alone. Human Rights: Ottoman Empire 42 13:49 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I start by saying that an accurate reflection of history is essential in our world for a better future. Accurately reflecting on the events of the past and making sure that we have a proper account of what happens is incredibly important when it comes to, as part of a civilised and developed world, making sure the future is only better. Atrocities and horrors of the past have been committed right around the world, and ignoring those things is a bad thing to do because, when a country or an authority ignores the errors of the past and the atrocities of the past, we never learn from our mistakes. To not do this serves to not enable us to become a better world and avoid committing the same wrongs of the past against the most vulnerable in our community. Today I'm speaking about the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides, which occurred under the cover of World War I—events that are heinous in their description. The impact that they had on those peoples at that time is still denied by the Turkish government today and is something that I think is wrong to continue to ignore. I think recognition is important, and it is pleasing to see the number of jurisdictions across the globe that have recognised this formally as a historical event to ensure that this attempted erasure of an entire peoples doesn't occur and will never occur again. That includes, of course, the state of Tasmania, which, as recently as May of this year, recognised as a parliament—on behalf of the people of Tasmania—the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides. So I stand with those calling for there to be formal federal recognition, and I hope it can be achieved under this government. Early Childhood Health Care 43 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania We're supposed to have world-class health care in Australia. Instead, we're putting newborns at a disadvantage before they've even had a chance to start their lives. When a child is born, they take a heel prick test to screen for serious conditions, but what your child is tested for is different in every state and territory. I don't think it should be that way, and apparently Labor agrees, because in the election last year they said they would introduce a national screening program and increase the number of conditions tested from around 25 to 80. They even called on the coalition to match this policy. This was all supposed to start from 1 July this year. Guess what? It's not happening. Testing for 80 conditions on 1 July has become testing for 32 conditions by the end of the year. The government has also committed to a two-year review process for an extra 15 diseases but has said nothing about implementation. That's not what was promised. For every day that these 80 diseases are not screened for, up to five babies miss a life-changing diagnosis. Imagine what it's like to see your child deteriorate before your eyes as you search for a diagnosis—a diagnosis that could be made with a single heel prick. I know this from personal experience. One of my children had the heel prick at birth. We carry the cystic fibrosis gene, so he now carries that cystic gene. There is a one in seven chance that, for every pregnancy that he has—or that I had—the child will get cystic fibrosis. I'm asking that the testing for 80 diseases at birth is implemented as soon as possible, because it's a life-changing event. Nobody wants to see their children struggle or even pass away at an early age from a disease that could be preventable. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 43 13:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria A 'no' outcome is a win for the black sovereign movement. We say 'no' to assimilation. Our objectives are truth, treaty and justice. This can only be achieved through real self-determination, which allows our people to be the architects of our own future—imagine that. There is more to this referendum than 'yes' or 'no'. The ongoing impacts of colonisation are complex. To reduce this proposal down to two distinct sides is to ignore everything that First Nations leaders have been saying. Our sovereignty has never been ceded. We have not successfully and sustainably governed our own affairs for over 80,000 years to now hand it all over to an illegal occupation. There is a racist 'no' vote. There are those that are so against my people that they would deny us anything, even if it is worthless scraps that fall off the table. There is also a progressive 'no' vote. There are well-known and respected members of our community who are calling this proposal out for what it is: more shiny beads and trinkets to try to distract us while the colony continues to attack our people and exploit our lands. There is a diversity of stances on the Voice, but we aren't seeing that diversity reflected in the media. Respected First Nations voices aren't being heard. Taking a crumb when you're starving doesn't mean you support the system that starves you. The black sovereign movement offers a third option, and I refuse to take crumbs or let fear guide my decisions. I will continue to fight for my people's sovereignty. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 43 13:55 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland To Australia Day or not to Australia Day? That is the question. But not if you're Labor, and not if you're Minister Burney or Prime Minister Albanese. They don't know whether the issue of Australia Day will be an issue that the Voice looks at. So welcome to modern Australia, where we're facing a referendum with details we don't know about and on a date that's being kept secret. But it gets worse than that. Three months ago, the Prime Minister stood in front of his hand-picked draft working group to announce the words that are going to be put to Australian people in this secret referendum on a date that we don't know about. The Prime Minister called on the Australian people to vote in favour of his Voice, a proposal which he called 'modest'. I can't help but reflect that the man standing directly to the right of the Prime Minister at this press conference was someone called Thomas Mayo. It has been revealed that Thomas Mayo—the Prime Minister's right-hand man, both figuratively and literally—has come out saying that the Voice is his campaign tool to pay reparations, to abolish colonial institutions and to punish politicians. If he wants to abolish colonial institutions, I wonder what the Prime Minister thinks in terms of his office being a colonial institution? But at a communist conference—a communist conference!—the Prime Minister's right-hand man was there and said that there's nothing more powerful than a First Nations Voice and that it would become a black political voice to be reckoned with. So welcome to modern Australia! If you don't know, vote no; but if you do know, also vote no, and tell your fellow Australians to vote no, because you don't want people who appear at communist conferences and who want to tear down the institutions that built up the freedoms that make Australia the great country that it is today— (Time expired) Housing 44 13:57 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales On Tuesday, we saw the unholy 'no-alition' of the Greens, Liberals and Nationals voting against Labor's $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, depriving the most disadvantaged in our community of desperately needed housing—and that is a disgrace. We know that those opposite don't care about social housing because we only need to look at their track record in New South Wales, where the Liberals and Nationals sold off more than 4,200 social homes over their term in office. That's $3.5 billion worth of housing sold off forever—$3.5 billion! At the same time, the social housing waitlist keeps growing and now sits at more than 50,000 people. And now we have their new partner in crime, the Greens, a party that goes to each and every election claiming to support more social housing. That narrative was truly blown to pieces when they lined up with those opposite to tell those desperate families that they can wait until October even for consideration. The coalition and the Greens are saying that people who are living on the street or in their cars can just wait a few months. But if we look at it a bit deeper, we find that the Greens have a long history of opposing social and affordable housing right across the country. In the Inner West Council in Sydney, a Greens councillor said it was vandalism to knock down a derelict building, and I quote, 'It's because you want to build some apartments'. Well, let me tell you, Greens, Liberals and National senators: we need to start building homes now. Every day we wait is a day when people who desperately need a roof over their heads don't have one, and that's an indictment on every single one of you. Housing 44 13:59 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory In the 30 seconds I have I would like to wholeheartedly agree with my colleague Senator Sheldon because housing is so essential. One of the areas of interest I want to put on the list for the Senate to be aware of is homelands and outstations. We had a recent conference in the Northern Territory around that, and I certainly want to see our homelands across the Northern Territory supported in any future housing plan. The PRESIDENT 112096 We will move to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 44 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Members of Parliament: Staff 44 14:00 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. Minister, which ministers were involved in any way, including seeing briefs for noting, in the approval of the settlement proposal in the Ms Higgins matter? 14:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Scarr, when you asked questions about this the other day, I made the point that I am surprised that nearly two weeks after this whole alleged scandal started the opposition, including you, continue to ask questions that are predicated on court documents that were leaked to the media and were only available to a very small number of people. I saw the reporting on these court documents in the Australian when it was first reported, and I remember it saying that the documents were held by a very small number of people. A couple of names were given, and I am not going repeat those names here. But a couple of names were given in that article as to people who had access to that documentation. It also said that the government, as in the Albanese government, had access to the documentation. I fail to see how it was in the interest of the Albanese government to leak to the media private court documents that are now being pursued by the opposition. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Scarr, on a point of order? Senator Scarr 282997 Relevance, Madam President. There was nothing in the question dealing with court documents. It is about the settlement. There is no reference to any court document. The settlement is in the public domain. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The minister is being relevant to the first part of your question, and I am happy to draw him to the second part of your question. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Scarr 's defence is that court documents are in the public domain. I wonder how that happened. The settlement was in the public domain. I have also seen all sorts of speculation by members of the opposition as to the quantum of that settlement, which has never been revealed. Do you know why? It is confidential because settlements between parties in a mediation, as you well know, Senator Scarr, are confidential. And, despite your legal experience and the legal experience of the shadow Attorney-General, you continue to come into this chamber and ask questions about a settlement that is confidential between parties. You should know that, and you should know better than that. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. I am not going to constantly, moment after moment, call for order in this chamber. If I call for order, I want senators to come to order, not continue to call out across the chamber. It is incredibly disorderly. Senator O'Sullivan. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 Point of order, President: if you could just ask the minister to refer through you, Chair. The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind all senators, and I will remind the minister, to direct his answers to the chair, and that goes for all senators in this place. Senator WATT 245759 As I said the other day when I answered questions from Scarr about this point, and as we have said consistently—as Senator Gallagher has said consistently and others have as well—the claim that we are talking about from an alleged rape victim that is the subject of these questions was managed consistently with the Commonwealth's obligation under the Legal Services Direction 2017. I am shocked that the opposition continue to ask questions about this matter, but I guess we cannot expect any better. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I note my questions have no reference to court documents or to settlement sum. Did the Attorney-General or his office have any verbal or written communications with the Prime Minister in relation to the settlement in the Ms Higgins matter prior to the matter being settled? If so, when? 14:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I've said, Ms Higgins's claim was managed consistently with the Commonwealth's obligations under the legal services direction. The terms of settlement and the claim were managed in accordance with legal principle and practice and informed by external legal advice. The parties agreed that the terms of the settlement and that settlement process, including mediation, are confidential, and it would appear the only people who can't respect that principle are members of the opposition who continue to ask about this. As I said, I cannot believe that nearly two weeks into this we continue to have questions from the opposition. Senator Canavan 245212 It's all about you! Senator WATT 245759 No, it's not all about me. It's all about an alleged survivor of rape. That's who it's actually about. That's who it's about. And you people don't have the decency to respect that. You come in and use question time day after day to trawl over these documents that were leaked to the media by someone who had access to the documents and text messages—leaked by someone who had access to the text messages. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Once again I have to call the chamber to order. Minister, you have three more seconds. Senator WATT 245759 This has been a test of the decency of the opposition. They have failed. We have completely upheld the principle— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, your second supplementary question? 14:05 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I note that we haven't received any meaningful answers to these process questions. Did the Attorney-General or his office have any verbal or written communications with any other minister in relation to the settlement in the Ms Higgins matter prior to it being settled? If so, who and when? 14:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Unfortunately, the strategy of the opposition over the last two weeks to trawl over leaked court documents and leaked text messages involving an alleged survivor of rape— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 A point of order on relevance. This was a very direct question with respect to who knew what, when. The PRESIDENT 112096 You've also mentioned the word 'settlement' and I can't put words in the minister's mouth. He can address the question in whatever way he chooses as long as he is relevant. I will continue to listen carefully. Senator WATT 245759 As I say, the strategy of the opposition over the last couple of weeks has failed so spectacularly that they are now having to try to retrofit this strategy by clutching at straws and looking at— Senator Henderson ZN4 Hundreds of questions— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! Senator WATT 245759 things that don't actually exist to justify the indecent questions that they have spent the best part of two weeks asking. Senator Henderson ZN4 The indecent way you weaponise this issue! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, I just called you to order. I've now had to sit the minister down and call you to order again. I would ask you to listen in silence. Senator WATT 245759 I have no doubt that people will look back on the last two weeks to judge the relative character of the government and the opposition and the way they have dealt with these matters. There are any number of questions that the government could have asked of the opposition over the last couple of weeks, given the way things have turned out. How many of them have we asked? Not one. That's because some of us in this chamber have some decency; some of us in this chamber have some character, but, unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's a lot of it over there. (Time expired) Health Care 46 14:07 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Liberals and Nationals neglected the healthcare system. They left public hospitals under enormous strain, medical staff exhausted, a GP shortage, a bulk-billing system on the verge of collapse— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Urquhart, I am very sorry to have to sit you down mid-question. Order on my left! The interjections across the chamber are incredibly disorderly, Senator Henderson. Senator Urquhart, could you begin your question again? Please reset the clock. Senator URQUHART 231199 The Liberals and Nationals neglected the healthcare system. They left public hospitals under enormous strain, medical staff exhausted, a GP shortage, a bulk-billing system on the verge of collapse and out-of-pocket costs skyrocketing. The Albanese government is investing to strengthen Medicare and improve health services for all Australians. Why is Medicare a priority for the Albanese government and why is the government investing to deliver better healthcare for all Australians? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X President, on a point of order—standing order 73(1)—can I please ask you to review the prelude to the question that was asked there. I'm noticing an increasing use by the government of making statements in their questions. In the rules for questions under 73(1), it says that questions shall not contain arguments and should not contain imputations and lists other factors that they should not contain. Whilst there is a latitude given, the government is starting to abuse that latitude with the extent of arguments that are made in the questions that are put. The opportunity to make those arguments exists in the answers that ministers get to make rather than in the questions asked by those opposite. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham, I certainly will. Senator Wong, on the point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order, President, whilst you do that, I wonder if you could review with the same lens and by the same principles that this man articulates, the question this senator articulates, all of the questions that the opposition have asked this week, to see if they can meet their own principles. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU I know you're vain, but you don't like the fact that the principle might apply to you, do you? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order on my left! Senator McGrath 217241 Give her an Oscar! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, I have just called the chamber to order, and you are being disorderly, along with a number of other senators. I would ask senators to reflect on what happened. We had Senator Birmingham on his feet, and it was largely silent in here. Senator Birmingham is entitled to make whatever point of order he does, and he was listened to in respectful silence. Senator Wong is also able to make a contribution on the same point of order, and yet the chamber becomes disorderly. This is not appropriate. Senator Urquhart, I believe you've finished your question? Senator Wong, I'm asking you to respond to Senator Urquhart's question. 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm very happy to talk about Medicare. I know those opposite may not be. But Labor built Medicare and, unlike those opposite, we will always protect it. Our government is delivering stronger foundations, a better future for all Australians— Senator Henderson ZN4 'Mediscare' texts! Senator WONG 00AOU And I know you really can't bear it, can you, Senator Henderson, that we might actually care about Medicare. I know in your DNA, the coalition DNA—they've never supported Medicare. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Constant interjections are disorderly, Senator Henderson and Senator McGrath. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm trying to work out if it's just me or the word 'Medicare' which triggers that reflex. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Here we go again! We know that cutting Medicare is in the Liberal DNA. You simply can't trust the Liberals and the Nationals on Medicare—the party of the GP tax, the party that tried to charge for emergency department visits, the party that's all about increasing the cost of medicine and now opposing the reduction in the cost of medicine. Unlike those opposite, we take Medicare seriously, because Labor always have. Labor always have. Look at what we are delivering. We are tripling the bulk-billing incentives for children, benefiting all— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on both sides of the chamber! There are too many interjections senator to senator across the chamber. Senators are entitled to ask their questions and to have them answered in silence. Please stop the disrespectful interjections across the chamber. Senator WONG 00AOU The evidence is in what we have already delivered as a government or are delivering: tripling the bulk-billing incentives for children, a benefit to all Australian families and the most vulnerable; helping pensioners and concession card holders; cutting the price of PBS medicines, down from $42.50 to $30; reducing the cost of medicines through 60-day dispensing that will save general medicine patients hundreds of dollars a year—also opposed by the 'no-alition'. We are investing in the healthcare workforce and we are delivering a $1.5 billion boost to indexation of Medicare rebates. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Ruston, I know you hate it. But we are the party of Medicare. We are the party of Medicare, and you are not. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Urquhart, first supplementary? 14:13 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania After the Liberals and Nationals neglected the healthcare system over nearly a decade, primary health care in this country was in urgent need of repair. How is the Albanese Labor government rebuilding primary health care in Australia, and why is this so important? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Urquhart, for that question. From fast and affordable access to a GP to crucial check-ups to prevent serious illness, the Albanese government understands the importance of primary health care and is investing in it. It's vital for people, it's vital for Australians, and it's also vital for the healthcare system because, without strong primary health care, emergency departments and local hospitals face extra pressure. And we know this. How do we know this? We know this because that's what happened under them. We know those opposite deliberately ran down Medicare and general practice. We know that Mr Dutton, in his first budget as health minister, tried to abolish bulk billing. Oh! This side is very quiet now, are they? You tried to abolish bulk billing. That's Peter Dutton's real plan for Medicare. He wanted to abolish bulk billing. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Urquhart, a second supplementary? 14:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania The Australian National Audit Office recently released their report Administration of the Community Health and Hospitals Program. What were the findings of this review? And why is it important that every health dollar is invested wisely? 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, we do know that not only did Mr Dutton try to introduce a GP tax—and we do know what happened under the Morrison government and the way in which Medicare was run down. But it wasn't just that they didn't care. They were also prepared to rort it, and the Australian National Audit Office report lays bare the rorts and mismanagement of the government that was populated by those opposite. Do you know what the Audit Office found? Your program, the Community Health and Hospitals Program, was effectively a $2 billion slush fund—a $2 billion slush fund, engaged in with no regard for proper process or good governance. The report found that: … administration of CHHP grants was not appropriate, involving deliberate breaches of the relevant legal requirements and the principles underpinning them. Maybe, Senator Cash, you might want to talk about legal requirements. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Staff 48 14:16 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, during question time on Tuesday of this week, in answer to my colleague Senator McDonald, regarding media commentary that comprehensively agrees that you misled the Senate, you said: I cannot control what other people write about this. Maybe they don't understand it. Minister, are you seriously claiming that some of Australia's most senior and respected political commentators all failed to understand your public explanations of this matter? Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that you did in fact mislead the Senate, apologise and appropriately correct the record? 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It's virtually an identical question to the question I was asked by Senator McDonald, and so I've answered the question. I refer the senator to the statement I've given, and, in conjunction with that statement, 39 questions—in fact, this is question No. 40—that I've answered over the past eight sitting days. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, first supplementary? 14:18 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Yes, we won't count some other questioning that happened. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator DAVEY 281697 In the same response to Senator McDonald, during question time on Tuesday, regarding that media commentary— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. Senator Davey, please resume your seat. Once again, senators, interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Senator Davey has a right to ask her question in silence. Could you reset the clock. And, Senator Davey, would you mind starting again, please. Senator DAVEY 281697 In the same response to Senator McDonald, you said, regarding the media commentary: None of them have spoken to me about it. Certainly, they haven't spoken to me about it in the last few weeks. Minister, at any time have any of the journalists mentioned in the original question contacted you or your office asking for an interview or put written questions to you about the timing of when you first knew of the sexual assault allegations? 14:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I've got nothing further to add. I refer you to the statement that I've provided to the Senate and the answers that I've given. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, second supplementary? Senator Davey 281697 On that: I specifically asked— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, there's no point of order, because the minister has finished her answer. I invite you to ask your second supplementary. 14:19 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Minister, isn't it the case that the reason some of the most respected political observers in this country wrote that you misled the Senate is that you actually did mislead the Senate? How can the Australian people trust this government unless you admit that you misled the Senate and simply correct the record? 14:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I refer the senator to the statement I provided to the Senate eight days ago. Israel: Human Rights 49 14:20 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Israel's government is the most far right and extremist in the nation's— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU I wonder if we could start again. There seemed to be a lot of noise. I'm very interested in the question, obviously, so I can respond to it. The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that, once again, the interjections across the chamber were disorderly and did not give Senator Steele-John an opportunity to ask his question, nor the senator to whom it was directed the chance to hear it. I'm asking for silence. Senator Steele-John, if you wouldn't mind starting again. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Thank you. Israel's government is the most far right and extremist in the nation's history. Two of its most senior ministers, Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, are proud and open racists and bigots. Finance Minister Smotrich has said: There is no such thing as Palestinians because there is no such thing as a Palestinian people. He has called for a Palestinian town to be wiped out. He is also a proud, open homophobe. National Security Minister Ben-Gvir has attended so-called 'beast parades' against gay pride, at which individual religious activists lead goats and donkeys through the streets and hoist banners calling queer people 'impure'. He has also pledged to crush Palestinians 'one by one'. When will the foreign minister issue a boycott of any Australian government representative meeting with these two individuals? 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The first point I would make, if I may, given the question goes to Israel, is to express that we are obviously deeply saddened by the murder of four Israeli citizens in a terror attack overnight. We condemn this act and make the point that terrorism and violence against civilians can never be justified, and we urgently call upon all parties to exercise restraint. I would again say what I've said many times, which is the reminder for leaders to work together to foster the conditions necessary for tolerance and peace. I don't propose to respond to all of the propositions you put to me. The fact that we engage with a country does not mean we agree with every statement made by an officeholder of a country. You've heard me say, for example, in relation to China, that we will cooperate where we can, disagree where we must and engage in our national interest. We have a view as a government that engagement matters. We will continue to engage with members of the Israeli government as is appropriate and necessary, and we intend to judge the government on the policies it pursues and to make our views known when we need to. Australia has been and is a friend of Israel, and that means we can also indicate our view on matters on which we disagree. I hope you wouldn't need me to respond to some of the propositions you have made with an indication that, obviously, I and the members of the government do not agree with some of the views in relation to LGBTQI people that you have articulated or reported. But that is a different issue. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, a first supplementary? 14:24 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Speaking of the policies pursued by the state of Israel—these individuals are members of a government which is enacting a system of race based oppression and domination towards Palestinians. There is a name for such a system, Minister: apartheid. Human Rights Watch recognise it, Amnesty International recognises it, Palestinian and Israeli human rights groups recognise it and the Greens recognise it. When will the Australian government recognise the reality of Israel's system of apartheid? (Time expired) 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I will make a number of points. The first is that we, as a responsible international actor, will continue to encourage all parties to engage in negotiations for a just and enduring two-state solution. The Australian government is committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. I would make this point also: I understand that there are many people living in this country who feel deeply about these issues, on both sides of the debate. Just as I was critical of Mr Morrison's move during the Wentworth by-election, I would also urge all parties now not to use sensitive issues to play domestic political games. This is a very difficult issue; this is— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, a second supplementary question. 14:25 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, you won't recognise the reality of apartheid and you won't boycott meetings with these particular individuals. Will you at least recognise the state of the Palestinians, joining with 138 countries that have done so—and in line with the motion passed by your very own Victorian Labor Party state conference? 14:26 Senator WO 00AOU South Australia NG (—) (): I think the question itself made clear your agenda on this. As always, as it is so often, it's about the Labor Party— Senator 250156 Yes— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, thank you—I'll take that interjection. He said yes. It's not about the Palestinian people, it's not about the Israeli people and it's not about peace. It's not about progress towards the two-state solution, it's about running a political campaign against the Labor Party. So thank you for acknowledging that, Senator Steele-John. This is a difficult issue, which is in many ways quite tragic for those of us who have looked, watched and hoped for peace in the Middle East and a peaceful conclusion to the two-state solution. It is tragic, but it is really clear that there are those in this debate who want to try and find a way through; they want to try and do what is the principled thing for Australia and the position we should articulate on a range of issues that you have articulated, and those— (Time expired) Paid Parental Leave 50 14:27 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Farrell. Minister, I know, and those of us on this side know, that raising children while juggling work commitments can be challenging for many Australian families. We know that parents, employers, unions, gender experts and economists are united in their understanding that providing more choice, more support and more flexibility for families, and more opportunities for women, boost workforce participation and productivity across the economy. Can the minister please outline for the chamber how the Albanese government's paid parental leave changes will deliver more choice, more support and greater flexibility to working families? 14:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you for that very fine question, Senator Stewart. I know you have a very deep interest in this area—personal and otherwise. In our first year, the Albanese Labor government has not wasted a day in delivering a better future for all Australians. This government is making it easier for working families to get ahead. On 1 July, next week, our changes to paid parental leave come into effect, giving about 180,000 families access to a more flexible payment that promotes shared care. As a result of our changes, not only will more parents have access to the government payment but they will also have more flexibility in how they transition back to work and how they share care between them. This is an important first step for better paid parental leave. But there is more to be done, and that's why we will introduce further legislation over the coming months to provide families with an extra six weeks by 2026. That's an extra $5,000 in paid leave, based on current rates. Improving paid parental leave is a critical reform; it's critical for families, it's critical for women and it's critical for the economy. Paid parental leave is an important Labor legacy, and I'm very proud—as I know you would be, Senator Stewart—to be part of a government which is building on that legacy and delivering for Australian women and families. