DOCUMENTS

2023-08-01 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 1 August 2023

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 1

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 12:02 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023. In the wake of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, it is vital that we, as a parliament and a nation, reflect on our attitudes towards unemployment and the serious harm that results from the attitudes that we have towards the unemployed. Thousands of innocent people were made to feel like criminals by a system that demonises the unemployed and treats people not having a job as having a personal failing. We cannot carry on in this very damaging and deluded belief that poverty has a role to play in our institutional response to unemployment. You cannot starve a person into sustainable, well-paid employment. It's a malicious delusion that has been allowed to persist for far too long. In its first interim report, the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee was extremely clear on this point: the rate of JobSeeker is so low and so far below any measure of a livable income that it's a barrier to entering the workforce. Decades of toxic talking points have created a situation where income support payments are not lifting people up and helping them into employment. Instead, they have become a pit that one has to climb out of. We have become hostage to a punitive mindset that is so intent on punishing misfortune that we've engineered perverse systems that actually compound it. Our treatment of the unemployed keeps people in grinding poverty while requiring them to navigate the mismanaged mess of Workforce Australia. The impact of that grinding poverty extends not just to the unemployed person but in so many cases to their children, their family, their household and their communities. If we want to support people who are out of work to find secure, well-paid jobs, we need them to be able to access a basic standard of living. People without work need to be receiving enough support that they are no longer forced to choose between meals and medicine. An extra $40 a fortnight doesn't get them there. It doesn't get them even close. The increase in the JobSeeker rate does not just fail to get people above the poverty line; it fails to get them anywhere near the poverty line. An increase of $40 a fortnight still leaves the payment 41 per cent below the poverty line. This is a national shame in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. Many people living in my home state of South Australia are already worse off than when this increase was announced. The additional $40 the Treasurer promised them in May was swallowed in June by a rent increase or an interest rate rise. Without real steps to address the housing crisis, including freezing rents and committing to build enough social and affordable housing to clear those huge waiting lists, the housing stress experienced by jobseekers is only going to get worse. We've also heard statements from advocates and community organisations that an increase to the income-free area would make a positive difference in the lives of people on JobSeeker and other payments. I foreshadow that my colleague Senator Hanson-Young will move a second reading amendment on this issue that will suggest an increase to the income-free area in this policy amendment. The Labor government have made a lot of excuses about inflation and government debt, but the reality is: the Albanese government are not afraid to spend money on other things. The Labor government are very happy, for example, to spend $313 billion over the next decade on the stage 3 income tax cuts—tax cuts that overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest Australians, especially to older people and to men, much more than they go to young people or to women. The Labor government is prepared to spend $368 billion on nuclear submarines. The spending choices of this government reflect its priorities, and it is currently choosing to keep people without work living in poverty. It's a great shame that we do not see that level of commitment, the willingness to invest, when it comes to providing people with an adequate safety net while they are looking for work. It is an obscenity that we are debating a meagre $40 a fortnight rise for people living in extreme poverty while the government plans to give almost $350 a fortnight in tax cuts to the top two per cent of wage earners, without a second thought. We need to scrap the stage 3 income tax cuts and increase the JobSeeker payment above the poverty line, to $88 a day. Raising the rate above the poverty line would help people rather than hold them back from finding work. We saw during the height of a pandemic that governments can end poverty and ensure a strong social safety net. We should not need a pandemic for the government to choose to end the suffering of thousands of Australians, their households and their children. I just repeat that the amendment I foreshadowed is in Senator Hanson-Young's name. 12:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'd like to thank all of the senators who have participated in this debate on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 and the senators who participated in the Senate committee process around this important piece of legislation. It strengthens our safety net, which is critical for not just the Australians who need it but our social cohesion more broadly. The measures in the bill deliver a $9½ billion investment, which reflects the government's commitment to consider the rates of income support payments ahead of every budget. The bill will increase the rate of working-age and student payments by $40 a fortnight, including the JobSeeker payment, youth allowance, the parenting payment (partnered), Austudy, Abstudy and other related payments. That measure will provide around 1.1 million Australians with immediate cost-of-living relief. The $40 increase to working-age and student payments recognises the particular challenges faced by people on those income support payments. If passed through the Senate this week, the basic rate of the JobSeeker payment will increase by $56.10 to $749.20 per fortnight, including indexation, from 20 September 2023. The bill will also extend eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker payment by reducing the qualifying age from 60 to 55 years whilst retaining the requirement that the person has been on the payment for nine or more continuous months. This measure means that, from 20 September 2023, people aged 55 to 59 who have been on the payment for more than nine months will be better off by at least $109.40 per fortnight, including indexation. This increase will bring the basic rate of JobSeeker payment for this cohort to $802.50 per fortnight, including regular indexation applied on 20 September. The proportion of mature-aged recipients on JobSeeker has significantly increased over the course of the last decade. The change recognises the challenges that many older people can face when looking for a job due to age discrimination or poor health. The government is also providing additional support to single parents by extending the eligibility for parenting payment single. The changes in this bill will benefit around 60,000 single principal carers so they can balance caring responsibilities and paid work. As a result of this measure, an eligible single principal carer on a JobSeeker payment whose youngest child is under 14 years will be transferred to the higher parenting payment single rate of $922.10. This is an extra $176.90 per fortnight in their basic payment to help with the costs of raising children. The rate will also be indexed on 20 September. The exact amount will be determined in mid-August when the required data is released by the ABS. The Albanese government recognises that single parents face many barriers to employment and financial security due to the investments, both financial and of their time, associated with caring for children on their own. I want to acknowledge the role that community leaders like Terese Edwards, the CEO of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, who has welcomed this announcement. People in the community have argued about this measure for a very long time, Ms Edwards in particular. Her patient, careful, effective advocacy has really delivered. To further increase support for income support recipients, the government is increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent—the largest increase in over 30 years. I've listened to the debate carefully. I've watched the positions of some of the Senate participants, both in the debate and over the course of recent announcements that have been made about senators' and parties' positions on these issues. I look forward to debate about this bill, the amendments and its passage through the Senate. I just gently make this point: the machinery of government that is allocated towards ensuring that payments flow from 20 September is predicated on the successful passage of this piece of legislation through the parliament this week. It is absolutely the right and the responsibility of senators here to make their case and to express different views about the structure, process and purpose of social security legislation. I want to make this point very clear: any successful amendment of this bill risks real people missing out—real people whose interests people in this place have argued for, many of them over many, many years. It is my view that a responsibility is incumbent on this place. Make the arguments, by all means, but do not delay. Do not frustrate. Do not deny low-income families the benefit of the payments that are set out in this bill. While it may not meet the policy objectives of the opposition and may not meet the ambitions of the Greens party, there are real people who are relying on this Senate to do its work and make sure those payments make their way into their accounts in the week following 20 September. I commend the bill to the House—to the Senate; wherever we are! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the second reading amendment standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:20]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

10 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:22 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move the second reading amendment standing in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to ensure no one is left behind and lift all income support payments above the poverty line". The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the second reading amendment standing in the name of Senator Rice be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:24]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

10 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:26 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to increase the income free area of JobSeeker and other payments to at least $300 per fortnight". The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that the second reading amendment standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:28]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

11 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 5 12:31 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I think we need to take stock at the beginning of this committee stage to recognise what we're talking about—that is, the ability for those living on income support to be living dignified lives, to be able to fulfil their potential, to be able to get through and not be living in dire and abject poverty, to have a society where we care for everybody, or, in the words of the Labor government, where we don't leave anybody behind. This bill is called 'strengthening the safety net', and it is very clear from the evidence before us, it is very clear from the cruel policies of the previous decade of the Liberal government, that we don't have a safety net. In the words of one of the submitters to the inquiry into this bill, what we have is a parachute with holes in it. Eventually, people relying on that parachute with holes are going to hit the bottom. What the bill before us today will do is put a tiny patch on one of those holes in the parachute; it is not going to stop jobseekers hitting the bottom. The Greens, of course, want to see increases in income support so that people can live lives of dignity, so people can get by, so they have an income that is liveable so they can survive. This bill does not do this. This bill has an increase of $2.85 a day in income support—$2.85. The government is crowing about indexation, which is something all governments have done. I don't understand why we should suddenly be giving kudos to the government for indexing payments when it is a standard thing and has always happened. The payment for people on income support will be increased by $4 a day, which would still leave them way, way below the poverty line. Four dollars a day will not cut it for people who are only eating a meal a day. Four dollars a day is not going to cut it for people who can't afford to put a roof over their heads, who are currently living in tents, living in cars, living on the streets, couch surfing, being moved back into an overcrowded family home, having to stay in a situation of family violence because they can't afford to move out. Four dollars a day is still going to leave people in dire poverty, yet this government had a choice. They have made a choice to increase income support by only that tiny amount at the same time as they are going ahead with the stage 3 tax cuts that are going to give $9,000 a year in tax cuts to every one of us in this place, to every billionaire, to everybody in the top two per cent of society. You have chosen to do that rather than lift people who are living on income support out of poverty. You have made the choice to give only this paltry $4-a-day increase. On the other hand, you're going to spend $368 billion on war machines, on nuclear powered submarines, and you have chosen to give only a paltry $4-a-day increase when you're sitting on a budget surplus of $20 billion that could make a meaningful difference to the lives of people living in poverty. That's where I want to start. That's what this bill is doing. There are some good things in this bill. We absolutely support the changes to parenting payment single so that single-parent families will be able to access parenting payment single for children up to the age of 14. We want to see it up to the age of 16; I am going to move amendments for that to be the case. We also want to see those payments brought forward as quickly as possible so we don't have this ridiculous situation of families whose kids are turning eight right now being taken off parenting payment single and going back into dire poverty by living on JobSeeker, who are going to be struggling for the coming three months until their payment then goes up again. We will be moving amendments for the date that that comes in to be brought forward from the date of royal assent. Fundamentally, there is so much more that could be done, and the evidence shows that that's what should be being done. The government's own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee—which it set up, handpicked, with its own former Labor minister chairing it—told it that it needed to make a serious increase to the rate of JobSeeker and other work related payments. Yet you have squibbed that. You have not listened to that advice. You are leaving people behind. I want to start off, Minister, by asking: do you think people living on income support should be forced to live below the poverty line? 12:37 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Rice. This is a very substantial investment in the social safety net by the Albanese government. It's a $9½ billion investment, with substantial increases to payments—including the JobSeeker payment. The $40 increase means the basic rate of the JobSeeker payment will increase by $56.10 to $749.20 every fortnight from September this year if this legislation passes unamended through the Senate. That's what will happen. These are substantial increases. I take your point, and the government has always taken the point, that many of those Australians who live on social security payments are doing it very tough. Rates of homelessness are unacceptable, and that is why the government has a series of reforms in this place—which are currently being opposed by the majority of senators in this place. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have made it clear that, in every budget, this government will examine where it is possible to make improvements. We have taken advice from the task force you've referred to but also more broadly from across the community sector. We have formed a view these are very substantial increases. I commend the whole bill to the Senate. Thank you for traversing the whole context of this, and I look forward to further discussion. 12:39 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that explanation of the position of the government on the bill, but you didn't answer my question. My question was a very simple one, with a 'yes' or 'no' answer: do you think people living on income support should be living below the poverty line? 12:39 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I wish that all Australians lived above the poverty line. I wish that all Australians had the benefit of work and support from the government, that housing was available at rates that were affordable. There are very significant challenges out there. The government have determined that this is the package that we are bringing forward. It is a very substantial package and I think it should be supported. 12:40 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria You said that you would like all people to be living above the poverty line, so can I be clear: do you think that people who are living on income support should be forced to live below the poverty line? 12:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The government is offering this very substantial improvement to the social welfare net. That is the government's position. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x Order, Senator Ayres. Senator Rice is on her feet. Senator Rice 155410 It's a very simple question that I've been asking the minister and I would like a simple answer. Yes or no, does he believe that people relying on income support should be forced to live below the poverty line? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Rice, that isn't a point of order. The minister was in process of answering your question. I will remind the minister of Senator Rice's question and ask the minister to continue his response. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. 12:41 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, what I hear you saying is that you think that all people should be able to live above the poverty line. That is what I heard from a couple of answers ago. Well then, why aren't you acting? Why has the government decided to not increase income support to lift people out of poverty? It had been done before. The previous government, during the COVID pandemic, had the JobSeeker supplement that raised people out of poverty. This had massive, excellent implications for people's quality of life. It enabled people to pay to get their cars repaired. It enabled people to pay for their medications. It enabled people to put food on the table for their kids and not be living in poverty. Your government has made a choice to leave people below the poverty line, yet you are saying that you think all people should be able to live a life of dignity above the poverty line. That's what I hear you saying. So why aren't you acting? Why have you made that choice to leave people languishing below the poverty line at the same time as going ahead with the stage 3 tax cuts that are going to cost the bottom line over $300 billion that would more than adequately pay for increasing income support to above the poverty line? 12:42 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think what's important here is to understand the total context of the package that is being brought forward. A single JobSeeker payment recipient aged under 55, without children, who's living alone and receiving the maximum rate of rent assistance, will receive an extra $84 a fortnight. Commonwealth rent assistance has been increased by the largest amount ever. These are very significant increases that accord with the commitments that the government has made. I understand that there are alternative views, and that some of them will eventually take the shape of amendments in this committee-of-the-whole process. It's important to understand the fiscal context within which the government operates. Some of those amendments would create an additional impact on the budget of billions and billions of dollars just over the forward estimates. The government has had to weigh the fiscal consequences of these questions against the backdrop of rising inflation—inflation that's out there in the community. We should be paying very close attention to dealing with inflation. It affects low-income people more than anybody else. The package that is being delivered here is substantial. If it makes its way through this chamber unamended, it will be in people's accounts in the last week of September. 12:44 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I want to clarify, Minister: are you claiming that for those individuals you mentioned, living alone with their children, getting the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance, that their income support is going to be above the poverty line? 12:44 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm claiming that in the real world it's a real amount of money. It's a real increase, and it makes a real difference. That is what the government is dealing with here: a set of payments and an increase to payments that are real and that will be there. I absolutely understand that—not just in this place but more broader in the community—Australians will make the argument for more. I respect that argument. But these are real amounts of money—a real government is following through on its commitments—and, should this legislation make its way unamended through here—they will make their way into real people's accounts and make a real difference. That is what I'm saying, Senator Rice. 12:45 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I acknowledge it will make a difference to people. We will not be standing in the way of getting this real increase—although it is absolutely insufficient—because $4 a day will make a difference. It might enable people to put a bit of extra food in their kids' lunchboxes. It might mean they can eat two meals a day instead of one meal a day. But my question remains: even with this real increase, I would like to know whether you accept that this increase is not going to lift people above the poverty line? People will be grateful for this increase, because they are living in absolute dire poverty now. They will welcome an extra $4 a day, but they would have welcomed much more an extra $40 a day, which would have lifted them above the poverty line. I just want to get a straight answer from the government, to acknowledge that, with this increase, people on income support are still going to be living in poverty. Senator Ayres 16913 It is a political question asked for a political purpose, designed to prosecute a political campaign. I understand that point. I get it. But what has been said out there in the community sector? The Australian Council of Social Services said just this afternoon in an ACOSS statement on the strengthening the safety net bill: 'We are calling for parliament to pass the strengthening the safety net bill without further delay, to deliver the increases to income supports people desperately need.' I emphasise the words 'without further delay', and I think that ought to be borne in mind in terms of the way the debate is managed in this Committee of the Whole process. 12:47 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory By leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) and (4) to (6) on sheet 2041 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "14", substitute "16". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 8), omit "14", substitute "16". (3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 10), omit "14", substitute "16". (4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 15), omit "20 September 2023", substitute "the commencement of this item". (5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 19), omit "20 September 2023", substitute "the commencement of this item". (6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 23), omit "20 September 2023", substitute "the commencement of this item". I am also moving these amendments on behalf of Senator Rice; I understand the Greens will not be moving their own amendments that are very similar to these. I thank Senator Rice for her ongoing work in this area standing up for people in our communities across the country who desperately need more support to get their lives back together and stay on their feet. I would also like to acknowledge the member for North Sydney, Kylie Tink, for her work on this and for moving very similar amendments to these in the House of Representatives. Minister, you rightly pointed to inflation as a big issue. We've seen numerous reports over the last few weeks and months about the effect that corporate profits are having on inflation in Australia. We have seen the banks making $60,000 a minute at the moment, and then we've seen—which is really troubling, and Australians across the country are feeling this every day—the supermarkets making more profits than any comparable supermarkets in developed countries. I'd like to know what the government is planning to do to ensure that the duopoly of supermarkets is not ripping off Australians every day and making more profit than it should be, not only making life hard for Australians across the country but also, as we know from expert analysis, driving inflation. 12:50 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Pocock. First, I would just like to indicate that it seemed, from what you were saying, that, in regard to the amendments proposed by you that go to the age for the parenting payment, there's a similar amendment from the Australian Greens. It sounds like there's some coordination there, so I'm grateful for that efficiency and assistance. That will mean that we move in a more speedy and coherent way through this discussion. In terms of the parenting payment itself, I'll wait and see if you have questions or if, in your remarks around that, the government needs to respond to it—except to say that it is a very substantial shift. I am aware and the government is aware that advocates have been arguing for more, but, almost unanimously, advocates out there in the community like Ms Edwards and Ms Mostyn have said that this is a very significant increase. In terms of the government's approach to enforcing competition law and to supermarket and retail prices, it's a little bit outside the scope of the parameters of this bill, but it is a reasonable question. The ACCC has to do its work. If you need more information from the government on the government's approach in terms of supermarket prices and competition, I'm very happy to make sure that additional briefings are provided, either directly to you or to the parliament. There is a very important set of issues there and the government is focused on competition in that market and other markets. 12:52 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I have a question on the amendment. I understand the government's position, and, indeed, this is an improvement. I do note, though, that two of the government's own committees recommended lifting the age to 16. Why did the government choose not to take the expert advice of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce and the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee? 12:52 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It's an important point to make: the government actively seeks advice. We are not a closed door to different views. Senator AYRES 16913 Most different views, Senator Ruston. We actually want to engage with the community sector, who, of course, will have ambition in these areas. We want to engage with the business community about welfare reform. We want to engage with the trade union movement about welfare reform. We are not afraid of alternative views, and we are prepared to engage with that; the government has engaged with that. This is a $1.9 billion expansion of eligibility. There are 60,000 single principal carers currently on the JobSeeker payment whose youngest child is under 14 who will transfer to the single parent payment on 20 September 2023. That is a very big group of Australians for whom this will make a very big difference. And I will just make the point again that the government is happy to engage in here on these questions, just as we are happy to engage with the community. This is a very substantial increase; it is a very substantial change. It has been welcomed right across the sector, but I take the point, of course, that people in the community have argued for more, and that will continue to be the case. 12:54 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Could you clarify what the process will be for people who have fallen off the payment to reapply? Will that be seamless? Will they be informed that they're now eligible for the payment? And what sort of time frame will it take for people to get back onto that payment? 12:55 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Of course, there is a very significant effort going on here to implement what I call the machinery of government but what are the ICT systems, the processes, the way that Services Australia engages with Australians who are eligible for these measures. That is why 20 September has been identified as—what do they say in management speak?—a stretch target, but it's an achievable date. That commitment has been made. The ICT changes encompass the suite of changes to be delivered, not just the changes to the parenting payment. It's not just a simple rate change, and it can't be implemented simply by entering a new program into the system or hitting a switch. The parenting payment single, until the new measure is legislated, will continue to be administered according to the existing legislation. Services Australia, I'm advised, is implementing a range of measures to support recipients in this cohort, including communication with affected individuals to ensure that they are aware of the impact of changes on their circumstances and that they're supported to automatically transfer between payments. From 20 September 2023, Services Australia will automatically transition single parents who are principal carers, whose youngest child is under 14 and who are on the JobSeeker payment to parenting payment single. So, if the information is there in the system, they will be automatically transferred. 12:57 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The coalition won't be supporting setting the eligibility of parenting payment single to 16 from 14, but we do wish to put on the record the concerns that we have in relation to the removal of ParentsNext as a program to maintain connectivity between people who are caring for children and the workforce. But we will support the extension that's being brought forward by the government to 14 years of age. We do acknowledge that there are measures to address and recognise the caring responsibilities of Australians who have young children. We are particularly keen to understand: if you're going to increase the age to 14 at the same time as you are going to remove ParentsNext as a program to maintain the connectivity of people who have caring responsibilities with the workforce, has the government made any consideration in relation to how that connectivity is able to be maintained in the absence of ParentsNext and in recognition of the increase in the age to 14? 12:58 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I thank Senator Ruston for her indication of the coalition's position in relation to the parenting payment. It is an important reform. It is going to make a very significant difference for, as I said, 60,000 Australians from 20 September. The ParentsNext issues are not within the scope of this bill. The government will always be focused on making sure that, broadly, across the whole suite of the government's policy offerings, there is the maximum opportunity for women, particularly women with children, to participate in the world of work. It's an important policy objective, and the government will continue to pursue it. 12:59 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia To take that one step further, you've said that ParentsNext is not within the scope of this bill, but, clearly, this bill has an impact on the very same people. We're talking about people with children; the purpose of ParentsNext was to keep those people connected to the workforce. My question was about whether the government has given any consideration specifically to the impact of lifting the age of eligible children to 14 under the single parenting payment when, at the same time—albeit by different mechanism—you are removing this program for people with caring responsibilities to maintain some level of connection with the workforce. Are you saying that nothing has happened, or is there some other piece of information or policy development that we can look to somewhere else? I'm not asking for it to be in this bill, but could you point to where else you're looking to maintain this connection to the workforce? 13:00 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales There are of course no changes, as I've indicated here, to mutual obligation more broadly. Over time, the government's approach to these questions will unfold. It will not be, as I understand it, led from this portfolio. 13:01 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I confirm that the Greens will be supporting the requests and amendments moved by Senator David Pocock, which are identical to the requests and amendments that we were moving. I'll withdraw requests (1) to (3) and amendments (4) to (6) on sheet 2037. I start off with that clarification. Certainly, in supporting them, we feel these amendments are important in building upon the measures in this bill. As I have said over the last months and will continue to say, we support the measures in the bill, which reintroduce the parenting payment single for single-parent families whose children are aged over eight. It's an important measure, and we really do congratulate the advocates who have worked so hard to get the government to engage with this and to make this change. It will make an absolute, measurable difference to so many families' lives and to so many children's lives once they are able to access the increased rate of support under parenting payment single rather than the abysmally poor rate of JobSeeker. We know that it is, to some extent, reversing the changes that the Howard government introduced, which forced parents to lose access to the payment when their youngest child turned eight. However, the government is only increasing the parenting payment single until a child is aged 14, leaving 18,290 single parents currently without access to the payment based on the latest available data. We are concerned, as I know are the advocates. We know that the needs of single-parent families don't go away when their children turn 14. Some of those parents are already engaging in the workforce well before their children being 14. They might be working part-time, so are using the parenting payment single to top up the income coming into the household so they can afford to live. Any of us who have had teenage children aged between 14 and 16, or who are thinking of the struggles of being a single parent with children aged between 14 and 16, know the need for this support is still there. The amendments moved by Senator Pocock and I would reinstate the measure to the way it was before former Prime Minister Howard changed it back to eight. The other measure in these amendments is to bring forward the date of implementation. I hear what the minister says—that 20 September is the earliest the department could do it. Frankly, I don't accept that. Frankly, we have a situation of this incredible cut-off that potentially could have been solved by having some level of temporary payment. There were all sorts of measures that could have been brought into play to bridge that gap so that families with kids turning eight after 1 July would be able to access the payment immediately rather than having to wait for 20 September. So I want to know: did the government have any consideration at all of enabling families whose kids are turning eight as of 1 July to access this increased payment or a temporary bridging payment immediately, so that they weren't forced into living in poverty on the totally inadequate JobSeeker payment for those months between 1 July and 20 September? 13:05 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thanks very much, Senator Rice, and thank you for your comments in relation to the impact of changing the eligibility here. It is going to change the lives of 60,000 families in September, in a very substantial way. It's a $1.9 billion change. It is a very substantial measure. The government and the minister sought advice at all levels from the department about how the changes to this payment could be made best, most reliably and in the most sound way possible, in legal and policy delivery terms. I hear your cynicism, but 20 September is the most ambitious timetable that could be delivered. The government is determined to deliver it. It is, of course, as I say, contingent on the rapid progress of this piece of legislation through the Senate and the House of Representatives this week. 13:06 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Included in my questions was the question: did you look at any potential bridging payments? If 20 September is the earliest date that the department says they could get all of this in place—as I said, I don't accept that that's the case, but even if that is the case—was there consideration of any bridging payment for the 8,000 families who are going to be forced onto JobSeeker in the interim? 13:07 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Rice. I didn't mean to gloss over that issue in terms of the possibility of bridging payments. A bridging payment itself would require legislative authorisation. If this bill makes its way through the Senate and House of Representatives this week, the timetable for delivery of payments is 20 September. There is no capacity for government to just make payments by fiat. This is the most legally sound and public policy sound way of proceeding. That advice has been sought, and that's why the government has adopted the approach that it has. 13:08 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, what do you say to these 8,145 single-parent families who have had their income support slashed from 1 July, who were living on a still not-adequate-enough parenting payment single but are now going to be in dire poverty? Almost none of them have got savings to fall back on. Many of them won't have family support. They are going to be struggling to pay the rent. People are going to be at risk of homelessness, and they've got three months of living on this JobSeeker payment before their income goes back up again. What do you say to them, to those families that are going to be in dire circumstances? When they come knocking on the door of an MP's office or when they're knocking on the door of the Centrelink office to say, 'Hey, I can't pay the rent; I'm about to be homeless,' what do you say to them? 13:09 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales What I say is that single-parent families who are currently not eligible for that payment will, as a result of this legislation, be eligible for that payment for the whole period while their kids are nine, 10, 11, 12, 13 and all the way through to 14. This is a very substantial change, and this government will deliver those changes in a way that is legally sound and public policy sound. No person will be worse off, but, on 20 September, 60,000 single parents and their children will be eligible for a significant expansion in payments. 13:10 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I don't think that's going to cut it for people who are about to be homeless. In three months time they'll be getting more money, and the government is saying that it's supporting them, yet there is this cliff that they have already gone off. If people in that circumstance turn up to a Centrelink office and say, 'I'm about to be homeless,' what support is the government going to be able to offer them? 13:10 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I was about to come to that issue precisely, Senator Rice, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to deal with that. First, I'd say that I understand that—not just in here but also in the community—people will make the case for more. I understand it. But let's be measured and precise in terms of the arguments that we're making. It is not three months. It is six weeks. There will be 60,000 individual parents and their children who benefit from the expanded eligibility here. As you say, there has been a long period of time when people have brought their kids up without access to those payments, and that has been very difficult. For families who are in the situation that you describe, who are experiencing extreme circumstances, there are emergency supports available for them, of course. They should contact Services Australia. There is the crisis payment, and there are other emergency relief payments and assistance that are available. But, as I say, on 20 September that expanded eligibility will be available to those 60,000 families. 13:12 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Just in terms of the timing, it's 10 weeks, isn't it? It's all of July and August and half of September. Honourable senators interjecting— 13:12 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I remember another debate in here that got untidy when people were talking about dates and birthdays and all sorts of things. I don't want to revisit that. Senator AYRES 16913 We'll measure it in days, Senator Rice, and I'll come back to you about that question if you like. 13:13 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The measures came into place, however, on 1 July. People were taken off the parenting payment single. If they had a child that turned eight on 1 July, they would have been off the parenting payment single from 1 July. I want to go to the impact analysis prepared for the parenting payment single changes, in particular the analysis for option 1(c). It says: Relative to the other options considered, the greater length of time on the higher payment rate may disincentivise single parents from re-engaging with the workforce even where they may have capacity as their youngest child grows in independence. This risk is somewhat mitigated by the continuation of mutual obligations requirements and incentives to workforce participation that exist in the social security system. Is the department effectively saying in this that they think that paying people income support—paying people the parenting payment single—makes them less likely to work? 13:14 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It's hard for me to read into the mind of the author of that particular sentence that you've outlined. I'd just say that the government's position is that nothing is changing here in terms of the role of mutual obligations in the system. The government may make changes over time, but those arrangements are undisturbed and the government is focused at this time on expanding the eligibility of the parenting payment to a broader cohort of Australians. 13:15 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, regardless of that, is it fair to say, then, that the government is choosing to send parents back into the workforce? We know that they're going to lose access to the parenting payment single, so you're going to be choosing to send people back into the workforce when their youngest child turns 14, rather than giving them the extra two years that were in place before former prime minister Howard legislated to slash it down to the age of eight. 13:15 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The government's decision here is to move from eight to 14—not 13 and not 15, but 14. Irrespective of what position the government adopts, there is a point where families lose eligibility for the payment. This is a very substantial increase, and it offers expanded payments and expanded eligibility for 60,000 families. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x Is there no-one seeking the call? Senator Roberts. 13:16 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My questions are to the minister. I have two questions. This bill is specifically trying to partially solve a problem that government caused—not just your government but the previous government. The extra costs people are facing in our community right across the country are due to skyrocketing electricity prices cascading through all stages of our economy, driving inflation. That has been admitted by the energy relief payments that were announced in the budget. The 2050 net zero target, coming from the UN policy, is hurting Australians all over the country. It has been admitted. We've also got insane Greens climate policies destroying baseload power, forcing up prices, thanks to the Labor Party and the Liberals and Nationals, who've adopted these Greens and UN policies. We've got high immigration, driving up house prices and rents. I've recently been travelling, for the last five weeks or so, in regional Queensland. In Bundaberg people are sleeping in tents, caravans and cars in parks. In Gladstone, people are sleeping in tents, caravans and cars in showgrounds, and that is happening across regional Queensland. We've had a mismanaged response to COVID, with half a trillion dollars in cash splashed around, driving inflation and, of course, higher prices. While shutting down the supply side of the economy, it was driving up prices. People are doing it tough, Minister, because of your policies. My first question is: are you aware of that? Secondly, who's paying for this solution to the problem you've created? I'll tell you who's paying for the largesse in this budget and the ability to afford these increased welfare payments, which are necessary because people are doing it tough due to your policies. I'll tell you who's paying for it: agriculture, with exports recently at record levels; the mining of coal—I'm proudly wearing a tie that I got 40 years ago from a coal company—and the mining of iron ore and other minerals. That's what's paying for our ability to afford these increased payments. Government is causing the problems, slamming everyday Australians, and mining and farming are providing the money to ease the burden government has inflicted. Are you aware of that, Minister? When you sit back and look at it, every major problem in this country is due to government, largely the federal government. Who pays? It is always the people who pay. Yet who has the solutions? It is the people. We could fix this far better, Minister, if we just addressed productive capacity. We will be supporting Greens amendment 2028, limiting the period for recovering errors from people overpaid to six years, and we will be supporting the bill as it stands at the moment. 13:19 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm not sure that I can offer a response to all of the issues that Senator Roberts traversed there. But I'd make this point: the government is very aware of the impact on the cost of living of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation's illegal invasion—violent, brutal, illegal invasion—of Ukraine and the impact that it's had on energy prices. We are very aware of the impact of nearly a decade of energy policy failure in terms of investment in the Australian energy system and its responsiveness to change. We are making the investments now to fix the transmission grid, and we're making sure that it is able to absorb more low-cost renewables and storage. And the government took steps, which were opposed by some people in here, to put caps and other mechanisms in place to make sure that energy prices that rose significantly—spiked significantly—as a result of Russia's illegal war in Ukraine had as much smaller impact on Australian households and businesses. I acknowledge, though, there are rising costs for Australian families, and the government policy, Senator Roberts, matters—it matters. Sensible, careful policy in the national interest matters, and that is what this government is determined to do. We are a government that does what we said we would to do, and that is the course upon which we are embarking. Bringing it back to this legislation, this legislation is completely consistent with the approach that the government took during the election to fiscal prudence and to making sure that no Australians are left behind. 13:21 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Blaming Ukraine for a problem that has been caused entirely in this country leads to misleading the population of Australia and hiding the problem. The real problem is our energy prices. Coal prices have gone up internationally but not for Australian contracts feeding power stations in this country. Stop misleading the parliament. Coal prices that feed our electricity in this country are still on the same long-term contracts at $80 to $100 a tonne as they had been before Ukraine became an issue. What's really killing this country is investment in solar and wind, which are inherently more expensive because they produce far less and lower-density electricity and so their unit costs of electricity are far higher. Every time a coal-fired power station is shut in this country, we see the spike and an increase in electricity prices. Minister, it is important that governments in this country start facing up to the reality rather than blaming something in Ukraine. Ukraine had nothing to do with the continuation of coal prices in this country not rising at all. It had nothing to do with energy prices rising due to solar and wind and subsidies and now you safeguard mechanism adding to fines for coal-fired power. These are the things that are crippling our country and crippling our productive capacity. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Ayres, you may want to respond to those elements that are relevant to the amendment. 13:23 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I don't need any encouragement, but I'm grateful for it, Madam Acting Deputy President, and will stick to the parameters of the legislation that is indeed in front of the Senate. If Senator Roberts has any questions that are directed towards that, I'd be delighted to answer them. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) and (4) to (6) on sheet 2041, moved together by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [13:28]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Polley)

