DOCUMENTS

2023-08-02 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 2 August 2023

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee, Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee, Human Rights Joint Committee, National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee 1 Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 09:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: That the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2] be considered today at the time for private senators' bills, and may proceed with second reading speeches only before the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee reports. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2] 1

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2]

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak to this very important bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2], put forward in my name on behalf of the Australian Greens. Our climate, as we know, is getting warmer. Our environment is facing collapse, our planet is choking and, as the United Nations described only last week, we have moved from the era of global warming to the era of global boiling. This, of course, is contributed to and made by the burning of fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal—the toxic gases that are released into our atmosphere, choking our planet and pushing our precious environment and humanity to the brink. Just recently in the Northern Hemisphere we've seen temperatures across Europe, the US and China regularly in the 40s, even hitting 50 degrees. There are fires as we stand here today across Italy, Greece and Spain, while Canada has faced its worst wildfire season in history. While we might call these 'wildfires' or 'bushfires', let me be very clear: they are climate fires. Right now, we are breaking temperature records day after day. On 4 July, it was the hottest day on record across the globe. That record was broken just one day later, with the Northern Hemisphere's long, hot summer in full swing. Scientists expect it to be broken again. Of course, scientists and experts are warning that back here in Australia we will be facing a long, hot, dry summer. We will see bushfires and climate fires. We will see drought return, and we will see heatwaves that put not just our environment in danger but our communities—our sick, our elderly and our young—in danger. We know that El Nino events are already underway and, here in Australia, our own Bureau of Meteorology says El Nino is very likely coming here soon too. Climate change, or global boiling, increases the frequency and severity of extreme heat days. It increases floods. It is, indeed, the biggest threat to humanity, our biggest national security threat and the biggest issue facing us as a society. At the election last year, more Australians than ever before voted for climate change candidates. Australians voted for climate change action, and yet, as I stand here today, as we debate this bill, we still have laws in this country that allow for the expansion of the exact thing that is making the climate crisis worse. That, of course, is new coal and new gas mining. We have environment laws in this country that can give the tick of approval to any project, regardless of its impact on the climate. We hear, day after day, month after month, year after year, successive governments and successive environment ministers say: 'I've done my job. It all stacks up—tick. That new coalmine, that new gas field and that new big development that will take out a chunk of biodiversity can be approved, regardless of whether it damages the climate or makes the crisis worse.' If we are serious—and we must be, we need to be and we have no choice but to be—about dealing with the onslaught of this global boiling era, we have to stop approving projects that make climate change worse. That means we need environment laws in this country that are strong enough to stop them. That is what this bill before us today does. It would ensure that, when any project is being assessed for approval by the nation's environment minister and being considered for its environmental impact, the minister, the department and the proponent would have to look at what damage this project is actually going to create. Is it going to make climate change worse? The reason this bill is important and the reason this change is important is that we have a responsibility not just to reduce the amount of pollution that currently exists in the system but to not keep piling it on. We must give our ministers and the government the powers and the tools they need. The current environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, has only been in the job for just over 12 months but has already approved coalmines. Already, she's given the green light to projects that are going to drive the climate crisis, put more pollution into the atmosphere and put more fuel on the fire. And when challenged about these decisions, the environment minister has said she has just stuck by the law; she's followed the law. The law does not require the minister to consider the impact and damage that fossil fuel projects will have on the climate before giving them the stamp of approval. Well, that's because the laws are broken. That's because the laws are not fit for purpose. That's because, in 2023, we have laws that are so out of date they allow the minister to legally approve a new coalmine, a new gas field or a new project that is going to drive and pour fuel on the climate fires. We've got to fix that, and that's what this piece of legislation, this Greens senator's bill, does today. We're going to hear from both sides of the chamber today. We'll hear from the government that they can't possibly accept these changes today. And we'll hear from the opposition that they don't want this type of change because they don't want to put any more barriers in front of the coal and gas industry. But it's not good enough to have laws that we know are broken and not fix them, especially while they are being used to supercharge the climate crisis. It doesn't make any sense in 2023, in the era of global boiling. We're facing more extreme weather, more drought, more fire, more floods and more heatwaves. It doesn't make any sense to have laws that are so deficient that they allow the environment minister to give the green light to a new coalmine. Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has approved three new fossil fuel projects in the last two months: the Isaac River coalmine, the Star Coal project and the Ensham coalmine. All of these are adding hundreds of millions of tonnes of pollution to the climate, pouring fuel on the fire of what is already a catastrophe. Broken laws are not a free pass to give the green light to new coal and gas. And it's not good enough for anyone in this government to sit back and say, 'Oh, well, it's out of our hands.' This is the Parliament of Australia. This is the Senate chamber. We are here today to debate a bill that fixes this loophole; the government has the opportunity to do it. Later on in the year, the environment minister is going to bring forward a suite of amendments to the country's environment laws: tweaks here, tweaks there, some changes in this area, some deletions over there. A climate trigger—that is, the ability for the minister to stop climate catastrophe getting worse—must be included in that suite of amendments. In fact, we don't even have to wait for the minister to do her homework. We could get it done today because that is what this private senator's bill does. No-one in this place can stand tall and say they are doing everything they can in the face of this era of global boiling, extreme weather, record-level heatwaves and high levels of anxiety of our young people about the state of the planet and what type of climate is going to be left for them if we are not going to do the hard work to stop making the situation worse. Why is it that, on the one hand, we have a government that say they are taking heed of climate concerns and they want to act and, on the other hand, the government have their own environment minister approving coalmines and expansions to the fossil fuel industry? Could it be that the Labor Party, just like the Liberal and National parties, continue to take donations from the fossil fuel industry? Could it be that the fossil fuel industry in this country still have their foot on the necks of the major parties? Enough wringing of hands around the climate crisis—we need a bit more doing, a bit more real action, a bit more staring down the fossil fuel industry, ripping out the rug that they comfortably sit on, saying no to new coal, new gas and new fossil fuels and putting in place laws that give the minister the tools to protect not just the environment for now but the environment for future generations. It makes no sense that we have laws in this country that give the environment minister the right to approve new coalmines. That's what exists now. That's what this government is using, and it needs to stop. We need a climate trigger in our environment laws. 09:17 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I have to say that I was surprised when I read this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2], from the Greens. Is this bill from the same Greens that blocked the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009, the same Greens that voted with the 'no-alition' and instigated a decade of climate policy failure? Honestly, what a joke. I have been around this place for only a year, but I've seen enough to know that this bill is nothing more than the latest instalment of the not-so-Greens making it look like they care about environmental issues. We all know they prefer chaos over compromise, and it's not just on climate policy. We have seen the same shameful political strategy on the Housing Australia Future Fund. It is so disheartening to see that, time and time again, the Greens are willing to politicise issues that have serious consequences for people's lives. And for what? More social media grabs on TikTok? If that's what it is, I can tell you right now that this bill is not a slay—far from it. In fact, the only thing more embarrassing for the Greens than voting with the 'no-alition' on climate policy is voting with the 'no-alition' and then introducing a bill on a climate trigger. Seriously? Given their track record, the Albanese government won't be lectured on climate policy by the Greens. However, after a decade of inaction on climate under the previous Liberal-National government, we understand why there is significant community interest in reducing carbon pollution. And the government is doing just that. Nearly everywhere I go in my home state of Western Australia, from schools and universities to shopping centres and town halls, people of all ages are quite rightly expressing their concerns about climate change, and I'm always proud to explain the Albanese government's ambition to significantly reduce our emissions. One of our first acts under the new Labor government was to legislate a climate target. In doing so, we enshrined in law a reduction in emissions of 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050, something those opposite clearly could never do. That's what happened when the Australian people voted for change. They voted in a government last year that changed the country and our climate policies for the better. Australia has the potential to be a renewable energy superpower, but we need to end the climate wars that have been holding us back. Action on climate change is not a threat, it's an opportunity. The Albanese government recognises that opportunity and recognises that we must take strong action on climate change, and so do the millions of Australians who've installed solar panels on their roofs, who drive electric vehicles, who use public transport or who ride their bikes to work. Australia's climate target covers all domestic emissions, including any additional emissions from new projects or activities. The government is on the right track to ensure we hit 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050. In fact, the Albanese government has implemented numerous policies and put mechanisms in place to ensure we achieve our climate target, including the safeguard mechanism, which will apply to all large facilities that have more than 100,000 tonnes of emissions each year. There are clear risks that rushing through a climate trigger, as the Greens would have us do, would be counterproductive. For starters, it would punish new projects that may be more emissions efficient than existing projects that produce high emissions, increasing uncertainty for businesses and making it more difficult to reach our targets. If we know anything, it's that the Greens love to make it more difficult. Although the Greens will never be satisfied, I want to assure the Australian people that the Albanese government has committed to reforming Australia's environmental laws, because it's clear that they're not effectively protecting our environment and that they're not giving certainty to business either. You only have to look at the Australia state of the environment2021 report to get an idea of the situation the former government has left us in. Our environment is in a poor state and getting worse. I'm glad that the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, has taken bold action in response, particularly through the Nature Positive Plan and the introduction of new environmental laws, in order to better protect, restore and manage our unique environment. As the minister said: … the equation facing Australia is simple. If our laws don't change, our trajectory of environmental decline will not change either. Rather than rush through a bill, the minister will release the new environmental laws for public consultation. These new laws will be better for the environment and better for business. They are guided by three principles: delivering better environmental protections that are nature positive; speeding up decisions, making it easier for companies to do the right thing; and restoring integrity and trust to our environmental protection system. Under the Liberals and Nationals, our environment was deliberately and wilfully trashed. Their approach had absolutely no regard for Australia's unique environment and biodiversity. Senator McKenzie 207825 That is not true. Senator PAYMAN 300707 The former minister, now the deputy opposition leader, received the Samuel review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act before Christmas, and what did she do? She sat on it for three months before releasing it. We know why. It's a catalogue of horrors, showing just how much damage a decade of Liberal Party and National Party neglect did to our environment. The report says that the Australian environment is in very bad shape and getting worse. How do you explain that? Let's look at the track record of those opposite in the last decade. They axed climate laws and failed to legislate a target for net zero emissions by 2050. They failed to fix Australia's broken environmental laws, despite having a widely supported blueprint to do so. They sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They promised $40 million for Indigenous water but never delivered a single drop. They set recycling targets, but with no actual plan for how to deliver them. They cut highly protected areas of marine parks in half. They cut funding to the environment department by 40 per cent. It's astonishing—a decade of environmental neglect, and they showed no signs of turning around. It's truly and utterly disgraceful. Thankfully, we now have a Labor government that won't hide from the truth or delay work that needs to be done to improve Australia's environment. We know just how important our natural environment is, and we will do what it takes to protect it. I'm also pleased that we're getting on with the job of achieving our goal of a nature-positive Australia, leaving nature and our environment better off for our kids and grandkids. This means that we are protecting more of what's precious, repairing more of what's damaged and managing nature better for the future—not only because we want to do so but because we have to. What a contrast that must be to the decade of nature neglect we saw from those opposite. And I'm so proud that the government has made a terrific start in turning this all around. It stands in stark contrast to the decade of absolute contempt for the environment from those opposite. Now, shall we talk about some of the incredible work the Albanese government is doing? It includes stronger laws to better protect nature and give faster, clearer development decisions. It's a win-win for nature and for business, and it's been welcomed by nature groups and business groups alike. We're setting up an environmental protection agency to ensure there is a tough cop on the beat to enforce stronger laws, and we're working towards zero new extinctions, backed up by a $225 million investment to protect koalas and other threatened species. We're also tripling the size of Macquarie Island Marine Park, which is home to penguins, seals and whales. We're also repairing more of what's damaged by establishing a nature repair market to reward farmers and other landholders for restoring nature. We're repairing our urban rivers and waterways, and we're investing in blue carbon projects to restore mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses along our coast, including in Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia. We're eradicating cats on Christmas Island and funding actions against gamba grass in the Northern Territory. And, finally, we're managing nature better for the future by cracking down on plastic pollution, by signing up to an ambitious global target, by giving plastic recycling a $60 million boost, by doubling the number of Indigenous rangers to help look after country and by doubling funding for national parks in the budget—after a decade of neglect—to make sure precious places like Kakadu are safe and accessible for future generations. We're also delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, ending a decade of sabotage by the Liberals and Nationals. That's just a taste of the Albanese Labor government's plan for a nature-positive Australia. It's a very welcome relief, I must say, after the decade of nature neglect by the 'no-alition'. 09:28 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I've got to tell you I was so delighted to hear what the Labor Party is doing to fix the environment in this country, after what we've just had described—quite erroneously, I think—by the last speaker. It's like people don't actually go and do their research before they get up and say what they say. If there was ever a debate in this place that was more tone-deaf or more demonstrative of being out of touch, then I'd love to know about it. Here we are talking about a climate crisis—I concede that there are issues we should always be taking seriously in our environment, but not one of the last two speakers mentioned something affecting every Australian, and that is the cost of living. Not one of them. They are totally out of touch with this issue that actually affects every single Australian. It does say something about this government, who rely on the support of the Australian Greens to get its legislation through this place. You have this faux fallout between Labor and the Greens, as evidenced by Senator Payman's well-constructed yet perhaps a little flimsy contribution to this debate. Here we are talking about how the Greens don't really have any environmental policies and it's all about TikTok grabs and things like that. But I have to remind Senator Payman that they were born out of this stuff, and they are destructive for the economy. Let me remind you: these are the people you rely on for your place in this parliament, to be the government. They are all about the environment, not about the economy, and this bill is all about exactly that. It is all about making it harder to earn a buck, making it harder to pay the bills, making it harder to generate electricity, making it harder to cut down trees for beautiful pieces of furniture like the ones that adorn this chamber. I always make reference to that, and I will come back to the Labor Party's record on forestry, particularly in Western Australia. Senator Payman 300707 It's so much better than yours! Senator DUNIAM 263418 Senator Payman says by interjection their record is much better than ours. Let's see what happens after the Australian Labor Party's national conference, where the Labor Environment Action Network take over the joint and force a shutdown of that industry. But back to the bill at hand, this climate trigger bill, where it's all about the environment at the expense of the economy, at the expense of Australian households, at the expense of families sleeping well at night knowing, as Senator McKenzie said, they will have a job tomorrow, that they can continue to pay their bills. While we are on bills, there was one promise that was made, and I refer to Senator Payman's contributions in the last debate where she talked about the Nature Positive Plan. I haven't seen anything of substance come out of government on the Nature Positive Plan because—you know what?—it's falling apart. They can't work with anyone in the sector—business, environment, primary producers. No-one is supportive of what this government is doing to our environmental laws in this country. That's the promise Senator Payman wanted to talk about but not the promise on power prices, which was made 97 times before the last election, but has been referenced only once by any minister in this government since the election. Senator Ayres kindly repeated that figure, $275. He's the only Labor member of parliament to have referenced that promise since the election—one they've abandoned, one they don't care about, again demonstrating how out of touch this government is with the people of Australia. I look forward to hearing whether whoever the Labor speakers are on this debate will touch on this issue, which affects every single Australian household and their ability to pay their bills and have a secure job. Senator Hughes 273828 There's that fairy dust, Jonno! Senator DUNIAM 263418 I agree with the comment made by Senator Hughes; it is akin to fairy dust. But the point is this bill is damaging. It is destructive, and it will not have the environmental outcome that the Greens would lead us to believe. I listened carefully to what Senator the Hanson-Young had to say because Senator the Hanson-Young has strong views on this and has put a lot of work in on it. I'm looking forward to the committee inquiry into this bill and indeed the committee stage on this bill too. I have a lot of questions for the mover of this bill, and I'm looking forward to getting answers to them. There's this fundamental problem I have with carbon legislation in this country, and that is what it does for us in an international setting. When we make it more expensive to do business here by applying punitive regimes to businesses that are emissions intensive, rather than working with them to reduce their emissions, it drives up the cost of doing business here. These so-called nasty businesses that get those dirty profits, of course, while generating all this economic activity and creating thousands—tens of thousands—of jobs for Australians, make decisions around what is economically and financially sensible for them. Many of these organisations—again, nasty though they are—are international, so owned by overseas companies, but they're providing economic activity for Australian households, subcontractors, other parts of the community, many of them in regional Australia. They will make decisions about business in this country based on how expensive and easy it is to do business here. This is why we opposed Labor's safeguard mechanism. You get glib comments from government senators about being the 'no-alition'. I'll tell you what: we proudly oppose that legislation because I guarantee you it will do what we said it would over time, and that is make this country uncompetitive when it comes to doing business here. It will make it harder for those businesses that provide so much economic input into this country to continue to operate. The net result will be, as their profits decline, as the return on investment evaporates, that those businesses will decrease their footprint here, and perhaps, sadly, eventually, shut up shop. Of course, they won't stop doing business here. They won't completely disappear from the planet because global demand for the products that these businesses create, like aluminium, steel, cement, all of these inputs into our growing economy and growing population centres—and let's not forget about Labor's plan to borrow a stack of cash at the taxpayers expense to build 30,000 homes, and many of the inputs are going to come from these emissions intensive industries—will mean those business will still be catering to that demand, but they just won't be doing it here. They'll be doing it in countries where they do not care about the environment—where there are no safeguards, where there are no protections for the environment or plans to reduce emissions—because it's cheaper to do it there and the laws are weak. And so here we are offshoring jobs, Australian jobs, at a time when we're in a cost-of-living crisis, again something the Australian Labor Party and their bedfellows the Greens refuse to acknowledge, but we're also offshoring this environmental issue. It's not like for like either. It's making it much, much worse. Again, our environmental standards, while there's always room for improvement, are better than most of the rest of the world. Our decision-making process, our regulatory frameworks around businesses, primary industries, extractive industries is better than most of the rest of the world. And we should be proud of that. We shouldn't be buying into the spin that we are somehow pillaging our nation and leaving behind us a trail of destruction. That is not fact, not in any of our extractive or primary industries. The reality is, with legislation like this, with legislation like the Australian Labor Party's safeguard mechanism, there will be more environmental destruction globally, more emissions globally, than there would be if we allowed these businesses to continue to operate here and worked with them and incentivised an arrangement whereby they were able to minimise their emissions and environmental impact. That's what the coalition was doing. You only have to look at the numbers between 2013 and 2021, emissions were reduced by just over 560 million tonnes, down to 488 million tonnes by the time we left government. And we did all of that without legislating a target, this magic wand that Labor have waved to reduce emissions, or taxing the life out of businesses and making it an uncompetitive environment. There will be terrible outcomes from their legislation, and that is why we opposed it. It is why we oppose this bill, because this bill will take what is a bad situation and make it a thousand times worse—not just for us here today and for our future generations, but for the planet. As I said before, it will be generating worse environmental outcomes across the globe, in countries where there are huge vulnerable populations, endangered species. We are going to be sending businesses that do have an impact on the environment to those places because no-one wants to see it happen here. We'll just send it to those developing countries that need the economic activity. This is the madness of the Labor narrative at the moment. They've been in government for 15 months and they reckon by being able to— Senator Payman 300707 Doing so much more than you! Senator DUNIAM 263418 I'll take that interjection from Senator Payman, who's been with us a year now. Senator Payman reflects on our time in government. I want to talk about the Great Barrier Reef, which is susceptible to the impacts of climate change which, as the point's been made by the Australian Greens, is generated by carbon emissions. Yesterday we had this galling claim from the minister for the environment and the Prime Minister that after 15 months in government they saved the reef. But I want us to look at the history. In 2012, under the Labor government—and I can't remember which Prime Minister was in power at that point—the UNESCO World Heritage Committee had the reef going onto the 'in danger' list. It was a coalition government that invested $2 billion to get us on the right path. If we want to talk about a decade—however you characterise it—let's get some proof into this and look at some evidence of our decade. It was just last year, in August 2022, that the Australian Institute of Marine Science demonstrated for their 36 years of record keeping the reef had record coral cover. That was last year. It was at its lowest under Labor in 2012. Guess what? They say: 'Forget the last decade.' They characterise it as 'waste' and 'neglect' and whatever other adjectives they've picked up from their night-time viewing of Utopia to apply to the coalition's last nine years. They say: 'Let's forget the science. Let's forget the empirical data.' They talk about legislating a target and say they've suddenly fixed the reef. They haven't. This is the bunkum in Labor's narrative. Their policies are falling apart. They will probably be forced over time to adopt a climate trigger. They'll probably be forced to by the Australian Greens in negotiations over their much delayed and seriously shaky environmental reforms, their Nature Positive Plan, which has no basis whatsoever. Let's not forget that in the year 2005 the shadow environment and heritage minister, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, currently the Prime Minister, proposed exactly the same thing we're debating here today. So this is coming from a government that says one thing at a point in time, normally before an election, and then goes and does something very different after the election. You had the former shadow environment minister, now Prime Minister, saying that there was a 'glaring gap in matters of national environmental significance' on climate change and that the bill he introduced contemplating a climate trigger would 'enable major new projects to be assessed for their climate change impact as part of any environmental assessment process' and would ensure that new developments reflected best practice. So the now Labor Prime Minister had a very similar bill to the one that Senator Hanson-Young has put before us. He now has the keys to the Lodge. He sits at the head of the table in cabinet. What's changed? I'm not sure anything has changed. I say to the people of Australia: don't trust them, because I reckon there is a chance that Senator Hanson-Young will get her way and will convince this crew here in a moment of weakness to adopt a climate trigger and bring about the economic Armageddon that we inevitably see under Labor-Green governments in this country. You've got it from the now Prime Minister and then shadow environment minister. You didn't get it from any Labor speaker in this debate, but that's the truth. The damage and the destruction, economically and environmentally, that will come from this arrangement—by 'this arrangement' I mean the Labor-Greens coalition and their bills to lock down development in this country only to send emissions and jobs offshore—will destroy this country. I look forward to further Labor contributions that might reference the cost-of-living crisis they are making worse. 09:43 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak in support of the bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2], my wonderful colleague Senator Hanson-Young has brought to this chamber this morning. I want to echo some of the comments she made about the importance of this bill and add my voice to this debate. It has been set out that there are nine matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act. Emissions-intensive activities are not one of those. There isn't a climate trigger currently, so we are here having this debate. There's a clear gap in the legislation that allows for the continued expansion of the fossil fuel industry against very clear scientific evidence. The advice says no new coal and gas projects and no new fossil fuel projects can be expanded or opened if we have absolutely any chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees and, in particular, upholding our commitments to the Paris Agreement. This advice also says we need to reduce emissions by 75 per cent. Seventy-five is the magic number, yet here we are, having this debate with over 100 fossil fuel projects in the approval pipeline and with only a weak 43 per cent emissions reduction target. We thought we had a change of government a year ago, but this government still sees no issue. In fact, it seriously lacks ambition and has a blatant disregard for the science. There is no current legislative requirement for the climate impacts of these projects to actually be taken into consideration. That is the legislative gap. The government may want to ignore the very clear scientific evidence. They may want to ignore the traditional owners, who don't want this project on this country, but we, on this side of the chamber, in this block, the Australian Greens, will keep standing up and will keep saying the same thing: we will keep demanding people listen on behalf of the science and behalf of those traditional owners. We will absolutely make sure and keep pursuing justice, as this government should be doing in the first place. They came into this place talking about how they were going to change things, how they were different from the opposition. This bill that exactly that. This bill that Senator Hanson-Young has brought to this place today does exactly that. As other speakers have already noted, in 2005 the Prime Minister introduced a very similar bill to this. So the government knows there is a gap. The Prime Minister knows there is a gap to be filled. Now they actually have the power to do something, but what do we hear? 'Forty-three per cent is all we have to offer. The climate wars are over. We need gas for the economy. There's a domestic gas shortage.' That is a lie. We finally hear the government is committed to taking climate action and— Senator Hughes 273828 The reef's fixed, apparently! It's all done! Senator COX 296215 Thank you, Senator Hughes. I know you'll get your turn to make your interjections and your contribution. And the words that spring to mind are 'minimal' and 'insufficient'. Today's news is clear. The young activist Prime Minister—sometimes our past comes to haunt us, like this bill that he presented in 2005. We want to know and we are asking today: Where's the action? Where's the strong vision that this Prime Minister had in 2005 and brought to this place? What happened to the Labor Party who were once committed to taking stronger action on climate change? What happened to them? They've disappeared. The reality is that we're not doing enough. Not only are we not doing enough; this government is pouring petrol on the fire. The impacts of climate change are not fixed in the future, are not something that are going to happen to our kids and our grand kids; it's right here and now. There's not a week that goes by when there's not an article about oceans boiling, record temperatures, flowers blooming unseasonably early, ice melting, coral bleaches, floods, fires, heatwaves—the list goes on. Frankly, I'm terrified. I'm terrified for my children's future on a planet where we have already disrupted the delicate balance of how this earth thrived for thousands of years. I'm not going to stand here and sugar coat that. I think the Greens have been particularly clear about our position on that. As the Greens spokesperson for resources, in my day job I meet with a lot of climate groups who know the situation that we face. They know the action that is required, and they continue to run absolutely wonderful campaigns to do that. They know that we cannot open up another single one of the projects that are currently in that approval pipeline. And they know there are serious flaws with the current legislation that allow for these projects to continually be approved, despite all the evidence saying that we should not proceed with them. In my other hat, as a First Nations spokesperson, I also meet with traditional owners from across the country. Traditional owners tell me that they don't want these projects on their country because they face some of the impacts of climate change—specifically in regional Australia. The Nationals sit over there and tell you how we should be worrying about what's happening in the regions. Get out in the regions and talk to traditional owners. Senator McDonald 123072 I do! Senator COX 296215 Senator McDonald is nodding her head over there. You can fund resources companies and advocate for them, but they get on their planes and they fly out of those locations. That don't stay there and they do not endure some of the impacts of what's happening for those communities. Traditional owners tell me about some of the instances where there are sacred burial sites that are being uncovered. We had the debate in this place yesterday about the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage laws. They're not only being uncovered by some of the cultural heritage surveys conducted in this country but also by the rising sea levels. Our island nations in the Torres Strait have also taken court action against the government in relation to these. There is also smog and emissions that come from these facilities that are eroding sacred rock art in my state of Western Australia. There are songlines that are being placed at risk because of the gas pipelines and wells that are disrupting these sacred places. Most importantly, they tell me that no-one talks to them. No-one comes out and asks them about what is happening in their land and in their sea country. They are not providing consent to these projects, in order to receive compensation for that—reparation. I'm glad Senator Duniam raised the issue of money, because that is not happening for some of these groups. Whilst this bill pertains to the emission of the project and seeks to address this legislative gap, this opposition from traditional owners shows another legislative gap that the government and the fossil fuel companies are, in fact, taking advantage of. This bill seeks to fix the part that's unbalanced. Really, it's the least the government could do. Beetaloo Basin has been given the green light by the Northern Territory government. They walked back promises to fully implement all the recommendations from the Pepper inquiry. That's before fracking even occurred in the Beetaloo Basin. We talk about the emissions. They have estimated this could increase the Northern Territory's emissions by 117 million tonnes of CO2 per annum—not overall, per annum. This is 22 per cent of Australia's annual emissions—with a 43 per cent target. Wow. It gets better. Let's talk about Woodside's Scarborough project in Western Australia. It is estimated that their emissions over the life of the project—until 2055, and, in fact, they are looking to stretch that out to 2070—is now 1.37 billion tonnes of CO2. It's going to bust that emissions target on its own by continuing to expand Pluto 3 and 4 at Scarborough. Narrabri in New South Wales could add almost 130 million tonnes of emissions due to its operations. On top of all these, it's also been reported recently there are methane leaks from gas facilities. These are not even being measured. The irony of this is that we don't actually know how much of it is leaking out, because people haven't been monitoring or measuring it. But what we do know is that methane is more potent than CO2. These things are completely unacceptable and that is why we are here as elected members, to make sure that we have legislation that is fit for purpose. We are in the middle of a climate crisis. It is here. Not one of these projects should continue to go ahead, let alone all of the ones that I have just listed. These are the climate bombs that we can't afford to let off. I have not even yet mentioned the billions of dollars of fossil fuel subsidies that the government provides and the millions of dollars that fossil fuel companies donate to the major parties. We know that. Every year that is reported, and Senator Waters does an amazing job exposing that for our team, so thank you, Senator Waters, for your amazing work. This means this whole system is completely broken. It's not just one thing. The climate trigger will enable us to look at these projects better, to look at the impact for the environment. Currently, in some dark, smoky room, as my colleague Senator Shoebridge would say, the industry has set up this system that's in favour of the fossil fuel companies, working with the government against the environment, against the climate and against traditional owners in this country, as I have already said. This system continues to cook the planet. It's destroying cultural heritage in this country. It pays big for a select few, while the rest of us are left to suffer the consequences. There is, in fact, a long, long fight ahead of us, friends. For those people out there watching today, the climate wars are far from over unless we do something about it today, unless we have the courage and show the leadership that we have brought to this place by putting a climate trigger in the EPBC Act. 09:57 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland This bill is purportedly but not practically aimed at reducing emissions-intensive activities through Australia. It's irresponsible. It's hysterical, but we should be used to that, and I will get to this later. Its contents reflect the Greens' ongoing ambitions to encourage increased Green lawfare and impose tougher, more stringent environmental conditions and standards than already apply to economic projects and activities across this country. Adam Bandt and Sarah Hanson-Young have each openly stated in their second reading speeches that the purpose of the bill is as much about trying to stop new coal, oil and gas projects as anything else. But it is the Australian resources industry that is creating jobs, business opportunities, investment, especially in regional Australia, and I really resent being implied as a FIFO politician living in North Queensland, as I do—a little bit more research would be appreciated from the Greens. The Australian resources industry is the one paying the bills in this country. We do an incredible job to extraordinarily high international standards, which means that, as a country that mines, whether it be coal, oil, gas, critical minerals, rare earths, we provide agricultural security to Australia and to a good part of our neighbours. We export those standards as well as those products. That is something that we should be proud of. The resources and energy sector accounts for over 14.5 per cent of Australia's GDP, which was $354 billion in 2022. I am not sure what the plan is when those royalty regimes, those corporate taxes, those well paid PAYG jobs dry up. Who is going to pay the bills in this country? Who will allow us to have the First World health and education system that we have? Who will allow us to live the quality of life that we enjoy in this country? The sector's exports will peak at $464 billion in 2022-23, the highest ever export earnings. The Greens continue to make up numbers about the sector while ignoring the fact that it is ensuring our energy security. The lessons of the past few months are that energy security equals national security for all Australians. So now we've got energy security, we have financial security and, would you believe, environmental security, because it is those well-resourced, profitable businesses who are able to afford to be good environmental managers. In fact, it is mining companies who employ the vast majority of environmental scientists and researchers and who invest in land management projects in this country. If we look at the work that Ranger Mine has done in Kakadu, their engagement with managing invasive species and in other activities there, that is never spoken about. That is never spoken about—who is actually doing the heavy lifting in environmental management on country. This bill incorporates provisions that would add a new category to the list. We've heard details of this, of the already nine matters of national environmental significance that are defined in the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBC Act. More specifically, passages of this bill would require the federal environment minister to intervene to halt activities causing at least 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent scope-1 emissions annually if they were to adversely affect Australia's national carbon budget and the fulfilment of the nation's emissions reduction targets. But the key effect of this bill, if it was to be passed, would therefore be to, disastrously, force the federal government to limit or curtail many forms of industrial activity in Australia. Unfortunately, most Australians won't hear this debate. Most Australians are at work today. Some are listening to this on the radio, but the vast majority are at work, and they're very pleased to know that they are taking home a salary or a wage to support their family. For those employed in these industrial projects, particularly well-paid mining resource industry projects, they are able to try and deal with the cost-of-living rises that, in many cases, are the result of these rushed, poorly thought through environmental legislative changes that Labor has introduced and that the Greens would take so much further. It is Australians who suffer most from this kind of legislation, and it is the Greens who only want to talk about legislation. A friend of mine used to say, 'To a man with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.' That is exactly how the Greens look at this place. It's legislation, legislation, legislation. There is no understanding of the modern society that we live in. There is no understanding of the work that these businesses are doing to introduce new technologies, new environmental programs, because they live in these communities. They live in these communities, not in Canberra, not in inner-city Melbourne or Sydney, but actually in the regions where these activities are happening, and they care. The Greens have failed to specify the financial and regulatory impacts of this legislation. However, it is patently clear that, if this bill was to be passed, these impacts would be substantial. It would give rise to even more environmental assessments and approval processes that already exist. Many businesses are already forced to spend months and years navigating and meeting exacting green tape and compliance requirements associated with these processes, not to improve environmental outcomes but just to pay bureaucratic fees. This new legislation would only exacerbate these problems. As the final report of the recent Samuel review noted, the creation of a climate trigger would also result 'in muddled responsibilities, further duplication and inefficiency' across the various tiers of government in Australia. In short, a climate trigger would be economically destructive. Senator Payman previously spoke about Australians putting solar panels on their roofs and buying EVs, but there was no acknowledgement that this is Australians' only way of trying to offset the gross and fast-rising cost of living, particularly electricity costs. In Queensland, under the Labor government there, the introduction of the renewables rebate drove up electricity prices by a billion dollars. Guess what? That's paid by the Australian consumer and Queensland consumers—the people who can least afford it. It's harder to build a house. In Darwin, they can't expand to build more houses because of the existing environmental regulations, and it will be harder to have a job. Australia's high-quality coal and gas play an important role not only domestically but in other countries around the world. The Liberal-National coalition is committed to supporting these industries. Yes—we're happy to say it out loud. It's no secret, because these industries supply Australia's high-quality resources not just for this country but to export markets, to help lift millions out of poverty. Coal provides affordable, reliable electricity to both industry and families. Australian coal is of the highest quality in the world. We produce it more efficiently than most, meaning more energy with less emissions. That puts our coal and gas sectors and the thousands of Australians who work in them in prime positions to benefit from the increased global demand for energy resources. As China and India increase their demand for coal, both for steel creation and energy generation, and as Japan and Korea demand more gas to fuel their transition, it is in everyone's interest that our high-quality resources are the first choice for our partners around the world. Japan has publicly called on the Prime Minister to guarantee gas supplies over the coming years. It would be both embarrassing and inexcusable if we were to let down our international trade partners who rely on our natural resources. Were we to shut down our coal and gas production and refuse to step up to our responsibilities to meet demand around the world, those countries who need our resources would—as we saw during the recent crisis—turn to lower-quality, higher-emitting resources from other countries. We saw this in Africa, where countries were forced to turn back to burning wood and dung, because they couldn't afford other energy generation. Moral grandstanding about Australia's coal and gas industries may make the Greens feel better, but shutting down our industries will have the opposite effect that they have hoped for. If Australia withdraws from exporting our high-quality coal and gas, global emissions will rise. Our energy exports provide a benefit beyond Australia. They support new technologies and new infrastructure across our regions. They bring hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty and into the growing global middle class. Nearly everything that allows us to enjoy a first-world lifestyle would not exist without mining. From high-tech manufacturing to the food on our plates, from energy generation to the steel frames that hold up our homes, the Greens cannot tell us where they would source these vital imports that support our way of life. Coal and gas are not just used for energy; they're critical in a number of vital products in modern society, like steel, like concrete and like fertiliser. Gas plays a pivotal role in the production of fertiliser. It's critical to supporting the billions of lives on this earth. Ammonia, urea—these sustain the food security of billions of people around the world. Petroleum is a vital component in the creation of plastics and pharmaceuticals. Coal is vital in many non-energy industries. I've mentioned steel and cement. There are also coal-to-chemical processes, rare earth extractions and carbon fibre production, to name just a few. According to the World Steel Association, 780 kilograms of metallurgical coal are required to make a single tonne of steel. Over 200 kilograms of coal are required to produce a tonne of cement. It would appear that the Greens have forgotten that wind turbines require hundreds of tonnes of steel in the production of every turbine, as well as cement for the base. It has been said: if it is not made of steel, it's made in a factory made of steel. Thousands of different products have coal or coal by-products as components—soap, aspirins, solvents, dyes, plastics and fibres, including rayon and nylon. It's just another example of how disconnected from reality the Greens truly are. This legislation would just offshore our responsibilities and send them off to countries that are less regulated, less capable and less able to deliver than ours. We have countries in other parts of the world, like in Africa, who are now starting to raise the flag and say in global forums: 'Do not deny us the opportunity to enjoy a quality of life and a lifestyle that you already have. Do not deny us the opportunity to live in homes that aren't smoky and to have a higher quality of living.' Affordable energy is the pathway to that. Labor can claim they support jobs in the coal and gas industries, but their actions show that they are more committed to securing Greens preferences than supporting the workers of Australia. Labor have a chance now to reject the extreme position of the Greens, put their money where their mouth is, and actually start approving new coal and gas projects in Australia. It's frustrating that the Greens are so divorced and so detached from reality that they continue to talk down a vital Australian industry that provides jobs and funds services across this country. Labor's reliance on the Greens continues to threaten Australia's coal and gas industries, which are key pillars of our economy that continue to provide cheap and secure electricity, jobs and funding for vital services. Debate adjourned. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 11