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:29 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I am incredibly proud to be a part of a government that prioritises women. We know the government is committed to ensuring that, as children grow older, families in difficult circumstances continue to receive the support that they need. Can the minister outline how the Albanese government will support these families, including any new measures or arrangements that will start with the new financial year? 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Stewart for her first supplementary question. Yes, I can provide an answer to that question. Paid parental leave is just one measure alongside many other investments in families across this government. Also, on 1 July more than 1.3 million families will receive an increase to their family payments through indexation to help with the cost of living. A family with two children who receive family tax benefit part A and part B could receive around $50 extra per fortnight. On 1 July our improvements to the child support scheme come into effect, making it easier to collect child support debts and helping to prevent future debts by improving income accuracy for low-income parents. We've been clear that this is the first step in the government's longer term strategy to improve— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:31 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Around the country, many Australian families are doing it tough right now. We know they're feeling the pinch of cost-of-living pressures. Could the minister please explain what supports the government is providing more broadly across the Social Services portfolio to support families with children? 14:31 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Stewart for her second supplementary question. Yes, I can provide an answer to that question. Families will also be better off thanks to our budget package to help with the cost of living, which includes $1.9 billion to strengthen the safety net for single parents. From 20 September 2023, 57,000 low-income single parents will receive an additional $176.90 per fortnight. We're also delivering the largest increase to rent assistance in more than— Senator Wong 00AOU The largest increase to rent assistance? Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, Senator Wong, the largest increase in more than 30 years, with our additional investment helping around 130,000 low- to middle-income families pay the rent. In addition, both the single parent payment and the rent assistance will be indexed on 20 September to help keep pace with the cost of living. Our actions over the last 12 months demonstrate how the— (Time expired) COVID-19 51 14:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher, referencing freedom of information request No. 4293 from the Department of Health and Aged Care on the censoring of Craig Kelly's tweet, when he was a duly elected member of federal parliament, representing and serving the people of Hughes. This was a political tweet. It criticised the use of police in COVID measures. It criticised the constant fearmongering and, quite correctly, alerted the public to the adverse mental health outcomes from lockdowns. Minister, why and on what authority did the health department censor a sitting member of parliament? 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Roberts for the question. From memory, we had quite a discussion at Senate estimates about this and about the process that the department of health went through, working, as I recall, with the Department of Home Affairs to raise concerns around misinformation that was being circulated during, essentially, a national state of emergency during the COVID-19 pandemic. So these are decisions that were taken in the former parliament when the COVID pandemic was at its peak. I think there was agreement that Health had a role in ensuring that information going out was as accurate as it could be but also that it didn't generate unnecessary concerns around the fact that the previous government had taken a decision around a national vaccination program. I'm not specifically aware of the tweet to which you refer. But that is my understanding of the evidence that was given at estimates—that the department of health did not censor information. Where concerns were brought to their attention, they followed through and worked, from memory, with the Department of Home Affairs around how to manage some of that misinformation to ensure, as much as possible, that information out in the community was accurate about the response from the Australian government at the time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:35 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The censoring was recently disclosed publicly under your government. Mr Kelly was criticising public policy. How many more members of parliament have been censored across the COVID period from February 2020 to February 2023? And how many more social media posts from members of parliament have been censored across this COVID period? At what level was the decision taken to censor—departmental, ministerial or prime ministerial? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'll have to go back to the transcript of evidence from estimates, but my recollection was that it was the platforms themselves that made decisions about what information they allow on their platforms. There was certainly a role for the department of health to ensure, as much as possible, that information circulating through whatever communication channel was, as much as it could be, accurate and reflect health information in the middle of a national emergency. As I recall, from the time, there was a lot of misinformation out and about. And from a public health point of view, it's not unusual for public health officials to raise concerns if misinformation is being circulated. But, from memory, that was referred to Home Affairs and then— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:37 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Now that this censorship has been disclosed publicly during your government's term, has the minister sought legal advice on the constitutional implications of interfering with a member of parliament in the performance of their duty? 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Roberts for his supplementary. Again, I don't have the information that he refers to. But I would repeat my earlier answer that the department specifically did not censor any information in relation to any public official. As far as I can recall, the evidence at estimates—and I wasn't in government at the time that these matters were being handled—from the department was that they did not censor, but where information was raised and where that information was inaccurate, they did refer some matters on. Ultimately, it was the decision of the platform where that information was circulating about what they did with that information. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 52 14:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. Last Friday evening, during the committee stage of the constitutional alteration bill, I asked Senator Watt: will the Voice have the freedom to determine the issues on which it makes representations? Senator Watt replied, 'Yes'. Yesterday, in the other place, Minister Burney said: I can tell you what the Voice will not be giving advice on. It won't be giving advice on parking tickets. It won't be giving advice on changing Australia Day. Minister, who is right, Minister Watt or Minister Burney? Will the Voice have the freedom to determine the issues on which it makes representations, yes or no? 14:39 Senator ING Australian Capital Territory GALLAGHER (—) (): I understand this matter has been raised in the House today as well. I can confirm—and I think the Attorney-General has made this clear—that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will be able to make representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This means matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and matters which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently. We know what those issues are. I think it is unfortunate but not unexpected that we have a continuing campaign here which essentially seeks to misrepresent a modest request from Australia's First Peoples through the Uluru Statement from the Heart about a voice to parliament enshrined in the Constitution. We know what matters affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently. There are gaps in education, gaps in employment, gaps in opportunity, gaps in health and gaps in life expectancy. Senator Thorpe 280304 Climate change? Senator GALLAGHER ING These are the matters that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Senator Thorpe, it is not an exclusive list, but I'm trying, in the time available to me, to make it clear. The Attorney-General and others have made clear that it is a modest request. Those opposite seek to misrepresent this at every single opportunity. We are getting a taste of what the next few months are going to be like. I call on people to exercise their privileged position in this place responsibly. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a first supplementary? 14:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, yesterday in the other place Minister Burney said that the Voice was primarily about recognition and listening. Yet, earlier yesterday, Pat Anderson AO, a leading member of the referendum working group, told Radio National, 'It's really important for the voters to understand that this advisory body will be able to sit and negotiate with the parliament and the executive government of the day.' Can the minister confirm that the proposed voice will, as Pat Anderson AO says, be able to actively negotiate matters with parliament and executive government? (Time expired) Senator Pratt I0T It's like you don't understand how this place works. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Pratt! Senator Cash I0M Who's right—you or Pat Anderson? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you've asked your question. I now ask that you listen respectfully, and that goes for across the chamber. 14:42 Senator GALLAGH ING Australian Capital Territory ER (—) (): I thank Senator Cash for the question. I will start off where I finished by saying I think there is a role for us to be accurate and not seek to divide Australia— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, you have asked your question. The minister is answering. Your interjections are disorderly. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING As I have said, I would remind people that the detail of the final design of the Voice is actually up to the parliament to resolve. We are very supportive of implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, which includes a voice to the nation's parliament enshrined through the Constitution, recognition through the Constitution of Australia's First Peoples and listening to what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people say. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a second supplementary? 14:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, for the Australian people who will vote at this referendum can you please confirm for the record that the Voice will be able to give advice to the government and/or the executive on absolutely any issue it chooses, including abolishing Australia Day? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, across the chamber! 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I have answered this— Senator Watt 245759 You know that's not true. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Cash and Senator Watt, the interjections across the chamber are disorderly. The question has been asked. The minister was on her feet. She's entitled to give an answer. Senators are to listen in respectful silence. Senator GALLAGHER ING I would say, again, that the power of the parliament will not change through this referendum question. The Attorney-General, Senator McCarthy, Minister Watt and I have said that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will be able to make representations to the parliament and executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That is the position. That is the advice from the government. The shape of that will be determined by this place, where everybody will have the opportunity to have a say. The first step is the referendum, a question put to the Australian people, where every Australian who is able to will have the opportunity to have a say. Then it will be the parliament— (Time expired) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 53 14:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Minister Burney has declared that the Voice will not provide advice on issues that do not specifically affect First Peoples. On what premise is Minister Burney stating that Australia Day, which clearly affects First Nations people and is a day of mourning for us, does not fall within the remit of the Voice? 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Thorpe for the question. It relates to the question I have just answered. It's from a different point of view, but it's a similar question to the one that Senator Cash just asked me. We have made it clear that the Voice will be an advisory body made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who may make representations to government on issues that affect their communities. It's that simple—it will be on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We understand what many of those representations will be towards, including the programs and supports that— Senator Thorpe 280304 President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was around Australia Day, or Invasion Day, as we call it. It does affect First Nations people— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, when you raise a point of order it goes to what the minister is responding to. The minister is being relevant. I will listen carefully to the remainder of her answer. Senator GALLAGHER ING In relation to Australia Day, it is not the policy of this government to change the date of Australia Day. I have talked with many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who have very strong views about Australia Day similar to yours, Senator Thorpe. But the Voice will give advice. It is not a decision-making body. It's clear from the question we are putting to the Australian people and that the parliament has passed—the Senate passed it on Saturday morning—that the power of the parliament will not change. The Voice may give advice, but the parliament retains its primacy and the parliament will make laws. We see huge benefits coming from having a voice that is advisory to speak directly to this parliament and the executive representing local First Nations communities about issues that they care deeply about and want to have a say about in terms of government decision-making. It is a positive change. It's a change that seeks to unite Australia, not divide Australia. We look forward to all Australians having the opportunity to vote— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, a first supplementary? 14:48 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria When military bases are on First Nations land and close to First Nations communities and, therefore, those communities are at higher risk of military attacks than others, why can the Voice not provide advice on military policies? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I go back to my previous answer. The Voice will be an advisory body. It will make representations to government on issues that affect their communities. They are matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently. I think we can all accept that there are a number of those areas—including employment opportunity, education, housing, payment support, life expectancy and incarceration—where governments, with the best of intentions and the best of— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senators Thorpe and Cash, the interjections are disorderly, and I would ask that you listen in silence. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING will be some of the matters that I imagine, once the Voice is established, this parliament and executive government will be provided advice on. That is the whole purpose behind the Voice and what was sought at Uluru at that historic gathering. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:50 Senat 280304 Victoria or THORPE () (): How can the Voice be a self-determining body for First Nations people when it can't even determine what matters to us? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would again remind people that the parliament will have a say in the shape of the Voice through the debate. We will have the Constitution referendum question put. The request at that historic gathering at Uluru was for voice and treaty and truth. We are committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. We see it as a gracious offering to unite the country to walk together, to recognise Australia's First People— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, on a point of order? Senator Thorpe 280304 President, again on relevance. This was about how self-determination is determined in what you're talking about here—self-determination. I don't know what your explanation for self-determination is, but it certainly ain't ours. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Thorpe. The minister has gone back to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in answering your question, and I believe that she is being relevant. Minister, please continue. Senator Thorpe 280304 It wasn't decided there. That's not right. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, it is not a debating point. Do you wish to raise a second point of order? Senator Thorpe 280304 Yes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Then please go ahead. Senator Thorpe 280304 This is on relevance, and it's around self-determination. I don't believe that the minister is addressing the issue of self-determination, and the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not a definition of self-determination. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, that becomes a debating point. You have asked me if the minister is being relevant to your question. I believe that she is, and I will continue to listen carefully to the remainder of her answer. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, and I think the principles that underpin the Voice that have been consulted on and released provide some of the information that Senator Thorpe is seeking. Early Childhood Education 55 14:52 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Watt. The Albanese Labor government has made making early learning more affordable for families a priority of our first year in government. The government clearly recognises the critical role early learning plays in a child's development and boosting our economic prosperity by supporting workforce participation. Why has the government made early learning a priority, and what changes is the government making to the childcare subsidy from July? How will these changes impact on Australian families, easing cost-of-living pressures? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Green. I know this is a topic very dear to your heart, with baby Stevie now participating in early childhood education herself, and what a bright young woman she will turn out to be, I have no doubt. The Albanese government has made early learning a priority of our first year. We've done this because we know how important affordable early learning is. We know that for too many families the cost of early learning has put it out of reach. Unfortunately, under the Liberals and Nationals, out-of-pocket costs for early learning went up by 49 per cent, and that is not helping cost-of-living pressures, I don't think—is it? We, on the other hand, are taking action to ease cost-of-living pressures on Australian families by making early learning more affordable. From July our changes to the childcare subsidy will boost the maximum subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families earning $80,000 or less. Senator WATT 245759 Gerard, we know you don't like child care, and we know what you have said about Dorothy and child care and things like that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I do remind you to direct your answers to the chair. Senator Rennick? Senator Rennick 283596 On a point of order: could he withdraw that. I very much care about child care. There is no more important role than mothers and fathers play in raising their children. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, that is not a point of order. I don't believe Senator Watt was reflecting on you adversely. Senator Watt, please— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McGrath, you are out of order. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Senator McGrath's disrespect of you— Senator McGrath 217241 I withdraw. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! When there is silence I will respond. Senator Rennick, I did not understand that that was what Senator Watt said, but, as he said it, I will invite him, if he thinks it needs to be withdrawn, to withdraw it. Senator Watt 245759 I'm happy to review the Hansard. But I'm also happy to withdraw. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Watt 245759 Calm down! Calm down. Under your bellowing— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please resume your seat and, once again, please address your responses to me. I asked you—and I didn't explain this fully and my apologies if I didn't. In the spirit of goodwill, if it upset Senator Rennick, as it appears to have done, I'm inviting you to withdraw. Senator McGrath 217241 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 And Senator Watt? Senator Watt 245759 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator Watt 245759 And, under Senator McGrath's bellowing, I was actually saying that I was withdrawing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I'm going to ask you to sit down again. That is very unhelpful. When I ask senators to with— Senator McKenzie 207825 Kick him out! The PRESID 112096 Order! And that is unhelpful as well, Senator McKenzie! When I ask senators to withdraw, I ask them to just withdraw without adding any other comments, and I'm going to invite you to do that. Senator Watt 245759 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Whoever did that calling out then, that also was very unhelpful and disrespectful. If I ask a senator to withdraw in this place, I'm doing it— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber! When senators are asked to withdraw, it is a serious matter and it should be treated that way. Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 As I was saying, from July our changes to the childcare subsidy will boost the maximum subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families earning $80,000 or less. We're also boosting the subsidy rates for around 96 per cent of families with a child in care who are earning under $530,000. Our changes will also introduce a base level of 36 subsidised hours of early learning per fortnight for First Nations children. First Nations children will have access to the base level of subsidised hours regardless of their family activities. These changes will deliver more affordable early childhood education and care for around 1.2 million families, including 265,000 in rural and regional Australia. Our reforms will help more children access the powerful benefits of early childhood education and provide real cost-of-living relief for families. We're making these changes because we know that investing in early education is good for children, it's good for families and it's good for the country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:58 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Affordable early learning pays a triple dividend: it's good for children, it's good for families and it's good for the economy. But the evidence also shows that some groups in the community benefit from investments in early learning. Can the minister advise of any specific groups that will benefit from the changes to the childcare subsidy that will come into effect in July this year? 14:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Green. I'm pleased to say that over 1.2 million families in Australia will benefit from the changes to the childcare subsidy. But I do want to take the time to draw attention to two groups that we know will particularly benefit from the changes, the first being Australian women, who we know are often primary carers. We know that the high costs for early learning act as a massive disincentive for women to get back into the workforce, and our changes will give Australian women more choice. Having more women in the workforce will make a real difference for our economy, as well as empowering them and making a difference to families. The second group that will benefit from this in particular are First Nations children and families. Our changes will introduce a base level of 36 subsidised hours of early learning per fortnight for First Nations children, regardless of activity. This will build on our government's commitment to closing the gap and ensure that First Nations children get the best start in life. As many as 6,000 First Nations families will benefit from these changes, in addition to the many other Australian families who will too. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Thank you, Minister. Making early learning more affordable for families is a vital reform providing immediate cost-of-living relief to families, but affordability is just one part of the government's agenda. Minister, what other actions is the Albanese Labor government taking to build a world-class, flexible early education system? 15:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Green. I'm pleased to say the Albanese government is also looking to the future, taking action to build an early education system that is fit for purpose—one that will ensure all children have access to the transformational benefits of high-quality early learning, a system that support parents and provide them with more choice. We have tasked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with inquiring into the drivers of costs in the system, and we've commissioned a comprehensive review, also to be undertaken by the Productivity Commission. These reviews will help our government navigate the path to building a more sustainable early childhood education system. We are also investing in the early childhood education workforce, recognising the critical role they play in children's lives. As part of this year's budget, we have invested $72.4 million in a workforce package focused on access to professional development and upskilling. Our government values early education, we value the people who work in early education, and we're investing in making early learning more affordable while building a world-class system. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 57 15:02 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cash and Thorpe today relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. What we've got here, what has been revealed through the debate and public discourse, is that we are seeing some significant gaps with the aspirations of those that really do want to make a difference to the lives of Indigenous people across this country. I've stood here in this place and talked about the experience that I've got and my deep, abiding commitment to closing the gap and to seeing the disparity that exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians eliminated. To me, it's not just something that we should see shrink; it's something that we should all strive to see absolutely eliminated. It's not right that life expectancy is cut short and that abuse and other issues, such as those of educational attainment and child mortality, continue to exist. Absolutely we must listen to those that our programs can influence and affect. We should be getting their advice. But what we're seeing with this government is a big gap between the aspirations of those who do want to see the lives of Indigenous people improved and what's actually being pushed, dealt with and delivered by way of this referendum question that we have now legislated and that's going to be going before us. The gap that needs to be addressed is, of course, with those issues that I was talking about, but what we have is a big gap between those aspirations and what's actually being proposed. What we know is that we're seeing that, particularly from those who are proponents of the Voice—like Mr Mayo, who is a union official, I'd say, based on the things that I've seen. I didn't really know much of him before, but, having seen what he says, he's certainly a radical Labor unionist who speaks out, and, no doubt, speaks his mind, but what we are seeing is him prosecuting arguments that really go against the grain and against the civil discourse that is necessary when addressing such important issues as closing the gap. We know that the Voice is risky because it's going to impact upon our democracy. But it's also risky because of the types of people that are behind it and the things that they're espousing the Voice will be able to do. We are seeing a big disconnect between what those on the other side are saying is a 'modest' proposal, and those on the outside who are calling for the Voice saying that it's going to have a really big impact. They don't seem to go hand in hand. How can it be 'modest', on the one hand, but, on the other hand, have a really big impact? Proponents of the Voice, part of the Referendum Council—many of them—have called for Australia Day to be moved, or maybe even be abolished. So there is a big disconnect between this idea that it's just a 'modest' proposal and those saying that this is going to be something that will make a big difference. Now, I don't think you can have both. You can't have both. There are ways that this government could address the intent and the motivation—the real, positive motivation—of those that bring forward these ideas, that we could have better representation and that we could have a better connection between the ideas of addressing and closing the gap and the actual implementation. But that's not what's being proposed here. We know that the Voice is risky. We know that the Voice is unknown, because the government is not giving us detail. It's like someone going for a job interview and signing the contract without knowing what the wages are going to be, without knowing the hours they will work and perhaps not even knowing what the duties of the job are. So it's crazy—it really is—to expect that Australians can make a decision on one of the most important things that they'll ever have to make a decision on, and that is, of course, the Constitution of this country, when what we're being asked to do is to sign a blank cheque. It's unknown. And of course what we're seeing is that it's dividing Australians. Now, at best, what those that are supporting the Voice could hope for is that maybe 50 or 51 per cent of Australians will support it. Well, that is a divided nation, and it's not something that I think we should be pursuing. 15:08 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Those opposite can't have it both ways in terms of decrying a lack of detail—asking, 'Where is the detail?'—without admitting that you don't actually know or have any regard for how this place actually works. How can something be modest and have a big impact in this place? Well, that is exactly how we work. Can I draw the attention of those opposite to, for example, the modest prospect of having a parliamentary committee inquiry. One of those resulted in the Bringing them home report, which told the legacy of the stolen generations and the impact on First Nations people across our nation. That was a modest proposal, of having a parliamentary committee listen to those stories and bring evidence forward to the parliament. There's no need to see the Voice as any more radical a prospect than an enhancement of how our parliament brings that evidence forward. There was another modest prospect that had a big impact: a committee inquiry about people having their babies taken and its report on past adoption practices. So when we see a modest administrative and parliamentary proposal for taking evidence and talking to Indigenous communities to bring forth evidence, views and opinions into this place so that they can be deliberated on and discussed, and so that people can have a forthright expression of views and a diversity of views—including through a voice to parliament—that does have a big impact. When those opposite say, 'It can't have a big impact and be modest at the same time,' do they not understand how this place works to start with? Do they not understand that we are here to create an institution that interfaces with our Constitution and this parliament and that all the existing protocols and approaches—which they will get a chance to participate in legislating for—have form and function, and that we can choose how and when we will extend those institutional arrangements to a Voice to parliament by legislating in this place? It's not rocket science. Parliament does it all the time. We did it with the Auditor-General Act, where we have a parliamentary officer who has the power to take documents and gather evidence from government departments, and then bring their views back to the parliament. They report to the parliament and obliges the parliament to list those documents and discuss them, and obliges the government to make a governmental response. I have no idea yet—because we haven't deliberated on it—about exactly what kinds of arrangements might take place. But that is like you trying to say that those who put the words into the Constitution that the Commonwealth shall have the power to legislate for corporations—which is but one line—should have known what corporations law looks like today! There are thousands of pages of corporations law and but one line in our Constitution! When you ask for detail and you ask: 'Is it modest? Is it big?' I see only one intention coming from you lot—through you, Mr Deputy President. You have either one intention: to prove that you've got no idea how this place works or how our democracy works—how things come about and are turned into law, and how we create form and function in this place—or you have one motivation, which is to obfuscate and completely deny First Nations people a rightful place in our Constitution and a voice to the Australian parliament and the government. 