11 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Antic, A. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Payne, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:31 The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x It now being past 1.30, the committee will report to the Senate. Progress reported. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 13 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Queensland: Floods 13 13:31 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Over the past few weeks, I've spent a lot of time driving around Queensland, holding a lot of mobile offices—everywhere from Cairns to Burketown, Hughenden to Gundy and a few places in between. Councillor Andrew Cripps, from Hinchinbrook Shire Council, travelled with me part of the way, and we listened to the struggles that Queenslanders are facing in remote, rural and regional Queensland. It is quite depressing, suffering under a state Labor government and a federal Labor government. Crime is out of control. A health crisis is being felt across the state. Families are unable to pay their bills and people with full-time jobs are unable to find a home to live in, due to the cost-of-living crisis. What really brought me to the brink, though, was the secret flood. This is the flood that no-one talks about. If a natural disaster like this happened south of the border, it would be front page news. It would lead the ABC news, Sky News and all the commercial news. This is a flood that decimated north-west Queensland, but what we've had from the federal Labor government is crickets. We have a prime minister who talks about how much he cares for Australia, but he has not visited this devastated part of Queensland. He's had time to go to weddings and the tennis, but he has not gone to north-west Queensland. Thousands of kilometres of Queensland were flooded. Fifty thousand head of cattle were drowned. We've had severe homelessness, including in parts of Queensland where there is already poverty. Communities like Doomadgee have been smashed even further by this flood, but federal and state Labor governments have failed to deliver for Queensland. (Time expired) Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 14 13:33 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Yesterday we saw the former Prime Minister stand up in the parliament and take absolutely no responsibility for the illegal and devastating robodebt scheme that he presided over. In fact, Mr Morrison tried to make it sound like he was the victim of the robodebt royal commission. Let's remember what robodebt is about. It's about a government—the former government—hounding its own citizens into the ground. It's about the former government harassing its own citizens, pursuing them for debts they did not owe. It's about the former government rolling out an illegal scheme that caused so much stress and distress that it ultimately cost people their lives. People lost their lives, and their mothers and their families live with that grief, while Mr Morrison still sits in the parliament refusing to acknowledge the hurt, refusing to take responsibility and refusing to resign from shame. It now seems the new Liberal leader has learnt nothing about this disgraceful period of our history either. Today the headlines say that Mr Dutton is 'standing firm behind former prime minister Scott Morrison'. 'Standing firm'. What is the message that Mr Dutton and Mr Morrison have for the victims of robodebt? Is the message that they should just forget about it? Is the message that the Liberal Party think they can just sweep it all under the carpet? We called the royal commission because robodebt victims and their families deserve justice. We know the victims of robodebt can never forget what their own government did to them. We know the Australian people will never forget, and we will never forget. We will make sure that robodebt can never ever happen again. Abortion 14 13:35 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland 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 among other things. The report set out a clear, comprehensive roadmap for improving access to abortion care right across the country, and we heard repeatedly about the difficulty of attracting and retaining skilled practitioners in regional and rural areas and the prohibitive costs of additional training for doctors who wanted to upskill. The Australian Medical Students Association's Global Health has launched a campaign calling on universities and teaching hospitals to ensure that abortion is in the standard curricula and accessible through the public system. As well as ensuring abortion care is part of the general curricula for future medical professionals, current doctors need access to professional development in reproductive health care. The AusCap website currently provides practical advice for practitioners, and funding for that service must be maintained. Medical and surgical abortion are standard public health services, and all doctors should have the necessary skills to provide those services to everyone who needs them. The inquiry called on universities to review their programs to provide abortion training, and it's fantastic to see student doctors get behind that. I urge everyone to back AMSA's campaign for universities and teaching hospitals to ensure that abortion is in the standard curricula. The best way for Labor to support health practitioners and the community is to act swiftly and commit to implementing the recommendations of the reproductive healthcare inquiry in full. Ipswich: Waste Management 14 13:37 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm very, very, very pleased to rise today to announce some good news for the people of Ipswich, where my office is located, in Queensland, and that is that Cleanaway, an ASX listed company, has today advised that after careful consideration it is not appealing the decision of the Planning and Environment Court in Queensland to refuse Cleanaway's appeal against Ipswich City Council's refusal of an expansion application of the New Chum landfill site. Senators may remember that I have spoken in this place previously about the New Chum landfill site and the devastating impact it has had on residents in Ipswich. There have been thousands and thousands of odour complaints from those residents. At the same time those odour complaints were made, executives of Cleanaway received 100 per cent of their bonuses attributable to environmental performance. Cleanaway was also proceeding with an application to appeal Ipswich City Council's rejection of their application to expand their site. I spoke in this place in June in relation to the outcome of that court decision, and I called upon the directors of Cleanaway to read that court decision and what it said about environmental management risk and also risk to community amenity. I'm very, very pleased that the board of Cleanaway has chosen not to appeal that decision to the next level of the courts. I note that it will now be up to the regulators and people such as myself, elected representatives in this place, to carefully watch the next steps Cleanaway undertake with respect to this site. I will be watching very, very carefully to make sure that this site is managed appropriately and the residents of Ipswich do not have to suffer what they went through last year. National Transport Reform Convoy 15 13:39 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Good on you, Senator Scarr! There's nothing like giving Cleanaway a good industrial tap on the nose. They deserve it. But this weekend there's something bigger happening in town and happening around Australia. On Saturday 5 August it is the transform reform convoys round the nation. There are going to be hundreds and hundreds of trucks descending on Canberra. How do I know? Because I'm going to be waiting for them. I can't wait for them to pop up. We're having convoys in very state of Australia. The Transport Workers Union and the National Road Freight Association have joined together to say enough is enough and to highlight the inadequacies of the road transport industry. They're bringing the message to Canberra on Saturday. Senator Lambie, if you're here in Canberra, I'll come around and I'll piggyback you there, because the boys and girls would love to meet you. We're going to be having convoys in every city—Adelaide; Melbourne; Canberra, as you know, they're the ones coming down from Sydney; Brisbane; Cairns; Darwin. This is an absolutely huge day. More than three hundred and fifty trucks have registered to drive from Goulburn to here on Saturday. That is an absolute mean feat! Remember, a lot of these trucks are still working. A lot of these drivers will be coming in from interstate. They'll be coming in from bush runs. Not the ones happening in Perth and Melbourne and every other capital city, but these are dedicated New South Welshmen and women who have said they want to put the extra fuel in their trucks. That's a big cost. They're prepared to drive from Sydney to meet in Goulburn to come to Canberra to deliver the message: transport reform now. The norm cannot go on. The deaths on our roads and the insolvencies—no longer is this part of business. They are desperately clinging and looking forward to Minister Burke putting in the next tranche of industrial relations where transport will have it's own section. That will also target the gig economy and the shocking, terrible people that operate on those platforms. Tasmanian Government 15 13:41 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania There are rumblings in Tasmania about an early election. The Liberal government down there is governing in the minority because two of their MPs quit over—guess what—the lack of transparency. A month ago, one of those MP said, 'What is the government trying to hide?' What they're trying to hide, in this case, is that the Treasurer and the department's report on the stadium. It's the old cabinet-in-confidence thing again, except that experts have said this doesn't apply to these reports. Transparency isn't the only problem we have down in Tasmania. The Tasmanian Liberal government still hasn't done anything about donation reform. How about that? Even though they promised they would fix it in 2018. The political donation rules in Tasmania are the same as the federal government laws. Only donations of more than $14½ thousand need to be declared. And the ones that are over that amount—the public doesn't find out about those until 18 months after election. It's absolutely shocking! At the Jacqui Lambie Network, we don't take donations from unions or from big donors, and there is a very good reason for this. Because, once money changes hands, there is always an obligation. This is how political donations work. The Jacqui Lambie Network is fuelled by people—people power!—and our average donation is about $25. But we are proud of that. A few weeks ago I met a group of women in Queensland who are thinking about running for parliament. They asked me what the hardest thing is about running as an independent. There's an easy answer. We don't have a party machine behind us. We don't have funds to fight party worker bees and to hand our flyers, we don't have unions to advertise for us and we don't have big corporate donations paying our bills. The plus side—and it's a big plus side—is that nobody tells Senator Tyrrell and I what to do, who to listen to and, more importantly, who to vote for and how to vote. So I'm just letting the Tasmanians out there know that nothing has been done about those donations. So guess who's running those major parties down there? Work it out. Turner, Dr Margaret Kemarre (MK), OAM 16 13:43 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia MK Turner OAM was a relentless advocate for the education of Aboriginal children. As an Arrernte elder, professor, writer, artist, linguist and human rights champion, her recent passing leaves a huge gap. Her passing leaves an incredible legacy. Her passing also leaves a path for others to continue her work, and many will benefit from her unwavering commitment to education and bilingual education. In 1996, she received an Order of Australia for her service to the Aboriginal community of Central Australia. She was later bestowed an honorary doctorate from the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. She authored and contributed to several books and publications on traditional bush foods, language and identity. The MK Turner report launched soon after her passing, affirming her commitment to Indigenous lead and designed education reform. She never sought power but rather saw the power in others. She saw the power of education delivered through a model that was accessible and engaging and that education committed to the safety and wellbeing of children and the strengthening of families. Its potential is to transform lives. The Common Ground report, launched with the endorsement of 100 Indigenous educators from across Australia, talks of the power of ensuring the combination of education, identity, culture and language is embedded in learning, and I was privileged to be able to see the launch. MK knew education was key to transforming lives. She sought meaningful reform of the Australian education system to recognise the crucial elements of language, culture and community. In her own words, 'Teaching is a really sacred thing, because everything that we are learning is sacred.' MK will be honoured with a state funeral later this month and, knowing her personally, with my colleague Jacinta Price, we acknowledge knowledge her passing and contribution. (Time expired) First Nations Australians 16 13:45 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Last week I travelled to the APY Lands in the remote north-west of South Australia with my good friend and colleague Senator McCarthy. During our trip Senator McCarthy and I met with key stakeholders on country to further develop our relationship with the community. This trip was an important opportunity to meet with and hear from the community as well as from organisations working to promote health, education and social outcomes in that region. In Umuwa we met with the APY Lands management rangers. It was really special to see how they are protecting the land and protecting native wildlife while also providing good jobs in that community. We also met with the crew from Empowered Communities and Emerging Leaders and discussed some issues that they were deeply interested in such as, if a Voice to Parliament should be successful, how they would engage with that and how they could influence policy at a federal level. So we had some very interesting discussions about how that might work. We were also delighted to go to Pukatja to look at the Purple House dialysis centre and the community arts hub. We met with PYEC and with all of the organisations that work in collaboration with the local community to provide services and outcomes. I want to thank all the organisations we met with on that trip but I particularly want to thank all the people from the community who gave us their time, who gave us their insight into their community and who were so positive in how they engaged with us to try and work towards getting better outcomes for people on community. Asylum Seekers 16 13:47 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise to talk about the appalling circumstances facing refugees in Australia who are trapped on temporary protection visas. Two weeks ago I met Reeta Arulruban, who was distraught because her 27-year-old son, Dixtan, is about to be deported back to Sri Lanka. He was just 13 years old when his father was murdered in the 2009 Mullivaikkal genocide in Sri Lanka. Along with his mother and his grandmother, he was then held in one of the army's internment camps, a camp which was notorious for human rights violations. Soon after their release, Reeta, his mother, was sexually assaulted by soldiers in their own home while Dixtan was in the next room. Thankfully, after fleeing to Australia in 2012, Reeta was granted permanent protection. However, astoundingly, in 2019, Dixtan was determined to not be a refugee and has been in detention since. Reeta told me about the dire mental health impacts this experience is having on her and her son. Reeta came to Australia to escape violence and cruelty but is still being subjected to it here. Temporary visas were an inhumane part of the coalition's agenda against refugees and people seeking asylum and, despite rhetoric from the government that they are going to end, for many, they are still in place. It is time to end this nightmare for the Arulruban family and for those stuck in legal limbo. It is time to stop re-traumatising people who are already traumatised. We are urging the government to release Dixtan from detention and to reunite him with his mother immediately. No-one should be punished for seeking protection. We must ensure that, for people seeking asylum, no-one is left behind. Heart2Heart Walk 17 13:49 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to update the Senate on the progress of the Heart2Heart Walk and give a shout-out to Vince Pannell and the team, who are now on day 31 of their 90-day walk covering 3,000 kilometres from the Lambert Centre of Australia, the heart of our country on the Northern Territory-South Australia border, to right here in Parliament House, the heart of the nation. The aim of the walk is to raise awareness around first responder mental health and wellbeing, including suicide, PTSD and premature mortality. The logistics behind this walk are next level. The Heart2Heart planning, as the team said to me, is a daily tactical exercise in making it all work. Vince characterised the approach as like 'eating an elephant'—not doing it on the whole but just going with bite-size chunks and getting through it. Thanks to updates we receive along the way, I understand the crew are currently in Hawker, South Australia, and were generously shouted lunch at the Craddock Hotel in a sign of the generous welcome and hospitality the team has received along the way. I hope that when they reach Canberra they will receive a similarly warm reception when presenting their petition to the government calling for a better deal for first responders on mental health. Specifically, they would like to see the recommendations from the 2019 Senate inquiry report The people behind 000: mental health of our first responders implemented. I am proud to support them in this call. Developing Northern Australia Conference 17 13:51 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise today with even more enthusiasm for northern Australia and the role it must play in Australia's future prosperity. The Developing Northern Australia Conference in Darwin last week drew together the some of the country's greatest thinkers and innovators, all working every day to improve this most important region. Joel Riddle of Tamboran Resources posed a very pertinent question in Darwin: do we adopt the European model of outsourcing our energy needs or do we adopt the US model of becoming energy independent, using our own reserves? There is an abundance of real-world evidence in Europe to show that relying on others to supply your energy is both risky and expensive. In the US, the extraction and use of its own gas reserves has resulted in dramatic falls in prices and emissions. The Beetaloo basin contains 500 trillion cubic feet of recoverable resources potential. Of this, just 10 TCF across the next few decades could make up for the domestic gas shortfalls projected in the coming years. While America's smart money is rushing to fund drilling and approvals, the signals coming from the Australian government are backward, negative and even hostile. Socialist market interventions, increased funding for green 'lawfare' groups, onerous approvals processes and anti-gas commentary from senior ministers are telling the world, 'We don't want your business and we don't care about the high-paying jobs in the regions that you create.' There are significant opportunities for northern Australia, including the Beetaloo, to further grow and thrive, but without any Labor cabinet ministers attending the conference in Darwin it's unclear if this government even believes in the north. (Time expired) Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 17 13:53 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The Prime Minister's deceptive messaging on the Voice has downplayed its potential power and implications. That's certainly what he tried with Ben Fordham the other day. He could not, would not, acknowledge the link between the Voice and an Indigenous treaty. People won't be voting on a treaty at the referendum, he said—except that's precisely the activist reasoning behind the Voice. It's not recognition, because Indigenous Australia is widely recognised in many ways. It's not representation, because all Australians are equally represented in this parliament. It's about creating a legitimate body endorsed by the people to negotiate a treaty. No treaty was signed in Australia's colonial era because there was no nation for the Crown to treat with. There still isn't. So Labor will effectively make the Voice the nation to treat with because the very idea that a nation can have a treaty with its own citizens is nonsense. This has been confirmed by Gabrielle Appleby from the University of New South Wales, who said, Voice precedes Treaty because fair, modern treaty negotiations require first the establishment of a representative Indigenous body to negotiate the rules of the game with the state. It can’t be left to the state alone, and the state must have a group of people with whom to negotiate. … … … Voice establishes the power for Treaty … Since the Prime Minister is committed to voice, treaty and truth telling, it's about time he told the truth and stopped deceiving Australians about his personal vanity project and treaty vehicle. I will reiterate this. This is why they want the vote—to enshrine it in the Constitution so it can never be changed. We are going to endorse a body of people they can negotiate with. Remember what he said—voice, treaty, then truth telling. This is about splitting us as a nation. That's why the people of Australia must know the truth and they must vote no to the Voice referendum. Migration 18 13:55 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Australia has an ableist immigration system which deliberately provides for discrimination based on disability. We are seeing many migrant families on temporary visas, including many who are on pathways to permanent residency, at risk of deportation simply because a family member has a disability. This includes families with disabled children, even when those children were born in Australia. Yet Labor's policy says: People with disability have the same rights as all Australians and Labor believes that governments should help remove barriers to the full exercise of those rights … Well, here's a barrier. Discrimination on the grounds of disability is grossly unfair and it is inhumane. It is, unfortunately, not unlawful under the Migration Act, because that act is specifically exempted from the Disability Discrimination Act. This kind of blatant discrimination belongs in the dustbin of history. Labor has an opportunity to put it where it should be—in that dustbin—to end the ableism in Australia's migration system and to ensure that disabled people on temporary visas who were born here have a right to stay here and that disabled people who want to come to Australia are not discriminated against based on their disability. The exemption of the Migration Act from the Disability Discrimination Act needs to be removed, and it needs to be removed now. It is within Labor's capacity to do this, and I urge the government to end the ableism in Australia's immigration system and remove that exemption for the Migration Act. National Radioactive Waste Management Facility 18 13:57 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I want to highlight an issue that has bedeviled this country for around 50 years. We should be proud that we run a world-class nuclear medicine facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney. However, the creation of nuclear medicine does create nuclear waste that, of course, we have the responsibility to manage. So far, we have simply managed that waste by storing it at Lucas Heights. It's stored there perfectly safely. It's 30 kilometres from the middle of our biggest city, and, despite what you might hear in the media, the management of nuclear waste is a very safe exercise. However, the site at Lucas Heights is running out of space. We've known it's been running out of space for decades, so a process has been underway to try and find a long-term site to store nuclear waste—it should be said it is low-level or intermediate-level waste—from the production of nuclear medicines. We were very close to finding that facility when a small town in South Australia, Kimba, a couple of years ago voted 61 per cent in favour of having a facility. There was over 60 per cent support to have the facility in their local community. You would think that would mean we would proceed—let's go, let's do this and build this—but unfortunately a decision of the Federal Court has held this up further. That is a consequence of the fact that the Labor Party has refused to support legislation which would simply have us make a decision. It's about time the parliament made a decision on how we manage nuclear waste, which supports the creation of nuclear medicines, which one in two Australians will use in their lifetimes. One in two Australians will use and benefit from nuclear medicines. We should be able to, as a parliament, make a decision on how we manage that. If we can't make that decision, we should just forget all this palaver about nuclear submarines, because we're never going to be able to manage the waste from nuclear submarines if we can't make a decision about the waste from nuclear medicines. The PRESIDENT 112096 There are 30 seconds if anyone's interested. Do your best, Senator Canavan! Senator CANAVAN 245212 I just want to highlight the government's continual failure to deliver on its promise to lower people's power bills by $275. The financial year ticked over when we were gone, and the power price is on the way up again despite the government's promise. It has failed again. They've failed the Australian people— The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for this discussion has finished, and we'll move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cultural Heritage Protection 19 14:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. Minister, considering the shambolic and disastrous impact of the Western Australian Labor government's Aboriginal cultural heritage laws, particularly on farmers, local councils and environmental groups, will the minister now abandon the Albanese Labor government's promise to change cultural heritage laws at a national level? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, senators on my left and on my right! I ask for silence while the minister responds. 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The first point I would make is it appears that the first question on both days this week from the opposition has been about the actions of a state government. I'm pleased that they are so supportive of what this government is doing that they don't appear to be able to ask questions critical of what our policy is. But, as the minister well knows, the issues around the Western Australian legislation are matters for the Western Australian government. I would make the point that I understand that the shadow Attorney-General, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is amongst those who wish to conflate those issues in her opposition to the Voice. Anybody who has been to Western Australia or who has spoken to any Western Australians will know that that is a political tactic because you oppose the Voice. I've been in politics for a while, and I think we all understand the scare campaign, and Senator Cash is good at those. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on both my left and my right! Before Senator Wong got to her feet, I asked for silence during her answer. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU In relation to the second point I am surprised, given the comments of your own deputy leader, Ms Ley, in relation to Indigenous heritage protection, that you would ask me whether or not we should abandon them. The minister and now Deputy Leader of the Opposition told the Australian in November 2021 that Indigenous heritage protection remains all too complex, and it needs to be addressed through a national conversation. The options paper you're asking me about was commissioned by you. The options paper you are writing a scare campaign on was commissioned by you, and if you ever wanted an example of why those opposite use every argument they can to oppose the Voice— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senators, once again, twice now I have asked for silence during the answer, and you have completely disregarded my direction. I'm not asking you. It's a direction. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The options paper in relation to Indigenous heritage protection was commissioned under you, and I think the scare campaign you are running is really reprehensible. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt and Senator Henderson! Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, can you guarantee to the people of Australia that the Albanese government's cultural heritage laws will not mean, as in Western Australia, that anyone on more than 1,100 square metres of land will be required to apply and pay potentially thousands of dollars for a permit before carrying out a range of activities, including the planting of trees, erecting fence and even clearing tracks? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The scare campaign— Senator Cash I0M Well, rule it out! Senator WONG 00AOU Yes, the scare campaign. You're asking me questions about state legislation in an attempt to try and drum up opposition to the Voice. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong! Senator WONG 00AOU Let's be clear what you are doing. I invite you to remember this: it's your deputy leader's options paper. Why won't you support Sussan Ley? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order! We are on the second supplementary of the first question, and this chamber is completely disorderly on my left and my right. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you've asked your question. I expect you to listen in silence and to stop the interjections across the chamber. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU This is a bit like 'electric vehicles will end the weekend', isn't it? Was that you too—that was Mr Morrison. Senator Cash, those matters that you put to me are state government policy. They are not our government's policy. Our government's policy position is to go through the options paper and the conversation that you called for. Honourable se nators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Hughes! Order across the chamber! Senator Cash! I'm waiting. Senator Hughes, I've called you twice! Senator Ayres! I don't intend to call every senator in this chamber to silence. I have asked for silence and I expect silence. Minister. Senator WONG 00AOU What I can say is this: the government is not proposing any Commonwealth takeover of state laws. We will not be adopting or duplicating existing state and territory regimes. If the senator would like to recall, this is all about ensuring that a tragedy like Juukan Gorge does not happen again—something that both parties of government, I thought, supported. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Second supplementary, Senator Cash? 14:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, if you are proceeding with these laws, how can the people of Australia have any confidence that your laws will differ from the shambolic and disastrous Western Australia Labor government's cultural heritage laws? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, I remind those opposite that the options paper they're running a scare campaign on was issued by their government and that the propositions which have been put to me by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate are about state laws. I suggest she put them to the state government. Finally, I remind the opposition of this: there was once bipartisan support for updating national laws to better protect First Nations heritage. There were, I think, two parliamentary reports, chaired by the member for Leichhardt. There was a time when those opposite were not prepared to sacrifice that principle in pursuit of the sort of scare campaign that we have come to expect from Senator Cash. Cost of Living 20 14:08 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Noting the Treasurer recently stated in an interview with Sky News: … as a government, we very deliberately made this fight against inflation our number one priority. Our biggest focus right now is rolling out this cost‑of‑living help for people doing it tough … can the minister outline how the Albanese government's economic plan is delivering responsible and targeted cost-of-living relief to Australians who need it most? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for her question. We understand that high inflation and high interest rates are putting pressure on the budgets of Australian households. That's why central to our economic plan is our package around cost-of-living relief. That support is directed to those who need help the most and is timed in terms of how that relief is rolling out. Our measures include: the largest investment in bulk-billing incentives ever; helping 11.6 million eligible Australians access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs; reducing the cost of medicines by up to half for at least six million people, saving Australians $1.6 billion in out-of-pocket costs over the next four years; increasing the base rate for payments like JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and Austudy; and delivering the biggest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance, by 15 per cent, in over three decades. We've got up to $3 billion in electricity bill relief through the Energy Bill Relief Fund that will benefit more than five million eligible households and one million eligible small businesses. We are supporting housing supply and homeownership and delivering cheaper child care and paid parental leave. We've seen the disastrous alternative to our responsible approach from those opposite, voting against energy bill relief for millions of households, opposing cheaper housing through the HAFF— Senator Henderson ZN4 That's going well! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Henderson! Senator GALLAGHER ING opposing cheaper medicines and supporting bigger tax breaks for people who've already got tens of millions of dollars in super. The 10000 Senator Henderson, I called you to order and you immediately kept going. That is disrespectful. I've asked, and I expect you to come to order when called. Senator GALLAGHER ING We know that those opposite are happy to complain about the cost of living, but, when it comes to finding solutions, they've got nothing to contribute and would rather stand in the way. This side of the Senate understand the impact that cost-of-living pressures are having on Australians, which is why we're doing all we can to make a meaningful difference to households around this country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, your first supplementary question? 14:11 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Given the recent budget had a focus on ensuring the government's fiscal policy is working in line with monetary policy to tackle inflation and not add to inflationary pressures, can the minister outline what impact the government's responsible and targeted cost-of-living policies are having on inflation? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question. The Albanese government's cost-of-living policies have been carefully calibrated and designed to take pressure off inflation rather than add to it. The centrepiece of our budget was a $14.6 billion cost-of-living package. Treasury estimates our policies to ease cost-of-living pressures are expected to directly reduce inflation by three quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24, and the Reserve Bank governor, Phil Lowe, also backed in our cost-of-living policies to deal with higher energy prices when he told Senate estimates in May: … the budget, largely through the electricity price package— which, I'll just remind you, you voted against— is taking pressure off inflation, and that's a first-order effect. Price pressures in our economy are still higher than we'd like, but the actions that the government is taking are making a meaningful difference to families around the country and being responsible with our budget at the same time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, your second supplementary? 14:12 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Recognising that Australians are doing it tough and that inflation is forecast to be higher for longer than we'd like, can the minister outline what the latest inflation data shows about the cost-of-living pressures facing Australian families and the progress we're making to moderate inflation? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question. Last Wednesday saw the release of the CPI for the June quarter. CPI increased six per cent over the year to the June quarter, down from the peak of 7.8 per cent over the year to the December quarter last year. Inflation increased by 0.8 per cent over the quarter. This is less than half the quarterly increase when it reached its peak in the March quarter of 2022, which was 2.1 per cent, which was just before the election. It's pleasing that inflation is moderating and, while we would prefer it to moderate more quickly to ease pressure on household budgets, we are making progress. Our economic plan has many parts: the budget restraint, the finding of savings, the banking of upgrades to revenue, the targeted cost-of-living relief that's not adding to inflation and investments to lift the capacity of the economy over the long term. Cultural Heritage Protection 21 14:13 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. On 30 May 2023, Minister Plibersek said that the Albanese government was: … systemically changing our cultural heritage laws in a co-design partnership with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance. This deeply impacts farming communities across Western Australia. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 I'd urge you to listen. Minister, why does the so-called co-design partnership apparently not include farmers or, indeed, any other Australians holding private property rights, who will clearly be substantially impacted by any changes to the law? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I am going to remind senators on my right to stop the interjections. 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I am not sure of the context of the quote that the senator is using. If it's something similar to what Ms Ley said when minister—she said: … it needs to be addressed through a national conversation. … This is about the government working with Indigenous Australians and recognising their right to determine what is important to them. So said Ms Ley. I would make the point that I have no doubt that Minister Plibersek will, if there are any changes that are proposed, ensure that stakeholders—all stakeholders—are consulted. I know Minister Watt is very consultative in his portfolio with some of the sectors, industries and communities that you reference. I think it is regrettable that the opposition is using the concerns that people have about some state legislation, which I understand, but you people are using it in order to try and fuel some fear about what this government is doing, when we are actually taking a very similar approach to that taken by the previous government. I go back to the response I gave in, I think, the answer to the second supplementary that Senator Cash gave me. We did have the destruction of Juukan Gorge, and we all, including the company concerned, recognise what a tragedy that was, that destruction of First Nations heritage. And there was an agreement across parliament that we did need to ensure that this didn't happen again. And I regret that the tenor of the questions to me today demonstrates that that bipartisanship, in some quarters— Senator WONG 00AOU You may snort, Senator Cash, but I actually think there are some things which should be bipartisan, and it is disappointing that you don't seem to think so. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brockman, a first supplementary? The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Senator Brockman. I am going to ask for silence. Senator Cash, you have one of your own people on their feet. Senator Brockman, please continue. 14:17 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I'll preface this again by saying these laws, and the Labor approach to these laws, are having a significant impact on regional communities, particularly farming communities. Minister, can you guarantee that the Albanese government's cultural heritage laws will not follow the West Australian Labor model of imposing penalties of up to $1 million for individuals and $10 million for corporations, as well as jail terms—massive penalties in jail terms—for even inadvertent breaches? If not, why not? (Time expired) 14:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I said in relation to an answer to Senator Cash, we will not be adopting or duplicating existing state and territory regimes. What we will be doing is modernising Indigenous heritage protection laws in Australia. And I'm grateful for Senator Duniam who on 28 November last year said that the Juukan Gorge events: … were so disastrous that they made it very clear that comprehensive work needed to begin, as a matter of urgency, on modernising Indigenous heritage protection laws in Australia. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU I didn't hear him running the scare campaign then. This is what that is about. An honourable senator: What did you change? What's changed? Senator WONG 00AOU I'm asked over here, 'What's changed?' We know what's changed: a bit of political opportunism from those opposite, which is extremely disappointing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator, I appreciate that you have a particular position on the state legislation, but that is not passed through this parliament. That is passed through the Western Australian parliament. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam. Senator WONG 00AOU And what this government does is correct, Senator Duniam, and what we are doing is modernising, as you said— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, you do not have the call. Senator Duniam, you have one of your own senators on his feet. Senator Brockman, a second supplementary? 14:18 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Thank you. Minister, what modelling have you done, or will you commit to doing, to assess the cost impact of your proposed cultural heritage law changes on the agricultural sector, on the housing sector and on the mining sector? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I'm waiting for order again. 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm not sure which proposed laws you're referring to. What I understand to be happening is what Senator Duniam and Ms Ley flagged, which is a conversation about modernising laws in accordance with the bipartisan recommendations of inquiries that the member for Leichhardt was engaged in. If you are concerned about state laws, perhaps you might consider whether or not the Western Australian parliament needs you. But the reality is that, here, we don't pass that legislation; we pass Commonwealth legislation, and we are responsible for the process of bringing forward Commonwealth legislation. As I understand it—and I will check, because obviously I'm representing in this— Honourable senato rs interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Interjections across the chamber are disorderly. The minister is on her feet answering the question, and I expect there to be silence. Senator WONG 00AOU As I said, there is no legislation that is before us nor any that has been put out for consultation. There is conversation and consultation about modernising these laws in accordance with Senator Duniam's— (Time expired) Climate Change 23 14:20 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. It's been reported that 44 per cent of the world's oceans are currently experiencing measured marine heatwaves. We're experiencing record ocean temperatures in the north Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Mexico and unprecedented low levels of winter sea ice in Antarctica. Last week, waters off the coast of the US state of Florida hit 38.8 degrees Celsius—the highest in recorded history anywhere—causing widespread, immediate coral bleaching. Senator Wong, do you acknowledge that these ocean-warming events are climate change, linked to rising global emissions largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think that's a matter of scientific record. Climate change has an effect on the marine domain as it has an effect on the terrestrial domain, and so forth. I may say, in addition to that, that one of the things which we know is occurring and which is a risk particularly for Pacific island regions and South-East Asia is the effect that these phenomena—which include warming but also different patterns of warming in different currents—are having on fish stocks. Let's remember one of the things that we forget, because we obviously have a large continent that produces a lot of beef and meat: the primary source of protein for much of our region is fish. One of the things that we have engaged in detail about with Pacific island nations, Indonesia and others is how we can ensure we secure fish stocks at a time when climate change is, amongst other things, impacting upon the availability and pattern of fish. One of the ways in which we can do that is obviously the regulation of fishing, but, more broadly, there are environmental measures as well in relation to oceans. There is a broader issue of how we as a country will ensure that we play our part in tracking the path from Paris towards net zero by 2050. We are determined to do that, and the report that was released overnight by UNESCO in relation to the reef recognises the work that this government is doing in the face of climate change. I don't think that, on this side of the parliament, you've had the same views that have been expressed on the other side for over a decade, questioning the science. Where we disagree—and we do disagree—is with your policy propositions. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, first supplementary? 