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

In Committee 11 10:15 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I seek leave to move Australian Greens requests (1) to (7) on sheet 1969 together. Leave granted. Senator RICE 155410 I move: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Page 3 (after line 23), after Schedule 1, insert: Schedule 1A — Changes to qualifying age for youth allowance and jobseeker payments Part 1 — Youth allowance Social Security Act 1991 1 Paragraph 543B(1)(a) Omit "22", substitute "18". 2 Subparagraph 543B(1)(b)(iii) Omit "22", substitute "18". 3 Paragraph 543B(1)(d) Omit "22", substitute "18". 4 Subsection 1067A(4) (table item 3) Repeal the item, substitute: Part 2 — Jobseeker payment Social Security Act 1991 5 Subparagraph 593(1)(g)(i) Omit "22", substitute "18". 6 Subparagraph 593(1B)(b)(i) Omit "22", substitute "18". 7 Subparagraph 593(1D)(b)(i) Omit "22", substitute "18". Part 3 — Consequential amendments Farm Household Support Act 2014 8 Section 7 (paragraph beginning "A person's rate") Omit "22", substitute "18". 9 Subdivision A of Division 8 of Part 2 (heading) Omit "22", substitute "18". 10 Subsection 55(1) Omit "22", substitute "18". 11 Section 56 Omit "22", substitute "18". 12 Section 57 Omit "22", substitute "18". 13 Section 58 Omit "22", substitute "18". 14 Subsection 59(1) Omit "22", substitute "18". 15 Subsection 59(2) Omit "22" (wherever occurring), substitute "18". 16 Subsections 59A(1) and (2) Omit "22" (wherever occurring), substitute "18". 17 Subdivision B of Division 8 of Part 2 (heading) Omit "22", substitute "18". 18 Subsectio n 60(1) Omit "22", substitute "18". 19 Section 61 Omit "22", substitute "18". 20 Section 62 Omit "22", substitute "18". 21 Section 63 Omit "22", substitute "18". 22 Section 64 Omit "22", substitute "18". 23 Section 65 Omit "22", substitute "18". 24 Subsections 65A(1) and (2) Omit "22", substitute "18". 25 Subsection 93(1) (table items 1, 2, 15 and 16, column headed "included a reference to … ") Omit "22", substitute "18". 26 Section 95 (table item 13A, column headed "apply as if … ") Omit "22", substitute "18". Social Security Act 1991 27 Subsections 1061KC(4) and (5) Omit "22", substitute "18". Part 4 — Application and transitional provisions 28 Application of amendments Farm Household Support Act 2014 (1) The amendments of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the rate of a person's farm household allowance for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023. Social Security Act 1991 (2) The amendments of sections 543B and 593 of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply for the purposes of working out qualification for a youth allowance or jobseeker payment in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023. (3) The amendment of subsection 1067A(4) of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule applies for the purposes of working out a person's eligibility for, or amount of, youth allowance for a day, or fares allowance for a journey on a day, that is on or after 20 September 2023. (4) The amendments of subsections 1061KC(4) and (5) of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply for the purposes of working out the rate of a person's Disaster Recovery Allowance in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023. 29 Transitional rules (1) The Ministermay, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Schedule. (2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following: (a) create an offence or civil penalty; (b) provide powers of: (i) arrest or detention; or (ii) entry, search or seizure; (c) impose a tax; (d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act; (e) directly amend the text of this Act. (2) Schedule 2, Divisions 1 to 5, page 4 (line 4) to page 13 (immediately before line 1), omit the Divisions, substitute: Division 1 — Disability support pension (under 21) Social Security Act 1991 1 Point 1066A-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: 2 Point 1066B-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: Division 2 — Youth allowance Social Security Act 1991 3 Point 1067G-B2 (table BA) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: 4 Point 1067G-B3 (table BB) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: 5 Point 1067G-B4 (table BC) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: Division 3 — Austudy payment Social Security Act 1991 6 Subpoint 1067L-B2(1) (table BA) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: 7 Point 1067L-B3 (table BB) Repeal the table, substitute: Division 4 — Jobseeker payment Social Security Act 1991 8 Point 1068-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: Division 4A — Parenting payment (single) Social Security Act 1991 8A Point 1068A-B1 Omit "$21,470.80 per year ($825.80 per fortnight)", substitute "$32,032.00 per year ($1,232.00 per fortnight)". Division 5 — Parenting payment (partnered) Social Security Act 1991 9 Point 1068B-C2 (table C) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: (3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 13 (line 6), omit "jobseeker payment or" substitute "jobseeker payment, pension PP (single) or". (4) Page 15 (after line 16), after Schedule 2, insert: Schedule 2A — Increases to other payments Part 1 — Crisis payments Social Secu rity Act 1991 1 Subsection 1061JU(1) Omit "half". Part 2 — Age pension, carer payment and disability support pension Social Security Act 1991 2 Point 1064-B1 (table B) Repeal the table, substitute: 3 Point 1065-B1 (table B) Repeal the table, substitute: Part 3 — Service pension, income support supplement and veteran payment Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 4 Point SCH6-B1 (table B-1) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: 5 Point SCH6-B2 (table B-2) Repeal the table (note including the notes), substitute: Part 4 — Application of amendments 6 Application of amendments Social Security Act 1991 (1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the rate of a person's crisis payment, age pension or disability support pension for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023. (2) For the purposes of indexing an amount: (a) specified in a table of the Social Security Act 1991 as substituted by an item of this Part; and (b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences; the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount. Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (3) The amendments of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 made by this Part apply in relation to working out the rate of a person's service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023. (4) For the purposes of indexing an amount: (a) specified in a table of Schedule 6 to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 as substituted by an item of this Schedule; and (b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences; the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount. (5) Schedule 3, items 7 and 8, page 16 (line 18) to page 19 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute: 7 Clause 38D of Schedule 1 (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 8 Clause 38E of Schedule 1 (table) Repeal the table, substitute: (6) Schedule 3, items 9 to 14, page 19 (line 2) to page 30 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute: 9 Subsection 1070L(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 10 Subsection 1070M(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 11 Subsection 1070N(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 12 Subsection 1070P(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 13 Subsection 1070Q(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 14 Subsection 1070R(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: (7) Schedule 3, item 18, page 31 (line 5) to page 32 (immediately before line 1), omit the item, substitute: 18 Subpoint SCH6-C8(1) of Schedule 6 (table C-2) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (1) Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to expand the class of persons eligible for jobseeker payment by lowering the minimum age of eligibility from 22 to 18. As the effect of this amendment will be that people who were previously eligible to receive youth allowance payment will now be eligible to receive the higher jobseeker payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014. Amendment (2) Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the various maximum basic rate amounts of disability support pension (under 21), youth allowance, farm household allowance, austudy payment, jobseeker payment, parenting payment (single) and parenting payment (partnered). As the effect of this amendment will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014. Amendment (3) Amendment (3) is consequential to amendment (2). Amendment (4) Amendment (4) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the various maximum basic rate amounts of crisis payment, age pension, carer payment, disability support pension, service pension, income support supplement and veteran payment. As the effect of this amendment will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Amendments (5), (6) and (7) Amendments (5), (6) and (7) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to increase the maximum rate of rent assistance. As the effect of these amendments will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendments (1) (2), (4), (5), (6) and (7) If the effect of these amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests. Amendment (3) This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request. I talked to these amendments at length yesterday, so I don't want to speak at length about them today. These are our amendments to raise the rate of income support to above the poverty line, to at least $88 a day, so that people who are living on income support can live a life of dignity, can afford to put food on the table, can afford to pay for their medications, can afford to pay for their kids' shoes and can afford to put a roof over their head so that they are not consigned to living in tents or living in cars. I think it is a sign of a decent country that we look after everybody, that we don't leave anybody behind and that people who are living on income support, for whatever reason, have the ability to get by. These amendments would also reduce the age at which people are considered to be independent and able to receive the full rate of income support, from 21 to 18. It would have a big impact on many people who currently are not able to get student allowance and youth allowance, to be able to receive those benefits. It would make a massive difference to the lives of thousands of young people in Australia today. These amendments would also double the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance from what is being proposed in this bill. I implore everybody in this place to listen to the community that is absolutely doing it the toughest in this cost-of-living crisis. You cannot survive on JobSeeker. It's not a matter of struggling to survive; you cannot survive on JobSeeker. People on JobSeeker at the moment are only getting by because of charity from charities, friends and family. And the very woefully inadequate amount that's being proposed by the government to lift the rates of JobSeeker, by only $4 a day, is just not going to cut it and is not going to make a difference for people at the moment who are desperately living in poverty. 10:18 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The coalition will not be supporting these amendments. The coalition believes that a much more beneficial and effective way of assisting payment recipients and businesses in the community is to increase the income-free area. And we would encourage those in the chamber to support our amendments to that effect. 10:18 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I rise to indicate that the government will be opposing these amendments. We had, I think, quite a good discussion yesterday, and I thank Senator Rice and the Australian Greens for moving this section as a block in terms of the efficiency of this debate. I did indicate yesterday, but won't now indicate at length, that this is a $9½ billion commitment from the Commonwealth government. I understand that the Australian Greens party is arguing for a larger commitment, but that is the size of the government's commitment. It is a very substantial commitment that will make a difference to very many people who are the recipients of these payments. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 The question is that the requests for amendments moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.

The committee divided. [10:23]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Dean Smith)

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. 25 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:26 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I'm very disappointed with the outcome of that division but not surprised that everybody other than us and Senator Pocock is happy for jobseekers, people on youth allowance and people on student allowance to continue living in poverty, which is absolutely bad for their wellbeing, their health and their ability to get a job. If you've got people living in poverty, they're not in a position to be able to get a job. It is absolutely shameful. I now move Greens request for amendment (1) on sheet 2030, which is regarding income-free areas: (1) Page 33 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 5 — Increase to income free areas for certain payments Part 1 — Disability support pension (under 21) Social Security Act 1991 1 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, colum n 3) Omit "$2,184", substitute "$7,800". 2 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 4) Omit "$80", substitute "$300". 3 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800". 4 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$300". 5 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800". 6 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$300". 7 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800". 8 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$300". Part 2 — Youth allowance (other) Social Security Act 1991 9 1067G-H29(b) Omit "$150", substitute "$300". Part 3 — Jobseeker payment Social Security Act 1991 10 Point 1068-G12 Omit "$150", substitute "$300". Part 4 — Parenting payment (single) Social Security Act 1991 11 Point 1068A-E14 (table item 1, column 2) Omit "$2,600", substitute "$7,800". 12 Point 1068A-E14 (table item 1, column 3) Omit "$100", substitute "$300". Part 5 — Parenting payment (partnered) Social Security Act 1991 13 Point 1068B-D27 Omit "$150", substitute "$300". Part 6 — Application of amendments 14 Application of amendments (1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the following: (a) the rate of a person's disability support pension, youth allowance, jobseeker payment, pension PP (single) or benefit PP (partnered) in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023; (b) whether a person's farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 is payable in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023. (2) For the purposes of indexing an amount: (a) specified in: (i) the table in point 1066A-F3 of the Social Security Act 1991, as amended by this Schedule; or (ii) the table in point 1068A-E14 of that Act, as amended by this Schedule; (b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences; the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount. Obviously, the Greens' position is that we need to be lifting the rate of JobSeeker, youth allowance and student allowance above the poverty line so that people can live a dignified life. This lot—everybody here other than us—has just voted against that. The least we can do and what has also been Greens policy for a very long time, as well as increasing the rate of income support above the policy line, is to allow jobseekers to earn more. It's not a case of one or another, which is the appalling and cruel position that the opposition are proposing; it's a case of doing both. We need to have the level of income that people receive lifted above the poverty line, and then we need to allow people to earn more. We know that based on the latest statistics there are 186,290 people receiving JobSeeker who are working. There are a lot of people who receive JobSeeker, youth allowance and student allowance who are working and have income above the income-free area, which means that their earnings are slashed. The amount of JobSeeker or youth allowance or student allowance they get is slashed once they earn above the income-free area. Those people would all benefit. As I said, this is something that can be done to benefit those people, but it's not enough. About 40 per cent of people on JobSeeker have limited or reduced capacity to work. A lot of those people actually should be on other disability payments or the disability support pension, but they are left languishing on JobSeeker. But for the others who are on JobSeeker who are able to work, who—for a lot of them—are working now, increasing the income-free area so that their income from that work can be up to $300 a fortnight rather than $150 a fortnight would make a real, meaningful difference to their lives. There is a cost-of-living crisis. We know that people are desperate to improve their standard of living, desperate to get the money that they need. We know that actually allowing them to earn more in this cost-of-living crisis would make a tangible difference to their lives. 10:28 Senato 243273 South Australia r RUSTON (—) (): The coalition won't be supporting these amendments, but that's not because we don't believe that the income-free area should be increased for people to incentivise them to get more work. We know that when people report earnings they're more than twice as likely to go on to full-time employment, and we believe that increasing the income-free area is a very effective way of incentivising people to take up those extra few hours of work or possibly add to additional hours that they currently work. The reason that we are not supporting this amendment is because we believe that the amendment that we will move shortly is a superior amendment to this. We're saying that we want to increase the income-free areas by an additional $150 per fortnight, recognising that there a range of different income-free areas that are already in existence for working-age payments. The amendment that's been put forward by the Australian Greens here proposes to put the thresholds up to $300 does not recognise the nuance that's already in our system to incentivise different people on different payments in different ways and recognise their particular circumstances—whether that be students, whether that be single parents, whether that be people who are on the JobSeeker allowance. We would certainly be encouraging those in the chamber to look at our increased income-free area amendments that are going to be moved shortly, because I think they actually reflect a much more nuanced and targeted response to incentivising Australians to get back into the workforce. We also philosophically believe that increasing the income-free areas and taking away the barriers for people to enter the workforce, like the barrier of the amount of people's reductions in their payments when they start earning, is a much more effective way of getting people back into the workforce than just merely increasing payments by $40 a fortnight. So we commend our amendment to the chamber and, for that reason, we'll not be supporting the amendments of the Greens towards the income-free area, but we'd encourage the Greens to consider supporting our amendments to the income-free area, because they are more reflective of the nuanced circumstances of different types of income support payments. 10:31 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you for those contributions. I want to set out the government's position in relation to this amendment. The government will be opposing the amendment. The features of this package are designed to increase support for Australians who are on working-age or student payments. That's what the bill is about. It furthers the government's commitment to a strong social safety net. Supporting workforce participation has been and will be at the core of the government's broader economic strategy. It's why the government has implemented reforms like making child care cheaper for Australian families and improving paid parental leave. But doubling the income-free area, as is proposed in this amendment does, of course, bake-in a significant structural spend for this budget and future budgets. I note that a costing for the fiscal impact of this proposal does not accompany the Greens party's proposed amendment. There is no evidence before us that a proposal of this sort would deliver the participation outcomes claimed. In fact, if you look at this proposal, we know that increasing the income-free area would mean an additional 50,000 Australians would become eligible for JobSeeker because the income cut-out thresholds would increase. The outcome of the proposal would be more Australians on JobSeeker. That's not a credible proposition. The reality of the system is that around 77 per cent of people on JobSeeker are not reporting any earnings at all. There is already an income-free area, and 77 per cent of Australians on JobSeeker are not using it. Even for those JobSeeker recipients who do report earnings, 23 per cent of JobSeeker participants, there is no evidence of bunching—that is, people keeping income from paid employment intentionally low so that they earn less than the income-free area. Doubling the income-free area will only benefit those income support recipients who are already earning and earning regularly. These recipients already benefit and are rewarded for taking up work through the gradual tapering of income support as they earn more. Amidst all this, of course, amendments to the income-free area will not assist the 77 per cent of JobSeeker payment recipients who don't utilise it. It's on that basis that the government won't be supporting this amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 The question is that Greens request (1) on sheet 2030 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [10:39]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Chandler)

12 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:41 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I move opposition amendment (1) and request (2) on sheet 1978 together: (1) Schedule 2, Part 1, page 4 (line 3) to page 13 (line 18), omit the Part, substitute: Part 1 — Jobseeker payment increase for certain persons who have turned 55 Social Security Act 1991 1 P oint 1068-B1 (table B, item 4A, column 2, paragraph (b)) Omit "60", substitute "55". 2 Point 1068-B1 (table B, item 4B, column 2, paragraph (b)) Omit "60", substitute "55". 3 Point 1068-B1 (table B, item 5, column 2, paragraph (a)) Omit "60", substitute "55". 4 Application of amendments The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Part apply in relation to working out the following: (a) the rate of a person's jobseeker payment for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023; (b) the rate of a person's farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023. (2) Page 33 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4 — Increase to income free areas for certain working age payments Part 1 — Disability support pension (under 21) Social Security Act 1991 1 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 3) Omit "$2,184", substitute "$9,204". 2 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 4) Omit "$80", substitute "$354". 3 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$8,580". 4 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$330". 5 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$8,580". 6 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$330". 7 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$8,580". 8 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$330". Part 2 — Youth allowance Social Security Act 1991 9 Paragraphs 1067G-H29(a) and (aa) Omit "$400", substitute "$630". 10 Paragraph 1067G-H29(b) Omit "$150", substitute "$300". Part 3 — Austudy payment Social Security Act 1991 11 Point 1067L-D28 Omit "$400", substitute "$630". Part 4 — Jobseeker payment Social Security Act 1991 12 Point 1068-G12 Omit "$150", substitute "$300". Part 5 — Parenting payment (partnered) Social Security Act 1991 13 Point 1068B-D27 Omit "$150", substitute "$300". Part 6 — Application of amendments 14 Application of amendments (1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the following: (a) the rate of a person's disability support pension, youth allowance, austudy payment, jobseeker payment or benefit PP (partnered) in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023; (b) whether a person's farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 is payable in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023. (2) For the purposes of indexing an amount: (a) specified in: (i) the table in point 1066A-F3 of the Social Security Act 1991, as amended by this Schedule; or (ii) paragraph 1067G-H29(a) or (aa) of that Act, as amended by this Schedule; or (iii) point 1067L-D28 of that Act, as amended by this Schedule; (b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences; the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount. Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the ordinary income free area for the disability support pension (under 21), youth allowance, austudy payment, jobseeker payment and parenting payment (partnered) under the Social Security Act 1991. As the income free area is the amount of income a person can receive before their payment begins to decrease, increasing the income free area would result in some recipients receiving a higher rate of payment and would also increase the number of people for whom payments are payable. Increasing the income free area for youth allowance and jobseeker payment under the Social Security Act 1991 will also increase the number of people for whom the farm household allowance is payable under the Farm Household Support Act 2014. This is because the income free area for youth allowance and jobseeker payment is used to work out whether the farm household allowance is payable. The effect of the amendment would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014. Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request. The coalition's amendment and request remove the $40 increase per fortnight for JobSeeker and related working-age payments and replaces it with an increase to the income-free areas of $150 per fortnight. These payments include JobSeeker, disability support pension under 21, youth allowance, Austudy payment and parenting payment partner. There is nothing in this bill as it stands that genuinely reduces barriers for Australians to get into work. At a time when we have hundreds of thousands of job vacancies right across the country, we believe that removing barriers and incentivising people to take up work is the most appropriate way not only to deal with supporting Australians who are on working-age payments but also to support our labour market. The tightness in the labour market is absolutely obvious for every Australian to see. Every second business seems to have a sign in the window, looking for people to fill job vacancies or to fill vacant shifts. At a time of historically-low unemployment rates, we believe that the coalition's amendment will go a long way to help, as I said, both jobseekers and the businesses who are so desperately crying out for Australians to come and work in their business. We also recognise that millions of Australians go to work every day to pay their taxes that allow governments to provide the safety nets that they do in our social welfare system. But the reality is we have a situation where Australian businesses are crying out for employees, and we have hundreds of thousands of job vacancies. There is a reasonable expectation that we, as the legislators in this place, will put in place incentives to enable those opportunities to be taken up. We believe encouraging jobseekers by giving financial incentives is a far superior way of encouraging Australians who are on working-age payments to get into the workforce. Obviously, typically, at a time of low unemployment, those opposite see it more as a priority to simply increase the base rate while providing no additional incentives or breaking down any barriers. We would say to the Labor Party: 'Look at ways that are actually going to help Australians get off working-age payments.' Despite what the minister said in his contribution to the previous amendment, we know that those Australians on working-age payments who report earnings are more than twice as likely to take on full-time employment. This is an investment in the longer term to see Australians on working-age payments make that little bit extra so they can move from being on payments to being fully independent and in the workforce. It's not just the coalition who appreciates the benefits of increasing income-free areas. At the recent Senate inquiry, we heard about the benefits from the law reform officer from Economic Justice Australia: At present the income free area for JobSeeker, Parenting Payment Partnered and Youth Allowance constrains recipients' opportunities for training and experience by severely limiting the numbers of hours they can work before facing deductions to their income support. The executive manager for Community and Family Care, from Wesley Mission: We find that people want to engage, but, as soon as their ceiling is maxed out, they'll stop, or the employer limit can't give them full and proper support. Our amendment encourages those 77 per cent of Australian jobseekers who have reported no earnings to get out there, put their toe in the water and test out the market before we see it eating into their JobSeeker payments. We know the longer you are out of the workforce, the harder it is to return. We believe incentivising work, not incentivising welfare, is the best approach to get people back to the workforce, filling those job vacancies, helping those businesses creating jobs and opportunity, and creating wealth for our country. That is why we think it is absolutely important that the coalition's policy is the best proposal for payments to recipients because we know it's not just about the economic dividend paid to working-age payment recipients; we know it's more broadly around assisting them in terms of their wellbeing, sense of purpose and opportunities for their future life. We believe the coalition's amendment is sensible and reasonable. We encourage the government, and we certainly encourage the Australian Greens, to consider supporting the increase in the income-free area as proposed by this amendment because it is absolutely fair. It reflects the nuances across the working-age payment system because not all working-age payments have the same existing income-free areas for reasons that Labor put in in the first place. We believe this amendment is about the dignity of work and the dignity of having a mission. That's why we believe our approach is superior. We urge all senators to consider this amendment and request. 10:47 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland One Nation doesn't support the opposition's amendment to this bill. I will explain why. The opposition, when in government, had the opportunity to introduce this, and they didn't. It's plucking something out of the air to try and solve the problem we have at the moment to counteract what the government is wanting to do—to introduce an extra $40 a fortnight for welfare recipients to help them with the rising cost of living, which we agree with; there should be some increase. When you talk about $300 a fortnight being given to people to incentivise them—if you have to incentivise them to earn an extra $300 a fortnight, why aren't they working for the first $300 they're receiving from the taxpayers? If they won't get up and go to work for the first $300, why incentivise them to work for the second $300 that's going to be given to them? You've got the neighbour next door, who has to go out to work—get up early in the morning, drive in the traffic, go to work, put a long day in—and then they come back and see their neighbour still sitting on the porch, having their afternoon beer, having a wonderful life and doing whatever they want to do—sit on the couch all day, watch TV, go to the beach, go to picnics, go and play computer games—and the taxpayer is funding this. If you want introduce $300 a fortnight for welfare recipients, then my suggestion is: why don't you offer the same $300 to the taxpayer, who is working, and give them that extra $7,800 a year that they can earn tax-free? That's virtually what you're doing to those on welfare: you're offering them extra money to do absolutely nothing. Let's be fair right across the board—does that make sense?—especially when you have people in this country like farmers and retailers—it doesn't matter who it is—screaming out for workers. They absolutely cannot get workers. So what does the government do? 'We'll bring in skilled migrants from overseas. We'll flood the country with more migrants, to the tune of around 7,000 a week. We don't have the housing. We don't have the water. We don't have the infrastructure. We don't have the schools, the aged-care homes, the hospital care, the doctors, the nurses. But we don't care about that. We just need to bring them in to prop up the economy, because it looks good.' And who are a lot of these people going to vote for? The government that has allowed them to come into the country. So this is all a big scam. It's not looking after the Australian people here. So I don't agree with the opposition's amendment. It's not fair on everyday working Australians. This doesn't incentivise anyone. The figures came out that we've got 156,250 people that have been on welfare for more than 10 years. We know we have third- and fourth-generation welfare. What have you done about that? What investigation has been done into that? Why aren't they working? With these scams, also they must apply for so many jobs. What do they do? Do they just get their name ticked off? They apply for jobs that are well beyond their capabilities. They don't have the skills for them, but they've applied for a job, and that's good enough. 'You'll still get your welfare cheque. We'll look after you.' Then you've got another 150,265 who have been on welfare for between five and 10 years. Then you've got another 224,575 who have been on welfare for between two and five years. Then you've got another 73,845 who have been on welfare for between one and two years. Then you've got 238,455 who have been on welfare for less than one year. With all these jobs out there, these people are still on unemployment benefits. Something is terribly wrong with our system. I understand that welfare was set up as a helping hand, but too many people are now using it as a way of life. It may not suit a lot of us if we look for the better things in life, if we actually want that special car, a second TV and a nicer home and we want to go for holidays and trips. That can't be paid for on welfare. I get it. And it's not supposed to be. That's why you get a job. That's why each and every one of us should not rely on the person next to us to work and pay for our way of life. Welfare was supposed to be a helping hand, but governments, of both sides, have been reluctant to do anything about it because people have become so reliant on welfare. They rely on you to keep handing it out. That's why you won't change it and you won't make it tough—because you want their votes. The more that you suppress people, the more that you keep them under your thumb, the more that they rely on you, the more they're going to lean towards your way of voting. But you're not helping this country or future generations and you're not helping the taxpayer, because we are among the most highly taxed people in the world. This is the problem that we have. What I've suggested to the government—I've been calling for it for a long time—is that there has to be accountability. I believe that we should give people that helping hand, give them the welfare payments, but only for two out of five years. So you might have employment for six months, and you might have three months where you can't find another job. 'Okay, we'll give you that helping hand. For two out of five years, we will support you and give you that helping hand, but don't sit around all day thinking this is a way of life.' Another problem that we have with this is that our whole educational system has failed our people. We are so far behind in our educational levels compared to other countries—in some cases, two years behind. Our kids are being pushed through the educational system. You won't hold them back because you might upset them, but you're not preparing them for life. You're not preparing them with the right education that they need, and you're allowing them to go on to universities when they shouldn't be going to universities—again, a cost to the taxpayer. A lot of these people come through the system and can't get jobs, because they can't read or write. You're allowing a lot of immigrants into the country that should be able to pass an English test but can't. What do they do? They end up on our welfare system. They can't assimilate, because they can't communicate, and if they can't communicate a lot them can't get a job. This is the problem, but you're reluctant to do anything about it. Make some tough decisions. I see the smirk on Minister Ayres's face, across the chamber. What I'm saying doesn't suit you, but it makes sense to the Australian people out there who are listening to the broadcast, especially the taxpayers, because they've had a gutful. Go and speak to them. You might appeal to the— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 Order! Senator Ayres is on his feet. Do you have a point of order, Senator Ayres? Senator Ayres 16913 It was a smile, not a smirk, and I was smiling at Senator Ruston. The TEMPORARY CH AIR: Thank you for clarifying that, Senator Ayres. I would remind senators to direct their comments through the chair. I know that it is a wideranging debate in the committee stage, but if we could direct our comments this way that would be appreciated. Senator HANSON BK6 That doesn't surprise me. I always think outside the box. I think the way that the average Australian out there is thinking, and they want our representatives to think the way they do. They can't understand why this has not been addressed and spoken about. We won't be supporting this stupid incentive. If you're going to give it to one, give it to all Australians. Let's give Australian taxpayers $7,800 in tax relief so they can get a second job and not be taxed on it, instead of taxing people at the higher rate all the time. Then you will give more Australians the opportunity to go out and get that second job, which will help with their income. These are the hardworking Australians. Incentivise them more by giving them some tax relief, and then you might get changes made. Have a think about what I said about the two out of five years, because that needs to be addressed. I'll tell you about one fellow whose son was working. When the son came home and told his father he had a job—this was the third generation on welfare payments—he abused his son, absolutely embarrassed by the fact that he'd gone out and got a job. Guess what! The son threw in the job. This is what's happening in our society. Until you realise this, all these handouts aren't helping anyone at all. You're not incentivising them. People have to work. Unless they have a disability, they're an age pensioner or they have a reason that they can't work, they have no reason to collect the dole. They should be out there, providing for themselves. The taxpayer—I and everyone else in this country—owes them nothing. They owe it to themselves. If we're going to rear a better person, for themselves, the best thing to do is to give them a job. They need a direction in life and a sense of believing in themselves, and that comes from work, not handouts all the time. 10:57 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The Greens will be opposing these amendments by the Liberal Party—and it is telling that they have moved the amendments together. They are not even going ahead with the woefully inadequate $4-a-day increase to JobSeeker but instead proposing an income-free area to allow people to earn more. We are opposing the amendments because of that very framing—that people are undeserving and unworthy, that they need to be living in absolutely dire abject poverty, and that it's a choice. Putting these two together—saying, 'Instead of living in abject poverty, just get out there and work'—is absolutely playing into the frame of the appalling contribution just made by Senator Hanson. It is playing into a frame that people living on income support don't deserve to live a life of dignity, that they are undeserving and unworthy and they just need to get up and find a job. Anybody listening to the evidence that's been presented to the inquiry into poverty and hardship in Australia and the evidence that was presented to the inquiry into this bill would know that, currently, the conditions that people are living in on income support are absolutely tragic. People are living in tents with young babies. People are trying to bring up their kids while living in cars. People are saying they've spent the last seven years trying to pretend to their children that they're not hungry. People can't afford medication they need to keep themselves healthy. This is what happens when people are left in poverty. So to be proposing, as these amendments are: 'No, we're just going to keep on allowing people to live in poverty,' and that the answer is just allow them to work more is a complete misrepresentation of the reality that people are facing. We acknowledge that there are overlaps between this amendment and the amendment that we circulated, but our amendment was very much in the frame of: we need to help people in any way possible who are currently languishing in poverty on the inadequate rate of JobSeeker. We need to be raising the rate and we need to be lifting the rates of income support. These amendments, circulated by the opposition, do not do that. 11:00 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I want to set out the government's position in relation to this amendment. The government will be opposing this amendment. The effect of an adoption of this amendment would be that over a million people would lose the entitlement to an additional $40 a week. All they would be left with in September is the increment that comes through indexation. I invite senators to consider this: there's been over a decade of advocacy, a decade of evidence and a decade of everybody who is engaged in this argument saying that the rate of JobSeeker needs to be increased in a substantial way. I appreciate there are differences about the amount, and the government has come to a conclusion about the amount. But it is unimaginable, after all of that advocacy from the business community, from the people who represent the welfare sector and the social services sector and from the trade union movement, that you could reach the conclusion: 'Nothing doing here. There will be no increase.' It is mean-spirited, it is wrong in policy and it would mean that a million people—a million Australians who would otherwise get this increase in September—would be denied this increase. I don't want to add very much to the commentary that I gave in response to Senator Rice's and the Greens party's amendment on the income-free threshold, because I think the government's response is much the same. Workforce participation is really important, and the best evidence for the government's credentials in terms of workforce participation is the fact that since the government was elected there are just under half a million more jobs. There are 490-something thousand new jobs. Most of those jobs are permanent jobs. Many of those jobs have been taken up by Australian women, who—as a result of the new measures that the government has undertaken, whether they apply directly to them or not—have got the confidence that the kind of work that they are going into is the kind of work that will support them. It is unimaginable, in the current environment, that the coalition's answer to people who are on JobSeeker or associated payments is: 'Nothing doing.' It's mean-spirited, it's more downward envy and it's more of the same toxic politics that we saw evidenced by Senator Hanson's contribution earlier. I urge the Senate to vote against the amendment. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the chair is that opposition amendment (1) and request (2) on sheet 1978, moved by leave together, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:08]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