15:13 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise to take note of answers to questions regarding the Voice and this government's failure to be honest with the Australian people about what this powerful new body will demand. The Labor government is deliberately keeping Australians in the dark about what the Voice will do and what its proponents intend it to do. This is a referendum on the question of changing the Constitution to create a new Canberra based body with the right to make representations on every decision of government which affects citizens of Australia. Some of its proponents have openly said that the Voice will 'punish' any government or political party that does not support one of the demands of the Voice. Mr Thomas Mayo has recently said: … we are going to use the rulebook of the nation to force them. He said: A politician or party that ignores, or legislates against that collective Voice will do so at their peril because we will be organised and ready. Where were these comments made? At a protest against Australia Day of course! This government would have us believe, according to its answers here today, and in the other place today and yesterday, that the Voice will not ever involve itself in a debate about Australia Day. The government cannot possibly stand behind the accuracy of that statement by their minister. They are proposing to create a body with the constitutional right to be consulted on any matter relevant to Indigenous Australians and yet at the same time claiming that the body will never make representations to government on a debate that many of its proponents engage on every single year. This is absolutely typical of this government's approach to this referendum. On the one hand they're out there saying to Australians: 'This referendum isn't about the details. Just trust us; we're politicians. We'll sort out the fine print later and you don't need to worry yourself about it.' On the other hand we have the responsible minister not only disparaging members of the opposition for asking relevant questions about how her government's policy will operate but also claiming to know for a fact that the Voice will never make a representation to government that it should change the date of Australia Day. This is just an incredible and, frankly, unbelievable proposition for the minister to put. What are the people who attend rallies and protests against Australia Day every year going to make of this government's suggestion that the Voice for Indigenous Australians will never make a representation on the date of Australia Day? Although the Albanese government refuses to tell Australians what the Voice will look like, how many members it will have and how they will be appointed, it is easily foreseeable that some of its members—perhaps many of its members—will be strongly against holding Australia Day on 26 January each year. As proponents of this Voice have said, the Voice will 'punish' any party that ignores its representations. What the minister and this government could have said is that the Albanese government guarantees that it will not change the date of Australia Day—not in this term, not ever. That would be a commitment in line with the wishes of the majority of Australians and, importantly, a commitment that executive government can make because it is within the control of the government. What is not clearly within the control of the government is the guarantee that the Voice will not make a representation on a matter that will be clearly within its scope. It is extremely disappointing that the Labor government are choosing to approach this referendum not just by refusing to answer the questions that Australians have about their proposal but by actually giving answers that they must know are inaccurate at best and misleading at worst. This referendum is about whether Australians are being told enough about what the Voice will be, how the Voice will work, what the Voice is going to do and what impact it will have—whether we're being told enough to decide to embed that very body into our Constitution forever. The government needs to stop attempting to mislead Australians and properly engage in debate about what the Voice will look like and what it will have the power to do. This government insists that this referendum to change the Constitution is just a modest request—and we heard that several times here today, we have heard that several times in this place before today and I'm sure that we will hear that a lot more between now and whenever the referendum is going to be conducted—but how can we know that that's the case? How can we know that this is just a modest change when the government that is proposing it can't actually definitively explain to us what the Voice is? 15:17 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales There are interesting moments, inflection points, in history that call us to pay attention to when courage lifted nations and fear collapsed nations. Sadly, I think we're at a point—and this is reflected in the nature of the questions that have come across the floor today to the Labor government from those opposite—that absolutely reveals a culture of fear and a poverty of vision that are determined to return Australia to the fearful, chaotic, disparaging and negative conversation that so characterised the last nine years of government in Australia under the Liberal and National parties. That's what happens when miserly, greedy and divisive language and perspectives are allowed to reign. We've already been on quite a journey to get to the point this week where we were finally able to—quite significantly, with the numbers on this side—advance to a referendum, but we have seen carnage amongst parties in this place when people have had to step aside because of the deafness and the miserliness of colleagues with whom they share a party room. Parties were so frightened to allow people to have their own voice in their own debate that shadow ministers stepped aside so that they could have their voice. The opposition are so frightened of the voices from within their own parties that they are truly lacking in the leadership that this country needs right now to do the right thing—to do the hopeful thing, to do the brave thing and to go on the journey of the heart. They should lift their sights beyond the miserly, beyond the negative and beyond the contested and look to a better vision for this country that isn't replete with the statistics that we hear, year in year out, about what's happening to First Nations people in this country. When I first got to this chamber 'closing the gap' was heard over in the other place. We didn't even stop here in the Senate to pay attention. There's a good indication of why, long ago, we maybe needed a voice where First Nations people were heard. Those statistics may be a good indication of why, if Australia had this vision in 1940 or 1950—or, dare I say, in 1788—it would have been good to actually hear the wisdom and the voices of the people of Australia who were here when the boats arrived. If that had happened, we wouldn't find ourselves in this situation where we're attempting to retrofit some sort of corrective to say, 'Hello. Sorry we missed you in the Constitution. Maybe we should just recognise that you actually were here.' What the Voice is about at its core is constitutional recognition that 65,000 years of history happened before the modern era, if I can call it that, of Australia that is often referred to as the colonialist era. What we've got is these personal, negative, limiting, pejorative statements made about one person after the other. I've never met Mr Thomas Mayo, but I want to read into the record a short quotation that I found in the time I was waiting to speak. He wrote a book called When the Heart Speaks: Learning the Language of Listening in Australia. He said: When I told my six-year-old son I was writing a book that would be titled Finding the Heart of the Nation, he asked me, 'Where is the heart of the nation?' I pulled him close, put my hand on his heart and told him, 'The heart of the nation is here.' From the way his smile met his cheeks and his cheeks touched his eyes, I could see he was proud to hear my answer. He understood that the book was for him. Not for him individually, a Torres Strait Islander boy born on Larrakia country in Darwin. No. It was written for all the children … This is a voice for Australia, it is for all the children, it is for hope, it is for better and it should be supported. 15:23 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I've listened to senators taking note of answers and I wish to take note of the same issue, regarding the powers of the Voice. There are some interesting things developing out of this. Very early on Saturday morning, we heard questions from Senator Cash to Senator Watt about the Voice, including, 'Will the Voice have the freedom to determine the issues upon which it makes representations?' Senator Watt replied, 'Yes, it will.' We were confronted yesterday with Minister Burney in the House telling us something quite different when she said: I can tell you what the Voice will not be giving advice on. It won't be giving advice on parking tickets. It won't be giving advice on changing Australia Day. So we've got extraordinary confusion with this extraordinarily critical piece of legislation and the referendum. It's something that is going to change our Constitution, and yet once again we have absolutely no clarity from the government in relation to what its powers will be, what it will do, where the line will be and what it will stop. I think, if nothing else, this speaks volumes for where we're up to. Back when the original Constitution was being debated, the drafters of the Constitution held constitutional conventions which went for hours upon days upon weeks. The document was thrashed out. What we're being told to do here is: 'Trust us on this document. Trust us that it's all going to be alright. It's all about the vibe.' If Labor are so confident about the things the Voice will not do, then why is it that they can't answer basic questions about what it will do? Minister Burney's response yesterday did nothing more than highlight the confusion that the Australian people rightly have in relation to what is being put to us. I suspect the Australian people are aware of that and I suspect the Australian people are too clever for this. Senator O'Neill said earlier that she was alarmed by a culture of fear that had enveloped this side of the chamber. I'll tell you what—I am very fearful about what this document is going to do. I am very fearful about what this referendum means for the future of Australia. If you go back probably 18 months, I was very quick out of the blocks in relation to this. I said very early, from the beginning, and I said publicly, that I had no time or support for anything which would divide Australians based on race—or divide Australians in any event but certainly based on race. So I am absolutely fearful about where this will go. The events of the last couple of days have drawn our attention to this character, Thomas Mayo. It's interesting how many members of the government now say what Senator O'Neill said—'I haven't met him.' I think we're going to see increasingly large numbers of them coming out. Seriously, I don't think anyone has met him at the moment! There seem to be photos of him everywhere, but no-one has ever met him. He's like the phantom. He's like the Scarlet Pimpernel! Well, I'll tell you what—if you want real insight into what the Voice is about, have a listen to Thomas. Have a listen to Mr Mayo because he's telling us all about it. He has been captured doing it and he has been caught out. The Australian people are going to understand more and more and more about this guy. If you want to understand the Voice, have a look at this guy. He's a self-described militant who sits on Prime Minister Albanese's own referendum working group, which was responsible for drafting and signing the activist document known as the Uluru Statement. This is the man who said that the Voice was 'a campaign tool to "punish politicians", "abolish colonialist institutions" and'—for those playing at home—'"pay the rent"'. I don't want to pay the rent. It is hardly a modest unifying proposition in anyone's language. This is unequivocally a very big deal. The Australian people are not to be deterred on this. They're not to have the wool pulled over their eyes. They will work this out. They will understand that. The confusion we've seen around what was said here in the early hours of the morning on Saturday by contrast to what was said yesterday in the House will do nothing to dissuade the Australian people from thinking that this is a very, very bad idea and this is not a very modest proposition. I, for one, have the greatest hope—there is a lot of talk about a culture of fear, but I've got hope as well—that Australians will work this out, they will understand that this is a precursor to further division in this country and that we are all Australians. We are all united under the one flag. That includes Australia Day by the way. That includes all of our Aboriginal Indigenous friends. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Israel: Human Rights 60 15:28 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: 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 the Israeli government's history of human rights abuse. On Monday, Israeli soldiers stormed the Jenin refugee camp, killing five Palestinians, including a 15-year-old boy, and wounding at least 91 Palestinians, 22 of whom are in a critical condition. One of these is a 15-year-old girl, shot inside her own house. This raid started with Israeli helicopter air strikes, the first to be conducted in the West Bank in over 20 years, followed by live ammunition, stun grenades and toxic gas. What was the response from the Israeli government? Minister Smotrich, Israel's finance minister, publicly called for a large-scale operation across the West Bank, saying that 'the time has come to replace the tweezer operations with a wideranging campaign to eradicate the nests of terror'. Surging violence in the occupied West Bank has killed 123 Palestinians in this year alone, along with 23 Israelis. In response to this raid, four Israeli civilians were murdered in a counterattack by Hamas; a further four were wounded. The Greens condemn all acts of violence. The murder of another human being is an inexcusable crime. This data reveals the reality of the asymmetry at the heart of this so-called conflict. The violence is overwhelmingly impacting Palestinians, and this is a reality with which the Australian government must engage. The racism and oppression that Palestinians are subjected to every day, the system of race based separation, dispossession and discrimination, and the system of Israeli apartheid must be recognised for the crime against humanity that it is. It's a crime against humanity which requires an immediate international community led response. It is time for the foreign minister to call this system by its name, to call apartheid by its name and to act accordingly. Instead, what we see from this Labor government is an inability even to fulfil the terms and requirements of its own national platform to recognise the statehood of Palestinians. This failure is becoming so obvious and indefensible that the parties within the government party are setting deadlines for the government to fulfil this commitment. Instead of taking action, the government is aiding and abetting the IDF in its commission of violence against Palestinians, approving no fewer than 23 permits for the sale of military arms to Israel since March this year. Not only is this government failing to do the bare minimum and recognise the statehood of Palestinians; it is actively selling weapons to the very forces that are oppressing and killing them. It is time that the Australian government recognise the reality that the Netanyahu government is the most far-right and extreme coalition of parties that has ever been seen within the state of Israel and join with the Greens and progressives across the community, Palestinian and Jewish, in calling for targeted sanctions and boycotts to be applied against these bigoted, racist ministers. No government representative of Australia should meet with them. They should be called out. Question agreed to. NOTICES 61 NOTICES Presentation 61 BUSINESS 64 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 64 15:34 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator McDonald for 21 and 22 June for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 64 NOTICES Postponement 64 COMMITTEES 64 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 64 BILLS 64 BILLS International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023 64

International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 64 15:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Wong, I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963, and for related purposes. International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023. Question agreed to. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 64 15:36 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I present the explanatory memorandum and move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I am pleased to introduce the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023. The Bill will more closely align Australia's domestic legislation with our international obligations, increase flexibility in the granting of privileges and immunities, and assist in deepening Australia's defence, science and other strategic relationships. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the functionality of the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act and the administration of privileges and immunities in Australia. Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, international organisations have become an integral part of the multilateral system. International organisations carry out critical work in humanitarian, scientific and other fields and promote international cooperation and collaboration. It has long been recognised that international organisations are entitled under international law to those privileges and immunities necessary to ensure their independent and effective functioning. Like diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities, these privileges and immunities serve to protect the organisation, its mission and its officials from unreasonable and inappropriate interference across the globe. Australia passed the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act in 1963. The Act sets out which international organisations, overseas organisations and international conferences are able to be granted privileges and immunities, as well as specifying which privileges and immunities can be granted. The amendments contained in the Bill enhance Australia's ability to confer privileges and immunities in accordance with its international obligations and in the national interest. First, they enable Australia to declare an organisation to be an international organisation under the Act, even if Australia is not a member of that organisation. This will increase the opportunities available to Australia to cooperate with such organisations, for example by encouraging visits and promoting the exchange of information, knowledge and ideas. It will also assist Australia to give effect to the privileges and immunities agreed to under treaties, such as those contained in the Framework Agreement between Australia and the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, as a European Intergovernmental Organisation. Second, these amendments enable Australia to accord the existing range of privileges and immunities under the Act to categories of officials not prescribed in the Act, where requested by an international organisation and agreed to by Australia. It also provides more flexibility in which privileges and immunities may be accorded to international organisations and their officials. Finally, the Bill includes technical edits to the Schedules to the Act to more closely align the Schedules with the relevant treaty obligations. This is a minor amendment and does not represent a shift in Government policy or the operation of the Act. Conclusion This Bill reflects the commitment of this Government to multilateralism, upholding Australia's international law obligations and promoting international cooperation by improving the functionality of the Act and implementation of privileges and immunities in Australia. It is the Australian Government's objective to actively and constructively participate in the multilateral system, supporting its institutions and recognising the benefits they bring to Australia, the region and the world. I commend this bill to the Chamber. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. DOCUMENTS 65 DOCUMENTS Sovereignty of First Peoples 65 Order for the Production of Documents 65 15:36 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 260 standing in my name by omitting paragraph (d). Leave granted. Senator THORPE 280304 I move the motion as amended: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on 24 July 2023: (a) all correspondence between the offices of any of the following: the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Attorney-General, Referendum Working Group, Expert Working Group, National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) and Attorney-General's Department; regarding the impact of the proposed constitutional change on the Sovereignty of First Peoples; (b) all correspondence between the offices of any of the following: the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Attorney-General, First Nations Referendum Working Group, Expert Working Group, NIAA and Attorney-General's Department; regarding the Sovereignty of First Peoples, including how Sovereignty of First Peoples is defined and understood; (c) all briefing materials prepared for the Expert Working Group and Referendum Working Group by the NIAA and/or the Attorney-General's Department in relation to the sovereignty of First Peoples, including how it is defined and how it might be impacted by the proposed change to the Constitution; and Question agreed to. MATTERS OF URGENCY 65 MATTERS OF URGENCY Native Timber Harvesting 65 15:38 The PRESIDENT 112096 I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 21 June, from Senator Duniam: 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: The Victorian Labor Government's decision to end native timber harvesting in January 2024 is a devastating betrayal of timber workers and communities, will cause multiple economic and social problems for Australia, and needs to be met with an immediate and comprehensive policy response from the Federal Labor Government. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 15:38 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: This is a very important motion. There's lots happening in the chamber today but this is an important item for discussion. I was pleased to attend the Australian Forest Products Association dinner last night, along with Minister Watt, Senator Ciccone and a number of other members of this parliament, to talk about what is an extremely important industry, one that sustains thousands of jobs across the country and does so in a sustainable way. What we're talking about here is a resource that is, as the industry itself says, the ultimate renewable. Trees grow; you cut them down; you use them for the resources that we see displayed proudly in this chamber here; you replant them, as we are required to by law in this country; and they grow again. That's the wonderful thing about this forestry industry. What's more, we do it to world's best standard. Our forests, be they plantation or native, hardwood or softwood, are managed to world's best standard. And, of course, the forests we harvest and manage here are certified, unlike 80 per cent of the forests from across the rest of the globe, which are not certified. I'll come back to those forests from other parts of the world, where, frankly, standards of forest management are much lower—if indeed they exist at all—than they are here in Australia. It brings me to what's happening in the state of Victoria, which is a deeply disappointing decision. We all knew back in 2019 that the Victorian Labor government had made their plans, and set them out clearly, to phase out native forest logging by the year 2030. That was a long period of time for that government to work with industry to phase it out. I disagreed with their decision, but at least there was time for them to work with industry to phase out logging of native forests in that state. Now, the reason I disagreed with that is that it was not based on science. It was not based on fact. It was an emotive decision. Mayors of local councils in Victoria, representatives of the industry, workers from the contracting sector and anyone who is interested have been seeking the science that the decision was based upon, yet it has not been forthcoming. There is no document that the government have been able to table to point to and underpin the decision they made to shut down the native forest industry and displace the hundreds and thousands of workers whose incomes are dependent on this, as I said before, sustainable industry, and that is a crying shame. What's worse is that in their budget the Victorian Labor government made a decision to press fast-forward on this phasing-out of native forest logging. We had seven more years to phase out this industry. A decision bad enough in itself, not based on science—but they brought it forward to seven months. They fast-forwarded it by seven years. So, by the end of this year, that industry, which is sustainable, based on science, world's best practice and good for the environment, will be gone. But you know what won't be gone, President? It's demand for the product that that industry generates: hardwood products of an appearance grade and strength grade to be used in applications that plantation timber can't be. Australians are still going to want that product. A huge proportion of what we use here we already import. When that demand is still there and we're not producing it in Australia, we're bringing it in from countries that, quite frankly, don't give a damn about the environment. It's those forests, those native forests across the rest of the world—including in the Congo basin where, sadly, trees are ripped out of the ground; deforestation does occur—that we are going to get our timber from. Today we're already importing timber into Victoria from Tasmania. The pie is not getting any bigger with our sustainable world-leading forests; it's getting smaller. We're dealing ourselves out of the game to make ourselves feel better. We don't have to look at clear-felled coops. We don't have to see that end of the industry. We just get the nice products. We don't care where they come from overseas. And, in the process, we're sending jobs offshore. So there are bad environmental outcomes, because we're seeing deforestation occur—I'd also argue that there are some modern slavery implications to some of these decisions when it comes to the jurisdictions we're taking timber from—but we're are also having an economic hit, with thousands of jobs in regional communities lost, never to return, all based on emotion, to win over inner-city votes in downtown Melbourne. The federal Labor government needs to stand up and stop it. 15:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I rise to oppose this motion put by Senator Duniam. You'd think Senator Duniam would have some things to worry about in his actual job, rather than worrying about what's going on in the state of Victoria. You'd think he'd have some national issues that he wanted to address. But, as is typical with Senator Duniam, he has become very obsessed with state issues and he just can't quite see the bigger picture. He's really focused on these state things that he seems to specialise in. But I speak on this motion as a really strong supporter of the forestry industry. To be honest, if I worked in the timber industry I would actually be the third generation of my family to work in the timber industry in Tasmania, where both my grandfathers worked in the timber industry and my father did as well. So I do have a good sense of how important this industry is for regional communities, not only in Victoria but across the country as well. As I said, the Albanese government is a strong supporter of the forestry industry, from the Prime Minister down, and we're delivering a comprehensive plan for the future of the industry. Through the regional forest agreements process we work with the states and territories to support Australia's forest industries to operate under high standards for environmental management and sustainable harvesting. Our support for a sustainable forestry is well documented, making record investments in a forestry industry that's environmentally, socially and commercially sustainable. We need timber products and we want the sustainable forest jobs that go with them. That's why we're investing over $300 million to grow plantations, to modernise our timber-manufacturing infrastructure and to build the skills of our forestry workforce. Our forest products industries are vital to our regional communities. They directly employ about 51,000 people, and tens of thousands more jobs are supported indirectly by this sector, which contributes nearly $24 billion to the national economy each year. The benefits of a competitive, sustainable and renewable forestry industry in our regional communities should not be underestimated. It delivers positive economic and social outcomes. In addition to employment and income throughout the supply chain, it also underpins the social networks and fabric of many of our regional towns and communities. It's astounding to me that the LNP and, in particular, Senator Duniam, should be putting this motion forward, given the timid and insipid approach to the forestry sector during their three terms of government. They failed to chart a path towards a sustainable future for the industry, they failed to intervene when the Victorian government previously scaled back native forestry and they failed to put in appropriate measures to ramp up production in its place. Even worse, they presided over a 10 per cent decline in plantation estate since 2014. In stark contrast, the Albanese government didn't waste a second in implementing strong policies for a sustainable future in forestry. At the last election we took a suite of policies to the people of Australia to increase production and support new jobs in the sector. Unlike the previous government, which was all announcement and no delivery, we're already seeing these policies put into action. That's whether it's the $100 million for an Australia-wide institute to deliver forestry research and development, or the $8.6 million to extend the life of the 11 Regional Forestry Hubs until 2027 or the $10 million for forestry workforce training needs. Today, our government is also announcing $73 million for a grants program to establish new forestry plantations across Australia. Together, these measures will strengthen the forestry industry's capacity to make greater use of the available timber resources and will drive innovation and growth. The Victorian government's decision to end native forest logging is a decision for them. It's one that we understand they've taken with a specific operating context in mind, and we will work closely with communities and state governments to maximise the economic opportunities and job opportunities that flow from protecting forests. Certainly, I know that I can speak from my family's experience in that I understand how important forestry jobs are for families. I know the support that my grandfather was able to provide to my mum, who was one of nine, growing up in regional Tasmania, and how important forestry was for them to survive as a family. We want those jobs to be able to continue and we understand that regional communities have been built on the back of strong jobs within forestry. The Albanese Labor government is absolutely committed to doing our part to ensure that there's a sustainable forestry industry well into the future. 15:49 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The time for native forest logging is over. Native forest logging has to come to an end. Just like whaling finally came to an end in the middle of last century, the time for native forest logging to come to an end is now—way before now! The Victorian government and the WA government are just catching up. Native forest logging is destructive, it is uneconomic and it has increasingly been shown to be illegal. It is destructive! The number of animal and plant species that have been hurtled towards extinction include the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum and the swift parrot. We have greater gliders shifting from being common to endangered because of the combination of logging and fires and logging that causes fires. It is destructive. It is uneconomic. Native forest logging has cost the taxpayers over $100 million over the last 10 years. Just think of that: $100 million to prop up a dying industry. In Victoria alone, the Victorian government-owned logging agency has lost close to $100 million over the last 10 years. In 2021, it was reported that the New South Wales government-owned forestry corporation suffered a $20 million loss. Tasmania delivered a whopping $1.3 billion loss. The future for the timber industry is in plantations, in farm forestry, in urban forestry and in getting greater use out of the wood that is currently being shipped offshore as whole logs and being chipped. There is so much potential here. There are jobs just waiting if we recognise that native forest logging needs to come to an end. If governments across the country did that, there'd be a whole bright new future in the industry. (Time expired) 15:51 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania It's a great pleasure to rise to this urgency motion moved by Senator Duniam, and I can only concur with the comments listed in his motion. I think it demonstrates how committed the government is to forestry. I don't doubt the good senator's desire to see forestry in Tasmania continue, given his family history, and I will acknowledge that, but the fact that not one Labor senator from Victoria is prepared to come and stand here in this chamber and defend the actions of the Labor government in Victoria speaks volumes for this motion. Not one single Labor member is prepared to step foot into the chamber to defend what the Victorian Labor government is doing. I think that demonstrates, as I said, exactly what is going on. If you actually look, as Senator Duniam said in his contribution, at the science of forestry and the realities of forestry, you will clearly understand that this sector plays an important role in our broader communities. No lesser organisation than the FAO, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, made this statement in their report The state of the world's forests 2012: … it must be clear that including forests at the core of a strategy for a sustainable future is not an option—it is mandatory. They go on to say: … the best way of saving a forest is to manage it sustainably and to benefit from its products and ecosystem services. If the principles of sustainable forest management are applied and forest products and ecosystem services play an increasing role, the global economy will become greener. The global economy will become greener. It's interesting that we just heard that the future is in plantations. We hear this quite a lot from the Greens. Mind you, you've got to grow those plantations somewhere and, every time someone looks to grow a plantation on a new piece of ground, the Greens are there to oppose it or to campaign against it. But the reality is that you won't get the high-quality timbers that go into making magnificent furniture such as we enjoy in this chamber here from plantation forestry. As a carpenter, I know that the best-quality timbers are slow grown. They're given time, on a sustainable forest rotation. That is where you'll get these timbers—and not only that. I acknowledge that the plantation sector is important, but a native forest based system of growing timber is actually better for carbon storage, it's better for biodiversity, it's better for water quality and it uses no chemicals. So, under almost every environmental value that you could consider, native forestry— Senator McKim JKM Except for destroying ecosystems. S 00AOL Well, actually it's better for biodiversity. The forest science deniers that sit at the bottom of the garden—or, should I say, at the bottom of the chamber—aren't prepared to listen to the FAO of the UN or the IPCC when they recommend sustainable forestry. They talk to us about the IPCC when it comes to climate change, but they don't recognise that native forestry is better for carbon storage than plantation forestry, which they claim to promote. The forest science deniers in the chamber really don't want to listen to reality. They are the ones pushing the Victorians to this circumstance. We know the fires in Victoria have had an impact on the available timbers. It means an adjustment to the sector to make sure that the forest harvest can continue to be sustainable. I have to say that I am sick of the lies. I am sick of the lies that are made up by anti-forestry groups and that they continue to peddle in relation to this sector. It does, as Senator Chisholm said, make a valuable contribution to our community. It does make a valuable contribution to important sectors of our economy. It does provide us with the magnificent timbers that we see as we sit here in the chamber. It is a pity that from that nobody from the Labor Party from Victoria has come into the chamber to defend this motion. 