14:23 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Overnight, as you pointed out, Senator, UNESCO released its draft recommendation to not list the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage value as 'in danger', with a progress report now due in February of next year. In its draft decision, UNESCO has effectively put Australia on notice that a World Heritage 'in danger' listing for the reef is still possible next year. With the Bureau of Meteorology likely to upgrade its forecast for an El Nino any day now and with the increased likelihood of coral bleaching, do you accept UNESCO's statement overnight that the Great Barrier Reef still remains under serious threat? (Time expired) 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think the Minister for the Environment and Water, along with the Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, Senator Green, and the Prime Minister did stand up today and make comments before the media about this issue. Yes, we do recognise the importance of the reef and how critical the reef is to Queensland's environment and economy. We also understand the importance of acting on climate. Furthermore, we understand the importance of investing in the Great Barrier Reef. We are committed as a government to protecting the reef, for the 64,000 jobs which rely on it. We also recognise that UNESCO has seen significant progress made by our government in relation to climate change, water quality and sustainable fishing. That is because we have invested a record $1.2 billion in the reef. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, your second supplementary? 14:25 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The UNESCO draft decision states not only that the reef remains under serious threat but that urgent and sustained action is needed to improve the long-term resilience of the reef. Minister, you've acknowledged the impact rising emissions, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, have on coral health. How is the Albanese Labor government's approval of new coal and gas projects, including three coalmines in 53 days, taking urgent and sustained action to protect the reef? 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The UNESCO draft decision cites significant progress being made by the Albanese Labor government, particularly in relation to our policy on climate change as well as measures in relation to water quality and sustainable fishing. This is all about putting the reef on a stronger and more sustainable path. I note that there was public reporting of a source close to UNESCO describing how the Australian government's approach had changed completely and the difference between the new government and the old one is like night and day. But, of course, we understand that these decisions— Senator W 195565 President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I did ask specifically how the approval of three coalmines in 53 days was taking urgent and sustained action on climate change. The PRESIDENT 112096 You did, Senator Whish-Wilson, and you also talked about the UNESCO draft recommendations, so the minister is being relevant. Senator WONG 00AOU What I was going to say is that of course this decision does not mean the reef is in the clear. I'd make this point: if we collectively—humanity—don't deliver on the goals of the Paris Agreement, every coral reef in the world is vulnerable. What we are doing is working with industry to transform this— (Time expired) Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 24 14:27 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, Senator Farrell. During the winter recess, Commissioner Holmes handed down the final report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, which highlighted that for 4½ years the former Liberal-National government pursued its unlawful robodebt scheme. It was a time when some of the most vulnerable Australians must have felt that their government, with the Liberals and the Nationals at the reins, had abandoned them. Can the minister update the Senate about what the report found on the design, implementation and operation of the former Liberal government's cruel scheme? 14:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sheldon for his question and for his deep concern for the impact of robodebt on so many Australians. Yes, I can answer that question because Labor committed to establishing a royal commission into robodebt, and just over 12 months after the government being elected, on the morning of 7 July 2023, Commissioner Holmes delivered her final report for all to see. The report set out its findings on the Liberal and Nationals' cruel robodebt scheme. The report highlighted how the scheme unlawfully raised $1.8 billion of debt against approximately 435,000 vulnerable Australians. The report told the personal stories of tragedy and suffering this terrible scheme caused members of our community who, through no fault of their own, felt attacked with nowhere to turn. In the final report, Commissioner Holmes noted: … the Robodebt Scheme was put together on an ill-conceived, embryonic idea and rushed to Cabinet … It is clear enough why it was thought necessary and desirable: because of the dual advantages of supposed savings … and its neat alignment with the political rhetoric of the day about the social security system and the need for 'integrity' in welfare payments. Yet, despite the damning findings of the report, which found that the Liberals and Nationals had put political pointscoring over the welfare of vulnerable Australians, sadly many of the scheme's architects remain members of the coalition benches to this day. The 112096 Senator Sheldon, a first supplementary? 14:30 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Is it correct that the royal commission's final report reiterated the unlawfulness of the scheme, including through evidence of how the former Liberal and National government was warned repeatedly about this and yet still hounded some of the most vulnerable in our community for unlawful debts? Has there been any evidence that those impacted by the royal commission have accepted any responsibility for their actions? What, if anything, has been the reaction to the findings of the report? 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sheldon for his first supplementary question. Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no, because the royal commission's final report was clear: the former Liberal government ignored warnings of the scheme's unlawfulness. With everything that has been exposed, I would have expected that those responsible would have apologised to all of those Australians who paid the price of their actions. But yesterday former prime minister Mr Morrison and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, doubled down. Mr Morrison stood in the other place and, instead of apologising, made out that he was somehow a victim of the robodebt scheme. What was more shocking was that Mr Dutton stood by Mr Morrison on last night's 7.30 program. It really says something about the state of the modern Liberal Party. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary? 14:31 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Given many of the people who were unlawfully targeted by the scheme have followed the royal commission very closely and may be watching the Senate today, can the minister update the Senate on any final observations in the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme's final report? 14:32 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes, I can. The government established the robodebt royal commission to provide Australians with answers about how the scheme was established and operated. We are confident that Commissioner Holmes has provided these answers. In summing up the final report, Commissioner Holmes noted: I am confident that the commission has served the purpose of bringing into the open an extraordinary saga, illustrating a myriad of ways that things can go wrong through venality, incompetence and cowardice. Senator O'Neill 140651 Trifecta! Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, trifecta. The government is currently working through the recommendations in the report, as we on this side are committed to ensuring that this shameful program could never, ever happen again in this country. Lobbying Code of Conduct 25 14:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is for the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Minister Watt. The Lobbying Code of Conduct prohibits former government advisers actively lobbying for 12 months in a relevant area. Minister, in the government's view does it pass the Lobbying Code of Conduct, or even just the pub test, that, following the election, an adviser for the former government with responsibility for the COVID vaccinations went to work in an external affairs role at a COVID vaccine manufacturer, or a former senior adviser in the Communications portfolio opened up their own lobbying firm and engaged with telecommunications clients, or a former senior adviser with responsibility for gambling policy did lobbying on behalf of wagering operations? 14:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Pocock, for your question. I don't propose to comment on any individual cases that you have raised, partly because I'm not aware of the specific cases, but obviously I do want to respect individuals' privacy as well. But I'm certainly happy to talk to you in more general terms about the position of our government on lobbyists. As you probably recall, the Lobbying Code of Conduct was actually established by the last Labor government, to ensure that government representatives who are approached by lobbyists know whose interests they represent. The Albanese government certainly expects lobbyists and government representatives to comply with the code. Any person who lobbies the Australian government on behalf of a third-party client must be registered on the register of lobbyists and must comply with the transparency and integrity framework that is set out in the code. The code also prohibits government representatives, including ministers and their staff, from being party to lobbying by a lobbyist acting on behalf of a third-party client who is not on the register. As I said, the Albanese government certainly expects lobbyists and government officials to comply with the Lobbying Code of Conduct. The responsibility for enforcing the code sits with the Attorney-General's Department, and they do that in an active way, including investigating alleged or potential breaches. If there are particular cases that you are aware of that you believe should be investigated, obviously it is open to you to refer them to the Attorney-General's Department. But I am advised that the Attorney-General's Department has concluded 12 investigations since May 2022. In three of those cases the department determined that there had been a breach of the code, and in all three of those occasions the nature of the breach was inadvertent and isolated and had been proactively remedied and therefore did not warrant further enforcement action. But the department is continuing to investigate one other matter. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:36 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory A cursory glance at LinkedIn shows a number of people who are potentially in breach of this. What proactive measures does the Attorney-General's Department do to actually look for the sort of lobbying that is prohibited under your own code? 14:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said, Senator Pocock, the Attorney-General's Department is currently investigating a number of matters and potential breaches of the code, and, as I said, already has considered 12 such investigations since the change of government in May last year. But beyond that, under the code the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department may bar a lobbyist who has committed a serious breach of the code from being registered for a period of up to three months. What that means is that being deregistered effectively prohibits a lobbyist from lobbying ministers, their staff and officials as the code prohibits government representatives from being party to lobbying activities by unregistered lobbyists. A serious breach includes unregistered lobbying and breaching the principles of engagement with government representatives. The secretary may also remove a registered lobbyist from the register if they fail to comply with their obligations under the code. I am personally encouraged that the Attorney-General's Department is actively investigating these potential breaches and those that are underway. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:37 Senator DAV 256136 Australian Capital Territory ID POCOCK () (): Minister, how is a three-month holiday from lobbying acceptable for a serious breach of our Lobbying Code of Conduct? In other countries around the world there are civil and sometimes even criminal charges because people know how important it is to regulate lobbyists, yet both major parties seem to have no issue at all: do something wrong, do the worst you can in the Lobbyist Code of Conduct and have a three-month holiday—put your feet up, and we'll see you back here in 90 days. 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Pocock. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that a three-month holiday, as you put it, is necessarily the only or a sufficient punishment. As I understand it and as I have already mentioned, the secretary may bar a lobbyist for a period of time. But I should also say that the government is considering further changes to the code, and we would welcome suggestions for reform on this matter. The code was updated last in February 2022 by the former government, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is currently reviewing the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, which also regulates lobbying activities. The government looks forward to receiving the committee's report and will consider any recommendations it may make, including in relation to lobbying activities. If you haven't done so already, Senator Pocock, I would encourage you to participate in that inquiry. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 26 14:39 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. In 2020 the Prime Minister tweeted: Voice. Truth. Treaty. That's the future I want for Australia. However, in a recent interview with Ben Fordham on 2GB he stated emphatically: This is not about a treaty. This isn't about that. The Prime Minister then described a treaty as something that isn't happening. Can the minister confirm which version of the Prime Minister's statements is the future he wants? Is it a treaty or not a treaty? 14:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As everyone in this chamber knows and understands, the 2023 referendum is about constitutional recognition through a Voice, and Australians will be asked a simple question: do you support a change to the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? Let's be clear about what the Voice is. The Voice will be a committee of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will give advice to parliament and government on issues that affect their community. It will include Indigenous Australians from every state and territory and the Torres Strait Islands and representatives from the regions and remote areas. That is the question that will be put to the Australian people later this year. It is about constitutional recognition through a Voice to parliament. It is interesting, again, that those who are opposing this very simple question and generous offer are seeking to conflate a whole range of other matters in their opposition to the Voice referendum. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, a first supplementary? 14:41 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Voice architect Professor Megan Davis has described the Voice as being the 'enabling mechanism' for a treaty. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator LIDDLE 300644 We're talking about Professor Megan Davis, in case you didn't hear that. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! The PRES 112096 Senator Hughes and Senator Watt, order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Liddle, I am going to invite you to begin your question again. I expect Senator Liddle to be able to ask her question in silence. Senator LIDDLE 300644 Voice architect Professor Megan Davis has described the Voice as being the 'enabling mechanism' for a treaty. Is Professor Davis correct that the Voice will be used to enable a treaty to occur? 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I will refer the senator to the principles that have been released as part of the work that has been done over many years, with consensus and support across both chambers of parliament until, unfortunately, recently. This has been work that has been underway for years. The Voice will give independent advice to the parliament and government. The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities. It will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Liddle on a point of order? Senator Liddle 300644 My question was very specific: will the Voice be used to enable a treaty to occur? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, the minister is being directly relevant to your question. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING I am explaining the principles that underpin the Voice, which is the question that the senator has asked of me. It will be empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful, culturally informed, accountable and transparent, working alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. It will not have a veto power. As the minister has said, it will focus on health, education, jobs and housing. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, a second supplementary? 14:43 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The Minister for Indigenous Australians has said that budget funding for a makarrata commission is 'really code for treaty'. What other codes is this government using to deceive the Australian population? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I am not going to call the minister until the interjections cease. Senator Gallagher ING What was the last sentence that Senator Liddle said? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, would you repeat the question, please. Senator LIDDLE 300644 The Minister for Indigenous Australians has said that budget funding for a makarrata commission is 'really code for treaty'. What other codes are this government using to deceive the Australian population? 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government is being very clear about the question that will be put forward to people when the referendum is held. That information is very clear. The question is clear. Senator GALLAGHER ING It has been developed over years from formerly tripartisan and multipartisan cooperation, frankly, until recently. We have been very clear about what the question is. We have been clear about what the principles of the Voice are. I completely reject the assertion that is implicit in that question about us not being upfront. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, your interjections are disorderly and they're constant. I'm asking you to cease. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. I completely reject that assertion in the question. We have been very clear, and we look forward to working right across the country—across community, across faith groups, across civil society, across everywhere—to deliver this very important reform for our country, to walk together and unite the country and recognise our First Nations history. (Time expired) Awards and Honours 28 14:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The recipients of Australian honours and awards are rightly held in high regard by everyday Australians. In 2019, Kathryn Campbell, the public servant responsible for robodebt and a former senior officer in the ADF, was appointed an officer of the Order of Australia for 'distinguished service to public administration through senior roles with government departments'. An officer of the Order of Australia is awarded for 'distinguished service of a high degree to Australia or to humanity at large'. Thanks to the robodebt royal commission, we now know that Ms Campbell's department received legal advice in 2014 that the robodebt scheme, the one she drove for years, was not lawful. Does the government plan to strip Ms Campbell of her Order of Australia? 14:46 Senator 00AOU South Australia WONG (—) (): Thank you, Senator Lambie. I acknowledge and respect the work that you and other senators in this place have done in relation to robodebt. I think all of us, or certainly most of us, have been appalled by what has been made public by the royal commission and I think appalled by the actions that have been described or alleged in relation to certain ministers. Obviously, the hope always is that the principle of a professional high-quality Public Service is something that we want to see. It's a good thing for the country. I know Senator Gallagher is working with the Public Service to ensure that the sorts of principles that Australians expect from an apolitical professional public service are not only observed but are strengthened. I don't really propose to discuss individuals in particular, particularly in the circumstance where a royal commission report has been presented and a confidential chapter is subject to a direction not to publish that has been made by the royal commission. The advice I have been provided with is that public commentary may prejudice future inquiry or investigation, so you may understand why I won't respond in relation to a specific individual. But I think it has been very clear that the government is intending to act on the— (Time expired) 14:48 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In 2012, the now Chief of the Defence Force Angus Campbell was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for 'distinguished command and leadership in action as commander of Joint Task Force 633'. He received this while commanding Australian diggers who are accused of committing war crimes, diggers he is now throwing under the bus. Does the government plan to strip General Campbell of his Distinguished Service Cross? 14:49 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'd ask you, President, to have a look at whether or not that is a supplementary question, but I will answer it anyway because I think possibly there is a through line which is associated with the award of an Australian honour—although I'd note it's different portfolios. Those decisions are not made by ministers; as you know, there's a process around honours. We have been seeking to improve those and ensure honours reflect the diversity of contributions across the Australian community. My recollection—and I don't have a brief in front of me, and I will come back to you, Senator Lambie, if I'm wrong—is that that is not a matter for government; it would be a matter for His Excellency the Governor-General. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call Senator Lambie, I will seek guidance on the primary question and the supplementary question. Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:50 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Thank you, Madam President; you'll see why this is. The Distinguished Service Cross and the Order of Australia are two of Australia's highest honours. These honours should be reserved only for those who have served Australia exceptionally. Is the minister worried about the integrity of these honours when it appears they are handed out to people oh-so-willing to throw everyday Australians and diggers under the bus? 14:51 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think we've moved from honours to defence medals; is that right, Senator Lambie? The Distinguished Service Cross is, I think, awarded within the Defence portfolio. Again, I will see what I can find in relation to this. These are matters which may have been raised— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Lambie? Senator Lambie 250026 Point of order. We can discuss who has that; I'm very aware of that. Is the minister worried about the integrity of these honours when it appears they are handed out to people oh-so-willing to throw everyday Australians and diggers under the bus? There is an integrity problem here, and I'm asking whether the government is concerned about that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, that's not a point of order. The minister was trying to establish the relationship between the primary question and the first and the second supplementary. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The government is concerned about what has occurred in relation to robodebt, and we are concerned, as I know you are, Senator, about the vulnerable Australians who were targeted unfairly, and we are concerned about the tragedies and the human cost of this. That is why we asked for a royal commission, and that is why the government will methodically go through the recommendations of that royal commission—including that which has not been published. You are right to point to that as a—sorry, am I done? The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, you are. Thank you for drawing it to your own attention, Minister! Economy 29 14:52 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister please update the Senate on the independent Reserve Bank board's interest rates decision today and outline how the Albanese Labor government is addressing inflation in our economy while providing responsible targeted cost-of-living relief? 14:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the question. During question time today, the Reserve Bank board has decided to pause interest rates, keeping the official cash rate at 4.1 per cent. This is welcome news and confirms that our efforts to get on top of the inflation challenge in our economy are starting to work. The government's primary focus is addressing the inflation challenge. Our economic plan includes targeted, responsible cost-of-living measures that won't make the job of the Reserve Bank harder than it needs to be. This includes energy rebates, cheaper child care, affordable medicines and reduced bulk-billing costs. Our Energy Price Relief Plan is delivering up to $500 in energy bill relief to five million households on their winter bills and up to $650 to a million small businesses. This not only eases the burden for families and businesses but also contributes to our fight against inflation. Treasury forecasts indicate that our energy relief package will directly will reduce inflation by three quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. We're also repairing the budget to alleviate inflationary pressures, including returning 87 per cent of upward revenue revisions to the budget, compared to 40 per cent under our predecessors and 30 per cent under the Howard government; limiting average annual real spending growth to less than one per cent, which is seven times lower than the coalition; and making $40 billion worth of savings and reprioritisations across both budgets, compared to zero new expenditure savings measures in the coalition's last budget. The Reserve Bank governor confirmed that our budget is reducing, not adding to, inflation, telling estimates: I don't think that the budget is adding to inflation; it's actually reducing inflation … (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:55 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Sounds like the Albanese Labor government is doing an excellent job. Noting the recent budget laid the foundations for growth by embracing clean energy and invested in value-adding industries, people, skills, technology and small business, can the minister please outline how the Albanese Labor government's budget is helping to build a more robust and resilient Australian economy? 14:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the supplementary. As we know, Australia is not immune to the uncertainty that we're seeing in the global economy. We know that the challenges coming at us from around the world are felt most around the kitchen tables of people around this country. But, thanks to our responsible economic management, we confront these challenges from a position of strength. More Australians are in work than ever before. The participation rate is around record highs, and the share of women in work is near its record high. Since we came to government, 498,000 Australians have found jobs—the strongest jobs growth of any new government on record. While we know that slowing global growth, high inflation and high interest rates will impact our economy and our labour market over the coming 12 months, Australia is in a better position than nearly any other country to face the challenges ahead. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:56 Sen 299352 Victoria ator STEWART () (): Thank you, Minister. Can the minister outline how the government's responsible economic management is helping to restore fiscal discipline, strengthen the budget and clean up the mess left behind by the Liberals and Nationals? 14:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the supplementary. Thanks to responsible economic management and spending restraint that would be absolutely unrecognisable to those opposite, we are on track to post Australia's first surplus in 15 years. Perhaps Senator Hume can get that mug out again—'back in black'! We loved the little video. We might need that mug! The Treasury and the Department of Finance will finalise their figures and release them in the usual way in the final budget outcome, but I can confirm we now expect our surplus for the last financial year to be slightly north of $20 billion. We've managed to do this at the same time that we've delivered billions of dollars of responsible, targeted cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation, an important focus of our budget, and we will continue to manage the budget responsibly, meet the needs of the Australian community and ensure that we're getting our budget back on track. Economy 30 14:58 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is also for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Treasurer's Measuring what matters report, released only weeks ago, states that the cost of housing has improved, citing data that is years old. Just last week, Roy Morgan noted that almost one-third of Australian mortgageholders are at risk of mortgage stress, the highest rate in 15 years. Does the Treasurer really believe that his Measuring what matters report is accurate—yes or no? 14:58 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hume for the question and the opportunity to talk about the importance of the document that was released by the Treasurer, Measuring what matters: Australia's first wellbeing framework, which is designed to help better track outcomes across the economy and society in a broader way than the budget allows. It uses 50 indicators to measure how we're faring as we pursue a more healthy, secure, sustainable, cohesive and prosperous Australia. It isn't about abandoning some of those measures like GDP or other traditional economic indicators. It's about seeing if we can do a better job at considering the things that are critical to everyone's wellbeing, whether that's the state of our health, our community or our environment. In terms of the data that was used, Treasury has identified the best available indicators for the framework using data from ABS, Commonwealth departments and other sources. This process hasn't been done before; this is the first iteration of a framework. I note there has been broad community and stakeholder support for broadening out the way we measure the wellbeing of our community. It has revealed some data gaps, which we will work to address as we refine and develop the framework going forward. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 Point of order on relevance: the question was whether the Treasurer believed the Measuring What Matters report is accurate. Yes or no? The PRESIDENT 112096 And there was a description— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, you've raised a point of order. It isn't your opportunity to argue with me. You raise the issue about the Measuring What Matters report, which the minister is entitled to talk to as well. I'm assuming the minister has now finished her contribution. I invite you to ask your first supplementary. 15:00 Se 266499 Victoria nator HUME () (): Under Labor, gas is up 26 per cent, electricity is up 13 per cent, childcare costs are up almost 10 per cent, food and housing are up by more than seven per cent each. When measuring what matters to Australians, does the government regret leaving out of your report these key indicators of the cost of living? Yes or no? 15:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would say that this report is in addition to the other ways the government reports economic data. And I would say, if I pick up the points that Senator Hume reckons, on gas and electricity, where we have taken action, you opposed it. On child care, I believe you opposed that investment as well. On housing, you're blocking the future fund; you're actually blocking us making investments that will make housing more affordable for the 30,000 people that would benefit from that fund. So I'm not going to take a lecture from those opposite about any of those areas where they voted no to every investment we've tried to make. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Under Labor's continued cost-of-living crisis, the No. 1 indicator of Australian's wellness is getting inflation and the cost of living under control, and you said so yourself. So why is the Labor government spending its time writing out-of-date reports rather than making the hard decisions that will actually get this persistent and sticky inflation lower faster and making life easier, which is what really matters to millions of Australians? 15:02 Senator GALLA ING Australian Capital Territory GHER (—) (): I completely and utterly reject the premise of that question. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Cultural Heritage Protection 31 15:03 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Wong) to questions asked by Senator Cash and myself today relating to Aboriginal cultural heritage. The Labor government says that there's nothing to see here. Of the federal Aboriginal cultural heritage act there's 'nothing to see here'. The trouble with that is that's exactly what the state Labor government said when they passed this legislation through the state parliament. In fact, they put it through as urgent rushed legislation to deal with a very narrow issue—the Juukan Gorge issue. They said: 'Don't worry about this legislation. It's all good. We've checked everything out. It's tickety-boo. We don't need a parliamentary inquiry into it. We don't need to look at the impacts on farmers. We don't need to look at the impacts on regional communities. We don't need to look at the impacts on mining. It's all fine. We'll just rush it through parliament. We've got the numbers. Don't worry about it.' We get worried when we hear the federal Labor government say, 'We've got a cultural heritage act in the works; we've committed to doing it,' but they can't reveal any detail about it. As far as I can tell, there's been zero consultation with the agricultural community about the form of this legislation. There's been zero consultation with the opposition about it. The shadow minister has told me directly that he has not been approached by the minister; he hasn't been invited to any consultation or asked about the coalition's views on these issues. The government says, 'It used to be bipartisan!' Sorry, but that doesn't sound very bipartisan, if you're not talking to the shadow minister about this at all. You're not talking to the farming community. You're not talking to regional communities. I was in Katanning a week ago, when 650 locals turned up to a town hall meeting, concerned about the impacts of this legislation. That's 650 people in a community of 3,500 people. Think about that for a moment. Think about what that sort of a percentage would be in the city. There were plenty of people there who weren't directly affected by the state Labor legislation. One woman stood up. She had a B&B on a small block of land. She said: 'I'm not impacted by this legislation, but I'm here because I care. I care about my community. I care about the farmers. I care about the other businesses that are trying to operate in this community.' I went to another community function in Dawesville. Again, Dawesville is an urban area; it's on the outer fringes of the Perth metro region, but it's an urban area. There'd be a few blocks over 1,100 square metres, but certainly not the majority. That room was full to overflowing. There were over 250 people in that room. The level of concern about this legislation is something that, quite literally, I've not seen before, certainly in my time in this place. Senator Wong says, 'The opposition is just trying to stir things up about the Voice.' Senator Cash didn't mention the Voice. I didn't mention the Voice. Those meetings weren't called because of the Voice; they were called because the community is deeply concerned about where this is heading. Those opposite can say, 'This is all just a state Labor government,' but the point is: it is a state Labor government—a state Labor government who also said, 'Nothing to see here.' Senator Pratt I0T And the oppostion supported the bill. You've forgotten that. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Senator Pratt, you know full well that this was guillotined through the parliament, with no chance of an upper house inquiry when the state Labor government has an overwhelming majority. The state opposition did not vote for the bill; they didn't oppose the bill, because the government had assured them that it was all fine—it was researched and consulted on; it was positive legislation. How quickly did that come unstuck, Senator Pratt, as soon as we knew the detail? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Brockman. Senator Sterle. 15:08 Senator e68 Western Australia STERLE () (): I, too, rise to make a contribution. I listened intently to Senator Brockman. I know Senator Brockman's commitment to rural and regional Western Australia, and I've enjoyed working on the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Reginal Affairs and Transport with Senator Brockman for many years. In fact, Senator Brockman, I wish you were still there; we miss you, seriously. I have worked on that committee for 18 years and I've chaired either the legislation or the references committee for 15 years. I've spent a large chunk of my time in this parliament representing the best interests of Australia's food and fibre producers and processors, and I get that. I must clarify a few things, if I may. I heard what Senator Brockman said, but I will say this: I have not spoken to any of my colleagues in Western Australia about this. I've not spoken to the minister or any of them in the WA state Labor government about this. I only know what I've read in the papers, and I have seen the photos of big town halls and the angry farmers. I've seen that. I take on board that Katanning has a population—and you were there—of 3,000, and no doubt they came from far and wide, but that's still a significant number of upset people. I get all of that sort of stuff. I read today's West Australian and saw there was a number of upset people. Senator Brockman, you've been around for a long time and you also know how this works. We have been told very clearly, and I've read it clearly in the paper and I've heard it in commentary, that the state opposition did not oppose the bill. Now, you said it was guillotined. I know how the guillotine works because I'm the only proponent in this chamber of 76 senators, regardless of being in government or opposition, who always screams for the guillotine at damn two o'clock in the bloody morning when everyone is talking rubbish. So, Mr Deputy President, through you—and I'll withdraw if I've upset anyone—I know how the guillotine works. But there is a difference. You say that there was no consultation. I've spoken to people in mining. A person I spoke to last Monday night at a function said there was no shortage of consultation. He wanted me to know that because he also wanted me to pass on the message to Minister Plibersek that there had been a heap of consultation; it's just that a lot of people didn't turn up. This is what I've been told. I have no reason to make this stuff up. So there's a little bit of mischief going on there. I'll get back to the use now and again of the fantastic instrument that is the guillotine, and I wish we had more of it. There's a difference in being guillotined, if that was the case, and the difference is in voting for a piece of legislation or not voting for a piece of legislation. We've seen the guillotine rolled out in this place many times over the years, and we've seen both sides oppose it. We've seen the Australia Labor Party oppose the guillotine or get guillotined, but then go and vote against a bill. On your side, Mr Deputy President, we've seen the LNP, when Labor has rolled it out, oppose it, but they certainly don't fall in line behind it and vote for it. So there are some real misconceptions here. I say this with my hand on my heart: next Saturday I was hoping—I was invited—to be a guest of the Livestock and Rural Transport Association of Western Australia at their national conference in Busselton. I would have loved to have been there—I have a convoy here on Saturday that I will be addressing—because I would get to the bottom of how tough things are, I have no doubt. But it's very mischievous of the LNP to want to tip this bucket of 'it's all your fault; you didn't consult; you rammed it through'. There's still no explanation: why did the two Liberal members in the House vote for it? I can't answer that. We should tell the truth. I think there are four Nats in there, too, who voted for this piece. Could it have been explained a lot better? Absolutely. I have no argument there. I wish it had got to the stage where it could have been explained. And I understand the frustrations when people have a heck of a lot of questions and they're not receiving answers to their questions. I get that. I've been in opposition for many years. In my previous life as a union organiser I used to ask a lot of questions, and no-one wanted to answer them—and when they did, half of them thought they could lie to get their way around them. It was very, very frustrating. I also note, and Senator Pratt may be able to help me out here, that the minister, Minister Buti, has now said that nothing is off the table. I believe that's what I read in the Sunday Times the other day. I read that they want to revisit this and start talking again. Let's hope that we get to a situation. I'm not afraid to say at times, if I haven't got something right, 'Let's work together and try to get something right.' I have this vision and this hope that the Western Australian state government will sit down with industry, who should now engage—they should've engaged earlier, instead of just saying they're not turning up to the meetings—and, hopefully, we can get some pacifying here. 15:13 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland What we're seeing in Western Australia right now is the most egregious attack on the family home in our nation's history. It is the dream of almost every Australian to own their own home and have the right to be sovereign in that territory of their home. It's summed up in perhaps our most popular cultural movie, The Castle. As Darryl Kerrigan says, 'A man's home is his castle'—except, now, in Western Australia. Let me be very clear: this legislation in Western Australia applies to any block of land over 1,100 square metres. That's a quarter of an acre. I don't know exactly the specifications of Mr Kerrigan's block in the movie The Castle, but it looked to be about a quarter of an acre block. He and his family would be captured by this legislation, which, effectively, tells him he couldn't build that shed, which he probably didn't have council approval for anyway—he couldn't do anything—in his backyard because the regulations under this legislation say that activities involving the removal of up to 20 kilograms of material require an Aboriginal cultural heritage survey—20 kilograms. You can't take more than 20 kilograms in your suitcase at the airport. That's what it is. It's a suitcase full of dirt. You move that amount of dirt, and you're captured by this legislation. Your rights as a freehold landowner in this country have been totally traduced by the Western Australian Labor government. All we're asking from this federal government is to rule this out, to rule that out so that the homeowners of this country and this nation can sleep at night knowing that they won't have their castle taken away from them, like the Western Australian Labor government has done over the past few months. I want to respond directly to Senator Sterle, who raised some questions earlier. He is claiming, somehow, that the Liberal and National parties in Australia voted for all of these requirements, which are the ones I have read out plus many others. That's not the case. That's not what happened. Senator Sterle tried to claim some kind of ignorance, and I must say he did so quite successfully, because he obviously doesn't understand the details of this legislation. The legislation itself did not have these requirements about 20 kilograms of material and 1,100 square metres of land being captured. It simply set up a new framework for cultural heritage in response to the Juukan Gorge incident. The detailed issues that we have raised here that go to the heart of taking away people's rights in their home happened under regulation by the minister after the passage of the legislation. They weren't subject to the parliament or the scrutiny of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. Now, of course, that's a matter for them in Western Australia, and there's a backlash brewing over there, which I think and hope will succeed in seeking change, but here in this place we do have our own parallel process under the minister for environment designing a new framework for Aboriginal cultural heritage. All we are asking is for this government to rule that out, for Labor senators to say they don't support that. The very clear thing here for Labor senators, especially those from Western Australia, is do they support people on more than 1,100 square metres of land having to go and pay thousands of dollars—tens of thousands of dollars, we were told, sometimes—before they do basic things to their own property? It's a very simple question, and it's a live one, given the reforms that are being pursued in this place. Senator Sterle also mentioned that somehow there had been all this consultation, and he mentioned the mining industry. That's great, isn't it? That's fantastic. I'm as big a supporter of the mining industry as any other, but this is not about them. The mining industry can deal with this. It's not an issue for them. They can afford to pay the cultural heritage surveys, and there's no doubt many of these mining companies just supported it because they thought this was the easiest path for them. Good luck to them. But we should also here, in this place, be defending the people who just want to pay their mortgage, who just want to own a home. I'm a bit surprised that the Labor Party seem to only be caring about the interests of the mining companies here. Senator Sterle said, 'The mining companies support it, so it's all sweet.' This affects a lot more than just the mining industry. What about the basic and hard-working homeowners of this nation and putting them at ease? They're already suffering under massive increases in interest rates. They are struggling to pay their mortgages. They don't need another thing to keep them awake at night, and the Australian Labor Party could help here by ruling any of these ridiculous restrictions and liens going onto people's property and by returning to the principle that when you own a freehold parcel of land in this country, you are a king or a queen of that land. It is your right to do what you like with it, and you shouldn't have governments taking away those rights, like the Western Australia Labor government has. 15:18 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I feel like it must be a good day on our side when there is nothing coming from the opposition that questions our policies or our legislation. The questions that we received today are things that WA parliament is doing. I don't know if they realise that we're actually in the federal parliament, and they should, maybe, be asking some questions and attempting to criticise some of the things that we're doing here. But they want to focus on what the WA parliament is doing. I think the question is really simple: do you value Aboriginal cultural heritage in this country? We have heard that both sides of this place agree that having a national conversation about protecting our cultural heritage is something that we all should be doing because we actually don't want to see something like the Juukan Gorge happening again, do we? There was national outrage—rightly so. If those opposite are now saying that they are happy for something like that to happen again, that we shouldn't be having a conversation about protecting our ancient history in this place, then they are wildly out of step with the Australian people. They are wildly out of step with the Australian people if that is what they think—that the destruction of cultural heritage in this place is acceptable. Because that is what I hear from across the other side. Make no mistake, this is actually just a scare campaign against the voice; that is all that this is. That is the only reason you would bring it to this place. So not only do you not want to hear from First Nations people about the things affecting us, you are also happy to talk about the destruction of our heritage—your heritage, too. That is what you are saying—that you don't want to hear from us or see us either on any of your country at all. The conversation that is ahead of this country right now is about bringing us together. It is about listening to First Nations people about things that affect us and you. We want to have conversations about protecting our cultural heritage, not just for First Nations people but because protecting our cultural heritage in this country is for everybody. It is for everybody. It is something that we should all be incredibly proud of and feel like we own a piece of—46,000 years, gone in a blink. Thousands of Australians travel every year to see places around the world like Stonehenge, the Vatican and the Coliseum because they are thousands of years old. We have such a treasure here in this country of our own history, and those opposite are happy to lay the foundation for that to be destroyed, because that is exactly what I'm hearing from the other side—fear mongering, scare campaigns. The proposal that is before the Australian people is simply about a couple of things. It is about recognising the oldest continuous culture in the world in our country's founding document, a history that every Australian should be proud of. It is about listening to First Nations people about the matters that affect us. Because everybody knows when you've got a challenge in your life, the best person to help solve that challenge is you. That is exactly the proposition that Aboriginal people are asking for. We want to be engaged on issues that affect us. At the end of the day, it is about better results, actually. We don't want to continue to live in a world where we are not equal. I don't want my sons to inherit a world where they are not equal. I don't want your kids to grow up in a world where First Nations people are not equal with your children, your grandchildren, your nieces and nephews, whoever it might be. That is a country that all of us should be unhappy to leave to our next generation, actually. This is about uniting the nation. It is about uniting 65,000 years of history with the Australia that we are in today in our Constitution. It is nothing more; it is nothing less. 15:23 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I would just like to reflect a little on the remarks of Senator Stewart and to emphasise that this country could have its 1967 referendum moment in 2023 if the proposition before them was run about constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. We could have the 1967 moment in 2023. Unfortunately, what Australians are being asked to do later this year, perhaps October the seventh or October the 14th, is to agree to something different—that is, the constitutional enshrinement of a body of which they know nothing about. The government could have proposed a very different pathway. The government could have said: 'We are going to bring to the parliament legislation and we are going to have a debate and we are going to create a voice and we are going to allow that voice to function and we are going to see how that voice functions, and, when it builds, maintains and strengthens and has the confidence of the Australian people, we're going to put it in the Constitution.' I think that is a better, more sensible way to proceed. Senator Stewart 299352 Great! You had a decade to do it, and you didn't. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I'm happy to co-sign a letter to the Prime Minister, Senator Stewart, encouraging him to do that. I'd be delighted to co-sign that letter with you. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Stewart, Senator Smith listened to you in silence. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of the great majority of people in this parliament, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives—perhaps not unanimous but the great bulk of people—who are absolutely ready and excited about the opportunity to put into our Constitution a proper and thorough and decent recognition of Indigenous heritage. As Senator Stewart says, quite rightly, this isn't just the heritage of Indigenous people; this is now the heritage of every Australian. So that offer stands. And, if the referendum is unsuccessful, I will absolutely be committing myself to the idea of a form of constitutional recognition in our founding document that is not somewhere in the middle or somewhere at the end but is right at the very top. I have confidence that many, many Australians will embrace that and say yes to that—that that 1967 moment can happen in 2024 or 2025. During question time a number of coalition senators took the opportunity to bring to the Senate a debate that is happening in the Western Australian community at the moment. That debate is about the preservation of cultural heritage. Senator Stewart asked a question: 'Does the coalition believe in cultural heritage?' The answer to that is: 'Absolutely, yes, it does.' In this debate, I can perhaps bring a perspective that others can't, because the inquiry that was conducted into the Juukan Gorge matter was conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, of which I was a member. It's interesting, because concerns that are now in the Western Australian community about the cultural heritage laws that have been enacted by the WA parliament—concerns about that work, that consultation, the engagement with stakeholders—are not new. In fact, the dissenting report that was part of the Juukan Gorge inquiry has this to say, under the heading 'Replacement of Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)': The Committee indicates (paragraph 1.27) it is conscious that many stakeholders have reservations about the proposed legislation, detailing a number of specific concerns. That proposed legislation talked about in the dissenting report is in fact the cultural heritage laws which are now enacted in Western Australia. It goes on to say: Given the consultation for the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2020 included consultation with more than 550 participants, including 40 workshops and 130 submissions, followed by a second consultation phase with more than 500 participants attending workshops across the state and a further 70 submissions, the final legislation is unlikely to fully satisfy all stakeholders. It is disappointing that the Committee— I look forward to continuing my contribution later this afternoon. Question agreed to. Climate Change 35 15:29 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Wong) to questions without notice I asked today relating to climate change. Ninety per cent of all the heat trapped on this planet is stored by our oceans. The biodiversity in our oceans, not just for communities but for commercial fisheries, as pointed out by Senator Wong, is closely linked to our reefs, especially our coral reefs. There is no greater existential threat to the world's coral reefs—indeed to all reef systems, like temperate reef systems in Tasmania—than marine heatwaves and warming oceans. I understand that, today, we are likely to get an upgrade from the Bureau of Meteorology confirming that we are now in an El Nino cycle, so we'll have an El Nino summer. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US, upgraded their status on El Nino some weeks ago. I don't know how many times in the last 11 years I've talked about warming oceans, coral bleaching and whether the Great Barrier Reef is in danger or not in danger—I've literally lost count. What we're seeing around the planet right now is unprecedented, and I've said that before. When we saw the first mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, back in 1998, followed by four coral bleachings in six years, it was all unprecedented. We hadn't even had a mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef until 25 years ago. Now we seem to be getting them every year. We even had a bleaching event in a La Nina year this year, which was totally unexpected. We are literally in uncharted territory. Why aren't we listening? Why aren't we observing the world around us as leaders, decision-makers and politicians? Why aren't we acting? I really just don't get it, because I know there are good people in this chamber and in the other place. When UNESCO comes out and says, 'Well, we're not going to put you on the endangered listing,' the reason for that—for those of you who have been following this for many years—is that the previous government went to extraordinary lengths to lobby UNESCO to prevent this from happening. You need to ask yourself why, by the way. Why would you deny and deceive the reality and the truth that the Great Barrier Reef and indeed all the world's coral reefs are seriously in danger? Why would you deny that? Well, you can think about that. There are agendas here as to why not. I can tell you that nothing we can do in the next six months, when UNESCO have said that they will review the draft decision they put out, will change what's going to happen to the Barrier Reef this summer. Heat is already trapped in our oceans. There are record marine heatwaves all around the world. There are record temperatures in the Atlantic, the North Atlantic, the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean. Forty-four per cent of our global oceans have recorded marine heatwaves. It's not just the terrestrial heatwaves; just about every temperature record around the world is being broken, just about every day, in the northern hemisphere. This is happening in our oceans. You can laugh all you like, Senator Roberts, but it's empirical evidence, to use your terms. It is happening right now. For us to be denying that the reef is in danger when we know it is—let me tell you why that's dangerous. It lulls people into a false sense of security when a government does what it does today. I applaud Senator Wong's response to my questions today. She was honest about the impact that the burning of fossil fuels and rising emissions are having on our oceans and about the potential risks. That's good to see. But the government has been out today saying that they've essentially saved and secured the future of the reef. No, they haven't—not by a long shot—nor did UNESCO say that. The danger of this is that people get complacent, because they think the reef is fine. They think all our oceans and our Great Southern Reef are fine, when they're not. When they think that, they don't take any action, including political action, to get the situation changed. UNESCO said very clearly that we need urgent and sustained action to secure the future of the reef. The most important thing we can do is to stop all new fossil fuel projects and transition to a renewable energy economy. Question agreed to. NOTICES 36 NOTICES Presentation 36 15:34 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 for tomorrow, proposing the disallowance of the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations 2022 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Rationalising ASIC Instruments) Regulations 2022, and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for six sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Corporations Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations—Income Management Regimes) Regulations 2023. Presentation 36 Postponement 37 COMMITTEES 37 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 37 15:36 The PRES 112096 IDENT (): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. DOCUMENTS 37 DOCUMENTS Department of the Treasury 37 Order for the Production of Documents 37 15:36 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 10 August 2023, the final report of a Treasury assurance review into the conduct of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Chair, Mr Joseph Longo, referred to in an article published in the Australian Financial Review on 30 January 2023 entitled 'ASIC chairman gave 'abject' apology for emotional outburst'. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF URGENCY 38 MATTERS OF URGENCY Climate Change 38 15:36 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts has submitted the following proposal under standing order 75 today: 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: "Fear-based net zero 'climate' policies are harming everyday Australians and have no environmental justification" Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by t he 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 informal arrangements made by the whips. 15:37 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Fear-based net zero 'climate' policies are harming everyday Australians and have no environmental justification. As a servant to the many different people who make up our wonderful Queensland community, I say that fear-based net zero climate policies are harming everyday Australians and have no environmental or scientific justification. Yesterday this chamber saw a display from the Greens that is best described as fear based. I could feel their terror. They were terrified. It was not fear of some impending human barbecue; it was fear of impending political irrelevance. The public are starting to wake up to the fact that climate change is the greatest display of mass formation psychosis since the Salem witch hunts. Last weekend, Tory Prime Minister Sunak in Britain won a surprise victory in the Uxbridge by-election, campaigning against Lord Mayor Sadiq Khan's net zero policies. A Conservative politician took a stand against net zero and won. The British media have sensed the changing mood and their reporting tone has changed. Here's a sample of their headlines from the last few weeks. 'Change the ludicrous net zero timetable,' read the Telegraph. 'Rishi Sunak must be bold and delay our net zero deadlines or the cost will be ruinous.' That was the Sun, saying what I have been saying for last 15 years, except I've been saying 'cancel', not just 'delay'. 'Sunak will have to water down net zero,' read the Spectator. The Washington Post weighed in with: 'Backlash to climate policies is growing.' The UK going off-reservation and winding back net zero will provide economic competition to countries like Australia which continue to commit economic suicide with a net zero agenda. The money flowing into the pockets of the predatory billionaires who are behind this scam is already under threat. Swedish state energy company Vattenfall has announced one of the world's biggest offshore wind developments, the 1,400-megawatt Norfolk Boreas project in the UK, has been suspended due to spiralling costs. Increasing prices for wind turbine materials, including copper, zinc, chromium, nickel, rare earths, cement and the oil for the fibreglass blades, gearbox and lubricants, have caused a 40 per cent cost overrun. This pushed their projected cost per megawatt hour from $85 to over $100 a megawatt hour. Offshore wind is not cheap electricity and it never will be. Wind energy is expensive and, due to the laws of physics, always will be prohibitively expensive. This insane ideology is causing everyday Australians to feel deep pain and hurt. Building a home is getting dearer because all of the materials used in net zero are used in homes. Rising construction costs mean home ownership is harder and rents are increasing. Retooling our entire energy grid, both generation and transmission, is transferring hundreds of billions of dollars out of the pockets of everyday Australians into the pockets of the climate carpetbaggers running this scam, using rising electricity prices and higher taxes. We are the world's most energy-rich country, yet we have some of the world's highest prices for electricity. We export coal and uranium so foreign countries can have cheap, reliable power; yet the energy policies of the Greens, Liberals, Labor and the Nationals mean we cannot use it here—all in the name of this new religion of green self-flagellation. In two weeks, I will be visiting the site of the latest green environmental vandalism in Chalumbin, Queensland. Thousands of hectares of native forest are to be chopped down for an industrial wind turbine complex—killing the environment to save it, apparently. Oil companies are experiencing record margins and profits thanks to the Albanese government allowing this profiteering, despite having the power to bring prices down. The higher the price of petrol, the less people use their cars, allowing the Albanese-Bowen government to claim progress towards net zero. All of this is based on faulty science and selective misuse of natural events—fraud. We were told this was the hottest July on record, when in fact it was the hottest July since last year. We were told the ice extent is shrinking. However, the Arctic is within long-term fluctuations and the Antarctic is not melting, except for the section where there's significant volcanic eruption under the ice. You fearmongers didn't bother to mention that, did you? In my adjournment speech tonight I'll speak on the warmers' scientific fraud. Even the fearmonger in chief, Jim Skea, the new head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has had to ask for an end to the hyperbole. Speaking on the weekend, Skea said, 'We should not despair and fall into a state of shock,' if global temperatures were to increase by 1.5 degrees. He said, 'The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees.' Rebranding climate change as climate boiling is designed to drive fear. Senator McKim said yesterday that billions of people will die. That's what he said—no facts, just fear—because the Greens are terrified of the rapidly changing public mood. People are waking up that the public are being bullied into continued support for policies that achieve nothing except to hurt human beings and harm our natural environment. Now, in this debate, the Greens are silent. (Time expired) 15:42 Senator CAR F49 Tasmania OL BROWN (—) (): It's always good to follow Senator Roberts's contribution to what is a very important issue. We are, despite the previous contribution, living in a climate emergency. This is our reality. It's an emergency which is showing us that our summers will be marred by extremes of bushfires and floods. In the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20, 24 million hectares of land were destroyed, millions of native animals were killed, 33 people directly lost their lives and a further 450 people are estimated to have died due to smoke inhalation. In 2022, eastern Australia was devastated by repeated floods. At least 22 people lost their lives, and thousands lost their homes or businesses, with an estimated $5 billion hit to the economy. Last year in Australia, seven out of 10 people lived in an area declared as a natural disaster zone at some point in their life, often more than once. Since coming into office, this government hasn't wasted a moment in getting on with the job. We've lifted our 2030 emissions reduction target by half, from 26 per cent to 43 per cent. Just two weeks ago we announced we would be developing decarbonisation plans for each major sector of the Australian economy, underpinned by sector-wide economic modelling, to set us on a path to reaching our ambitious but achievable goal of net zero by 2050. One of those industries is one I work closely with in my responsibility as Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. The transport industry contributes 19 per cent of all greenhouse gases in Australia, vastly more than any other industry. Since 2005 greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 11 per cent and are currently projected to be the largest source of CO2 emissions in Australia by 2030. This government knows that reducing emissions in the transport sector through using more renewable energy sources will require concerted action across government and industry to secure long-lasting benefits by managing and minimising the impacts of the transition. That's why this government is acting through the development of a transport and infrastructure net zero road map and action plan. A draft road map will be developed this year, and the action plan will be drafted in early 2024. This action plan will present an integrated decarbonisation road map to ensure that we take up the opportunities by carefully managing the transition to new energy sources. Further, the government is already decarbonising the transport sector through increasing the uptake of electric vehicles and developing a fuel efficiency standard through the National Electric Vehicle Strategy. Fuel efficiency standards are common elsewhere around the world. In fact, through the inaction of the former government, Australia is playing catch-up in introducing these standards. That's just a fact. We are playing catch-up because of the inaction of the previous government. Fuel efficiency standards help by reducing transport emissions, improving air quality in and around our cities, making it easier for Australians to breathe and, importantly, ensuring for people around the country that they will save money at the petrol pump. Moving away from how we are tackling emissions in transport, the government has also reformed the safeguard mechanism. This mechanism is an important reform and one which we took to the Australian people in the last election and received a strong mandate for. No amount of denial by those opposite, who seek to undermine the climate emergency— (Time expired) 15:47 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania What a delight it is to follow Senator Brown in that rousing contribution about the government's position on the motion before us. I like Utopia, and I'm sure that the Albanese Labor government have picked most of their policy nomenclature from the script of Utopia. We've got a sector-wide strategy. We've got a road map. We've got an action plan, and all of it is going to lead nowhere, frankly, apart from disaster and destruction for the Australian economy—the offshoring of jobs, the increasing pressures on household budgets—and all of it on the basis of what Senator Brown and her colleagues describe as a 'climate emergency'. Someone must have missed the memo, because earlier today, during question time, the government actually did refer to something that is impacting on Australians, and that is the cost-of-living crisis that we're facing. Thank the good Lord, of course, the Reserve Bank today put a hold on interest rates, but someone has missed the memo in that contribution just given from and on behalf of the Australian government about what really matters to Australians. I have to apologise to Senator Roberts, because while his motion is fantastic in many respects, it is not going to change a blasted thing when it comes to the direction the Australian government is taking with the bedfellows down the end here, the Australian Greens. Disastrous and destructive policies based on anything other than science—emotion, headline grabs, Utopia scripts, as we already heard today—if we look at these things, I think the construction of his motion points to some very important points, because balance and proportionality are important when it comes to government responses. I don't know that there's anyone in this chamber that wants to destroy the environment, contrary to the assertions that are often made about people being 'planet haters' and 'climate deniers'. I actually want this place to be a wonderful place for my three sons and their children, should they choose to have them. I'd like them to enjoy the beautiful wilderness in Tasmania. But shutting down entire industries without any regard for the economic impact is, I think, irresponsible and it won't fix the climate emergency. It will in fact make this cost-of-living crisis worse. Take, for example, this climate emergency that Senator Brown referred to in her contribution in talking about the bushfires on the east coast of Australia in recent times. It's Labor across the country that are shutting down the native forest industry. They want to lock up swathes of forest and throw away the key, with no management whatsoever. We have seen it happen in Victoria. We have seen it happen in Western Australia. Do you know what? When you remove management of our productive forests, you increase bushfire risks. Senator McKim JKM Oh, rubbish! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim! Senator DUNIAM 263418 You see bunkum reports out there suggesting forestry contributes to bushfires. I tell you what: not managing forests is actually bad for our environment. Senator McKim JKM That is an absolute load of rubbish, and you know it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, I've called you to order. I expect you to stop interjecting. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Thank you for your protection, President; I appreciate it very much. As I continue to make my fact based, science based points, I want to demonstrate the lack of logic in the government's thinking. When you have groups like the Labor Environment Action Network, which is probably going to take over the Australian Labor Party at the next federal convention—I'm reading a few things that are sending out concerning messages about the direction of this government and their policies and there is real concern—you see policies like this, with the shutting down of the native forest industry. It's not based on science. That is not factored in anywhere in any of these policy decisions by the two state Labor governments that have pursued this. Goodness knows what this government will do when it comes to its turn to make a decision about the future of that industry. We are supposed to be problem solvers and we are supposed to be dealing with the issues that affect Australians most. The contribution that was made earlier about what crisis people are facing when they can't pay their power bills, can't keep the lights on, can't heat their home in winter, can't put fuel in the car and can't put food on the table was ridiculous. The government have climate policies like the safeguard mechanism, which we proudly opposed because all that will do is send jobs offshore along with the emissions that will inevitably be increased when those businesses, those heavy emitters, go to jurisdictions where they don't give a damn about the environment and they don't care about emissions. It will be a net negative for our environment and it will certainly be a net negative for our economy and for households that are struggling already. So I have to say that I am concerned about where they are headed. But, unfortunately, Senator Roberts, no number of motions in this place will ever get them to see sense. Only at the ballot box will they be proven wrong about their ridiculous policies— (Time expired) 15:52 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I wholeheartedly support Senator Roberts's urgency motion. The Australian people are victims of our government's blind pursuit of net zero. Labor and the Greens are, quite frankly, climate catastrophe cookers. That's what they are. Their rhetoric has reached boiling point. At least, I think it's boiling. Or is it 'warming'? Or is it 'changing'? Just make up your minds, guys. Stop staring the kids. Those of us in this place who put Australians first were yesterday referred to as 'sociopathic agents'. I would suggest— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, may I remind you that that remark was withdrawn. It is not appropriate to repeat it. Senator BABET 300706 I would suggest that the real sociopath— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, I've asked you not to revisit something that was withdrawn. It's not a request; it's an order. Senator BABET 300706 Those who would weaponise climate fear—let's put it that way—in order to appease their globalist and corporate interests are no friends of Australia. I'll tell you why. They are championing the shutdown of our cheap, reliable coal-fired and gas-fired power while China is fast-tracking hundreds of coal-fired power plants. China already has six times more coal-fired power plants than the rest of the world combined—but it wants even more. Last year, China approved 106 gigawatts of new coal-fired power projects. That is five times more than all the coal-fired power stations in Australia's national electricity market. We know why they are doing this: coal power is cheap and coal power is reliable. China is flourishing, but the cost of everything in Australia is going through the roof, and our standard of living is decreasing. Australian pensioners and battlers can't afford to heat or cool their homes. Australian families can't afford to pay grocery bills. And China's energy cost advantages are killing Australia's manufacturing sector. The insanity of the climate cult will eventually bankrupt Australia. Fear is not grounded in fact. I'll take this opportunity to remind the Australian people of some historical far-left fearmongering. Our friends at the Guardian back in 2004 warned former US President Bush that Britain would have a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2007 Professor Flannery claimed, 'Even the rain that falls isn't going to fill our dams and our river systems.' In 2007, 2008 and 2009 Al Gore claimed that there was a scientific consensus that the North Pole would be 'ice free by 2013'. I think Santa's home is pretty safe for now. In 2018, Greta Thunberg tweeted: A top climate change scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years. Well, it's 2023. I guess we'd better pray that we're not all wiped out in the next four months. Thanks, Greta! As you can tell from this sample of quotes, apparently the science is well and truly settled. I'll tell you what: these people are as cooked as their predictions. Our government is so obsessed with net zero that it is sacrificing our economy for policies that make net zero sense. And the only people who benefit from this, the only ones, are the globalists and, of course, the CCP. That's who benefits. 15:56 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland It's great to speak this afternoon to this MPI. I have to say I agree with it. There is no doubt that the policies being adopted by the Labor government are harming Australians. It is pushing up their obsession with renewable energy. I use that word 'renewable' flippantly because this energy isn't renewable; it can't actually even be recycled, at least not for less than three times the cost of making it. That's a quote from the very mouth of the former head of the CSIRO. For some reason, the CSIRO doesn't want to include the cost of recycling renewables in their gen cost report, and that's something I'll touch on in a minute, but I really want to focus on the cost of living today. Australians are struggling under the cost of living. As my colleague Senator Duniam pointed out, they're struggling under high interest rates brought about by Labor's mismanagement. Labor are also driving up the cost of energy, because renewables are very expensive. It's not just the point of delivery that matters; it's the cost of transmission, it's the cost of storage, it's the cost of security, the cost of frequency control—everything like that. All of that costs money. These are the hidden costs that aren't actually put into the energy budget models. It is misleading the Australian people and, unfortunately, it is hurting them in their hip pockets. If we want to solve this problem, we need to be very honest about the cost of renewable energy, because that is how it is harming the Australian people. But it's not just the Australian people that are being harmed. I myself have been up to the proposed Chalumbin wind farm site. It's in the Great Barrier Reef basin. It beggars belief that farmers are required to prepare a basin management plan, at a great cost of up to $10,000, and they face $200,000 fines if some guy from the Department of Resources decides that they're not doing whatever they're doing properly. Hopefully, that is only ever going to be used in extreme cases where there is justification for it, but I fear that won't necessarily be the case. No, it's not just the economy that suffers as a result of this obsession with net zero; it's actually our environment itself. We've got a lot of sites in Queensland. We've got the Chalumbin wind farm; we've got Eungella, upstream of the Pioneer river in Mackay, where the Queensland state government is proposing to take on an enormous pumped hydro project. This project is slated to provide five gigawatts of energy. You lose 20 per cent straight away when you do pumped hydro projects because you waste energy pushing it up the hill, so it's going to be at least six gigawatts of energy that have to be provided by wind farms. On average, Queensland uses about nine gigawatts of energy a day, so we are talking about building enough windfarms to provide two-thirds of Queensland's energy in pristine native forest upstream of Mackay. That energy is then going to have to be transported a thousand kilometres south, back to Brisbane, if not further, so there will be further energy losses in the transmission lines as the energy is transported downstream. This is going to be very expensive. The Eungella region, upstream of Mackay, is also one of the world's more precious sites when it comes to platypus habitat. This is another example of how renewables, which are supposed to be saving the environment, are actually a threat to the environment and our biodiversity. The Rewiring the Nation fund, which is going to fund this, is another Orwellian term. It's not rewiring Australia; it's adding more transmission lines, which are already there, in order to connect these isolated renewables projects to the grid. Thirty years ago we had about 30 power stations on the east coast of Australia; they provided all the grid's energy. They mightn't have been pretty; I'm not saying they were, but they were contained within a small footprint. These renewables projects are going to be spread across the environment and across the country, with another 10,000 kilometres of transmission lines. Enormous mines are going to have to be involved in getting the rare earth metals out of the ground. As I've said on numerous occasions, these so-called rare earths might be rare in the sense that the percentage of metal in their ore body is very small. It is going to be very damaging. 16:01 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to commend Senator Roberts for getting to the heart of this debate. There is no logical justification for the major parties' terrible climate-change policies. Let's look at the facts. Climate policy is aimed at reducing global emissions of carbon dioxide. Global carbon dioxide emissions are increasing because carbon dioxide follows temperature by approximately 700 years or more; therefore climate policy is not working. It's not working, because the world's human population is the source of only three per cent of the world's carbon dioxide. The rest comes from natural sources, like volcanoes, animals, soil and oceans. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It's a natural gas essential to virtually all life on earth. The major parties' climate policies do not address the 97 per cent of carbon dioxide from natural sources, because they can't—it's beyond anyone's control. Instead of having their intended effect, the major parties' climate policies have only ever had one real impact: electricity costing more. Electricity today costs three times as much as it did 20 years ago. Australia has some of the biggest natural energy resources in the world but pays some of the highest energy prices in the world, due in part to a profound shortage of energy. This does not make any sense. Yesterday we were treated to a childish display of temper from Greens Senator McKim across the chamber at Senator Canavan over Australia's one per cent of human carbon dioxide emissions. Why aren't these Greens yelling at China, responsible for 30 per cent of human carbon dioxide? That country produces 12 billion tonnes of it, and this will rise by another two billion tonnes by 2030. This would wipe out any reductions by Australia, which produces less than 500 million tonnes. You could reduce Australia's carbon dioxide to zero overnight and, within a year, this reduction would be overtaken by China's increased carbon dioxide. China also mines almost 4.5 billion tonnes of coal per year. Australia mines about 560 million tonnes. Senator McKim and his fellow Greens hypocrites love to run down and insult Australia but never say a word about the country which produces 25 times as much carbon dioxide as Australia and nine times as much coal. The Greens are the very definition of hypocrisy, with absolutely no empathy for Australian families struggling with some of the highest energy bills in the world. Senator McKim would do well to understand that a lack of empathy is the very definition of a psychopath. 16:04 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Senator Roberts's motion talks about fear and climate change. It seems to me the people harbouring the greatest fears are climate scientists—those actually doing the research, looking at what's happening and some of the projections for the future. I thought I'd read out a few of their thoughts from an article from last week. I'll start with Dr Joelle Gergis, senior lecturer at the ANU's Fenner School: I am stunned by the ferocity of the impacts we are currently experiencing. I am really dreading the devastation I know this El Nino will bring. As the situation deteriorates, it makes me wonder how I can be most helpful at a time like this. Do I keep trying to pursue my research career or devote even more of my time to warning the public? The pressure and anxiety of working through an escalating crisis is taking its toll on many of us. Bill Hare, physicist, climate scientist and chief executive at Climate Analytics: … as today's monstrous, deadly heatwaves overtake large parts of Asia, Europe and North America with temperatures the likes of which we have never experienced, we find even 1.2C of global warming isn't safe. Professor Matthew England, from the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science: While we've been saying for decades now that this is what to expect, it's still very confronting to see these climate extremes play out with such ferocity and with such global reach. It's going to be Australia's turn this summer, no doubt about it. It makes me feel deeply frustrated to watch the slow pace of policy action—it's bewildering to see new fossil fuel extraction projects still getting the go-ahead here in Australia. And with this comes deep resentment for those who have lobbied for ongoing fossil fuel use despite the clear climate physics that have been known about for almost half a century. Professor Katrin Meissner, director of the Climate Change Research Centre in New South Wales: Was I surprised by this heatwave? Of course I was not. If anything I felt a mild scientific curiosity to see materialise what we have been forecasting for years. I also felt sad. We know that what we are living through now is just the beginning of much worse conditions to come. If you don't find that convincing, check out the 80-page IPCC Synthesis report, which is arguably the most reviewed document in human history. It's terrifying. The climate science is there, the projections are there. We need a government that not only accepts the science but acts according to advice from scientists. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The question is that Senator Roberts's motion be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:12]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Pratt)

3 AYES Babet, R. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. 31 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. 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, D. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 43 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cultural Heritage Legislation 43 16:14 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T A letter has been received from Senator Brockman: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The federal Labor Government's commitment to implement cultural heritage laws, similar to the WA Labor Government's Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, that has caused confusion, uncertainty, and disruption across every part of society, particularly local government, agriculture, and mining. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:15 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise on this matter of public importance reflecting on my journey around the state of Western Australia over the last week. On Monday of last week I was in the central south-west town of Katanning, part of the Great Southern region. It is an inland town, in an area of wheat and sheep farming, a regional community relatively small in size—around 3½ thousand people. In that community of around 3½ thousand people, some 650 of them came to a community hall to look at a couple of issues, one of which was the ban on live sheep exports. But the other issue—and undoubtedly it was the issue that drew the vast majority of the crowd—was the state Labor Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. I know most Western Australians are very well aware of this, and I note my two good colleagues Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Smith will speak on this MPI today. Most Western Australians have gained an understanding of this issue over the last month or two. They probably hadn't heard about it before that. The state Labor legislation actually went through parliament a while back. It didn't cause much of a ruffle then. It was rammed through parliament. It was guillotined through parliament with no debate, no upper house inquiry. But the devil was very much in the detail of the regulations that came out earlier this year. As soon as, particularly, farmers but all property owners—miners, other land users—saw those regulations, it immediately, almost overnight, became apparent how poorly drafted, how poorly thought through and how poorly implemented this legislation was. How does this reflect on this place and the federal Labor government? It reflects quite directly, because, as my friend and colleague Senator Smith pointed out earlier today, the origin of this was the Juukan Gorge inquiry that took place, looking at that incident and how it should be responded to. The state Labor government responded in a particular way, with disastrous results. But we also know that the federal Labor government has committed to put in place its own Aboriginal cultural heritage laws. We are deeply fearful, because there has been no consultation with the agricultural community. As far as I'm aware, as far as I can find out, there has been no consultation with other land users such as the mining industry and other affected landholders. There has been no consultation with our shadow minister, even though Labor claims it wants to be bipartisan in this area. As Senator Smith stated, we fully support the protection of Aboriginal heritage. What we will fight against every day is poorly drafted, poorly implemented, poorly thought through legislation which directly impacts on landholders right across, in my case, Western Australia and which has the impact to affect landholders right across this wonderful country of ours. We will fight against that every day. I've spoken about the Katanning meeting. At a Dawesville meeting, there were another 250 people. At a meeting just yesterday in Waroona, I believe, again there were hundreds of people coming out, concerned about the impacts of this cultural heritage legislation. Farmers have talked about whether this will send them bankrupt or to jail. We've been asking some pretty simple questions. The Labor government here tells us that they want to be bipartisan about this, but they haven't even talked to the agricultural community about it and they haven't even talked to the shadow minister about it. So we have to ask the question, reflecting on what we now know about the state Labor government: What has this Labor government got to hide? 16:20 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia It's one year in, and I still cannot believe the misinformation that those opposite thrive on spreading. Aren't you tired of this constant fearmongering? Senator Brockman has raised this MPI to make a cheap political point, and it serves as proof that those opposite will do anything to tear down the Voice. This is not just my observation; it is also the observation of former WA Indigenous affairs minister Ben Wyatt. He told ABC Radio Perth: 'I think that some people are using this as perhaps a tool to try and oppose the Voice.' Implementing effective cultural heritage laws is an important issue and shouldn't be used to drive a wedge between our farmers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We know too well the consequences of not having comprehensive cultural heritage laws in place. In 2020, a 46,000 year old sacred Aboriginal site, Juukan Gorge, was destroyed by a mining company—a tragedy but, sadly, a legal one. The Australian people, quite rightly, were appalled, and several senior executives at the mining company lost their jobs. This is a serious issue, and I'm glad that the WA and federal Labor governments are taking action. What would those opposite have us do? Nothing. They want us to abandon all cultural heritage protections and continue to allow the destruction of sacred sites. But, wait: let's hit the pause button on this drama for a moment. Can we not have both progress and preservation? Surely there is a way to navigate this intricate dance between cultural heritage and economic prosperity without tripping over our own toes. But this is no surprise from the 'no-alition', because whenever they hear any decent idea they say no. Instead, they try to pit one group against another for political gain. The government's commitment is about updating our existing national laws to make sure a tragedy like Juukan Gorge never happens again. Juukan Gorge was not just a mine site or a simple archaeological dig; it was a portal to the past, a living, breathing testament to the stories and traditions that shaped the culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and, by extension, contributed to the fabric of our society and our identity as Australians. Our goal is to have laws that better protect First Nations heritage while giving businesses, farmers and others more certainty. We can do both. Senator Brockman has obviously forgotten that both major parties agreed to protect First Nations heritage and update our national laws, because the then minister and now Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: 'This is about government working with Indigenous Australians and recognising their right to determine what is important to them.' What do they think the Voice is about? It is also important to note that the work on updated national laws was started by the previous Liberal government and has been continued by this government—an inconvenient truth for Senator Brockman, I'm sure. What's changed since Juukan Gorge? Shameful political opportunism from those opposite. This government is above that, and I'm sure you've picked that up. We are working with First Nations groups to consider updates to the existing national laws. This process is still in its early stages. We will also be consulting closely with business, farmers, environment groups and many others as we go. We won't be rushed, we won't cut corners and we won't be distracted by the 'no-alition's' political opportunism. I also want to make it clear there will not be a Commonwealth takeover of state laws, and nor will we be adopting or duplicating existing state and territory regimes. This is about updating and modernising our existing national laws to make sure that a tragedy like Juukan Gorge doesn't happen ever again. We are determined to strike a commonsense balance to ensure better protection of First Nations heritage as well as more sensible development and infrastructure planning. Let's be real: no cap. It is crucial to recognise that protecting cultural heritage and promoting economic growth are not mutually exclusive goals. In fact, respecting and preserving First Nations heritage can lead to sustainable and responsible development, fostering cultural tourism and promoting an inclusive society. While there are those on scare campaigns and petty politics, the adults will get the job done on our side. 16:25 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia The MPI before the chamber today takes me right back to the fearmongering that politicians undertook in response to the Native Title Act. 