23 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 33 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:13 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 2040: (1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 4 (line 6) to page 6 (immediately before line 1), omit the item, substitute: 1 Point 1066A-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: (2) Schedule 2, Divisions 2 to 5, page 8 (line 1) to page 13 (immediately before line 1), omit the Divisions, substitute: Division 2 — Youth allowance Social Security Act 1991 3 Point 1067G-B2 (table BA) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: 4 Point 1067G-B3 (table BB) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: 5 Point 1067G-B4 (table BC) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: Division 3 — Austudy payment Social Security Act 1991 6 Subpoint 1067L-B2(1) (table BA) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: 7 Point 1067L-B3 (table BB) Repeal the table, substitute: Division 4 — Jobseeker payment Social Security Act 1991 8 Point 1068-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: Division 4A — Parenting payment (single) Social Security Act 1991 8A Point 1068A-B1 Omit "$21,470.80 per year ($825.80 per fortnight)", substitute "$24,897.60 per year ($957.60 per fortnight)". Division 5 — Parenting payment (partnered) Social Security Act 1991 9 Point 1068B-C2 (table C) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: (3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 13 (line 6), omit "jobseeker payment" substitute "jobseeker payment, pension PP (single)". (4) Schedule 3, items 7 and 8, page 16 (line 18) to page 19 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute: 7 Clause 38D of Schedule 1 (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 8 Clause 38E of Schedule 1 (table) Repeal the table, substitute: (5) Schedule 3, items 9 to 14, page 19 (line 2) to page 30 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute: 9 Subsection 1070L(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 10 Subsection 1070M(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 11 Subsection 1070N(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 12 Subsection 1070P(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 13 Subsection 1070Q(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: 14 Subsection 1070R(2) (table) Repeal the table, substitute: (6) Schedule 3, item 18, page 31 (line 5) to page 32 (immediately before line 1), omit the item, substitute: 18 Subpoint SCH6-C8(1) of Schedule 6 (table C-2) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: These amendments would raise the rates of the working-age payments to 90 per cent of the age pension and also increase Commonwealth rent assistance by 40 per cent. These changes were recommended by the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, and I have great respect for the work undertaken by EIAC. It's made up of eminent experts in their field, including a former social services minister. As committee member Ben Phillips said at about the time of the report's release, increasing payments to 90 per cent of the age pension would represent just a four per cent increase in welfare payments or less than one per cent of the budget. Personally I think one per cent is a small price to pay to remove barriers to work and ensure people in our communities across the country can afford to eat and to buy their medications or just to buy toiletries. It's worth reflecting on why 90 of the age pension was chosen. Currently, we have no one approach to measuring the adequacy of payments. This is sometimes called a poverty line—the amount a person needs to secure their basic needs like food. We don't have one. A hundred other countries do, and it may help to explain why Australia's social security system lags behind so many OECD countries. EIAC tested the current rates against a range of methods, such as the Henderson Poverty Line, relativities to national minimum wage, comparisons with other countries and many more, and the age pension was chosen, not just because there used to be a relativity between them but because the age pension benefited from the most recent comprehensive review of the payment's adequacy, the Harmer review. The Harmer review analysed the purchasing power of pensions, their value relative to earnings, international comparisons, wellbeing outcomes and a host of other measures. The review even argued that supplementary assistance was needed for senior Australians on a pension with higher housing costs in the private rental system. We've not yet had a Harmer review for working-age payments but it has provided a robust jumping-off point to look at the adequacy of current working-age payments to allow people to afford the necessities of life. A review of the magnitude of Harmer was recommended by EIAC. Given the expertise on that committee, it is something I'm confident they could produce if they were given the opportunity. Minister, I'd like to ask a few questions about the economic inclusion advisory committee. When will legislation be introduced to formally establish this committee? And could you provide an update on the permanent secretariat for EIAC? How many positions have been allocated and have they been filled? 11:16 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The commitment from the government is that we will legislate the committee this year. The work of the committee is valuable to the government. We are a government that is not afraid of evidence, argument, alternative points of view and, of course, pressing the case for change. In addition to the substantive point about when would the committee be a legislated function of government, the government will listen carefully to the deliberations of the committee, its recommendations, but also sift carefully through the reasoning and rationale of the experts who have been engaged in that committee. That does not mean, of course, that the government will be in a position to agree with the committee, and I anticipate that that will continue to be a feature of the engagement between the committee and the government over time. 11:18 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland One Nation will not be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment. He says he wants to raise it to 90 per cent of the age pension. At present, a single aged pensioner receives $1,064 a fortnight. A couple receive $1,604 a fortnight. For a single person, that's $27,664 a year that they receive. That's just as a welfare payment. That's an aged person. Now, to raise it to 90 per cent of that, you're probably looking at around about $25,000 a year. I know apprentices don't even get paid near that, okay? So put it in relation to someone who is actually working, who has a job, who has to go out every day, who has to get their own tools and clothing, and who pays taxes as well. Now, to pay someone equivalent to 90 per cent of what an aged pensioner gets doesn't equate to me. I spoke to my hairdresser. I said, 'What are you on an hour?' This was a couple of months ago. They said, 'Around about on average $24 an hour.' Prior to that, those working in nursing homes were on $22 to $23 an hour. That has probably been increased now but not by much. So the fact is you're looking at welfare payments to people who do absolutely nothing, who don't go to work. They don't do anything, and you want to pay them probably more than what someone who has a job is earning out there. You talk about these people living in poverty. I can tell you about working families, mums and dads, who are struggling. They're both working. They've got kids. They can't be home for the kids and they're struggling to pay their bills. But you're more interested in these people who are on welfare—like I said, if you have a genuine reason for not working, you'll have my full support. But when you have people on welfare for more than a decade, 20 or 30 years—and this is a question I will ask of the minister. I have the number here that 156,250 people have been on welfare for more than 10 years. Answer me the question: how many have been on welfare for more than 20 years? 11:20 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Hanson, for that question, and also outlining your position and One Nation's position in relation to the amendment. It struck me during your contribution about the wage rates for hairdressers that perhaps the frequency of visits that I would have to make to a hairdresser for them to be employed for an hour is actually quite high, and probably higher than for Senator Cadell's long locks. I'm a low-quality proposition for hairdressers around the place, I'm afraid. The answer to the question, Senator Hanson—I'm happy to come back to you on the actual numbers because I don't have a 20-year figure in front of me. For a time, I did work supporting the work of long-term unemployed people who were re-entering the workforce in a role I occupied as part of the Working Nation program many, many years ago, as the then Keating government was seeking to support long-term unemployed people coming back into the workforce. I understand the barriers that sit in front of long-term unemployed people both from their perspective and from employers' perspectives. The best answer that the government can offer here, apart from the settings that there are in the social security system, is by generating more employment. And the government, since its election, has seen just under half a million jobs generated in the Australian economy—500,000 new jobs, most of them permanent jobs—and that is a very good thing. 11:22 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I appreciate the fact you'll get back to me with those figures, but don't tell me that you've created the jobs. Businesses create the jobs. Manufacturing creates the jobs. People in retail create the jobs. Not you. The government, through the chair, may create jobs through employing more public servants. They're the only jobs that you create, but they're paid for by the taxpayer as well. So, I don't believe that. But I'll go back to the point of wanting to increase Senator Pocock's amendment by 90 per cent of the age pension. We have to look after aged pensioners. They've worked hard, they've earned that right to be looked after. But when I hear about the people on welfare payments— Senator Rice 155410 They are living in poverty. Senator HANSON BK6 I hear the Greens screaming out, 'Poverty,' and, 'These people are living in poverty,' and all the rest of it. As I just explained to you, there are people who are parents who are both working family members who are actually living in poverty as well. They actually have to go to work, but they are living in poverty while trying to feed their kids, pay the bills. A lot of these people are losing their homes. These aren't people on welfare. So, it's not only people on welfare that you say are doing it tough, but there's a difference. People on welfare have the choice. They have a choice to go and apply for a job, a choice to go and work. That is their choice. Everyone has a choice. But if you keep propping these people up all the time, they are going to take the easy way out because it suits them. Their lifestyle suits them. But you're crying for them in this place. Cry for the people who are sick, disabled, people who can't work for the right reasons. Don't cry for those people who have made the choice to sit on their backsides all day long watching TV or taking it for granted that you're going to keep handing them out this money. Think of the future generations. That's what it's about. Make the tough decisions in this place that we need to. And another thing: how do you determine that someone is unemployed? They're not unemployed if they do one hour paid work a week—that's the international standard—or they do voluntary work. Really? Are you deceiving the people or trying to deceive yourselves? There are a lot more people out there, and that is not the right way to go about it, as well. I'd say—unless that's changed, but that's my understanding—the minister may want to refer to that. If I've got it wrong, please tell me I'm wrong, but that was the standard: if you've got one hour paid work a week, you're not classified as unemployed. So who are we really deceiving in this nation? How many are actually on the extra benefits and payments because they're not classified as unemployed? This is a real problem that we have. The budget that we pay out for welfare payments in this country is around $250 billion a year. When I first came into here, it was around $180 billion. Seven years later, it's $250 billion. That is disgraceful. It should not be the way. As I said to you before, people are screaming out for employees. I spoke to farmers just a week ago. They can't get workers. Do you know what the cane farmer said to me? He said: 'We have to drag the old boys back behind the machinery and equipment, because we can't get anyone to work. Years ago, if anyone came to work this machinery here, they'd have to have a mechanics licence and all these other things, plus, plus, plus, before we'd allow them behind the wheel of this machinery. Now we'll grab anyone, as long as they've got two legs and two arms.' That's how desperate they are. Production is going down because they can't get the people to work, yet you're so intent on keeping on paying these welfare payments to people, and you're not going after them and saying, 'why?' I'll put another point across, too, on robodebt—that whole thing that happened there. There was a reason why they were sent that letter: there's a lot of scamming and there's a lot of welfare rorting that's going on. People were sent that letter because they do owe the government money. They'd been rorting the system. About 10 per cent of the people should not have gotten those letters—10 per cent. What happened to the other 90 per cent? What about those ones that are rorting the system? Because of robodebt and because it was poorly handled by ministers advised by their bureaucrats—I say all the time the ministers are so lazy a lot of them don't even know their portfolios and rely on the bureaucrats to give them the information, because they can't even research it themselves. That's the problem in this place. You're being fed the garbage, and you don't go and do the research, the work, yourselves to understand. That was the problem with it. If this same letter were sent out through the Taxation Office, it wouldn't have been under the scrutiny that it was, but because the social welfare system didn't have the authority to send out this letter, that's where the problem came from. At the end of the day, the problem is that there are welfare cheats. There are people using multiple names claiming multiple welfare payments. Then we have the ones here also who are allowed to have multiple marriages, multiple wives, and are collecting welfare as well. But you don't do anything about that. That's happening. Maybe you don't know about that. What are you doing about that? Bigamy in this country—multiple wives, multiple children, collecting multiple checks and saying to the taxpayer, 'Thank you very much; you're a bunch of fools in this country.' That's exactly what's happening. Until you address these important issues and address what the taxpayer wants—accountability. That's what they want: accountability for their hard-earned tax dollars, because they're doing it tough out there, and all I hear is crying. As I said to you, people have a choice. There are so many jobs on offer out there. Even I myself could do with some more staff. But guess what: I can't find the people. No-one is applying for the jobs. Isn't it funny? And I hear this right across the board, so don't just make out that it's One Nation, because—I tell you what—I'm hearing it from other members of parliament right across the board. It is hard to find the people who are capable of doing the job, right across the board, whether it's in farming, retail, political offices or political parties—whatever you want to do—so you grab whoever you can that is willing to work. That's what's happened for me. As a young woman going to work, I got offered three jobs—you could pick whatever job you wanted—and those days are here again now. But the difference is that a lot of people don't want to work. They don't have the work ethic that the older generation have. I'd rather have the older generation work for me, actually, because their work ethic is great. It's fantastic. The fact is we're letting the young ones down; we're letting them off the hook. I'm quite happy to give these kids a kickstart, but it's about finding the ones who want to start at the bottom and work their way up. They always want to start at the top, and that's a problem that we've instilled on them as well. To go back to the point of Senator Pocock's amendment, it's not helping the people; it's not helping future generations. You're not incentivising them. You're not getting them off welfare payments. You're not being fair on the working Australians who are barely making this $27,000 a year themselves, and that's for an age pension. It'll go to about $25,000 a year—I haven't got the exact figure. You're not being fair on those tradies who are screaming out that they'd like more money. Be fair. If you're going to make a decision in this place, make it fair right across the board for everyone. Incentivise people to get up off their backsides, start going to work and start applying for these jobs. If you don't, do investigations into why these people are still on welfare after 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. Why are we getting a fourth generation that is on welfare? What have you done about that? What have you done to address that issue? Where is the accountability? Where's the accountability? Why are we seeing our welfare bill go up continually year in, year out? You got 100,000 people off welfare payments, yet you brought—what?—over 400,000 into the country in the last year. That doesn't equate to me. Like I said, go and do your sums, go and talk to the Australian grassroots people out there, go and talk to businesses, go and talk to the farmers and make it fair right across the board. Get these people off welfare payments by incentivising them. Don't keep increasing their payments all the time to make life better in one way. You've got to incentivise them to see that this is not the way of life, to get off welfare payments and to go and get a job. 11:32 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I indicate that the Greens will be supporting this amendment. It's very similar—exactly the same, in fact—as an amendment that we also were pursuing. I also want to thank Senator David Pocock for his passion for and commitment to raising the wellbeing of people who are living on income support. Of course, it's extremely disappointing that both the Labor and the Liberal parties teamed up to vote against increasing income support to above the poverty line, as per the amendment I moved previously. It is interesting to see that we have here an amendment that is based on the recommendations that the government's own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, their own hand-picked committee, made. It was chaired by former minister Jenny Macklin. It had the people that they picked. They had the people that they wanted to advise the government on income support on this committee. The committee reviewed the evidence of the academics who have decades of expertise in this area and talked to people with lived experience, and they said that we needed to raise income support to at least 90 per cent of the age pension, which was the level they picked. I would have thought, given the whole issue of what level income support should be, that, at the very least, the government would have listened to the recommendations of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. So I do want to ask the minister: was the evidence of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee part of the evidence base for this bill? 11:34 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Rice. As I indicated in response to Senator Pocock's last contribution, we respect the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. The government certainly hasn't made appointments to that committee that reflect desire to shut out expert evidence or alternative points of view. In fact, we value the advice and deliberative capacity of that group. It does not mean that we'll agree with the conclusions that they reach, because the government has to have regard to a range of considerations that are our responsibility, but we are not afraid of alternative points of view. It certainly was taken into account and engaged with as one of the sources of advice that the government had prior to making decisions about the range of issues that are incorporated into this bill. 11:35 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria It's good to hear that their advice was considered as part of the evidence base for this bill. I want to ask a simple question. The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, in making their recommendations, said that the rate of JobSeeker was seriously inadequate. I know the government's position is that you had to take other things into account in determining where you landed on the level—and, obviously, we are very disappointed with where you landed. I don't want to go into that; I understand where you've landed. What I want to know is this: does the government agree with the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee's assessment that the current rate of JobSeeker is seriously inadequate? 11:36 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Indeed, and that's why the government is implementing a $40 increase, exclusive of indexation. That means that, on 20 September, people will receive in the order of $56. It is important to assess that in line with the government's other changes. It sits alongside cost-of-living relief that the government provided in the budget for concession card holders. It includes help with power bills through the government's Energy Bill Relief Fund, record investment in Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicines and a range of other improvements to the social safety net. The $40 increase is a substantial increase. It's been carefully calibrated to provide additional support. We agree with the conclusion that the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee reached that there needed to be a substantial increase to JobSeeker and associated payments. The government has reached a conclusion about the scale of that increase, and we will continue to consider, in every budget deliberation, how we approach that question. 11:38 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I want to thank Senator Hanson for her concern for people who are working and doing it tough. The reality is that, across the country at the moment, there are many people who do have jobs and many families that are doing it tough, dealing with inflation and interest rates that are going up, and we do need to be mindful of them. I said this yesterday and I want to say it again: we need to take heed of the words from Commissioner Holmes about the way that we talk about people in Australia who are receiving welfare payments and who are on JobSeeker. It matters; the language we use matters. The way that we've heard them talked about, and the othering of them, talking about them as some lazy group of people that should not be of concern to us, is deeply concerning. I would urge all senators to think about the way that we talk about that. We should be proud to live in a country where we have chosen to have a social security system and a safety net. The other part of this conversation is that we're kidding ourselves if we think that we can save money on social security by having people live in poverty and not pick that up somewhere else in our health budget or in our policing. All these other areas are where we know we're going to pick up the bill eventually, and so it's such short-term thinking to think that we can just rip away social security payments and have people living in poverty and that's better for taxpayers. It's not, and we know it's not. We will be paying the costs when it comes to the health of those people who can't afford fresh food, who can't afford the basic necessities of life and who certainly, from what I've heard from a lot of people, can't afford to fill scripts and to see the GP when they need medical care. We know how expensive that becomes when people don't have access to health care when they need it and have to put it off so that things end up compounding and they end up in the emergency departments. My question to the minister is based on what I have heard from a lot of young people, particularly students, many on the living-away-from home allowance and on the youth allowance, who say that on this payment they simply cannot afford fresh food. 'I can't afford to eat healthy food, so I'm surviving on two-minute noodles and whatever I can to get by.' Minister, are you confident that $40 per fortnight will make the difference needed to ensure people can afford fresh food, or can you share the strategy for how we can make fresh food more accessible to those on low incomes and payments? 11:41 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Pocock. Of course, $40 a week, taken together with the range of other measures that sit within this bill and the range of other measures that the government has undertaken, will make a substantial difference. In terms of JobSeeker recipients, it will make a substantial difference to a million people who will be the recipients of that additional amount. Some of the other measures in this bill affect a substantial cohort of people. I do not stand here to pretend that this will resolve all of the issues for the many thousands of Australians who are doing it tough, particularly in an environment of higher than normal inflation. My answer to your question is very much the same answer that I gave perhaps at more length yesterday in response to questions from Senator Rice. The government has made a carefully calibrated assessment, and this is a substantial increase that will make a substantial difference to a lot of people. 11:43 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, this is my last question. I'm interested in how the government measures or monitors living standards of people on working-age payments, and, depending on your answer, are you looking to establish a modern adequacy measure for working-age payments so that we can monitor this? 11:43 Senator AYRE 16913 New South Wales S (—) (): I want to make sure that I can give you some proper advice, Senator Pocock. As I think you indicated in your initial contribution on this, Australia doesn't have an official poverty line and poverty is a complex issue. It's driven by many factors, and there is no single measure. There are a range of measures. There are ranges of data that are used, and they all tend to give different answers about the extent of poverty. It's important to remember that all of those commonly used relative poverty indicators don't provide an assessment of people's absolute material living standards. The data only takes you as far as aggregate data can take an assessment of poverty. The government considers factors when examining living standards that include non-income base supports available to households. It considers existing savings and wealth that can potentially be drawn upon and it considers homeownership status when making a range of these kinds of decisions. It's not something, in my view, that is resolved necessarily by being able to establish a single effective measure of poverty in Australia. In fact, the different data provides different information that assists the assessment. Different information and different relative assessments assist the contribution. I'm not sure there would be many in the welfare sector who would agree that a single definitive dataset or index would necessarily assist better policymaking in this area. When legislated, I look forward to more advice to government on this range of questions, including from the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, which will, as I indicated before, be legislated over the course of this year. 11:46 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The coalition will not be supporting these amendments put forward by Senator David Pocock because we don't believe the two measures contained in this are the best way to address the issues facing Australians on working-age payments. We believe it would be far better addressed in relation to housing affordability, for the government to reconsider its failed housing policy agenda and start addressing the real issues facing our current housing market. For the reason that we believe this is a very blunt way of addressing the issues that are before Australians who are on working-age payments, we will not be supporting the amendments. 11:47 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I indicate the government will not be supporting the amendments. Thank you for the discussion around this. The government urges the Senate to oppose the amendments. The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T The question is that the requests for amendments be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:51]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Pratt)

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. 26 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:54 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move amendment (1) on sheet 2028: (1) Page 33 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4 — Reinstatement of 6-year limit on debt recovery for social security debts A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 1 After paragraph 84(1)(b) Insert: Note: Section 85 specifies a time limit on recovery action for debts due to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991. 2 After subparagraph 84A(1)(b)(ii) Insert: Note: Section 85 specifies a time limit on recovery action for debts due to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991. 3 After section 84A Insert: 85 Time limits on recovery action under sections 84 and 84A for debts due to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991 (1) This section applies to action under section 84 or 84A for the recovery of a debt if the debt is a debt due by a person to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991. (2) Subject to subsections (3), (4) and (5), action under section 84 or 84A for the recovery of a debt is not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt. (3) If: (a) subsection (2) applies so that action under section 84 or 84A for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and (b) within that period part of the amount owing is paid; action under that section for the recovery of the balance of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of payment. (4) If: (a) subsection (2) applies so that action under section 84 or 84A for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and (b) within that period, the person who owes the amount acknowledges that he or she owes it; action under that section for the recovery of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of acknowledgment. 4 Section 93B Before "For", insert "(1)". 5 At the end of section 93B Add: (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to action taken under section 84 or 84A for the recovery of a debt if the debt is a debt due by a person to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991. Note: Section 85 specifies a time limit on recovery action for debts due to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991. 6 Before paragraph 95(3)(b) Insert: (a) the debt cannot be recovered by means of: (i) deductions under section 84; or (ii) deductions under section 1231 of the Social Security Act 1991; or (iii) setting off under section 84A family assistance; or because the relevant time limit for recovery action under that section has elapsed; or Social Security Act 1991 7 Subsection 1231(2) Omit "The", substitute "Subject to subsections (4) to (6), the". 8 At the end of section 1231 Add: (3) Subject to subsections (4), (5) and (6), action under this section for the recovery of a debt or overpayment is not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt. (4) If: (a) subsection (3) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt or overpayment must be commenced within a particular period; and (b) within that period part of the amount owing is paid; action under this section for the recovery of the balance of the debt or overpayment may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of payment. (5) If: (a) subsection (3) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt or overpayment must be commenced within a particular period; and (b) within that period, the person who owes the amount acknowledges that he or she owes it; action under this section for the recovery of the debt or overpayment may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of acknowledgment. (6) If: (a) subsection (3) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt or overpayment must be commenced within a particular period; and (b) within that period: (i) action is taken under this section or section 1232 (legal proceedings) or 1233 (garnishee notice) for the recovery of the debt or overpayment; or (ii) a review of a file relating to action for the recovery of the debt or overpayment occurs; or (iii) other internal Departmental activity relating to action for the recovery of the debt or overpayment occurs; action under this section for the recovery of the debt or overpayment may be commenced within the period of 6 years after the end of the activity or action referred to in paragraph (b). 9 Section 1232 Before "If", insert "(1)". 10 At the end of section 1232 Add: (2) Subject to subsections (3), (4) and(5), legal proceedings for the recovery of the debt are not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt. (3) If: (a) subsection (2) applies so that legal proceedings for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and (b) within that period part of the amount owing is paid; legal proceedings for the recovery of the balance of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of payment. (4) If: (a) subsection (2) applies so that legal proceedings for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and (b) within that period, the person who owes the amount acknowledges that he or she owes it; legal proceedings for the recovery of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of acknowledgment. (5) If: (a) subsection (2) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and (b) within that period: (i) action is taken under this section or section 1231 (deductions) or 1233 (garnishee notice) for the recovery of the debt; or (ii) a review of a file relating to action for the recovery of the debt occurs; or (iii) other internal Departmental activity relating to action for the recovery of the debt occurs; action under this section for the recovery of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years after the end of the activity or action referred to in paragraph (b). 11 After subsection 1233(7) Insert: (7A) Subject to subsections (7B), (7C) and (7D), action under this section for the recovery of a debt is not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt. (7B) If: (a) subsection (7A) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and (b) within that period part of the amount owing is paid; action under this section for the recovery of the balance of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of payment. (7C) If: (a) subsection (7A) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and (b) within that period, the person who owes the amount acknowledges that he or she owes it; action under this section for the recovery of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of acknowledgment. (7D) If: (a) subsection (7A) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and (b) within that period: (i) action is taken under this section or section 1231 (deductions) or 1232 (legal proceedings) for the recovery of the debt; or (ii) a review of a file relating to action for the recovery of the debt occurs; or (iii) other internal Departmental activity relating to action for the recovery of the debt occurs; action under this section for the recovery of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years after the end of the activity or action referred to in paragraph (b). 12 Section 1234B Repeal the section. 13 Before paragraph 1236(1B)(b) Insert: (a) the debt cannot be recovered by means of deductions, or legal proceedings, or garnishee notice, because the relevant 6 year period mentioned in section 1231, 1232 or 1233 has elapsed; or (aa) the debt cannot be recovered by means of deductions or setting off because the relevant 6 year period mentioned in section 85 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 has elapsed; or 14 Application of amendments A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (1) The amendments of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 made by this Schedule apply in relation to: (a) a debt that arises on or after the commencement of this item; and (b) a debt that arose before the commencement of this item, to the extent that the debt was outstanding immediately before that commencement. (2) Paragraph (1)(b) applies in relation to a debt only if, immediately before the commencement of this item, action under section 84 or 84A of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 could be commenced or taken for the recovery of the debt. Social Security Act 1991 (3) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to: (a) a debt or overpayment that arises on or after the commencement of this item; and (b) a debt or overpayment that arose before the commencement of this item, to the extent that the debt or overpayment was outstanding immediately before that commencement. (4) Paragraph (3)(b) applies in relation to a debt or overpayment only if, immediately before the commencement of this item, action under section 1231 or 1233, or legal proceedings under section 1232, of the Social Security Act 1991 could be commenced for the recovery of the debt or overpayment. This amendment is about implementing one of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. It was Greens senator Rachel Siewert who first established the first Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs inquiry into the Centrelink compliance program, otherwise known as robodebt, and it was the Greens who first called for a royal commission into robodebt. People fought and campaigned for the robodebt royal commission to be established. Obviously, the royal commission had some very far-reaching and important recommendations. The royal commission can't bring restitution to everyone who lost so much in the face of the illegal debt recovery, but at least it has brought some measures of transparency and accountability after years of cover up and concealment by Liberal ministers and senior bureaucrats, laughing and lying as they inflicted untold misery on vulnerable people, illegally trying to recover debts in a search for budget savings. We've now got recommendations from the royal commission, and we think it's really important that they get implemented as quickly as possible. Many of them are very large and very complex and are going to take a lot of time for the government to work out the best way to implement them across portfolios. We, as Greens, acknowledge the importance of taking your time with those recommendations. However, there was one recommendation which was pretty straightforward, which was recommendation 18.2. It refers to the changes made by the Turnbull government that changed the legislation's previous requirement for a six-year time frame for debts to be raised. Basically, if it was a debt that was more than six years old you couldn't raise a debt against it. The Turnbull government changed that so that debts older than six years were fair game. The robodebt royal commission made a very clear recommendation that we should change that: The Commonwealth should repeal s 1234B of the Social Security Act and reinstate the effective limitation period of six years for the bringing of proceedings to recover debts under Part 5.2 of the Act … There is no reason that current and former social security recipients should be on a different footing from other debtors. We have legislation before us today to amend the Social Security Act. It is a very straightforward thing, as per my amendment, to reinstate the provisions that were there before the Abbott government's changes. This recommendation isn't complex. It's not one of the complex robodebt royal commission recommendations. I understand the arguments from the government that we need to implement those recommendations slowly and carefully. I accept that for most of them, but that's not the case for this one. In particular, I've also heard the argument: 'No, we've got to wait to do this until we've got the full picture of what we need to do.' I would have been very happy for an amendment that acknowledged that this is a stopgap provision and that, in the fullness of time, once we've got all of the changes that are required, we can change the provisions if there's a better way of doing it. In the meantime, here is a very straightforward opportunity to provide some justice for people by putting in place the provision as it used to be—to say that debts that are more than six years old should not be pursued. We don't know when the full suite of changes, after the government's careful consideration of them, are going to come into place. It might be years off. In the meantime, at least do this. It was a very simple recommendation of the royal commission and it's something that could easily be done today. 11:59 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The government won't be supporting this amendment, on the basis that Senator Rice herself set out in her contribution. We will consider all of the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. We will develop, as a government, a careful package of reforms. We will not be rushed into consideration of individual elements of that. We intend to offer a very thorough-going response to the robodebt royal commission to ensure not just better policy outcomes here, but to ensure that something like this can never happen again. 12:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The opposition will not be supporting this amendment either because we don't believe this is the appropriate place to deal with such an amendment. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 2028, as moved by Senator Rice, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:05]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