15:56 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I have seen these photos of forests totally cleared, with logs everywhere and looking more like the surface of the moon than the centre of a native forest. If you were making policy based on what gets clicks on Facebook, you would support banning native timber harvesting too. It is a good thing we don't; you can't measure good policy based on how many likes it gets. That's why this idea of banning native timber forestry makes no sense to me. You can't just jump into a blanket ban like this. If you want to improve forestry standards, that is a conversation worth having—but you have to have that conversation with the industry, not just with your social media feed. Banning native timber harvesting is basically the same as saying that this industry cannot be regulated. You are saying there is no way to balance the environmental impacts with the economic benefits, and that's not just true. Of course native forestry needs to be regulated properly; nobody would tell you otherwise. You can't have cowboys cutting down whatever they want, wherever they want. But there's a better way to do this which keeps those jobs in regional Tasmania and keeps that money in peoples' pockets. There's a role for native forestry and it has to be recognised. It is a sustainable, renewable industry when it's regulated well. The cowboys of years gone by are out. They're gone. The native forestry sector these days is nothing like what it used to be, but its reputation is still based on what it used to be 30 years ago. That is when we saw real damage, real deforestation. Today's industry is about making sure the footprint of forestry is sustainable and renewable. That means we are getting the jobs, we are getting the salaries and we are getting the products the forestry sector is making. That might not mean much in Canberra or Melbourne, but it is a big deal in regional Tasmania. We don't get much of a look in up here, and that is how you end up with dumb bans like this one. 15:58 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Native forest logging is a violent assault on nature from a mendicant industry that cannot stand on its own two feet. It indiscriminately slaughters countless native animals, it poisons our rivers and waterways, it destroys ecosystems, it pollutes the air, it despoils landscapes and it cooks the planet. The sooner it ends the better. Just end it now and help people through the transition. If folks in here who like to cosplay as if they support regional communities were serious about regional jobs they would invest in things like rewilding and looking after the place—turn people who currently trash our forests into people who look after our forests, embed carbon into our forests and into our soils and look after the place rather than trash it. That is how you should help regional people move into the future. Stop being such hypocrites. (Time expired) 15:59 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak in favour of Senator Duniam's motion. The timber industry is an essential industry to maintain Australia's way of life. How can Labor Premier Andrews eliminate native timber production while at the same time Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is promising to build 30,000 new homes which require timber? As a famous robot once said, 'That does not compute.' Native timber forestry does not harm the environment. Sensible native timber logging has been going on in Australia for 150 years, and the forests are still here, the fauna and flora are still here. Until these Labor and Greens ideologues declared war on sustainable timber harvesting, the jobs in the timber industry were still here, the communities that rely on these jobs were still here. Not any more—Dan Andrews has done them in: no jobs in forestry in Mr Dan Andrews's socialist state of Victoria. The truth is native timber logging disturbs a few per cent of the total forest area every year. Logging reduces the forest fuel loads to protect us from bushfires. We also saw how badly some areas of forest burned in the deliberately lit bushfires a few years ago, Some areas have still not recovered thanks to Greens and teal policies—clearly, not areas that were logged and the fuel loads removed. One Nation stands as a strong supporter of the logging industry and a strong supporter of humanity. Timber is essential. 16:01 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I rise in support of Senator Duniam's urgency motion—of course I do. I am appalled by the accelerated destruction of the native timber industry in my home state of Victoria. The industry has been a vital part of Victoria's regional economy for 170 years—more than 170 years—but instead of being given until 2030 to transition they have been blindsided with destruction within six months. The Andrews Labor government has taken an axe to many hardworking Gippsland communities such as Orbost and Hayfield. Our native timber industry is the lifeblood of many of our regional towns, and its closure on 1 January is expected to cut 4½ thousand jobs—incredible. Children are in tears because their parents might not have a job next year. They don't know how they will put food on the table. They don't know where they are going to go, how they're going to feed their kids. It is wrong. They will default on mortgages, schools will close, local football clubs—gone. This plan is a plan to destroy country towns, and it is heartless and, more importantly, unscientific. Premier Dan Andrews recently said that he wasn't here to be popular. That is what he said. My God, is he correct—I can't stand the man. He may be popular with Greens leader Mr Adam Bandt and the Chinese Communist Party—he is popular with them—but I guarantee he will never stand face-to-face with those regional Victorians whose lives he is destroying. The industry regulator works hard to ensure the long-term health and productivity of our beautiful native forests. Far from damaging ecosystems, sustainable logging prevents devastating superfires because the industry has a vested interest in protecting the sustainability of native forests. That is why it logs selectively and regenerates native species, creating healthy, resilient forests which provide a unique home for flora and fauna. Before the arrival of settlers, Indigenous Australians used to reduce the risk of fire and of intense fires by back-burning. That is what they did. The native timber industry achieves the same result by maintaining firebreaks and access roads, reducing fuel loads and conducting prescribed burning. Disgracefully, the Andrews government is not interested in these benefits, but is interested only in courting inner-city Greens votes. That is all he is interested in, and it is not right. Labor needs to stand up for the forests. (Time expired) 16:04 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on this urgency motion, and I can feel for those forestry workers and those communities in Victoria who have had their lives thrown into turmoil by this decision because it has just happened in WA. Just a few months before the decision to end native timber harvesting in Western Australia, the minister released a report and gave a speech— Senator McKim JKM These are the same arguments people made to defend slavery. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 talking about, Senator McKim, the sustainability of the well-managed Western Australian native timber harvesting industry. This was the Labor minister who gave a speech talking about how well managed and sustainable the native timber harvesting was and how it would be there for the long term. Just a few months later, they chopped it off at the neck and ended it overnight. I come from one of those communities. I was born in Manjimup and raised on a family farm in Pemberton. My dad's best mate was a timber industry worker who worked for the government—the then Department of Forestry. We had lots of friends in that community. Something happened in that community almost overnight. When my dad ran for parliament in the 60s, he lost because it was a safe Labor seat on the back of a unionised timber workforce. When Labor betrayed those workers, as Labor always does in the bush, it flipped and became a safe Liberal seat pretty much overnight. That is the outcome that we see here. We see a betrayal of these communities to the point where long-held beliefs have to be thrown out the window. Those communities are undermined and betrayed by their political leaders when they do things like this. The very small harvest that was taken from Western Australian native forests sustained a small industry at the end—I'm happy to acknowledge that. It wasn't a massive industry anymore. It had been cut down over the years and made into a relatively small industry. But to those few towns that relied on that industry, it was a key economic driver. To those small towns in the south-west of Western Australia harvesting basically two timbers, karri and red gum, it was a key component of the fabric, the history and the economic wealth of those communities. They had that chopped out from under them with no warning and no transition time and, in fact, when just a few months before the Labor minister was saying that the industry was sustainable and had a long future. How can you do that to a community? How in all conscience can you do that to a local community? It's just a disgrace. Unfortunately, Labor governments have form in the bush, whether it be in native timber harvesting in my home state of WA or now in Victoria. We see exactly the same process occurring in my home state of WA in the sheep industry—a decision taken with no evidence, no scientific review and no examination of what the industry had actually done to improve standards over the years. As Senator Tyrrell so rightly said, we should look at things like standards, we should see how industries are being managed and we should look at the way that industries are operating now, not as they used to operate 30 years ago when the Greens were formulating their positions on this. We should look at how the industries are operating now and make decisions based on the best science. Are these industries sustainable? Are their practices at world's best standards? Are we delivering sustainable jobs into the future? The answer on all those marks, for both native timber harvesting and—in my home state also—the live export industry for sheep, is, 'Yes, they are sustainable.' The trouble is that federal Labor and state Labor just don't care about the bush. I would even go harder than that: they hate the bush. They don't care and they— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF URGENCY 71 MATTERS OF URGENCY Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct 71 16:16 The PRESIDENT 112096 I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter from Senator David Pocock: Pursuant to Standing Order 75, I propose that the following matter of urgency be submitted to the Senate for discussion: "The climate and health risks from the Middle Arm development which will receive $1.5bn in Commonwealth funding. Noting the project's proponents have confirmed it will be used as a major processing and manufacturing centre for gas fracked out of the Beetaloo Basin rather than the 'Sustainable Development Precinct' the Commonwealth and NT governments have falsely claimed. Also noting that the expansion of the fossil fuel industry is contrary to advice and warnings from the International Energy Agency, IPCC and UN." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required b y the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the information arrangements made by the whips. 16:17 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: "The climate and health risks from the Middle Arm development which will receive $1.5bn in Commonwealth funding. Noting the project's proponents have confirmed it will be used as a major processing and manufacturing centre for gas fracked out of the Beetaloo Basin rather than the 'Sustainable Development Precinct' the Commonwealth and NT governments have falsely claimed. Also noting that the expansion of the fossil fuel industry is contrary to advice and warnings from the International Energy Agency, IPCC and UN." In 2022 Australians voted for climate action. They voted against the shameless promotion of fossil fuels in a climate crisis. It is here. We are seeing the effects of climate change. The 2019-20 bushfires will be seared into Australians' memories. We look at what's happening in Canada; this is the new normal. We are entering a climate that is unprecedented and not well suited to support humanity. Yet we have a new government that continues to back the fossil fuel subsidies of the Morrison government. The most problematic of these decisions is the $1.5 billion for what they are now trying to call the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct. Let's be very clear: Middle Arm is far from sustainable. The driving force behind the whole development is gas extracted from new fields in the Beetaloo—and maybe Barossa, and maybe other offshore projects—and yet the details of why and how this decision was made remain shrouded in secrecy, and some of what has happened is truly bizarre. I asked the department of infrastructure and Infrastructure Australia if they were aware that the whole site at Middle Arm will likely be underwater by 2100. They had not even considered this risk. So why is this going ahead? How much of this precinct will be driven by gas projects? And what studies have been done to consider the potentially horrific health impacts that will flow from a petrochemical plant so close to Darwin? We just don't know. We don't know how much of this has been looked at. I've been asking questions about the project in estimates. The Environment and Communications References Committee, chaired by Senator Hanson-Young, has considered the issue as part of an inquiry into oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo basin. In fact, they saw fit to recommend that there be a separate inquiry into the project, and I look forward to the government supporting that inquiry and participating in it. One thing is clear: that federal funding for Middle Arm so that it can become a gas processing and export hub will be bad for the climate and bad for the health of Darwin residents. The Beetaloo basin, according to the Northern Territory government, has 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's the equivalent of 3,177 years of household use in Australia. The scale of these projects that Labor is promoting and using our money to fund is just extraordinary when we know that the International Energy Agency is clear, the IPCC is clear and the UN is urging countries, particularly developed countries like Australia, to stop expanding our fossil fuel industry. You're going to hear from Labor that we need gas for the transition and this is about jobs and development. You'll hear from the coalition that this is about creating a new industry in the Northern Territory. What good is a new industry in the Northern Territory when Darwin and other parts of the NT will likely be unlivable within the next seven years if we continue down this path? Look at the heat. Look at the humidity. There are a number of peer reviewed papers saying that in large parts of the NT, if we continue down this path of expanding fossil fuels, humans will not be able to live there. The immediate health impacts on people in Darwin look dire. We have a huge amount of research from the US looking at Cancer Alley, the notorious section of the Mississippi River where petrochemicals have led to the deterioration of so many communities in the area. There are 2,000 papers published on this topic. We know that the processing of gas in the heart of Darwin will cause increased cardiovascular disease, asthma presentations, leukaemias, pregnancy complications, congenital birth defects and stillbirths and generally higher rates of premature deaths. How can we do this as a Senate? How can the government go ahead with a project like this when we know the impacts? We know the impacts on people in Darwin and we know the impacts on the health and wellbeing of all of us and on the future of us and of future generations. 16:22 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank Senator Pocock for moving this urgency motion, and I rise to speak on it. The Albanese government will provide $1.5 billion in planned equity to support the development of the Middle Arm precinct, together with $440 million for regional logistics hubs along key transport links to connect Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek to Darwin. I would point out that this is an election commitment that the government made prior to the election last year, so we very much see this as delivering on an election commitment that we made to the Australian people. I would add that a couple of weeks ago I was in Tennant Creek on some government business and I had the opportunity to talk with locals there about the opportunity that the Middle Arm precinct will provide but also with those regional logistics hubs at the same time. There is really strong interest in the local community, amongst traditional owners, in the Sun Cable project and the tremendous opportunity that renewable projects will provide in the Northern Territory. So I think that there is strong support for this project within the Northern Territory and they do see it as an important part of creating the jobs of the future and long-term sustainable industries that can create reliable jobs that people know they can rely on to build a long-term future for themselves and their families in that area. To be clear, the government's investment in Middle Arm is an investment in common-user marine infrastructure that supports industries critical to achieving the government's commitment to net zero, including specialist product wharves, modular offloading facilities for manufacturing and dredging of the shipping channel. It will also help position the Northern Territory and northern Australia to take advantage of international demand for Australian clean energy. We are confident that there is enormous opportunity across the Northern Territory when it comes to creating both jobs and economic opportunity. This is infrastructure that will support industries critical to meeting our commitments to net zero while generating jobs and economic opportunities across the Territory. The proposals include developing a hydrogen facility using solar energy to produce green hydrogen for domestic use and potentially for export; developing a green hydrogen hub, which comprises green hydrogen and green ammonia production—again there are plenty of opportunities for jobs and economic development—and a processing facility for critical minerals, which are to be used in energy storage batteries and precursor battery materials, and the manufacturing of these products. Again this is a key priority of the federal government. The truth is that gas remains an important energy source for Australia and our trading partners during the transition to net zero and decarbonisation. A lower-CO2-emissions liquefied natural gas export facility is also one of the proposals. The projects linked to Middle Arm will provide significant economic benefits and create an estimated 20,000 jobs in the Territory. It is, however, deeply disingenuous to ignore the facts, as some people have continued to do, and claim that this is an investment in fracking. It isn't. It is also disappointing that those people fail to engage in the detail of the proposition that the Australian government has put to the Northern Territory government. I understand that there are a range of views and perspectives on this project. While the government remain committed to the projects, we are also committed to working with the Northern Territory government and the community to ensure the necessary assessments take place before the project proceeds. The Australian government is committed to working with traditional owners and First Nations communities as the proposal is developed further. The Australian government's decision to make an equity investment in this project will allow us to work in partnership with the Northern Territory government to ensure our vision is met. This is particularly important as new markets to process and export green hydrogen and energy transition components are established. Instead of giving handouts to private companies, we are investing in common-use infrastructure to give all potential users in the market the opportunity to grow and thrive. The government know how important it is to deliver on our commitments to the Australian people, by investing in enabling infrastructure that creates economic opportunity and jobs of the future in renewable energy and manufacturing. We think that the Northern Territory deserves those opportunities as well. We know that we can take action on climate change and work towards our net zero commitments while creating jobs and opportunities. Despite attempts by others to ignore the facts and the reality, this is the record of the Albanese government. It is one we are proud to deliver on, particularly for those people in the Northern Territory who rely on good-quality jobs. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Thank you. Senator Duniam. 16:27 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Acting Deputy President Polley, I do feel for you with your current lost voice, although it probably means that the interjections can't be reined in. Australian Greens senators interjecting— Senator Urquhart 231199 That is true. Look out, Senator Duniam! Senator DUNIAM 263418 That was not an invitation to the Australian Greens or my Labor colleague from Tasmania, who shamefully voted against the forestry industry on the last motion. I will turn to the urgency matter before the Senate proposed by Senator David Pocock relating to the Middle Arm industrial precinct. Anyone would think when you look at these matters before the Senate and listen to the claims that are made about the coalition and, to a degree when they're pretending to be pro-jobs and pro-economy, the Australian Labor Party that we actually want to go about trashing the environment, that there's some hidden agenda and that there's something we gain from doing that. The reality is that no-one wants to do that. Humans have an impact on the environment by their very nature of existence. We all drive cars that use fossil fuels—well, some of us do; I know that some of my colleagues do drive EVs. We fly on planes. We use timber for building houses. We eat fish and meat. All the things we do as humans have an impact on the environment. As technology improves we should minimise that impact. I don't believe that fossil fuels are in any way inconsistent with the notion of sustainable development. There is a problem we have here. There is an idea that we must just turn off the tap on gas or coal, which supports the majority of energy generation in this country. It powers our factories and keeps the lights on for the majority of mainland states in particular. If we turn off the tap on these resources and what they do in terms of energy generation and future exploration for such resources, what are we replacing it with? No-one has been able to point out to me the sustainable base load dispatchable and renewable alternative to what we are castigating here, and that is fossil fuel. It is an important part of the mix, and we cannot deny that. But I don't buy the claims about this. In supporting this project the Albanese Labor government is rightly backing in a project that we in government supported as well because it is about economic opportunities for all parts of Australia—in this case, the Northern Territory, a part of the country we want to ensure has a strong economic future—and so I commend the government on its support of this project. I do have doubts about their capacity to deliver it, but we will keep an eye on that over time, particularly with this ethereal project and property management branch in the Department of Finance—I am struggling to figure out what they do—who will be managing this project. We will come back to that another time. The fact is, it is an important project, an important part of a suite of measures to support the economy to access resources we need to have a functioning economy and keep the lights on. That is not a bad thing, but these concerns around sea level rise make me think of something that was said back in 2007 by my good friend and former senator Dr Bob Brown. He went down to Salamanca on Hobart's waterfront and painted a red line on the side of those beautiful sandstone buildings in Salamanca Place—quite the crime, in my view. He said that because of John Howard's light-touch carbon tax at the time—or however he described it—sea levels due to global warming were going to be four to six metres higher than they were then. That was 16 years ago, and last time I went to the Salamanca Market the waves were not lapping at the first-floor windows of Salamanca, and so I have to say that we must be cautious about alarmism. Yes, take note of warning signs but respond appropriately. Don't shut down the economy and deprive Australians of the opportunity to have a strong economic future. There are competing interests here, and we need to manage them in the best interests of our country, including the Northern Territory where we have large numbers of disadvantaged Australians, so giving them economic opportunities as well as managing the environment—they're not inconsistent with one another. We can do both, but we must accept that, in order to grow our economy, sometimes we have an impact on the environment. We should minimise that, but we can't pretend we won't have an impact on the environment or shouldn't have an impact on the environment and development won't come at a cost. To do both is important. To do both well is what a mature government does to make sure that Australians have all the opportunities that are available to them and that they have the best standard of living, so we can't support this matter of urgency. 16:32 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland This motion isn't just about another of the 116 coal and gas projects in the pipeline; this is about Labor handing out public money to build what would be Australia's biggest ever gas export terminal, using gas piped from Australia's biggest ever fracking field. At the last election the Australian people kicked out the coalition and their gas-fired recovery, which was their bizarre centrepiece for Australia's COVID response. But this new government has regurgitated former prime minister Morrison's gas-fired recovery with one of the single biggest contributions to expanding the toxic and dangerous gas industry—$1.9 billion of taxpayer money will be thrown at the development of the Middle Arm site in Darwin Harbour to enable the expansion of Australia's gas export and petrochemical industry. For months the Albanese government have tried to pretend that they have nothing to do with enabling fossil fuels with the public money, never mind the billions in fossil fuel subsidies that continue to be in their budget. But they say, 'Oh, it's for solar and batteries and hydrogen.' 'It's a sustainable development precinct,' they said. The word 'petrochemical' was wiped from government websites. They refused to mention the word 'gas', with the minister instead calling them 'low-emission hydrocarbons', which is greenwashing at an epic scale that Woodside and Santos would be proud of. But, two weeks ago, US fracking company Tamboran announced to the ASX that they had rights to a part of the Middle Arm site to build a gas export terminal that would export 20 million tonnes per annum—bigger than any currently in existence in Australia. So now the Labor government's cover is blown. It is a monumental fossil fuel subsidy. Now that we know that this money is enabling fossil fuel expansion, the Albanese government cannot proceed with a hand-out of $1.9 billion of public money to a gas company in the middle of a climate crisis. All of the coal, oil and gas facilities currently in operation have us on track to break through the safe 1½ degree limit. We have to phase these out, not keep them going. This puts their 2050 target completely out of reach. The government has to choose. (Time expired) 16:35 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland The rapid expansion of Middle Arm will set off a carbon bomb that will destroy Australia's chance of hitting net zero. I am desperately concerned that, in the process of setting off this carbon bomb in the Beetaloo, the people of the Northern Territory are going to be the ones left holding the bag. My own community of Gladstone in Central Queensland bears the scars of fossil-fuel boom-and-bust cycles. When fossil-fuel markets crash, which they always do, these corporations don't stick around to make sure that the community is supported. They suck up resources, they pay off their party-affiliated lobbyists and they vanish. Northern Australia needs genuine, sustainable, long-term investment in its future. With Labor wanting to top up the NAIF with an additional $2 billion, they must also rule out using it to funnel money towards projects like Middle Arm. The Northern Australia infrastructure fund is an Abbot-era relic, through which the Morrison government tried to fund the Adani coalmine and which could yet be used to provide funding for Tamboran's gas export hub in Darwin and fracking the Beetaloo Basin. The ball is in Labor's court to rule out public spending on gas and coal, including from the NAIF. 16:37 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I thank Senator Pocock for his motion. I question why we need a dedicated export facility for the Beetaloo Basin's natural gas. Australia has 10 natural gas export terminals—two in Darwin. Beetaloo output is expected to be huge, and much of it should be used here in Australia, not exported. Australia's parasitic mal-investments in wind and solar are destroying our energy generation capacity. Gas generation is essential to keeping the lights on, while commercial gas hot water and cooking are likewise essential. Everyday Australians will never accept the insane idea that Australia should stop using gas. This is despite the advertising spent on climate campaigns designed to do one thing—line the pockets of climate carpetbaggers, like those funding teal senator David Pocock's campaign. Gas connections are being banned in new builds and existing lines will be ripped out because, at some point, we will need to recycle that copper, since world production will never be able to supply the copper needed for UN net zero. My own building that I rent in Campbell, in Canberra, sent out a note to owners this week saying that the body corporate had been told they will need to remove the gas hot water system, rip out the pipes and remove all gas appliances by 2035. Homeowners will have to pay the bill—likely, over a million dollars all up. This is a brand-new building! What a waste. On one hand, the green ideologues will require owners to spend tens of thousands of dollars per unit to pull out near-new hot water heating, gas lines and equipment and replace them with less efficient solutions. Then the ideologues will complain, 'Rents have gone up!' Of course rents are going up. Green ideology is forcing rents up by forcing landlords' costs up. How are the climate lobby not connecting the dots here? How much more productive capacity are we going to rip out, to replace it with shiny new electric capacity that doesn't do the job as well as gas? Never mind the environmental waste of tossing millions of stoves into landfill where they can rot beside broken and toxic solar panels and wind-turbine blades! And these people were worried about plastic straws! Please! One gas provider proudly claims on their website that they're banning gas to 'save the planet'. No, you are depriving Australians of our own gas so you can sell it for a larger profit into an energy starved world market, a situation the government's price cap on gas made worse because it made exports more profitable than domestic sales in a disrupted supply market. Meanwhile, another energy retailer is advertising on their website—listen to this—that: We all like to do our bit for the planet, so you'll be happy to know you can reduce your household carbon emissions by switching from appliances running on grid electricity to natural gas. It goes on to say that 'gas is the perfect partner for solar' and by connecting your home to natural gas you 'can lower your carbon emissions by up to 77 per cent in Victoria compared to electric cooking and hot water appliances.' Which is it? Is gas a perfect partner to solar or is it environmental vandalism? Another energy provider's website has a spiel about renewable gas, which turns out to be hydrogen. Hydrogen is not even a viable fuel yet as it takes huge amounts of energy to make it out of water and yet they have rebranded it already. That must be some sort of record! What a mess climate carpetbaggers have created through their green and teal shills in the Senate. What I have not heard in the gas debate at all is a major reason gas is better than electricity, and that is transmission loss. Electricity suffers transmission loss getting from the point of generation miles out in the countryside to homes in the city. Gas does not suffer a transmission loss. Factor that into energy calculations and electrification becomes an even worse idea. We're banning Australians from accessing our own natural resources while allowing our gas to be flogged off to international bidders at a premium just as our coal is shipped to China where it powers the solar panel and wind turbine export industry that the Greens and teal Senator David Pocock worship with no hint of irony. Meanwhile, a rapidly increasing global energy market values and prefers hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and gas. The West is deindustrialising while the rest of the world, including China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, are industrialising using our gas and coal. The war on gas is a heist of our nation's natural resources. We're sacrificing economic prosperity and the opportunity for advancement for all the Australians in the name of a corrupt United Nations sustainability agenda that sustains nobody except the billionaires behind it all. It is wealth transfer from we the people to global billionaire elites and global predators like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. One Nation rejects the electrification of Australia's gas supply and questions the Middle Arm project. Natural gas must stay as a choice for all— (Time expired) 16:42 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak in strong support of this MPU submitted by Senator David Pocock. My crossbench colleague is 100 per cent right. There are unacceptable climate and health risks posed by this project that is receiving taxpayer money, and I thank him for bringing this topic to the Senate today. Let's be clear: Middle Arm is a dirty petrochemical plant and gas terminal and it's going to impact on the cultural heritage in this area because petrochemicals have been found in the Darwin Harbour. It will also impact on the health of those living close by and the climate. It absolutely cannot go ahead if this government is serious about its emissions reduction target and maintaining Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement. We are in a climate crisis. The Greens have reminded the government of this many times, and we will continue to stand to do so. It is estimated that this precinct will generate 15 million tonnes of carbon emissions per year, increasing the emissions in the Northern Territory by 75 per cent. Let that sink in for a moment. This project alone would increase the emissions just in the Northern Territory by 75 per cent. So much for the 43 per cent emissions reduction target that we legislated. Further, Middle Arm could increase industrial pollution by over 500 per cent, raising serious health concerns particularly for the community of Palmerston, which is only three kilometres away. The Greens have some serious concerns about this project and the potential implications on First Nations cultural heritage, the environment and also the climate. Middle Arm, the Beetaloo basin and the Barossa projects are all linked. Gas from the Beetaloo basin and Barossa will be funnelled straight through to Middle Arm. These are three climate bombs that we absolutely cannot afford to set off. These projects alone will blow the government's emissions reduction target and wreck the surrounding environment of the projects. Both the Beetaloo and Barossa projects are already facing opposition from traditional owners of Larrakia and the Tiwi Islands. So if this government wants to push ahead with Middle Arm, Barossa and the Beetaloo, they will be doing so against the wishes of traditional owners, against scientific advice and against the advice of countless organisations, both nationally and internationally, who know it's time to move away from fossil fuels. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question before the chair is that the motion moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:49]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Antic, A. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Hanson, P. L. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 76 DOCUMENTS Commonwealth Ombudsman 76 16:52 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania In respect of the detention arrangements reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. These reports are an assessment of detention arrangements that is required by the Migration Act, and these reports assess the appropriateness of the immigration detention arrangements for each person detained for two years or more. The first point I want to make is this: it absolutely beggars belief that, when I put to the Department of Home Affairs during Senate estimates recently that there are some people who are indefinitely detained within Australia's immigration detention system, the department rejected that proposition. They rejected the truth. The truth is that there are many people who have been indefinitely detained—in some cases for longer than a decade—in Australia's immigration detention system. It is positively Orwellian for the Department of Home Affairs to try and mount an argument that, because they occasionally take a look at the circumstances of these people and then decide to leave them in immigration detention, they are not indefinitely detained. Of course they are indefinitely detained, and the current government is now complicit in this arrangement that was weaponised by the previous government to punish migrants and people who seek asylum in our country. These reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman also cover alternative places of detention, APODs. Yesterday the Australian Human Rights Commission released an inspection report entitled The use of hotels as alternative places of detention. As part of its inquiry, the commission had Professor Suresh Sundram, an independent medical expert, join the inspection and provide advice on issues relating to the physical and mental health of people detained in hotel APODs. The commission made 24 recommendations to the Department of Home Affairs. The department agreed with just two of 24, disagreed with five and noted the remaining 17, again continuing the shameful carceral legacy in this country, where we believe that, if you've got a problem with someone, you should just lock them up and throw away the key. The recommendations the department disagreed with included recommendations regarding the use of force, the provision of activities, the provision of education and eligibility for social supports post-release, including the Status Resolution Support Services. I make the point that the Status Resolution Support Services, the SRSS, were slashed by the previous government and have still not been reinstated by the new government. When we would criticise the Labor Party when they were in opposition, all we would get from their supporters was, 'They're not in government,' but the Labor Party are in government now, colleagues. They could actually do something about this if they wanted to. When the Department of Home Affairs rejects these recommendations, it is the Labor Party and the Labor government rejecting these recommendations. The key take-home message of the commission's report was that hotels are not appropriate facilities for lengthy periods of detention and should only ever be used in exceptional circumstances and for the shortest possible time. I could not agree more. The Australian Greens could not agree more. But the department, true to form, has responded by disagreeing with many of the recommendations and simply noting many of the others rather than implementing them. I well remember when I visited one of the hotels in Melbourne with then leader of the Australian Greens Senator Richard Di Natale to visit some of the people who had been incarcerated on Manus Island and then, when they got to Australia for medical treatment, had been simply thrown into a hotel and detained there indefinitely. I well remember the punitive conditions of that hotel. I well remember the desperation of the people who were incarcerated there. I well remember their pleas to us to please do something to get them out of these terrible places of detention and into the community, where they could breathe fresh air and feel the sun on their skin. Hotel detention in APODs is a crime against humanity, and it must end now. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Tiwi Land Council 77 16:57 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The ANAO did a report on a few councils at the time, and Tiwi was one of the councils. It seems that a theme is emerging as I examine more of these reports. It's not only the agency distributing billions of taxpayer dollars for Indigenous programs which is not following the rules; the recipients of this funding aren't following the rules either. The ANAO found that the Central Land Council was not actively implementing its fraud and corruption plan, was not conducting regular fraud risk assessments and had not kept a register of members' financial assessments. If you go specifically to the Tiwi Land Council—and this is from the ANAO, which is the Australian National Audit Office—it states in part of the report: The TLC— the Tiwi Land Council— does not have an internal audit function. The TLC has established an Audit Committee which does not execute its mandatory functions effectively. The Audit Committee does not appropriately review the TLC's performance reporting; system of risk oversight and management; and system of internal control. The Audit Committee's mandatory reporting requirements were partly met. It says: While there is a risk management policy, the risk register is not complete or up to date. In terms of the policy framework, some essential policies do not exist. Of those that exist, several need to be improved and all need to be appropriately authorised. There is a lack of training on policies. The TLC has commenced a program of improvement of its policy framework. …   …   … The TLC does not have effective arrangements to support the integrity of its operations. The TLC is not compliant with the Commonwealth fraud rule. There are no regular fraud risk assessments, there is a lack of fraud training for staff, and there is no mechanism for reporting of incidents of fraud or suspected fraud. The TLC's management of conflicts of interest is ineffective. There is no register of interests for senior employees. A register of pecuniary interests required under the ALRA is not used by all Council members, and there is no management plan for declared pecuniary interests. Conflict of interest management during meetings, as recorded in minutes, is inconsistent. This is a report that has been handed down, as I said. It continues: The TLC 2021-2025 Corporate Plan complied with most of the PGPA Rule requirements. The primary weakness was in performance measures and targets, which were not clearly defined and were too focused on activities at the expense of outputs and outcomes. This impedes understanding of the TLC's performance against its key purposes. The draft 2021-22 Annual Report was untimely and was in draft form at March 2023. Council members and the accountable authority were not substantively involved in the development of the Corporate Plan and Annual Report. There is a lack of assurance over performance reporting. I've had a look through their financial statements here, ending 30 June 2022. The population of the Tiwi Islands is 2,744 people. The total employee cost is $6,144,462. The council allowance expenses—just their allowance expenses—total $222,925. They've got income investments of $4. Have a look at what they've spent the money on. I think there's another $1½ million in grants that were given to them. If you look at some of these grants, there's over $800,000, nearly $900,000, for night patrol. You've got batteries and installation of a security alarm system for $843,533. You've got upgrader batteries. There was one for the year before for $25,000, and this one is for $36,542. The total grant liabilities total $2,816. My whole issue over this whole lot, as the ANAO report says, is that there's not really enough accountability. This'll be the Voice on steroids if we allow this to go unchecked. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Do you seek leave to continue your remarks later? Senator HANSON BK6 No. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Colbeck, are you taking note of the same document? 17:03 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Yes, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 78 COMMITTEES 78 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Bills Committee 78 Scrutiny Digest 78 17:03 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland On behalf of my good friend Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest No. 7 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence relating to the report. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 79 Delegated Legislation Monitor 79 17:04 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria I present Delegated legislation monitor7 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, together with ministerial correspondence relating to the report. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I will briefly speak to the tabling of both Delegated legislation monitor7 of 2023 today and Delegated legislation monitor 6 of 2023, which the committee presented out of session on 2 June 2023. Delegated legislation monitor 7 reports on the committee's consideration of 108 legislative instruments registered between 16 May 2023 and 31 May 2023. Delegated legislation monitor 6 reported on the committee's consideration of 107 legislative instruments registered between 17 April 2023 and 15 May 2023. I'd like to draw to the chamber's attention three instruments in the Treasury portfolio. The committee most recently commented on these instruments in monitor 6. These instruments are of particular concern to the committee because they create ongoing exemptions to primary legislation. These instruments are the Corporations Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations—Income Management Regimes) Regulations 2023, the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations 2022, and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Rationalising ASIC Instruments) Regulations 2022. These instruments contain ongoing exemptions to primary legislation via the Corporations Regulations 2001, which have been exempt from the sunsetting regime since 2017. Further, the rationalising ASIC regulations have the effect of moving exemptions that were previously time limited into regulations that operate indefinitely. The committee has long been concerned about delegated legislation that modifies or creates ongoing exemptions to primary legislation. It's the committee's view that such measures should be set out in the primary legislation itself. However, when these measures are in delegated legislation they should be time limited in order to facilitate regular parliamentary scrutiny and so that they do not operate as de facto amendments to primary legislation. The committee's guidelines state that generally such measures should cease to operate no more than three years after they commence, to ensure appropriate parliamentary oversight. The committee is engaged in extensive ongoing correspondence in relation to these instruments and detailed its concerns in previous delegated legislation monitors. Despite this extensive engagement, including holding two private briefings with the Assistant Treasurer and his department, the committee's scrutiny concerns have not been allayed. In Delegated legislation monitor6, the committee again wrote to the Assistant Treasurer about this issue. The committee sought advice about whether the Corporations Regulations 2001 could be subject to the usual 10-year sunsetting period. Alternatively, the committee asked whether the specific measures introduced by these instruments could be subject to a 10-year sunsetting period. The committee considers this to be a significant attempt to resolve this longstanding issue. Noting the disallowance period is fast approaching for two of the three instruments being considered, the committee expresses its disappointment that its scrutiny concerns have not yet been adequately addressed and will continue to pursue this issue over the coming weeks. In the light of this, I would like to reiterate the importance of timely responses by ministers and departments. The committee aims to resolve its scrutiny concerns prior to disallowance of the relevant instrument. This can be difficult when responses are not provided within the time frames requested, affecting the committee's scrutiny process. On another matter, on behalf of the committee I would also like to take this opportunity to note the assistance that Associate Professor Andrew Edgar has provided to the committee since 2018, when he was engaged as the committee's legal adviser. His knowledge and guidance have been invaluable, and we wish him all the best in his future endeavours as he moves on to take up other opportunities. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor 7 of 2023 to the Senate. 17:09 Sena 282997 Queensland tor SCARR (—) (): I'd just like to associate myself with the chair's comments with respect to the scrutiny of delegated legislation committee. Firstly, with respect to Professor Edgar—starting on the good news story—Professor Edgar has provided outstanding support to the scrutiny of delegated legislation committee during this parliament and also the previous parliament, when I served on the committee. So I too would like to place on the record my thanks to Professor Edgar. He has been in the trenches with the committee and has really assisted us in defending those scrutiny principles, which, from my perspective, is all about protecting this institution and its importance in terms of our process. Thank you very much, Professor Edgar. Your service has been greatly appreciated. I would also like to associate myself with Senator White's comments with respect to the Corporations Regulations. I commend the Assistant Treasurer for engaging with the committee and I think that should be noted. I compliment all those ministers and assistant ministers who have taken the time to meet with the committee. I think that's a very positive development. However, those scrutiny concerns remain in that we have a situation where the Corporations Regulations are not subject to sunsetting. I just do not think that's appropriate. My next point is in relation to the Public Service Regulations 2023. These regulations are being remade after they were originally made in 1999, so there's been the effluxion of 24 years between the original making of those regulations and the remaking of those regulations. It is profoundly disappointing that there was a lack of consultation with all relevant stakeholders with respect to those regulations, and in particular with respect to consultation with the organisation representing the workers in that department, who I believe should have been consulted with regarding the remaking of those regulations. From my perspective it is simply not good enough for the minister to say—speaking for the department, perhaps—that the regulations simply involved minor technical changes. That's not good enough. You actually need to go through consultation and provide an opportunity for all the stakeholders to consider regulations and come to their own view with respect to whether something is a minor change or a technical change. There are many examples of laws and regulations which are changed where the decision-maker or the policymaker says: 'These are just minor and technical changes,' but actually they're not. You don't have an opportunity to obtain the views of other stakeholders unless they're consulted. It was very disappointing in this case that the CPSU was not consulted with respect to these regulations. I find it difficult to understand why that would not have been the case. Whilst it's all well and good for the minister to acknowledge that in the future the CPSU will be consulted, it simply isn't good enough. They should have been consulted, that is my first point. I also make the point that if you're remaking regulations after 24 years there is an opportunity to improve the regulations. But, again, that requires consultation. I would have thought the CPSU would have been one of the first stakeholders to be consulted. Again they were not consulted so the opportunity to improve the regulations was lost. That is profoundly disappointing. I hope that ministers across the board and departments across the board reflect on that and reflect on the expectations that the scrutiny committee has that relevant stakeholders are consulted, especially where regulations—delegated legislation—are being remade after a long period of time, as was the case in this respect. In conclusion I associate myself with all of the other remarks that Senator White made. Question agreed to. Finance and Public Administration References Committee 80 Report 80 17:13 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I present an interim report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on consulting services, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report that I am tabling today on behalf of the committee comes about through a number of circumstances. Knowledge of the actions of PwC have become more apparent through questions on notice that have been placed by various colleagues through committees but also particularly through the estimates process a few weeks ago and through some advice that was provided to us by the Clerk in relation to the events of the Department of Treasury referring the PwC matter to the Australian Federal Police. That has necessitated the committee taking some care in the way it's continued with this inquiry. The Clerk's advice has been extremely useful to us in that process. It's been comprehensive. It's been valuable to, I think, all members of the committee. We certainly thank the Clerk for the work that has been done in providing that advice to the committee and assisting us in our deliberations. In fact, it's one part of that advice as to how we might proceed that has brought us to the point that an interim report has been prepared. That was one of the mechanisms that was mentioned as part of that advice as to how we might continue with this process, bearing in mind other advice that had been provided to us, that we needed to be careful that we didn't create a pool of evidence that would inhibit the capacity for these matters to be properly aired in any potential legal proceedings. I'm of the view that that's where we'll end up. Another piece of advice that's also acknowledged in the report is that we not have people who may be subject to legal proceedings who deliberately want to come before the committee put on the record matters that then cannot be used in any subsequent legal proceedings. So the committee is proceeding carefully. But this report is really quite deliberate. It's titled in a very deliberate way, PwC:A calculated breach of trust, because that's how the committee sees the actions that were undertaken by Mr Peter Collins. He was given the privilege of being part of a consultation process on new legislation that was being proposed to deal with multinational tax avoidance and to ensure that tax on earnings earned in Australia was paid in Australia. It was a significant reform being undertaken by the then government. It was a significant part of our conversations with other jurisdictions. What becomes clear from the emails that have been tabled through the efforts of my colleagues is that this is not just an Australian matter; it extends internationally. There are email addresses that have UK addresses and US addresses. This is something that was being worked on and negotiated globally. We haven't got that far in the context of our investigations at this point in time, but there's no doubt in my mind that other jurisdictions should be looking at this matter, what has happened here in Australia and the links to it that come from the email trails that we currently have. It would be in their interests to do so. I'm sure my colleagues, when they get to their contributions, will agree that PwC Global shouldn't be able to cauterize their involvement by trying to make out that this is a local issue. It is not. It is clear from the little that we have at this point in time that it goes much more broadly than that. It became apparent once those emails became available but also through some of the other evidence that we've already received. This is not just a calculated breach of trust, but it's an egregious one, very much so. It's a breach of trust in so many different ways. In the evidence that's been provided to us through a number of committees, PwC resisted attempts to find out what was going on. They used legal mechanisms to try and prevent, first, the ATO, and others, from investigating what was going on; all the while, Mr Collins continued to sign further confidentiality arrangements. It beggars belief that this is what was happening. It also impacts on so many others that work within that organisation. We have 36 or 63 names, however many names, that might have been involved on email lists, and all of those people—some of whom, we understand, may have just been on an email list and, therefore, only received an email—have this hanging over their heads and potentially impacting on them. PwC doesn't seem to understand that it's their responsibility to deal with this—to provide appropriate information to the Australian community and the Australian authorities. They've handed over to us a list of 63 names and then said to us, 'Don't publish it,' but we don't have the background information to know the depth of involvement or otherwise of any of those people. The fact that they can't seem to even get that right or understand what their responsibilities are as a part of this process actually compounds the problem. So we have made this report that highlights some of the issues and demonstrates how they've attempted to hide what's been going on. As the Secretary of the Department of Finance told us in Finance estimates, they initially said, 'No, it was just one person.' Then it was nine, and now it's more, but we don't know who they are. Those nine will not be involved in any engagement with government projects. It's time that they came clean. It's time that they told the Australian community and the international community what was going on. It's time that they cooperated with the investigations that are being undertaken so that we can understand what went on—the Australian community deserve to understand what went on. But, quite frankly, they also owe a duty of care to all of their employees not only so that those that weren't involved can understand that their name is clear, get on with their lives and get on with being an effective part of the Australian community but also so that those that need to be brought to account can be brought to account. There are two very simple recommendations at the end of the report: fully and openly comply and cooperate with the investigations of the AFP and the Tax Practitioners Board. That's not unreasonable. You would think that you wouldn't need to make a recommendation about that matter, but we have—and it's clear. They should be open and honest with the Australian people and the international community and accurately publish information about who was involved so that those that aren't involved can pay a duty of care to their communities and employees and get on with their lives. I acknowledge the work of the committee secretariat in pulling this report together. They've done a mighty job since we decided last week to pull this report together. It's not long. It's relatively graphic though, I have to say. I also acknowledge my colleagues Senator Barbara Pocock and Senator O'Neill for the work that they've done in bringing this to light. This is not the end of the process. This is an interim report based on the advice that we received from the Clerk as to how we might progress this. There will be more, and we, of course, will be talking to other members of this industry, sector or community, if you like, as the work of the committee continues. 17:24 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I want to hold up these documents, containing 144 pages of emails, that continue to reveal the nature of deception that was involved in the matter to which this report seeks to put some context around. It is a convoluted tale. It's really worth looking at the report, because the extraction-of-teeth method that we've had to go through, to get to this point, has been unbelievably painful. I want to say, right at the start, that it is an offence to me as a senator—and I find it offensive to the Senate, to my colleagues and to the Australian people we represent here—that PwC attempted a swiftie a couple of weeks ago, on a Monday morning, with a headline that indicated they had released the names. Let's be very clear: they didn't release the names. They sent a list of names to us, which was different from another set of lists that was going around, and then they asked us to keep it secret. They got a headline. If they're going to continue to chase headlines and fail to respond to the orders of the Senate to tell the truth, it's going to get uglier and uglier. It is more than time for PwC to change their strategy. Spin's not going to get anyone out of this mess. There is a requirement for truth-telling to the Australian people. Today this report into PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia—and, tangentially, PwC global—is a response to that behaviour so desperately and awfully revealed in that 144 pages of emails and the consequent behaviour that has followed as those emails became somewhat known in public. This document reveals a profoundly unethical nature of behaviour inside the organisation over many years and is a calculated breach of trust. The scale and significance of the public interest in this matter has motivated the release of the report. I want to associate myself with the remarks already on the record from the chair, and certainly with Senator Pocock who has been pursuing this matter, and I want to applaud the powers of the Senate to do its job for the Australian people. These documents were released because of questions that were asked in estimates. The fact that we got them, in response to questions that were put on notice afterwards, has given us the shape and scale of what's reported today in this very important report. To be clear, the view of the committee is that what happened with PwC Australia and PwC global was a deliberate and planned breach of trust by PwC. The actions of Peter-John Collins, ex-PwC, in intentionally sharing confidential information with PwC partners and in personnel risked at least $180 million per year of tax to which Australians, rightly, had a claim. It also generated at least $2.5 million of income for PwC. This occurred at the time when Mr Tom Seymour, who has stepped down as the recent CEO of PwC Australia, was head of tax, and it occurred under the watch of Mr Luke Sayers, who was the CEO of PwC at the time. What is manifestly clear is that the company failed in its duty of care towards its own partners and personnel and to Australian taxpayers, and it failed to report the actions of unfit and improper persons in their midst. This is a failure that extends because of the structure of PwC, thereby to all partners. Whether they were embedded in these emails, whether they had knowledge of it, whether they had degrees of knowledge of it, every partner is engaged in this breach. All the personnel who were working with PwC, by association, had their reputations tarnished. As these internal PwC emails received and published by the Senate Economics Committee reveal, Mr Collins and other PwC parties had no regard for their obligation to confidentiality of their engagement with Treasury. While Mr Collins is a central figure in these events, it's evident from the internal PwC emails, brought to light through the Senate estimates, that his actions were understood by PwC to be problematic, for the company, if they were to ever be made public. So they knew it was 'dodgy as' but continued the practice anyway. There's no evidence that PwC colleagues or leaders called out this behaviour until it became publicly known in 2023—eight years after it commenced. While PwC were out publicly and in their representations to the ATO supporting the new tax laws, they were in fact undermining those tax laws behind closed doors. Let me remind you of some of the communication in redacted PwC emails from an unnamed PwC employee: It sounds like you haven't received this document in any form. Because it was provided to us on a confidential basis, I ask that you don't circulate it beyond us or discuss it outside PwC—it would really put PwC Australia and me in a real bind. There is a procedure for me to get you confidentiality clearances—you sign a deed—if needed. The name of the person that signed that particular email has been redacted. We don't know if that person still works at PwC. We don't know if that person could be working on government contracts. This person could be in a senior executive position at PwC or any other company globally. They could indeed be on the audit board for standards globally. We have no idea because the obfuscation continues from PwC Australia and PwC Global. The role and identity of that unnamed person and all unnamed persons are crucial to Australia's understanding of the depth of this issue and in allowing the correct course of justice to be enacted. I acknowledge that there is a tension between providing natural justice to those who were tangentially or peripherally involved, but there is a national interest in us knowing and an international interest in all of us knowing exactly who and how and to what degree people were involved. And we are no closer to that. No matter how many headlines about names being released get printed, the fact is we remain in the dark because PwC are not coming clean. Ms Stubbins is the new CEO, and I would suggest that, like many who have gone before her, she simply doesn't seem to understand the nature of transparency and accountability. On Monday 5 June we got some information. Four partners were named: Peter Collins, Michael Bernstein, Neil Fuller and Paul McNab. They were happy to put them on the public record, but not others. They did, however, dribble out a bit more information to pretend that they were actually coming clean with Australians, and so there are nine partners who have gone on gardening leave. I don't care how good they are at gardening, and I'm really not satisfied that only four people were named. Are they the four people that they didn't like? Let me express some concern about reports from whistleblowers prior to the report landing. Even up to today people inside PwC are scared to death or are frightened to speak up because they are being intimidated. That is the culture of this organisation that is manifested today. And if you think you can frighten people so much that they are afraid to speak to their elected representatives, well, think again. I have confidence in the Australian people deciding to stand up for what is right, and I have great confidence in people inside PwC who have done the right thing, who continue to do the right thing, who do act professionally, who are ethical, who want to participate properly in the economy and provide due and proper assurance to the market. I know they are in there because they are writing to me and to my colleagues. I don't think that PwC understand that the tactics of intimidation will not assist them. Sixty-three names have been provided to the committee, but they did not provide the committee with an indication of the extent to which those 63 individuals were involved. Let me convey my deep displeasure and my absolute frustration with PwC for placing our committee in such an invidious position. It is contemptuous to attempt to use the Senate in the way that they have tried. It was a big try-on, it was completely inappropriate, and if you think that is going to bring the matter to an end, it certainly won't. (Time expired.) 