'They're coming for your backyards,' they said. And yet here we are again with a Native Title Act that is pretty weak, in my opinion. Not only has it failed to steal people's backyards, but, in lots of cases, it has actually helped industries such as agriculture and mining. The sheer ignorance of this MPI still astounds me, and I'm lost to it. How dare people stand in this chamber and lecture me about protecting culture—protecting cultural heritage, protecting my lands. My people have lost so much, yet people in this place and in my home state of Western Australia want to whinge and complain that they might actually have to put in a bit of effort and ask the people whose land they're on. They do an acknowledgement of country every morning that they're in this place but continue not to want to ask whether there's a burial ground under there—whether there are bones there that were there before they came. It's 65,000 years of culture. This is our country. You built a Native Title Act to make sure that I needed to prove through anthropological links—through my connection to country—that I had an identity. You did that. On the land that pastoralists and farmers who Senator Brockman has met with and wants to talk about, my hometown is Kojonup, right across the road from Katanning. One of my ancestors' burial grounds is on the farm that belongs to my family, so it's close to home. But these pastoral acts and others are enabling legislation to steal land. Every mining company and pastoralist in this country is operating on stolen land. These laws at both the federal and state levels come as a direct result of what happened at Juukan Gorge. I served on the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia alongside Senator Smith. To some people, what happened at Juukan Gorge might have just been a rock shelter—a few carvings, a bit of rock art—that got in the way of business in this country, but that is our culture. That is the oldest continuing living culture in the world. Juukan Gorge showed human occupancy that dated back 46,000 years, and those ancient rock shelters held onto that history and that continuing culture for the PKKP people. Juukan Gorge was a sacred site and still is, but, like a lot of our cultural heritage, it was destroyed, and it was done legally. You can't tell me that these laws are not being disrupted and broken every single day. I'd like to think that we'd moved on from the dog whistling but, unfortunately, we haven't. We haven't matured as a country, and I wait for that moment. 16:28 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to support the very sensible motion that has been put forward by Senator Brockman. I just want to read what it is so that those following the debate understand it. We have the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act in Western Australia. As it says here in the motion, the federal Labor government has a commitment to implement cultural heritage laws similar to the WA Labor government's Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. That has caused confusion, uncertainty and disruption across every part of society, particularly local government, agriculture and mining. This is absolutely true. What you see right now in Western Australia is confusion, uncertainty and disruption across every part of society, particularly those operating in the agricultural area. I know that my good friend Senator Brockman—who has generations of experience through his family and through his work as a senator working across the agricultural sector—knows full well. As he outlined in his contribution, he's been at several events across the state where these issues have been raised. Senator Payman came in here and said that this is all about scaremongering around the Voice. This motion doesn't mention the Voice. There is actually no conflation here. In fact, the only one that is conflating this motion and this act with the Voice is in fact the architect of that act and Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook. Roger Cook said: Our Aboriginal cultural heritage laws do the same thing as the Voice. So the only one that is conflating this issue with the Voice is in fact the Premier of Western Australia. It is the Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook, that is conflating this issue with the Voice. The federal government have an opportunity to deal with this issue of uncertainty that has been created by their colleagues over in Western Australia and put it to bed. They could rule out implementing laws that are similar to what is happening in Western Australia and having them apply right across the country. They could rule that out. It is probably not in my party's interest to give political advice that would help the government, but in this case I will because it is important for the future of this country that they provide some certainty for landowners, mining companies, those involved in agriculture and those involved in development. Provide some certainty. Rule out implementing the kind of shambolic legislation that we have operating right now in Western Australia, because it is diabolical. It is diabolical legislation that was rushed through the parliament. That's what happens when you have a parliament that is just so controlled. When there are no checks and balance, that is what happens: you rush through legislation. It is very, very poorly drafted. It's an extremely poor piece of legislation. That's why we are in this situation. The government has an opportunity. There were questions asked in question time where the senator representing the Prime Minister here in this chamber, Senator Wong, had the opportunity to rule it out. She could have ruled it out on the two sets of questions she was asked, but she did not. We have a terrible situation operating in Western Australia, where there is great uncertainty. Unfortunately, it's undermining the very important issue of protecting significant Indigenous cultural sites. I was up in the Pilbara during the break that we have just had. I had a bit of business there, some work as a senator, but also had some time with my family. I went to some art sites, beautiful places that all Australians want to see protected. My family got to enjoy that. My family were welcomed by the Banyjima people, who proudly display these sites and allow people to go and visit them. Of course, this issue needs to be dealt with. Of course, Australians want to see these sites protected. But what we are seeing is that this legislation is undermining what all Australians want to see, which is the protection of cultural heritage. We are undermining it through poorly drafted legislation that this government here could rule out implementing across the country. (Time expired) 16:33 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia This motion from those opposite is nothing more than rank, smelly political opportunism. The motion that they have brought to the chamber today attacking the Commonwealth government for a policy position to implement in the future policies to protect Aboriginal heritage based on a scare campaign that those opposite have sought to amplify back in Western Australia is absolutely disgusting. Let's go through some facts about the Western Australian changes. Before these new laws came into place, it was already unlawful to harm Aboriginal cultural heritage. That has not changed. What has to change is the upholding of that heritage. You may well have a colonial house that has heritage values attached to it; that might well have some protection under laws that do not provide protection for Aboriginal culture and artifacts on smaller lots of land—smaller lots of land of less than 110 square metres. Think of it this way: colonial heritage has more protection on most lots of land in Western Australia than Indigenous heritage under this bill. In fact, the bill before the Western Australian parliament reduces the land that is governed by these Aboriginal protection laws. Consultation on the act and the regulations took place over five years, with 1,100 people attending 90-plus workshops as part of the codesign process for the regulations. But here comes the cincher—after 220 submissions and hundreds of meetings: the National Farmers Federation and the pastoralists and graziers association were invited to attend these workshops, but they decided not to attend. I must say, one of their policy officers who came to the consultations said they thought the consultation process was exemplary. In this context, Tony Buti, the minister in Western Australia, said: 'We've taken notice of the farmers and pastoralists who attended the workshops and give us their advice. The peak organisations may not have attended, or we were notified that they would not attend; however, we did listen to the farmers and pastoralists, and, as part of that feedback, we developed a tiered system that will allow for the better processing of applications for uses of land.' As you well know—as you should know—pastoralists and farmers will not be impacted by most of this legislation. This is legislation that the state opposition did, in fact, vote for. So, while we are here today, you have called on me to not defend the state government, but the simple fact of the matter is I do. Sure, there are problems with the implementation, but the state opposition voted in favour of the legislation. The federal opposition still has the gall to stand here and pretend that it stands up for Aboriginal heritage while it brings such motions to the floor. It is absolutely galling. When you contribute to undermining Aboriginal heritage protection by bringing debates like this to the chamber, you make it so much harder for people who are trying to stand up for their culture and their rights. So shame on you. Shame on those opposite for the motion that they've brought to the chamber here today. 16:38 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland What a mess Labor has created in the west! Labor's new Aboriginal cultural heritage law was, no doubt, made with the best of intentions towards Indigenous people. The problem is that Labor didn't give a damn about anybody else. It's just another rushed, emotive policy. As a result, Western Australia's key industries are paralysed with uncertainty. Farmers can't farm. Miners can't mine. Builders can't build. Even councils can't plant trees for the environment. Even homeowners can't do things on their properties the rest of us take for granted all based on if it goes below the ground surface by 50 centimetres. Of course, this is really about money rather than culture. Most of this land has been farmed, mined or lived on for over a century and has no connection to the Aboriginal culture. The West Australian newspaper last month reported the owner of a residential block in Exmouth has been quoted $20,000 for an Aboriginal heritage survey. The Daily Mail reported a man from Toodyay is facing a nine-month jail sentence and a $20,000 fine just for building a creek crossing to enable all-weather access to his property. This is apparently because, according to local Aboriginal mythology, the creek is home to the Rainbow Serpent that might be scared away by the crossing. This is what will send a man to jail—mythology? How ridiculous we accept this in the 21st century. It's madness, and the Albanese government wants to expand it on a national scale. There's only one silver lining to this stifling black tape in Western Australia: we're getting a preview of life in Australia with a Voice to Parliament. It's not looking pretty. It's divisive on race, it's destroying home owners property rights and it's holding industries critical to our economy hostage. One Nation will fight to rid Western Australia of this divisive, racist policy. 16:40 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia You would be wrong if you thought this was the only example of Labor imperilling the future of regional Western Australia. You would be very, very wrong if you thought this was the only example. We have examples of Labor cutting regional road funding from the Kimberley through to the Pilbara and down to the Great Southern area of Western Australia. We have the very live issue of Labor now embarking on delivering its election commitment to ban live sheep exports. And now we have an example where WA Labor, supported by the federal Labor government, would want to rob Western Australians—not just in regional Western Australia but throughout the state—of their future prosperity. The prosperity of Western Australia is built on two things: our mining and our agriculture. This Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act law and the poorly implemented regulations will go to the heart of destroying Western Australian wealth and future prosperity. Let me put that in context. I don't want to be unkind to the rest of the country, but the success of our country as a whole is largely built on the success of Western Australia and then, after that, Queensland. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 You're quite right, Senator Scarr: watch out Queensland! Let me put this in context for you. What we're talking about here are not little issues that may or may not cause someone harm. This has the potential to go to the core of Western Australian prosperity, undermining our mining industry and undermining our agriculture industry. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I'll take that interjection from Senator Cox. I would like to come back to the facts and figures about why Western Australia is so important for our national prosperity, but I think at this point, Senator Cox, it probably is timely to read into the Hansard what Senator Cox had to say and what the state Greens member of the upper house parliament had to say on 29 June about the WA Labor Party's Aboriginal cultural heritage laws. What did they say? Reported in the West Australia newspaper, they called them 'flawed'. They called them 'flawed'. The West Australian newspaper went on to say that Senator Cox, supported by the state upper house Greens member Mr Brad Pettitt, 'savaged the legislation for failing to do enough to protect Indigenous artefacts and sacred sites'. Senator Cox 296215 That's right. Senato 241710 'That's right,' Senator Cox says. Curiously you have the Greens and coalition senators in agreement that Labor's agricultural heritage laws are bad for Western Australia. Senator Fatima Payman made an interesting observation. She talked about how the laws were a 'commonsense balance'. Unfortunately, balance is very much in the eyes of the beholder, and these laws are not balanced. We're all agreed that cultural heritage preservation is very important, both for Western Australia and nationally, but these rules, these new laws go to undermine that very sensible balance that has been at the heart of Western Australian success and prosperity. Who is the person that should be— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Sorry, Senator Smith. Senator Cox, your point of order? Senator Cox 296215 I won't be misquoted by Senator Smith. My comment was actually that we need a balance, so I'd like the Hansard to reflect that, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 There is no point of order. Resume your seat. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Who is the one person who should feel most aggrieved about where Western Australia's cultural heritage laws are up to? That one person is the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Ben Wyatt. When the draft laws were prepared back in 2020, he said: 'I am confident that we have a path forward to introduce historic reform that reflects modern values.' That's what Mr Ben Wyatt had to say—the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who was also the state Treasurer, who is now a board member of Rio— Senator Cox 296215 And Woodside! Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 And Woodside. He's done very well for himself; congratulations, Mr Wyatt. He would feel most aggrieved, because his comments about how these laws would be historic and would lead to modern values—completely wrong. These laws have been introduced in a way that was unplanned, unprepared— (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The time for discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 48 DOCUMENTS Consideration 48 COMMITTEES 48 COMMITTEES Foreign Interference through Social Media—Select Committee 48 Report 48 16:46 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I present the final report of the Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media, together with the accompanying documents. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I am pleased to present the report from the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media examining the risk to Australia's democracy and values by foreign interference through social media, including via the spread of disinformation. At the outset, I want to thank my fellow committee members, in particular the deputy chair, Senator Walsh, for their constructive and bipartisan collaboration on what is one of Australia's most pressing security challenges. I'd also like to acknowledge Senator McAllister and our late colleague Senator Molan, who first led the inquiry into foreign interference through social media in the 46th Parliament. Foreign interference is now Australia's principal national security concern. It is pervasive, insidious and subtle and has the potential to undermine our values, freedoms and way of life. Australia has led the world in combating foreign interference and has moved quickly to counter the threat through reforms, including the introduction of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme in 2018 and the Foreign Arrangements Scheme in 2020, and the decision to exclude Huawei from our 5G network in 2018. However, foreign interference tactics have continued to evolve along with technology, and the threat has only increased in the worsening strategic environment we find ourselves in. Authoritarian regimes continue to threaten democratic societies through targeted disinformation campaigns that use social media to advance their strategic interests. Perpetrating states use these platforms to skew public debate, undermine trust in public institutions and peddle false narratives. The proliferation of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence has made their jobs easier, dramatically increasing the scale and reach of foreign interference campaigns. This calls for urgent action to ensure Australia stays ahead of the threat. Social media platforms are the new town square in liberal democracies. It was estimated in February last year that some 21.45 million Australians are active social media users, and more than half of all Australians use social media as a news source. Social media is a place where news is reported, contentious issues are debated, consensus is formed and public policy decisions are shaped. The health of these forums directly affects the health of our nation. Foreign authoritarian states know this. They do not permit free debate on their own social media platforms. They use ours as vectors for information operations to shape our decision-making in their national interests at the expense of our own. As ASIO assessed, social media itself is not the threat, but it serves as a vector for foreign interference. Not all social media platforms are the same. The ability for a social media platform to be weaponised varies according to the laws of the country where it is headquartered. The committee was particularly concerned by the unique national security risk posed by companies like TikTok and WeChat whose parent companies, ByteDance and Tencent respectively, are headquartered in China. China's 2017 national intelligence law means the Chinese government can compel these companies to secretly cooperate with Chinese intelligence agencies. The committee heard that TikTok's China based employees can and have accessed Australian user data and could even manipulate algorithms dictating what Australians could see on the platform. But TikTok cannot tell us how often Australian data is accessed, despite suggesting that this information was logged. Nor was TikTok able to provide a legal basis on which employees would refuse to comply with Chinese law. The short answer is they can't. Throughout the inquiry companies headquartered in authoritarian countries were consistently reluctant to cooperate with Australian parliamentary processes. TikTok were hesitant to provide witnesses sought by the committee and were evasive in their answers when they finally did agree to appear. WeChat showed contempt for the parliament by refusing to appear at all and through disingenuous answers it provided to questions in writing. The representations made by the Chinese embassy to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade about our inquiry on WeChat's behalf only served to prove the point about the close relationship these platforms have with the Chinese government. This stood in contrast to the more constructive engagement the committee had with platforms based in Western countries who at least recognised the fundamental importance of checks and balances inherent in democratic systems, despite the impost this can create. These companies are facing novel challenges in combatting foreign interference as authoritarian regimes continue to pump disinformation on their platforms. Between 2017 and 2022 Facebook's parent company, Meta, disabled more than 200 covert influence operations originating from more than 60 countries that targeted domestic debate in another country. In the first quarter of 2023 YouTube terminated more than 900 channels linked to Russia and more than 18,000 linked to China. In the case of both authoritarian and Western based platforms the committee explored concerns platforms are being used to both pull and push information to gather intelligence on individuals that will enable them to be targeted; to gather behavioural data by population or cohort; to refine interference campaigns; to harass and intimidate Australia's diaspora communities; and to undermine societal trust, spread disunity and influence decision-making. Countering this has become more complex as authoritarian regimes evolve their methods, artificial intelligence and commercialisation of disinformation services where state actors engage companies to orchestrate disinformation campaigns and threaten to exponentially increase the scale and reach of foreign interference through social media. It is crucial that Australia develops a real-time capability to counter this malign activity. For two reasons this approach should be underpinned by a guiding principle of transparency rather than censorship. The first is to expose disinformation activity, which thrives off secrecy. The second is to empower Australians so that they can both evaluate the content they see on platforms and the conduct of the platforms themselves. For example, state affiliated media entities should be proactively labelled on all platforms; any content censored at the direction of a government should be disclosed to users; platforms should be open to independent external researchers who can investigate and attribute coordinated inauthentic behaviour; and the access to user data, especially by employees based in authoritarian countries, must be disclosed. WeChat comprehensively failed the transparency test by refusing to participate in public hearings on the basis that, despite its significant digital presence, it does not have a legal presence in Australia. If social media companies want to operate in Australia, they should be required to establish a presence within Australia's legal jurisdiction to be more effectively held accountable under our laws. The committee found that TikTok engaged in a determined effort to avoid answering basic questions about its platform, its parent company, ByteDance, and its relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. We recommend that companies that repeatedly fail to meet the minimum transparency requirements should be subject to fines and, as a last resort, may be banned by the Minister for Home Affairs with appropriate oversight mechanisms in place. Should the US government force ByteDance to divest ownership of TikTok to another company that is not beholden to the Chinese Communist Party, the Australian government should consider similar action. The April 2023 TikTok ban on government issued devices due to serious espionage and data security risks should also apply to government contractors and entities designated as systems of national significance. We must move beyond the whack-a-mole approach to assess and mitigate the next TikTok before it is widely deployed on government devices. Amended Magnitsky-style sanctions, greater enforcement of espionage and foreign interference offences, and support for diaspora communities targeted by transnational oppression all need to be part of a package of reforms to make Australia a harder target. Despite Australia's world-leading efforts to counter foreign interference, evolutions in technology and the threat environment demonstrate that there is more work to be done to protect Australia from the sophisticated disinformation campaigns of authoritarian regimes. With a concerted effort by government, the private sector and civil society, we can ensure that Australia's way of life prevails and preserve the extensive benefits that social media platforms provide, while managing the accompanying risks. I commend the report to the Senate. Question agreed to. Community Affairs References Committee 50 Additional Information 50 16:55 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs References Committee, Senator Rice, I present additional information received by the committee on its excellent inquiry into universal access to reproductive health care. Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee 50 Report 50 16:56 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to take note of the Corporate insolvency in Australia report, dated July 2023, which was presented out of sittings. In the absence of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Senator O'Neill, I'd like to personally thank her for her excellent chairing of the inquiry into Australia's corporate insolvency laws. This is a substantial body of work—hundreds of pages. It's quality research into the current status of Australia's insolvency laws, and I'm so pleased to have had the opportunity to participate in this inquiry under Senator O'Neill's chairing. I'm very pleased that the committee could come together and make a number of recommendations on a unanimous basis. In fact, the report is prepared on a unanimous basis; there's no dissenting report and there are no additional comments. This is the work of committee. I thank all committee colleagues. I would also like to thank all those organisations, individuals, businesses, unions, professional organisations and government agencies who made submissions to the inquiry. The content and rigour of those submissions were absolutely outstanding. They allowed the committee to carefully consider the many issues in this space. I also thank all the members of the secretariat for their wonderful work in supporting the preparation of this material. This maybe should be considered the magnus opus of the parliamentary joint select committee. It's such a considerable body of work, and I'm sure it's going to be referred to many years into the future. I'd like to speak briefly on some of the recommendations. Recommendation 1 reads: The committee recommends that as soon as practicable the government commission a comprehensive and independent review of Australia's insolvency law, encompassing both corporate and personal insolvency— That's the law under the Corporations Act and also the law under the Bankruptcy Act— The committee is also recommending that the government progress several other near-term actions as identified in the executive summary. From my perspective, one of the most pleasing things was that, whilst the committee identified the need—post the Harmer report, which occurred more than three decades ago—for an overarching independent review of Australia's insolvency regime, we also identified that, notwithstanding that an independent inquiry needs to be set up in the longer term to look at these matters, there are a number of things we can do in the short term to address some of the issues raised. I do commend Senator O'Neill with respect to her collaborative approach on that, because I think that, whatever side of this chamber you're on, there's always that tension between reviews of laws, whether or not you should wait for a comprehensive review to deal with everything in the area or whether there are things that you can do in the short term—quick fixes and low-hanging fruit to be plucked. We've identified some of that in the course of this inquiry. On page xxiii of the report, there's a very good table that's been prepared on near-term actions which could be acted on in the short term and then issues which have been identified for the comprehensive review over the longer term, which will take, no doubt, a number of years to complete. I want to speak to some of those near-term actions and the recommendations which we hope on a unanimous basis the government will give careful consideration to in the short term. The first is recommendation 7 in relation to recommendations which have previously been made about the safe-harbour rules introduced in the Corporations Act. There was a review undertaken on those protections for companies in or approaching financial distress, and we suggest that the government should give careful consideration to implementing all of the recommendations from that safe-harbour review. Next, there were two processes implemented in the times of COVID: the small business restructuring pathway and the simplified liquidation pathway. They were intended to make processes to restructure or potentially go into liquidation far more efficient for smaller businesses facing financial difficulties. One of the observations made by the committee was that, when those processes were first mooted by the previous government—of which I was a member—there were suggestions made and feedback given by experts across the board that there needed to be tweaks to those systems to make them more effective. Those suggestions, which weren't necessarily acted upon as they should have been, still apply. Hopefully, there can be changes to those systems and those expedited pathways to make them more fit for purpose. Recommendation 15 made short-term recommendations: The committee recommends that the comprehensive review include consideration of the nature and extent of the harm posed by ‘untrustworthy pre-insolvency advisors’, and whether further regulation or enforcement measures are needed to address this issue. The committee further recommends that in the interim… That means 'in the short term'. This is a crying need. It goes on: …the government take prompt action to improve the regulation and active enforcement of pre-insolvency advisers. There are advisers out there at the moment in the community who are pitching themselves to small businesses in distress, and they are giving them unethical advice which will not help those small businesses and their owners in either the medium or long term. We need to maximise our efforts to weed those people out of the system, because they are causing harm to people in positions of financial vulnerability. We need to do something to protect those people. The next recommendation I wanted to refer to was in relation to the Personal Property Securities Act 2009. There was a review of this act undertaken back in 2015, about five years after the act was first introduced in 2009. Now we are sitting here in 2023. Obviously, my side of politics was in government for the majority of that time, but there has still been no government response to that review, notwithstanding that it was conducted in 2015. There's still no government response. It made a lot of recommendations. Some could be implemented in the short term, and some fixes to our personal property securities regime should be done to make it fairer and more efficient. So I encourage the government to have a look at that review. I think all of us should reflect on the fact that, if we do a review of legislation, it's incumbent upon us, whether at the time we're in government or opposition, to make sure that that review is considered by government and that the recommendations are acted upon. That's why we as a chamber so often advocate for these sorts of reviews—to make sure that the unintended consequences et cetera can be addressed. So I do encourage the government to look at that review. Lastly, there was a lot of evidence received in relation to trusts and how our insolvency system deals with trusts. It is a very complicated area, and I'm not proposing to go into it in depth. Suffice to say that, when the Harmer review of our insolvency laws was undertaken approximately 30 years ago, a number of recommendations were made, and still those recommendations, in large part, have not been acted upon. Again, this is an area where a need for reform was addressed decades ago, and we haven't had the reform. So there needs to be a fix in relation to how our corporate insolvency and personal insolvency laws work in the context of trusts. There are also some areas of quick reform which are detailed in the report which I think the government could act upon and which this chamber could consider, potentially on a unanimous basis, to save unnecessary bureaucratic processes which are using funds which were in insolvent estates which could be better distributed to creditors. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 51 Report 51 17:06 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report of the committee on its review of administration and expenditure relating to Australian intelligence agencies for 2020-21. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 52 Government Response to Report 52 17:07 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I present the government's response to the report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its inquiry into the Department of Defence annual report 2019-20. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade: Inquiry into the Department of Defence Annual Report 2019-20 On 29 November 2021, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) released its report inquiring into the Department of Defence Annual Report 2019-20. The Committee made six recommendations. The Australian Government's response is outlined below. This response was not able to be tabled sooner due to the Government entering a Caretaker Period ahead of the 21 May 2022 election. Recommendation One The Committee recommends that the Government reviews the size of the ADF in order to ensure a more sustainable and credible conventional force is available for future military operations, particularly sustained operations. Response to recommendation: The Australian Government notes recommendation One of the Joint Standing Committee's report. On 24 April 2023, the Government released the public version of the Defence Strategic Review (the Review), the Government's response to the Review, and the National Defence Statement 2023. The Government's response to the Review sets out a blueprint for Australia's strategic policy, defence planning and resourcing over the coming decades. The Government has agreed, or agreed in-principle with further work required, to the public Review recommendations, and has identified several priority areas for immediate action, including initiatives to improve the growth and retention of a highly skilled Defence workforce. A Defence Strategic Workforce Plan has been developed to provide the overarching mechanism to achieve workforce growth. This workforce growth is critical to deliver and operate the capabilities Defence needs to secure Australia's strategic environment, protect Australia's interests, and build a credible military force. Recommendation Two The Committee recommends that the Government makes a shift in strategic thinking, within both Government and the ADF, towards resourcing and shaping the ADF not only as a highly capable conventional force, but also as a disproportionately potent force in grey-zone and asymmetric capabilities. Response to recommendation: The Australian Government notes recommendation Two of the Joint Standing Committee's report. The Defence Strategic Review examined Australia's defence force posture, force structure and capabilities to help prepare Australia to effectively respond to the changing regional and global strategic environment. The Review concluded that there is a need for more effective support for innovation, faster acquisition and better links between Defence and industry to deliver the capabilities the Australian Defence Force needs. In its response to the Review, the Government has identified several priority areas for immediate action, including; acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines through AUKUS to improve our deterrence capabilities; developing the ability of the ADF to precisely strike targets at longer-range and manufacture munitions in Australia; and lifting our capacity to rapidly translate disruptive new technologies into ADF capability, in close partnership with Australian industry. The Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator will be a key element of the Defence innovation, science and technology program. Priorities for the program are hypersonics, directed energy, trusted autonomy, quantum technology, information warfare and long- range fires. It will focus on defined missions, solving the most relevant technical issues, and taking a more flexible and agile approach to procurement. This will ensure game- changing ideas are developed into capabilities that give the ADF an asymmetric advantage. Recommendation Three The Committee recommends that the Australian Government increase investment into an Australian sustainable aviation fuel industry through funding mechanisms such as ARENA. Response to recommendation: The Australian Government supports recommendation Three of the Joint Standing Committee's report. The Australian Government recognises the importance of exploring alternate fuel sources, including those for the aviation industry. Between 2012 and 2021, the previous Australian Government awarded over $469 million through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) towards development of alternative fuels. ARENA provides grants for projects that are aligned to its strategic priority of supporting a global transition to net zero emissions by accelerating pre-commercial innovation. The CEFC increases the flows of finance into the clean energy sector by providing investment opportunities for the private sector and the share market; by leveraging its investment commitments in clean energy technology, projects and businesses. At the request of the previous Australian Government, ARENA developed the Bioenergy Roadmap to identify the barriers and key opportunities to build Australia's bioenergy sector. The Roadmap, released in November 2021, identifies collaborative opportunities for all levels of government, research institutions and industry to grow Australia's bioenergy sector. To coincide with the release of the roadmap, the previous Government committed an additional $33.5 million, between 2021-22 and 2024-25, to ARENA to encourage private sector co-investment on additional research, development and deployment of advanced sustainable aviation and marine biofuels. This program will be finalised after stakeholder consultation and, subject to approvals, is expected to be open for applications in 2023. The Government's Powering Australia plan builds on this funding. Under the plan, the Driving the Nation Fund will encourage cheaper, cleaner transport through the construction of a National Electric Vehicle Charging Network and investing in Hydrogen Highways for heavy transport. It will support the greater uptake of electric vehicles and the development of new clean energy industries, such as green hydrogen and bioenergy, which may include biofuels. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will deliver an Aviation White Paper with a priority focus on options to maximise the aviation sector's contribution to achieving net zero carbon emissions, including through sustainable aviation fuel and emerging technologies. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has also announced the Government will establish a Jet Zero-style council to inform the development of policy settings to encourage emissions reduction in the aviation industry. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts has also established a unit to work across Government and with industry partners to identify reductions and offsets in carbon emissions across the transport sector, including aviation. Recommendation Four The Committee recommends that the Australian Government use mechanisms such as AUKUS, to collaborate with the US and UK militaries in the development of drop-in biofuels for military use to ensure that standards and certifications for Defence use are jointly developed should a contingency require the use of alternative aviation fuels. Response to recommendation: The Australian Government partially supports recommendation Four of the Joint Standing Committee's report as follows: Supports collaboration with the US and UK militaries on military standards for drop-in biofuels. Supports collaboration with the US and UK militaries in the development of sustainable aviation fuels in partnership with industry. Does not agree utilising AUKUS as the mechanism for this collaboration. The Australian Government supports any recommendation for close collaboration with Australia's strategic military partners to ensure alignment and interoperability with respect to fuel standards, including for the adoption of new and emerging sustainable aviation fuels technologies. Defence regularly collaborates with US and UK militaries across multiple forums to achieve this. This includes the certification of sustainable aviation fuels for military use. This is also conducted in partnership with industry, to ensure that commercially viable solutions are developed. The Australian Government wishes to highlight that the AUKUS trilateral security pact is not currently used as the mechanism to achieve fuel collaboration outcomes. Existing fuel forums are highly technical in nature and are better suited to specialist sections within the Government. These technical discussions ensure that the functionality of Defence warfighting capability is not impacted by the adoption of new energy technologies. Defence does not support the use of AUKUS as the mechanism for fuel collaboration, as existing technical collaboration forums can be adjusted to meet the requirement to jointly develop new fuel technologies Recommendation Five The Committee recommends, as a matter of urgency, that the Government appoint a task force, including Defence, industry and independent experts, to critically assess Australia's current fuel security in light of the Strategic Update 2020 and over the longer term given changing geo-strategic circumstances. Response to recommendation: The Australian Government notes recommendation Five of the Joint Standing Committee's report. The Australian Government is committed to ensuring Australia has access to the fuel we need to keep the country moving while managing the transition to net zero emissions. As part of the Defence Strategic Review (DSR), the Government said that it remained committed to safeguarding Australia's national fuel supply, distribution and storage. Defence is now contributing to the establishment of a whole-of-government Fuel Council. In the DSR, The Government also recognised that Australia's economy has become more interconnected with the Indo-Pacific, and in-tum that Australia has a fundamental interest in protecting its connection to the world. The Government directed the ADF protect Australia's economic connection to Australia's region and the world. Australia relies on liquid fuels for more than half of our final energy demand. While the use of alternative fuels and new vehicle technology is increasing, traditional liquid fuels are still expected to play an important role in Australia's energy mix over the coming years. In this context, the Government is already delivering a range of measures to support our fuel security, improve fuel quality and protect consumers and our economy from supply disruptions. These reforms are underpinned by the Fuel Security Act 2021. Fuel security measures currently in place include: A domestic fuel reserve through a legislated Minimum Stockholding Obligation (MSO). From I July 2023, the MSO will require Australia's 2 refineries, and our major importers of refined fuels, to hold baseline stocks of jet fuel, petrol and diesel. These stocks can be released into the market in the event of a supply disruption. Support for our domestic refineries through the Fuel Security Services Payment to ensure continued operation of Australian refineries until at least 2027—with the option to extend to 2030. Up to $302 million to support infrastructure upgrades at Australian refineries to bring forward the introduction of better fuels from 2027 to 2024. The Building Australia's Diesel Storage Program, which supports implementation of the MSO through funding to increase Australia's diesel storage capacity. Improvements in the Government's data collection, management, analysis and reporting capabilities through the Petroleum Reporting Modernisation Project 2021- 2023. This measure will improve the timeliness, security and accessibility of data under the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Act 2017 and the Fuel Security Act 2021. These measures ensure that Australia moves towards increasing our fuel stockholdings to help return to full compliance with the International Energy Agency's oil stockholding obligation by 2026. They will improve our ability to monitor the fuel market and respond to supply disruptions. Furthermore, the Government is taking further steps to modernise our liquid fuel emergency legislation. These reforms will support a more effective government response in the event of market disruptions. The Australian Government continues to consider and assess Australia's liquid fuel security through new and existing mechanisms. This includes for shifts in energy and liquid fuel markets, emerging technologies and geostrategic issues Recommendation Six The Committee once again urges the Government, as a matter of priority, to adopt Recommendation 2 of the Committee's report Contestability and Consensus: A bipartisan approach to more effective parliamentary engagement with Defence, and establish a new parliamentary committee, or by enhancing the role of the Defence Sub-Committee of the JSCFADT, with an exclusive focus on Defence and with effective powers of oversight along the lines of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS). Response to recommendation: The Australian Government notes recommendation Six of the Joint Standing Committee's report. The Australian Government is open to working with the JSCFADT about the most appropriate ways to structure the committees of the Parliament in order to carry out the functions currently undertaken by the JSCFADT. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee 54 Government Response to Report 54 17:07 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I want to speak on the government response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs inquiry into community safety, support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory. The foreword of this report talks about respecting the sovereignty and self-determination of Indigenous peoples in this country, First Nations peoples. It's something that First Nations people have been talking about for a really long time. Since the Yirrkala bark petitions in 1963, the Wave Hill walk-off at Kalkarindji in 1966 and the Barunga Statement in 1988, this has been at the heart of the things that First Nations people have been talking about. We have been calling for it for generations. In fact, when we talk about sovereignty—and I've heard that term, 'sovereignty of Australia', mentioned many times in this place—it is a spiritual notion for us First Nations people. It's the heart of who we are. It's the heart of the cultural responsibility that has been given to us First Nations people, as the first peoples of this country—a fact that I hope will be recognised very shortly. One of the things that this report circles around in the foreword is the Northern Territory intervention, which I want to say was such a dark time in this nation's history. The Northern Territory intervention was a legislative way to disempower and destabilise First Nations people in this country. Governments in this country found a legal way to do that—to try and break the spirit of First Peoples in the Northern Territory—in the way they sent the Army into remote communities. They talked about abuse, alcohol, violence and other things in our communities in such a way that it took away a lot of power. It took away power from those communities to depend on government. That legislation that was pulled together made sure that they were able to remove the power. When we talk about self-determination and sovereignty, we can't remove power, because power is at the base of that. Without any accountability for the Northern Territory government and the federal government, who presided over what happened in the Northern Territory intervention, there were many, many things that could have been done better. This report talks about the practical place- and strengths-based solutions that are designed by community for community, and I'm really pleased to see this in the report. What we know in community, and what I've heard many people say over many generations, is that the top-down approach of governments equals failure. That is not about self-determination at all. Unless we are going to put place-based, strengths-based, community-led solutions in place, we are not going to close the gap and we are not going to move forward and help to empower some of these communities. Some people in this place will have you believe it was unique. During the debate that happened before this inquiry held its hearings, people talked about the uniqueness of what was happening in the Northern Territory. Well, it's not unique. There were other people, from the opposition, who talked about it happening in towns like Laverton and Leonora, in my home state of Western Australia, so it's not unique. This is a symptom of trauma and this is a symptom of what happened 235 years ago as a process of colonisation. That is a process fixed in our history, that is truth telling and that is a thing that we need to have fair and square in the middle of the table when we talk about how we are going to work together in true partnership with moving forward in this country. We need to create some opportunities to heal that. If we do not do that, we will continue to fail. We will continue to fail with the government money that is being streamed into these areas, we will continue to fail with partnerships and relationships and we will continue to fail the very people that we are trying to help. We must ensure we are connecting people and leaving them on country, ensuring that these strategies, solutions and opportunities for healing are embedded in culture as well. Other people might argue that we need to roll in the Army and we need to make sure we purchase more cops and send them out to remote communities. That's not the answer. It's not the answer. As a former police officer, I can tell you, standing here, it's not the answer. Intergenerational trauma has a specific role in that, too. Seeing those uniforms roll into remote communities across this country, people were traumatised just by seeing them. That was compounded by the government policies that have had First Nations people turn to alcohol in the first place. The removal of our children, the removal from our homelands and the removal from our kinship connections have been the reasons that has happened. Prevention must be at the heart of what we do—and I'm glad to see it's featured in this report—around social and emotional wellbeing of First Peoples, particularly in the Northern Territory. We must be listening, and we must be acting on what they say. It's really important. The nine recommendations of that report, particularly in relation to the sunsetting of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act and making sure that the policies are developed around that, are critical. There must be a step to transition away from this top-down approach. We also have to make sure that we are outcome focused and we provide the flexibility, or nimbleness, that's mentioned in the report's recommendations. Making sure that we embed holistic health approaches to service provision is about ensuring that's at the centre of the things that we work from. Stop criminalising what's happening in our communities and start thinking about this from a health, social and emotional wellbeing place, because that's our starting point. When our spirit's damaged, we too are damaged. I want to quote from the foreword of this report, written by Senator Dodson, who is the chair of ATSIA committee, and I want to honour his work and the work of other committee members who have contributed to this inquiry: In order to truly enable community-led solutions, governments need to transfer power and resources to communities. This requires investment based on outcomes, rather than outputs; ensuring data is available at the local level; and listening and acting on what communities say will work best. I think Senator Dodson's extensive work, particularly in my home state of Western Australia, and his stewardship of this committee and the work within this report are reflective of that. But the contributions of other committee members, who I know were part of that and have contributed to that, are also important in ensuring that we all understand clearly what the issues are. That's the important role of the Senate—to ensure that we use our inquiries to build recommendations to help our communities. That's what we're elected for—to make sure that the heart of the things that we do is for the betterment of those communities, and not to cause any harm. Have you ever listened properly to a welcome to country? One of the most amazing things I've heard is an invitation for people to 'walk softly on this country' so as to cause no harm—no harm to the people, to country and to the spirituality that continues on through our culture and is handed down to successive generations. It's important that we continue to hold that. I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Question agreed to. Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 56 Report 56 17:18 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I take note of the 496th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit into the Hunter class frigates, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 56 Government Response to Report 56 17:18 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I take note of the Australian government's response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into the Department of Defence annual report, just tabled by Minister Farrell. I particularly want to address recommendation 1, which is in relation to recruitment, and the government's response to that, as well as recommendations 4 and 6, but particularly recommendation 4 as it relates to AUKUS. In the government's response to recommendation 1 of this report, the government stated that its response to recruitment is part of the Defence strategic review. One of the priorities for immediate action included in the Defence strategic review was initiatives to improve the growth and retention of a highly skilled Defence workforce. Recommendation 1 was: The Committee recommends that the Government reviews the size of the ADF in order to ensure a more sustainable and credible conventional force is available for future military operations, particularly sustained operations. It was essentially about trying to meet, at some point, even one of the ADF's recruitment targets. The person primarily tasked with this is the current Defence secretary, Mr Moriarty. Mr Moriarty began his role as secretary in September 2017. The question the committee failed to address, the question which the government neatly avoided in its response, is whether or not Mr Moriarty is up to the task. I would suggest history comprehensively proves he's not. The best numbers we can get for Mr Moriarty's performance as secretary start with the numbers when he commenced. He commenced in September 2017, and the only publicly transparent numbers that correlate with that are the numbers in the ADF at the end of financial year 2016-17. At the end of June, a few months before Mr Moriarty started, there were 58,680 ADF personnel. Since then, there has been six years of recruitment targets—each of them of between 1,000 and 2,000 additional ADF personnel a year which were meant to be recruited under Mr Moriarty's watch. Each year the 2030 target remains, but the gap between ADF recruitment and the 2030 target just grows and grows. If you look at the last publicly available numbers, at the end of last financial year, according to the budget there are 200 fewer service personnel in the ADF at the end of the 2022-23 financial year than when Mr Moriarty started. Every year he's had recruitment targets of increasing the ADF by 1,000 or more. He's failed every single one of them. After six years under his stewardship, there are 200 fewer people in the ADF than when he started. This government has decided to give Mr Moriarty a five-year contract extension because he's apparently the man to get it done. Does no-one in the government learn the lessons of history? Has nobody looked at the numbers? Has the defence minister, who signed the extension of the contract, just ignored six years of failure when it comes to recruitment? And what has that produced when you look at the forward projections? It's produced this massive jump that's required. Having failed for six years, having 200 fewer people in the ADF than when Mr Moriarty started, the budget papers say there will be a modest increase this year of hundreds—which would be a change at least for Mr Moriarty; he might actually add some people! But then—get this—the budget papers say that in 2024-25 the ADF is going to recruit 4,000 additional personnel, in just that one financial year. And what's its plan to do that? Some kind of vague response we get that it's going to be picked up in the Defence strategic review. They're apparently going to make it slightly easier to do your online application, and they're going to slightly change the time frames in which recruitment happens. They're not going to address the culture issues in the ADF. They're not going to address the obvious recruitment issues which are happening, which are quite significant and structural in the ADF. They're going to make it slightly quicker to get your online application form in. Somehow or other, Mr Moriarty has persuaded Defence Minister Marles that that's going to get 4,000 additional recruits in 2024-25. It is actually laughable but it is like so much in the Defence portfolio—they just make up numbers. They just put anything down in writing and then it's never questioned. It wasn't questioned by the 'joint spooks and war committee' in its review. They didn't even look at the future recruitment numbers. It wasn't questioned by the government in its response. There's no credible plan in place. Why is that important? Well, it's important if you believe the rhetoric from the government about some urgent security risk that's going to become apparent in the next five years. I personally don't sign on to that. But if you do sign on to that—because apparently the club in this place, Labor and the coalition, sign on to that—how do you marry the rhetoric about the urgent issue with the comprehensive six-year failure under Mr Moriarty? This genius unstated unicorn plan to get 4,000 additional personnel in 2024-25, how do you marry the risk of rhetoric and fear with the reality of failure of this farcical plan to get 4,000 additional staff in 2024-25? You can't marry it up. Thankfully, no-one is even looking at it. The joint committee didn't look at it. The government response hasn't looked at it. The coalition haven't looked at it. It's no wonder that the coalition haven't looked at it; the failure happened in the last six years under their watch. They don't even test this government on it, as part of this joint collusive plan to just not ask any questions. It won't work. What does that mean? It means that, despite the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on new hardware, whether it is nuclear submarines or artillery, new aircraft or a bunch of new armoured personnel carriers—all of which come with price tags of tens of billions of dollars—or the Hunter class frigates, there will be nobody to put in them. Have you ever thought about marrying these things up—the rhetoric, the fear, the expenditure on hardware and the comprehensive failure to even have the most basic credible plan for recruitment? Of course you haven't, because it's inconvenient, because it's embarrassing, because it points out that the emperor has absolutely no bloody clothes on—let alone any attendants. The next issue, of course, is the recommendation of AUKUS to embed the Australian military and the Australian military establishment within the United States military. This embedding of US defence personnel and US defence bases within Australia is totally uncritical and never questions the loss of sovereignty that comes with it. Every time we come closer and closer to a self-funded US military base instead of an independent sovereign country. That's where we're heading under the Albanese government. Just last weekend we saw yet another announcement about a surrender of sovereignty—this plan from the Albanese government to literally embed US spies into our defence intelligence organisation. And it's not in order for us to have any influence on US military; it's in order for the US military to tell us what to do. At best, the biggest impact we would have on the US is what Minister Marles says is, 'You'll get an American perspective into the American system seen from Australia,' and that's not insignificant. The government don't even pretend there will be an Australian perspective in this. We are becoming an absolute patsy to the United States in this complete surrender of sovereignty by embedding US spies in the defence intelligence organisation. Where will it end? DOCUMENTS 57 DOCUMENTS Great Barrier Reef 57 Order for the Production of Documents 57 COMMITTEES 57 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 57 Membership 57 17:30 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The President has received a letter requesting changes to the membership of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. 17:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That Senator McKenzie replace Senator Rennick on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for the committee's inquiry into Commonwealth, Olympic and Paralympic Games preparedness, and Senator Rennick be appointed as a participating member. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 58 DOCUMENTS Great Barrier Reef 58 Order for the Production of Documents 58 17:31 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the document. And I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. COMMITTEES 58 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 58 Reference 58 17:32 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I, and also on behalf of Senator Colbeck, move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023: The adequacy and fairness of processes and compensation to acquire or compulsorily access agricultural land, Indigenous land, marine environments and environmental lands for the development of major renewable infrastructure, including wind farms, solar farms and transmission lines, with particular reference to: (a) power imbalance between farmers and fishers, and governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their land or fishing grounds; (b) terms and conditions for compulsory access and acquisition; (c) fairness of compensation; (d) options for the development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition; (e) options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries; and (f) any other matter. Here we are again, transmission Tuesday. I said it would come. This is the fifth time we've moved a similar motion to this. They say stupidity is doing the same thing and hoping for a different result. I call it hope. There are people out there who need this. We're not asking to change legislation. We're asking to talk about these things. There are so many consequences to what transmission lines, to what gas pipelines and to what so many things do from compulsory acquisitions, and they all hurt rural Australians. They hurt rural towns. They hurt cultural lands. But the power of divested compulsory acquisition is absolute. We want a balance so that landholders, rights holders and traditional owners can have a say, can have a balance—nothing more. Come and tell us your stories. We hear of transmission towers getting ever bigger, up to 174 metres. We hear of the consequences getting ever bigger. But these people are shut down. They don't have a voice. They can't have a say. Regional and rural Australia is becoming the kicking bag for everything in this country. If you want to own regional and rural land, it's the best way to have no say in what you own. 'We will make it an E zone. We will tell you what you can plan. We can tell you what you can grow. We will tell you what land we are taking off you. We will take that land and do what we want with it. You'll have to consult with every other person around you, some of whom wouldn't know your land, on what you want to do.' But it is your land. It is land you have paid for, and land where you are having your rights taken away from you. That is not good enough. You deserve a voice if you have your land. And that is what we're asking for today. We want to give you that voice. If the evidence is so great from when you come to this committee and tell us what is going on, the government will need to change the laws because it is obvious. And let's get to what we're looking at here. We're looking at the possibility of undergrounding lines where that's possible. We are looking at different routes where that is possible. We are looking at whether it is needed, because the consequences are so great. We're looking at unintended consequences. If you get a transmission line through your property through compulsory acquisition, you have no choice; it is dedicated as off-farm income. What happens if there's a bushfire? What happens if there's a flood? What happens if anything happens? What happens if there's a drought and you no longer qualify for government assistance because your off-farm income is a greater proportion than is allowed? No-one has considered this. No-one is looking at this. What happens if the upfront money puts you in a different tax bracket. All these things and the way things are done need to be looked at. I heard and I listened with intent to Senator Cox just now say that it is never right when there's a top-down approach to these things. It is the same for us. These things need to be done with consensus. There will always be a problem where we can't fix everything, a problem where something is difficult or where something is hard. We get that. We will never ever get 100 per cent, but we need to try. We need to aim for it because, if we aren't aiming for best practice, we are deciding to fail. So we are here today again, asking that rural and regional Australia, traditional owners of land and environmental land be given a voice in how we do this. We hear about the just transition authorities that will look after workforces in these areas. But if you're a landholder you are left out of that. You don't deserve a just transition. You don't deserve a look at how this works, how it affects you and what happens. And remember the numbers from last time. We are talking about stage 1 and stage 2 requiring 77,000 square kilometres. That is the size of Singapore or Bahrain. They're just going to take that land in Australia. And let's not forget stage 3 of Rewiring the Nation, which is 28,000 kilometres—it is almost three times as big as that. Are we saying that this is the way to look after the environment of Australia? This is not the way to look after the environment of Australia. This is the way to look after towers in Brisbane and in Marrickville and in Melbourne. When you want your power, when you want your 400 flat screens in a tall building, when you want your 200 electric cars powered downstairs, the bush can pay. Why? Let's get down to it: it is because they have no power, because they are spread out, because they are vulnerable and because they don't vote Labor and they don't vote Green. I think Ms Webster in the other place had some people show up at a protest when the Prime Minister was there, and suddenly there's a bit of an inquiry—not a real inquiry, a bit of an inquiry. We hear that they're going to refer this to the electricity infrastructure ombudsman to have a look at it. That's not a public inquiry. That's not a real inquiry. That's a cover-up. In St Arnaud yesterday, a public meeting was shut down when there were questions asked. I have been told that—I don't know it, so if I'm wrong I'll say so—but, if that is true, that is exactly what we are talking about. Back in the 2000s, people were hailing the movie An Inconvenient Truth. This is the inconvenient truth: there are real victims of what you are doing, and you don't want to hear about it. You don't want to give them a voice, and you don't want to see it because it will bring into question what we are doing—and it is wrong. Bringing these people here is asking the question. We had 60 farmers up there who travelled through the night last time this came up. If we lose today, we'll be back again later with something until the right thing is done. Nothing less is deserved. This is not something that should be in question. We should all be supporting this. It shouldn't need a debate. It shouldn't need a division. It should be: 'That is fair.' What's going on here is politics. In a different debate the other day, I said—I like it and I'll say it again—leadership shouldn't divide; leadership should unite. What we have here is a government policy dividing the powerful and the powerless over power. The politics are that you don't count if you live in a region, so you can shut up and go home—and that is wrong. We need to do the right thing at every stage. Those of you in this chamber know that I don't rally behind stuff. I don't go off on rants. I don't do those things unless it is warranted. And here it is. Something so very simple: a reference to an inquiry, to see what is going on. If I'm wrong, if I'm making this up, then it's bad on me. Ross is full of rubbish. I'll take that. But we know that we are not. This is happening and we are watching it, and this government is standing by, not only letting it happen but facilitating it happening. As it gets worse, we see this government building a Ponzi scheme of policy mistruths. When things are failing, when wind farms are not getting there, when the Kurri Kurri hydro plant is not getting there, when all of the things aren't getting there, we just promise more. We'll never deliver these things. We will not get there, but we'll promise more because that is the way of diverting from what is really happening. When we see farmers losing agricultural land to towers, when we see environmental lands bulldozed for these 150-metre wide easements, when we see all of this happening, when we see pipelines going through private lands—and with the state governments, Victoria can reroute an entire section of their plan because it is politically inconvenient. These people want to be part of the future of our country. If we are to rewire, if we are to go renewable, bring them with us. Let's not fight them. Give them a say to find a better way to do this right. We are living with cost of living. I get that. That's precious. But doing this twice is more expensive than doing it once, doing it right and doing it with consensus. That is all we're asking: find a way forward for these people. I urge all of you today: just consider giving them a voice. There's nothing more. That's all we ask. 17:41 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Again, we bring this matter, which, quite frankly, as Senator Cadell has said, should not be controversial. This should not be a controversial issue. I said that in the debate on this matter last time. We're looking to understand the power imbalance between farmers, fishers, governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire land. We know that that's happening across the country. We had 60-odd farmers here in the gallery the last time we talked about this. They don't come to Canberra for nothing. Farmers don't shut up shop and come to Canberra for no reason at all. They're coming here because they're concerned about their rights. All this seeks to do is to give them some voice. There's a lot of discussion about voice in the broader debate at the moment, but these farmers aren't being allowed to be heard. We're asking for a Senate inquiry, for heaven's sake. That's all we're asking for. It shows how two-faced the government, the Greens and some on the crossbench are on this issue—how fundamentally two-faced they are. I was reading an article a couple of weeks ago from Far North Queensland: 1,000 hectares of native vegetation to be cleared for a wind farm. There is no mention of a koala or a greater glider from the Greens in this debate. If you want to build a wind farm, go for your life. If you wanted to harvest and regenerate a thousand hectares of forest in Queensland, Tasmania or Victoria, there's no way known that you would be allowed to do it. In Victoria, you can't. It's been banned. In Western Australia, it's been banned. You can't do it. Build a wind farm? Go for your life. What hypocrites. What complete and utter hypocrites. What we're asking for, through this motion, is to conduct a Senate inquiry so that we can suggest sensible terms and conditions for compulsory acquisition of land, access for farmers and Indigenous owners and fairness of compensation. Why is this controversial? Why have Labor, the Greens and Senator Pocock now voted against this four times? Why have they done that four times? Why is it controversial to have options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers, fishers, Indigenous Australians to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries? It is because the minister, Mr Bowen, doesn't want to have the conversation. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt—a doormat—hasn't got what it takes to stand up to him. As I said, if you want to harvest and regenerate a thousand hectares of forest under our world-renowned forestry standards, you can't do it. If you want to knock over a thousand hectares of forest for a wind farm next to a World Heritage area, go for your life! What complete and utter hypocrisy. And this place, this chamber, can't give a voice to the farmers, to the fishers and to the Indigenous Australians. In another inquiry that I'm participating in through the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, the Greens asked some Indigenous Australians to come in to talk to us, concerned that they were getting paid less for access to their land for these sorts of projects, so that this information could be put on the public record. So it's not as if they're not really interested. And the evidence from this group was from a Doctor O'Neill. As I said in my answer to a previous question, there are several broader trends, and certainly what the lawyers are telling me at the moment is that people in Western Australia are getting paid a lot more than people in New South Wales and Queensland. I've also heard that in Queensland, pastoralists are getting paid more per installed capacity rate than traditional owners are. So there are different rates. But the Greens, having asked someone to come to put this evidence on the public record, as they've done, won't vote for this inquiry that will give us—this chamber, the Senate—the opportunity to investigate that and suggest a fair system for compensation. They're voting against this. Again, the hypocrisy is breathtaking. Another farmer in New South Wales—we're told about climate change, we're told about the risk of fires—has a 3,700-acre property at Mulla Creek in north-east New South Wales. They've worked it and it's going to be cut in half by powerlines. The airstrip on their land that is used to fight fires will be made inoperable by the lines running through the farm. Lecture us about climate change, bushfires and the impact of climate change. Farmers are trodden all over. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. It's two-faced. It's a disgrace. In other parts, the compulsory acquisition letters are being left in black bags pinned to the fence. Farmers turn up and there's a document sitting on the gate. Senator Davey 281697 It's recyclable. Senator COLBECK 00AOL Oh, it's recyclable! Well, that's important! Compulsorily acquisition letters have been sent to landowners along the Central Coast. When it comes to our fishers—in Commonwealth territory, I might add—Minister Watt doesn't have what it takes to stand up for them or let them have their say. The South East Trawl Fishery, where there are huge zones proposed for offshore wind, lands more than 20,000 tonnes of fish. It's by far the largest supplier of local fish to consumers between Melbourne and Sydney. These fisheries are likely subject to 90 per cent of the marine wind farm impacts on commercial fishing. What are the terms of compensation for these fishers? They don't even get a run-in with respect to what's happening in the state regulations. They don't get a look-in. Who cares? Now, of course, the Greens don't like commercial fishing. They'd rather have a marine park—lock it up; don't use it. Twenty thousand tonnes of fish is a significant contribution to the local economies around the south coast of my home state of Tasmania, but we're not allowed to look at that. They voted against it four times—four times! All we want to look at is: The adequacy and fairness of processes and compensation to acquire or compulsorily access agricultural land, Indigenous land, marine environments and environmental lands for the development of major renewable infrastructure, including wind farms, solar farms and transmission lines … That's all we want to do. Senator Pocock won't vote for it. The Greens won't vote for it. And because Minister Bowen doesn't like it, doesn't want somebody scrutinising what's going on, doesn't want farmers to have a voice, and because Minister Watt hasn't got what it takes to stand up to him—he's just trodden on, walked over—we do what Minister Bowen says. Farmers don't get a voice. Fishers don't get a voice. Fascinatingly, Indigenous Australians don't get a voice. They have some sort of control or rights over almost 50 per cent of the landmass, but they don't get a voice. All we're looking to do is understand what is a fair and reasonable compensation process for those that are going to be impacted. Why is that controversial? Why is it possible to cut down and clear 1,000 hectares of land next to a World Heritage area for a wind farm—mind you, there's another one just next door, so it is not just one, it's more. But this particular project, 1,000 hectares, you can't harvest it and sustainably regenerate it for timber, for carbon storage, for biodiversity, for all of the other values that Australia's world-class forestry brings. You can't do that, but you can cut it down for a wind farm. No-one cares about the frogs, the greater gliders, the koalas. My understanding, from the article, is that it's one of the few chlamydia-free koala communities left in the country. Don't worry about that. We can watch the WWF advertisements on TV telling us to send them money because koalas are going to become extinct, but we can take out 1,000 hectares of their habitat. Those people in that corner will vote for that and against even investigating it. As I've said a number of times, the hypocrisy is breathtaking. And it's a Senate inquiry to investigate fair terms for farmers, fishers and Indigenous Australians. Evidence already on the public record says Indigenous Australians are getting paid less than others. Why is that? Why is it so controversial that we, as a Senate, might want to understand that? After all, it was the Greens who sent those people to the other inquiry, through the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, to put the evidence on the public record. Now they don't want to take it any further. They'll vote against it. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The impact on farmers lives, their livelihoods, and the stress that's being put on them because there's this great march of infrastructure across their properties—this place, four times now, has been told it can't look at the terms and conditions to deal with that. In Tasmania, state Labor are running around complaining about acquisition of land for irrigation projects. Down there, they're siding with the farmers; up here, they're voting against the farmers. Labor is voting against the farmers. Senator Watt hasn't got what it takes to stand up for the farmers, the people he is paid to represent. The Greens don't care about farmers. They tell you they do, but they don't. Senator Pocock says: 'It doesn't matter. It's not happening in Canberra, so it's no big deal. But I am interested in stopping forestry and sustainable industries. I'll shut them down. But I'll let 1,000 hectares go for a single wind farm. I don't care about the greater gliders, the koalas, the frogs and other biodiversity that's in that area right next to a World Heritage area.' In Tasmania the Greens and Labor put 74,000 hectares, a lot of it previously harvested forestry land, into the World Heritage system. When it comes to this, it's only second-rate country. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Some people get a voice, some people are promoted for a voice and some people are told they can't have a voice. If you are a farmer or a fisher in this country, you don't get a voice. You don't have a minister who will stand up for you. He hasn't got what it takes. He's just a doormat for one of his colleagues. It's outrageous. As Senator Cadell has said, we are going to keep coming back on this because these farmers, these fishers and these Indigenous communities deserve to have their two bobs' worth in this discussion. There's going to be significant disruption to their lives, and they deserve to have a say. Labor should be ashamed that they are stopping them from doing that. 17:56 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania We, the government, are going to be voting against this inquiry because we know the motivation of those opposite, and it isn't genuine and meaningful conversation about social licence and communities. For those opposite to say— Senator Davey 281697 You cannot presume to know our motivations. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 I have listened in silence. For those opposite to say that they care about the impacts of an industry that they have refused to engage in for the last decade is rich. Senator Colbeck 00AOL That's not true. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 It is true. There is a need to ensure communities have a say in projects being built, which is why we announced the community engagement review in July. The community engagement review will be led by the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner and report to government in December 2023. 17:58 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I thank my colleagues for their contributions. I will note the project that Senator Colbeck talked about in Queensland next to the wet tropics World Heritage area, the Chalumbin wind farm project. Imagine if that were being built in Tasmania. You would have Bob Brown out there chaining himself to windfarm pylons, because he has protested against wind farms in Tasmania because apparently his wedge-tailed eagles are far more important than our last remaining community of chlamydia-free koalas. As Senator Colbeck says, the hypocrisy is breathtaking. Senator Cadell quite rightly said this is about allowing people to tell their story. We keep getting our stories—this proposal, this project and this inquiry—blocked by Labor, the Greens and Senator Pocock on the crossbench. Luckily for them, we can stand in this place and share parts of their stories. I have spoken previously about the HumeLink Action Group and the work they have done to try and bring the attention of people to the HumeLink transmission line project that is going from Snowy 2.0 to the South Australian border over some of our most pristine highland country and also over native forestry areas and softwood plantations. Just this week, the New South Wales softwood group said that the HumeLink transmission line project could be the final nail in the coffin for the Highland softwood plantation, which have been through bushfire, which have been through COVID, which have suffered supply chain issues. But the HumeLink is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back. I also want to talk about something a little bit closer to my home. On 18 July, I had the opportunity to join a packed room of concerned landholders at the Deniliquin RSL club to meet with a team of Transgrid staff, with the guidance of a professional moderator, to talk about the New South Wales side of the VNI West project. This is a project that is going to connect to the Dinawan renewable energy zone near Coleambally in New South Wales to Victoria and then power Melbourne. Good on Melbourne! I hope you're very comfortable in Toorak! One of the amazing things about this project is that a draft corridor report was published in February, and it had a range of options, but it also identified the preferred option, which it said would 'maximise the positive net economic benefits to those who produce, consume and transport in the National Energy Market'. The preferred option was from Waubra onto Echuca Moama and then on to the Dinawan Energy Hub in New South Wales. That was the preferred option in February. Fast forward to July, Transgrid publishes a new corridor report with a new option, option 5(a). No-one had heard of 5(a) before. It goes from Dinawan, north of Jerilderie, passed Conargo, over almost the whole of one of Australia's longest merino bloodline studs—160-odd years of a single merino bloodline—across some of our most productive sheep and rice producing areas, around the Werai State Forest, because, on this occasion, they've worked out that they shouldn't be going over state forests, then crossing the Murray River at Murrabit. Everyone is scratching their heads, asking why the New South Wales leg of the VNI West project suddenly increased from 184 kilometres, which would be the most direct route, following roads, probably following a road corridor, to 216 kilometres over predominantly private farmland. It is estimated this change in route will cost New South Wales an extra $154 million. Everyone is questioning why. Well, thanks to the investigative reporting of Peter Hunt, at the Weekly Times, we now know why. The Victorian energy minister, Lily D'Ambrosio, demanded option 5(a). We thought—silly us!—that the Australian Energy Market Operator would choose the appropriate route based on an option that maximises the positive net economic benefits. But we found out that Minister D'Ambrosio insisted that the AEMO consider option 5(a), unbeknownst to anyone else. When these farmers in Deniliquin gathered at the Deni RSL to try to understand why, they also rightly asked, 'Well, what does this mean?' Now, apparently, you can't go underground, you can't follow the road corridors, you can't follow the predominantly disused but still government-owned rail corridors and so you need to go over private agricultural land. What does that mean? It means, once the final route is selected, a 70-metre-wide easement. It means 80-metre-tall towers every 450 metres. It means an air-exclusion zone 120 metres wide and 60 metres above the top of the transmission lines. We are in an irrigation area. As much as some in this place would like us to do away with irrigation, irrigation is still a vital part of our economy. One of the things that irrigation farmers do is farm rice. Ours are the most water-efficient rice growers in the world, but we still do have flooded rice bays, and the best way to maintain that rice and get the best bang for your harvest is by aerial application of fertilisers. Sometimes, in a wet year like the year we've just had, where it was flooded, the only way to get the rice onto the bays is to aerial sow. Could you imagine having 120-metre-wide air-exclusion zones? You can't fly drones in that 120-metre zone, so for the graziers who now utilise drones as an efficient way to monitor their stock and their stock water points it's: 'Sorry—no can do. You can't do that anymore.' That is an impact on your farm business. You will have to change the crops you grow, you will have to change the way you apply water and you will have to change the way you manage your livestock. Forget about the fact that, during the construction period, you can't have livestock in those paddocks. When asked, Transgrid said, 'Oh, well, you just agist them somewhere else for the duration.' Biosecurity, anyone? I'm just mentioning it. You can't just transport 160-year-old merino bloodlines to a different station and hope they come back disease free. As Senator Cadell said, there are other impacts. What is the impact on the capital gains status of the farm? Some of these farms have been in the same family for five-plus generations. But, because you're changing land use on a corridor of it and changing income streams, the advice that some of our farmers have had is that that will change the capital gains status from that point on. How do you value that when you're trying to work out what the upfront compensation package should be? What will the impact on land tax be? As Senator Cadell said of off-farm income, how does that impact you when you're applying for primary industry grants? The other thing in our area is that we are a recognised plains-wanderer habitat. There are farms throughout our area that have nature conservation caveats on their titles. When we asked Transgrid about that, Transgrid said, 'We'll just offset it.' The plains-wanderer is an endangered species. My area is the offset. There is no alternative offset area you can go to. When we asked about having a nature conservation caveat, they said that, obviously, we'd have to go somewhere else. We said, 'Clearly, you've done a survey to understand where these caveats are held?' We got a blank look. 'We haven't done that work yet. We'll do that work after we've determined what corridor we're going to follow when we lodge our EIS.' I've never heard of anything so ridiculous. Why would you not do it all concurrently, so you know you're planning for a corridor where you don't have to have these problems? And that would have also happened up at Chalumbin—if we did them concurrently. This is what we want to explore in this inquiry. We want to hear more of these stories. We want to hear where the planning processes are letting us down and actually adding to our costs, even if we still continue with an overhead powerline option. With the planning processes, instead of following a Labor state minister's demands to skirt around their preferred electorates, we want to make sure there is net benefit. We want to make sure they've considered nature conservation caveats. We want to make sure that they are going in the most direct route, instead of the most politically convenient route. Let us have this inquiry. I don't tire of asking, because I quite like standing here and standing up for my constituents and communities so that their stories are heard. But wouldn't it be better for all of you if, instead of hearing it through me, you heard it direct? So let us have this inquiry to hear from the people who are directly impacted and to hear from the TransGrids of the world, because it would be an open public inquiry; we would not block anyone. Let us have this inquiry. 18:11 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia When Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell first moved this motion I voted in favour of it, but I must admit that I don't think I looked at it. The second time it came up, I had a bit of a read. I thought: 'Oh, they mustn't have talked to the Greens about it. It'll go through this time.' No. The third time it came up I thought: 'What's going on? Do they just not like you guys?' The fourth time it came up, I looked at the motion in detail and I thought: 'Well, I've got to speak on this. This is a serious issue for regional Australia.' And here we are for the fifth time—the fifth time! For those listening along at home, what are we debating for the fifth time? Are we debating a fundamental change to government legislation? Are we debating a new impost on the renewable energy industry that's going to stop them in their tracks? Are we debating a fundamental change to our legal system? No. We're debating a Senate inquiry. That's what we're debating: a Senate references committee inquiry. I'm a great believer in the Senate system, the committee system and what we do through those inquiries. They're valuable, and they inform policymaking in this place. The idea that this very straightforward reference to an inquiry would be blocked in this place for the fifth time beggars belief. And it demonstrates an arrogant government that is approaching these issues in a way that brooks no dissent, that doesn't want to hear from impacted communities. And we've seen this in other places. In fact, we talked about it in this place today: arrogant Labor governments that want to impose their will on regional communities without listening to those communities, without talking to those communities and without hearing their quite legitimate perspectives on issues that, in the main, are delivering resources to the cities. These powerlines are not going to be of great use to the regional communities themselves. The gas transmission lines don't necessarily get tapped off to industrial development in the regions; occasionally they do, but not always. Mostly, they're taking a commodity, be it electricity or gas, to the cities, to keep them powered and to keep them operating in the levels of comfort that Australians have come to expect. But the imposition is on our farming communities in particular. It's on our regions. It's they who face the taking of their land. As I've said in this place before, under the federal Constitution, if the federal government compulsorily acquires land, at least it needs to be done on just terms. At least that protection is in our federal Constitution. But that protection is not in our state constitutions. We are therefore reliant on a variety of state regimes to operate in this space to ensure that landholders, in particular, are properly compensated for these takings. On the Western Australian government's page about compulsorily acquisitions it says that, as decided in the engineers case in, I think, 1912—don't quote me on that, Senator Colbeck; it might have been 1914—the High Court found that, because state constitutions are silent on the issue, there is no requirement for just terms under the state constitutions. This is made very explicit on the Western Australian compulsorily acquisition website. I'm a Western Australian senator, so I only looked at WA. If I went around and looked at the other states, I suspect they'd say exactly the same thing—that land can be compulsorily acquired and impositions such as those talked about by Senator Cadell and Senator Colbeck can be placed upon private land without compensation. That is not always the case; I understand that. Some state governments do pay compensation. It varies. Some private companies involved in these projects pay landholders and others who are impacted, but it varies. There is no consistency of regime. But we have a unique circumstance, and that's why this inquiry is justified now. We have a government in power that is planning the rollout of up to 22,000 kilometres of new electricity grid. That's a staggering amount. And, as I've said before, that's not 22,000 kilometres that's going to go through the inner cities. Think about it: it can't. Yes, some of it might go through outer metro areas, but the vast majority of it is going through our regions. It's going through communities in the bush. We have to stand up for regional Australia. Regional Australia feels under extraordinary pressure at the moment, and it's only those of us on this side who are standing up for regional Australia. We need to defend the rights of property owners to continue to be able to do with their property what's in their economic best interests. We need to be able to see regional communities consulted when these massive projects are going to be imposed upon them not for their own benefit but for the benefit of the big cities. We need to consider these impacts on regional Australia. We will keep putting this motion up and, Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell, I will keep coming along and speaking on this motion, because it is important that we allow these voices to be heard in this place through a Senate committee inquiry. I was sitting here listening to Senator Colbeck, Senator Cadell and others and I thought: 'Maybe I'm actually wasting my time today. Maybe the Labor government is actually just going to say: "Yes. Have your inquiry."' I really thought they might do that. But, no, they're not; they're going to keep opposing it. Senator Colbeck 00AOL It's a secret process. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 As Senator Colbeck said, they've got their own secret process that nobody is going to have any insight into it. So we'll keep coming back here. We'll keep putting up this motion every Tuesday. It's a date. I'll be here. I'll be standing up for regional Australia, as I know many of us on this side will. 18:19 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Like Senator Brockman, I was sitting in here doing my duty, listening to Senator Cadell and Senator Colbeck. It is just unbelievable. Senator Colbeck referred to the hypocrisy as breathtaking. Well, what we do know about the Australian Greens is that if they didn't have double standards they wouldn't have standards at all. I think we're starting to see that also from those opposite, because we will quite often hear—and I note Senator Ciccone likes to get out and visit with Victorian farmers. His Facebook and his Instagram are quite full of photos of him out meeting with farmers and promoting agriculture. Quite often, on this side of the chamber, we suggest that Senator Ciccone should actually be the minister, because potentially he might stand up to Minister Bowen. Senator Davey 281697 Here here! Senator HUGHES 273828 Here here—that's right, Senator Davey. But I don't know how Senator Ciccone is going to go out to those farmers anymore, when he will not even support an inquiry to ensure that those farmers are going to be appropriately compensated as their land values plummet and so does their ability to farm their land. I was just listening to Senator Davey talk about what's going to happen to farm values. Perhaps this was part of their hidden motivation when they put the super caps in, as they absolutely destroyed farmers and the fact that they will be able to use their farms as their superannuation. This is actually their way of helping, because if they diminish the values of those properties, they might not hit the $3 million threshold anymore, because they are no longer productive farmland! I don't know how anyone sitting opposite in the government can turn up and talk to a farmer or a farming group and look them in the eye and say: 'We don't care. You don't matter, and we're going to do everything we can to barge over you.' We know that with the Greens it is like a triangle that we have when it comes to their values and their concerns. And I use the term 'values' in the loosest possible way when approaching and referring to the Greens. We know that the pinnacle of that triangle is renewable energy. It's all about solar panels and wind farms and, 'Let's get that renewable energy!' Sitting just underneath that are critical minerals, because we know: 'Coal bad, critical minerals good.' There are two different types of mining, because that feeds into their renewable energy obsession. You cannot ask a question of the Greens like: 'What happens when up one of those electric vehicles catches on fire? How do we even put the fire out? Do you know how dangerous a chemical battery fire is?' You just have to let it burn. It is very dangerous. But don't worry. That's okay because it's an EV; it's a renewable car. How much it is going to cost for everyday Australians to have to put chargers in their houses? Well, that doesn't matter, because cost-of-living pressures are not that applicable when we talk about renewable energy and EVs and all of their obsessions. I wasn’t around in 1949, Senator Colbeck, but I remember, when the Greens used to be about 'save the whales'. Remember when they used to have the stickers that were on everyone's cars? Save the whales? Bugger the whales! I've got a wind farm! I've got an offshore wind farm that's going to upset their migration routes and completely decimate whale populations. But that's okay, because it's a wind farm! Senator HUGHES 273828 They do! Wind farm operators donate much more than whales! And there are the koalas. Senator Hanson-Young comes in here regularly to talk about the plight of koalas and how tragic it is for koalas, and she very emotionally explains to us that they are at risk and we need to do more to protect the koalas—except if we want to build solar panels over their habitat or except if we want to put powerlines right through a koala habitat. Then it's bugger the koalas! Again, potentially, it's because solar panel operators contribute more than the koalas do when it comes to political donations. Senator HUGHES 273828 In the koala suit with the bucket! I do long for the days of Senator Patrick, when you knew there would be an outfit coming up! It is absolutely astounding, but the thing is that this isn't an amendment to a piece of legislation. This isn't saying, 'No, no, no, we're not going to support this rewiring the grid.' Which, quite frankly, will more than likely end up one of the most expensive white elephants this country has ever seen—but the Labour Party will probably compete for those titles; they like a bantamweight fight over how much money they can waste, because it's just Australian taxpayers. But it's not even about that. This is about Australians who pay taxes, who vote, who are actually covered by the Constitution at the moment. All of us are equally covered by the Constitution. There is not a carve-out that says all Australians are covered by this document except for farmers and fishers. The irony of Indigenous Australians currently being told that they need their own voice in the Constitution is that they are covered by this. Their voices don't count. I know, sitting on this side with my female colleagues, that we're the wrong kind of women. We know that when left-wing women all rally around to protect women, it is 'all women', 'me too' and go, go, go but it is not conservative women; they are the wrong kinds of women. I actually have the T-shirt, thanks to Caroline Di Russo. We know we are the wrong kinds of women but there are the wrong kinds of Indigenous voices. I mean, we heard Senator Liddle ask questions today, with the denigration, the condescension, the paternalisation and the unbelievable commentary coming from those opposite because Senator Liddle is the wrong kind of Indigenous voice. Senator Nampijinpa Price is the wrong kind of Indigenous voice. We know Warren Mundine is the wrong kind of Indigenous voice. Apparently, now, all those Indigenous voices out in rural and regional Australia are the wrong kinds of voices too. If we start to look at how this is all mapping out—honestly, bring on the asteroid—it is seriously turning into crazy town here, because we have WA putting in all these heritage laws that farmers are protesting against. Senator Wong's answer was just insane. I mean, look, I feel for Senator Wong. I'm not sure if she's ever been to a farm, so I can understand it is probably difficult for her to speak with any real authority in this area. But we have farmers having mass rallies and meetings because they are being charged. It is a rort. It is an absolute scam, these businesses now charging to come and decide what is heritage and what is Indigenous culture on the farmer's land. In fact, it is not even farmers. This is the best part: it is suburban blocks. You can't even put the new camellia in because you might have to dig a little bit too deep. You have to pay $3,000 to the local Indigenous to group to say, 'It is alright; the camellia can go in.' It is just lunacy. We have from those opposite that we have to protect all this Indigenous heritage. We won't hear from the Labor Party that the government will not rule out that they will not roll these laws out across the country. If the Voice gets up—we know it is voice, treaty, truth telling—guess what else it will be? It will be cultural heritage protections for every inch of this country so that another cottage industry can set up. But it is not for the Indigenous Australians based out in the regions. The government are about to just pound their land through with all of these absolute ridiculous powerlines, with no sensitivity about whether they are going to impact any culturally sensitive areas—nothing. They probably won't even look at it. We now know we have the wrong kind of women in this place and we have the wrong kinds of Indigenous voices. Those Indigenous voices out in rural and regional Australia might actually be those very sensible Indigenous people who are saying this Voice thing is absolutely ridiculous, that it will do nothing to protect them. Not only is it going to divide this nation—it is dividing this nation; it has divided this nation and will continue to do so—but what it is actually saying to Indigenous Australians is we're going to divide you into Indigenous Australians in the inner city that live in the Teal seats and the Greens seats and those in the regions. We are going to divide it up. For the Indigenous voices in the city, you're all kosher; you're all good. We're happy to hear from you. You just tell us how great we all are and we will help boost you with another cottage industry to keep that cash flowing. But if you are a rural or regional Indigenous Australian, not on your life, my friends; you guys just suck it up. We don't mind if we damage your cultural sites. We don't care because, guess what, we have a power line that has to be built, because solar and wind can't connect to the current grid. Let's remember, this is not the only grid; this is grid No. 2. So a lot of these farms already face this situation. I'm just going to mention the word—nuclear. Honestly, I am going to be popping the popcorn to watch the Labor Party convention when this all comes up. I will be very, very interested to see where those people sit when the votes come through because I think the left delegation may have some different views than Senator Green's question today in question time. I will be very interested to see where everyone is sitting at the conference or convention—whatever the Labor Party call it—on the weekend. We won't be allowed to talk about nuclear, but do you know the thing about nuclear? For lack of a better analogy, it actually plugs into our current grid. Let's look at it this way: you have a nuclear power plant, and you just plug it in like you plug in the vacuum cleaner—if you vacuum—or the iron. I'm not sure I'm big on that either, Senator Cadell, but I hear it can be done. I hear there is a thing called plugging in an iron! This is what we can do with nuclear energy, we can plug it in to the current grid. We do not need to destroy farmland and we do not need to destroy fishers. We do not need to disrespect rural and regional and Indigenous Australians to make the lefties in the city, with their pyramid of concerns that has renewable energy is at the top, feel good about themselves. It is an absolute disgrace that you will not support just an inquiry so that those farmers, who pay a lot of taxes and provide our food, can come and talk to us. They provide our food, so I hope none of you are going home tonight and thinking about having a steak or going down to Portia's and having a bit of fried rice, because you won't be getting any more rice out of the Riverina. I hope you are not going out to dinner and eating any of the food or drinking that wine that our farmers produce, because you are turning your back on them. You won't allow them to come in here and explain what is happening on their land, to their families and to their business. Like Senator Brockman I look forward to being here on transmission Tuesday. We've coined the term, and we'll be back here every Tuesday—transmission Tuesday it is. We could get T-shirts made, maybe get a drinks card, transmission Tuesday is on. RSVP optional, just come and have a crack, because these guys are unbelievable—unbelievable. But we won't see Labor and the Greens and Senator Pocock. I can remember him chaining himself to machinery to stop trees being cut down. Trees are now irrelevant because at the pinnacle we have wind farms and solar panels, which trump all. Maybe some will see the light. We can hope Senator Ciccone—but I'm not sure if there is anyone in that side other than Senator Ciccone who visit the farms—can speak some sense to his Labor colleagues and say: 'Hey, guys, it's an inquiry. Let the farmers have their say. Let the fishers have their say.' Then perhaps those who are most vocal in supporting the Indigenous Voice will see sense. Perhaps the Prime Minister will see sense. He seems to be leading the charge on the Voice. And I'd like to put on record that, if it fails, welcome, Mr Albanese, that would be your mistake. The buck stops with you. But perhaps Mr Albanese, who's such a big proponent of the Voice and so keen to give Indigenous Australians a voice, might point out to his team here in the Senate that this is an inquiry to give Indigenous Australians a voice on which significant cultural sites might be damaged. Those Indigenous Australians deserve a voice, but I fear that we may be hoping for too much because, as I said at the beginning—and I will say it again as I finish up—if they didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all. 18:33 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I'm glad to be given another opportunity to speak on the need to hold an inquiry into the construction of transmission lines versus farmland. As a voting member of the RRAT committee, I would welcome the opportunity to hear from concerned constituents whose land will be impacted by the construction of transmission lines and also other stakeholders who are concerned about the construction of transmission lines in, say, state forests or national parks or on personal property, wherever that may be. I have to say I'm very disappointed with the Labor Party for refusing to vote on this particular motion to hold an inquiry into the construction of transmission lines across our natural landscapes, because we are in the Senate. The Senate is a house of review. We are entitled to ask questions. We are entitled to go out and engage with the community about their concerns. I have heard from many farmers and many other constituents who are concerned about the impact on the environment from the construction of transmission lines. I don't think it is fair because I well remember the Prime Minister saying, when he was opposition leader in the lead-up to last year's election, how he was going to lead a government of transparency, and yet we are not seeing that. We have seen the Labor government refuse to be transparent about aged-care workers, about the number of nurses being placed in aged-care centres. They're not being transparent about the price of energy; our colleague Senator Duniam has asked for quarterly reporting into energy prices, and they're not being transparent about that. They're not being transparent about the National Cabinet and the release of minutes of the National Cabinet. And yet again we see another example of where this government does not want to be transparent—on the impact of transmission lines on our environment. The other thing we need to look at is the impact of the financial consideration that will be given to stakeholders if transmission lines—and other renewables, for that matter; not just transmission lines but wind turbines and solar panels—are built on private property, and how these farmers will be compensated. If they're not going to be compensated, who picks up the bill for when these transmission lines or wind turbines have to be deconstructed in 20 years? These are reasonable questions, and I think the public deserves to have a say and other concerned constituents are entitled to listen to and hear what the particular stakeholders have to say about the impact of renewables on the environment and also on property rights for our hardworking farmers and other stakeholders involved in this process. I look forward to holding the division. I have to say I'm very disappointed in the Labor government for not voting for this. I hope we get the crossbench onside; I'm sure One Nation will be. I can well remember Senator David Pocock, when he gave his maiden speech, saying he was on the side of the farmers. This is your opportunity, Senator Pocock, if you're listening, to lend your support to an inquiry about transmission lines and how they will impact farmers not just on their farmland itself but financially, and what contractual obligations they will be under to clean up the renewables when they come to the end of their useful life, whether it be in 10 years time or 20 years time. This is something we need to see get up. I don't expect the Greens to support it because they're not really interested in protecting the environment whenever it comes to things like this; they do not want to look at the potential damaging impact of renewables on the environment. That is something that we will continue to prosecute in opposition—to call out the hypocrisy of both the Labor Party and the Greens in not wanting to be honest about the environmental damage that renewables will do to the environment. 18:37 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I, too, rise to speak in relation to this motion. The only thing Senator Rennick said which I disagree with, and I'll explain why, is that he didn't have an expectation the Greens would support this. I think every senator in this chamber should support this reference because there's a principle involved here. If a considerable portion of this chamber believes that something should be referred to a committee for further analysis and examination, providing stakeholders in the community a chance to give evidence and give their views, then the chamber should support that. I say that as someone who is the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. We are dealing with a number of important references to that committee which were initiated in one case by the Greens and in another case by a government senator, and I fully supported those references. I'm engaging in that process in good faith. That's the importance of this institution. It is incredibly disappointing to see senators not support this referral. It is a shocking and terrible precedent. Do senators remember when we had the galleries filled with farmers and members of rural communities from Victoria? They came all the way to this place, to Canberra, and sat in those galleries because they're desperately concerned about this issue. Why not give them an opportunity to give evidence before a Senate committee? Why not give them that opportunity? Why deprive them of that opportunity? It is a terrible precedent which senators in this place will set if, on the division on this motion, a majority of this chamber is against the referral. Everyone should reflect on it. Consider the terms of the reference. It is even-handed in terms of its drafting. It's objective. It doesn't presuppose a conclusion. But it's dealing with a matter of great importance to people in our rural and regional communities. This Senate chamber should represent all Australians, from our cities to our country, and when there's an issue of concern to a significant proportion of residents—wherever they live in Australia—and when a considerable number of senators in this place say a matter should be referred to a committee, that referral should be accepted and supported. Then all of us have an opportunity to participate in that process and to provide our comments in relation to the analysis of the evidence and any recommendations which are made. What are you scared of? Are you concerned that the evidence is going to be damning with respect to how these matters are being considered? Is that what you're concerned with? The people listening to this, the people watching this debate, could well say that if that's the case, all the more reason for there to be a referral. Let's consider the actual paragraphs of the referral motion. The introductory words are: The adequacy and fairness of processes and compensation to acquire or compulsorily access agricultural land, Indigenous land, marine environments and environmental lands for the development of major renewable infrastructure, including wind farms, solar farms and transmission lines, with particular reference to: (a) power imbalance between farmers and fishers, and governments and energy companies … Those power imbalances between farmers and fishers on one hand and governments and energy companies on the other are real, and this chamber performs such an important function across all of our committees in terms of giving a voice to people who are on the wrong end of those power imbalances. That's part of our job. (b) terms and conditions for compulsory access and acquisition; I'm deeply interested to see what the terms are for that access and compulsory acquisition. Why are you depriving me as a senator of the opportunity to engage in that committee inquiry? On what basis? (c) fairness of compensation; Isn't that our role? Isn't one of our roles, as a check and balance in Australia's democracy, to consider the fairness of how our fellow citizens are treated, especially when the government uses its powers of compulsory acquisition? That goes to the heart of our role as the Senate chamber. (d) options for the development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition; I want to know if the way people in Victoria are being treated is the same as for people in my home state of Queensland. Are there any differences? What is the best practice model? What is the fairest approach? Again, those who will vote against this motion are depriving the Senate of the opportunity to inquire in relation to these matters. (e) options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries … Again, isn't that something we should be desperately concerned with? Why deprive us of the opportunity of participating in this inquiry? When you go through the terms of reference, there is nothing that's loaded there. There are no embedded premises or findings. It is quite objectively worded. So I'm absolutely aghast that so many senators in this place would deprive a material number of senators who are desperately concerned about this, representing their constituents from their home states, of this referral. It's a terrible, terrible precedent. I would suggest that the leadership of the government in this place should carefully consider this. From my perspective, you might not agree with where the outcome falls, but you've got the opportunity to put in a dissenting report, to make additional comments. Don't attack the process. Don't stop the process. Every senator in this place is a custodian of this institution for as long as we are here. We're the ones who set the precedents with respect to practice, what is usually adopted and what is usually followed, and it desperately concerns me that in a case where a material number of our senators would like a referral on a matter of key importance, deep importance, to their constituents, that seems to be about to be defeated on a majority of numbers. It's a terrible precedent. I think the leaders of the government in this place should carefully reconsider. 18:45 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I've been sitting here listening to the contributions in the last few minutes, and it's made me realise just how grateful I am that the opposition is no longer in government. Thank you. That's my contribution. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that the reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, standing in the names of Senators Colbeck and Cadell, be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that we are past division time, and the division will be deferred until tomorrow. Environment and Communications References Committee 68 Reference 68 18:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in March 2024: The adequacy of the current classification system for publications to protect children from age-inappropriate material, including: (a) the need, if any, for penalties on publishers who fail to meet their obligations under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to submit potentially offending material to the Classification Board for review; and (b) any other related matters. As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I'm speaking this evening in support of my motion to refer the classification system to a Senate inquiry. I've circulated a briefing document to explain this motion, and I hope senators have had time to review the material relating to cartoons for adults, otherwise known as graphic novels, in digital and printed form. The Classification Board administers the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Not every publication, though, is checked, of course. This would not be feasible. Instead, a system of voluntary referral is in place for questionable publications. That's where the problem is—the system of referral or non-referral. A publication called The Boys has been available in Australia since the first issue in 1996. This is the same The Boys that Netflix turned into a hit streaming show. Children, having seen the sanitised Netflix version and then seeing the book version on the shelf of their local library, will, of course, pick the book up and borrow it, unaware of the depictions of extreme violence, rape, public sex and bestiality found in the publication. Even more troubling, all of these things are portrayed in a positive light. For 25 years, this material has been perfectly legal to sell, display and lend to minors of any age. A week after the Classification Board appeared before Senate estimates to answer questions from me and Senator Antic, the board reviewed all six volumes of The Boys as a result of a referral from campaigner, family protector and child protector Bernard Gaynor. A citizen fulfilling his responsibility to the community, to the nation, got it referred to the board. Three volumes were restricted and three were allowed to remain on sale unrestricted, meaning available in libraries to children. One of the banned works, episode 5 in volume 1, was titled 'Herogasm' and chronicled the sexual exploits of our superheroes. Graphic depictions included orgies and bestiality. This behaviour was presented in a positive light, with smiles, high fives, raised fists and whoops all around. Dynamite publishing did not refer their publication to the Classification Board as the law requires. I'll say that again. Dynamite publishing did not refer their publication to the Classification Board as the law requires. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 does not prescribe a penalty on a publisher who does not refer a work that may be subject to sanction. That's an incentive to not submit a work. This is one of the terms of reference of this motion. Penalties may be appropriate for a publisher who failed to submit a work that was subsequently restricted. One of the volumes that was not banned depicted the male lead character, Homelander, raping the lead female character, Starlight, complete with protestations, using language that should not be suitable for children. The board declined to restrict the volume because the nudity in the rape scene was not overly graphic. What about the rape? All senators and members of parliament are required to take a course on sensitivity to women. The Classification Board clearly needs to attend the same training. The second justification for not restricting the volume is even worse. It was, 'The two characters both climaxed, suggesting the sex was not rape but consensual.' The Classification Board is apparently bringing back, 'But she came'—the old rape defence. Where are the women's activists? Where are the Greens talking about women now? They're nowhere to be seen. Another graphic novel currently on sale and on display in libraries unrestricted by the Classification Board is Nagano, which depicts sexual behaviour featuring girls who are actually labelled in the illustration as being seven years old, just in case there was any doubt about who these comics are really aimed at. Now we have the book Welcome to Sex. The authors are Yumi Stynes, Melissa Kang and Jenny Latham. It's published by international publishing house Hardie Grant Children's Publishing. Much has been said about this publication in recent weeks. For those who have not read it, let me explain a little about this book. The publication is officially aimed at ages 10 and up, with author Yumi Stynes publicly stating that she would have no problem with an eight-year-old reading the book. Certainly some of the information in this book will help adolescents come to terms with their changing bodies and their relationships around that process. If the authors had stopped there, we would have no problem. They didn't stop there. The second half of this book is nothing short of an instruction manual on how to perform adult sex acts, commencing with advice to young girls to take their own virginity with a hairbrush and then moving onto hand jobs, sex and even anal sex, ending with advice on how to send naked selfies. This is all in a book published for ages 10 and up. How is it legal to advise kids to have sex before they are legally able and to send illegal child pornography and to advise children to ignore the counsel of their own parents? How is this legal? Ten-year-old children cannot have sex and should not be tutored on how to do so. It may be that this material is being sold because the Classification Board only has the choice between 'unrestricted' and R18+, which is restricted to sale in plain wrappers to adults. In effect, the current classification system has no jump between Cat in the Hat and actual porn. All publications become either one or the other. Legislation written in 1995 simply didn't envisage this trend of graphic novels that are sexually violent and exploitative material that one could describe as child-grooming material. Children are far more valuable than this. I'm asking the committee to decide if there should be more steps in the classification options so material like this can be allowed for sale to adolescents old enough to actually engage in the sexual practices explained in this publication. After all, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 does require the board to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation, abuse and pornographic material. This publication is pornographic. Restricting a publication like this is not book burning, as some have suggested, some who are afraid of a debate. One Nation is not calling for the book to be banned. We are suggesting this book should be classified in a way that prevents young children from reading it. That is not book burning. That is basic decency reflecting community standards that say teaching 10-year-olds how to have anal sex is just plain wrong. A legally binding MA15+ classification would achieve that. I ask for the Senate's support for my motion. 18:54 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania We will not be supporting the referral. The classification scheme provides for the Classification Board to classify films, computer games and certain publications. Australians rely on classification to make informed media choices, especially when it comes to what content to show to their kids, but successive reviews have found that the classification system is long overdue for reform. In March this year the government announced a two-stage process to reform the classification framework. The government will commence consultation later this year and welcomes the participation of all those interested in the classification scheme through that process. 18:54 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The coalition will not oppose this motion. The national classification scheme is important. It sets out the regulatory framework for the classifying of films, computer games and publications. The work of the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board can have significant impacts on businesses that rely on these bodies to publish, screen and sell their products, including films, games and books, and the classifications themselves are very important for many of us in the community who rely on them when watching, playing or reading the items which are classified. The Classification Board reports to this parliament and is accountable to this place for their actions. 18:56 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Obviously, I rise in support of Senator Roberts's motion. I have read the book Welcome to Sex. I've read the book and, let me tell you in this place right now, it is filth; it is degeneracy; it is disgusting. My problem with the book is not just that it speaks to children; it's that in our society today we have become so comfortable with sexualising children—with sexualising our most vulnerable—and I will tell you all right now that it is wrong. We must protect children. It has become so apparent that the current system is inadequate. Publishers are only required to submit a book for classification if they themselves believe the book may require it. It's akin to—I don't know—a Scouts honour type of system. Scouts honour: I promise it's all good; don't worry about it. Well, mate, it's not all good, because we've seen the content in this book and other books, which I'm sure some of my fellow senators will talk about after I am done with my contribution. Publishers are releasing books which are inappropriate for children. We all know that; that's clear. And children are being exposed to this material, which is obscene. It's degenerate; it's filthy. I'm going to keep harping on about it because that's exactly what it is. I believe that penalties must apply to publishers who fail to meet their obligations under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. They've got to feel the pain. These people need to be punished and penalised. They're degenerates. Since my first day in this place, my office has been inundated, swamped and overwhelmed with calls from concerned parents, grandparents, teachers—every one relating to publications that are accessible to children that they deem to be unsuitable. I say to people at home watching this broadcast on social media: if you don't think that there is a war being waged against children in this nation right now, well, you haven't been paying attention, or maybe you just haven't visited your local bookstore or gone to your local library lately. There is a war on for the souls and the minds of this nation's children. That's what's going on. I obviously believe in preserving the innocence of children. When I first became aware of the inappropriate book titled Welcome to Sex, which my colleague Senator Malcolm Roberts spoke about previously, I decided that, as a society, we had to draw a line in the sand. We had to say, 'Enough is enough. Stop coming after the kid.' This book is obviously marketed at preteen children, but, as was mentioned previously, the author, Yumi Stynes, said that she would be happy for a mature eight-year-old to read the book. A mature eight-year-old does not exist. I bought a copy of that book myself, and I can tell you right now that there are things that I as a grown adult learnt from that book—and I can never unlearn them. It was disgusting. It's degeneracy. This book talks about all kinds of sex acts, and it provides instructions and graphic illustrations on how to complete these adult sex acts. I won't name them, because I want this video to be seen by people and not to be censored on YouTube, Facebook, X and Instagram. I want people to see it, so I can't mention the sex acts, but they're that bad. Adults: you can do whatever the heck you like; nobody cares what you do. You're over 18. You're an adult—each to their own. But why are Australian retail stores selling material like this aimed at children? Obviously, and most importantly, why isn't the book classified? That's my issue. Classify that book. Publishers have to do their jobs, and, if they don't do their jobs, they've got to face harsh penalties. We cannot put a price on children's innocence. Children's innocence must be protected. Let them be kids for as long as possible. Let them enjoy their childhoods. Don't fill their heads with garbage. On 19 July I wrote to the Labor Party communications minister, Michelle Rowland, expressing my immediate concern about this book. 'Why is it unclassified, Minister Rowland?' Minister Rowland hasn't replied to my letter. I'm not surprised. Does Minister Rowland care about children? I certainly hope so. Minister Rowland, reply to my letter. Show that you care. The title itself, let alone the harmful content, should have prompted the publishers to submit the book for classification. There is the loophole right there. It's up to them to determine whether they should submit their own book for classification, and that needs to change. On 21 July I wrote a similar letter to the deputy secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, who oversees the operation of Australian classifications. They are the entity responsible for the classification of children's books. I questioned if they would exercise their authority to call in this book and other books, and I have yet to receive a reply from them also. This book and all the other books—all the other filth and garbage out there, all the other indoctrination of our children out there, all those publications that seek to sexualise kids—have been met with public outcry. It is clearly not in line with what the public expects and not in line with community standards. This is just one of many books that requires urgent review. The current classification system obviously needs reforming and strengthening. We can all agree on that, I hope. Let's not play party politics with the innocence of children, because that's rubbish. Let's not do that anymore. It needs reforming. We must not allow publishers to continue to release material targeted at prepubescent and preteen children. We can't allow them to do it. It's adult content. Obviously, I commend Senator Roberts for his motion. I and the entirety of the United Australia Party stand with him. If you're a member of the United Australia Party, and you don't stand with me and Malcolm Roberts right here and right now, cancel your membership, because we don't want you in the party. Go and join the Labor Party. Go and join the Greens. Maybe even go and join the Liberal Party. You're not welcome in the UAP. The UAP will not stand for this garbage. I've said it before, and I'll say it again— Senator Hanson BK6 Hear, hear! Senator BABET 300706 thank you, Senator Hanson—leave the kids alone. Stop sexualising children. To my friends and colleagues in the Liberal Party, you've got to stand up. You've got to stand for something, because right now, guys and girls, the public sees you as Labor lite. That's why you keep losing elections and why you will continue to lose in the future. You've got to stand for something. I've read your 'we believe' statement, a tour de force in freedom, in what's good and right in the world and in conservative values. All you need to do is stick to your 'we believe' statement, because, if you won't stick to your 'we believe' statement, don't worry, the UAP is here. We're going to nip away at you and take every darn seat you have, eventually—not today, but in the future. You guys have got to stand up. If you don't stand up for kids, that's the end of you. This is it, your line in the sand. Forget about the Greens and the Labor Party. They're cooked; we know that. It's up to you guys, and, if you don't do it, I will. 19:05 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I rise to speak in support of the motion this evening, and I want to illustrate the importance of this motion by way of a recent interaction I had with a local constituent in the northern suburbs of South Australia, where I am the paired senator. My first opportunity to come into contact with this single mother with three children was through a deputation she made to the local council. She bravely approached the local council, which is a very brave thing to do, bringing to their attention the presence of a particular book called Let's Talk About It. This is not the book that Senator Babet referred to but is a book containing graphic depictions of sexual practices, adult concepts and in one instance a detailed manifesto, if you like, as to how to send naked selfies across the internet. The book was marketed at children, and she was alarmed by the fact that it was available to children in the library and was completely unclassified. This brave mother took her fight to the council. She then took it to the ombudsman. She took it to a number of politicians, and finally she took it to the Classification Board, which cost her the princely sum of around $800 in order to have this book considered for classification. She put together a submission, outlined her concerns and sought a waiver of the fee, I might say, which was rejected. Bearing her own costs and using her own time, this brave mother sought to have this book classified so it could at least be removed from public libraries, where children like her own were likely to see the book in circulation. Ultimately, she went round and round the mulberry bush, so to speak. The Classification Board rejected the application, and the book remains unclassified. She's now been told that she can send it off to the Classification Review Board for the princely sum of $10,000, which she of course does not have. I raise this in the context of this motion, which I support, because this interaction highlights the frailties of the system. As Senator Roberts rightly pointed out earlier, the prevalence of this material in local libraries and our children now being subjected to this material was never conceived of when the law was enacted in 1995 and through subsequent amendments. This piece of legislation has an enormous loophole, in my view, one I raised during the last Senate estimates hearings with the director. The issue is that books are not automatically reviewed, as is the case for films and movies. In fact, publications are subject to a self-reporting requirement for the publisher, and the publisher is only required to do that if it is submittable content. Therefore, it is a value judgement placed on the publisher. Through that loophole these books are finding their way into circulation and into libraries, where children have the opportunity to see them. The onus is being put upon private citizens like this brave mother to seek their classification, and there are other instances I'm aware of where private citizens have sought classification of these books. This simply cannot be right. It cannot be accepted, and we simply cannot have this material in the hands of our kids remaining unclassified. As Senator Babet said, kids grow up too fast these days. Parents don't need to be concerned about what kids might be borrowing from the library and bringing home. The issue of sexual education is not the issue here. That's been around since time immemorial. But these books are ostensibly trojan horses for radical gender theory dressed up as sex education for our kids, and we need to call them out for what they are. These are not simple education manuals. They are books enclosing radical gender theory, and we need to have this review. I support the motion and I encourage all those in this chamber that care about the kids to support the motion as well. 19:10 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to support the motion of my colleague Senator Roberts. The existing classifications for books, films and computer games need to be reviewed. While those on the left have no problem exposing children to extremely harmful material, most Australians have a superior morality. This was evident in the outrage of the Australian community at Big W stores stocking a children's book with explicit pornographic images and instructions on how to perform various sex acts. It even had instructions on sending images of naked children, which is unlawful in Australia. Big W took the book off the shelves, but it remains for sale online and on Amazon. The author of this piece of filth says she would have no problem with a mature eight-year-old reading the book. It is a contradiction of terms. There's no such thing. This incident is just the latest of many in Australia and overseas of harmful material being marketed at children. It is therefore appropriate we have an honest examination of the current classification system to ensure it is fit for purpose and is protecting children from exposure to harmful material. The impassioned comments tonight from Senator Roberts and also Senator Babet and Senator Antic are indicative of what the Australian people, commonsense Australian people, think. If this is going to be completely thrown out tonight and doesn't get up in the vote, then I do question the people in this chamber. I think it would be disgusting if you didn't take the concerns of the Australian people seriously, because there was an outcry when they heard about the book being on the shelves in Big W, to the extent that they actually took the book out of that store. The author said that she has no problems with a mature eight-year-old reading it. Well, I'm a grandmother that has an eight-year-old grandson, who will be turning nine this week. I have another one that turned nine last April. I'd be absolutely flabbergasted and horrified if they picked up this book, because I don't believe at this stage in their lives they should be reading this rubbish. I picked up the book and flicked through it, and I saw the pages in it: 'How to have anal sex', and then you had two women having sex together also. This is just disgusting—the whole book. For you to not consider that this should be reclassified—it's not what the Australian people want. It's the same as what you've done to me in this chamber with gender dysphoria. You actually have turned a blind eye to what is happening to our children out there. You know what I'll say to you? If you're going to vote this down, and if you're going to vote against the gender dysphoria motion, there are a lot of sick puppies in this place. There really are. You really need to actually consider what you are voting on. People out there expect us, as leaders of this nation, to protect our children, and if you vote this down you're not protecting children. I hear you speak highly of paedophiles who are preying on our children. You make out that you're really concerned about this. Senator Pratt I0T Point of order, Acting Deputy President: I ask Senator Hanson to withdraw. She was clearly not speaking through the chair, and she said 'you' and 'paedophiles'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Hanson, let me rule, please. I was listening carefully, and I was watching the hand gestures. I didn't see you specifically point, but I would ask you, Senator Hanson, to make your remarks through the chair, please. Senator HANSON BK6 Most definitely—no problem. What I was saying is that we need to address what is actually happening here with our children in this country, and I'm sick and tired of the alphabet people that are pushing their own agendas on our children. What I'll say to people here is: leave our children alone. I say that on behalf of many, many Australians who have children of their own, and I say it on my own behalf as a grandmother. Leave the children alone. 19:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will not be supporting this referral. The classification scheme provides for the Classification Board to classify films, computer games and certain publications. Australians rely on classifications to make informed media choices, especially when it comes to what content to show their kids, but successive reviews have found that the classification system is long overdue for reform. In March this year, the government announced a two-stage process to reform the classification framework. The government will commence consultation later this year and welcomes the participation of all those interested in the classification scheme through that process. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question is that the reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that we are past division time, and the division will be deferred until tomorrow. Community Affairs References Committee 73 Reference 73 19:17 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise briefly to comment on this particular motion, but, in doing so, I also wish to reflect on the debate of the previous motion that has just been carried out in this chamber. The obsession with other people's sex lives that comes from the crazy right wing of this chamber is extraordinary! Obsessed with other people's gender. Obsessed with other people's sexual activities. Obsessed with other people's love lives. Obsessed with other people's dress. In fact, obsessed with everything! Obsessed with everything but their own ability to look at facts, to understand and empathise and to have a genuine debate based on intelligence. It is extraordinary that time in this chamber, over and over again, is being spent on the right-wing moral diatribe that is not even unique. It is directly imported from the fascist right-wing arguments carried out in the United States. They're not even original thoughts that are being argued here in this chamber. If you want to have a debate about what really is impacting the lives of everyday Australians, talk about the cost of living. Talk about the level of education funding in our schools. Talk about what we're doing to stop violence and discrimination against women, and particularly young women, in this country. Talk about stopping the scourge of sexual violence, the scourge of domestic violence. Talk about what you're going to do to help ensure that young people in this country can cover the cost of their rising rents. Talk about what you're doing every day to help families who are still working, who are still struggling to pay their bills because mortgage rates are going through the roof. But, no, they want to take up hours and hours of this precious chamber time discussing what somebody else wears, what gender they are and who they want to sleep with! It is obsessive to the ridiculous, and it's not even original thought. They couldn't even write a speech of their own; it is directly imported from the crazy crackpots in the United States. I assume they get all their ideas watching Fox News late at night. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts 266524 Point of order: Senator Hanson-Young has referred to people on this side who dare to disagree with her as racists and fascists. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I don't believe Senator Hanson-Young was referring to any particular senator. You might not like the tone or the debate that's going on, but that is not out of order, so I'll ask Senator Hanson-Young just to continue her remarks, but please refer them through the chair. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The glass jaws of this lot are extraordinary, isn't it? The fragility of the glass jaws of the fighters for freedom! Every time they are called out for their ridiculous views, their inability to actually hold an argument in their own right, they go straight to 'Don't attack me.' It is pathetic. At least come up with some of your own damn ideas. 19:21 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today in support of this motion. I think it's very important that we give parents a say in all of this. I have to say that I was very offended by the comments of Senator Hanson-Young, who was saying that these were the views of crackpots. No, these are the views of parents. I'm going to read out two emails that I have received from the parents of children who are struggling with these particular issues. 