14 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:07 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move amendment (1) on sheet 2049, as circulated in my name: (1) Page 33 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4 — Removing the activity test A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 1 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child ) Repeal the definition. 2 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child result ) Repeal the definition. 3 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person ) Repeal the definition. 4 Subsection 3(1) (definition of activity test result ) Repeal the definition. 5 Subsection 3(1) (definition of child wellbeing result ) Repeal the definition. 6 Subsection 3(1) Insert: circumstances test result has the meaning given by clause 11 of Schedule 2. 7 Subsection 3(1) (definition of deemed activity test result ) Repeal the definition. 8 Subsection 3(1) Insert: deemed circumstances test result has the meaning given by clause 16 of Schedule 2. 9 Subsection 3(1) (definition of extended child wellbeing period ) Repeal the definition. 10 Subsection 3(1) (definition of low income result ) Repeal the definition. 11 Subsection 3(1) (definition of paid work ) Omit "(other than in paragraph 12(2)(a) of Schedule 2)". 12 Subsection 3(1) (definition of recognised activity ) Repeal the definition. 13 Subsection 3(1) definition of recognised activity result ) Repeal the definition. 14 Subsection 3B(1) Omit "(other than in paragraph 12(2)(a) of Schedule 2)". 15 Subsection 3B(1) (note) Repeal the note. 16 Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 1) Repeal the step. 17 Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 5, paragraph (a)) Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested". 18 Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 5, paragraph (b)) Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested". 19 Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 6) Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested". 20 Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 7) Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested". 21 Clause 4 of Schedule 2 (heading) Omit "Activity-tested", substitute "Circumstances-tested". 22 Subclause 4(1) of Schedule 2 Omit "activity-tested amount", substitute "circumstances-tested amount". 23 Subparagraph 4(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 2 Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 24 Subclause 4(2) of Schedule 2 Omit "activity test" (wherever occurring), substitute "circumstances test". 25 Clause 4A of Schedule 2 (heading) Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested". 26 Paragraph 4A(1)(a) of Schedule 2 Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested". 27 Subclause 4A(2) of Schedule 2 Omit "adjustedactivity-tested amount", substitute "adjustedcircumstances-tested amount". 28 Paragraphs 4A(2)(a) and (b) of Schedule 2 Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested". 29 Clause 8 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 1) Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 30 Clause 8 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 4) Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested". 31 Clause 8 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 5) Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested". 32 Clause 10 of Schedule 2 (heading) Omit "Activity-tested", substitute "Circumstances-tested". 33 Subclause 10(1) Omit "activity-tested amount", substitute "circumstances-tested amount". 34 Paragraph 10(1)(a) of Schedule 2 Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 35 Subclause 10(2) of Schedule 2 Omit "activity test" (wherever occurring), substitute "circumstances test". 36 Part 5 of Schedule 2 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: Part 5 — Circumstances test 37 Division 1 of Part 5 of Schedule 2 (heading) Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 38 Clause 11 of Schedule 2 (heading) Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 39 Subclause 11(1) of Schedule 2 Omit "activity test result", substitute "circumstances test result". 40 Subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of Schedule 2 Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (ii) the result worked out in accordance with paragraph (a) for the individual's partner in relation to the child. 41 Subclause 11(1) of Schedule 2 (table heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: Individual's circumstances test result 42 Subclause 11(1) of Schedule 2 (table items 1 and 2) Repeal the items, substitute: 43 Subclause 11(1) of Schedule 2 (table item 4) Repeal the item. 44 Subclause 11(1) of Schedule 2 (table item 6) Repeal the item. 45 Subclause 11(5) of Schedule 2 Omit "activity test" (wherever occurring), substitute "circumstances test". 46 Clauses 12, 13, 15 and 15A of Schedule 2 Repeal the clauses. 47 Division 2 of Part 5 of Schedule 2 (heading) Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 48 Clause 16 of Schedule 2 (heading) Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 49 Subclause 16(1) of Schedule 2 Omit "deemed activity test result", substitute "deemed circumstances test result". A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 50 Subparagraph 67CE(1)(b)(ii) Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 51 Subsection 67FB(4) Repeal the subsection. 52 Paragraph 105C(1)(b) Omit "one", substitute "either". 53 Subparagraph 105C(1)(b)(ia) Repeal the subparagraph. 54 Subparagraph 105D(2)(a)(ii) Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 55 Subparagraph 105E(1)(c)(ii) Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 56 Subparagraph 105E(3)(c)(ii) Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 57 Subparagraph 108(5)(b) Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 58 Paragraph 111(2A)(b) Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test". 59 Paragraph 157(2)(k) Repeal the paragraph. 60 Application of amendments The amendments of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 made by this Schedule apply in relation to sessions of care provided to a child in a CCS fortnight that starts after the commencement of this item. This amendment would remove the activity test, which is a longstanding source of pain for parents, as multiple reviews, including those conducted by IEIAC and the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, have recognised. There is evidence to suggest the activity test discourages parents from working more hours, especially in casual jobs with variable hours. As IEIAC said, 'The activity test is a poor piece of public policy that should be reformed.' We have an opportunity now to do that. I do not intend to force a division on this given the time. 12:08 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The Greens will be wholeheartedly supporting Senator Pocock's amendment. 12:08 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. 12:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The government will oppose the amendment. The Productivity Commission has kicked off a comprehensive inquiry into early childhood education and the range of issues that have been outlined here, and it will provide an interim report at the end of the year. Question negatived. 12:09 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2031: (1) Page 33 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 6 — Determination of a national poverty line Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 1 After section 241 Insert: 241A National poverty line Minister to determine national poverty line (1) As soon as practicable after the end of the 2022-23 financial year, and each later financial year, the Minister must, by notifiable instrument, determine a national poverty line for the next financial year. Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to give Minister advice (2) The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee must give the Minister written advice that relates to the determination of a national poverty line for a financial year. (3) In considering advice to be given to the Minister under subsection (2), the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee may make provision for public consultation. (4) The Minister must: (a) follow the advice provided by the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee under subsection (2) in determining a national poverty line for the relevant financial year; and (b) cause a copy of that advice to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the advice. Definitions (5) In this section: Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee means the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee or any body that replaces that committee. This is about establishing a national poverty line. For too long we have seen both Labor and Liberal governments content with leaving income support payments well below the poverty line. There are numerous definitions in the community at the moment as to what the poverty line is. The Henderson poverty line is currently $88 a day. We have other poverty lines in use. It is clear, in order to be able to track poverty across Australia, that we need to have a definition. I heard Senator Ayres saying earlier it was too complex and we can't possibly have one. That is not the situation; that is not where the current thinking is. Yes, it's complex, but we can establish one, and we should establish one. My amendment would give the recommendation to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to do the research to determine what the national poverty line is and then implement that recommendation. 12:10 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania While I understand the motivation behind the Greens' amendment on sheet 2031, it's not something that we can support. The amendment calls for the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to determine a single national poverty line for a financial year, every year. It requires the committee to give that poverty line to the minister and for the minister to have to table it. This is asking the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to do something that is impossible. Poverty doesn't look the same everywhere. Poverty in Tasmania isn't like poverty in Sydney, where the cost of living is really high. You've got to draw the line higher. Because the cost of just feeding and housing yourself is higher in Sydney than it is in Tasmania, you can't guarantee much about a single national poverty line consistent everywhere except that it's going to be wrong everywhere. It's the problem with averages. It's going to be too high in Tassie and too low in Sydney, and it's going to be wrong from day one. The Henderson poverty line is a series that most people use in Australia to define the threshold for poverty. It's updated every three months. That's because the cost of living changes more than once a year and payments change twice a year, and the cost of housing changes when interest rates change every month. If you set the 2023 Henderson poverty line to where it was at in 2022, based on data from the previous year, you'd be wrong as soon as you start, and you'd get more wrong the longer you wait to update. The Greens have designed this amendment to have the line updated once a year based on the data of the previous year to inform a budget that applies to the next year. It misleads because it applies a single standard on everyone using old information, and then projects it forward as if nothing else is changing. Finally, the Henderson poverty line is actually a series of 20 different lines. There is no one line. The Henderson model breaks it down based on your living circumstances. A single unemployed parent with four kids is going to have more bills to pay and more mouths to feed than a working couple with no kids. They can both be in poverty, but they can't be if you use a single line. You can't compare a working single parent with a retired pensioner who owns their own home and say that because that pensioner owns their own home they can't be in poverty. You might have bought it 50 years ago when prices were cheap and now you own it, but you can't afford your heating, you can't afford your groceries, your car doesn't leave the garage because you can't afford the registration. A single national poverty line would say that you're fine, and we know that you're not. Poverty doesn't look like any one single thing. It matters where you live. It matters who lives with you. If we were to support this amendment it would be because we think poverty rates are important to measure and track, and it's important to have the government focused on reducing the number of people who are living below the line. We do think it's important to do all of those things. But it's because poverty is important that we think it's worth measuring right and tracking right, and we don't want to ignore whole groups of people who are living in poverty right now because we want a single, simple number instead of a messy, complicated bunch of different ones. Poverty rates should be a national obsession. I want governments to measure success or failure based on how many people are unable to make ends meet, but we will not get there by jumping out of the gates with a number we know is wrong based on data we know is old averaging away people who don't seem to count. It's because they count that they deserve to be counted, and that's what this amendment would prevent. That's why we can't support it. 12:14 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales For the reasons that I set out in response to the amendment moved by Senator Pocock earlier, the government will be opposing the amendment. 12:14 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The coalition will also be opposing this amendment. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 2031, as moved by Senator Rice, be agreed to. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 58 12:15 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 12:16 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I shall now proceed to senators' statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 58 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Road Transport Industry: Razorback Blockade 58 12:16 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I've got a good-news story. About a month ago or so, I was doing the Wednesday night live On the Road radio show with Mike Williams, Glenn 'Yogi' Kendall and Craig Forsyth. These guys got together and formed On the Road radio. Mike Williams does the On the Road podcast. Good luck to them. This is fantastic. And they've resurrected Truckin' Life. Mike is the editor. So we were having a Wednesday evening yarn, talking about trucking stuff and what's going on around the nation. Afterwards, Mike said to me: 'Hang on, Glenn. I just want a word with you.' I said: 'Sure. No worries, mate.' He said: 'Look mate, you wouldn't believe it, but I've teed something up with the mob at the National Road Transport Museum Hall of Fame. The surviving leaders of the Razorback Blockade are going to be awarded history maker awards.' For those who don't know what Razorback was, let me tell you. I was a young, impressionable 19-year-old. I was a company driver. I had a Rigid UD at the time, I think it was, and I think my pants were size 28. I was about one-fifth of the man I am now! But let me just say this: I really remember Razorback. At the time, Australia had the most regressive, repulsive, horrible tax called the road tax. And the road transport industry were blistered, absolutely blistered. Many, many operators and many owner-drivers were sent to the wall because they hadn't paid their road tax. A lot of owner-drivers cut out their road tax fines in jail time. How bad is that? That's how bad it was. Then, on 2 April 1979, five of the most courageous men in the trucking industry back then met at Ted Stevens' place. Ted 'Greendog' Stevens was the leader of the blockade, but he was ably backed up by five other men. There was five of them on that night—and I'll also talk about the sixth one and how he came into it—who said they'd had a gutful: they're not paying the tax anymore and they're going to park across the highway. They drove out on the old Hume Highway, parked up at Razorback Ridge and blockaded the road. I'll go through some stats later, but I'm reading from the Sydney Morning Herald from 5 April 2019, which was updated from 6 April 1979. For those who don't know, there were over 3,000 trucks blockading the highways of Australia. There were over 40 locations in four states. This was a huge, huge action to take back then. You can't imagine it now. If the poor devils tried to do it now, they'd be locked up. The coppers would be towing away their vehicles. God almighty, how bad has this country gone? You can't even stand up for what you believe in anymore and take civil action. God help us! Anyway, they did, and I'm going to name these men. There was Colin Bird, Barry Grimson, Jack Hibbert, Ted Stevens—of course—and Spencer Watling. What actually happened was that, on that same night—I'm led to believe, and if I've got the story wrong, Mike will correct me—there was another truck driver, Carl Goodfellow, who had his son in the truck with him. That was in the good old days when the kids could go with Dad on a run. We can't have that now, though, with all the safety requirements and all that, but that's where our nursery came from, the boys and girls of the trucking fathers, uncles and grandfathers. That's how we all learnt our trade, that's how I learnt my trade, that's how my son learnt his trade. Anyway, that's about the good old days. Getting back to Carl Goodfellow, he's coming down the road, the gendarmes pull him up and say: 'Look mate, there's a blockade out there. We'll help you.' I do know the name of the road, but I've forgotten it and it will come to me—anyway, doesn't matter. They said, 'You can take this shortcut so you can avoid the blockade.' He got shunted down this road. Off he went down this road with his son in the truck. Unbeknownst to the gendarmes and others, who was at the other end of the road waiting for the shortcut? It was none other than Ted Stevens, Greendog himself, waiting down there, as was Colin Bird. Now, Colin recognised Carl. He said: 'I know that truck. That's me mate.' They waved him down. They said, 'Mate, we're blockading the highway.' He said, 'Beauty, how can I help?' They said: 'You can park up too, mate. What do you reckon? We've got a car here, so we can get your son home.' He said, 'Ripper.' He parked his truck and thanked the gendarmes for the shortcut advice. Needless to say, nine days later, many, many trucks were stuck there, and I'll go through figures later. Officially, there were six of them, so we'll tack Carl on there as well. The best part of it is that Mike said to me after the radio yarn we had: 'Look, I've got a great idea. I want to raise a few bob. I want to take Carl and his wife, I want to take Spencer and his wife, and I want to get Barry and his wife, but I also want to get Ted Stevens's son, Ben, and his daughter, Kelly, to Alice Springs because they're going to get the award on behalf of their father. Ted passed away in about 2018. It's magnificent for someone who has always espoused that bad laws need to be broken, especially in the trucking industry. I'm in envy of those days that are now long gone because they were when you could get things done. No-one wanted to do it that way, but that's how you had to do it to get results. I said Mike, 'That's great, mate.' He said, 'I also want to put them up, raise money to pay for their accommodation in Alice Springs.' I said: 'Great. What's it got to do with me?' He said, 'Well, put me on to some people with money, will ya?' I said, 'Let me think about this.' Overnight I thought I wanted be part of this. I rang Mike and said: 'Mate, we're in. Tell them they're going. I'll get the money for the air fares and accommodation for three nights.' Other generous donors helped too, and they know who they are. They chipped in a few bob to help out, and I raised the money through the truck driving stuff I do, backed up by my good mates at Centurion. We've raised the money, and I'm happy to say that I will be joining them in Alice Springs. I can't wait to meet these legends of the road transport industry. Two of them are in their 80s, and I believe they're still driving trucks. I can't wait to meet their wives. I can't wait to meet Ted's daughter and son, Ben and Kelly, and to tilt my hat to them for taking that courageous move. That wasn't easily done. I read Ted's obituary. Sadly, Ted led the charge and was backed up by the others—and there were about 3,000 other truck drivers—but it cost him, eventually, his job, or his business, and his family, and he was a broken man at the end you can see the effort that was put in, and I'll tell you some of the stuff about what these guys did to try and better the road transport industry. It breaks my heart to think nothing's changed, but rules are going change. Every senator in this building is going to get an opportunity to vote for the betterment of the road transport industry, so the legacy of Ted Stevens and those brave men will live on forever. It's a disgrace that it's taken so long, and I can't wait to vote on this legislation coming through. What did we have? We had blockades in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. As I said, they'd parked up on Razorback, but there were a number of others. They were stopping heavy vehicles. They weren't stopping cars, so they weren't stopping families from getting to do their stuff. Fruit, vegetables and dairy products were being dumped by drivers stopped at New South Wales blockades. There were 19 blockages around Sydney. The major protests in Victoria were in Horsham, where there were 125 trucks, and Murchison East, 100 trucks. Smaller blockades built up at Melton, 40 trucks, Kalkallo, 40, and Little River, five of them. Victorian police were monitoring the blockades all night. Reinforcements were being organised at Russell Street in case they were needed, but fortunately the truckies were very well behaved. They didn't want drama, and they worked closely with police to continue it. It went through South Australia too. The Sydney Morning Herald in 1979 said: … 360 transport vehicles were being held up at three places on the Princes Highway east of Adelaide. Blockades were also set up at Mt Gambier and on the south and north-east approaches of Adelaide. In Queensland, blockades were mounted on the Bruce, Cunningham and Newell highways. Horsham drivers were on special lookout for two West Australian rigs— they name their registration numbers— which crashed the barrier at Rockbank doing 80 kmh. It sounds like a song or a scene from Smokey and the Bandit. I don't know what happened to them, but a few rebel truck drivers ended up with minor damage to their trucks, and they were shunned by the rest of the industry, and no-one wanted to work with them—nothing wrong with that. The article continued: The biggest blockades in NSW were at Golbourn-Yass (600 trucks), West Wyalong (400), Razorback Mountain (200) and Boggabilla (400). Seriously, I can't wait to meet these men, these legends. I can't wait to be a part of the procession that witnesses them getting recognised for this. And of course their wives will be with them too. It was a magnificent achievement. Two of them are in their 80s. Gentlemen, we will meet. We'll have a few beers, make no mistake. There are a couple of reunion parties, and there are going to be a lot of gears changed that night. There is going to be a lot of freight moved that night. The stories will get bigger and bigger as the night goes on. I can't wait to hear them. I can't wait to have my two bob's worth. Guys, your status in my mind will live for ever. I applaud you. To the wives, thank you so much for standing by our truckies. We are now going to have the opportunity to vote to fix this mess up. Labour Productivity 60 12:26 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia For some time now, I've been talking in this place about the lack of action from this government on labour productivity. Labour productivity is a key economic indicator. Positive labour productivity has been responsible for much of this country's recent prosperity. Over the last hundred years, the economic output of the average Australian is up sevenfold, while the hours needed to achieve this have declined. In its recent 5-year productivity inquiry report, the Productivity Commission noted: Productivity growth—producing more outputs, with the same or fewer inputs—is the only sustainable driver of increasing living standards over the long term. While economic growth based solely on physical inputs cannot go on forever, human ingenuity is inexhaustible. Two hundred years ago, around 90 per cent of the world's population lived in poverty. Today, it's less than 10 per cent. This inexhaustible ingenuity of the human spirit has, over the past two centuries, seen productivity growth lift millions out of poverty. The use of fossil fuels has objectively been one of the single biggest drivers behind the reduction in poverty, something that the Left can't bring themselves to acknowledge—but I'll park that for now and address that on another day. The growth in productivity means less time spent producing goods. Equally, it is these goods and services and, importantly, their quality, that have empowered people to live in improved conditions. By any global standard, Australians' living standards have been the envy of the world. However, this is now at risk. Under the Albanese Labor government's watch, the inflation building has been on fire. In fact, this fire has been roaring out of control. To date, the government has blamed everyone for high inflation—the previous government, the Ukraine war, the RBA governor. I'm sure even my chocolate lab at home, Lily, has been blamed. She certainly gets the blame for a lot of things in my house. But the blame for this high inflation lies squarely at the feet of this government. They own it. They are responsible for it. Rather than fixing it, they continue to add to the problem by pouring petrol on the fire—ranging from the reckless May budget to introducing arcane industrial relations legislation that seeks to take this country back to the 1970s, when stagflation was running rife, and widespread industrial action became the norm. The Prime Minister's silence on labour productivity, frankly, has been deafening. His government does not talk about how to address declining labour productivity. Even worse, trade unions hate us talking about productivity. Their only vision for improving productivity would be to isolate the Productivity Commission or dismantle it altogether. The Albanese government has recently announced the appointment of Wayne Swan's former chief of staff to head the Productivity Commission. It is crucial that the commission does not become a politicised echo chamber of the Albanese government and their union mates. It should be focused on providing advice that will help to improve our economy. This is particularly important at this time, when labour productivity has collapsed by 4.6 per cent in the last 12 months under Mr Albanese. With ever-increasing urgency, the Governor of the Reserve Bank has been sounding the alarm about the need to increase productivity. In a keynote address on 7 June, Dr Lowe observed: The best way to achieve a moderation in growth in unit labour costs is through stronger productivity growth, which would also underpin durable increases in real wages and our national wealth and make more resources available to fund the public services that people value. Now, month after month, this government has persecuted the RBA governor as the bogeyman for its economic failings, its own economic failings. In their view, the governor was responsible for the inflation mess it created and just about every other ill that has occurred during this government's time in office. But the RBA has only one tool available to fight inflation—that is, interest rates. The government should be doing more by reining in its own reckless spending, which is further compounding inflation and hurting Australian families. Rather than addressing its own fiscal policy, this government decided the best way to address inflation was to replace the RBA governor. Back on 23 June 2023, John Kehoe wrote in the Australian Financial Review, : If pay increases continue to surge ahead of worker productivity, the labour market could adjust abruptly through job shedding. That is what could happen. The 3.7 per cent unemployment rate is tipped to jump above 5 per cent by next year. The out-take from this is quite simple: if the government keeps setting the inflation building on fire then unemployment will rise. There is a link between inflation and the rate of growth in the labour unit costs. In 2022 labour unit costs increased by 7.5 per cent. Wage growth without productivity will lead to further inflation growth. Right now, the government is performing a highwire act with the Australian economy, let's face it. But the highwire act will come crashing down soon enough. With rampant inflation, high interest rates and a cost-of-living crisis, the government now seeks further market intervention in the market by introducing its tranche of radical industrial relations laws. The dust hasn't even settled on the IR legislation introduced last year and it now seeks to further empower and embolden trade unions' ability to muscle in on the Australian workplace. Yet, through all this madness, the government doesn't talk about productivity. It doesn't say how these new laws will help productivity, nor does it set a path to ensure productivity remains a key lever in Australia's economic prosperity. Some of Australia's biggest employers are saying this bill that's been proposed, which we will see in the next few months, is a productivity killer. The Business Council of Australia has stated: At a time when Australia has almost full employment but record low productivity growth, investment retreating overseas and pressures from inflation and interest rates, there is little justification for upending the workplace relations system and creating and compounding uncertainty and costs … In conclusion, this government likes to govern in slogans, but defeating inflation and improving productivity requires more than one-liner slogans from the minister for workplace relations. Simply fulfilling a trade union wish list is not good economic management, nor is channelling Whitlam-esque economics. As the Australian Financial Review noted on 24 July: The focus of any workplace relations minister now should be to help entrench a jobless rate of 4 per cent or less as the Reserve Bank seeks to squeeze out inflation, and to help Australia's high-wage economy compete in the global marketplace. That can best be done by encouraging businesses and their employees to co-operate to find ways to improve productivity at the shop-floor level and to share in the gains. The Albanese government needs to get fair dinkum about addressing productivity. Having a vision to improve our nation's productivity must be included with any discussion that is had about how we tackle inflation. Increasing productivity must be a red line in getting the economy back in order and returning inflation to the two to three per cent band. The Productivity Commission has give an road map in its five-year review, yet the government has buried it. The Treasurer apparently did not receive a briefing on it. I think he should hang his head in shame on that matter. Real action on productivity deserves more than slogans and lip service. It is essential so the next generation can enjoy better quality of life than the one before. While trade unions like to dismiss the rationale of good productivity, what they cannot deny is that only increasing wage growth without increasing productivity will further underline prolonged inflationary angst and, therefore, continue the increased cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing right now. Boy, are they facing them right now! As a result, Australian families struggling to make ends meet will continue to bear the brunt of this government's economic incompetence. The pressures that they are putting on upward inflation are hurting Australians. We need a government that's serious about addressing productivity so that we can put downward pressure on inflation. In the early 1980s President Ronald Reagan said: There's no denying that greater productivity growth is the cornerstone of price stability and sustained economic growth. This remains a virtue 40 years later. Climate Change 61 12:35 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania We are entering an era of global boiling. Last month we saw the hottest three-week period ever recorded on the planet. Countries around the Mediterranean are being devastated by fires that are burning as we stand here today. There are heatwaves across the Northern Hemisphere: in Europe and in the United States. Canada is burning, ocean temperatures are soaring, and the ice sheets at both the north and south ends of this planet are melting away. The Gulf Stream, one of the great drivers of global climate patterns, is flickering in and out of existence and, in coming years, will likely cease to circulate in anything like the way it has. I shudder to think about the bushfires that will burn in south-eastern Australia, particularly this summer. The climate is breaking down. It's breaking down because there is a blanket of suffocating and stifling pollution surrounding our planet, and that blanket has been caused, in the main, by burning fossil fuels and by deforestation. As the climate continues to break down around us, before our eyes, it's becoming abundantly clear that our governments and our entire apparatus of state have been captured, purchased and co-opted to defend the fossil fuel and forestry corporations. It's nothing less than complete and utter state capture. The institutional bribery of political donations has corrupted our democracy to the extent that our parliament has become an agent of corporate profit and planetary destruction, rather than an agent of the people who vote to put us in this place. It is an utterly perverse situation. Instead of protecting people and protecting the environment that underpins and sustains all life on this planet, governments are protecting the people who are destroying the planet's capacity to sustain human life. But what's worse is that governments are persecuting those who protest the destruction of this planet's capacity to sustain life. Governments around the world, including those in so-called liberal democracies—and I include Australia in that definition—are implementing draconian antiprotest laws that threaten the very foundations of our democracy. Governments here in Australia and around the world are trying to arrest their way out of a climate crisis, but that is a response that is doomed to fail because they will soon figure out, I hope, that the jails are simply not big enough. We are seeing the early stages of a movement around the world that is refusing to allow governments and corporations to compromise the future of our kids and our grandkids and rip opportunity, prosperity and even the potential for life away from future generations. That movement is going to continue to build. In my home state of Tasmania, someone who I hold in the absolute highest regard, Dr Colette Harmsen, was recently jailed for her part in a protest that was organised by the Bob Brown Foundation to defend nature in beautiful takayna/Tarkine in north-west Tasmania. This is the first time in over a decade that an environmental activist has been sentenced to jail time in Tasmania. Dr Harmsen, a veterinarian, was sentenced to three months imprisonment for trespass. Just think about that, colleagues. She was sentenced to three months imprisonment, three months deprivation of liberty, for trespass. It was not trespass in her own interests. It was trespass in the interests of the public good, trying to defend nature from the relentless assault it is under from corporate interests prioritising profit over nature, facilitated by the major parties in this place and parties like them around the world. When sentencing Dr Harmsen, the magistrate, Mr Webster, said, 'No doubt she will learn a lesson from her imprisonment.' Just what is that lesson? Is it that corporate interests trump environmental values? Is it that profits are more important than the planet's capacity to support human and other life? Is it that the livability of this planet for future generations is not as important as the bottom line for business? I think those are the lessons a rational person looking at where we collectively are today would learn. Prior to her sentencing, Dr Harmsen said: … I am standing up for the forests, for takayna, a safer planet and if that makes me a dangerous criminal then I think we are going to need bigger prisons. Indeed, Colette, I couldn't agree more. I want to say thank you, Colette—thank you for your courage, for your bravery, for your fortitude, for your determination and for your self-sacrifice. You are a hero to many people, including me. Strength to your arm, and I'm going to pop into the Risdon Prison to see you not too long after I get back to Tasmania if you are interested in a visit from me and from others. Thank you, again, Colette. Overnight we also saw some arrests in Western Australia. People were arrested, and, again, these are people who are understandably extremely frustrated about governments' failures to act on climate change and biodiversity loss. I want to warn people here that this is only the beginning, and that human history will show you—if you bother to read it—that when enough people feel abjectly let down and abandoned by their governments for long enough they will take matters into their own hands. We've seen it repeatedly, time after time after time. If you wonder why civilisations have crumbled away through human history, let me tell you the two common factors that every civilisational collapse or crumbling have had in common. The first is environmental collapse and the second is wealth inequality. Are those two issues ringing any bells for anyone in here? We are living through environmental and climate collapse at a planetary scale and in a society where wealth inequality is massive and growing rapidly. Colleagues, if you can't feel or hear the social contract beginning to crumble away and fracture under our feet then you're just not paying attention. And I urge you to pay attention, because this social unrest is only starting. I want to say to the people who are locking on to coal terminals and locking on to bulldozers to protect our forests, who are taking to the streets and blockading and causing what some conservatives and most people in this place would describe as 'rampant inconvenience', while waving their arms around and clutching at their hair, good on you! You want to talk about inconvenience? Can I explain to you what the climate crisis is going to deliver us? You ain't seen nothing yet in terms of the fires, the floods, the calamities that are coming down the line. You ain't seen nothing yet. Road Safety 63 12:45 Senator CAROL B F49 Tasmania ROWN (—) (): Over the break, I spent my time across the country speaking with road safety experts and advocates and the transport industry about how we can move towards Vision Zero. In early July, I travelled to Adelaide to convene a road safety roundtable. The roundtable had the specific focus of risky road use. Risky road use is the actions people consciously take which risk their safety and the safety of other road users. Examples of risky road use include drink and drug driving, speeding and the absolutely pervasive act of playing on a mobile while driving. Participating in any of these actions or others significantly and devastatingly increases a driver's risk of a crash. We know that even low-level speeding, the speeding we see every day, such as people driving on a highway a few kilometres over the limit, detrimentally increases a person's chance of a crash. For every five kilometres over the speed limit in a 60 kilometre an hour zone, the risk of involvement in a fatal crash doubles. An alcohol level of just over 0.05, or the legal limit, doubles your risk of being involved in a casualty crash. And driving while fatigued, or, in other words, only getting a few hours of sleep, makes you 4½ times more likely to crash than a driver who's had a proper night's sleep. If you jump in your car and you drive for 10 to 15 minutes, I can guarantee you will see someone clearly using their phone while driving, usually trying to disguise it but often blatantly driving while texting or scrolling. To bring those scrolling, posting or chatting while driving back to reality, I will remind them of this: 16 per cent of all serious casualty road crashes resulting in hospital attendance in Australia occur as a result of distracted driving. In order to have a constructive conversation about this issue, the roundtable included experts from the alcohol and drug sector and advocates from a large range of road safety organisations. The first segment of the roundtable was focused on increasing seatbelt use. We know that drivers without a seatbelt are 8.3 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury and 5.2 times more likely to sustain a serious injury. Horrifyingly, since 2008, we have seen an upward trend in road deaths from both drivers and passengers not wearing seatbelts. In 2021, 22 per cent of drivers and 21 per cent of passengers who died on Australian roads were not wearing seatbelts. Take a moment to really consider that in 2021 drivers and passengers were still simply not clipping in their seat belt. That decision is leaving families and communities shattered and lives lost forever. Participants at the round table spoke clearly about the need for improvement of seatbelt use in regional and remote Australia, noting the average proportion of road deaths where the driver is not wearing a seatbelt in regional and remote Australia is more than double the proportion in major cities and regional hubs. The conversation then moved on to drink- and drug-driving. It is welcome news that rates of drink-driving are reducing. However, it is still a significant contributor to overall road deaths. The reduction of drink-driving deaths correlates with the overall reduction in the overall alcohol consumption across Australia. Further, some incredible organisations are doing life-saving work in the drink-driving space. We were fortunate enough to have Simon Strahan, the national CEO of DrinkWise, in the room. Simon shared some of the recent and innovative campaigns the organisations were running, one of which involves working hand in hand with the Australian wine industry to create resources to increase consumer understanding at wine tastings. So far, close to 2,000 cellar doors and tourism organisations across Australia have signed up to participate in the campaign, and they've expanded the resource beyond cellar doors. Secondly, I've spent time in Melbourne to announce a new Australian design rule for vehicles. I would like to start by saying a huge and sincere thank you to Emma, Peter and Eve, parents who have lost one of their precious children to a reversing incident. Emma and Peter Cockburn have been advocating for reversing aids and other measures to minimise the possibility of driveway accidents occurring. The advocacy began after a tragic accident which saw their beautiful daughter killed in a reversing accident. I was proud to stand with them to announce that the Australian government is mandating reversing aids for all new model vehicles in 2025 and all new vehicles come 2027. The mandate will cover all vehicles—light, medium and heavy, cars, vans and trucks. This mandate will provide drivers with the best possible line of sight while reversing. No parent, family or friend should ever have to experience the devastation of losing a loved one on or around our roads. The mandate will mean that new vehicles will need to be fitted with at least two reversing aids such as reversing cameras, motion sensors or vibrations which alert the driver to a person or an object close to the vehicle. We know that mandating reversing aids will reduce the devastating impact of reversing accidents. I want to share a bit of Emma and Peter's story to demonstrate just how big an impact this mandate will have. Here are their words they shared at the time of the announcement: So on the 16th of April 2011 our world changed forever when we lost our youngest daughter Georgina … … … … Before this accident, I thought I was in control. I had my wife, I had the kids, I had this new house, I thought it was safe for my kids and I thought I was a good driver. I thought I was a good parent. As a kid I was taught how to control the car. I was that person who watched TV seeing a family just lost someone and remember thinking those poor people what they are going through, so sad. It's okay, it's not going to happen to me. I'm in control. I was wrong. I learnt the hard way. It did happen to me. When accidents like this happens you do the what ifs. What if I just went slower? Come home later? All of these things go through your head. So how did I do this. I remember going back weeks later and hopping in the car, popping in the car, looking in the mirror. I ended putting the bucket behind the car to see why I didn't see her. I ended up taking that bucket 10 to 20 metres from the car. This is why I didn't see her. This is why this rule is going to save lives. Because as a driver if you don't see it, you're gonna hit it as an object or child, whatever it may be. It's the end of the day. It's gonna happen. It's not you're a bad driver. You literally didn't see it. Emma and Peter have shown such determination, and this mandate can save lives. If this mandate saves just one life, it will be well worth it. Sport 64 12:54 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Today I stand to acknowledge the recent amazing achievements of Australian athletes on the world stage. I want to congratulate those who have already won, I want to cheer on those who are getting to the pointy end of their competitions and I want to wish all the best to those teams that are about to start their competitions. To start, I'd like to acknowledge the outstanding game of the Matildas on Monday night. The team overcame the disappointment of losing their captain to injury before the World Cup even begin and then, of course, their loss to Nigeria last week. But thanks to Hayley Russo's double, one from Mary Fowler and a penalty from Steph Catley not only did they win but they finished top of their group. On Monday night, before 27,000 fans live at AAMI stadium and another 4.7 million Australian watching on at home, the Matildas played like the champion team they are. But I believe the importance of this game and other athletic achievements goes far beyond the victory on the field and the elation that Australian spectators felt at that victory on Monday night. The inspiration that's provided by these amazing athletes, particularly competing on the world stage, encourages Australians, particularly young Australians, to pick up a soccer ball, get out there on the sporting field, have a go themselves and get active. That inspiration is absolutely essential not only for the future pipeline of our elite athletes and players but also for ensuring that young Australians live healthy and active lives here in the community in Australia. Elite sport is the pinnacle—it's the inspiration—but it's the participation that must be the end goal of sport, because we know that a healthy and active lifestyle has so many physical and mental benefits for Australians. It improves wellbeing and it strengthens our community, but it also provides us with an opportunity for hope. The preventive health benefits of staying active are immeasurable not only, but importantly, for Australian health outcomes but also for the sustainability of our healthcare system. It's so much more than a game and it can be an absolute tool for transformation. That's why I've always been a really huge supporter of the Sport4All program delivered by Dylan Allcott and the team that he has at Get Skilled Access. Get Skilled Access is an amazing organisation focusing on access and inclusion for people who live with disability in sport. Dylan could not provide a better example of how competing in a sporting competition has changed someone's life. Importantly, Sport4All aims to ensure that all Australians who live with a disability have the opportunity to play sport if they wish to do so, recognising the important health and wellbeing benefits of participation. This is such an important example of why we must embrace the inspiring legacies that our athletes create for all members of our community, and it's certainly a really exciting time for Australian sport right now. We've just seen the Ashes wrap up in the UK, with both our men's and our women's Aussie cricket teams retaining the Ashes, and the urns are coming back to Australia, where they rightly belong. Yesterday we watched the Diamonds win their fifth game in the Netball World Cup in Cape Town, and we saw a great night last night at the World Para Swimming championships in Manchester, with our Aussies winning five medals: three gold, a silver and a bronze. Coming back to Australia, I know we're all gearing up to watch the Matildas next Monday night. They are now going to be playing Denmark, and we can expect a capacity crowd of 80,000 people at Stadium Australia and millions more to be watching on from home, cheering on our superstar players as they hopefully edge their way closer to getting that World Cup. The grand final, excitingly, will be held here in Australia on 20 August this year. I'm also superexcited to wish all the best to our young athletes who are about to start the kick-off of the Commonwealth Youth Games in Trinidad and Tobago. It's great to see our young athletes competing at the top of their field. These Commonwealth Youth Games are a critical pathway for our elite athletes. For some of them, this event may well be the peak of their sporting careers, and I'm sure the memory of representing Australia will last for a lifetime for every one of those young people competing in Trinidad and Tobago. For others, it may be a stepping stone for higher representation at future Commonwealth Games and world championships, as well as the Olympic and Paralympic Games. But, regardless of their particular sporting careers, the legacy that these people leave behind in inspiring young Aussie people to get out on the field is so important. I know that, across the country, as young Australians watch Sam Kerr hopefully take to the field on Monday night, who will demonstrate the extraordinary resilience and such incredible power that that young woman has faced, or as they cheered on Usman Khawaja as he posted the highest runs aggregate across the Ashes series or watched Emma McKeon, who became Australia's most successful Commonwealth Games athlete in history last year, they will be inspired to get involved in their local sporting associations and organisations but, most particularly, to get out there on the field. Looking forward to the next nine years, we will hopefully continue to see the critical benefits that hosting elite athletes and elite events here in Australia has for our community, for the pipeline of sporting infrastructure and for our international reputation as a world-class place to play international sport. In the spirit of good sportsmanship, I will not mention today the very disappointing decision by the Victorian government to cancel the Commonwealth Games in Victoria in 2026, but Australia is very well placed to showcase the talent of world-class athletics and athletes at the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. We have a strong track record in delivering world-class sporting events, and hosting the Olympics and Paralympics will be an amazing celebration of elite sporting talent. But both the Queensland government and the federal government must ensure that Australia is well prepared and that the legacy opportunities of the Games are maximised not just for our elite athletes but for every Australian. That's because the big investment that the Australian taxpayer makes in putting on these events can only be properly rewarded if we use the legacy opportunities of these amazing sporting events, like World Rugby and the Netball World Cup. These are the kinds of things that we must achieve to ensure the legacy and to make sure that the investment that is made returns to the Australian public, the Australian community and the Australian economy the benefits that it can. Today, it's with great pride that I acknowledge the extraordinary sporting achievements of so many Australian athletes who have been out on the field in recent times and are out on the field at the moment and those young people in Trinidad and Tobago that are going to take the field on 4 August. As Australians, we are extraordinarily proud of the achievements of our amazing athletes. We, as governments, should also be extremely proud of the investment that we make on behalf of Australian taxpayers to ensure that we have the best opportunity to be able to present Australia to the world but most particularly that we are able to inspire young Australians to get on the sporting field and lead active lives and to make sure we have the most active and healthy Australia that we can. National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation 65 13:02 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to speak about the theft of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Linda Burney, Bill Shorten and Ken Wyatt have all been completely aware of this matter for at least two years. I refer to an investigation by the Department of Social Services into corruption by former directors of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation, or NATSIC. This investigation has been underway for more than two years, with no outcome. Three investigators, all of them former Australian Federal Police officers with years of experience, have been sacked, suspended or removed from the matter just as they were ready to recommend legal action. The subjects of this investigation, Jim Golden-Brown, Graham Aitken and Harry Harun, have been permitted to take over another organisation which receives taxpayer funding, Aboriginal Community Services, in Adelaide. Using taxpayer funding provided to NATSIC and intended to help Indigenous Australians living with disability, Jim Golden-Brown bought enough alcohol to stock a dozen Dan Murphys, funded his own double-knee replacement surgery, took his wife, Kate Whiteley, on a $28,000 luxury holiday to Hawaii and treated himself to other trips, such as to Fiji, flying business class and staying in five-star hotels. There are reams of credit card transaction records showing the truth of this corruption. When he was confronted with this wrongdoing, he used the same grant money to start legal action against accusers and personally issued threats to the lives and safety of his accusers and their families. In 2010, when his name was James Sturgeon, a not-for-profit company started by Jim Golden-Brown in New South Wales had its accounts frozen and he was convicted in absentia of operating a real estate agency without a licence. In the same year, Mr Golden-Brown was sacked as CEO of the former Malabam Health Board Aboriginal Corporation after investigations raised concerns of his misuse of funds. In 2013, Mr Golden-Brown left his position as chief executive of the Barengi Gadjin Land Council in Horsham, Victoria, just as a probe was launched into the organisation. This probe found financial and other irregularities, including suspicion he had misused an $800,000 grant. Despite this very disturbing pattern, Mr Golden-Brown managed to get himself appointed as CEO of NATSIC in 2016. Mr Golden-Brown treated NATSIC as his own personal expense account. Graham Aitken and Harry Harun, as treasurer and chairman, facilitated this by signing off on his expenditure. These two were in Parliament House this very week, still permitted to have a government advisory role in aged care. The funding originally came from the NDIS, which is what led to Bill Shorten's office being contacted to do something about it. He's been aware of it for two years. So much for his pledge to crackdown on NDIS fraud! Linda Burney was also contacted at the same time with the same information, as was Ken Wyatt, the Minister for Indigenous Australians at the time. The funding is now under the purview of the Department for Social Services, which cancelled the funding because the project had not been delivered. That was when Golden-Brown, Aitken and Harun were removed from NATSIC. Now these same men are permitted to be in charge of the ACS organisation, where annual expenses have risen $4 million in a single year and where audits by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission have revealed it was not compliant in six out of seven quality standards. The investigation by DSS is going nowhere. Why are these people being protected? You would hope it's not because Labor is trying to keep Indigenous grant corruption under wraps before the Voice referendum. I acknowledge the work of the Australian Financial Review in reporting this matter. I am making an appeal to all Australian media. I implore them to expose corruption in the use of public funds, ensure government accountability and, ultimately, help taxpayer assistance to get to the people who really need it. Apart from these whistleblowers and the information I have seen, I have had other people contact me this week who are directors on Aboriginal boards who are also saying there is corruption that's happening there. Why is Linda Burney so concerned about Golden-Brown? She raised the name before I mentioned it for the first time in this chamber, wanting to know who is giving me this information. Linda Burney has a lot to answer for to this parliament and to the people of Australia. Do your job properly. Banking and Financial Services 66 13:08 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Banking is an essential service. Like most other essential services in Australia, we have both a private sector and a public sector. We have private and public schools and we have private and public hospitals, so I see no reason why we shouldn't have a public bank. I would like to point out the Robert Menzies government were quite happy with the fact that we had a public bank. There was never any need to sell off the CBA, the Commonwealth Bank, in 1992. Over the three tranches it was sold for $8 billion, yet today it makes $10 billion a year annually. We have got a serious crisis in this country whereby people cannot get access to proper banking services, especially in the regions, but we are seeing more and more branches closing in outer metropolitan areas as well. I believe that a public bank can fill the gap left by the private banks who are failing to provide these services. They can provide face-to-face services in terms of cash, credit cards and lending. It's very important that we increase the range of products available to people. I don't believe is that competition in the banking sector in Australia is robust, and I'll give you one example. In the United States, you can get a home loan for up to 30 years, yet here in Australia the longest you can get a home loan for, in most cases, is five years. We have people who are lying awake at night wondering about whether or not the RBA's going to raise interest rates and put their nose to the grindstone even more. What we will see over the next six months is a mortgage cliff where a lot of people—I forget the figures quoted yesterday in the Australian, but it's tens of billions of dollars—are going to come off fixed-rate interest rate loans and go onto variable rates at about three per cent higher. That is going to put a lot of Australians under pressure. One of the things that a public bank could do is offer much longer fixed-term loans at, say, 10, 15 or 25 years to give our hardworking Australians comfort in the fact that they know what their mortgage rates will be set at for a long time into the future. But it's not just that product that needs to be offered. One of the reasons why I ran for parliament was because of my annoyance with a section of the tax act called the public offer test. It basically says that if you're a foreign bank and you lend money into Australia, the interest that we pay offshore isn't taxed. What I want to know is why we can't have a bank in Australia that offers a product to retirees or first home buyers who can put their money into a bank account where they are offered tax-free interest and fees? This would be a much more efficient way of encouraging people to save than superannuation, which forces people to give their money to someone that they've never met and there's no guarantee that they are going to get that money back when they're 65. The Productivity Commission has said that cost, that superannuation cost, is $30 billion a year. So why not offer a service to Australians where they can get tax-free interest on a bank account that encourages them to save both for their homes and for their retirement? The other thing that this bank could do is offer insurance services. The biggest cost of insurance today is the cost of reinsurance that we have to pay offshore, and that comes in at about 40 to 50 per cent of the insurance cost. I don't know about you, but my insurance bills lately have been coming in as high as a 30 per cent increase from the prior year. Yet again, since we privatised the state government insurance offices, we have not seen increased competition; we have actually seen more gouging in the insurance sector. It is hurting home buyers. It is hurting people who run businesses. It is hurting community groups like the show societies who are struggling to find insurance. Why can't the federal government just offer reinsurance or reinsure itself and we go back to having a national government insurance office that can offer insurance in these branches, along with home loans and along with face-to-face services? It is not good enough for the banks to be closing in the regions. They have a social licence. They are skimming $7 billion a year on the term-funding facility as a result of COVID, and they were bailed out in the GFC. Ultimately, the taxpayer underwrites these banks, so I don't see any reason why we can't have a public bank to make sure we keep these guys honest. (Time expired) Australian Culture 67 13:13 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak on cancel culture. Australian politics is facing a crossroads regarding the climate of cancel culture. As a nation do we believe in robust political debate or are we going to act like Xi Jinping and start squashing and silencing opponents of the so-called progressive age? We appear to be lurching towards the Beijing approach, giving into pettiness, small-mindedness and pathetic displays of insincere partisan politics. A visa delay on the part of we don't know who ended plans for a speaking tour by the son of former US President Trump. Perhaps I should say the next US President Trump? Functions and interviews were booked in several capital cities. I'm pleased to say these speaking engagements have been rescheduled and new dates are being announced for later this year. Turning Point invited Donald Trump Jr, alongside UK political phenomenon Nigel Farage, to tour Australia. Nigel Farage has had his own brush with cancel culture. Coutts Bank cancelled his bank accounts for no other reason than they didn't like his politics and said so. This isn't speculation. The scandal this caused in the UK has brought down Peter Flavel, CEO of Coutts, and NatWest Group chief executive Alison Rose. Debanking has been a practice in Australia for many years with political opponents of our COVID response, HEMP, and retailers being debanked, along with competitors of the banks. I imagine that Turning Point are in someone's crosshairs right now for bringing Donald Trump Jr to Australia and challenging the status quo. Yet, as a nation, we should celebrate political diversity brought about by some of the biggest names in international politics. It's a chance for friend and foe to compete in that once-great Westminster practice of debate. Far from being excited by the prospect of testing their ideas, the Left have lifted the drawbridge and filled Australia's moats with spikes. A bedwetter petition frequented by 17,000 sensorial complainers demanded that Donald Trump Jr be banned from entering our country. Their argument was long on smear and short on fact. The petition read: Donald Trump Jr is an illegal drug-taking bigoted person who should not be allowed to enter Australia for the purpose of earning himself and possibly his father any "Campaign Contributions"— before demanding he be banned. When I read this for the first time, I thought they were talking about the son of the current president, Hunter Biden, but, no. The Left project onto others what they are incapable of seeing in themselves. Some of those signing the petition hilariously and hypocritically shouted, 'We don't need no more fascists here!' Powers given to the Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O'Neil, date from the postwar period, when there may have been legitimate reasons for denying people visas on national security grounds. But the postwar period is a long way behind us and those powers are now being used for political purposes, not national security. The discretion part of these powers rests on the deliberately vague idea of failing a character test, although those who penned the legislation were probably not envisaging its abuse in recent decades by various governments. I feel certain that, had they possessed a crystal ball, the drafters of this legislation may have added a few warnings and restrictions on its use to ensure it did not become a tool for bullying and political heckling. As he is the son of former president Donald Trump of the US, a nation that serves as one of Australia's longstanding and vital geopolitical allies, it seems extraordinary that an Australian minister would intervene to prevent his visit, if that is indeed what happened, and then backtrack when more sensible heads intervened—a rare compliment here for the Prime Minister. The powers, which the minister has every legal right to exercise, are meant to be for individuals who are of ill repute or present a danger to the safety of the Australian people. Too often in politics our ideas of safety and danger are taken for granted instead of being put through the rigour of reality. Too often these words relate to feelings and political narratives, not anything of a physical, factual nature. It is easy to see the misuse of this discretionary power when you look at the performance of previous governments who have vetoed the visas of speakers, sports stars and political individuals who are known to hold views against whatever the prevailing dogma of the day is. Or is the government planning to go start cracking down on free speech in the media? The new censorship bill, which the public are calling 'the ministry of truth bill', put forward by Prime Minister Albanese, suggests that this is exactly what they are planning. The media do not like the former US president Trump, mostly because he did a good job of shaking the nest and exposing the media class for not only its extraordinary bias towards the Left but its general hopelessness when it comes to investigative reporting. Everything the Australian newspaper, for example, just criticised Trump for has been proven correct. It is the Australian promoting disinformation with that criticism. It's a shame that the Australian is also exempt from the Albanese government's misinformation and disinformation bill. It was the health autocrats, the chief medical officers and the vaccine salesmen on the public payroll who acted dangerously, recklessly and criminally. Turning on the son of a former president will not save you. Nothing will save you. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 68 13:18 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria The Labor government quietly announced, a few months ago, that they would deliver water ownership rights to Indigenous Australians. This particular decision raises several pertinent questions that politicians, journalists and the Australian people need to ask. First, how was it that the government was able to negotiate something as serious as giving Indigenous people rights to Australian water without first having enacted the Indigenous Voice to Parliament? We have continually been told that the Voice is absolutely necessary and that, without it, Indigenous people cannot be properly consulted. Yet here we are: we have Indigenous people being granted sovereignty over water, and all without any voice having been enacted. It begs the question: just how required is the Voice? If the government can provide water rights to Indigenous people without changing the Constitution, why can they not provide whatever else is needed to improve Indigenous lives without first changing the Constitution? Second, it raises questions of what else Australians can expect after the Voice is enacted? The government has been mute on truth telling and treaty, yet both of these things are central to the much-publicised Uluru Statement from the Heart. Australians would be shocked to learn that certain people, because of skin colour, may get special rights to water. Wasn't it Martin Luther King Jr who talked about being judged by the content of one's character rather than the colour of one's skin? Whatever happened to that? The government knows full well that if the Voice is enshrined in our Constitution there will be calls for a treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. In fact, the Prime Minister himself has said that the Voice is just one step in the process. What will this involve? How much money will taxpayers who never did anything wrong be expected to pay to Indigenous Australians who were not alive when wrong things occurred? Today it's water rights; tomorrow it's God knows what, and that is not good enough. The Albanese government don't want to talk about a treaty, so they instead talk about a voice to parliament, and they don't like to talk about a voice to parliament, so they instead talk about constitutional recognition. Australians are starting to wake up to the fact that they are being led deliberately and carefully, one step at a time, down a blind alley. We all know what typically happens when you're being led down a blind alley: it's so you can be robbed of all your valuables. Speaking of being blindly led down a dark alleyway, as a Victorian, I'm used to that. I'm so used to it. I'm used to being robbed by my government, the highest-taxing state government in Australia. In my home state, we've skipped the Voice stage, and we're already negotiating a treaty via the Andrews government's First Peoples Assembly. The Victorian government describes the process this way: Treaty provides a path to negotiate the transfer of power and resources for First Peoples to control matters which impact their lives. I repeat: 'power', 'resources' and 'control'. This doesn't end with a Voice. What comes after the Voice? I'll tell you what it is: it's the invoice. That's what comes. I will quote again from the Victorian government: In Victoria, there will be one overarching Statewide Treaty and multiple local Treaties with individual Traditional Owner groups, covering matters as diverse as political representation, land and water, and economic development. To me, that sounds like race based seats in parliament. It sounds like that could be on the cards, as well as surrendering freehold assets. Don't think you won't be forced to pay the rent. It has already started in Western Australia, and in Victoria it seems like we're going even further. To the Australians at home that are watching this broadcast on social media, I say this: don't risk it. Vote no to the Voice. Don't divide the nation by race. Most importantly, don't empower these inner-city, woke, latte-sipping, low-testosterone activists. The Voice will do nothing at all to help the truly disadvantaged. If you want to help the disadvantaged, then what you do is reduce red tape, reduce regulation and provide opportunities. That's what you do. You don't enshrine garbage like the Voice, which divides us by race. It's wrong. Agriculture Industry 69 13:23 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Over the winter break, I had the opportunity to attend a study tour organised by the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Forest Products Association at Jigsaw Farms in western Victoria. Quite a few of my Senate colleagues joined me, including Senators Ciccone, Rice, Davey and McLachlan. Nestled at the foot of the Grampians, Jigsaw Farms is a meat, sheep and forestry products farm owned and run by Mark Wootton and Eve Kantor. Visiting the farm, I discovered how agricultural businesses can significantly reduce net carbon emissions without hampering productivity and output, by combining things like meat and sheep farming with planting out non-pasture areas of land with trees which will eventually become forestry products. Since 1997, Jigsaw has been progressively planted out with over 600 hectares of trees, shrubs and native timber species in biodiversity and agroforestry plantations. This is 18 per cent of the total property. Each plantation is guided by the principle that, to be successful for both the farm's bottom line and the environment, it's important to have the right trees planted in the right place for the right purpose, and those trees must be actively managed as you would any other crop. Though it takes a bit of work, the integrated farming of forestry trees into traditional farms has a dual benefit. Firstly, properly managed farm forestry increases a farm's overall productivity. Secondly, farm forestry has a positive impact on local ecosystems, as well as contributing towards reaching a net zero economy. From an economic point of view, planting the right trees can assist in overall productivity by creating shelter for stock, increasing incidental grazing material and essentially creating a forestry crop as a significant long-term future income source. From a climate and carbon perspective, plantation trees act as a carbon sink. In fact, half the weight of timber is carbon that can be stored long-term in wooden paper products. In the case of Jigsaw Farms, it has dramatically decreased its carbon footprint since 1997, firstly to net zero and then very close to a net zero level. This is a really encouraging and innovative result for the Australian agriculture industry. The wildlife and habitat of the reforested area at Jigsaw has also benefited woodland birds, frogs, butterflies and native mammals, which take advantage of connected shelter belts and remnant vegetation. Over 165 bird species have been observed on the farms, compared to the 45 that were originally observed when the properties were purchased in 1997. To the credit of Jigsaw Farms, these environmental benefits and productivity gains have been independently verified by academics and experts in the field from the University of Melbourne, who joined us on the trip and talked us through the ecology, science and economics of the farm forestry program. We know the agriculture sector is one of Australia's largest industries, which also faces many climate related challenges. Seeing the work done at Jigsaw Farms, where Mark and Eve live an ethos of experimentation and innovation, shows us that change and adaptation to climate risks is both possible and profitable. Importantly, the Australian government is also throwing its support behind this agenda of adaptation in forestry farming. The government has launched an $86 million program for plantation establishment which encourages farms to plant trees by providing a grant of $2,000 per hectare. This will encourage other farms to investigate how they can make forestry products part of their production mix. I want to thank the NFF and AFPA, and especially Mark and Eve, for showing us a truly innovative and smart way of tackling climate change in the agriculture industry. I, for one, left asking more questions, and it made me think more about this and what we need to do in our country. 13:27 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Senator White really inspired me today. I have a very similar speech about the fantastic study tour that a group of us, including Senator Rice and a number of others from the coalition—including Senator Perin Davey and Senator McLachlan—went on, which was organised by the NFF and AFPA. The tour was led by none other than Joel Fitzgibbon, the former minister of agriculture and defence. It was really great to see some old friends take us out to western Victoria. If anyone is listening, I do encourage you to head down to western Victoria, a very prime place for tourism and also for agriculture, as we all know. The group of parliamentarians from right across the political spectrum went to visit Jigsaw Farms, which is about 15 kilometre north of Hamilton. The family property—managed by Mark Wootton and his wife, Eve—is a leading farm forestry operation that is incorporating eucalyptus tree production alongside traditional red meat production. Mark was part of Australia's delegation to the United Nations climate change conference, COP27, last year. During COP27 he took part in an event, alongside the Australian Forest Products Association and the National Farmers Federation, where he highlighted how his farm was an example of how agriculture and forestry are an essential part of the solution to climate change. Who would have thought of environmentalists and capitalists working together to benefit not just the environment but also our economy? Mark highlighted how his farm is a prime example of how we can all work together and how about 20 per cent of his farm was converted to trees—half for farm forestry and the other half for biodiversity. This has allowed him to carry a great number of livestock, thanks to the shelter provided by his trees. In fact, from my understanding, there were 700 calves, 700 breeding cattle and over 22,000 lambs on his farm. I took great interest in Jigsaw Farms as a case study. I want to say thanks to Mark and Eve, to AFPA and NFF for hosting us. It really shows how agriculture and forestry can work together and are essential allies in the fight against climate change. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 As it's now 1.30, we'll move to two-minute statements. Climate Change 70 13:30 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Last week, the United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, announced that the era of global warming has ended, and the era of global boiling has arrived and it's terrifying! Now, we know that the climate alarmists terrify people with their language, but, even by their own standards, this latest foray into the catastrophic language is pretty outrageous. It's, quite frankly, set the Left in this building off like a rock. They've been running around all week, waving their arms around like the robot from Lost in Space, and it's all because of this, I believe. This isn't about facts, and it isn't about data, science or the environment; it's about politics, control and fear. The alarmists need to remain fresh with their language to stay on the cutting edge, otherwise some other activist will crawl out from their mum's basement and take their mantle as chief alarmist. When I was a kid in the 1980s, they used the term 'greenhouse effect', but who's going to fear that? A greenhouse is a friendly place. So, when the 'greenhouse effect' became defunct, they started using 'global warming'. But you're not going to frighten kids with that, so they moved to on 'climate change', and then they could blame a snow storm and a hurricane on climate change. But they needed to grow the fear exponentially, so then we got 'climate crisis', 'climate emergency', 'climate breakdown' and even 'climate apocalypse'. The question really is: where to from here? I've taken the liberty of coming up with five suggested names that I think will be much more terrifying so that the UN can use them in advance. I've come up with (1) 'global climate inferno', which sounds pretty terrifying; (2) 'mega universe heat death', which would work; (3) 'super global spine-chillingly hot'; which I think might terrify the kids; (4) 'stop using your stove, you capitalists'—I reckon that one will work; and, finally, (5) 'you will die soon', which I think will do the job of terrifying everybody and informing nobody. That's the way of the world now. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 70 13:32 Se 231199 Tasmania nator URQUHART (—) (): On 2 July, the Yes23 national day of action, I hosted a Come Together for Yes event alongside the Tasmanian Premier, Jeremy Rockliff, in Devonport, on the north-west coast of Tasmania. The event attracted over 150 supporters of the 'yes' campaign who told me how refreshing it was to see bipartisanship on display, where a Labor senator and a Liberal premier could come together for something as important as the Voice to Parliament. My highlight was a speech given by local Indigenous man Uncle Sammy Howard. Sammy passionately told us that, until a few weeks before, he had been leaning towards voting 'no' but could now clearly see the merit and benefit in voting 'yes'. He said his decision came down to a very simple proposition, and I'd like to quote him. He said, 'People need to understand the nuts and bolts of the questions that are being asked. If your answer is yes to these questions, then you should vote 'yes'.' That's what he said. Uncle Sammy said, 'The questions are: do you believe Aboriginal people were the first people on this continent and deserve to be recorded in the Constitution as such? And do you believe that Aboriginal people deserve a voice in decisions that impact them and their communities' lives? If your answer is yes, to these questions, then you should vote 'yes'.' Uncle Sammy's simple proposal is how I'll be thinking about the referendum. He closed out his speech with a call to action: 'If you don't know ask.' I look forward to the conversation I'll be having from now until the vote with people who take his advice. I've been energised by the amount of support I've been seeing from Australians around the country for the Voice to Parliament. People are coming together to add their voices to the growing chorus of supporters, who are excited to see real meaningful change for First Nations people in this country. It's no different in my home state of Tasmania, particularly in the electorate of Braddon, my duty electorate. (Time expired) Greyhound Racing 71 13:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Beautiful, gentle greyhounds are subjected to unimaginable cruelty, neglect and exploitation every single day in this country. The greyhound racing and gambling industry abuses, maims and kills these gentle animals for profit and profit alone, discarding them callously when they're no longer making them a buck. Recently, there has been one expose after the other, first from South Australia, where gut-wrenching footage of greyhounds being kicked, beaten and pulled has finally forced the state government to promise an inquiry. Now we have evidence from Victoria that dozens of greyhounds have been left to die from racetrack injuries their trainers refuse to treat. How heartless! We know the boss of Greyhound Racing NSW has been referred to ICAC for corruption allegations. This industry just does not care. It is brutal, and it is rotten to the core. What they do to dogs is repugnant, reprehensible and beyond any skerrick of humanity. Greyhounds that do survive and are freed from the chains of racing have become loving and loyal friends and companions, bringing joy to so many, like my gorgeous Cosmo. Activists like the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds, Free the Hounds and so many volunteers gave their blood, sweat and tears not only to rehome the dogs that are left the die by this industry but also to expose the inherent cruelty of this industry's business model. The only choice is to shut down racing across the country, but there's apathy at all levels of government. The states are too drunk on gambling revenue, so we need the Commonwealth to step in. The federal government must work with the states and territories to end all greyhound racing and rehome these adorable dogs. This is our moral obligation. Freedom of Speech 71 13:36 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Voltaire famously said, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' This famous quote was an expression of the Western world's commitment, on both the left and the right, to free speech. In fact, Voltaire used to be a darling of the Left. Not any more. Now the Left's position seems to be, 'I disapprove of what you say, and I will condemn you to silence for saying it'. We see that in the government's misinformation laws. Enclosed in these laws is a view that government can never be wrong. Any content from any level of government cannot be disinformation. The same protection does not apply to non-government parties or regular Australians discussing the same matters. Statements made by academics are exempt, but not statements made by non-academics on the same issues. Statements made as part of professional news content are exempt, but if a journalist made that same statement on a personal podcast then it could be caught as misinformation. I go back again to Voltaire's statement: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' This quote itself could be considered misinformation under the law, because Voltaire didn't say those words. It was an attribution, describing what Voltaire thought, made by historian Evelyn Hall. These laws are wrong, these laws are flawed and I will oppose them. World Hepatitis Day 71 13:38 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia 28 August each year is World Hepatitis Day, which highlights the important work globally of eliminating hepatitis and supporting those with the virus. One in 75 people in Australia are living with either hepatitis B or hepatitis C, and it is the fastest-growing cause of cancer death in Australia. We've made significant steps towards viral hepatitis elimination, but our job is not done. One-quarter of people living with chronic hepatitis B have not been diagnosed. Only half the people living with hepatitis C have started antiviral treatment. That is simply not good enough. Every person in Australia deserves timely, affordable access to the health care needed to support their health and prevent viral hepatitis. A lack of diagnosis and treatment leaves others exposed to these viruses. Thankfully, we're well on our way to taking further action. Hepatitis Australia have created the Fourth National Hepatitis B Strategy and the Sixth National Hepatitis C Strategy. These strategies have the capacity to make real changes to this underdiagnosed and under-understood disease. To my fellow parliamentarians: I encourage you to continue engaging with affected communities in your electorates, in your states, and supporting the ongoing awareness-raising actions here in the parliament and in your communities. In keeping with the theme for this year, 'Hepatitis can't wait,' I say: neither should we. COVID-19 72 13:40 Senator H BK6 Queensland ANSON (—) (): Revelations of a cover-up over the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and of the Australian government's deliberate suppression of free speech during the pandemic have made the need for a royal commission more urgent. I remind the Senate that the Prime Minister has promised such a royal commission. It is completely justified. The pandemic was the most significant and disruptive event in Australia since the Second World War. Thousands of people died. Whole cities were effectively locked down. State borders were closed. Military forces were employed to support domestic police forces. Hundreds of billions of dollars were borrowed by Australian governments to deliver pandemic relief. Thousands of jobs were lost, with many skilled workers from critical sectors still excluded from jobs thanks to vaccine mandates being mandated by vindictive public bureaucrats and bureaucracies. Thousands of businesses closed, many never to open again. Fundamental human rights like freedom of speech, freedom to travel, freedom of assembly and freedom of association were suppressed or attacked outright. Australians who questioned or resisted these attacks were demonised by the media and elected politicians. The Prime Minister has had his robodebt witch-hunt against the coalition. Now it's time for a royal commission into the management of the COVID-19 pandemic by all Australian governments. Only a royal commission has the necessary coercive power to compel the expert health advice that led to lockdowns and mandates, advice which is still concealed from the Australian people. We need to learn what worked and what didn't so that Australia is better prepared for pandemics. And we need to give hardworking Aussies the right to work again. Let's get this royal commission started, and the sooner the better. If you're going to represent the people, give them the voice and let them open up the closed doors. FIFA Women's World Cup 72 13:42 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I today would like to congratulate the organising committee of the FIFA Women's World Cup, which is being jointly hosted by Australia and New Zealand—by FFA here in Australia and by New Zealand Football. It was absolutely wonderful today to hear the President of FIFA describe the Women's World Cup currently underway here in Australia as the best World Cup ever. It is a great vindication for FFA and New Zealand Football. It is absolutely sensational to see that what we promised, when we as a country were bidding with New Zealand for this World Cup, is actually coming to pass. I was fortunate enough to be in Nice, in France, in 2019 for the round of 16 game which unfortunately we lost in a penalty shootout, observing the crowd of about 17,000 or 18,000 in a 40,000-seat stadium and saying, 'We will do better than that.' And we have, in spades. Crowds here in Australia are averaging over 30,000. In New Zealand they are averaging over 28,000. France averaged somewhere about 24,000 or 25,000. I know, from talking to the organisers and talking to FIFA, how delighted they are with the organisation that we are demonstrating we can deliver as a great sporting nation. It was absolutely sensational to be in the crowd for the opening match here in Australia at Stadium Australia in New South Wales a couple weeks ago, to see the Matildas kick off against Ireland. It was a very, very nervous game of football. Fortunately we came through that. We didn't do so well against Nigeria in our next game, but I've got to say the atmosphere in Melbourne on Monday night— (Time expired) Early Learning Matters Week 72 13:44 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Last week was Early Learning Matters Week, our opportunity to come together and celebrate the amazing early learning sector and all the workforce within that sector. This year the theme was 'Learning through connection', and we had the opportunity to celebrate the way that connection in learning supports children, how developing a connection to family, communities, culture and place gives children a better understanding of their place in the world. I've spoken many times in this chamber about my passion for early learning. It is absolutely clear to me, as it is to many others, that if you want to make a difference in the lives of children and their families the time to do that is in the early years. If we hold our fire until school age, it is too late. It is the early years between the ages of nought and five when critical brain connections are being formed in our children. Simple acts like counting our children's fingers and toes, singing them songs and engaging in play based learning are the keys to unlocking a whole world of opportunity and potential for those children as well as greater productivity for our nation. To do that, we need to support children in accessing early learning education and care. That is part of what our cheaper childcare policy is about. It's about making sure that families, no matter their earning potential, have the opportunity to have their children engage in high-quality early learning and, therefore, have their children exposed to all those wonderful things, that magic which happens in an early learning service, when your child has the opportunity to learn and engage among other children and amongst our amazing educators, who do their jobs with such dedication and passion. There is a long way to go to make sure early learning gets the recognition and focus that it needs and, indeed, our workforce needs. It is my absolute passion in this place, and I won't rest until it is at the forefront and prioritised to the utmost within our education and care sector. Taylor Cuimara, Mr 73 13:46 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Today, with a heavy heart, I want to devote my speech to the memory of my pop Alfred Taylor Cuimara, who sadly passed away last weekend at the age of 77. Pop Alf was a proud Noongar man who grew up in New Norcia Mission in Western Australia in the 1950s and 1960s. He was a survivor of the stolen generations. In his early years, he worked as a seasonal farm worker and then he joined the armed forces. Pop Alf has been referred to as the leading Noongar writer and poet of his generation. His published works include God, the Devil and Me, Cartwarra or What? and Long Time Now. The first of these titles, from 2021, was an autobiography that detailed his childhood in the mission, the cruelty and punishment they faced and how they were made to believe that they were 'little black devils' that God forgot. Many of my people who shared similar experiences to Pop Alf's fell into despair after leaving the mission and tragically died far too young. This is an all-too-common story for First Nations people across this country. This intergenerational trauma that we carry with us continues to impact on us in so many ways. His poems and short stories exposed uncomfortable truths about alcoholism and the profound losses the First Nations people have suffered but also the care, kindness and gentleness of community and the enduring strength and power of our mob. Pop Alf was a loving member of our family and particularly of our Whadjuk and Noongar community in Perth, and his works leave behind a beautiful legacy. He will be greatly missed. Rest in power, Pop Alf. Child Abuse 73 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria The revelation that an Australian Federal Police investigation recently led to a former childcare worker being charged with 1,623 child abuse offences is shocking and deeply disturbing. It's hard to fathom how anyone could inflict this much suffering on children. I'm obviously thankful to the AFP for uncovering this monstrous crime against the 91 girls, all under the age of 10. We need to understand how anyone could get away with these unspeakable crimes for so long. I cannot imagine how distressing this must have been for the members of the AFP, the Queensland Police Service, New South Wales Police and, it goes without saying, obviously, these girls' parents. Just listening to the press conference made me physically ill and filled me with rage. Clearly, this horrific case raises questions because of the sheer number of children involved and the length of time over which these alleged crimes were committed. We need to look very hard at exactly what happened and how it was able to go on for such a long period of time. I wish I could say it was an isolated incident, but we all know that it was not. We have to do whole lot more to unmask these rock spiders and make sure that they never see the light of day. If they're found guilty of raping children, this is what we need to do: we need to throw these degenerates into a wood chipper. That's what we need to do. Prime Minister 73 13:49 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Labor's Canberra Voice is risky, unknown, going to be permanent and going to be divisive. More dangerously, it's going to lead to a treaty. The Prime Minister of this country has talked about voice, truth and treaty 34 times. He's even worn a T-shirt with those words on it. On any questions put to him by the media this week, he has obfuscated and he has avoided the truth. He wants to yap about anything else but he's not answering questions about the Voice. He's not answering questions about the treaty. More concerningly for Australians, he's not talking about cost of living. He's not talking about the No. 1 issue facing Australians at the moment, and that is cost of living. We have a prime minister who is stuck in this airified Canberra bubble, who has not yet gone to a flood that devastated regional Queensland, who has not deigned to get out of his big expensive car and go and visit my fellow Queenslanders—no, he won't do that. He won't talk about cost of living. He won't come to Queensland and speak to Queenslanders who are being smashed by mortgage rates, who are being smashed by inflation, who are being smashed by a criminal justice system run by a state Labor government. Fifty cars a day are being stolen in Queensland. People in Townsville get the trifecta—their car stolen, their home robbed and beaten up in their home—under a Labor government. But this Prime Minister doesn't talk about the issues impacting upon Australians. He wants to divide us by trying to bring in a mechanism that will divide us on race. It'll be risky, and then he wants to bring in a treaty. Shame on you, Prime Minister. (Time expired) Family Law 74 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Politics can be pretty frustrating. Politicians don't often go for the obvious commonsense solution. Instead they go round and round in circles like a dog looking for a ball that's right under their nose. That's exactly the case with the Federal Circuit and Family Law Court in Burnie. The court was first squeezed out of the Burnie Magistrates Court in 2021. They found a temporary home in the Burnie Arts and Function Centre but it was only ever temporary. When the arts and function centre became unavailable earlier this year there was a flurry of panic. We've solved this problem for now; the family court is back in the Burnie Magistrates Court, exactly where it started. But this short-term issue has raised a much larger one: there is no long-term plan for the future of the Federal Circuit and Family Law Court in Burnie, and it baffles me why, in the past two years, more hasn't been done to fix this. The Tasmanian Liberals are building a shiny new court complex in Burnie. Everyone assumed the family law court would go in there; they only need space once every four to six weeks. Except there has never been any agreement between the state and federal governments and the federal circuit court that the new court complex would be a shared space. It doesn't take a genius to figure out a shared space just makes sense. Everyone I've spoken to—lawyers, judges, council members and people in the community—agrees that this should be the way forward. The state and federal governments, along with the federal circuit, need to pull up their socks and work together to make this happen. The federal government will likely need to chip in a bit of cash for an extra court but I think it's a small price to pay for access to the justice system on the north-west coast. Indie Schools 74 13:53 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Most of us know someone with a child who is struggling at school, struggling to fulfil their potential. I know what it's like to be a struggling parent, worried about how to give your kids the best start in life. That's why I'm a massive fan of indie schools. When I tell people about indie schools, they think I mean 'independent schools', but those schools have fees and support from religious groups—and that's fine, but there are families who can't afford private schools like that. Most of those families go to public schools, and, yes, they need a lot more funding. But they do their best. If you're from a loving family with two parents, public school may work; that's great. But there are too many kids that don't have that. That's where these indie schools come in. They were funded as part of the Gonski reforms—yours over there, the red team—and education reforms that allocated dollars to kids who need them the most. There are 23 indie schools all over Australia; Tassie has six of them, and we are grateful. I spent an hour last week at the latest one at Glenorchy in Hobart. These schools have a high ratio of teachers to students, and building the kids' confidence is a priority. The head of Glenorchy told me about a student who has gone from wagging daily, totally switched off, to completing a bridging course before starting a law degree at UTas. I don't have the space here to list all the great things that indie schools do for our kids, and I've been to the Devonport and Burnie campus and heard the same stories over and over. It's brought tears to my eyes for the last few years. But there is a problem. The current funding model for indie schools runs out at the end of this year. That's because indie schools are in the same funding bucket as independent schools, the ones that have fees and help from religious organisations. The Labor government needs to fix this, because Gonski was their baby, right? If anyone in Labor hasn't visited their local indie school, then I'd suggest you go down and see one as soon as possible. These schools are changing the lives of our most disadvantaged kids in society, and short-changing the kids doing it the hardest will never ever give them a second chance at life. Bring in the indie schools! Sydney Metro West 74 13:55 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales This is not my first speech; however, as a senator for New South Wales and with deep connections to Western Sydney, I felt this issue was too important not to speak on. I was delighted that, at the last New South Wales state election, there were bipartisan commitments to build Sydney Metro West. However, I'm disappointed that there's now doubt over the future of this critical project, doubt which has shaken the confidence of every Western Sydney resident and business, who are set to benefit from this once-in-a-generation project. But this is not a new story. In fact, it feels more like a recurring nightmare, where state and federal Labor governments bank on the votes of Western Sydney residents yet abandon them when they enter office. The people of Western Sydney should be a priority and they deserve adequate public transport. Both federal and state governments must build the critical infrastructure needed for the expected three million people who will call Western Sydney home by 2030. This once-in-a-century project, announced and funded by the previous New South Wales Liberal government, would have doubled the rail capacity between the Sydney and Parramatta CBDs. Currently, Parramatta is the fourth-busiest train station in Sydney, with just over 1.8 million people going through its turnstiles in June of this year. Strathfield is the seventh-busiest, with just over 1.1 million going through the station during that same month. If Metro West is cancelled or delayed, it will stall the growth and opportunity of Western Sydney and continue to force residents onto toll roads or into heavy traffic. Labor's cut-and-cancel culture will leave residents without the public transport infrastructure they urgently need to connect them to their homes, small businesses or workplaces. I call on the New South Wales Labor government to commit to their promise— (Time expired) Launceston Medical Centre 75 13:57 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania It gives me great pleasure to inform the chamber that a provider for the Launceston Medicare Urgent Care Clinic has been selected. The Launceston Medical Centre will establish the Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, and they have been seeing patients since 31 July. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator POLLEY e5x We know from the interjections from that side, they want to slam anything to do with Medicare because they don't believe in universal health care for Australians. This urgent care clinic will take a lot of pressure off the Launceston General Hospital, so not only will it help northern Tasmanians and families—instead of having them sit in the ED for hour after hour, waiting to have an x-ray with a child that has a broken arm—but it will also enable them to go to this Medicare funded urgent care centre and not have to wait. They will have access seven days a week and all they will need to get that care is a Medicare card. That's what they need. Not only does Launceston have the first one that's open but there'll be three more for Tasmania, two more in Hobart and one on the north-west coast. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator POLLEY e5x I love the interjections from those opposite, but what the Australian people will see is that the Albanese Labor government is concerned about ensuring that Australians have the best possible health care that this country can provide, and fundamentally underlying that is Medicare, something that those people—it's almost like it's part of their DNA—hate. They want to stand in the way of Labor delivering on all our commitments. That's why they've teamed up with the Greens to stop the Housing Future Fund from being delivered, and 30,000 that could have been built won't be built because of the love-in between the Liberals and the Greens. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government because we deliver on our election commitments. (Time expired) QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 75 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 75 14:00 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. There have been 11 rate rises since Labor came to government just over a year ago, but core inflation remains higher than all of the G7 nations except the United Kingdom. Yesterday the RBA announced that it doesn't expect higher inflation to return to band until late 2025, meaning interest rate will be higher for longer. After an additional $185 billion of spending in your last budget, which economists described as unambiguously expansionary and likely to add to inflation, will you finally admit that your fiscal policy is keeping inflation higher for longer and fuelling the cost-of-living crisis? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The short answer is no. Given that I have longer to expand on that I'll say about our budget, which included $40 billion worth of savings across October and May, which was approximately $40 billion more than the last budgets of your government, the peak of inflation in the quarter was in March 2022, which was under your government's economic policies. We have said for some time that inflation remains the major challenge across our economy and that it is staying higher for longer than we would like. Our budget has been calibrated to ensure that fiscal policy is working hand in hand with monetary policy and that the decisions we took didn't make the bank's job any harder. We acknowledge that people are doing it tough, which is why we showed the restraints we had in our budget by banking the revenue, by banking 87 per cent of the upward revisions to revenue, by finding $40 billion worth of savings, by ending the waste and rorts and by rebuilding the Public Service so that it can deliver the services that the Australian people expect. We still found room, as we should have, for $14.6 billion worth of cost-of-living measures. They go to investments in Medicare, investments in cheaper medicines, investments in child care and investments in people relying on payments because they're doing it tough. We made investments in energy bill relief, in investing in skilling the workforce for the future, in ensuring that we're dealing with the energy transition and in making sure Australia is positioned to grab the opportunities that are coming from the decarbonisation that we're seeing across the global economy. We are doing all that, and we still have the bank and the Treasury secretary confirming that our budget was not inflationary. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Before the election the Prime Minister claimed that Australians would have cheaper mortgages under Labor. With inflation remaining higher for longer under Labor, an average family with a $750,000 mortgage will have to find more than $22,000 each year to pay that mortgage. Is this what the Prime Minister meant by cheaper mortgages? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My recollection of the reference to the Prime Minister's comments is that they were in relation to the release of our housing policy during the election, where we released a number of policy areas to generate and deal with the housing challenge that we have inherited from the former government, which was there for a decade but disengaged from any role in housing policy. That is what we are fixing. Not only do you see us having to deal with the energy failures that we inherited, but there is a whole litany of areas we have to deal with. May I remind the party of robodebt, may I remind the party of aged-care failures, may I remind the party of housing failures. We inherited a situation where the Commonwealth had completely disengaged, and we went to the election with a comprehensive housing policy, which we would deliver if the Senate would get out of the way and stop blocking one of those signature policies. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Last month in Hobart the cost-of-living committee heard evidence from Foodbank Tasmania that it was preparing for even more people needing its services as fixed mortgage rates fall away over the coming months. Is the increased demand on charities what the Prime Minister meant when he said that Australians would be better off under Labor? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I preface this by acknowledging that Australians are doing it tough, which is why our budget has been focused on making room for investments where we are able to afford it and to target those investments to areas of high need. In relation to the community sector, which does do an incredible job in relation to emergency provision of services, whether it be food relief or, indeed, housing, the government has fixed another one of the areas of your failure, which is the indexation rate, where you didn't even bother to index the community sector in a way where they could afford to continue their provision of services and pay their staff. We have come in and lifted that rock up and had a look at where you placed that rock— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson. Senator GALLAGHER ING and we have fixed that as well, so that the community sector is able to meet some of those increasing costs. And we will work with them hand in hand, as you would expect, to see if there are any further areas of support we can provide. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 76 14:05 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. It is really important that all eligible Australians are enrolled to vote in the lead-up to this year's referendum. However, we know that some groups have faced barriers to enrolling which have seen them unrepresented on the electoral roll and, therefore, unable to participate. I understand that's why the government has been supporting the Australian Electoral Commission to remove barriers for these Australians, which has already led to significant increases in enrolment. Can the minister please update the Senate on the record number of Australians now on the electoral roll? 14:06 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Green for her interest in this area; it's a very important part of our democracy. Yes, I can update you on the issues you raised. After coming to government, the Albanese government funded the AEC to improve Indigenous enrolment. Earlier this year, we acted to remove regulatory barriers and support greater enrolment of eligible Australians. This has been paying dividends. Last week the Australian Electoral Commission announced that enrolment in Australia has skyrocketed, ahead of the 2023 referendum. National enrolment is now estimated to be at 97.5 per cent—I'll repeat that figure: 97.5 per cent—with over 17.5 million Australians on the electoral roll. More significantly, enrolment of underrepresented groups is going through the roof. Enrolment of young Australians is over 90 per cent for the first time in the nation's history, and more First Nations Australians are now enrolled than ever before, with enrolment at 94.1 per cent. And remember this: this is up from 80 per cent in June 2022, shortly before we came to government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith. Senator Watt. Senator FARRELL I0N It isn't just the work of the AEC that is driving up enrolment. Australians want to have a say at the Voice referendum. First Nations Australians clearly want to have a say on the Voice to Parliament. Young people want to have a say on the Voice to Parliament, and we are committed to working with the AEC to ensure all eligible Australians are enrolled to vote. The referendum is an opportunity for all Australians to get behind the Voice to Parliament, and I encourage Australians to make sure they are enrolled to vote in the lead-up to the important referendum. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, a first supplementary? 14:08 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Thank you, President. It's clear from this that First Nations Australians want to have their say on the Voice. This isn't really surprising, since the Voice is an idea that came from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and is widely supported by representatives of First Nations Australians. Can the minister please outline what the government is hearing from representatives about their wish to participate in the Voice referendum later this year? 14:09 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes, I can, and I thank the senator for the opportunity to further expand on First Nations enrolment. As I outlined, enrolment of First Nations Australians is now at a record level because First Nations Australians clearly want to participate in the referendum on the Voice. This is no surprise, as the Voice came from First Nations Australians and is widely backed by First Nations Australians. We keep hearing from First Nations Australians who are ready to get behind the Voice. This includes Adelaide Crows legend—listen to this, Senator Birmingham—Eddie Betts, who has said: I know the Voice won't fix everything overnight but I feel like it's the opening of a pathway to make sure we are included and respected in decision-making on issues that impact us. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, a second supplementary? 14:10 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland The minister outlined that, in addition to record levels of First Nations Australians enrolled to vote, enrolment of young Australians is at record levels. I know from listening to young people in my state that they are ready to get behind the Voice at the ballot box. Can the minister please outline what the government is hearing from representatives of young Australians about their enthusiasm to participate in the Voice referendum later this year? 14:10 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Green for her second supplementary question. The Albanese government has taken action to improve enrolment of all Australians, and I'm pleased to say that young Australians aged between 18 and 24 are now enrolled at record levels. Members of this cohort of young Australians are eager to have their say in the first referendum in their lifetime, and I'm confident that young Australians are ready to get behind the Voice to Parliament. In the words of Uluru Youth Dialogue Co-Chair Allira Davis: … more than 73 per cent of young Australians support the Voice. We know young people want to make sure this happens and see a successful referendum. I encourage all Australians to enrol to vote and get behind the Voice. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 78 14:11 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On at least 34 occasions, the Prime Minister has committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. In 2017, on the ABC's Q+A program, Noel Pearson was asked to explain the Uluru statement and expressly said there would need to be 'a framework agreement nationally'. This morning on Radio National the Prime Minister was asked on seven occasions whether he supported a treaty. He refused to give a direct answer. Does the government's commitment to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full include committing to a treaty? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This government does support bringing Australians together, and that is what makarrata is about. That is also what the Voice is about. What we know is that those opposite want to talk about everything other than what the referendum is about. That is what they want to do. Really, it reflects upon them that this is the approach they choose to take on an issue that is so important to the heart and soul of the nation. Senator McGrath knows that the referendum is not about the matters he mentions in his question. He knows that the government's policy is a constitutionally enshrined Voice to achieve better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in health, education, jobs and housing. Senator Cash I0M No, it's not. It can't be! Senator WONG 00AOU I'll take the interjection from Senator Cash, the chief fearmonger on that side. You want to talk about everything other than how a voice might help First Nations people in this country. Regrettably, what this opposition continues to choose to do is to talk about everything else but what the Voice is, what it will do and what it could do for First Nations people and for our nation. I think Australians do want to close the gap. I think Australians know that what we have done to date, on both sides of politics over many decades, has left us with a gap that is unacceptable. People should be clear that we want to implement the Voice that First Nations people have asked for, because we believe that when you listen to people you get better outcomes. We want to close the gap between our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the rest of Australia. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Back in 2017 only the first page of the Uluru Statement from the Heart was released to the Australian people. The full statement has now been released under FOI. It discusses the priority between treaty and constitutional reform and explicitly says a treaty could cover matters such as reparations and a financial settlement such as 'seeking a percentage of GDP'. Minister, what percentage of GDP does the government consider would be an appropriate amount for Australians to pay as a financial settlement? Honourable se nators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Before I call the minister, I'm going to remind the chamber that the senator asking the question has the right to be heard in silence. Equally, when the minister responds, she has the right to be heard in silence. 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think we have again on display the same tactic which I referenced in response to the primary question. You want to talk about everything but the Voice. You want to talk about what Mr Pearson said. You want to talk about some documents that you've now found—in relation to a statement that you used to support. I will make this point, because those opposite want to talk about treaties: what has happened since 1986 is that treaties and agreements are already underway in Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory. You know what? At the time and, I believe, subsequently, those processes were supported by the Victorian Liberal and National parties, the Queensland LNP and others from the parties of those opposite. I actually wasn't sure that was true, Senator McGrath, and I went back and asked my office to check: 'Is it really true the Queensland LNP did support this process?' They did, which shows what you are doing now. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, second supplementary? 14:16 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Minister, on 20 February you made a statement on social media saying '#VoteForTheVoice #VoiceTreatyTruth'. Doesn't your own statement confirm that the Albanese government intends to begin negotiating a treaty should the Voice referendum be successful? Or was your statement supporting a treaty just a throwaway line? Honourable senators interjecting — The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I have just finished advising the chamber that questions are to be asked in silence. Equally, when I call the minister, the minister is to be listened to in silence. Minister Wong. 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would say this. I would say that the Voice is nothing to be afraid of. I would say that the Voice is nothing like the sorts of political bogeymen that those on the other side wish to keep utilising. I would also make this point to those opposite: I believe that there are some things bigger than politics, and I would ask those opposite to reflect on whether they really want to use the soul and fabric of this nation as a political battleground. The Voice is not about Mr Albanese or Mr Dutton. It's not about Liberal and Labor. It's not about politics in this place. It is about the aspirations and hopes of our First Nations peoples as they have articulated them to us. We have an opportunity to bring the nation together. There are some things above politics. Honour able senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Brown, that includes you. It's not a request; it's a direction. Oil and Gas Exploration 79 14:18 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, as you know, the Greens have written to the Treasurer informing him that we will not pass the government's budget measure relating to the petroleum resource rent tax unless the government agrees to support our proposal to double the revenue collected from gas corporations. The choice for the government is now abundantly clear: you can either work with the Greens and the crossbench to double the revenue or get half that amount and weaken environmental protections on gas projects in a dirty deal with the opposition and the gas corporations. Minister, which is it going to be? 14:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government will be seeking to implement its budget decision, which has been outlined in our budget papers. We would be making some sensible changes to the PRRT. Those changes will see the offshore LNG industry pay more tax and pay it sooner. It will contribute, I think, $2.4 billion across the forward estimates to assist with budget repair but also to ensure that we have the resources available to continue to invest in the services that the people of Australia deserve and expect. It was the result of some methodical work that was undertaken by the Treasury about options to improve the operation of the PRRT. The option that was decided on by the government gives the biggest return to Australians sooner. We did that within the context of ensuring that we can supply gas to our population and that we can honour our international obligations. It was a sensible change. If the Greens have decided to oppose that budget decision, then of course we look forward to the decision of the coalition and hope that this doesn't turn into another one of these decisions where we don't get the support of the coalition for a sensible change. It has been backed by the industry. We have been cautiously careful with our considerations on this. We believe that the Australian budget should receive more revenue from this measure. We are hopeful that, if we can't win the support of the crossbench or the Greens, we will win the support of other members of this chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, a first supplementary? 14:21 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, isn't it true that actually this proposal was designed by the gas cartel in this country? Isn't it also true that 15 gas corporations and peak fossil fuel bodies signed nondisclosure agreements with Treasury to enable them to design the government's proposed PRRT changes? Minister, how many environment, climate and community groups were invited into the design process? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I'm going to remind people that interjections are disorderly. Minister Gallagher. 14:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The answer to Senator McKim's question is no. The policy was designed by the Treasury and agreed to by the government. In terms of the consultations that happened, it is not unusual that the government would engage with industry stakeholders around a revenue measure that impacts on their industry. That is business as usual for government in that sense. Nondisclosure agreements as part of that consultation are standard operation as well. It is right that the cabinet, the ERC, when making decisions, has a full understanding of the industry impacts of any proposed change. The normal processes were undertaken in relation to this measure. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, a second supplementary? 14:22 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, why has the government carved Woodside's North West Shelf project out of this tax? Has it got anything to do with the massive political donations which are poured every year out of Woodside's obscene profits into the coffers of the Labor Party? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This is a common theme from the Greens. The answer to that is no. If they are going to make assertions like that, or insinuations like that, then they should stump up any evidence they have to support such a claim. They are continuing to do this in estimates, in almost every forum they choose—to besmirch the decision-making process and the processes that are legally underway through our political organisations, including the Greens political party. We operate under the same laws that the Greens political party do when they raise donations for themselves. If you've got something to say, if you've got something to prove, then bring it forward, but I think it's very lazy to just stand up and point the finger without anything to back that up. Medicines 80 14:24 Senator I0T Western Australia PRATT (—) (): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. At a time when we know many Australians are seeing additional pressure on their household budgets, can the minister please outline how the Albanese government's cheaper medicines policies are not only delivering savings to Australians and making it easier and cheaper for them to get their scripts filled but also helping combat inflationary pressures? 14:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for the question. As I said in my earlier answer to Senator Chandler, we do understand that many Australians are doing it tough, as cost-of-living pressures bite into household budgets, which is why we have looked carefully at areas where the government can take pressure off those cost-of-living pressures. This is why we are acting and have acted through the October and the May budgets to provide cost-of-living relief where we can, targeted and timed so that it does not add to the inflation pressures we are seeing across the economy. One of the key actions we are taking in this area is to make medicines cheaper. It was a key election commitment of this government and, on 1 January this year, for the first time in the 75-year history of the PBS, the general co-payment was reduced from $42.50 to $30. Already, in less than seven months, Australians have saved $118 million on nearly 11 million cheaper prescriptions. It is why we have introduced the new nationally consistent Opioid Dependence Treatment Program that means tens of thousands of Australians will finally get the same benefit that every other Australian gets for PBS medicines. From 1 July they will pay the PBS co-payment on these vital medicines and save up to $200 per month. As we announced in the budget, from 1 September, we are also introducing 60-day prescriptions for more than 300 medicines that will benefit six million Australians with ongoing health conditions, giving them twice the medication for the cost of a single script. This policy was recommended by independent clinical experts at the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee back in 2018, advice that was ignored by the previous government. Sixty-day prescriptions is the norm in so many countries and it is undeniably good health policy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, a first supplementary? 14:26 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia How will the government work in partnership with pharmacies around Australia who deliver important health care support to their communities to roll out these reforms, particularly those in rural and regional communities? What assistance will be provided to make this transition to cheaper medicines smoother? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for her question. The government is committed to working in partnership with pharmacies, particularly those in regional and remote communities. In the budget, the government committed to reinvest every single dollar that the government saves with 60-day scripts straight back into the community pharmacy sector so pharmacists can play an even more central role in the health care of Australians. This government has increased payments for services like dispensing, handling, administration and infrastructure by seven per cent more for all community pharmacies. The government recognises the importance of rural and regional pharmacies and will be investing in them accordingly. Starting this month, the government has doubled the budget for the regional pharmacy maintenance allowance, and from 1 September this year the government is introducing the regional pharmacy transitional allowance to support pharmacies in the transition to 60-day scripts. This will provide $148.2 million over four years for eligible pharmacies in rural, regional and remote areas. The P 10000 Senator Pratt, a second supplementary? 14:28 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Given the government's changes to deliver cheaper medicines will have a positive impact on people's household budgets, particularly important at this time, and given that 60-day dispensing is commonplace in other countries, like the USA, New Zealand and Canada, why did the former government choose not to act on this targeted cost-of-living relief, and why do they appear to remain opposed to Australians getting their medicines more cheaply and efficiently? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This is another area where we saw a distinct lack of action from the former government, which meant that people paid more for their medicines for longer than they needed to. The government is acting on the expert clinical advice and feedback. We are acting on the advice of the former government chose to ignore, and from 1 September we are implementing this advice because it is not only good health policy but it also makes medicines cheaper and helps Australians with their cost-of-living challenges. Introducing 60-day scripts for stable ongoing conditions was a recommendation from the PBAC in 2018. The 2018 recommendation was never implemented by the former government—those in the 'no-alition' now—costing Australians billions of dollars in lost savings. People have had to pay more for their medicines for longer than they needed to. There are millions of Australians with ongoing health conditions who deserve an explanation. This, of course, is a reform that is supported by many in the health sector, who want to see people pay less for their medicine. Energy 82 14:29 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Wong. Minister Wong, people in your state of South Australia are paying an average cost of 35c per kilowatt hour compared to: 22c in Victoria, 25c in Queensland, 26c in Tasmania, 28c in New South Wales and 30c in Western Australia. Will the minister please explain why the state with the highest penetration of renewables also has the highest electricity prices in the nation while your government keeps claiming renewables are cheaper? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Hanson for the question. Senator Hanson may be aware that the transition from carbon-intensive energy generation to renewables did occur earlier in South Australia. I think we all know there have been challenges with how that has been. With that, given the speed with which that had to occur— An honourable senator interjecting — Senator WONG 00AOU It did have to occur, yes. I would make this point: the reason that we say renewables are cheaper is that's what the data shows. I would refer you to— Senator McKenzie 207825 What data? Senator WONG 00AOU Well, the AEMO, the electricity market operator— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, this is like the fact-free debate we had in the coalition for 10 years, and which is why we are where we are. But, if I could just go back so I can answer Senator Hanson's question, the electricity market operator said: Less volatile market conditions, improved generation availability and higher renewable output put downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices, increased market share of lower marginal cost renewables, helped push down the wholesale electricity cost from Q2 2022, despite the quarter having the highest Q2 underlying demand recorded since 2016. Senator Hanson, I know you don't agree with this, but I'm simply saying to you that the advice to government and the advice from the market operator—not a politician, not a lobbyist but the entity in charge of running the electricity market—has made clear that renewables— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, on a point of order. Senator Roberts 266524 Senator Wong is talking about Australia, not South Australia. She's hiding behind averages. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's not a point of order, Senator Roberts. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I was responding to the point that Senator Hanson made, where she disputed renewables being cheaper. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:32 Sena BK6 Queensland tor HANSON (—) (): I remind you that your state runs on solar, wind and gas. You blew up your power station in 2016. That's why your prices have actually gone up and the rest of the states have coal. My question is: on 28 July, Clair Lehmann reported in the Australian that, 'when taken into account the full cost of renewables to an energy system, solar is 14 times more costly than nuclear energy, and wind is 4.7 times more costly.' Will the minister please explain to the Australian people— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hanson, the time for asking your question has expired. Senator HANSON BK6 the real cost of intermittent renewables in their— The 10000 Senator Hanson, when I call you, you are expected to stop and to sit down. 14:33 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I've asked about what Ms Savage said, and I have a quote from her, from March of this year: We have seen unprecedented volatility in our wholesale electricity markets over the last couple of years, we've had very high coal and gas prices as a result of the war in Ukraine and the recovery from the pandemic. We've also seen a number of outages in particularly old coal plants. She's making the point that there are a number of reasons that electricity prices are being driven up. The reality is, all of the advice to government and the data from the market as well, so not only— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, your constant interjections are incredibly disorderly and disrespectful. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The advice to government, very clearly, is that renewables are the cheapest form of new installed power. I would also make this point. I've looked at the electricity prices across the states, and I have to say I don't necessarily agree with the premise of your primary question. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:34 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland This is solar, gas and coal from Australia, so stop blaming the Ukraine war for this. Under the National Electricity Rules, wind and solar operators get the same price as gas operators. They are cheaper to produce, as you declare, but are charged at a higher rate. When are you going to stop this rorting and bring electricity prices down for families and businesses? 14:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): In relation to the latter, Senator Hanson, you would know that the government has already put in place measures to seek to take the edge off the electricity price increases that Australians are facing. I would make the point that, obviously, those opposite chose to vote against it. We know that that was, in effect, a vote for higher electricity prices. In relation to your point about Ukraine and Russia, we work in an international market. The price of coal and gas, even if produced in Australia, is not disconnected from the international market and the fact that supply is constrained. You may shake your head, Senator Hanson. It is not disconnected. We may be an island continent, but we work in a global market, and we are not insulated from international movements in coal and gas prices. I make the point again—the evidence shows that renewables are cheaper, and that is what the government is focused on. (Time expired) First Nations Australians 83 14:36 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, you have explicitly posted on social media and spoken about your support for a treaty, as has the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Prime Minister and most members of your government. Given the confusion created by the Prime Minister, can you confirm that, if the Voice referendum is successful later this year, the Albanese government will then commence the process to negotiate one or more national treaties with Indigenous Australians? 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank those opposite for being so interested in my social media account. I never had any idea! I could just picture you all sitting there, having a look, following everyone's social media. Oh! They wanted some good content. They wanted some quality content. Follow us! We're comfortable with that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! I have a senator on her feet. Senator Liddle. Senator Liddle 300644 The question was very specific, and it wasn't about being amused about the answer. It was about the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, you did refer to social media and a number of other matters. Senator Liddle 300644 And all the laughing and joking. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is entitled to go to any part of your question. You referred to social media. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I will remind the minister of your question, but I will remind people who ask the questions that, if there's a preamble or a range of matters in the body of the question, the minister is entitled to refer to them. Senator GALLAGHER ING I will remember Senator Liddle when I post next on social media, hopeful that she'll enjoy it. The focus for the government is on the Voice. There will be a referendum, and everyone will have an opportunity to vote. Our focus is on ensuring that we're closing the gap, focusing on Indigenous health, education, housing and jobs and making a practical difference. I think there is surely some agreement across this chamber that in a number of areas the current situation, the status quo, is not delivering the outcomes that any single one of us in this chamber would want to see continue for any time longer. That is in areas such as incarceration, children being placed in out-of-home care, babies with low birth weight and children being assessed as not on track developmentally. In all of those areas we are not seeing the outcomes that we want to see, which is why there will be— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING It is relevant, because it's about outcomes. The Voice is about outcomes. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is about outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and improving them— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Liddle. Senator Liddle 300644 The question was about an outcome, which was: will a treaty be part of that? We haven't heard that word. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, I remind you that in your question you also went to the Voice, you went to the referendum and you went to social media, all of which the minister is entitled to take into account when she answers. The minister is being relevant. Senator GALLAGHER ING The question I'm asked relates to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and the referendum goes to the Voice, creating constitutional recognition through a voice to this parliament. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, first supplementary? 14:40 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Minister, will you rule out Australian taxpayers being required to pay rent or reparations as part of any treaty negotiated by the Albanese government? If not, what is the potential cost of such a treaty? Have you done the modelling? 14:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We all see, with eyes wide open, what is going on here in this chamber. We all see. You will have to live with yourselves about your conduct and how you decide to play it— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Senator GALLAGHER ING I can say, as Minister for Finance, one of the things that worries me greatly is the expenditure that's currently going to deliver outcomes that none of us in this place would want to see continue. We spend billions and billions of dollars every year, year on year, on programs that have not shifted the dial and have not closed the gap. As Minister for Finance, I have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that the money being spent is delivering outcomes. That is why we are supporting a Voice through the 'yes' vote, when it comes—because we want to see a practical difference and see those outcomes change. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, second supplementary? 14:42 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Minister, in response to a question yesterday, you said the investment in a makarrata commission will support the treaty process. However, the Prime Minister has said this isn't about treaty. Have you again misled the Senate, or is the Prime Minister seeking to mislead the Australian people? 14:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Voice, as I said yesterday, is about making a practical difference. It's about constitutional recognition. It's about consultation and listening to First Nations people, at their request, when they say this is what they would like to see happen, so we can start shifting the dial in all of those areas—in jobs, in housing, in education, in justice. I thought we had unanimous agreement that we wanted to see progress in all these areas. I thought that. We have seen years and years of the parliament working together to make decisions. The Voice is simply— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Hughes! Order on my right as well, Senator Green! Please continue, Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING The Voice is about making a practical difference. It's a generous offer about a way forward to change what we're currently doing, which, as everyone in this place would agree, has not been working. Oil and Gas Exploration 85 14:44 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Senator Lambie and I have worked with the Greens and with Senator David Pocock to make you an offer. We're prepared to back your changes to the petroleum resource rent tax, with one tweak. We want to do what you're already planning to do, which is capping the use of credits to a company's tax bill. All we're saying is it should be capped at 80 per cent instead of 90 per cent. In exchange, you'll have the numbers to pass your legislation. An alternative way to get your numbers is to support what the Leader of the Opposition has called for and cut the regulation of oil and gas. I know you won't say whether you're going to accept the opposition's demands, so I'll just ask it this way: does the Albanese government believe the oil and gas industry is over-regulated? 14:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Tyrell. Just in relation to the preamble to your question, in terms of working with you, we will work with anybody in this chamber to get our legislation through. As you know, sometimes that involves different voting arrangements, but the Greens have certainly indicated that they won't be supporting the bill as it exists, so we will be looking to the coalition to back in this sensible and modest change to the PRRT. In relation to over-regulation, I would say no, I don't believe they're over-regulated. In relation to the PRRT, we have consulted with industry around the design of that measure to ensure that we are doing a number of things: returning money to the budget sooner and at a higher level than would normally have been the case, to ensure that we've got investment happening in the country, to ensure that we've got gas available to households and business as we need to as we transition to a net zero economy and, thirdly, that we meet our international obligations. We are mindful of those three things as we finalise arrangements for the PRRT. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrell, a first supplementary? 14:46 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I've noticed the Treasurer said that the government's proposed change is going to mean offshore oil and gas pay more tax, but if these companies are being prevented from using some of their credits to pay their tax bill, and those credits carry forward, won't they just have tax-deductible credits for longer? In other words, over the life of a project won't every company pay the same amount of tax that they would have paid without this change? 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory To date, the PRRT revenue predominantly relates to oil and gas produced in the Bass Strait, so no offshore LNG project has paid PRRT yet. Most offshore LNG projects are not expected to pay substantial amounts of PRRT before 2030. Whilst they are earning significant revenues from Australia's gas resources, our PRRT revenue collections in 2021-22 were $1.64 billion. We're estimating that, between 2023-24 and 2026-27, there'll be revenue in the order of $10.8 billion. This reform, which does bring forward revenue to the budget in the forward estimates, will raise an additional $2.4 billion in revenue across those four years. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrell, a second supplementary? 14:48 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania If capping credits at 90 per cent brings in more tax sooner, as the Treasurer has claimed, what would capping credits at 80 per cent do? 14:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm not in a position to answer that. I don't have that information in front of me, because that isn't the government's policy. If there is anything else I can provide the Senate, I will look and see, but I would also imagine that Senator Tyrrell, Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock would be engaging directly with the Treasurer on that, as would normally be the case for legislation as we bring it forward to this chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. I call Senator Dean Smith. Senator Marielle Smith 281603 Actually me. The PRESIDENT 112096 I beg your pardon. Sorry to raise your hopes, Senator Dean Smith. Senator Stewart 299352 It's the good Smith! Senator Marielle Smith 281603 It's the good Smith! The PRESIDENT 112096 My mistake. I call Senator Marielle Smith. Housing 86 14:49 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. From speaking to people in our home state of South Australia who faced a decade of inaction on housing and homelessness under the former Liberal and National government, it's clear Australians support our government's ambitious housing reform agenda. In that context, can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government is working to deliver its ambitious housing reform agenda and ensure more Australians have access to safe and secure homes, and, critically, what is blocking much needed progress on this vital issue? 14:49 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank, dare I say, the 'good' Senator Smith—'our' Senator Smith—for the question and thank her as a very active representative of the people of South Australia for her work on this and on the Voice, which is also an issue that we know is so important to so many people. There are so many people in South Australia who are interested in and focused on how we get more homes on the ground in our state. People know that we do have an ambitious housing agenda, that we are serious about fixing the mess that those opposite made and that we have already invested billions. The reality is that the Liberal and National Parties sowed the seeds of a housing crisis and neglected those most in need. We had a wasted decade under the Liberals and Nationals, but, on this side we're not wasting a day. We've already created a $2 billion social housing accelerator to deliver thousands of new social homes across Australia. We've already expanded the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. We have already expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme. We've boosted the National Housing Accord, and we have increased Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 15 per cent—the largest increase in more than 30 years. Those are some but not all of the measures we have put in place. Of course, there is much more Labor wants to do, including the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. Senator Smith asked what is blocking progress. The answer is here in this chamber. It is the Greens, in coalition with the Liberals and Nationals, prioritising political tactics and denying shelter to those who need it most. They were voting against it, let's be clear, because the bill is about delivering more housing, including for women escaping family and domestic violence— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, a first supplementary? 14:52 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia The Albanese government is working in partnership with the states and territories, local government and the not-for-profit sectors to improve housing for Australians. Can the minister provide an update to the Senate on how the Albanese government's collaboration with these valued partners is delivering better housing for Australians? 14:52 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We understand that we have to work with state and territory governments and with organisations on the front line to respond to housing challenges. Unlike those opposite, who always tried to hand all this to the states, we've been working with state and territory governments. You know what they tell us? They tell us to pass the Housing Australia Future Fund. PowerHousing Australia, a network of community housing providers, has said: Australians expect federal leadership and the time is now to pass this vital legislation and start taking action on housing affordability through the HAFF. There are other not-for-profit community housing providers who are asking the Greens and the coalition to pass this legislation. I just remind the Senate again that this is about crisis accommodation for women escaping family and domestic violence. This is about funding to repair remote Indigenous housing. This is about support for veterans at risk of homelessness. It's 30,000 new social and affordable homes. You should pass the HAFF when it comes to the Senate. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, a second supplementary? 14:53 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Can the minister explain to the Senate what impact delays to the delivery of the housing reform agenda will have on Australians who are in urgent need of safe and affordable homes? 14:53 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Greens have said that rejecting the Housing Australia Future Fund doesn't have a cost. That's simply not true; it does have a cost. Every day you stall and every day you work with them is another $1.3 million that will not be going into social and affordable housing in Australia. That's what it will mean. The HAFF could help fund 30,000 homes over five years. I would say to the Greens political party: don't keep putting your political tactics above the needs of those in the community who need more housing. The reality is that the Greens and the coalition are blocking more homes. We on this side of the chamber want to build more homes. Those opposite and the Greens want to block more homes. You should pass the Housing Australian Future Fund when it returns to the Senate. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 87 14:54 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria My question is the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Following the disgraceful incident at the Perth home of Woodside CEO Meg O'Neill yesterday in which protesters tried to invade her home, has the Prime Minister sought an explanation from the ABC about the involvement of one of its television crews in the incident and how the ABC was provided with the home address of Woodside's CEO? 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I share Senator Henderson's concerns about the way in which the media were alerted of this. People have a right to their privacy. People's families have a right to feel safe. I think all of us would say that we have legitimate political protests in our nation and people have a lot of different views, but that right to protest and that freedom of expression that is part of that, the democratic rights that expresses, have to be utilised responsibly. I personally don't believe, and I think most of us would share this belief, that it's responsible for such protests to be taken to someone's home where their family is. I don't have any information in relation to how or what happened in relation to the ABC. I will certainly see if there's anything I can do to provide further information about that matter. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, first supplementary? 14:56 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Senator, if the protesters informed the ABC they were going to that address, was it appropriate for the ABC to embargo news of such a reckless protest? Should a responsible journalist have considered alerting police to their advanced knowledge of an intended illegal act? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 I have called for order, Senator Colbeck and Senator McKenzie. Minister Wong? 14:57 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The advice I've received—and, again, Senator Henderson, I will add to this answer if I'm able to—is the minister has responded in the House that she has sought further information from the ABC on this matter in addition to their public statements. She awaits the further advice she has requested. She does note that the ABC has both operational and editorial independence. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Henderson, please. No-one in this chamber, I would think, would support what has happened, so let's not— Senator WONG 00AOU There are some things above politics for some of us, Senator Henderson. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, order! Senator Henderson, second supplementary? 14:58 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, we are referring to advanced knowledge of an intended illegal act. Will the government take action and request that the recently appointed ABC Ombudsman conduct an urgent inquiry into this matter? 14:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you for the supplementary. In relation to those matters, I will take advice from the minister and provide further information to the chamber as to whether or not we can provide anything helpful in relation to your question. I have also just been sent an ABC statement, which the senator may well be aware of, where the ABC has responded directly to these queries. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I have only just seen this. I'm simply trying to be helpful to the chamber on an issue that— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Colbeck, there are many opportunities during a sitting week to make a contribution. Question time is not one of them, if you are not asking a question. The minister is responding. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I have just received a copy of the statement; others may have seen it. I simply say the statement says that they had no knowledge of what action was going to occur there, and so forth, and the police were already in attendance on arrival. Can I say this again: families deserve to be safe, and people are entitled to their privacy. President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. (Time expired) QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 89 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Economy, Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, First Nations Australians 89 15:01 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given to questions from Senators Chandler, McGrath and Liddle in question time today. What we see from the government is a continued attempt to walk away from the commitments that they made to the Australian people at the last election with respect to the economy. In the lead-up to the last election, the Labor Party promised a lower cost of living. They promised lower energy prices. They promised higher real wages. They promised lower mortgage costs. Yet, whenever we ask a question in relation to those matters in this place, they attempt to deflect. They attempt to blame someone else. They won't take responsibility for the promises that they made to the Australian people in the lead-up to the election. We continue to have one of the highest inflation rates, particularly core inflation rates, amongst advanced economies. Economic growth is at half the OECD average. This government is destroying the productivity rate, through its relationship with the unions. All of those things are going backwards and none of the promises that were made by the government prior to the election are being kept. Flatlining GDP per capita, higher spending rates, higher interest rates—the government talk about their contribution to managing interest rates, and yet at estimates we heard the Reserve Bank governor say the budget 'hasn't shifted the dial'. Therefore, all of the heavy lifting that needs to be done with respect to reducing inflation has to be done by the Reserve Bank because the government's doing nothing. They say they're making a contribution, but the Reserve Bank governor said the budget 'hasn't shifted the dial'. If you're not doing anything, you're not helping. That's why we've seen so many interest rate rises in a row; there have been 11 in a row under this government's watch. They promised cheaper housing costs. They promised cheaper housing costs, not what the minister tried to do today, which is to put it into a sectional context. They promised a lower cost of living. They promised lower mortgage costs. They promised lower energy prices. We don't hear the term '$275 cut in power prices' from the government anymore. It was great before the election when they were looking for people's vote; it doesn't matter anymore as we see increase upon increase. They're now talking about 'putting downward pressure on energy costs', but before the election they promised a cut in energy costs of $275. They promised higher real wages. They criticised the opposition for the period that we were in government, and yet, when we were in government, there was real growth in wages. Under this government, it's actually going backwards. This is another broken promise from this government, and yet we see minister after minister stand up in this place and try and deflect attention, demean the person who's asking the question and blame somebody else. It's simply not good enough. 