17:34 Senator BARBARA PO BFQ South Australia COCK () (): I associate my comments with those of my fellow committee members Senator Colbeck and Senator O'Neill. The Australian public are horrified at what they have learned about PwC in recent months, and the Senate, as this report shows, shares that horror across parties. I've had hundreds of emails and calls, none in support of PwC—not one. If my mailbox is any indication, this organisation has few friends and Australians are angry. They want action, accountability and honesty. And, as this report shows, we're very long way from any of that. I want to address three issues in my comments: what has happened, how PwC has responded and what needs to happen next. Firstly, what happened? PwC partners signed confidentiality agreements as they advised government, and then went to work to aggressively and unlawfully sell information they harvested, earning $2.5 million in fees and growing their client list internationally. Far from helpful advisers to government, they were voracious, greedy lying scoundrels, and they thought they could get away with it. And they probably would have, without alert journalists and an alert Senate. PwC were consulted by a government which wanted to reform tax law to collect more revenue from multinationals evading tax. The government thought that if you want to catch a fox, ask a fox—an experienced fox who knows how tax minimisation works. Treasury required that fox to sign confidentiality agreements, with potential criminal sanctions if betrayed. Well, the fox has shown itself to be without scruple. The fox shared the confidential information widely with fellow foxes within PwC and, together, they harvested its profit—to date, without serious penalty for the partnership as a whole. I remember the day in estimates when I asked the Minister for Finance about the consequences for this corruption. She told me that they would suffer reputational damage. I was shocked; a bank robber suffers reputational damage when they're convicted but we do not withhold other consequences, like jail. White-collar crime by consultants cannot give people a get-out-of-jail-free card when most of us—most of Australia—have no such access. Reputational damage is a weak penalty. As long as we stop there we let crimes like this get off free, and we say to PwC, and to the big four, 'Don't worry, you've got friends in high places who will not call you to account.' Our report repudiates that. This Senate report calls wrongdoers to account. This report calls PwC to account, and says to anyone else shirking the conflicts of interest that litter the ground of tax and consultancy: 'Pay attention! You are on notice. The second issue I want to go to is the way in which PwC has responded—how it has handled this egregious set of dishonest acts and how it has attempted to obscure events and even use this Senate, as we heard Senator O'Neill reflect on. At first, Mr Tom Seymour, the then CEO, optimistically believed he could outride the revelations of a conflict of interest and monetisation of government information when he publicly characterised them as a 'perception' problem. He failed to take responsibility, and this has proved to be a consistent pattern throughout this scandal. Again and again, PwC has failed to take responsibility. It must have known for years the names, the communications and the specific acts of those responsible, as well as those who are not responsible. PwC frustrated government efforts by hiding behind tens of thousands of claims of professional legal privilege. The leadership of PwC have failed to deal transparently with this scandal. Instead, according to insiders who have put this to me, they adopted a fall-guy strategy, seeing one of the partners, Mr Peter Collins, off as a sacrificial problem player, when we know that a sizeable number of PwC partners and personnel shared confidential information and monetised it in Australia and globally. PwC has adopted a strategy of resist, deny and diminish—stay opaque and don't publish the names and actions of those who are responsible. In the process they have potentially hung out to dry all those who received emails or who are on various lists, without care as to their innocence or their guilt. Where is PwC's duty of care, as Senator Colbeck asked? Where is their duty of care to the whole 9,000 workers and employees within PwC who potentially will suffer reputational contamination? It is not in evidence. I predict that PwC's unravelling will be a Harvard Business School case study on how not to deal with massive organisational ethical failure. The rule book says: 'Be honest. Face up and act, or trash your brand and your future work stream.' Whoever is advising PwC on critical-incident management needs to go back to PR school. The average parent trying to teach their kids simple honesty could have given you better advice. The way in which PwC has responded tells us a lot about the internal culture, management and leadership in that organisation. They have yet to name who did what within their ranks. And past leaders, like Luke Sayers, CEO through this scandal, have taken no responsibility. PwC leaders have instead tried to pass the parcel to the Senate. They've yet to recognise an internal cultural leadership failure for what it is. No-one, it would seem, within PwC publicly called out this egregious ethical failure at the time or over the years since it occurred. And we have read the emails which Senator O'Neill has held up. PwC tax offices are falling over themselves, throughout this set of emails, to harvest a profitable opportunity. It's a double fail. As history tells us, it's not the initial crime, often, that brings organisations undone, but, so often, the subsequent concealment. This chapter raises serious concerns about the aggressive pursuit of money. What is the business model at work here, and with what consequences for the people who work there, for ethical partners or staff, or for the larger public interest for ordinary taxpayers? I get phone calls almost daily from people in PwC, past or present, or in the other big four consulting firms, who say to me: 'Keep going. Please call out bad behaviour, conflicts of interest and straightforward, untrammelled greed.' People who call say that they are distressed by the internal culture and partnership model, which several of them have described as 'cult-like', where, they say, senior partners are protected and more junior people are bullied, in their words, 'to protect the bosses and the partnership'; where whistleblowers are cast out and aggressively pursued, making calling out unethical behaviour literally a dangerous thing to do. As a current PwC partner wrote to me anonymously, 'It is almost impossible to act against the leadership of the firm,' given the partnership model. Others have contacted me on burner phones—I kid you not—or from fake email addresses, because their big-four-firm employer has access to all of their communications, and monitors them, and they are fearful. Several have told me that the PwC case is the tip of the iceberg—that conflicts of interest, poor value for money and aggressive pursuit of profit where ethics fall at the first hurdle are common practice. This concerns me. It needs to stop. That kind of culture leads to organisational failure, to unsafe organisations, to big rip-offs and to the kind of scandal we've seen unfold. This model fails staff. It also fails the Senate. And, most importantly, it shows contempt for the Australian people. It also reveals contempt for Australia's tax machinery: for Treasury; for the ATO; for the Tax Practitioners Board. PwC has failed to manage its affairs and it deserves serious consequences for its lazy and cowardly failure to manage these events. Well, the Senate says 'no' to that cowardice in the pages of this report. My third point is: what needs to happen next? This appalling, unlawful chapter must have consequences. Our tax regulatory system has shown itself inadequate in the face of wily, unethical players who chase money at any cost. This is a matter for our Senate committee and its larger deliberations, and we will bring forward proposals for change, I have no doubt. But now it's the time for logical consequences. Anyone who has raised kids knows the power of logical consequences. These are the actions that the adults in the room take to guide others to take responsibility for harm caused or damage done. We need some of that now, in the face of serious and contemptuous actions by PwC over years. I call for three immediate consequences: a two-year removal of PwC's registration as a tax practitioner, a ban on government contracts—and, as we stand here, we see states around the country moving to exactly that ban—and, finally, a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission should be top of the list come 1 July. Our Senate committee on consultancies has important work ahead of it. We will be looking beyond the tip of the iceberg. Our country deserves better. 17:44 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to actually pay a compliment to Senator Colbeck, Senator O'Neill and Senator Pocock. From my perspective, I think you've done an absolutely outstanding job in relation to examining this very, very disturbing matter. During my career—and I had 25 years in the private sector before coming to this place—I worked very closely with PwC on four continents. I was company secretary and general counsel of a company where PwC was the auditor. I had worked in my office settling accounts with them until two or three in the morning, against terrific time pressures. I am so dismayed by what has come out. I say to PwC: please reflect on the damage that you have done to your reputation. As Senator Barbara Pocock said, there are 9,000 people working for PwC, and many of them would not have been involved in this matter and the many friends I have at PwC have not been involved in this matter. Put yourself in the position of the young graduate or young accountant who has been there five or six years, burning the midnight oil. They are now in this position where, as Senator Barbara Pocock said, they're going to unjustly suffer the tarnish of this terrible situation. The second point I want to make is that I think we also have to reflect on the fact that, when something like this happens in the private sector, it makes it hard for us to get up and defend the private sector, its principles and the contribution it makes. What happens is the regulatory pendulum swings hard and can have adverse consequences for everyone in the private sector who is doing the right thing. They all suffer because of those who do the wrong thing. That is a terrible thing. The third point I make is that this is a very good case illustrating why we need a whistleblower protection authority. The reason I say that is that I am absolutely positive that there would have been people within PwC—and Senator Barbara Pocock, Senator O'Neill and Senator Colbeck are hearing from people all the time—who were very concerned about what was happening but did not know where to turn. Where do you turn when something like this is happening at such a high level? I think it is a very good illustration of why we need a whistleblower protection authority that provides an avenue for people from both the public sector and the private sector to seek some sort of guidance as to where to take their concerns in a confidential manner. These are very difficult situations, especially for young professionals. In conclusion I really do sincerely compliment Senator Colbeck, Senator O'Neill and Senator Barbara Pocock on the important work they are doing in this regard. More strength to your arm. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 85 DOCUMENTS Economy, Fisheries Industry, Macquarie Island Marine Park, Forestry Industry, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Infrastructure and Transport Ministers' Meetings 85 Order for the Production of Documents 85 17:48 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Australia's credit rating, fisheries industry meetings, the Macquarie Island Marine Park, native timber harvesting in Western Australia, PricewaterhouseCoopers and a meeting of infrastructure and transport ministers. 17:49 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales In relation to the documents produced in relation to PricewaterhouseCoopers, I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. These documents have literally just been produced by the government and by the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport in response to an order for the production of documents the Senate passed regarding texts and/or similar messages between AFP Commissioner Kershaw and PwC partner Mick Fuller, who of course was also a former police commissioner in New South Wales and is also a close friend, a mate, of Australian Federal Police Commissioner Kershaw. The order for the production of documents required the production of all communications between the AFP Commissioner and his mate Mick Fuller, the partner in government relations, actually, in PwC, from 1 July last year to the date of the order. That was of course required because over almost the whole of that period—indeed, we now know this from a meeting commencing 28 July 2022—the AFP Commissioner was intimately involved in the crafting of a contract for PwC to review the Australian Federal Police operations in the ACT. We now know from the documents that have been produced that Commissioner Kershaw actually attended a meeting on 28 July 2022 with his mate Mick Fuller. It was described as: An introductory meeting to outline the identified need to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the AFP's delivery of policing services to the ACT government— And, get this— This informed PwC's consideration of whether they had the capability to undertake the work and would submit a formal quote. The meeting, of course, was not minuted. So two mates get together—one the AFP Commissioner, the other a former New South Wales Police Commissioner, now a senior partner in government relations at PwC—in an unminuted meeting to work out how PwC can get money from the AFP, to cobble together the best possible way that PwC can make money off the AFP. There was no tender and no public discussion. It was just two mates, some other partners from PwC and the chief operating officer from the AFP coming together to work out how they can give PwC more money and also, at significant public expense, to try and reshape the future of the Australian Federal Police operations in the ACT. Then there was another meeting on 5 September 2022 between Kershaw and Fuller, another meeting on 13 October 2022, another on 2 November 2022 and another on 1 December 2022. When we asked Commissioner Kershaw in budget estimates if he'd ever put in a conflict-of-interest declaration in relation to the contract and his contacts with his mate when he was crafting the contract for him, we got the most arrogant possible response from Commissioner Kershaw. Brushing it off—he didn't have to do that! He didn't have to put that in! Integrity wasn't for him—that kind of integrity measure! He was the Australian Federal Police Commissioner; he could do whatever he bloody liked! He'd didn't put a conflict-of-interest form in. He was having meeting after meeting with his mate about a contract for three-quarters of a million dollars and he was in the initial meeting actually shaping the contract—the Australian Federal Police Commissioner and his mate Mick Fuller, partner in PwC. If you want to know why we had that previous debate about PwC and why Senator Pocock and other senators on that committee are so indignant about the breach of public faith and the absolute breaches of conflict of interest, we've just got the answer now in these documents produced. This is PwC using its mates, inveigling itself into, in this case, the heart of the Australian Federal Police and manipulating those contracts and those mateships to actually form the contract—without a tender and any public discussion—and sucking in another quick three-quarters of a million dollars out of the public purse. If you want to talk conflicts of interest, who's now investigating whether or not PwC was in breach of its obligations and in breach of the law? Who is investigating that? The Australian Federal Police. That's the same organisation the commissioner was in, hobnobbing with his mates, giving them money. If it was an episode of Utopia you would say: 'That is way out of line. That couldn't possibly happen. It's implausible.' But, no, that's the very recent reality. All of that, I might add, was on this government's watch. I am not saying the conduct is only related to this government's watch, but this all happened on this government's watch. You can't say this is something that happened in 2018 or 2016. This has all happened in this financial year under this government. It's extraordinary. But it gets even more interesting when you look at the documents that have been produced. One of the things that I was concerned about in budget estimates was what, if any, other communication had happened between Kershaw and Fuller, the current and former police commissioners. Now, of course, one of them is a PwC partner. One of the reasons we wanted to know the full breadth of the communication was to establish the extent of the conflict of interest, the extent of the friendship and the extent of the communications that they were having while they were crafting the contract and notionally managing the contract together. What did we get from the government? We got a public interest immunity claim. They won't produce the full extent of the communications between Kershaw and Fuller. They refuse to produce them. We got told: 'I note the extraordinary scope of the order relating to the production of private communications without limit as to subject. The production of these documents could unreasonably infringe the privacy of individuals and would not be in the public interest.' All we asked for were the communications between the current Australian Federal Police Commissioner and the current partner in government relations at PwC, who was his mate and a former police commissioner. We only asked for them from 1 July onwards while this whole contract business was being undertaken. That's what we asked for and what the government is refusing to produce, hiding behind a public interest immunity claim and saying it's not relevant. I can tell you now it's 100 per cent bloody relevant. What on earth else was passing between these two while they were crafting a contract, manipulating the arrangement, getting a three-quarters-of-a-million-dollar contract sorted out and having taxpayers pay for it. Then the one bit of information we did get from Kershaw about the exchange was this. I asked: Have you had any communication with Mick Fuller since the PwC scandal broke? Kershaw said: I have had one SMS from Mick. He said 'Mick'. I asked: What did it say? Then Kershaw said this: He's disappointed with what's occurred. As in the conduct, not of him of course, but of the firm. That's what Kershaw said in estimates. But what do we find now in the documents that have been released? The government says the exchange, on 24 May 2023, was: Mr Fuller: 'Just saw news re referral. Will give you some space so not too complicate your life' Commissioner: 'Ok thx mate That's not what he told estimates. Do we need to continue this investigation? Absolutely. Do we need a spillover hearing on this? 100 per cent. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. 17:59 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania In relation to the document relating to native timber harvesting in Western Australia, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I will kick off and have a bit of a yarn about that because this issue is incredibly important. I cannot underscore enough for Australians exactly what is happening here in this country. We are dealing ourselves out of a sovereign capability, and that is the ability to supply our own timber needs. We know that demand for timber products that have the structural and appearance characteristics that are derived from native timber can only be sourced from that resource—from native timber forests—but we're finding, across the country, that Labor governments are shutting this industry down, not based on science but based on emotion and not based on fact but based on fiction. Again, a Labor government in Australia, the Western Australian Labor government, has made a decision to shut down this industry. I quizzed the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Watt, at estimates about this—about exactly what correspondence he'd had with the Western Australian Labor government. Indeed, I asked him the same about the Victorian Labor government—about what correspondence, meetings and discussions he'd had with them. Very little, it would seem. I will point out for the chamber's benefit that we sought documents relating to both the WA native timber cessation decision and the Victorian decision, but we only got the Western Australian set of documents, not because the government didn't want to comply—they didn't want to comply with either—but because the Australian Greens didn't want to allow us to see those documents. Why would they want to hide such documents? What is there that we shouldn't be seeing? A pattern is emerging. We've seen it at a state level. We've seen it in Victoria. Most alarmingly, we've seen it in Western Australia, and it's extremely alarming. The Australian government stand idly by, and what do they do? Not enough. The documents that we were provided with in response to the order for the production of documents reveal a government that is all concern but absolutely no action—all words and no response. There is nothing to actually aid this industry. Going through these documents, it becomes clear that the warning signs have been handed to this government, but they've chosen to do nothing. It was a bit rich for Assistant Minister Chisholm to come in this place and give me a chip for not having stopped the Victorian Labor government from shutting down the native forestry sector. I tried to ring Daniel Andrews the night he made the decision, and I'm still waiting for a return phone call. Senator Scarr 282997 Did he take your call? Senator DUNIAM 263418 He didn't take my call and he never returned it. I called him on the night. A good colleague of mine from Victoria provided me with his mobile number. I've still got it. But he never returned my call. I'm still waiting. I don't expect I will get the return call. I don't know who or on what planet you'd have to be to think that Daniel Andrews is going to return a Tasmanian Liberal senator's phone call. He wasn't going to, because he had no ability to justify what he was doing and, of course, he didn't care, as demonstrated by the fact that they have brought forward their decision in Victoria to shut down native forestry seven years ahead of schedule, with seven months notice. 'Hey, forestry contractors, you know the millions of dollars you owe on your equipment that you've got long-term finance and lease agreements in place with? We do not care about that. And you can find a way out of this mess yourselves'—that's the nature of the arrangement we see in this country. The documents that were provided in response to this order for the production of documents make it very clear to the government that—and I'm quoting from these documents—'Australia's plantation estate is not able to replace the type and quality of wood produced from native forests.' This is not some made-up document; this is advice to government from people from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment who understand what they're doing. Those who disagree with this advice seek to besmirch those who provide the advice—the independent, frank and fearless public servants in this country with whom I have worked. They're not wholly owned subsidiaries of industry; they are public servants who do a good job and provide accurate advice to government. This is the advice that they provided to government, which has been ignored, which is of great concern to me. It outlines the concerns that many industry participants and the union movement have around the eligibility criteria that the Western Australian government have put in place for their transition package. The CFMMEU Manufacturing Division is not supporting either the WA or the Victorian government decisions to end native forest harvesting and is critical of the support—something that again has fallen on deaf ears. There's a note in the minister's speaking notes that he looks forward to discussing these decisions with his state counterparts in the near future. This was in an address that he gave to the CFMMEU. The documents go on to highlight a range of concerns the minister should be aware of. They advised him to seek an understanding from the Western Australian minister of how the Western Australian government intended to deal with increased bushfire risk. This is something we have touched on but have not properly acknowledged. When you shut down management of a particular type of land, especially forests, you know what happens—you lock it up and throw away the key, fuel loads build up, and the chance and prospect of wildfires are vastly increased. To add to that problem, forestry contractors, who, with their equipment, not only manage the forests but assist in fighting fires, are no longer there. They've packed up and left town. They've probably declared bankruptcy, because of the haste with which the government is moving in Western Australia and, indeed, in Victoria. Of course, the document does state that the Australian government does not support the WA decision to end native forestry by 2024. Normally, when we don't support a particular course of action, we take action to do something else. I'm struggling to see where, in any of these documents or in any element of what the government has responded to my concerns with, the government have taken action to deal with this, to stand up for the workers who are going to be left out on a rock, like a shag, with nowhere to go, no prospect, no future. As others already said in the previous debate on my matter of urgency, which Labor and the Greens teamed up to vote against, footy clubs will fold, schools will close, the hearts of communities in regional Australia are going to be ripped out as a result of this. We are going to see tumbleweed blowing down the streets of these towns. That is not something to be proud of; that is something to be ashamed of. That's not the vision I have for the future of our country, particularly in regional Australia, tumbleweed blowing down the streets of these once beautiful and proud regional towns. But that what's we're going to have—tumbleweed! That's their response to what is a sustainable industry. We were promised that this government would usher in a new age and era of transparency. The documents I have don't provide any detail around what the government intends to do. There's a lot of black ink in here, I might add. There are pages of black ink on something I thought was pretty innocuous and something the government says they stand behind me on. But there's no transparency, there's no plan for jobs and there's no plan to assist with the cost of living. And, you know what? It's going to make it bloody hard to pay bills when you don't have a job. That's what the Labor Party is doing to forestry workers across the country. I tell you what; it's something I'm going to be watching very closely—less tumbleweed; more jobs. 18:07 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to quickly associate myself with the remarks of my good friend Senator Duniam. I want to make a point that hasn't been made today. If you close down the native forestry logging industry in this country, all you are doing is moving the activity offshore. That is all you are doing. I'm saying that as someone who lived and worked in Papua New Guinea for over 2½ years. I know how the logging industry was conducted in Papua New Guinea by certain operators, not all of them. There were some very good operators, but there were also other operators who didn't give one ounce of care about the environment or about occupational health and safety. They gave absolutely no concern. That is what you're doing. That is what these Labor state governments are doing when they're shutting down the industry in Australia; they're simply moving those jobs and that activity offshore. I will never forget attending a paper chip mill in one place offshore—I won't say where—and seeing a worker who had absolutely no occupational health and safety equipment, wearing a pair of songs, trying to push a log into a revolving blade. I had to walk away when I saw it. I was visiting the site. I asked the operator: what are your workplace health and safety statistics like? The manager said, 'Well, we do have problems, but the workers sell their helmets and their occupational health and safety gear, their PPE, so we can't stop that.' I've never, ever forgotten. It was one of the worst things I've ever seen on any industrial site in 25 years in the private sector, and that is what is happening. We're shutting down the industry here, but the industry is going to go offshore, in developing countries where they don't have the same standards we have. We have a sustainable industry here, and it's in the best interests of all of those involved in the industry and all those communities which Senator Duniam referred to for the industry to be sustainable, just as it's in the best interests of our farmers to farm in a sustainable way. That's why it's so disappointing to see the state Labor governments taking this short-sighted attitude with respect to what should be a vibrant industry in this country. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BUSINESS 89 BUSINESS Rearrangement 89 18:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That— (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put on Thursday, 22 June 2023 at the conclusion of motions to take note of answers: (i)    Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 (ii) Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 (iii) Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023 (iv) Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 (v) Excise Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2023 Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2023 (vi) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023 (vii) Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2023 (viii) National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023 (ix)Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 (x) Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 (xi) Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023 (xii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023 Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023 Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023 (xiii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 (xiv) Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 (xv) Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (c) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm for the purposes of the bills only; and (d) the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister (following the conclusion of consideration of the bills). 18:11 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I won't make a long contribution, in recognition of the fact that there are other matters that the chamber wishes to address, but I just want to place on the record that the Greens do not support this motion. Question agreed to. BILLS 89 BILLS Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 89

Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Returned from the House of Representatives 89 Third Reading 89 18:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 90 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 90 Membership 90 BILLS 90 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 90

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

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

Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022

Assent 90 COMMITTEES 90 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 90 Reference 90 18:13 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 4 September 2023: Treatment options for children and young people with gender dysphoria in Australia, with particular reference to: (a) whether children are being rushed into gender reassignment treatment, as has been suggested by University of Queensland Law Professor Patrick Parkinson; (b) whether psychiatrists, such as Dr Jillian Spencer, a senior staff specialist in the Queensland Children's Hospital's consultation liaison psychiatry team, who question the use of puberty blockers without an appropriate mental health assessment, are being silenced; (c) whether children are being over-diagnosed with gender dysphoria without proper consultation or mental health assessment; (d) whether Australia should follow the United Kingdom and many European countries in adopting a more cautious approach to the prescription of puberty blocking drugs, amid concerns the evidence base for their efficacy is lacking; (e) whether the Commonwealth should take a greater oversight and regulatory role in the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children, following the admission from the Federal Government that it has no idea how widely the drugs are being prescribed off-label for gender dysphoria; and (f) any other related matters. I hope that the Senate will listen to what I have to say, as well as all those who have contacted our offices to tell us of the growing concern they have. A growing chorus of experts in Australia are speaking out against gender dysphoria treatment, at great risk to their jobs and reputation, and are revealing the harm it causes children. A growing number of Australian parents are feeling completely powerless against it. A growing chorus of experts overseas are warning of its consequences. Countries held up by the Australian Left as progressive, like Sweden and Finland, are restricting it. After a broad inquiry which found little evidence supporting it, the United Kingdom has virtually stopped it. The rapid increase in the number of Australian children being prescribed puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat gender dysphoria deserves a comprehensive inquiry by this parliament. Last year, a freedom-of-information request revealed the alarming increase in this phenomenon. It revealed a 10-fold increase in the number of Australian children enrolled in public adolescent gender clinics from 2014 to 2021. It revealed more than a seven-fold increase in the number of adolescents receiving cross-sex hormone treatments over the same period. Of greatest concern, it revealed a more than 100-fold increase in the number of children being prescribed puberty blockers. These were just the public figures. The numbers are certainly much higher when children being treated by GPs in private clinics are included. This controversy has been raised recently by Queensland paediatrician Dr Dylan Wilson, who has called for an immediate halt to those treatments being carried out by the Queensland Children's Gender Service. He has called for an immediate investigation into the process of diagnosis and treatment at the clinic. In a letter to the chief executive of Children's Health Queensland, Dr Wilson noted: The evolution of the treatment of gender-questioning children and adolescents over the last three years has been exponential … He said: … despite these developments … it continues to operate in the same manner as it has always done with little or no regard for the evolution of information in the area of clinical practice. He said that, in doing so, the service was 'conducting poor quality medicine lacking evidence base, that is causing harm to children'. Just sit back and absorb that for a moment. A leading paediatrician is saying these treatments are harming children. This man is not an idealist, a politician or a media commentator; he is an expert on children's health. He said: There is no evidence of benefit for the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for gender-questioning children and there never has been … The Queensland Children's Gender Service has almost 1,000 kids on its books and has the nation's highest rates of cross-sex hormone prescriptions. These are being given to children as young as 14, despite conclusive clinical evidence that they cause permanent long-term health impacts, such as osteoporosis, impaired fertility and sexual function, negative impacts on brain development and increased risks of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, obesity, high cholesterol and diabetes. I also refer to an article published this month in the Australian by Professor Patrick Parkinson. Professor Parkinson is an emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland and the former chair of the Family Law Council. He has called this rapid rise of so-called gender-affirming care 'a public health crisis caused not by a virus, not by a disease, but by a social contagion'. He noted that anyone who raises concern about this issue is shouted down and vilified. He's absolutely right because that's exactly what happened to me when I raised this matter in the Senate last year. He notes that it's true that a very small number of people genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria, which is resolved only with cross-sex hormones and risky surgery. He also noted that this fact has been seized upon and used to build an intricate web of lies and falsehoods, such as the disproved notion that 'there are not just two sexes, or that it is actually possible to change sex or be "non-binary"' and 'that every child has an innate gender identity that awaits discovery'. It is this web of lies that effectively forms the basis of the so-called gender affirmation approach that is followed by children's gender clinics across Australia. It's nonsense and it's not supported by the scientific or the clinical evidence. Professor Parkinson also noted that politicians have embraced this new faith, without evidence. So have I: the usual suspects in Labor, the Greens and the coalition proved that last year in rejecting my motion for an inquiry—not all the coalition; there were some that have common sense and did support my motion. But it was all of Labor and the Greens and some of the crossbench as well, to name Senator David Pocock as one. Politicians in this country have actually passed laws supporting this new faith, effectively criminalising any other approach to supporting vulnerable children, and even preventing parents from trying to help their own children in other ways. As the professor pointed out, fashionable but unsupported ideas about gender don't really matter if they do no harm. But this is causing harm. Children are being harmed, and families are being torn apart. Earlier this year I met some mothers who had gone through this with their children. It has been a wrenching, traumatic process for all of them. They've seen their children influenced by teachers, peers and social media into believing all their problems will be solved by switching genders. This gender affirmation ideology has all the hallmarks of a crazy cult: capturing impressionable minds, isolating them from their families and ultimately destroying their lives. One mother's tale bears repeating. She took her young teenage daughter's gender-questioning very seriously and sought all the psychiatric and psychological help she could. These experts couldn't compete with the indoctrination this poor girl was getting in her classes, in the schoolyard and on the internet. The girl, aged only 14, decided she was a boy trapped in a girl's body and demanded gender-affirming treatment. Her mother did all the research she could, consulting the same experts she had asked to help her daughter. Life at home became unbearable, as her daughter grew increasingly estranged as she underwent appalling changes to her body, thanks to cross-sex hormones. Now 21, this young woman has completed her transition, although she is bound to a lifetime of cross-sex hormone treatments. And she is bitterly unhappy. She is now so depressed about how she looks that she only leaves her home a few times a year, deeply disguised. Her family has been torn apart. I ask you: How was she any different from the generations of Australian teenagers who have been depressed or confused as they enter puberty? How was she any different from them in seeking the approval of her peers and society at large and in seeking the attention that all teenagers need as they approach the dawning prospect of adulthood? She wasn't. The difference was that she's part of a generation that is being used to push a political agenda that is supported and promoted by many senators in this chamber. As Professor Parkinson and Dr Wilson have said, this issue deserves the closest public scrutiny. They have been joined by the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists, no less, in calling for an inquiry. Families that have been caused to suffer by this cult deserve the opportunity to tell their stories. If you oppose this, you are a science denier. If you oppose this, you are deliberately ignoring experts who know a great deal more about it than you do. If you oppose this, you are telling these Australian families you don't care about their trauma. You will be telling these families you don't care about their children. You will be telling these families you care more about your political agenda than the wellbeing of the most vulnerable people in our Australian society. I ask: what are you afraid of? What is the problem? Are you afraid of the evidence that will emerge to expose this cult for what it is? You are afraid you'll be exposed as complicit in the experimentation which has been proven to destroy lives. Mark my words: if you deny this inquiry, you will not escape accountability because the Australian people are actually demanding answers to this, as did those mothers who walked the halls of this Parliament House at the end of last year. When they came to me, I said, 'What reaction have you had?' 