'Hi. Dear Senator Rennick, I am a mother of three. I am a normal 44-year-old Australian woman juggling family and work. I just learned that the Senate will today consider the proposed reference for the Community Affairs References Committee. I'm writing to you to ask you to please vote to support the formation of the committee. Last July, my whole world was turned upside down when I discovered that my 13-year-old daughter was questioning her gender, believing that this made her nonbinary, and she was encouraged by her private counsellor to transition. My daughter has autism, ADHD and was struggling with self-harm behaviours. Her gender questioning was part of this bigger picture, yet all of her other pre-existing challenges were suddenly ignored and considered irrelevant because she really was not a girl, and she was supported in a belief that this would fix all of her problems. All of the help I could locate urged me to affirm her gender identity. I want the best for each of my children and do not want any of them to be limited as adults by the choices they made as children. It is unconscionable to affirm my 13-year-old's distress and lock that in as her identity and start on the medicalisation path, setting her up to be a lifelong medical patient and depriving her of some of life's greatest joys before she's ever had the chance to know what they might be—for example, having children. It is a lonely and difficult path supporting my daughter and navigating a pathway of holding the space open for her to mature and work out who she is within a supportive framework that embraces the whole of who she is. I urge you to please vote in favour of the proposed reference for the Community Affairs References Committee. I am happy to be contacted and meet with you to provide any personal details that would assist you.' I will read out another email I have received from another parent, and this is just one of many emails and phone conversations I have had with parents of children who are having sexual identity issues. Now, I'm not proposing that I've got the answers. I don't know, but what I do know is that parents shouldn't be cut out of this process. 'Dear Senator Rennick, I'm writing to request that you vote in favour of the motion that has been put to the Senate. My story: I am the mother of a trans-identifying female. Last year my daughter inexplicably and without any evidence of gender dysphoria informed us that she is trans. She has commenced high doses of testosterone and will be having surgery to have her breasts cut off. We are totally shocked and cannot believe the medical profession is able to harmfully medicalise and mutilate her without any investigation into her mental health issues. If these doctors had even made minor investigations about her situation they would have found out that she has been very ill on and off for over the last five years, and very recently was so unwell she spent 18 months in a darkened room. She has a history of mental health issues which relate to her autism. If these doctors had asked whether she was healthy and happily working they would have discovered that she was not and that she was only back at work 2½ days a week due to continuing health problems. It also appears irrelevant to the medical profession as to whether or not she actually has gender dysphoria. If they had investigated they would have discovered that she was a pink princess before and after puberty. She in fact hated anything male and the testosterone fuelled behaviour of men. However, the endocrinologist in question did not even ask whether or not she had gender dysphoria. Every day it takes my breath away that a qualified endocrinologist can prescribe her testosterone at levels that would not be allowed for a man or a woman who were low on that hormone, merely on her sayso. The devastation this has had on our family is indescribable. Our daughter has stopped communicating with me and my husband, as she cannot bring herself to think about the harm she is doing to herself.' These are two stories of people who want their stories told. We previously discussed the role of the Senate—that is, to discuss community concerns. I do not see the harm in having an inquiry into what is obviously a very important issue for a number of our constituents. That is our role—to serve the people—and the Senate is a house of review. I do not think it is unreasonable. No-one here is trying to score political points, and I'm certainly not when I say I'm in favour of this. However, I know it's being pushed through schools at the moment—teachers are allowed. Schools aren't necessarily pushing this stuff, and parents aren't being told what is going on with their children at school. The other thing I'd like to look at is why—and we, the coalition did this—14-year-olds are allowed to block their parents from accessing their health records on myGov. I don't think that is right either, as someone who has three children of my own. While they are living in my house, I will certainly want to know what they're doing. I think that the role of the parent is extremely important in this. I've heard from two parents here, two of many that I've heard from, who would like a say when it comes to government involvement, the education department's involvement and the role of the medical community in actually assigning these people drugs that can change their hormones levels. It is often, I'm told, irreversible after a certain stage. The important thing to note is this is in regards to children. That is why I am passionate about it. As a parent of three children, I get very annoyed when I see the government interfering in the role of the parent. There is nothing more sacred than the bond between parents and their children, so I would urge everyone to have an open mind to this. As my colleague Senator Scarr pointed out before, you can always put up a dissenting report if you disagree with the findings of the inquiry. But we live in a democratic society, and the role of the Senate is as a house of review. This is an issue that has become more prevalent in the last decade and that in itself justifies it. I'm not trying to make any judgements as to who is right or wrong. It must be incredibly difficult for a parent to be trying to deal with this particular issue. I don't see why the government or certain senators who want to represent these parents can't have an inquiry into it. Yet again, I'll say what I said earlier today: the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, said this would be an open and transparent government. I ask myself why Labor and the Greens are against having an open discussion about the risks and the benefits of these particular procedures, and against defending the rights of parents to have the dominant say in how their children are raised. Because children are just that; they are children. There is a reason why we don't allow them to drink and smoke before 18, a reason why we don't allow them to drive before they are 17 or 18, because they are too young to make decisions that may impact them later in life. This particular decision, in many cases, is irreversible. It can be irreversible. We have to tread delicately with this. My belief is that there have been hurdles or checks and balances in the past— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 75 ADJOURNMENT Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 75 19:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania 'Embarrassed' and 'humiliated'—these are the words that Minister Shorten rightly chooses to describe how the opposition should feel about its cruel, vicious and disgusting conduct in going after our nation's most vulnerable citizens, as set out in the damning final report of the robodebt royal commission. The report confirmed the worst of what we all suspected: robodebt was a scheme created to deliberately hurt those doing it the toughest, fuelled by an underlying hatred of welfare recipients and allowed to continue due to the culture of ineptitude, incompetence and indifference of the former Liberal government and the most senior public servants. I sat in estimates hearing after estimates hearing and heard public servants and ministers defending robodebt. As we now know, that Liberal government abdicated its most basic duty of responsibility. It was disastrous, and that is how they will be remembered by over half a million Australians, many of them at the lowest point in their lives. The sheer brutality and senselessness of this operation left its mark on countless vulnerable Australians and their communities, instigating widespread misery and despair and pointless financial struggle. Those opposite have never experienced what it's like to have to rely on government benefits. People are at the lowest ebb of their life. Those opposite don't understand the circumstances by which people end up in that situation. Today, again, the former Prime Minister came out and tried to defend his actions, saying, 'There's nothing to see here.' Former prime minister Scott Morrison said, 'I did nothing wrong; nothing to see here.' It just demonstrates, over and over again, how out of touch the Liberals and Nationals are. What is more concerning is that they knew that the action they were taking was unlawful but they didn't care; they were only interested in raising revenue. They didn't care about the struggle, the health impact and the mental health impact. We know that there were two young men who took their own lives. These are real people that had done nothing wrong. If Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton had the opportunity, I bet they'd do it all over again, because they don't give a damn. That's the reality of it. It was so blatant, doing this and knowing it was unlawful. They had no concern about the betrayal of the Australian people, who believed that our government is there to support them, not to go after them. Have you ever been in a situation where the government writes you a letter and tells you that you owe money going back a number of years? I don't know, but most people on those benefits would not have kept those records for seven or eight years. It caused undue anxiousness and strain on their mental health and finances. I want to acknowledge my colleagues, who sat with me and questioned the department and the minister, through the community affairs committee and other committees, about the atrocities that were taking place under the former Liberal government. I want to acknowledge their hard work in bringing this to light. I particularly acknowledge the Hon. Bill Shorten for the great work that he's done. In the last debate, we had people on that side talking about how this government needs to be open and transparent. That's what we are doing. We're shining a light on the unlawful actions of the former government and the former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who had how many other portfolios? Was it five ministerial positions he held? At least three or four of the ministers didn't even know that they had a twin minister at the time! He still denies any responsibility; he says he did nothing wrong. It just demonstrates how low those opposite will go. They will never acknowledge when they've done something wrong. How can you convince the people that you have learnt anything? You can't. You cannot be trusted, and that's why they booted you out at the last election. All you're doing in this chamber, day after day, is proving they were right. (Time expired) Chinese Communist Party 76 19:35 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Communism has been a scourge on humanity since its inception. It's an ideology that minimises, oppresses and brutalises human beings, and it has led to the deaths of tens of millions of men, women and children across the world, in many countries and over many decades. Last century the Chinese Communist Party won a bloody civil war and, ever since, it has been seeking to expand its control and influence on a global scale. We can't change the fact that communist regimes exist. However, we must not continue to allow ourselves to be subverted by them. Properly standing up to the Chinese regime takes both firmness and prudence, virtues sorely lacking in the current Labor government. One must understand the tactics that are being used in what is essentially political warfare. The CCP uses more than bullets and bombs to achieve its goals; it uses economic warfare, biological warfare, cyberattacks, terrorism, public opinion and media warfare, psychological warfare, espionage, bribery, censorship, deception, subversion, blackmail, enforced disappearances, street violence, assassination, proxy forces, public diplomacy and hybrid warfare. Today the Chinese Communist Party's global influence threatens the Western world. One example from the US is the regime's involvement in allowing the production of fentanyl for import into the US. Fentanyl now kills more Americans than any other drug in history. Drugging a population is an effective way to keep them weak and distracted while you strengthen your own forces. Another example is the CCP's use of social media influence. In Australia our social media tends to promote highly sexualised material, while the Chinese versions of these apps promote wholesome material about education, productivity, masculinity and discipline. Social media is harming our children and our young people. It promotes narcissism and confusion about sexuality and gender. Do you ever wonder why Western countries like Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom appear to be divided like never before? Parents against children, neighbour against neighbour—you think this is a coincidence? Think again. Ask yourself: who has the most to gain? The CCP has its fingerprints all over almost every ill in our society. They actively pursue any agenda which makes us weaker. That is the Marxist way. Another example is the way the CCP has weaponised its assets in the United Nations and the corporate sector to pursue a net-zero renewable energy agenda, which Labor is determined to race towards. This is contributing to a cost-of-living crisis that Australians are currently living through. Net zero strengthens China's economy and energy sector while weakening ours. If one wanted to subvert a nation's energy infrastructure, this would be an effective way to do it. We need to expose the covert and overt CCP political warfare operations. We need to investigate, disrupt and prosecute these political warfare activities. We need to impress upon the useful idiots of the diversity and inclusion brigade and those of the climate-action-now narrative that they are unwittingly doing the work of the CCP for them. The tactic of political warfare is still not understood in this country. Their goal is to win without fighting. Australia, and the rest of the free world, has to decide if it's willing to lose without fighting. Australian Public Service 77 19:39 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Beating up on the Public Service is a popular pastime in this place. I know I have been guilty of it from time to time; I will confess my sins there. It's worth remembering that the majority of public servants are just everyday Australians doing their best to serve, but we have a problem with our Public Service. It's a problem that has been created by governments and ministers not wanting honest advice, wanting just to ram their policies through, no questions asked. Over the last 20 years, the expertise of the Public Service has been whittled away as jobs were outsourced to private consultants. Meanwhile, the senior executive service—that's the top public servants, like robodebt's Kathryn Campbell—got big pay packets. Instead of offering free and frank advice to government, their main job was serving the government of the day and not the Australian people. As a very respected senior public servant said to me: 'In the old days we were all about policy, consulting with experts and community, and we would produce a green paper, then a white paper. Now the SES bosses have one job: to say, "Yes, Minister."' That's what we saw with robodebt. As Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes put it in the report: It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings. I watched Ms Campbell giving evidence at the royal commission, and, like many Australians, I was absolutely disgusted by her response. What's even worse is the way she was just so smug about it—not her problem and not her responsibility. I was even more horrified when I found out she was being paid nearly a million bucks a year to advise on AUKUS. By the way, those families impacted by robodebt might like to know that we believe Ms Campbell is still getting her pension. That's correct: she's getting 80 per cent of her last salary, which is $720,000 in the hand. That's what she's getting. What Australians may not know is that Campbell came from the Army. She's another major general—just another one—who used her connections to get into leadership roles in the Public Service. This happens a lot. And, like a lot of the top brass, she has medals, including the Conspicuous Service Cross in 2010, a medal that is awarded for 'outstanding devotion to duty or outstanding achievement in the application of exceptional skills, judgement or dedication'. Kathryn Campbell also has an Order of Australia. Renee Leon, who took over from Kathryn Campbell, told the inquiry staff had been very fearful of Campbell and the reward and punishment culture—work it out—that she promoted as well as her practices of aggression and public shaming. Leon also told the inquiry that Campbell 'took credit' for the robodebt scheme and was 'rewarded' for being more responsive to the coalition government's policy agenda than other department secretaries. Leon and many others believed that Campbell's elevation to the role of Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was 'a very big reward for someone who had no background in diplomacy'. Do you know where I reckon Ms Campbell learnt her leadership style? Defence. That's exactly where she learnt it. Ms Campbell has resigned from the Public Service and her $900,000 a year job. I'm guessing this was a relief to many. But guess what that means? It means that she dodged any chance of being held to account under the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct—the same code that was used to silence former Centrelink staff workers trying to raise the alarm about robodebt. Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes—and can I put on record what a great job you did, Commissioner; if anyone should have accolades and medals, it should be you—wrote that while the law makes clear that the Public Service Commissioner can inquire into a former APS employee's conduct, it doesn't explicitly say whether the commissioner can look into the conduct of a former agency head like Campbell. Where have I heard that before? That's right! That rings a bell! The Brereton report—the Brereton report that ruled out looking at the conduct of senior commanders in Afghanistan. Will Kathryn Campbell be asked to hand her medals back? Will she be stripped of her Order of Australia? One of Catherine Holmes's 57 recommendations calls on the government to alter the Public Service Act to allow for disciplinary declarations to be made against former APS employees and former agency heads, a measure that already exists in Queensland. This culture of letting leaders off the hook while we interrogate the workers and throw diggers under the bus has to stop. The people who are the most accountable are apparently the least accountable, and that's that. Oil and Gas Exploration: Protests 78 19:44 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia An incident happened this morning in Perth that should shock every Australian and should certainly shock every member of this place. At 6.45 am, three protesters invaded the private residence of the CEO of a major Western Australian company, Ms Meg O'Neill, supposedly in protest over the activities of that company. I'd like everyone listening to think about that—invading someone's private home at 6.45 am. I would like every Australian to put themselves in the position of Ms O'Neill, having that activity, that supposed political protest, occurring on her private residence at 6.45 am. That is not political protest in anyone's book; that is about instilling fear. It is about intimidation. It is about terror. We should call these radical activists out for what they are. I certainly hope the full force of the law will be used against them. This is the danger of allowing radical activists to inform government policy; it encourages behaviour like this. There is another part of the Australian system that was also involved. It was extremely distressing and angering to know there was an ABC film crew, apparently from the Four Corners program, at 6.45 am, filming this intrusion onto private property. Questions need to be asked of the ABC about their role in this protest and the presence of a film crew on a private residence at 6.45 am, supposedly filming protest behaviour. A hundred red flags should have gone up before that film crew went to a private residence to film protest behaviour. The fact they got anywhere near there is an absolute disgrace, and the ABC will have questions to answer at the next round of estimates. I acknowledge the words of state Labor minister Johnston and federal Labor minister Madeleine King in condemning the behaviour of the protestors and questioning the role of the ABC in this activity. As I say, this is not something that anyone in this place or any Australian could possibly support. Energy 78 19:47 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Labor says families will be better off under them, but families don't see it that way when they open their electricity bills. Labor's dream of decarbonising the electricity system without nuclear energy is ruining the economy and the economy's capacity to pay for goods and services Australians need. Labor's plan is to increase the penetration of renewables and solve the intermittency problem renewables create with a green hydrogen plan. What could possibly go wrong? Firstly, the government has underestimated the cost of meeting the demand for flow of electricity from intermittent generation sources like sunlight and wind—or they are making it up as they go along. These costs are in categories known as 'balancing costs', 'grid costs' and 'profile costs'. When politicians don't recognise these costs, they spread the false idea that solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy. When the costs of intermittency are recognised, we find natural gas is by far the cheapest form of electricity, followed by coal and nuclear. If government were to consider the full cost of renewables, they would find solar is 14 times more costly than nuclear energy and wind is 4.7 times more costly than nuclear. These figures are sourced from Robert Idel's study titled Levelized full system costs of electricity, published in Energy, volume 259, November 2022. The second problem with the government's plan is the way it wants to overcome the mismatch between the peak supply of renewable energy during the day and the peak demand for electricity at night. The first part of this plan is to build enough wind turbines and solar panels to create excess electricity which can be saved in some form of grid-scale storage. Community objections to wind farms and lack of suitable sites have led to proposals for offshore wind farms, which are five to 10 times more expensive, last only 15 years and damage the environment at every stage from construction to operation and decommissioning. The solar farms compete with productive agricultural land because they need to be on a flat land facing the right way. The panels cannot be economically recycled and so end up in landfill and damage the environment as toxic metals leach into the soil and then the water supply. That's not to mention what happens to the wind turbines when they're finished. Where do they end up? In landfill. Anyway, let's skip over the problems with generating enough excess renewable energy and pretend there are no problems so we can move onto the next step of the plan, which is to create grid-scale storage. The candidates for grid-scale storage include pumped hydroelectricity, batteries and green hydrogen. Australia has limited sites suitable for pumped hydroelectricity. If the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project is ever completed it could be used to restart the electricity grid after black systems, but it is not the answer for grid-scale storage. Batteries are too expensive to act on a grid scale and there are problems with mineral and metal shortages and recycling. Green hydrogen is the government's preferred grid-scale solution to providing electricity when the wind and sunlight do not show up for work. The known technologies for producing green hydrogen need a constant electricity supply, but a constant electricity supply won't be available under the government's plan because they want to use sunlight and wind to create the electricity. The green hydrogen industry is reliant on government handouts, including subsidies, and it had a reality check when the first commercial-scale green hydrogen project in Western Australia was scrapped this year. There has not been one wind farm, solar farm or large-scale battery built in Australia without subsidies from taxpayers and there is not one that will continue to operate without subsidies. Just think about that when you are struggling to pay your electricity bill and trying to cope with the cost of living. Labor needs to put people first, not ideology, and it needs to face facts before it ruins this beautiful country. The fact is that their pie-in-the-sky schemes aren't going to work. They are costing taxpayers billions of dollars. They are giving multinationals money that belongs in the pockets of the Australian people. Parliamentary Privileges Act 79 19:52 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to provide some comments in relation to a recent case in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and on how it bears to the interpretation of parliamentary privilege and its application in this country. This is a matter which has caused me a degree of concern somewhat since the introduction in this place by Senator Lambie—and I deeply respect her for doing that—of the Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. Senator Lambie prepared and submitted that bill in response to an interim recommendation from the royal commission into the suicide of Defence Force members and also veterans. One of the recommendations the royal commission made was that there needed to be some sort of exemption in the Parliamentary Privileges Act in order to enable, for example, committee reports of this Senate chamber to be entered into evidence for the purpose of considering and discharging the functions and remit of that royal commission. What has deeply troubled me in relation to this matter is that it appears that in courts, royal commissions and coronial inquests the view is being taken—an extraordinarily, in my view, limited, narrow interpretation of the Parliamentary Privileges Act—that, for example, the report which was prepared by a committee of this parliament in 2017 called The constant battle: suicide by veterans cannot even be tendered into evidence in a court or royal commission for the purposes of establishing as a matter of fact that a committee of this parliament has made certain recommendations. In my view, that is an incorrect application of section 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, and it causes me deep concern for this reason. A royal commission has been established for the purpose of assessing government responses to reports in relation to veteran and defence member suicide, and one of the particular terms of reference is to consider the action which governments—and it doesn't matter of which persuasion—have taken in response to those reports. So, in a situation where the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, senators in this place, prepared this report, The constant battle: suicide by veterans, in 2017, the royal commission has taken the view—and certainly courts and coronial inquests into the deaths of Defence Force members and veterans have taken the view, in many cases—following submissions made by legal representatives representing the Commonwealth, that they can't have any regard to the recommendations made by a committee of this Senate and, therefore, have not been able to take into evidence, or have not accepted into evidence, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's report from 2017, The constant battle: suicide by veterans. And I think that's wrong. I don't see how the royal commission can undertake its task without considering a report such as that committee's report. In my view—and, I think, in the view of the person who referred this to me—the case in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory of Commissioner for Fair Trading v Bowes Street Developments Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2023] ACTSC 168, the judgement by the Hon. Acting Justice Curtin, applies the law as I read the law and as I think it was intended to apply. I should say that, even though this is a matter being considered by the ACT Supreme Court, the ACT applies section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 in relation to matters such as this. In that case, the parliamentary material tended into evidence consisted of extracts of Hansard recording statements made by the ACT Legislative Assembly, budget papers tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly, a report of the Commonwealth Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories dated October 2018 entitled Commonwealth approvals for ACT light rail, and submissions made to that joint standing committee for the purposes of preparing that report. And, in this case, objection was taken on the basis of section 16(3) to the tendering into evidence of that material, and the judge found that the material could be tendered and should be accepted into evidence. I quote from paragraph 45 of the decision: The Parliamentary Material is tendered to prove a fact. It is then for me to determine whether the purpose of the reliance on that material involves any of the matters set out in s 16(3). Going back to the committee report entitled The constant battle: suicide by veterans, prepared by senators in this place, in my view the tendering of that report to the royal commission to establish as a matter of fact that there was a committee inquiry and to establish as a matter of fact that certain recommendations were made by that inquiry is totally analogous to the situation that was considered by the Supreme Court in this case. I quote again from the judgement, paragraph 46: In this case the Parliamentary Material is simply a fact or facts upon which the defendants say they relied in making the alleged representations and they will ask me to make one or more findings to the effect that it was objectively reasonable for one or more of them (putting all their other defences aside) to rely upon that material in making the representations alleged (if they were made). As such, no inference could be sought to be drawn from the Parliamentary Materials. I think this judgement is totally analogous with the proposed tendering in evidence to the royal commission of the committee report which has been prepared by senators in this place. That committee report should be received into evidence to establish that, as a matter of fact, there was a committee inquiry and recommendations were made by that committee. Then, when the royal commission considers that report, it will not be a question of drawing inferences from that parliamentary material; it will be a question of putting the onus on the legal representatives of the government to establish what the government did in response to those recommendations. That is not drawing an inference from that parliamentary material. The assessment being made by the royal commission is in relation to what the government—again, a government of any persuasion; it doesn't matter—did in response to the recommendations which were made, as a matter of fact, by a committee of this Senate. I suggest that the Attorney, the Attorney-General's Department and those who are representing veterans, including those who are representing the families of veterans, have regard to this ACT Supreme Court judgement, because I think it is absolutely relevant to the matters which have been raised by the royal commission. It is relevant to the Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill, the private member's bill which was brought into this place by Senator Lambie. In conclusion I'll say this. This is a matter which is of intense interest to me as a senator and as someone who considers myself a custodian, as we all are, of this institution. I again congratulate Senator Lambie for bringing the private member's bill into this place. I will continue to look into these matters and I will continue to work with Senator Lambie to try and address some of these issues in relation to parliamentary privilege where I think it is being misclaimed, inappropriately claimed, against the intention of this Senate. Medicinal Cannabis 80 20:02 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I recently went public on the fact that I have joined the more than 300,000 Australians who are legally accessing medicinal cannabis in this country. I may well be the first politician who has ever gone public with this matter. The reason I went public—there were a couple of articles a month or so ago—was that we have to do so much more to break down the stigma associated with the use of medicinal cannabis in this country. Just over a month ago we had the first meeting for this parliament of the Parliamentary Friends of Medicinal Cannabis. There are 29 members and senators in that friendship group, and I understand that Senator Urquhart, who is in the chamber, is one of the co-chairs of the group. It was made clear to us that, as parliamentarians who support medicinal cannabis and are interested in medicinal cannabis—and I understand even Senator Roberts is interested in this topic—we could help to break down stigmas associated with its use, help to encourage an adult conversation in this country around the use of medicinal cannabis and help to break down barriers to accessing medicinal cannabis. At the Parliamentary Friends of Medicinal Cannabis meeting, the minister who is responsible for the regulation of medicinal cannabis, the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, from the other place, spoke to us. She said four simple things. She said, firstly, that this government believes in the benefits of medicinal cannabis to users in Australia, as I believe the previous government did—and I congratulate them for bringing in the Special Access Scheme through the TGA in the first place. She also said that this government wants to see the medicinal cannabis industry grow. She then went on to say that they'd like to see more people accessing the scheme, but, lastly, she recognised that there are significant barriers to accessing this scheme. I want to talk a little bit about those barriers and my personal experience. It was covered off in the Guardian article as to why I access the scheme, so I won't go into too much medical detail tonight. But essentially I got shingles, which I know many Australians get, and it can be quite a debilitating virus. Unfortunately, I got it in my C3 nerve inside my eardrum and behind my eye after a surf trip to Indonesia, and even after the shingles went away I had chronic neuralgia for nearly two years, which can completely undermine your quality of life. What shingles does if you don't get on top of it is it essentially attacks your nervous system. In fact, if you continue to get shingles, especially in older age, it will kill you. I really struggled with it, and I tried just about everything that was recommended to me. I was on opioids to deal with the pain initially. Following that I even tried fluoro light treatment. My GP made me an old bike helmet that had fluoro lights with an attached hand-held battery, which I could use when I was working at my desk in parliament. I tried pretty much everything, but to cut a long story short it was recommended that I try medicinal cannabis. The human brain is remarkable, and one of the most common receptors in your brain, in your nervous and neural pathways is an endocannabinoid receptor, which essentially produces very similar effects in your brain as taking cannabis. No-one is quite sure why we have so many endocannabinoid receptors in our brain, but products that are available through the medicinal scheme like CBD for some people—and I want to recognise it's not everyone—work very effectively on your endocannabinoid system and can significantly improve your quality of life. I was quite surprised when I tried it. CBD oil has no psychoactive component at all, unlike THC, which everyone is familiar with in cannabis. But immediately CBD had very, very positive effects for me, including some unexpected positive side effects. It has worked well for me, and I want to talk about it. I also have had THC oil prescribed for pain and to help me sleep. That took a bit of work. The good thing about the scheme in Australia is that you get to work with a GP. If you have an open-minded GP who will refer you to the system in the first place then you work with a specialist GP. You have to jump through hoops and go through assessments, and if your medication isn't working for you the GP will work with you. It is an assisted therapy, and there is someone there to actually help you deal with it and get through it. I know many Australians are signing up to this every day. A lot of older Australians are accessing the scheme, as are a lot of veterans and people suffering a variety of illnesses. There is no doubt that cannabis products can have side effects for people. I have experienced some of those myself, so I do recommend accessing the scheme and working with a GP to get it right. I'm very fortunate because I am one of the not so many Australians who can afford it. But most Australians can't afford it in its existing form. It is very expensive for a small vial of CBD oil, which is made in an industrial process because the CBD is concentrated. You can get CBD products at a very low dosage at the moment as veterinary products that are for humans. There is talk about making those products readily available in pharmacies without prescription. But high-concentrate CBD oil is made by an industrial process, and you can't get it on the black market or what is commonly referred to as the green market. More than 300,000 Australians are now are legally accessing the scheme, and it is estimated that 800,000 Australians are currently accessing the green or black CBD or THC medicinal cannabis market. Of course, the CBD oil needs to be made in an industrial process and you can only really access it via the scheme, so it is out of reach for most Australians unless they have a GP who is open-minded and will refer them in the first place and they have the money to actually access the scheme. So it was recognised by the government and the associations and various advocates who attended the Friends of Medicinal Cannabis meeting that we need to have, for example, special compassionate access schemes for Australians who can't afford it. Of course, there are two cannabinoid products that GPs can refer directly and that are covered by the PBS—only two out of nearly 400 products on the market. For epilepsy, it is quite well-established that medicinal cannabis can have a very, very positive effect on patients suffering from epilepsy, including quite severe epilepsy. However, outside of that, there are no PBS subsidies for low-income Australians who can't afford to access the scheme. So we do have a long way to go. There are a number of other issues with the scheme. I think getting GPs to refer people to the specialist doctors is another matter. I had an open-minded GP, and I'm happy to say tonight—as I said in the Guardian—that I wouldn't be standing here talking to you tonight if it wasn't for my GP. I wasn't going to continue after 2019. I genuinely didn't feel I had the energy and the ability to continue in this job. But a lot of GPs aren't aware of this scheme. They still have issues around it, and it needs a lot more education, even at the GP level, to get referrals to a specialist doctor. I have no problems with GPs; I think they're all fantastic and hard-working. But we need to work harder on getting them familiar with the scheme. I think it is quite simple: it's because they're too busy. Some of them have waiting lists that are two months. You're lucky to even get an appointment with a GP in Tasmania at the moment. It is not easy for them to go and do the course and get familiar with it so that they can refer you themselves. It isn't easy to do that. I have heard that feedback from GPs. Also, as I said earlier, this doesn't work for everyone. There are many success stories I have heard, and there other stories were people have taken it and it hasn't worked for them. But that is no different to any other product on the market. It doesn't matter what pharmacology product you are being offered, there will be different impacts on different people. So it's not for everyone, but my testimony and my personal story here tonight is that it's worked well for me, and I intend to speak at the Australian Medicinal Cannabis Symposium in Brisbane next weekend on a panel. I think Senator Urquhart will also be on that panel, to try to encourage more Australians to access the scheme. COVID-19: Response, Climate Change 82 20:12 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant of the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, tonight I'm going to speak about the need for a royal commission into the federal government's response to COVID-19. Here are the latest reasons why, all coming to light since the last Senate sitting. Firstly, there is the Pfizer 'fakecine' and malignant lymphomas. An article published in the journal Frontiers in Oncology in May asked if the emergence of malignant lymphoma, commonly called turbo cancer, was an adverse event caused by the COVID vaccine—the COVID injection. Researchers injected 14 mice with saline and 14 with the Pfizer COVID product. All the mice given the saline remained healthy. The mice injected with Pfizer appeared healthy. However, one died suddenly two days after the booster dose was administered. An autopsy revealed: 'B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma following the intravenous high-dose MRNA vaccination, at age 14 weeks.' The autopsy further found: … diffuse malignant infiltration of multiple extranodal organs (heart, lung, liver, kidney, spleen) by lymphoid neoplasm. How many more of these studies showing fatal outcomes from the COVID products are needed before this government accepts our 30,000 excess deaths in the last 12 months are, in part, caused by these injections? Secondly, one in 35 recipients of a Moderna COVID booster experienced myocarditis. According to the TGA, myocarditis is a very rare adverse outcome of the COVID injections, occurring at the rate of one in 33,000. A gold-standard, peer-reviewed study by leading cardiologists at the Basel University Hospital in Switzerland found that the rate of myocarditis serious enough to place the patient under restricted activity was not one in 33,000 but one in 35. Forty-four of the 777 participants were found with cardiac troponin markers in their blood at levels that showed their hearts were damaged, and that damage could not have resulted from any other factor but the Pfizer injection. Those same patients demonstrated reduced antibodies against viral and bacterial infections, as against an unvaccinated cohort. The average age of the subjects was only 37 years. This is an age when a heart attack is far from their minds. It's an age when someone would get the injection and then go about their life, including exercising, and in so doing risk serious heart complications or even being another 'died suddenly' statistic. 'Safe' and 'effective' were two lies. Third, hospital deaths from respiratory failure increased after the COVID products were at 90 per cent. This is data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on the ECMO protocol. ECMO was a controversial and experimental intensive care treatment for COVID. Protocols dictated that GPs were not allowed to treat patients in the community with antibiotics—not allowed! Instead, they were told to go home without treatment until they could not breathe. Instead of receiving antibiotics in the community, as they should have, they got sicker and sicker and developed pneumonia. Then they were put on ECMO, and then some of them died. The rate of ECMO protocol use rose from 12,000 in 2020 and 2021 to 18,000 in 2022, despite a 90 per cent COVID injection rate. Many in those cases resulted in death. We can add to this the growing list to data showing that COVID products did more harm than good. Peer reviewed papers show that. The fourth item is plasmidgate: the vaccines may be contaminated. Leading virologists have tested the contents of the Pfizer vaccines and found they did not meet the standards set out by the FDA for contaminants. COVID vaccines contain mRNA strands, which are grown in a vat using a derivative of E.coli as the base solution. Contaminants from that process are removed and the remaining DNA strands are then encased in a protein, called a lipid nanoparticle, to protect the strand. It is impossible to completely remove contaminants, so the FDA and Australia have set a maximum standard for safety of 10 nanograms per dose. Samples tested had contamination of 330 nanograms per dose, 33 times above safe levels. Even worse, some of that contaminant was encased in lipid nanoparticles, protecting the E. coli derived genetic material and introducing that into subjects—into people. We don't know the side effects resulting from this genetic material being taken up by the body, and that is malfeasance. It is deliberate ignorance to maintain the safe and effective lie. Fifth, Scottish data shows a clear correlation between COVID injections and neonatal deaths. Data from Scotland shows a clear correlation between the rate of COVID injection in mothers and the rate of neonatal deaths nine months later. Deaths rose in line with vaccination rates and then fell once the booster rate fell. One correlation can be significant, but a correlation between both the increase in injections and then the decrease in injections is telling. Sixth, excess deaths in Australia are 27 per cent above expected levels. That's more than a quarter. Perhaps we do know the side effects of this malfeasance by the TGA and the Department of Health. The Australian Bureau of Statistics provisional mortality figures to April 2023 show mortality is running at 12.3 per cent above the expected level. But, wait, there's more. When I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics about this data at Senate estimates, the ABS were very clear in saying this data only shows 85 per cent of the deaths. It's provisional. It is entirely correct to add that to the provisional mortality figure, meaning excess mortality in Australia in April this year was 27 per cent above where it has been since the COVID injections—about where it has been since the COVID injections started. Around 30,000 more Australians have died in the last 12 months than were expected to die, yet this body count is being ignored by our health authorities, by our parliament and by our media. Seventh, Professor Angus Dalgleish has called for the COVID injections to be suspended. Highly respected veteran consulting oncologist Professor Angus Dalgleish has called for the immediate suspension of COVID vaccines because of the high rate of adverse events. The professor went on to say: I have no doubt that the vaccines are associated with the current increase in cancers that are being witnessed around the world. … they suppress the innate and T-cell system, making your body much weaker at defending itself from new viruses … This also has the additional effect of disturbing the T-cell surveillance of dominant cancers. … the message RNA of the spike of the vaccine binds to genes that normally control cancer … It is high time that patients and the medical profession rose against the dreadful imposition of what was essentially mandatory vaccine with no informed consent. They're the professor's words. One Nation could not agree more. We agree entirely. It's time for a royal commission. I call on the Prime Minister to call the COVID royal commission today. I want to talk briefly about climate science, because we've seen COVID science has been smashed. Earlier today, I promised to talk tonight on why the climate change cult of doom and their rebranding to 'climate boiling' is scientific nonsense. Let me do that now using my favourite thing, empirical scientific data, by referencing a peer reviewed paper titled 'World atmospheric CO2, its 14C specific activity, non-fossil component, anthropogenic fossil component, and emissions (1750-2018)', published in Health Physics journal in February 2022. It's a long title, but it saves the phone calls from fact-checkers. This paper used caesium-14, or 14C, to analyse carbon dioxide in the atmosphere across the period from 1750 to 2018: After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with "Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel." … The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. … These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming. The fundamental basis of the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been found by analysis of atmospheric gases to be completely wrong. Nature, as I've said many times, controls carbon dioxide levels. Senate adjourned at 20:22