15:06 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I don't think those on the other side heard anything that Senator Gallagher said in her answers today. She did say that our budget included $40 billion worth of savings across October and May. That's $40 billion. She also said very, very clearly that we understand that the rising cost of living is hitting a lot of Australians hard. We recognise that, and we are doing something about it. Our economic plan is carefully calibrated to take pressure off the cost of living, rather than add to it. There were $40 billion worth of savings in the last budget. Our government's cost-of-living package provides assistance with rent, assistance with energy bills, cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. Those are things that everyday Australians utilise and need assistance with. Much of that is now being rolled out. Those benefits will continue to flow for the next few months. Over the next weeks and months they will continue to flow out. Our policies to ease the cost-of-living pressures are expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. We know that inflation is still higher than we would like it to be, but it's down from where it would have been and we're making a meaningful difference to families right around this country. The coalition, those on the other side, oversaw a decade of wasted opportunities and warped priorities. That left Australians living with falling real wages, rising cost-of-living pressures and trillions of dollars of debt, without an economic dividend to show at all. They have the gall to stand up here and say we are doing nothing about it. On the other side, they voted for higher energy bills for millions of households and small businesses. They want more expensive medicines. They had the opportunity a few years ago to lower the cost of medicines, but what did they do? They turned their backs on Australians, so Australians have been paying a lot more for quite a few years. They won't support more affordable housing for Australians. We are investing $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentive for the most common GP consultations for children under 16 and Commonwealth concession card holders. That will support 11.6 million eligible Australians to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs, yet those opposite say we are not doing anything. It is the largest investment in bulk-billing incentives ever, making it cheaper and easier for Australians who are eligible to see a doctor. We are reducing the cost of medicines by up to half for at least six million Australians. Six million Australians will be better off because they have their medicine costs reduced. Some patients will be able to receive two months' worth of their medicines per visit to their pharmacy, saving $1.6 billion in out-of-pocket costs over four years. That is not doing nothing; that's actually helping people with their cost of living. Up to $3 billion of electricity bill relief through the Energy Bill Relief Fund will take pressure off households and small businesses in partnership with state and territory governments. The housing minister and I met with some business representatives on the coast of North West Tasmania last week. It was very strange sitting in a room with chambers of commerce and industry congratulating our government on the assistance that we are giving small business in energy relief and in a whole range of other incentives that we have provided for them. There were congratulations for what we are doing for them and also for what we are doing for the cost of living for ordinary Australians. Those on the other side want to sit there and have a go at us, but, I tell you what, the people out there that I talk to—yes, they are doing it tough—recognise that we are doing what we can within a budget to make the cost of living better for them. 15:11 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Anyone who knows me and those who have only known me for a short time would know I am deeply committed to seeing the gap that exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians removed. It is completely unacceptable that we have a life expectancy gap, a child mortality gap, an educational gap. The prospect of any Australian having a long fruitful life cut short by any amount is completely unacceptable. The Voice proposal, the actual idea that you would listen to people that legislation or programs affect and tailor and respond to the advice that you are given, is a very sound idea. There is actually no denying that. But, simply, the idea that you would change the Constitution at law and create a division between Australians on the basis of race is fundamentally flawed. The idea and the proposal are flawed. This government have an opportunity to actually get a mechanism to be able to listen to and respond to the needs of the section of the community that desperately needs change. They could do that through legislation. They should be starting at a local and regional level first, because that was actually the recommendation that came out of the Calma-Langton report—that that is where you would start, and you would develop it, if it was required, up from there. Let's face it, a lot of the issues that are on the ground are very local and regional. In fact, they are often within state jurisdictional responsibilities, things such as law and order, health, education, state related issues, even housing to a great extent. This government is choosing to go down a path that, as we are seeing, is dividing Australians. You can blame those that are opposed to it as much as you like, and that is what we heard in answers to questions today from Senator Wong and from Senator Gallagher. There is a blame shifting that is going on and, frankly, it is unacceptable. You are the ones who have created this mess. What we have here is the situation where an idea has been put to the Australian people, and, sometimes, you have to actually stand up and maybe provide some frank advice. There is an old saying, 'faithful are the wounds from a friend; they are better than a kiss from an enemy', meaning to say that sometimes even issues that are sound that are brought to you need to be rejected because you know that they are actually going to cause harm. In this case, this Voice proposal, this proposed constitutional change, is causing harm within this community. We are dividing Australians on the basis of race, and it is unacceptable. Frankly, now that it's left the political elite class and it's going out there into the public, the public are judging it, and that's why there is this huge reaction to it. The polls are showing a trajectory towards this thing failing. What the government should do is stop, pause, reflect and listen to what the Australian people are saying and respond appropriately, which would be to cease with the referendum and legislate a model that starts at the grassroots, that starts on the ground. If anyone wants to question me on what I'm saying on this, you need to come with me out into communities across Western Australia where I'm from and you will hear from people. I was in Fitzroy Crossing and the people in Fitzroy Crossing said, 'We don't even like people from Derby, just down the road, speaking on our behalf, so how can the 28 or 30 people that will come to parliament represent all of us—when we can't even get the representation from down the road?' We've got to start at a local and regional level, and this government is breaking the heart of Australians who want to see change. The good thing that's come about from this whole debate is the one thing uniting us—people that have maybe never really thought about Indigenous disadvantage are now thinking about it for the first time and are saying, 'We must do something.' But what's being planned by this government is all wrong. 15:16 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria We don't need those opposite to tell us that inflation is hitting Australians hard right now, today. That's why it is pleasing that we are seeing inflation starting to moderate down from the highs of last December. We know that inflation remains too high and that inflation hurts lower-income Australians the most. That's why it was also important that, in the last round of Senate estimates, both the RBA governor and the Treasury secretary acknowledged our energy plans are taking 0.75 per cent off inflation. There are the energy plans that those opposite voted against. So it really does take some gall for the opposition to come into the chamber today and ask about our fiscal strategy and ask about the cost of living when you voted against measures which would have cut inflation and cut the cost of living, when you on the opposition benches voted against building 30,000 social and affordable homes in the next five years. You sided with the Greens to do that; you sided with the Greens to block homes for the people who need them the most—30,000 social and affordable homes, including for women and children who are fleeing violence. Our fiscal strategy has been to bank the majority of the surplus exactly so that fiscal policy is working hand in glove with monetary policy. Having done that, we are able to direct $14.6 billion into our cost-of-living package—targeted, measured, effective relief for those who need it the most. We are providing help with power bills. We are bringing down out-of-pocket health costs. We are making early learning more affordable. We're investing in free TAFE, which is absolutely transformative for those people who want to upskill and get back into the workforce and earn a better wage. We are boosting wages, funding a historic pay rise for hundreds of thousands of aged-care workers, including women doing it tough, who need it the most. As Senator Gallagher said today in the chamber, we are making medicines cheaper. She outlined our plans today, and I think she said that in just seven months Australians have saved $118 million on cheaper prescriptions. This is what Labor governments can do. She talked about 60-day prescriptions and how that will assist six million Australians, giving them two months of medicine for the price of one month and delivering much-needed cost-of-living relief. Again, this is what Labor governments do. Those opposite chose to ignore the advice to make these changes and make medicines cheaper. As a result, people have been paying more for medicines for longer. We really have to ask what exactly the opposition can point to that they think they delivered to Australian families in their 10 years of government. What did they deliver to help Australians in any way with their daily life? Was it the lower wages as a deliberate design feature of the economy? Was it more people than ever piecing together two or three jobs to make ends meet? Was it skyrocketing childcare costs, with no plan to bring them down? Was it a plan to simply hide rising energy costs before the election, after a decade of failure to invest in cheap renewable energy? What can you on the opposition benches point to that you delivered to help Australian families? Was it a broken Medicare system with rising out-of-pocket costs? Was it a system where you have to turn up with your credit card to get in the door, not just your Medicare card? Was it a trillion dollars of debt and nothing to show for it? The Morrison government delivered nothing but a decade of delay, a decade of waste, a decade of rorts and a decade of division, with no plan but to divide the country and no plans for the matters that affect Australians the most—their jobs and their homes. 15:22 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland At the end of the day here, we are in a crisis. We are in a rental crisis, a cost-of-living crisis, an energy crisis, an aged-care crisis, an environmental crisis—all brought about by a catastrophic Labor government that has no idea what it is doing. I heard Senator Urquhart say before, 'We're not wasting a day.' Excuse me, but you've wasted the first 16 months of the term of your government talking about a voice when we have got a cost-of-living crisis. And we are going to waste more time talking about this Voice until who knows when because we still don't even have a date for this referendum. We can't get any detail about this Voice. That is the Labor government for you; they are all about fear, not facts. They are all about emotion, not logic. Let's take this housing bill. They're jumping up and down, wanting to borrow $10 billion at four or five per cent, because interest rates have gone through the roof since Labor got into government, and they want to gamble it on the stock market—the stock market's choppy, so they're going to have to generate about a 10 per cent return to clear five per cent—to then build 30,000 houses over five years, or about 6,000 houses a year. Can someone explain to me the mathematics of how you're going to fit 400,000 immigrants into 6,000 houses? It ain't going to work. You're short by about 300,000, if you assume 1½ immigrants per house. How exactly does Labor think it's solving the housing problem by having such a high immigration rate? Rather than gamble with money, if you really want true equality here—you're more than happy to go after the oil and gas companies; I don't necessarily disagree with that, subject to the detail. But you're completely avoiding scrutinising the universities and making them pay their fair share of tax. Why aren't they paying tax on income from foreign students? I'll tell you why they aren't—because they're in bed with the Labor Party in pushing their Marxist ideology onto our young children. It all started with the Button plan in '85, when they destroyed our manufacturing industry. They then introduced the Dawkins plan that sent everyone to university so they can be brainwashed and bankrupt by the time they're 22. That was the Labor Party. Old Hawke and Keating knew what they were up to in the late eighties and nineties, when they brought in this Frankenstein hybrid of Marxism and fascism, they privatised the CBA and let the foreign banks come in when they lifted capital controls in 1985. Yes, Senator Walsh, you may laugh, but you know as well as I do that neoliberalism was introduced into this country under the Hawke-Keating government. It destroyed it, and it will continue that way under the Albanese government. Question agreed to. Energy 92 15:25 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to energy. I would like to clarify a couple of points in an answer given in this chamber today to a question I asked about rising electricity costs. I don't think the Labor Party know what they are talking about. When the Australian Energy Market say that wind and solar are cheaper than gas and coal that may be the case. But it is the intermittency that happens that makes your prices go up. When you haven't got the wind blowing and you haven't got solar at night, you actually have to use coal or gas to give us the electricity that we need, and then your prices go up. Another thing is when you talk about the war in Ukraine and say that is why the prices are going up and we have international trade agreements, but the fact is that we don't trade in wind and solar. They're a big part of the electricity that is supplied in the country, and then they will go to gas. What happens with gas is that the gas is brought on the international spot market. The gas operators had the opportunity to lock it in to a set price, but they didn't, and that is why it is on the spot market. In contrast, coal prices are set on long-term contracts, which has nothing to do with Ukraine, so Ukraine has nothing to do with this at all. Coal is locked into long-term contracts. The thing is that, when you are in South Australia, they rely on the wind, the solar and also the gas, so when it goes on the five-minute spot market this is the real problem. Electricity rates are the most expensive generator of electricity prices, so wind and solar might come in and gas might supply two per cent of that. But they price themselves at the very last minute on the spot market. That sends up the price, and wind and solar get paid the same price as gas. That is why your electricity prices are actually skyrocketing, and you want to boast that it is coming down. It's not coming down, and I don't think you really know what you're talking about. Question agreed to. Taxation 92 15:27 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to taxation. I have to say the gas cartel is laughing all the way to the bank, and the gas corporations are playing the major parties in this place like absolute fiddles. Not only have the gas corporations massively increased their profits in the last few years, but they have also done so while paying an absolute pittance in tax. They are helping cook the planet and they are making off like bandits. Having realised just how much these corporations have been taking the Australian people and taxpayers for a ride, the former government belatedly called a review into the broken petroleum resource rent tax, one of the biggest rorts that has ever been passed through this parliament. After years of work, Treasury then came up with two options that would at least go some way towards making the big gas corporations pay their fair share of tax. Then, they put those two options to the gas cartel, and what did the cabal say? They said, 'Out of those two options, we will have option 3, thanks.' It's an entirely new option that Treasury hadn't come up with. It was written by the gas cartel, and we know that 15 gas corporations and peak bodies for the fossil fuel sector had to sign non-disclosure agreements to be part of the design process around this reform. How many community groups and environment groups and climate groups were invited in? That's right, a big fat zero. It's not the people that get to design the tax laws in this country; it's the gas cartel that gets to design its own tax laws. It is as clear as day that the gas cartel thinks that it runs this government, and given its massive political donations it's not hard to understand why. The biggest fossil fuel donor in the country is Woodside. They deliver over $100,000 annually each and every year into the coffers of the Labor Party, and then the Labor Party rolls over and lets Woodside tickle its tummy, to the extent that the North West Shelf project is completely carved out and exempted from this proposal. What the Greens have done is go to Senator Pocock, Senator Tyrrell and Senator Lambie and propose that they join with us in offering passage of the government's legislation with one key difference. To their credit, Senator Pocock, Senator Lambie and Senator Tyrrell have agreed to join with the Australian Greens, which means that the numbers are there in both houses of this parliament to pass the government's budget measure, as long as the government agrees to double the revenue take from this measure—that means to double the hit on the gas corporations. We already know that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, has offered to pass the government's budget measure if the government agrees to weaken environmental protections for gas projects, so the choice for the government now is stark and abundantly clear. Is the government going to work with the Greens and the crossbench to double the revenues that it can hit up the gas corporations for, or is it going to do a dirty deal with Mr Dutton and the opposition at the behest of the gas cartel? It's an extremely clear choice that the government has. I want the government to do the right thing by the Australian people and by the planet. I want them to work with the Greens and the crossbench and accept our constructive proposal, which will go some way towards making sure that the Australian people get a decent return for the gas which is being extracted from our sovereign country and mostly exported overseas to fatten the profits of the gas corporations. That's what we want the Labor Party to do. The choice the Labor Party has is abundantly clear: work with the Greens and the crossbench to make the gas corporations pay something approaching a fair share of tax, so we can help people through the cost-of-living crisis, or do a dirty deal with the LNP and the gas cartel to weaken environmental regulations on the gas industry. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 93 DOCUMENTS Australian Securities and Investments Commission 93 Order for the Production of Documents 93 15:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank the Senate for the opportunity this afternoon to outline the government's position on this matter. Today's order relates to recommendations of the interim report of the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into ASIC's investigation and enforcement. As the attachments to the committee's interim report make clear, ASIC has made a number of public interest immunity claims over a number of investigation documents sought by that committee. ASIC's letters, included with the Senate Economic References Committee's interim report, outline the basis of ASIC's PII claims. There are several grounds, including the possibility of prejudicing ongoing investigations or enforcement matters, concern over disclosing publicly ASIC's law enforcement methodologies, possible prejudice to third parties' privacy and reputation, and possible disclosure of privileged legal advice. I have been advised that these documents include case files related to a number of ASIC investigations. This constitutes terabytes of data, potentially, including privileged legal advice, affidavits filed by witnesses and, most significantly, section 19 transcripts. Section 19 refers to ASIC's power to require people to answer questions under oath without any right to silence—in many ways a broader power than police forces can exercise. People can be imprisoned for failing to comply with section 19 notices. To be clear, neither I nor the Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer have seen the relevant documents, and there is good reason for that. As an independent regulator, ASIC only shares confidential investigative information with the government in the very rare event that it is necessary and appropriate to do so. As the Senate would be aware, the government is precluded from giving ASIC directions under section 12 of the ASIC Act about particular cases, so the circumstances in which it will be necessary and appropriate to share documents that relate to particular enforcement matters with the government will be extremely rare. I understand ASIC has indicated to the committee at the public hearing on 23 June 2023 that it is difficult for ASIC to publicly explain the specific harm that would be caused by publishing a document without revealing exactly the information that creates the harm. I'm advised ASIC has offered the committee an in camera briefing to allow ASIC to discuss their PII claim further and make further submissions using nonconfidential information that help explain the context of the enforcement matters of interest to the committee. I understand the chair, Senator Bragg, has rejected this proposal without explanation. I reiterate: we cannot provide these documents as we do not have them, nor have we seen them. I suggest to Senator Bragg and the Senate that the in camera briefing offered is the most appropriate next step to allow the committee to assess ASIC's concerns. If Senator Bragg continues to insist upon the release of these documents in spite of this offer then that will show that he is only interested in political grandstanding and media headlines. 15:36 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to take note of the minister's explanation. The very point of this inquiry was because we have a major problem with white collar crime in Australia. I think anyone who's read a paper over last six months would have noticed the good work of many of the senators, including Senator Pocock, who have worked very hard to expose this endemic problem—that we have regulators that don't actually enforce the laws that this parliament enacts. Therefore, the answer here is not to enact new laws and have ever-longer statute books but it is to look at why these enforcement agencies are unable to enforce these laws. That is why we proposed this inquiry with the support of the Greens. The approach that the committee has taken here has been to identify a bunch of cases, some of which are open and some which are closed, and to ask for information about how ASIC has gone about doing its business. Its business, of course, is not to walk around the halls of Parliament House in Canberra and say how good it is. Its business is to enforce the laws and to ensure that we have an economy and a country where people have confidence that, if you break the law, you will face civil and criminal penalties. In order to investigate ASIC's approach to enforcement and ultimately to prosecution, it is necessary to have access to files; otherwise, how can we determine what's gone wrong here? What has gone wrong is that there are a litany of white collar crimes which are well documented in the newspapers and in the media almost every day, where ASIC does not pursue criminal and civil penalties, and, as a result, this fuels the confidence of white collar criminals that they can break the law in Australia and they can get away with it. Our approach, to be clear, has been a mix of the tools and the powers that are vested in the Senate to inquire and investigate. They are the usage of public hearings. They are the inquiry through obtaining documents, and we have asked over 100 questions on notice. ASIC has filed 13 PII claims, 11 of which have been rejected by the committee. In terms of these case studies, we have asked questions about Nuix, ALS, Super Insider Trading and Magnus Technologies. In relation to Nuix, there is a large body of allegations of insider trading and faulty prospectus issues going back to 2020-21, where ASIC has decided to take no action and has told the committee that those cases are closed. Then you look at ALS, where there are allegations of fake gold certificates being issued into the market, where ALS itself admitted fault, admitted that it had issued certificates for fake gold and had engaged McGrath Nicol to do a review. And then we have the super insider trading issue, where you have dozens of executives of the boards of AustralianSuper, NGS Super, Rest, First State, Hostplus and Intrust Super and a number of other funds who appear to have engaged in trades on the basis of inside knowledge during the pandemic before the market was told about revaluations or devaluations. All these matters were reported widely. In relation to Magnus Technologies, insiders and whistleblowers provided three warnings to ASIC—written warnings—that market sensitive information was being leaked and insider trading was occurring. In all these cases, nothing has been done. There has been no attempt to secure criminal or civil penalties, and ASIC has closed these cases. We have sought these files, but ASIC has filed PII claims. In relation to this review, which has been running for eight months now, there have been a number of conduct issues at ASIC which have come to the attention of the committee. The Chair of ASIC has had an issue where the AFR reported that Mr Longo made an abject apology to staff a week after making a statement, but the incident was deemed serious enough to trigger a Treasury assurance review, escalation to Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the manager's resignation. That is in the Financial Review of 30 January 2023. Then there is the issue of the deputy chair and the uncovering of a $200,000 Treasury investigation, where the deputy chair was subject to a very serious investigation, after dozens and dozens of allegations were raised about the deputy chair's conduct at work, and a number of these findings were upheld. So we have discovered a number of conduct issues on the commission itself. Further, this motion to establish this inquiry was opposed by ASIC itself, and freedom of information files have shown that in internal emails, before the Senate considered voting on this motion, the chairman said: 'This is extraordinary. What can be done to narrow the breadth of the terms? Can the PJC do this?' And in further FOIs we find that internal ASIC staff talk about the use of Dorothy Dixers in this parliament in order to push away negative media attention. This is an organisation which I think has significant cultural issues. It tries to control the parliament through these internal tactics, but it also has serious governance issues on the commission, which we haven't been able to get to the bottom of through a public examination. I think that there are too many governance issues in this body for it to be sufficiently focused on its main job, which is law enforcement. This brings me to the point of the role of the executive government where, effectively, we have seen over the past few months a position where the executive government have, regrettably, now started to run cover for ASIC. This started back at estimates in February this year, where Senator Gallagher said, 'Based on the deputy chair's evidence'—in relation to the governance issues that I just flagged—'there was a review done and no adverse findings were made.' Then we have a PII claim filed by the Treasurer to ensure that the allegations and the report—a $200,000 report—are to be kept secret from the public. The Treasurer has decided to use his powers to stop the public from seeing what is actually in this report about the Deputy Chair of ASIC. Then, only a couple of weeks ago, we have a letter from the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Jones, who suggests that we should in fact just do all this work in secret. Mr Jones says: I urge the Senate Economics References Committee to reconsider this approach and to provide ASIC with a chance to present its claims in-camera. This is the point I wanted to make today, which is that we have a major problem with white-collar crime. The Senate has issued this inquiry to get to the bottom of this and to do it in public, in sunlight, and what the government is trying to do, and what ASIC is trying to do, is to push this under the covers and into the dark. They want to cover up the governance issues on the commission, they want to allow ASIC to interfere with the parliamentary process, and they don't want these closed case files to be examined by the Senate. Therefore, we cannot do our job as a house of review and we cannot investigate why ASIC is deficient at law enforcement. It is very regrettable that a government that was elected on the basis of being transparent and having a commitment to integrity wants all this to be done in secret. ASIC, of course, want to do all their meetings with the committee in secret, even though these are closed files, because they don't want to have any scrutiny on why they haven't put people in jail, why they haven't been able to secure civil penalties, why all these people breaking these laws get away with it. That is the sickness here: we are trying to do this in the sunlight but the government, through Minister Gallagher and the Treasurer and Minister Jones, are seeking to support ASIC's objective to keep it all in the dark, to stop the inquiry and for it all to go away. Why should we be surprised? When this motion was voted on in this chamber the Labor Party voted against the idea of having this exact inquiry. 15:45 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria This really is quite a simple matter that the chamber is dealing with today. It's a matter that has arisen as part of the Senate economics references committee, of which I am deputy chair, inquiry into ASIC investigation and enforcement. The Senate approved this inquiry last year, and the committee have started working their way through the evidence that we've been presented. The inquiry covers a number of matters. Some of the key terms of reference are: … whether ASIC is meeting the expectations of government, business and the community with respect to regulatory action and enforcement; … the range and use of various regulatory tools and their effectiveness … … … … … the resourcing allocated to ensure investigations and enforcement action progresses in a timely manner … The committee has held one public hearing with ASIC, on Friday 23 June 2023, as part of this inquiry, and more public hearings with submitters and other interested parties are scheduled for later this year. In the public hearing the commission's chair, Mr Longo, deputy chair, Ms Court, and officials from ASIC answered a number of questions on their submission to the inquiry, which is available on the references committee website. In his opening remarks to that particular hearing, Mr Longo recognised that this inquiry is an important part of ASIC's oversight. And in his public evidence, ASIC's General Counsel, Mr Savundra, outlined that ASIC's practice in parliamentary inquiries has been to provide public submissions as well as private briefings and in camera hearings. Mr Savundra stated that ASIC was 'happy to meet or discuss with the committee about the claims we're making'. Subsequent to this hearing, as has been canvassed today, Mr Longo wrote to the committee. This letter has been referenced by the committee chair and by the minister in her response today. Given that this matter is now being discussed in the chamber, it is appropriate to confirm that Mr Longo wrote to the committee reiterating ASIC's understanding of its responsibilities to the committee and to the parliament and offering to provide to the committee a private and in camera briefing to provide more details on the matters pursued by the committee as well as providing documents on a confidential basis, where appropriate. My views on this matter reflect two values that I hold in relation to the important work that our Senate committees do. The first value is that witnesses to Senate inquiries should provide answers to the Senate. They should be transparent. And where they believe transparency will cause a harm, they should articulate that harm and allow committees and the Senate to determine whether the information requested should be provided. The second value is that, when a witness like ASIC does offer a private briefing to provide information to a committee, it is usually good practice to take those private briefings. Private briefings can assist a committee to understand evidence, better understand what harms may result from provision of information where public interest immunity is claimed and consider whether further steps are needed to insist on information being provided. It is therefore my view that it would be appropriate for the committee to accept the offer of a private briefing from ASIC on the matters before the Senate today. Private in camera briefings to provide the opportunity for committees to gain important information on and understanding of the matters before them, and that includes whether the publication of particular information may harm the public interest. Again, and in conclusion, it is appropriate for ASIC to be afforded the opportunity of a private briefing so that the committee has all available information to progress this important inquiry. 15:51 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I won't go through the technical details of the inquiry that the Economics Committee has been undertaking. Firstly, my colleague and friend Senator Bragg went through that in detail. Secondly, sadly, I haven't had the time to participate in this particular inquiry, even though the topic is of great interest to me. However, I do wish to rise to speak on this matter, as we have seen a creeping stretch of the use of public interest immunity from agencies and ministers in this place. Just two days ago I was in this place talking about a public interest immunity claim that came out of the Attorney-General's office. The claim was about a meeting that occurred with the then head of the AAT in the Attorney-General's office and was on the basis of cabinet-in-confidence, which seemed very odd to me, but also on the basis that it would in some way impact the relations between ministers and agencies—organs of the government, organs of the state. The first one was odd, but let's put that to one side. The second is one we see reflected here in the public interest immunity claims from ASIC and ministers. It's not an acceptable ground, one that this place has ever considered to be worthy of upholding a public interest immunity claim. The Senate's job and the role of committees is to investigate, and in order to be able to investigate, the Senate committees need the information that is available. Now, of course there are times when legitimate claims are upheld by committees, and I can say, with hand on heart, that in both government and opposition, as chair of a committee, I have both upheld and rejected public interest immunity claims. When, for example, they prejudiced ongoing investigations, it has been very common in committees, regardless of which particular member of this place was chairing, for those claims to be upheld. I'll just cite one of ASIC's particular claims. They start by saying that the material is related to an ongoing investigation. But then, two bullet points lower, they say that that investigation is closed and they're planning to take no further action. Now, if you took this approach to its logical conclusion, any material collected by ASIC which could possibly be used in a prosecution or an investigation at some future point, I suspect, would actually be every piece of information collected by an organisation like ASIC. If you took that to its logical conclusion and then extended that across other parts of the Public Service, effectively, you would have a blanket PII claim on everything. To say that the fact that a piece of information could be used at some point in the future for an investigation or a prosecution is a legitimate public interest immunity claim is patently ridiculous, and I do find it very strange that that's even found its way into a claim from what is a reputable agency—a reputable organ of the government. It strikes me as being beyond belief. In relation to personal information: yes, again, impacts on personal privacy have been accepted as public interest immunity claims in the past, but that has to be weighed against the public interest in allowing committees of this place, committees of the Senate, to do their jobs, particularly regarding organisations such as ASIC, which has extraordinary powers—the right to enter premises, the right to bring along the AFP to do raids, and very significant powers to demand and collect information. The fact they have those powers means that the scrutiny on them needs to be there. Again, I have not looked, as Senator Bragg has, at the detail of the particular cases involved here, but in some cases that information should be brought to the light of day. As a legislating body, we do need to understand how these powers are actually being used in practice. If they are not having the outcomes that, obviously, we would want in a piece of legislation in terms of bringing criminals to justice, then we need to understand why that is the case and why serious investigations have been lapsing. I'll continue through the public interest immunity claim here. The next item bought up by ASIC was that it would reveal legal advice. Again, the provision of legal advice is not covered as a matter of routine by a public interest immunity claim. Just because something is legal advice does not mean the option to claim public interest immunity on it is available. That has been made very clear in this place time and time again. It is one that's often wheeled out as an excuse not to reveal information. As we've seen in this place many times, from this government on a number of occasions, when it's in their political best interests to reveal legal advice, they do. Again, in the case of an ongoing investigation where it might damage that investigation or prosecution, a claim on legal advice has been accepted, but not just on the fact that it is legal advice. Going through the list of claims made, very few of them actually stack up. And that's why I think it is completely legitimate for the committee, through Senator Bragg, to bring this matter back to the Senate and to continue to try and have this investigation—at least, as much as possible of this investigation—in the light of day. That is what the Senate committee system is for, and that is what we are all here to do. 15:59 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I thank Senator Bragg very much for his hard work trying to introduce accountability to Australia's corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I've watched his diligence, his patience, his commitment and his determination, and I admire and acknowledge all of that. Last October the Senate referred an inquiry to the Economics References Committee into the capacity and capability of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, in particular to answer the question: did ASIC meet the expectations of government, business and the community with respect to regulatory action and enforcement? A simple question. This inquiry was prompted by complaints from everyday Australians and small business that ASIC was not doing its job. ASIC's job is to ensure a level playing field and, where a company has engaged in corrupt conduct, ensure prosecutions occur. The evidence received has indicated that there are broad community concerns and systemic issues with ASIC's investigation and enforcement capabilities. That mirrors what I have perceived. The committee has sought information surrounding a small number of closed investigations in order to understand how ASIC conducts investigations and understand its prosecution approach. The closed cases concern Nuix, ALS, super insider trading and Magnus, where there were serious allegations of commercial misconduct. Unfortunately, ASIC have shown contempt for the committee process, making public interest immunity claims to get out of handing over this information. ASIC were given one last chance to comply with this order, and here we are now. ASIC have again refused to cooperate with the Senate. This should not be the end of the matter. The Constitution gives the Senate extreme powers of investigation and penalty on individuals for refusing to follow the instructions of the Senate. I'll say it again: the Constitution gives the Senate extreme powers of investigation and penalty on individuals for refusing to follow the instruction of the Senate. That reflects the Constitution's intent in making sure that the Senate serves the people, and I remind everyone that is the case. These powers should be considered in this case. To say that ASIC have been dragged kicking and screaming into this inquiry is an understatement. Freedom-of-information documents obtained by Adams Economics reveal ASIC were in contact with unknown persons within the parliament to secure a watering down of the terms of reference or to deny the numbers entirely, to squash the inquiry. This is why we are here. How dare ASIC interfere to avoid review by the house of review on behalf of the people of Australia! One Nation rejected ASIC's public interest immunity claims over materials concerning closed investigations into misconduct. ASIC's reliance on public interest immunity claims to block disclosure has been an ongoing issue obstructing the committee's ability to conduct a proper investigation on behalf of the people of Australia—this is not the Senate; this is on behalf of the people of Australia—the people who pay ASIC's salaries, the people whom ASIC is supposed to serve. Public interest immunity is being used by a government that has nothing but contempt for openness and transparency. Only today I discovered, by chance, that the industry groups the government are showing their new IR bill to are being required to sign a confidentiality agreement so that they can't say what is in the bill. That shows contempt from this government for the people of this country. What sorts of nefarious provisions are in that bill that they require a cloak of secrecy? Every government is elected with a promise of transparency, and every government then breaks that promise. The Albanese government is, however, setting a world record for how fast they broke their promise and setting a world record for arrogance towards the people of Australia. This request from the Senate goes to a small number of closed cases. They cannot possibly effect an ongoing investigation. There's no down side to revealing this information other than embarrassment, or worse, for ASIC management and the responsible minister. I have received a report from a third party regarding ASIC senior executives using private phones for official business, and I look forward to further information around that issue. If a Commonwealth government agency spends $200,000 of taxpayers' money on a secret investigation into allegations against ASIC's deputy chair, the Senate has a right and a duty to ask what that was about. It's our role as a Senate to do that, and we would be deficient in our duties to the people of Australia if we did not do so. This matter places the career interests of bureaucrats against the sworn duties of a senator and of the whole Senate. One Nation is betting on the Senate ultimately discharging its duties without fear or favour. ASIC has refused to disclose its correspondence in relation to public interest immunity claims with the minister. The committee has formed a view that ASIC's refusal to provide the information sought is obstructing the committee's ability to conduct this inquiry. That, by the way, is an offence. ASIC appear to be all lawyers. Let me say: you should know better, ASIC. I've got some notes in front of me that I'll divert to briefly. We are inquiring through the committee into the ability and, indirectly, the intent behind ASIC's behaviours—the intent. The government is digging a deeper hole when it comes to the intent, because as Senator Brockman and Senator Bragg have pointed out in detail, the government is covering up, and that makes it even worse. If it was innocent, the government should welcome the disclosure. If it had something to hide or something to protect in ASIC, then it would shut down, and that's what we see. I'll go to the terms of reference: … whether ASIC is meeting the expectations of government, business and the community with respect to regulatory action and enforcement … It's also not meeting the expectations of parliament. ASIC has failed persistently to enforce the law and investigate complaints of misconduct. Small business and consumers across Australia, who are tired of ASIC's persistent failure to enforce the law and investigate complaints of misconduct, are the customers we serve. They're the customers ASIC serves. The evidence received so far has indicated that there are broad community concerns and systemic issues with ASIC's investigation and enforcement capabilities, and my personal concerns are similar. The committee has sought information surrounding a small number of closed investigations. I've listed them, as have Senator Bragg and Senator Brockman. The government has a choice: release the documents and remove suspicions if you have nothing to hide, or, if you have something to hide, hide and stoke the suspicions. A private briefing is not adequate because that would be just ASIC giving selective disclosure. The executive government should support an inquiry to end white-collar crime in Australia and strengthen inquiry in our financial sector. Instead, the Labor government has defended ASIC at the expense of the work of the Senate, arrogantly keeping people in the dark. I ask the question: is ASIC protecting criminals or is it protecting its own incompetence or its own lack of intent to hold criminals accountable? Who watches over the regulator? We, the Senate, do, and the people watch over us. I call on the minister to stop obstructing the Senate, and I call on ASIC to rethink their obstruction to this inquiry. 16:08 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria As my colleagues, Minister Gallagher and Senator Walsh, have already noted, this is about recommendations of the interim report of the Senate Economic References Committee's inquiry into ASIC's investigation and enforcement. The attachments to the interim report tell us that ASIC has made several public interest immunity claims over a number of documents sought by the committee. As an independent regulator, ASIC only shares confidential investigative information with the government when it is necessary and appropriate to do so. This happens rarely, and rightly so. The Senate will be aware, under section 12 of the ASIC Act, information from ASIC about particular cases cannot be provided. The information requested are documents which include case files related to a number of ASIC investigations. This constitutes potentially terabytes of data, including privileged legal advice, affidavits filed by witnesses and section 19 transcripts. Section 19 refers to ASIC's power to require people to answer questions under oath without any right to silence—in many ways a broader power than police forces can exercise. People can be imprisoned for failing to comply with section 19 notices. It is very serious business. The circumstances in which it would be necessary and appropriate to share with the government documents that relate to particular enforcement matters would be incredibly rare. ASIC has offered the committee an in-camera hearing to allow ASIC to make its case and make further submissions using non-confidential information that helps explain the context of the enforcement matters of interest to the committee. The chair, Senator Bragg, has rejected this proposal out of hand without explanation. I would strongly suggest to the Senate that an in-camera hearing would be the most appropriate next step to allow the committee to assess ASIC's concern that legally privileged material, material obtained under oath and material that could compromise the ability of our regulators to do their jobs effectively should not be made public except for the gravest reasons. Untested allegations and unverified personal information included in affidavits or section 19 transcripts being made public could potentially result in damaging financial, reputational and personal consequences for innocent parties. That is something I hope that nobody in this Senate would want to see happen, and it's something that could potentially happen if this were allowed to go ahead. As the Minister for Finance has indicated, no minister has seen any of the documents sought by the committee through this order. Nor would it be appropriate for them to seek, receive or assess the documents. This is a matter for the Senate Economics References Committee and ASIC. We suggest to the Senate that the most sensible and appropriate next step would be for these documents, which we understand from ASIC are highly sensitive but which ministers have not seen or been given, to be discussed to the extent possible at an in-camera briefing between ASIC and the committee. This is not a cover-up; it is simply due process out of respect for people who are engaging in the process. 16:12 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak on this matter as someone who serves on the parliamentary joint committee with respect to corporations law and financial services. To Senator Roberts's comment, I also rise as someone who is a lawyer and who served as a company secretary and general counsel of an ASX listed mid-tier copper and gold mining company from our home state of Queensland. I want to make some introductory comments just in relation to the importance of the terms of reference of this economic references committee and what it is looking at. With my colleague Senator Pratt, who I deeply, deeply respect, I was involved in the last parliament in relation to an inquiry into and review of the Sterling Income Trust, which was an awful, disastrous managed investment scheme which largely took place in Western Australia and where dozens and dozens of financially vulnerable people sold their homes and invested all their money into a managed investment scheme and received what they thought was a risk-free long-term residential lease which would take them right the way through to the end of their natural lives and found that not only were those residential leases invalid under Western Australian law but also their money soon disappeared and they were left with nothing. There were also people in my home state of Queensland who suffered due to that scheme, and I actually had discussions with them in my office. One of the key issues we considered in that inquiry was the effectiveness, or otherwise, of ASIC's actions in relation to that matter and, indeed, also the actions of the Western Australian government in terms of those residential tenancies. I think there should have been intervention much earlier from the Western Australian government, to be frank. I also note that I consider that I have a very good working relationship with senior members of ASIC, and I would hope that that view is reciprocated by them. Certainly, in all my dealings through committees, I seek to be fair and reasonable with respect to legitimate claims of public interest immunity. But there are some issues here. When this matter was brought to my attention, I did take the time to read the interim report of the Economics References Committee, and there are a number of quotes I want to give from that interim report which I think need to be carefully reflected on by the leadership of ASIC. In paragraph 1.34, it's made clear that the committee 'is only interested in pursuing information related to closed investigations'. In paragraph 1.41 it's noted that the committee 'accepted ASIC's claim for public interest immunity in relation to ongoing ASIC investigations but rejected the claims made in relation to closed matters'. In relation to that specific issue about closed and open investigations, I can understand that a situation might arise where ongoing investigations are perhaps intrinsically related to closed investigations, and that might be a matter which requires some further consideration by the Economics References Committee and ASIC, but that engagement needs to be in good faith. I don't see how the references committee can dutifully discharge its obligation to look at the terms of reference without looking at how ASIC in particular has dealt with investigations which are closed. So I think the onus is on ASIC to demonstrate how a so-called closed investigation still relates to ongoing matters. I've read the letters from ASIC. It is certainly not good enough to say that a matter is closed but it could be reopened sometime in the future. I don't think that cuts it. There needs to be some further engagement in that respect. I also note paragraph 1.61 and 1.62 of the references committee's report: As for the claims relating to prejudice to legal proceedings, ASIC has not provided any clarity about specific legal proceedings which would be affected by this claim. In the committee's view the information ASIC has provided to support its claims is very general in nature and does not address either of the two ways legal proceedings could be prejudiced. It is also unclear from ASIC's letters whether these matters are even current legal proceedings or are at the investigation stage. Again, this goes back to the earlier point I made. If public interest immunity claims are made, they need to be made on the basis of some specifics. As is said in paragraph 1.63 of the references committee's report: The vague statements about general harms which could occur do not satisfy the committee that a significant harm could occur from the release of the information. I also want to make some comments in relation to ASIC's letter of 23 March 2023, which is appendix 9 of the Economics References Committee report. There were certainly a few things in that letter that leapt out to me and caused me some concern. Again, I respectfully suggest—and I do so respectfully—to the senior leadership of ASIC that they reflect on this. First, in paragraph b), 'Disclosure of confidential methodologies to enforce the law', there's a reference to a number of sets of questions and then this statement: ASIC considers that the public interest in disclosing these documents and in so doing, disclosing ASIC's methods for investigating and enforcing the law is outweighed by the prejudice that would result to the effectiveness of ASIC as a law enforcement agency. These documents reveal ASIC's internal methodology for: (i) investigating persons of interest (including ASIC's confidential sources of information); and (ii) selecting matters for enforcement action; It seems to me that that goes to the heart of what the references committee is trying to investigate—that is, how does ASIC go about selecting matters for enforcement action? That methodology, from my perspective, shouldn't be a confidential methodology. We should understand, as a Senate, the way that every one of our Commonwealth law enforcement agencies goes about selecting matters for enforcement action, because that goes to the rule of law. If laws are being broken, and the independent agency, be it ASIC or someone else, is deciding not to take enforcement action according to a particular methodology that is apparently confidential, surely everyone in this place has an intense interest in understanding what that methodology is. That goes to the heart of the inquiry. So I am genuinely bemused as to that ground for a public interest immunity claim. There is also a reference to prejudice to third parties' privacy and reputation. I'm sure that is something that could be reasonably considered by the committee in all the circumstances and navigated through. Then we have the perennial issues relating to the disclosure of confidential and privileged legal advice. I can genuinely say that, when this side of the chamber was in government, I raised concerns—it's on the public record—about the use of public interest immunity claims with respect to the provision of legal advice. But there is a statement here that causes me particular concern. It says that ASIC's position in future enforcement action where similar legal issues arise may be prejudiced. Again, I want to understand, as a member of the Senate, what that legal advice is. How is ASIC interpreting the law? What's this advice they're being given which seems to have a material impact on whether or not they're going to decide to bring enforcement action or not bring enforcement action? In a situation where a legal case has been closed, I think we are quite entitled, and we should be genuinely interested, to see such legal advice. In summary, I call upon ASIC to reconsider their position. 16:22 Senator CAN 245212 Queensland AVAN () (): This is a very important debate because it goes to the heart of what this chamber is meant to be about. We really have one primary task, and that is to be a house of review, to review the operations of, especially, executive government and the actions of some agencies that should be subject to that review. At least some members of the executive government here are obstructing us from doing our job. It calls into question why we then have this place. Why is it here if we're not going to be allowed to properly investigate, on behalf of the Australian people, those that have the honour, privilege and great responsibility of powers vested in them, through this parliament and the executive government? At the start of my comments, I want to recognise the efforts of Senator Bragg, who is doing a wonderful job chairing this inquiry. As I am sure he has outlined to the chamber, there have been a number of complaints, from many people across our community, about the conduct of ASIC. I'm sure many of us get those complaints through our offices directly. But Senator Bragg, as Chair of the Economics References Committee, has taken up those complaints. He drove the initiation of this inquiry. I should recognise that it was an inquiry supported by all in this chamber, I believe, and therefore the will of the Senate was there to investigate these matters. It's just a shame it is now being held up by some senators, despite that initial support. As I've outlined, there have been a number of clear deficiencies in ASIC's conduct over the past few years. That's been well documented through other inquiries. There have been various attempts, particularly by the former government, to get ASIC into line, to try and increase its resourcing, but there are still issues that remain; hence this inquiry. As I said, this goes to the heart of what his chamber is about. The first thing we can do in holding governments and government agencies to account is to get access to information—information about what policies are and how they're being implemented. The right to have that information is something that I believe we should all, as senators, defend strongly. Of course, there are times when information cannot or should not be provided to the Senate, but they should be extremely limited and well documented. I might come to some other cases if I have time, but I am very, very concerned that the public interest immunity rules are increasingly being abused by government departments and government agencies to avoid scrutiny. I do not think, from my time in government and now in opposition, that this is being driven by members of parliament directly. I am not putting the blame on ministers here for initiating this abuse themselves; I think it is being done by the agencies and office holders who, understandably, don't like the scrutiny and are seeking to wriggle out of it. Where I think ministers could do a better job is to not let them do that. They don't have to agree with the public interest immunity claims. I think the key thing we have to put on the record here is that any public interest immunity claim must be made by a minister. Obviously there are some departments and agencies who will request such a claim or seek to have such a claim upheld, but, ultimately, the power to pursue a public interest immunity claim is vested in a minister. Ultimately, it might be a minister here who might be representing a minister in the other place. Those ministers don't have to comply; they can say no to these agencies. But I think there is sometimes a cosy relationship between ministers and the agencies they regulate, and there may be some degree of shyness or caution from ministers to not want to say no to the departments or agencies when a request like this comes forward. I think this debate is very important—that we stand up for the rights of the Senate here and put steel in the spines of the ministers, who are given this great responsibility, to push back on some of these creeping claims for public interest immunity across a range of cases. Here we have a situation where there have been well documented complaints about certain actions of ASIC. The committee as a whole—not just Senator Bragg—has sought specific information about investigations that have closed, and we are being denied access to information about those cases, despite their closed nature. There is, obviously, a public interest immunity that is raised with regards to court actions and court cases, but in Odgers' and under the rules of the Senate that can only be used in a situation where an action is ongoing or possibly about to start. They are the times that that can be used to avoid scrutiny. The cases I'm referring to now are closed—they are closed; they are not ongoing investigations, they are not before courts and nor is there any prospect of them coming before courts any time soon. There is no justification for a PII claim on this basis. If this is upheld here, let's be clear what we are doing. If we do not succeed, if Senator Bragg and his motion doe not succeed here, we will have to rewrite Odgers'. We will have to rewrite it, because what it says right now is not consistent with what some of the ministers in this government are seeking to uphold. It is very clear in Odgers' that you can only have this PII claim in an instance where there is an investigation happening or a court case underway. This is a new precedent to be set where, apparently, it also applies to investigations that are closed. This, effectively, means we will never be able to get information about any investigations ever again. I cannot see how that should be upheld. We should avoid the creeping growth of PII claims to prevent the Senate from doing its job. We have an opportunity here to stand up for the Senate. As I mentioned, there are other cases I have been involved with recently as well. I have sought basic information about research that has been conducted for scientific purposes—the so-called gain-of-function research. Some of you might have heard about it. It is potentially the reason we ended up with a global pandemic called coronavirus; very credible scientists believe that gain-of-function research might be involved. Only through questioning by myself and other senators here have we found out that various Australian government agencies have been involved in 13 gain-of-function research papers over the past decade. Yet the department is refusing to provide any information about what that research was and where the papers were published. This was government funded research, and their claim for why they can't release that is it would put the safety of the scientists at risk if it were to be put in the public domain. This is untenable. How can we have proper investigations of major policy questions if government departments and agencies can abuse the PII process to have a closed shop on what they are doing? It is a complete diminution of this place. I would ask all senators—this is not a partisan point: we should be standing up for the right of the Senate here to get information, reasonable information, reasonable requests, so we can do our job. If we're not going to do that, why are we getting paid? Why would we continue to have jobs in this place if we're not going to have the confidence and courage to do our job? Once again, I applaud the efforts of Senator Bragg. I hope we come together to support him and his reasonable request to seek information so that we, on behalf of the Australian people, can get to the bottom of what's going wrong in ASIC and get justice for people who have been done harm through financial fraud. It doesn't look like the government is willing to go on this journey, but maybe some other senators from the crossbench can put pressure on them to change their stance in this instance. I don't think it's being driven by the ministers; it's just being accepted by them. They can get some more confidence and get some more courage. Let this information go into the public domain, let Senator Bragg and his committee do their job and, most of all, let us serve the Australian people in the very honourable role we have in this place. 16:32 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I also rise to contribute to this debate. The Senate Economics References Committee has been holding an inquiry into Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigation and enforcement, and I think Senator Bragg has done an incredible job in pursuing ASIC for answers on behalf of the small-business owners and the consumers who felt have very aggrieved by a body they thought was there to assist them with matters of financial fraud and to ensure that proper process and proper legal frameworks are upheld and that they are indeed protected. Unfortunately, the conduct of ASIC through this inquiry has meant questions haven't been answered, senators have been unable to do their elected roles and this chamber has once again, unfortunately, as has so often been the case in the last 14 months, been held in immense disrespect. This chamber and the functions of this chamber and its committees are a key tenet and pillar of our Westminster system that we enjoy here in Australia. It is unique in the world. This chamber in particular has a specific task. When you are a minister of the Crown, it is difficult sometimes to subject yourself to the will of this chamber, to the Senate estimates process, to the order for the production of documents process, to question time and to a whole raft of mechanisms this chamber has to hold the executive of this country and, through the executive, the agencies and statutory bodies that help govern arrangements in this country to account, so that we have the most transparency and therefore accountability that a democracy like ours should be able to provide for its citizenry. This inquiry was set up because this chamber referred to the economics committee an examination of whether ASIC is meeting the expectation of government, business and the community with respect to regulatory action and enforcement. It wasn't called for by the big end of town. This wasn't something that the mighty and powerful in this country were wanting to see happen. It was called for by regular, everyday Australians who were incredibly frustrated by ASICs persistent failure to enforce the law and investigate complaints of misconduct. You would think that, at the very basic level, mums and dads, small-business owners and consumers across this country should be able to assume that an agency that has the power of ASIC is actually doing its job to protect the most vulnerable: regular Australians, who can't take the big end of town to court to have their day of justice. They have to use measures and mechanisms like these procedures to get justice. Yet ASIC not only isn't doing its job, by all accounts; it's refusing to tell us why it can't do its job. Indeed, it is using the smokescreen of public interest immunity to facilitate the cloak of secrecy around its work and why it's not delivering confidence to consumers and small businesses in this country when it comes to investigating complaints of misconduct. I think Senator Canavan, in his contribution, was right about a minister's role in public interest immunity claims. Unfortunately, agencies often don't see themselves as being accountable to this place and to the boring, mundane and often repetitious questions of senators who might not know in great detail what their role or function is but who do have a right under our system of government to ask them, and absolutely have a right to get an answer. But, unfortunately, under this government it seems it's not just the agencies who are using public interest immunity claims willy-nilly to avoid scrutiny, accountability and transparency around their role; even in my portfolio, we've got Minister Catherine King claiming public interest immunity around the infrastructure project investment pipeline. Poor Minister Watt has had to rock up several times for her to hastily drop the letter to say, 'She's not going to answer these questions because it might prejudice state and territory relations.' We have rightly said, under the standing orders, accordingly: 'Why don't you write to the states and territories and ask them if they have a problem with you telling the Senate this information? If the states and territories do have an issue, well, obviously you have a basis upon which to make your claim of public interest immunity.' But she doesn't, because she disrespects this chamber's role and refuses to subject herself and her decision-making to its oversight. We also have estimates, another way the Senate seeks to hold the executive government to account. It can sometimes be uncomfortable, as a minister, to have to sit there and answer the questions. But that's your job. You have grave responsibility. You have great privilege and rights, but that comes as a package. You don't just get the privilege and the rights without the responsibility to, therefore, be accountable. If you have personal integrity, then you will subject yourself to that. Catherine King's department took— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie— Senator McKENZIE 207825 Minister King's. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Minister King's department took 200 questions on notice at Senate estimates. These weren't quirky questions that a department official shouldn't be able to answer. Unfortunately, I think this government, which championed itself as the player of integrity and accountability in Australian politics, has left the citizenry and the Senate wanting because they've done anything but. At every single juncture, when they had the opportunity to stand up, be accountable for decisions, explain them to the public and be responsible for them, they've chosen to hide under a cloak of secrecy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I have been listening carefully. You are now well and truly drifting away from the matter at hand. Senator McKENZIE 207825 ASIC's engagement with the committee thus far has confirmed all fears about the culture inherent in ASIC. As I was saying about Minister King and other ministers in the government, Treasurer Chalmers refused to comply with the order for the production of documents relating to the deputy chair investigation. So, Madam President, it's not just Minister King; it's not just ASIC as an agency; it's our own Treasurer of the country who's treating this chamber and the committees of this chamber with contempt. Similarly, ASIC has shown contempt for the committee process through its illegitimate use of the public interest immunity claim. I think that ministers need to be respectful of this chamber. It's uncomfortable sometimes, but it is a great privilege to serve, and our democracy is better for the transparency that this chamber alone and uniquely can apply. So I commend the Economics References Committee for the work that they are doing to ensure that ASIC does its job in terms of giving assurance, to consumers and to small businesses alike, that misconduct will be investigated appropriately and publicly, and I call on ASIC—and, indeed, I call on the minister responsible for ASIC to encourage them, if she can't direct them—to actually comply with the orders of this chamber, the Senate, and of the committee that is simply seeking to do the work of the Australian people. 16:41 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I would just like to make a short contribution to this debate from a slightly different perspective. As chair of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, I'm currently chairing the inquiry into consultancies, which has made a number of disturbing revelations. We already have one report that has been published by that committee as a part of our process of inquiring into consultancies that operate in this country. These are very large organisations. One of the questions that has arisen as part of that process is: what is the regulatory framework under which these large consultancies sit? Some of them are large partnerships. Some of them sit under the Corporations Act. We've had a number before us. They've talked about the way in which they operate. They've talked about their structures. They've talked about all of the things they say they're going to do in order to do the right thing. But one of the questions that we as a committee are going to have to consider is: what is the appropriate framework, particularly for the large partnerships? It is really quite disturbing that one of the major governance and government structures that we have in this country to provide oversight to corporations is not prepared to share with this parliament some of the ways in which it operates. Senator Canavan and some of my other colleagues have said that this is important information for us to have. If the committee that I'm chairing is to make sensible recommendations to the parliament and to the government, some understanding of what happens inside the black box is important. This is not for any reason other than that we will want to understand how the organisation makes its decisions. I think the point that's been made by a couple of colleagues is that we're not after information around ongoing or current investigations. That is quite properly kept within the organisation. But as for the processes around completed investigations, I don't see why that information can't be provided to the Senate. ASIC is a government instrument. The government, the parliament, the Senate has oversight of these organisations through various different mechanisms. I could go through some of the political points that have been made by some of my colleagues, but I won't because I don't see this particular matter in that light, to be frank. But I would sincerely make an appeal to ASIC and to the government to reconsider their stance on this particular matter. It may very well be that ASIC is asked to come and present to the finance and public administration inquiry into consultants, to provide us with some assistance into what we may recommend as an oversight mechanism for these big consultancies that largely sit outside any regulatory framework right now and what that might look like. Getting good evidence in that context is going to be really important for us. We've seen the outrageous things that have occurred through the disgraceful operations of a couple of individuals within PwC. We know things go wrong within large corporations and smaller organisations, but that's why we have these rules and these processes and these organisations, like ASIC, in place—to provide oversight, to report to the parliament, and to the Australian people through the parliament, on how those things are being managed and what the rules are. And the rules and the operational process of that are important. The point was made before: we ought to understand the rule book. Quite frankly, anyone operating under ASIC's rules should likewise be able to understand the rule book. It shouldn't be a mystery. From the perspective that I bring, through a process I'm in the middle of right now, it shows how the work of this parliament quite often intertwines with the work that Senator Bragg's doing in his committee into the operations of what is a very important organisation providing governance in the Australian business economy, and how we might make some recommendations to the parliament for another very important part of the Australian economy. There are some obvious linkages, so the work that Senator Bragg's committee will be doing will be of interest to what we're looking to do. As I said, it may very well be that ASIC becomes a witness at our inquiry, providing important information, and it may be the questions are quite similar. So from the perspective of enabling this place to do its work properly—sometimes these things are uncomfortable, I know, but as chair of the committee I want to be in the position, and I know my colleagues sitting with me on that committee would also like to be in the position, of making valuable recommendations to the parliament and therefore to the government around what a regulatory framework might look like if that's where the evidence takes us. But we need to be able to get the information that supports us to do that, and the information being sought by Senator Bragg and his committee is directly in that wheelhouse. Again, I would make an appeal to ASIC and to government to reconsider their approach to this. I think it's a reasonable request that Senator Bragg's committee are asking. I don't want it to be a partisan one. I just would like it to be one about providing quality information to support the processes of the parliament. From my point of view, quality information is gold, because that's what allows us to make good, sensible recommendations around the way that the economy is run in this country. It's important to us, our standing and the way the economy works. It's one of the things that facilitates good operation of industry and business. Again, I give a final appeal to the minister representing the minister in the other place, but I also appeal to ASIC to reconsider in the broader interests of the work that we do in this place. Question agreed to. NOTICES 104 NOTICES Withdrawal 104 16:52 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Pursuant to notice given on 1 August 2023 on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 for today, proposing the disallowance of the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations 2022 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Rationalising ASIC Instruments) Regulations 2022. I also withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for five sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Corporations Amendment (Design and Distributions Obligations—Income Management Regimes) Regulations 2023. Presentation 104 Postponement 105 CONDOLENCES 105 CONDOLENCES Dean, Mr Arthur Gordon 105 16:54 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 27 July 2023, of Arthur Gordon Dean, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Herbert, Queensland, from 1977 to 1983. BUSINESS 105 BUSINESS Rearrangement 105 16:55 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That on 3 August 2023, after motions to take note of answers or at 3.45 pm, whichever is earlier, the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of subsections 8(3) to 8(8) of the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023 be called on and considered for not longer than 30 minutes, after which the question be put. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 106 DOCUMENTS Taxation 106 Order for the Production of Documents 106 16:56 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 6 pm on Thursday, 10 August 2023: (a) all documents (including background material, agenda papers and minutes) relating to the December 2022 meeting (roundtable) convened by Treasury with industry participants in respect of possible changes to the gas transfer pricing (GTP) rules and the petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT); (b) any submissions and record of verbal representations from industry participants (in addition to those made through the formal Treasury consultation process) made prior or subsequent to the December 2022 meeting in respect of possible changes to the GTP rules and the PRRT; (c) any submissions and record of verbal representations from industry participants to the consultation on capping the use of PRRT deductions arising from the 10 March 2023 meeting convened by Treasury; and (d) any modelling undertaken by Treasury on capping the use of PRRT deductions between 80% and 90% of assessable PRRT income. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that General Business Notice of Motion No. 272 in the name of Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:02]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 107 DOCUMENTS Department Of Finance: Budget Estimates 107 Order for the Production of Documents 107 17:02 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator Hume, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for production of documents no. 251 was agreed by the Senate on 19 June 2023, requiring the Minister for Finance to table all briefing materials prepared for the Minister by the Department of Finance for the Budget estimates hearings, and all briefing materials prepared by the department for the members of the Senior Executive Service of the department relating to the Budget estimates hearings, (ii) the Minister for Finance wrote to the President on 30 June 2023 regarding this order and, despite selectively quoting from Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, did not make any claim of public interest immunity over the documents sought, as required by Odgers and past Senate practice, (iii) the documents referenced in the order are routinely sought and provided under freedom of information legislation, a mechanism with less scope and force than the powers of the Senate, and (iv) the department keeps digital copies of the documents sought within its document management system specifically so that they are easily accessible; (b) rejects the inaccurate and evasive claims by the Minister for Finance in her letter of 30 June 2023 that compliance with the order was 'unprecedented and onerous' and would 'change the way that all government departments and agencies prepared for estimates and, indeed, all committee processes in the future'; and (c) requires the Minister for Finance to comply with the order by no later than midday on Monday, 7 August 2023. 17:03 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 As noted in the letter of response to Senator Hume's original OPD, the Albanese government recognises and respects the Senate's important scrutiny role. However, we maintain that the scope of documents sought by this motion is unprecedented and burdensome. It risks impairing the ability of agencies to support future estimates hearings and could work against the Senate, its committees, processes and procedures. Contrary to the assertion in Senator Hume's motion, estimates briefings prepared for SES-level officials have never been provided in response to FOI by the Department of Finance, certainly not by the former coalition government, which was allergic to transparency and addicted to secrets, as we all remember. I remind senators of the alternative mechanisms available to scrutinise the government's work, which includes the very detailed freedom-of-information processes. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 269, standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Cadell, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 29 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. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 108 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 108 Reference 108 17:10 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that yesterday evening two matters relating to proposed references to committees were deferred. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold those votes now. I'm going to deal with the first matter, and that is the motion moved by Senators Colbeck and Cadell. The question is that the following matter be referred to the Senate 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.