'Great reaction from the senators; they are all in support of a Senate inquiry.' This is not a bill; it is a Senate inquiry to give these people the opportunity to have their say to tell us what is actually happening out there with their children. You are not asking me the questions. I am just putting forward on behalf of the people that I represent that they want to have a voice. They want to be able to put their stories across. Their children's lives have been destroyed. They have lost control of their children, and you will not give them this. Labor voted against it last time, and the Greens fully voted against this as well. So did some on the crossbench. Senator HANSON BK6 Oh, yes, and your comment, Senator McKim, is exactly the same, and you will do exactly the same again in pushing your own agenda. You don't care about the children of this nation, you don't care about the families, and these people want to have a voice and a say. There is no problem with having an investigation. You might have your own issues. No-one is saying to you that you can't stop your children from having puberty blockers and the rest of it. But give the parents an opportunity to have their say and tell us the impact it's had on their lives. There is nothing wrong with giving people a say on this. It appals me that you do not understand. You are not here to be a voice of the people of this nation who are crying out for something to be done about this. They want to be heard—that is all they want—so just give them the opportunity to have this Senate inquiry so that they can actually be heard and then make up your minds. Let the report come down, and then put it to the whole parliament. There's nothing wrong with asking for that for these people calling on us to do this. The whole country is going woke, and it is just ridiculous the way we are going. Many people ring me up and say: 'What the hell is happening? Is it in the water in the Canberra bubble? What is on the minds of these politicians that they can't understand what is happening out here in our communities to our children, in our schools in what we teach the kids, in what we are telling the young ones and all the rest of it?' Keep your LGBTIQ to yourself behind your own bloody closed doors. Leave the children alone. They don't have a right to be put through your sense of what you want to say through the teachers and everyone. Leave the children alone. This is to do with things happening in their own homes, not you pushing your own agenda on innocent children's minds for what they should be or whether they are a girl or a boy. I have never heard of anything so disgusting in all my life as what is happening in our schools now to our young innocent children. I call on the chamber: please consider this motion. It is not a bill. It is about giving the people of Australia the opportunity to have their say. 18:28 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales All Australians deserve access to the health care that they need, including children, young people and their families. And it is important that each child and family, including transgender and gender diverse children, have access to the care and support that they need for the best possible health outcome now and in the future. Many of the matters contained in these proposed terms of reference are a matter for state and territory governments. The governance of hospitals is a prime example. Additionally, many of the matters contained in these proposed terms of reference question the expertise of clinicians who in treating their patients utilise their clinical judgement to provide appropriate support and care. But I think we can see, from the comments made just now, that this motion is not about ensuring appropriate support and care. It is instead about establishing a platform that will inevitably be used by people with extreme views who would do harm to a vulnerable patient group, their families and their loved ones. These children need care and support, not a parliamentary inquiry. This view is shared by the community as well as medical experts in this field. As was noted back in November in response to a similar motion, advice has been received from the royal Australian college of physicians which said that a national inquiry 'would not increase the scientific evidence available regarding gender dysphoria but would further harm vulnerable patients and their families'. We are talking about a population that experiences very high levels of suicidality; up to one in two have attempted suicide. The politicisation of their health care is not beneficial to anyone. The Senate dealt with the matter of an inquiry on this topic in November last year and again in March of this year as an MPI. It is clear that the Senate does not support an inquiry. The government will oppose this motion, and I urge the Senate to reject it. 18:31 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I would like to thank Senator McAllister for her very considered words on this very sensitive issue. And I will be brief. I just want to put on the record, though, why my colleagues and I will actually be supporting this motion, and it's not for all of the reasons that Senator Hanson has explained; it's about understanding the committee process in this place and that the committee this would be referred to is actually chaired, as I understand it, by Senator Rice from the Greens. I want to put on the record my understanding and support for this small and vulnerable community. Indeed, I know people from this community who live in regional areas and have additional challenges, such as access to support services and these specialist clinicians. I support an inquiry to help in the education process as well so that people understand some of the points that Senator McAllister raised. But I also want to reassure people that in Australia we do provide holistic clinical services to young people and we do listen to their families, because Australia is different. My understanding of the current situation is that families and parents are still very much involved and part of the process, and maybe we need to highlight that a little bit more because there is a lot of misinformation on these issues. I also want to reassure not just families and the wider community at large but also myself that we don't have issues like those that have been discovered in other nations. I will quote from the Cass review, which was commissioned in September 2020, into the Tavistock clinic in the United Kingdom. I am fully aware that, yes, the clinic was initially due to be closed by a court, but then that ruling was overturned by a superior court. I acknowledge that. But the UK government has now determined that Tavistock, as a standalone clinic by itself, is going to close in a transitioned manner, that two clinics will then open up—one in the north, one in the south—and that a lot of the issues identified in the Cass report must be acknowledged and actually addressed with the new clinics. Dr Cass found that, once patients are identified as having gender related distress, other healthcare issues they have—such as being neurodivergent—can sometimes be overlooked. I believe through an inquiry I can reassure myself and we can reassure the wider community that that isn't happening in Australia and that we are ensuring that our young people who come forward with gender distress actually get the full range of supports—that they get to talk to psychologists, get assessed, talk to specialist GPs and fully understand the risks and the positive benefits of the choices that they are making—and their parents are with them all the way. I know that, for the gender-diverse kids who live in the regions and the families of those children, this is not an issue they take lightly. This is not an issue where someone just wakes up in the morning. This is something that families work through. It is a journey. It is a long process. The trans kids I know are absolutely remarkable. They are brave, they are strong and they are proud people. I applaud them, but I also know that they have had a lot of family support and a lot of medical and specialist support. I just think that, by supporting this inquiry, we'll actually enable a lot of those stories to come out as well. So my colleagues and I will be supporting this inquiry, but we will also accept the will of the Senate. 18:36 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak against this motion. This divisive, cynical and hateful exercise ignores reality and it throws mud onto kids, their families and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. We have seen, time and time again, the hateful minority that beats the drums of transphobia outclassed and outnumbered. They have no home in this parliament, and they have no home in the Australian community. Access to health care for young people who are suffering gender dysphoria and an increase in them accessing those services is a good thing. It means that young people are getting the medical care and support that they need. We know that young people who suffer gender dysphoria are at extremely high risk of suicide. Why would we want to stop those young people from accessing good-quality medical care that keeps them safe? I didn't hear a story before about a family torn apart by a young person accessing gender-affirming treatment. What I heard was a horrible story about a young person who was seeking treatment whose family couldn't or wouldn't accept them for who they were. We don't need an inquiry for young people and their families to get the information that they need about this type of health care. That is a matter for the young person, their family and their doctors. If we adhere to the principle 'do no harm' then we won't subject young people who are suffering from gender dysphoria to an inquiry that will give space for people who are filled with hate and bigotry to politicise them and who they are. I stand here with the Greens because we believe that better things are possible. We believe that this community cares about other people and that, outside this place, people have genuine empathy for and care about the experience of others. We believe that better things are possible, because there is no future in hate. We will continue to fight for and defend those marginalised by this rhetoric that only seeks to divide. We know that the majority of Australians support trans people and support trans kids. As allies, the Greens will continue to stand up and show up for trans kids and trans people of all ages. In the face of this hatred, trans campaigners and allies still outnumber the bigots. Trans kids unequivocally deserve our love and support. As a teacher, I know kids. I appreciate their wit and their humour. I understand their fears and their anxieties. I know that they can and should be trusted. We must continue to affirm and celebrate trans kids, ensuring that they feel loved, supported and safe in our schools, our workplaces, our parliaments and our community. 18:40 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Just for the awareness of the Senate, I won't make a long contribution. I just want to acknowledge the very genuine care and concern from all those that have raised contributions on this issue so far because it is a sensitive matter and I respect that. I respect that on this matter there are differing views across the chamber. On our side, we are having a conscience vote on this. I thought it was appropriate that I declare my reasons for voting the way that I will be. I will be supporting this reference because it is simply just a reference. I think the terms that have been put out by Senator Hanson are reasonable. There are significant issues in this area. I think it's worthwhile taking a look at it. It is not subject matter that I'm in any way an expert on. I certainly don't profess that. I don't have a health background. While I was a youth worker many years ago, I wasn't a youth worker working in this particular space. But I think there are some serious issues that are occurring. I'm particularly interested in the inquiry, if it goes ahead, taking a look at the evidence from overseas and particularly the United Kingdom and European countries that seem to have a more cautious approach to this issue. I think if we are a mature body we should be able to have an inquiry into this issue and deal with it in a way that is beneficial to children. I am concerned by what does seem to be a real rise in the number of children that are presenting with gender dysphoria. I'm not sure, necessarily, of the origins of that. But in the reports that I've seen for even my own home state of Western Australia the number of hospitalisations related to this matter has gone up rather exponentially. So I think it's worthy of us to have a mature investigation into this. It is simply just a reference; there is not a value judgement necessarily placed on it by way of the words in the terms of this particular reference. It would be a reference that I would like to participate in as a participating senator to learn and certainly get evidence that could go towards assisting the community. So I commend it to the Senate and hope that we can support this reference into a very, very important issue that does seem to be on the rise. 18:43 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Trans and gender-diverse young people need our love, they need our care and they need access to the health support that they need in their lives. This reference, if it went ahead, would be an opportunity to continue to demonise trans and gender-diverse young people, and that is the last thing that they need. In 2020, then health minister Greg Hunt asked for and received advice from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians regarding the care and treatment of trans and gender-diverse children and adolescents, including those seeking medical intervention. The advice from the experts was that gender-affirming health care for trans and gender-diverse young people should be a national priority and that withholding or limiting access to care and treatment would be unethical and would have serious impacts on the health and wellbeing of young people. It supported the principles underlying the current guidelines—that is, what was being done at that moment was appropriate and, as long as we had continuing investment to meet the needs, that the treatment of trans and gender-diverse young people was being supported. Advice was given under a proposal at that stage that there should be an inquiry, and they essentially said there was no need for an inquiry. What is needed is more resources to accommodate and to treat and appropriately care for the number of trans and gender-diverse young people who are presenting for treatment, absolutely. The number of trans and gender-diverse young people who are presenting for treatment has increased, as more young people are aware of the fact that they are trans or gender diverse or non-binary, or they're questioning their gender. Go back 50 years and consider how many people in the Australian community identified as being same-sex attracted. It was very few because of the demonisation of people who were gay, lesbian or bisexual, and so anybody who felt that way felt that they had to hide it away from everyone. No way would people come out and be open to their families, to their friends, to their community, and so, not surprisingly, the number who identified as same-sex attracted was tiny. I now want to take you forward to when my wife, Penny, who sadly passed away 3½ years ago, transitioned. At that stage, which was in the early 2000s, while she was exploring her gender identity, she knew next to no-one who was transgender or gender diverse. Her experience up until then—and she was in her mid-40s by that stage—was that she was the only person like herself in the world, essentially. There were a few individuals she knew of, but there was a sense that this was really, really weird. She had suffered her whole life, questioning her gender identity, being put in a box and not being able to be the person she was. It was at that stage that information about trans issues was becoming more accessible with the rise of the internet, and so she discovered that there were actually quite a lot of other people like her. She then managed to explore her gender identity. She transitioned and she flourished—she absolutely flourished. The rise in the number of young people seeking support is a reflection of the fact that people now know that this is a thing, and that, if they are questioning their gender identity and they want to affirm their gender as not their biological sex, that is possible and that they will be happier people for it. There was a 2022 study, so just last year, that found that access to gender-affirming care was associated with improved mental health outcomes among trans and gender-diverse young people. Access to gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, was associated with 60 per cent lower odds of moderate or severe depression and 73 per cent lower odds of suicidality over a 12 month follow-up. In short, when young people are able to access the health care they need, their lives are improved because of it. This referral that we have before us today is coming from a position that demonises trans and gender-diverse people. It is coming from a position that it is a really negative thing that there's an increase in the number of trans and gender-diverse people, and I reject that entirely. I am saddened by the level of hatred and vitriol that is still there towards trans and gender-diverse young people. This is the stuff that does the harm. This is the stuff that makes people feel that they are not welcome. This is the stuff that makes people feel that society does not want them and they have got to hide their true identity, and some of them think that life is not worth living. We do not need another inquiry that is just going to come from this frame of negative attack on trans and gender-diverse people. It would be incredibly damaging, and even though I welcome the contributions that say it will come to my committee so everything is going to be okay, that's not going to be the case. It would be a platform for the bigots, a platform for hate, a platform for harming for so any people, and that is not what is needed. What is needed is to have the health care and the support to show trans and gender-diverse people that they are loved, that they are accepted by society, that their identities are absolutely valid and that they should be celebrated. The Greens want that to occur. We want to work with everyone in this place to realise the importance of that and to realise the value to young people, in particular, of being able to be the people that they really know that they are. 18:50 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support Senator Hanson's motion to refer the issue of treatment options for young people with gender dysphoria to an inquiry. It's a simple fact that the model of gender affirmation is completely experimental, and that's at best. More likely, it's mutilation and debasement of children. Gender affirmation treatment is putting children who feel confusion about their gender at a young age on the pathway to life-altering hormone blockers and irreversible surgery. It's butchery when children need something else. People seem to have difficulty accepting this, but some feelings of confusion are completely normal as teenagers make their way through puberty and experience many new changes to their bodies. Left alone or dealt with by counselling and therapy—and love, in the severe cases—these feelings almost always resolve themselves. That is fact. Children need love, compassion, support and respect. I have a relative who had gender dysphoria much of her life. She contemplated gender surgery. She decided to start the process. She made the decision, and, before doing so, she decided she would not adopt chemicals or surgery. She and her doctor wife came to accept her dysphoria. They are now proud parents of a lovely young child, and we accept and love her regardless of her decision. I have a friend who did change gender the opposite way, from male to female—another lovely person. These people need to be accepted, but children need support, counselling and love, not chemicals and scalpels. As I said, the alternative to this gender affirmation is leaving kids to work through their issues lovingly, with support, counselling and therapy. The alternative is gender affirmation. Gender affirmation involves telling children that sex is just an arbitrary concept—that's a lie—and that you can choose to be a boy or a girl whenever you want; with a click of the fingers, you can change teams with little to no consequence. Introducing this idea around the time of puberty and of other feelings of confusion is a dangerous, risky cocktail. Right at the time children are feeling most confused, they're told that nothing is real and that everything will be fixed if they simply switch teams. The gender affirmation witchdoctors won't tell children that fully committing to pretending to be a boy or a girl, if they weren't born that way, simply isn't simple. Basic biology gets in the way. The only way to try and eventually effect this change is through a potent, permanent and dangerous cocktail of drugs, they are told, often prescribed off label in addition to permanent, irreversible surgery to lop off bits of people's bodies. Gender affirmation advocates claim these treatments are reversible. That is a lie. Many children who were pressured into the gender affirmation pathway are coming to regret those choices as adults. De-transitioners are a growing community of adults who now find they will never fully embody their target gender yet are unable to return to the gender they were born due to the irreversible effects of gender affirmation drugs and surgeries. Instead, they're left dependent on expensive cocktails of gender hormone drugs for the rest of their lives. The real winner out of the gender affirmation pathway is big pharma, being delivered waves upon waves of medication-dependent consumers for life. It's worth billions of dollars, despite the small number of people. The victims of the gender affirmation pathway, though, are left destitute, with no accountability for the outcomes that extremists in the gender cult pushed onto them from an adolescent age—extremists like senators in this chamber—for whatever reason. It's important to keep in mind the issue that's trying to be fixed here: feelings of confusion or stress in children going through adolescence. There's no longitudinal evidence that the gender affirmation pathway leading to gender reassignment fixes the core issue. There's much evidence that it does not and that it does enormous harm. In fact, the transgender community is at the highest risk of suicide of nearly any community in the world. Why? Because so many young people come to regret their change and are trapped—trapped for life, in being unable to change back to their birth gender, which they've come to accept. They are trapped for life, unable to have children themselves, unable to live a normal life and regretting their decision for the rest of their life because they made their decision as an impressionable child. Whether they're simply predisposed to psychological distress or that distress is created or compounded by the failed gender affirmation pathway is difficult to say. What can be said, however, is that if reassignment surgeries and drugs are meant to be a cure for psychological distress in children, they have absolutely and obviously failed. They're failing many, many children. The truth is that putting children on the gender affirmation pathway is a pathway to butchering people for no healthy clinical outcome. Many medical whistleblowers have raised these concerns. I'll say that again: many medical whistleblowers have raised these concerns, yet have been shouted down by the powerful big pharma and transgender cult that holds power at the moment. The United Kingdom has seen this problem and lived this problem. After whistleblowers blew the lid on medical abuse happening at Tavistock gender clinic, the entire clinic was shut down—the entire clinic that was once held up on a pillar and treated as a god. Now it's facing class action suits and people are recognising the hideous crimes that they have committed. At the very least, these issues need to be referred to a committee for inquiry. Those who support the gender affirmation pathway shouldn't be afraid of the truth through an inquiry. What's wrong with knowledge? If I'm wrong, then an inquiry will prove you right. Of what are you lot afraid? Greens use labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the dishonest or the fearful. They support big pharma. Please stop demonising children with gender dysphoria and those who have a different view. I suspect the gender cult knows that the truth is not on their side and that's why they're running scared of looking underneath the hood on this issue—an issue affecting children. One Nation will stand against sending children down a path of drug dependency and body mutilation to appease the gender cult. I'm never caught up in gender, race or national heritage. Every human, regardless of skin colour, for example, and regardless of heritage, has red blood running through their veins—every single human. We are one. I am very, very pro-human. Send this to an inquiry and get to the facts and find out what will actually help children. Until then, leave our kids alone. 18:58 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make some brief remarks this evening. There have been a number of motions in relation to gender dysphoria since I started in this Senate in 2019, and I've always voted in the same way. I've always been of the view that these are the most sensitive issues and we're talking about the most sensitive and vulnerable parts of our community. I welcome the opportunity to make some remarks rather than just vote one way or the other. Very recently, the coalition was in government and the then health minister, Greg Hunt, was asked about these matters. He said, 'In recognition of the risks of further harm to young people, the government does not intend to establish a national inquiry on this matter.' That has been our starting position as a political movement, and I think it reflects the great sensitivity here. It also of course reflects the jurisdictional issues which are essential in any discussion of these matters. The jurisdictional issue I refer to is that these are matters which are dealt with by the state health departments. These are matters of state and territory law. The Australian Senate is not the arbiter of gender dysphoria policy and law; that is the preserve of the state and territory legislatures and their health departments. I fear greatly that an already-vulnerable community is going to be subject to more unnecessary politicisation of these issues. I would say that there certainly are people in this chamber who have genuine concerns about these issues who would like to have a reasonable discussion about them. But it is not true, and it is not reasonable, to invoke parents in the way that it has been by some. Parents who have been connected to children who have gender dysphoria have different views about these matters, but I think they are almost all united in their belief that these matters should not be politicised—that they should not be weaponised by politicians. And they would be united in their view that even if they thought there should be an inquiry—and I note that there are parents who believe there should be inquiries into these matters—that the inquiry should be conducted by bureaucrats, by health officials and by people who are working in the jurisdiction, not by people who are seeking to make other, perhaps political, points. Of course, the jurisdictional issues are important here and the Commonwealth doesn't have a day-to-day role in them other than in relation to family law, where family law cases have made it very clear that nothing can happen unless there is parental consent. That is established under the family law arrangements through the Imogen case. But I'll reiterate this point: this is about the way the states and the territories run their own affairs, it is not about the Commonwealth parliament. So the terms of reference here, I would say, are not balanced. They already present a view and, as a Liberal, I would say strongly that they violate the federalist principles that I think are very important here. That's particularly so with term of reference (e), which proposes that the Commonwealth takes a broader role here. The natural extension of this point is that the Commonwealth will be running state and territory health policy, and that is not the appropriate thing for us to be doing here. Australians already know that we are overgoverned. If there is a problem with a state or territory law then that should be taken to the state or territory jurisdiction. So what should happen next in relation to these sensitive matters? I believe that people who are coming to this with an open mind, or who want to undertake a good-faith inquiry, should be given options to do that. I don't think we should be closing down inquiries for the sake of closing down an inquiry. I think that genuine issues should be investigated. No-one is suggesting that things should be pushed under the carpet. Where would these issues go, bearing in mind the extreme sensitivity and the heightened suicide risk that everyone in this debate accepts? Everyone in this debate accepts that these are the Australians who are most likely to take their own lives, so therefore surely this demands the greatest degree of sensitivity. I would have thought it would be something that the state health ministers could come together and look at, or that it could be something, if it were really necessary, that the Commonwealth health minister could discuss with their counterpart in the other party of government—the alternative government. I think bipartisanship on these matters would always be essential, because there is a risk that some of these US style culture wars on these matters could be introduced into our jurisdiction, which could make a very sensitive situation with a very vulnerable community much worse. I'm sure everyone tries to do the right thing when they come into this place. But I am convinced that it would not be the right thing to subject an already very vulnerable community to an inquiry which the health officials and the doctors and physicians have all said would not be appropriate, as it would provide a platform for politicisation and weaponisation of these issues. By all means, let's look at issues where they need to be examined, but let's do it in the right way. These are matters of state and territory law; therefore, the obvious place for these matters to be assessed, in a calm and measured and, frankly, private way, would be through the state and territory jurisdictions. If people would like to engage on that, I am very happy to have a discussion, but it's got to be balanced. I will be voting against this motion when it comes up tomorrow because I do not believe it is the appropriate place and avenue for such a debate. 19:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I want to make a few brief remarks. The fundamental issue that is at the heart of a matter like this is the wellbeing of children and young people. It must be of paramount concern. The motion before this chamber proposing an inquiry deals, in particular, with children and young people with gender dysphoria. 