The Senate divided. [17:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)

27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Tyrrell, T. M. 30 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. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 110 DOCUMENTS Department of Finance: Budget Estimates 110 Order for the Production of Documents 110 17:17 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to revisit general business notice of motion No. 269 and to recommit for a vote the motion standing in the name of Senator Hume relating to an order for the production of documents. Leave granted. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, did you have a question? 17:17 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I did, Madam President. Normally, when we ask for a vote to be recommitted, there's an explanation. 17:17 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania On behalf of the coalition, I'm happy to do so. I understand one or our senators came in when they shouldn't have and was counted in the vote. We'd like to have it recommitted so it reflects the will of the Senate. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 269, standing in the name of Senator Hume but moved by Senator Cadell, be agreed to. Question negatived. COMMITTEES 110 COMMITTEES Cost of Living Select Committee 110 Reporting Date 110 17:18 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator Hume, I move: That paragraph (2) of the resolution of 28 September 2022 establishing the Select Committee on the Cost of Living be amended to read as follows: (2) That the committee present its final report by 31 May 2024. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 110 DOCUMENTS PricewaterhouseCoopers 110 Order for the Production of Documents 110 17:19 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for the production of documents no. 257, agreed to on 20 June 2023, relating to communication between the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in relation to the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) tax scandal, including specifically in relation to the decision by the AFP and the ATO that there was insufficient information to refer the PwC tax scandal to an AFP investigation, has not been complied with, and (ii) the Treasurer, in his response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that the requested documents could prejudice the ongoing AFP investigation into PwC; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Treasurer, noting that the response did not specify how the claim applies to every document or category of documents within the scope of the order; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Monday 7 August 2023. 17:19 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government notes that there is an ongoing Australian Federal Police investigation into the PwC matter. The Senate has been advised that the release of the documents sought could prejudice an ongoing investigation. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 111 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 111 Reference 111