'Gender dysphoria' is acknowledged by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians as a term used to describe the distress experienced by a person due to incongruence between their gender identity and sex assigned at birth. The College of Physicians notes that it is generally diagnosed at clinical interview rather than self-defined. We are talking very specifically here about a category of children and young people who are diagnosed with a distress, and a distress that is further recognised by the College of Physicians as being one where: Children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are a very vulnerable population, experiencing stigma and extremely high rates of depression, self-harm, attempted suicide and suicide. This is why these issues should be handled with the utmost care and sensitivity. I appreciate that some people, those who genuinely approach these issues with pure intentions, can absolutely come to different conclusions about the proposal that is before this Senate. I respect those who come to it with the purest of motivations and intentions, but I do also urge them to think very carefully about whether this proposal for a public inquiry of this nature is the right approach to handle a matter of such extreme and serious sensitivity. I have seen motions of this nature come to the chamber before, over recent years. They have done so on numerous occasions. Again, I acknowledge that many who have voted for them have done so with the best of intentions. But I have been clearly guided by the position taken by the health minister of the previous government, Greg Hunt. Minister Hunt was very clear in his view that we needed to approach these issues with caution, with sensitivity and with concern to ensure that the actions of parliament or government did not cause further harm to a highly vulnerable population. I am clear in my view that the risks associated with the type of parliamentary inquiry proposed would outweigh any benefits of undertaking such an inquiry. I am sure—as with any field of science and medical study and research for which there is a growing body of knowledge, but from limited beginnings—that there is still much to be learned in this space and that there are still improvements to be made in the type of clinical guidance that can be provided and the type of treatments that are offered. It is essential that medical practitioners and those responsible for setting clinical guidance are absolutely consistent and persistent in the approach they take to ensuring that the type of support provided to children and young people with gender dysphoria is best practice according to the knowledge available at all times. When former minister Hunt considered these matters and asked the Royal Australasian College of Physicians for advice, they came back very clearly identifying what they saw as being important ways forward for support. They indicated that, firstly, the Australian government should work with states and territories to improve access to and consistency of care both within and across jurisdictions. They identified deficits in relation to rural and regional access to appropriate support and care. They acknowledged there were differences in some states and territories and that ensuring that jurisdictions across Australia were pursuing best-practice outcomes was an important undertaking. Secondly, they suggested that the government consider coordinating and providing funding for research on the long-term outcomes associated with the care and treatment of gender dysphoria. This is an entirely logical recommendation and suggestion—noting, as I said, that evidence is certainly not at a point where people could say it is concluded, but, frankly, nor could you say that about most areas of medical research and treatment, where we are always striving to see and achieve advances in relation to those areas of treatment and research. The third recommendation of the RACP was to facilitate the development of evidence based information aligned to current guidelines, to be made available to all patients and to all families to ensure support for fully informed consent and engagement in relation to these matters. These are important principles that I would urge the current government to ensure that it is working with health ministers from around the country to act upon and to deliver upon, because it's important that the Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines for trans and gender-diverse children and adolescents are at the highest practice possible; that they do provide for the best interests of those children and young people; that they do support outcomes that ensure their wellbeing for the future; and that, in doing that, they are cautious and careful to ensure that, whether it is treatment or non-treatment that occurs, whether there is action or inaction, all of those steps are undertaken in the best interests of those young Australians, of those young people, and their health—physical health and mental health and wellbeing. I expect that there will be further changes in relation to the guidance of such treatment time and time again in years to come as, indeed, medical science, research and evidence evolve and change. But I do not believe that a committee of senators, however well intentioned some who might participate in that inquiry would be, are the best people to try to define those treatments or those approaches. I believe our medical practitioners, our researchers and our scientists are best placed to do that, under the same type of guidance, policies and settings that we apply to the treatment of many other—any other—types of issues that people face in their lives. I particularly note, given the vulnerabilities that young people face—the vulnerabilities, in particular, that those with gender dysphoria face—the advice of the RACP: The RACP notes that there are substantial dangers posed by some of the proposals that have been put forward during the recent public debate on this issue, such as holding a national inquiry into the issue. The RACP went on and said very bluntly and directly: A national inquiry would not increase the scientific evidence available regarding gender dysphoria but would further harm vulnerable patients and their families through increased media and public attention. That should be a guiding statement for all of us. Will passing this motion increase the scientific evidence available regarding gender dysphoria? No, it will not. But could the publicity that comes with such an inquiry see some of the most vulnerable Australians face significant additional stress in their lives—stress that all too often leads to worse mental health outcomes, to suicide attempts and, ultimately, to suicide? Yes, potentially, it could. That is what should guide us in terms of the approach to this motion. We should hold the colleges of medicine and we should hold our researchers—we should hold all—to a very high standard. There are means to ensure that they are scrutinised, that our health officials are scrutinised, through the regular processes of this chamber. There are means for committees to seek private briefings and information without necessarily needing to initiate an inquiry but to actually go and seek that information and advice for their scrutiny and knowledge and to inform their deliberations simply as a committee. But, as the RACP said in their advice to Minister Hunt at the time, considerations of care and treatment of medical conditions should be based on medical evidence and advice from medical and other health professionals, who have specific expertise in the condition in question. Members of this chamber do not have specific expertise in the condition in question. We come to public policy issues variously well intentioned, with some sometimes seeking to achieve publicity or other outcomes too. But, on an issue like this, with the sensitivity attached to it, we should heed the warnings that are given. I encourage senators to do as I will do, which will be to vote against this motion. This is not because I do not recognise that there are concerns in parts of society—I do recognise those concerns—and not because I believe that everything is perfect in relation to the treatment of gender dysphoria at present—I'm sure it is not—but because I believe that, through enhanced knowledge and research, we will see continued improvements. But I do not believe that the type of scrutiny proposed through this committee inquiry referral would provide for improved outcomes. I am convinced that it could risk the lives of some young Australians. Therefore, I will be opposing this motion. 19:18 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I want to read into the record the conclusion from a paper written by Bell Lane, who is a barrister of the Victorian Bar and who wrote a paper for the Australian family law profession called Gender questioning children and family law: an evolving landscape. I should say that, in the acknowledgements to this paper—which was released in April 2023—the barrister acknowledges the significant assistance of Professor Kasia Kozlowska, Dr Alison Clayton and Professor Patrick Parkinson, who is one of Australia's leading experts in relation to family law issues. I'm going to read this, and I recommend this paper to everyone in this place because it does raise serious issues. I'm going to read the conclusion. These aren't my words; this is the conclusion of this paper. And the paper, I should say, is over 100 pages long. The conclusion reads: It has not been easy to find, read, and understand all of this information. While there is easy access to information which promotes gender affirming medicalisation, it is difficult to find information about contrary views. This paper would not have been possible without the website operated by the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM). In a 2022 Family Law case, a treating paediatrician was critical of SEGM. I note the comments of the Westmead Hospital researchers about the politicisation of information in this area: "The fifth challenge pertained to the issue of research. In this context, we had set up research as part of the clinic's routine activity, enabling us to contribute to the evidence base regarding children who present with gender dysphoria. In the process of writing up data from our clinic, we became aware that the process of knowledge development—ours and that of other researchers—was at risk of being thwarted by ideology (Singal, 2020). In 2019, in response to this issue, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine was founded "to promote safe, compassionate, ethical and evidence-informed healthcare for children, adolescents, and young adults with gender dysphoria" (Society for Evidence-Based Gender, 2020)." Unfortunately for children and young people, and families who are trying to work through complex issues around identity during a time of distress, this is a highly politicised area. Polarisation and the inability to fully discuss these issues comes at a cost, to young people and their families. As the Westmead researchers conclude: "One of the biggest challenges for clinicians working with children who present for assessment of gender dysphoria is the effect of polarized socio-political discourses on their daily clinical practice— Just reflect on that: the impact of polarised sociopolitical discourses on their daily clinical practices. It goes on: Polarization happens when people become divided in this case with reference to their views about gender dysphoria in children into sharply opposing groups. Complex phenomena are then often simplified along a single dimension that disregards other dimensions, that dismisses the lived experience of others, and that closes off questioning, hypothesizing, and consideration of, and engagement with, opposing viewpoints. We have seen these processes at work throughout our clinical practice, as described in the present article. Polarized views are unhelpful to clinicians who are at the front line trying to provide holistic clinical care to a distressed group of children and such views are just as unhelpful to the children and families themselves. To provide adequate care, clinicians need to understand and confront the complexity of the clinical presentations. They need, in particular, to use a broad, holistic, systemic (i.e., biopsychosocial) framework that takes into account the full range of interacting factors social, economic, relational, family, psychological, and biological that have defined the life circumstances of the child and the family seeking care for gender dysphoria." The area is complex, and it is important to ensure that the child / young person, parents and the Court have all relevant information. The author of the article then asks three questions in a family law context. I know it's not proposed to refer this matter to the legal and constitutional affairs committee, but I will read the three questions that are put in a family law context. They are: A. Given the above, what is the status of Re Kelvin (2017) is it time for reconsideration? B. How does the Court address keeping updated about evolving medical evidence in an adversarial system? C. What is the obligation of treating medical professionals to bring alternate views and contrary evidence to the Court's attention? Those are the three questions put in that article. There are questions that need to be answered, and it is fit and proper that this place and other places consider questions. I've listened carefully to the arguments which have been made by members of the chamber on both sides of this argument, but, I think, given the evidence that we're seeing—I recommend people read this article, which I have done; it is extremely well researched and very thoughtful—that it is the time now to have an inquiry, and we need to consider it. Is this the best forum for that inquiry? I'm not sure whether or not it is. But there are certainly serious questions which are being asked, and we can't let that sociopolitical divide which is referred to in this article stop legitimate questions being asked. I think all senators need to carefully reflect on this and the pathway forward. 19:25 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I've listened to some of the speeches in support of this motion. I've listened to Senator Hanson's speech. I've listened to Senator Roberts's speech. I've listened to other speeches from that side—not all of them, but most of them. I think some of them were actually made in good faith, and I want to acknowledge that. I'll address first those that I think were made in good faith, and say that, very clearly, if we were to proceed with this proposal, it would undoubtedly cause a lot of harm to a lot of people who deserve our love and support rather than us voting in this place to provide a platform for hatred and bigotry and harm. Make no mistake, that is exactly what those who are supporting this proposal would be voting for. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Point of order, Senator Hanson? Senator Hanson BK6 That language that you used there, 'hatred and bigotry' and all the rest of it, I think is a reflection on me, having moved this motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU There was no direct reflection. It certainly could be inferred, but it wasn't direct, so I can't pull up Senator McKim on that. But I will ask him to consider the impact of his words, given that this chamber is a place where people with different views should be able to present those views without being attacked or imputations being made, and then the chamber can vote. That is how democracy works. Senator McKIM JKM As I was saying, there is no doubt in my mind that, if the Senate was to agree with the proposal put forward by Senator Hanson, the effect of that would be to provide a platform for hatred and bigotry, and that would absolutely, without any question, result in significant harm to people who actually deserve our support and our love and our care and deserve to have us join them in a celebration of who they are as humans. I haven't reflected at all on Senator Hanson, but I will come to Senator Hanson's arguments in a minute, and I'm glad she's here to listen to them. Before I do that, I want to say a couple of things quite clearly. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Trans rights are human rights. Trans people need our love, our acceptance and our support, and they need us to celebrate with them who they are as human beings. I want to talk about my amazing stepson, Jasper Lees, who is a young trans man. I want to allow Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, who for some reason is sitting there smirking at me right now, to share a bit of Jasper's journey— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator McKim, you cannot make comments on other senators in that way. Senator McKIM JKM It was my privilege to be able to share a part of his journey with him—his transition with him. It was one of the most amazing learning experiences of my life, and I really want to thank Jasper for allowing me to share so closely with him that time in his life. Recently, Jasper wrote an article that was published by the Guardian, and I just want to place a couple of things that he said in that article on the record here in the Senate today. He said this: There were two options for me as I grew up and had no choice but to accept my identity—I could die or find a way to live as Jasper. 'I could die or find a way to live as Jasper.' He said: I did not want to die but I was terrified of how difficult transition would be. No two gender-diverse people trek the same transition path— and that's one of the offensive things we've had to hear today—as if all trans people can somehow be lumped into a homogenous group, rather than being a rich and diverse cross-section of humanity, which is what they actually are. Jasper went on to say: Waking up from general anaesthetic afterward is, and probably always will be, the happiest I have ever felt. And I know that that's true. I know that it's true because I was able to share that with him— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator McKim, reluctant as I am to interrupt what is obviously such a personal speech, the time is 7.30. ADJOURNMENT 100 ADJOURNMENT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 101 19:30 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales As you might notice, Acting Deputy President Fawcett, I'm not dressed in my usual business attire for the chamber! I am indeed spending this evening with my esteemed colleagues from across the parliament at the Mid-Winter Ball, which is hosted by those hardworking journalists in the press gallery. It's a privilege to step out of that event and to speak in tonight's adjournment debate for the purpose, once again in this chamber, of speaking about the momentous passage of the Constitution alteration bill, which passed this Senate this week. I'm particularly mindful on the evening of an event like the Mid-Winter Ball, at which Australians have access to the parliamentarians and policymakers whose decisions affect the course of their lives meaningfully and tangibly, that the very premise on which the call for a Voice to parliament is based is an undeniably true and fundamentally tragic fact that for more than two centuries Australia's Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been systematically and institutionally marginalised, and largely excluded from discussions and decisions regarding the laws, policies and regulations which impact their lives. In speaking once again on the upcoming referendum and the Voice to parliament, in particular I wish to speak about the rural and regional parts of our country, which, like all Australians, will participate in the dialogue and indeed in the vote on the matter of the First Nations Voice to parliament. I am privileged to be the duty senator for a large portion of rural and regional New South Wales: specifically, Calare, Hume, Lyne, Riverina, Farrer and Parkes. These regions have proportionately larger Indigenous communities than any other electorates across the country, and it is deeply disheartening that the National Party, in particular—although there are some Liberal members—who purport to represent the regional and rural parts of our country, have made the decision to oppose this historic referendum. It has been well established that the vast majority of Indigenous Australians support the Voice. It is therefore not just sad but actively outrageous that almost all of the MPs for the duty electorates which I represent are leveraging and amplifying alarmist concerns about the 'no' campaign to incite fear and misinformation about the purpose and structure of the Voice. Everyone deserves to feel properly represented by their federal MP, and it's sad that specifically in areas where there are many larger Indigenous communities a full range of MPs are doing nothing more than walking the party line and not listening to their constituents. One exception is the member for Calare, who left the National Party in December 2022 due to their particular stance on the voice. He is now proudly campaigning for the 'yes' vote in his electorate, which includes the regional hubs of Lithgow, Orange, Bathurst and Mudgee, as well as many other smaller towns and communities. In the 2021 census, the Indigenous population of Calare was 7.8 per cent, whilst the percentage in the Australian population was just 3.2 per cent. In stepping down, Andrew Gee is not only standing up for his own values and properly representing his constituents but he is standing up against a party which puts derision and fear above understanding and acceptance. The referendum on the Voice represents a crucial and momentous opportunity for Australians to come together and to right a wrong that has stood for far too long. In many of Australia's rural and regional communities in particular, Aboriginal land councils have played a substantial role in providing a voice for their communities within the cultural and political life of the region. Those who are seeking to stoke fear about the potential overreach of the Voice to parliament and about the scope of issues with which such a body might seek to engage could only be described as acting with willing ignorance of the way in which Indigenous advocacy groups, such as the many Aboriginal land councils which I have had the privilege to work with, are able to discern very aptly which issues necessitate their active input and consideration. In my opinion, the notion that the Voice might act irresponsibly and insert itself without consideration into issues which may not merit its involvement is a description that is offensive and which demonstrates a frightening lack of faith in the work of Indigenous leaders and a derision for the integrity that is held by many people who not only support the Voice but who will be advantaged by the Voice being established. Indigenous Australians have fought for decades for recognition and for the capacity to have their voices not just listened to but truly and deeply heard in this place. The vote which I cast to pass the Constitution alteration bill will stand out in my political career as one of my proudest votes. Rankin, Dame Annabelle Jane Mary, DBE 101 19:35 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Over the winter break, we will be marking the 115th birthday of the Hon. Dame Annabelle Rankin. Annabelle Rankin was the first woman in Queensland to be elected to federal parliament, and the first woman to serve as a minister for a federal department. She was a remarkable woman who dedicated a lifetime of service to Australia. Dame Annabelle's story within the Liberal Party—my party—is characterised by her tireless advocacy for women's empowerment. Through her actions, she demonstrated that being a woman in politics did not require conforming to preconceived notions or compromising one's values. Instead, she remained steadfast in championing the principles of the individual, of fairness and of equal opportunity for all, regardless of background. With 24 years of service in the Senate and over five years as a minister for housing, Dame Annabelle Rankin became the first mother of the Senate due to her continuous long-standing service. Annabelle was a proud lifelong Liberal. Her father, Colin, had been a state MP in the Queensland parliament. Dame Annabelle's story is a story of our party. Her parents, Colin, a Scottish immigrant, and her mother, also Annabelle, married in Maryborough in 1906. Dame Annabelle grew up near Childers and completed her education as a border at the Glennie School in Toowoomba. Indeed, I looked at buying her house, at one point, in the small township of Howard. It was a beautiful Queenslander. It was her childhood home, but sadly it was well above my price range. As an unmarried woman with fortunate parents, the stereotypes at the time would have had it that Dame Annabelle would never enter the workforce, but this did not deter her. She taught at her local school and travelled the world, supporting the less fortunate in impoverished parts of London and refugees fleeing the Spanish Civil War. Annabelle returned to work in 1940. In 1946, she was offered a position with the United Nations. However, she declined this position so that she could enter politics in Australia. Dame Annabelle also became the first person to be appointed head of a foreign mission following her appointment as High Commissioner to New Zealand. Dame Annabelle's journey in the Liberal Party stands as a testament to her resilience and her unwavering commitment to advancing the representation of women. Dame Annabelle's dedication to gender equality within the Liberal Party was not limited to rhetoric. She actively worked to increase women's representation and involvement in politics. She was backed by Prime Minister Harold Holt to become the first departmental minister, despite opposition from some backward fringes. Annabelle paved the way for more women to enter the political arena, fostering a stronger, more inclusive Liberal Party. I want to pay tribute to some young women in my party, the Liberal National Party, who are doing that today. I want to pay tribute to Kate Samios, the newly elected president of the Young LNP in Queensland. I want to pay tribute to Alex Sinenko, who was recently elected as federal vice-president of the Liberal Party. I also want to pay tribute to Helen Craze, Tamara Srhoj and Emily Coggan, three fantastic young female leaders within the Young LNP and broader LNP movement in Queensland. I'm proud to call all of those five friends of mine. As we commemorate Dame Annabelle Rankin's 115th birthday, let us continue to draw inspiration from her example. Let all of us strive to create a political landscape where our party promotes more Dame Annabelle Rankins at all levels and to leadership roles within our party. A country where all voices are amplified, regardless of gender and ethnicity, and where those diverse contributions are celebrated is a good country. It is a country that was built by the Liberal Party. It is a country that was built by the coalition. So long we may remember the contribution of Dame Annabelle Rankin. Immigration 102 19:39 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Earlier this year the Forcibly Displaced People Network, or FDPN, released its report titled Inhabiting two worlds at once on the experiences of LGBTQIA+ people's settlement in Australia. The FDPN's research focuses on LGBTQIA+ forcibly displaced people, which means refugees, people seeking asylum and migrants from global south countries who are not able to live safely in their home country due to their LGBTQIA+ status and the subsequent discrimination, persecution and violence they face. In 2021 FDPN ran the first Australia-wide survey to capture comprehensive data about LGBTQIA+ forcibly displaced people in Australia, their experiences and where they seek assistance for health, housing and other settlement services. The survey results should alarm and concern us. It showed very high levels of discrimination in all aspects of life, including services, education, employment, housing and health care. Over 50 per cent of the participants said ongoing discrimination affected their physical and mental health. Shockingly, 60 per cent of people who undertook the survey experienced at least one form of violence in Australia. Participants reported feeling discrimination based upon their gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity and migration status, including a combination of these at once, when accessing support services. People specifically reported being subjected to racism, homophobia and transphobia. It is clear that the same systemic discrimination that has played out so viciously for First Nations people for more than 200 years has also resulted in the sheer cruelty and neglect shown to people who have come to our shores seeking safety. It is no secret that discrimination underlies much of our immigration policy, but these attitudes also shape our welfare system and the determination of who gets access to support. Like so many people seeking asylum, many LGBTQIA+ people have had some pretty terrible experiences of persecution and discrimination where they come from, but they are not eligible for support services in Australia because of their visa status. Barring people on certain visas from access to necessary support services is a specifically cruel choice. People from forcibly displaced backgrounds are no less worthy of accessing support than any Australian citizen. We can't change history, but we sure can make things right now and for the future. The Department of Home Affairs does not collect specific data on whether someone is an LGBTQIA+ refugee or any detail about their experiences. The invisibility of these people during settlement means that they are overlooked in the policy-making process. We do not know their specific needs, which in turn remain unmet and lead to unsafe outcomes for these people. We need more comprehensive ongoing data on the experiences of forcibly displaced people in Australia to inform holistic, inclusive access to services. The government must direct funding towards support services that are LGBTQIA+ led, client centred and trauma informed for forcibly displaced people. Services must be available to all, regardless of citizenship or visa status. This country's treatment of people seeking asylum and refugees leaves thousands in cruel situations, in painful limbo and in uncertainty, yet on World Refugee Day yesterday the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs said that the government will 'continue to be tough when it comes to securing our borders' and that it 'is committed to Operation Sovereign Borders'. A few seconds later he said that the government is also determined to change the tone of this debate in parliament and in the community to a debate that is anchored in compassion and generosity. Well, I have to say it is utter hypocrisy to commit in the same breath to continuing on with the cruellest policy against people who seek asylum and then ask for debate about them to be done with compassion. Labor knows that talk is cheap. We need action. Labor must end offshore detention. It is appalling that people seeking asylum are still being used as political pawns to fight culture wars in Australia. No amount of sugar-coating language can hide that fact. There have been decades of a shameful bipartisan race to the bottom when it comes to cruelty to people seeking asylum and refugees, and both the Labor Party and the coalition have been implicated in that. And this is causing unimaginable harm to thousands of people, including women and children. Our immigration and welfare policies should be based on compassion and respect, not xenophobia. If Labor truly want to change the tone of this debate then the work begins in their own backyard. Workplace Relations: Mining Industry 103 19:44 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I now bring you up to date with the fraudulent behaviour that's resulted in huge wage theft and the stripping of entitlements from Hunter Valley coalminers and from Central Queensland coalminers. You may recall from my many previous Senate speeches on this topic that on 14 April 2015 labour hire company Chandler Macleod Group, in collusion with the Hunter Valley CFMEU, submitted an enterprise agreement to the Fair Work Commission for approval. The Fair Work Commission went on to approve the enterprise agreement even though the agreement did not pass the BOOT assessment and contained false and misleading statutory declarations statements from the employer, Chandler Macleod, and the Hunter CFMEU's Mr Shane Thompson. The effect of the enterprise agreement was to strip protections of the Black Coal Mining Industry Award from the coalminers, pay them significantly less than the award, and remove entitlements including workers compensation and accident pay, annual leave, long service leave, superannuation, sick leave and holiday pay. The miners were not compensated with a loading to their pay rates, and they were much worse off under the enterprise agreement than under the award. The Black Coal Mining Industry Award did not authorise the use of casuals in the production side of coalmining. The enterprise agreement was contrary to this limitation under the award. The Fair Work Commission accepts—indeed, confirms—that an enterprise agreement cannot provide conditions less than the award, yet this enterprise agreement did exactly that. At a meeting held on 13 April 2015, the Hunter CFMEU agreed with the employers, Chandler Macleod Group: 'The CFMEU would agree to cease from any current and future actions and claims in its own right or on behalf of members directed towards ventilating and agitating its view that employees currently engaged by Chandler Macleod companies as casuals to perform black coalmining production work may be entitled to leave and other entitlements associated with permanent employment, or that Chandler Macleod is not paying employees their lawful terms and conditions.' This letter, of which we hold a copy, is damning as to the sickening deal that the Hunter CFMEU made with Chandler Macleod Group to not represent the interest of the member miners, who were now to be dudded of their entitlements and protections and have their wages stolen. Injured miner Mr Simon Turner has been fighting for his entitlements since he was injured in the mine almost nine years ago, smashing his back and being denied his rightful compensation. Simon was made totally and permanently disabled for life. It's now very clear that the Hunter CFMEU, in cahoots with the employer, Chandler Macleod Group, and together with an incompetent or possibly dishonest Fair Work Commission, have denied the back payment of all black coal entitlements for all full-time employees and then doubled down on these actions in endorsing an enterprise agreement that removed the legal minimum statutory requirements. In order to be endorsed, an enterprise agreement must first pass the Fair Work Commission's better off overall test, or, as it's known, the BOOT. Mr Turner has always argued that in his case this test could not possibly have been satisfied. He's right. Evidence from the Fair Work Commission itself has recently emerged, proving this test was never applied to the enterprise agreement, stealing from Mr Turner and hundreds of casual coalminers employed at BHP's Mount Arthur mine in the Hunter Valley. In relation to a request for documents pertaining to the Chandler Macleod Northern District of NSW Black Coal Mining Agreement 2015 and the Chandler Macleod Gunnedah Basin Coal Mining Agreement 2014, a note from the Fair Work Commission says: 'I have checked both matters and they do not contain the BOOT assessment. It appears the BOOT assessment was not undertaken for either matter. If one was undertaken, a copy of the assessment would be on file.' The note's author goes on: 'has provided you with a complete copy of both files. There is no other documentation or further information we can provide you for these two matters.' This is damning information. If the enterprise agreement was entered without a BOOT assessment, it could not possibly pass the BOOT and should be considered void. This whole exercise needs to be reviewed so Mr Turner and other coalminers can finally receive their lawful, moral and fair entitlements and compensation. Despite obstruction and misrepresentations from Labor and LNP governments, we have persisted with this issue for four years. We will continue relentlessly until Simon Turner and his fellow Hunter Valley and Central Queensland coalminers obtain their entitlements and justice. We in One Nation support workers because like our party's founder Pauline Hanson, we value honesty, fairness, justice and Australians' values, including mateship and a fair go. Senate adjourned at 19:49