The Senate divided. [17:25]
(The President—Senator Lines)

25 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. 30 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. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 112 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 112 17:29 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 A letter has been received from Senator Dean Smith: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The number one current pressure on Australians' wellness is the cost of living, but the Albanese Labor government is spending its time writing out-of-date and misleading reports rather than making the hard decisions to get inflation lower faster, which is what really matters to millions of Australians. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Smith. 17:30 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Yesterday, the Treasurer, Dr Jim Chalmers, gave himself a pat on the back for the government's work in combating inflation and taking credit for the pause in the lifting of interest rates. The Treasurer said he welcomed the progress that the government was making in combating inflation. In doing so, though, the Treasurer has ignored two very, very important points. The first point is the accumulative impact of 11 rate rises in this country since Labor was elected to government. That is rate rise upon rate rise 11 times, and the cumulative effect of that is that Australian families are now having to find more and more money from their budgets to support mortgage rate increases. So the pause in the lifting of interest rates above 4.1 per cent is relief for those families, who are having to find extra money to support those 11 rate rises. It is not a holiday for them. It is not a holiday for them. The second matter that the Treasurer has chosen to ignore is the release today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics of its latest data with regard to what they call the selective cost-of-living index. The select cost-of-living index released by the ABS today provides a more granular analysis of the impact of inflation on the Australian economy. It was a revealing what the ABS released today in that selected cost-of-living index, and it is revealing because what that index does is provides to parliamentarians, like me, and others in the community a detailed insight into the inflationary impact on a pensioner, on a family, on a retiree. What did the ABS say today? The ABS said this morning, when it released the index, that all five living cost indexes rose between 6.3 per cent and 9.6 per cent over 12 months to June this year. If you listen closely to Dr Chalmers, the Treasurer, and to other Labor members of parliament, you would have thought that price rises were no longer happening in this country. Well, the ABS has absolutely refuted that today. Price rises have been happening in this country for the last 12 months, and they are in the order of 6.3 to 9.6 per cent. That means the price of things for Australians, under Labor, has risen between 6.3 and 9.6 per cent over the last 12 months. What else did it say? It said that one particular group of people in this country have recorded the strongest annual rises on record—not my words; this is quoted from the ABS this morning. Employee households have recorded the strongest annual rises on record. That is the welcome progress that Jim Chalmers talked about the other day. Australian families are hurting, and it's worth remembering that, when we consider what has happened to interest rates in this country, we remember these three important figures: 880,000 loans this year alone will shift from fixed to variable rates. That means those loans—880,000 this year—will be impacted by those 11 rate rises under Labor. But more than that, the 590,000 fixed loans that shifted to variable rate loans last year will also be impacted by Labor's interest rate rises; and, at a minimum, the 450,000 fixed rates that will transfer to variable rates next year will be impacted by those 11 rate rises. Jim Chalmers and Labor engaged in a vanity project by announcing their 'wellbeing budget'. (Time expired) 17:35 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I feel a great deal of pleasure speaking on this matter of public importance because what it really demonstrates is the absolute misunderstanding of what the obligations are for the opposition because they have sat for a very long time. When dealing with the cost of living they can gripe and they can complain, but they've opposed bill after bill and proposal after proposal that this government has put forward. They've turned around and voted them down, whether it be in energy or whether it be in an area which I'll concentrate on in my few minutes, and that is the area of industrial relations. I might wake them up to a couple of things that have happened, because they never happened under their watch. Since the winter sittings, several of our actions to increase wages have taken effect. The minimum wage is up $1.85 an hour, taking the total increase under this government to nearly $3 an hour. Two point seven million workers on awards have received a 5.75 per cent pay rise, which is the largest increase since at least 2009; and 250,000 aged-care workers got a historic 15 per cent wage rise, meaning nurses on award wages can earn an extra $10,000 a year. At the same time, unemployment is now at an historic low of 3.5 per cent, with almost half a million more Australians in work compared to when Labor came to office. Those are significant improvements in our economy. When it comes to wages, we know what they are about on the opposite side. They're about low wages. The Liberal Party and the Nationals are about low wages. But when we talk about the cost of living we have to talk about the things that offset cost-of-living increases. There are challenges in the economy. We all know that. The world knows there are challenges to economies across the world. But what we're doing is putting positions and opportunities in place to make sure that hardworking Australians are able to get wage increases—better incomes. No-one in this country could seriously say that those opposite offer anything other than low wages because that's what quite clearly happened in the decade of record low wages growth under those opposite. Low wages growth was a deliberate design feature of their economic policy. That's what Mathias Cormann said! It was a deliberate exercise of their policy. That is exactly what they're about. They're about making sure that you out there get paid less, and not putting the systems in place to make sure you get paid a fair amount. That's their proposition for dealing with cost-of-living challenges. Remember, they refused to support the $1 an hour wage increase to those on the minimum wage, who are the most disadvantaged people on the wage spectrum. They opposed it, and they still do not support incredibly important initiatives. The legislation that was brought forward in the last many months under this government has led to, for example, ANZ and the union reaching an agreement. After stalled negotiations the Finance Sector Union has reached an in-principle agreement with ANZ on wages and conditions that includes a pay rise of 16.5 per cent over four years for workers earning up to $100,000 a year, and guarantees pay increases for the higher paid staff. The FSU's National Secretary, Julia Angrisano, said: Negotiations with the ANZ would not have been possible without reforms to industrial relations laws brought in by the Albanese government. They opposed it. They hated the idea that bank workers, along with so many other workers—including minimum wage workers—are going to get paid a wage increase. They hate the concept that people should have a voice to turn around and negotiate better wages under a Labor government, rather than their strategy of always keeping wages low. The strategy of the Liberal and National Parties is always to keep wages low. Of course, that ANZ agreement went to many other important initiatives, agreements and arrangements that have an effect on cost of living, lifestyle and wellbeing for many working people. If they don't believe me then they should look at the EMC poll. The Australian community are saying that you are behind—you're out of date. The change to workplace laws to better protect workers from wage theft has been approved by 70 per cent of the Australian community. The increase to minimum wage by 65 per cent of the Australian community. Changes to workplace laws for labour-hire loopholes are to be closed— (Time expired) 17:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland There is no more important issue facing Australians than the rising cost of living under the Albanese Labor government. It's not the Voice referendum, which the Prime Minister is prioritising over millions of Australian families facing poverty and the many thousands facing homelessness. That's after his vote-buying false promise at the election to reduce energy costs. Australians' energy bills have never been higher thanks directly to the Labor Party government. Immigration has never been higher than it is under this Labor government, and it is directly responsible for the high demand driving the housing, rental and homelessness crisis. This includes 250,000 foreign students who occupy seven out of every 10 new Australian homes. Arresting inflation has led to huge increases in mortgage payments, forcing many families to sell their homes and try their luck in a rental market with vacancy rates lower than one per cent. Instead of dealing with this appalling state of affairs, this Labor government produced a wellness budget using highly subjective and out-of-date information from before the COVID-19 pandemic. I'd be interested to know how much this worthless document cost. It actually concluded that mortgage stress in Australia was decreasing, if you can believe that. All evidence shows that wellness primarily flows from the prosperity created by a growing national economy with high productivity. Our economy may be growing with this artificial record immigration, but our productivity is going down the drain. This government needs to start doing its job rather than wasting time and money on subjective reports full of self-adulation that say and achieve absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, it's the governments who drive the economy, and all I've seen is it going down under both governments. 17:42 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I'll just remind those who are listening at home that we're currently debating a matter of public importance that was moved by my good friend Senator Dean Smith from Western Australia. That matter is that the No. 1 current pressure on Australians' wellness is the cost of living, but the Albanese Labor government is spending its time writing out-of-date and misleading reports rather than making the hard decisions to lower inflation faster, which is what really matters to millions of Australians. I don't know what planet the Labor Party is on, but it's certainly not planet Earth. I suppose we shouldn't expect anything less from a Treasurer who is the economic love child of Wayne Swan and Paul Keating, who are two of the world's worst finance ministers or Treasurers, when you look at their records. Our Treasurer in Australia is Dr Jim Chalmers. I'm not knocking someone who has a PhD, but I certainly question their lucidity, because, when they choose to do a PhD on Paul Keating, you wonder whether medication should be lowered or increased in that particular instance. We've got a Treasurer, a Labor Party and a government in Australia who aren't dealing with the cost of living. Apart from these interesting reports that they pop out, with their nice fonts and things like that, what they are talking about, day in and day out, is something called the Voice. They're talking about something that is going to divide Australians. They're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a referendum to try and divide Australians. They will spend hundreds of millions of dollars—not of their money but of taxpayers' money—on a proposal that is risky and unknown, which will be permanent and divisive. We've found out this week through questions in question time in both the Senate and in the House of Representatives that not only is the government not dealing with the No. 1 issue impacting upon Australians—that is, the cost of living—but that the Voice is going to lead down a track. It's going to lead to something called a treaty. What we found out in question time today was that the ministers who were asked questions about the treaty failed to rule out a treaty, failed to rule out reparations, failed to rule out what percentage of GDP would be set. So we're going to talk about the cost of living, but what's also going to cost Australians is if we have a divisive referendum on the Voice and then we have a treaty that will then lead down the track to a financial settlement that is going to cost Australians even more. I've just spent the last few weeks driving around regional, remote and rural Queensland, and the No. 1 issue in Queensland is the cost of living and all the associated parts of it, that people have been whacked by the 11 interest rate rises that have happened under this Labor government. The people are being whacked by insurance premium rises. The people are being whacked by a rising inflation rate that hits them constantly, and yet we have a Labor party from a different planet, who don't understand this and are focused on these woke issues that they think will lead Australia down some path to utopia, when, in fact, what Australians want from their governments are practical measures to help to assist them in dealing with this cost-of-living crisis, and it is a cost-of-living crisis. I would encourage Mr Albanese to visit Burketown in the Burke Shire. He hasn't been there because it's not in a marginal seat. He hasn't been there because it's probably hard for camera crews to get there, but Burketown and the associated Burke Shire and Doomadgee were wiped out by a terrible flood earlier this year. But no Labor prime minister's been there. I don't think any Labor cabinet minister's been there. The Labor Party has no interest in this because there aren't any camera crews. The parts of Queensland are being let down by this axis of Labor incompetence and Labor malfeasance, with Palaszczuk, who spends all her time on the red carpet joined by Anthony Albanese— (Time expired) 17:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria The Labor Party was elected to government promising Australians that it had a plan to deal with cost-of-living pressures. They had a plan alright—what the Labor government never told the public was that their plan was to increase the cost of living, not decrease it. Everything this government does, from its ideologically driven renewable energy policy to its repeated and ever-growing cost-of-living support measures, only serves to do one thing and that's increase inflationary pressure. Treasurer Chalmers has continued Labor's long tradition of tax and spend, while turning Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe into a patsy for the dozen interest rate rises that have occurred on his watch. It is time for Prime Minister Albanese to admit to the Australian people that they will not be getting their much talked about $275 power price cut for the simple reason that his government haven't the faintest idea on how to deal with the cost of living. Their only plan so far has been to repeatedly insist that they have a plan while running around like headless chooks with no plan at all—as far as I can tell anyway. The easiest way to fix Australia's cost-of-living problem is, obviously, to vote the Labor party out, and then to eventually to vote the UAP to government. That's how you do it. Obviously, we can't do that right now, but our time will come. What the Labor government can do, at the moment, is to abandon the net zero delusion and say no to the unions, how about that? I know it's hard to say no when you're joined at the hip and in a long-term relationship, but sometimes tough decisions are needed. It's plain for everyone to see that the policies of the Labor Party are driving Australian families to the wall. They owe the regulator everything, and, of course, like I said, the main beneficiaries are their union mates. The government are addicted to legislation. They do nothing but add layer upon layer of bureaucracy to an already overgoverned nation. The more red tape there is, the more consumers eventually end up paying. I've never met an Australian on the street—not one—that desires more legislation. What's wrong with repealing some, instead? How about that? What's wrong with reducing red and green tape? Have you ever seen a government project run on time and on budget? I haven't seen one. The only way we can reduce the cost of living in Australia is to make sure that the government of the day—it doesn't matter if it's on the left or the right—keep their sticky little fingers to themselves. That's it. Vote 1 UAP. 17:50 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales There we have it in the tag line what it's all about. It's self-aggrandising. This is a debate about the cost of living that has been brought on by the motion of Senator Dean Smith. It's supposed to be about the cost of living. What we just heard in those two contributions that I was in the chamber paying attention to was exactly the model of the former government—cynical, negative, without a vision for Australia and attacking the person. We saw the most outrageous attack on the persons of Australia through the robodebt scandal that the former Prime Minister continues to deny. People look to this chamber, the Senate, and this parliament to understand that they are doing it tough, that there are real challenges that they are facing, and to respond. So I find it incredibly rich that the Liberal and National parties, after nine long years of falling real wage growth, wasted opportunities and $1 trillion of debt, are now deciding they should take a bit of an interest in Australia's wellbeing. Unlike those opposite, the Albanese government is focused on doing the important work to ensure that the livelihoods of regular Australians are improving. I'll start by reiterating some of the facts of the latest CPI figures. Inflation is down from its peak, under the former government, of 7.8 per cent. It's down over this year to December. We've had most recently only a 0.8 per cent increase over the last quarter. That is well below the 2.1 per cent that was posted in the March 2022 quarter, when those opposite were in government. So the reality is that Australians who are listening to this can take some heart that while there is incredible cost-of-living pressure—and we absolutely acknowledge that—we are acting to support them in the most fiscally responsible way possible. We can make sure that we celebrate the wins in our economy, instead of the miserly personal attacks we see from those opposite. It is beneath what an opposition needs to do. Australians need the opposition to be genuinely engaged in seeking and supporting solutions to improve their wellbeing and mental health and with the fiscal responsibility that needs to be undertaken to achieve all of those good outcomes. In getting inflation down, the Albanese government is adhering to a very responsible, orderly three-point plan. Australians need to know they can have confidence in this plan being implemented. We said we would do things. We said we would set up the NACC, and we did. We are doing what we said. Firstly, this government has recorded a budget surplus of $20 billion, a feat of budget restraint which eluded the coalition for its entire term in office. What's more, we banked that against the $1 trillion of debt that the former government put us in. That's being a responsible government to take the pressure off. Secondly, the government know that members in our community really are struggling, so we've provided really targeted cost-of-living measures to those who are most vulnerable, and we're doing that without adding to inflation. Notable is the increase in ways that affect people who are on JobSeeker, youth allowance and rent assistance, and that's just to name a few. The third critical aspect of our response to the challenges that Australia is facing is that the government has invested on the supply side to boost the long-run capacity of the economy and secure Australia's long-term prosperity with the National Reconstruction Fund. That's an excellent example of our initiative to create jobs in Australia, to build capacity in Australia and to deal with the incredible supply-chain challenges that became manifestly evident to every Australian in the course of COVID. And the results are in on this already. The Albanese government knows that the budget is actually reducing inflation in the next financial year. I was in the room with the RBA governor at estimates when he said that Labor's policies are expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. I hear others on the other side grumbling at that, and this is what we see constantly: the whinge-fest, the personal attacks and the negativity of a former government that, when in government, delivered a trillion dollars of debt and no wage growth over 10 years. It didn't build housing. It didn't look after hospitals. We've had to triple the Medicare rebate so that people can even get to see a doctor. And the minute we get some good news, what do they do? They whinge about it. No cost-of-living relief from those opposite— The ACTING DEPUTY 252157 Thank you, Senator O'Neill. Senator Brockman? 17:55 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Let's put a few facts on the table. First of all, we've heard a fair bit about wages from those opposite. The coalition in government delivered real wage rises across Australia until—guess what?—there was this thing called the pandemic. Across the period of the coalition government there were real wage rises. What has the Labor government delivered? It's delivered real wage decreases at staggering, record rates. Senator O'Neill talked about when inflation peaked. In fact, inflation peaked in the fourth quarter, the final quarter, of fiscal year '22. When was the election? I'm sure my colleagues remember—I think it was in May. So the final quarter of '22 would have been under the Labor government. And that's when inflation peaked at a 32-year high of 7.8 per cent. Those opposite have no clue about how to tackle the cost-of-living crisis facing ordinary Australians. We saw it in the budget, with economist after senior economist coming out and saying that the budget was acting against the interests of lowering inflation. I've read these quotes into Hansard before; I won't do it again. There is quote after quote after quote from senior economists: Stephen Anthony, managing director at Macroeconomics Advisory; Chris Richardson, economist at Rich Insight; David Bassanese, chief economist at BetaShares; Andrew Boak, chief economist at Goldman Sachs. I could go on: George Tharenou, economist at UBS; Michael Blythe, chief economist at PinPoint Macro Analytics; and Cherelle Murphy, chief economist at EY Oceania. All have cast doubt on the Labor government's budget, saying it puts downward pressure on inflation. I give the Reserve Bank credit. The Reserve Bank took a month off. They took a month to watch what the Labor Party budget was doing to the economy, as they should have—that's the Reserve Bank's job. The Reserve Bank's job is to watch what the government is doing with the levers at its disposal, watch what is happening in the general economy and then decide whether they have to raise interest rates again. And guess what? A month after the budget, after they had considered the impacts of the Labor government's policy, they felt they had to act by raising interest rates again because, in the opinion of the Reserve Bank, the Labor government budget was clearly not putting downward pressure on interest rates. Now, let's look at some of the other policies that those opposite laud as having a downward impact on the cost of living and inflation—for instance, their gas policy. They regularly criticise us for not having supported a poorly thought-out gas policy that actually reduced investment in gas. Putting price caps in place is a sure way over the long term to push the price up. Not only will it push the price up in the longer term; it's also deferring investment. You need new investment because the only sure way of putting downward pressure on price in the longer term is to actually have new supplies coming into the market. Instead of encouraging investment, they are actually deterring investment. You don't have to take my word for it: let's listen to the head of one of Japan's top energy think tanks, Mr Terazawa, who stated on the public record: Australia has been our most trusted supplier of LNG. Unfortunately, the recent policy changes in Australia put serious questions on the future role of Australia as a reliable supplier of LNG. What does that mean? It means that Japan, which has been significantly responsible for investments into Australia and into Australian gas fields, bringing supply online, is going to Canada. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! The time for the discussion has expired. Assange, Mr Julian Paul 117 18:00 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The President has also received the following letter from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The Albanese Government should use our close relationship with the United States of America and the United Kingdom to free Julian Assange and bring him home. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 18:01 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Albanese government should use our close relationship with the United States of America and the United Kingdom to free Julian Assange and bring him home. As we begin this debate in the chamber, I want to acknowledge the presence of Gabriel Shipton, Julian's brother, in the chamber. Thank you for coming, Gabriel, and for all your courageous work. In 2010, Chelsea Manning, an intelligence analyst in the US military, bravely broke US law to blow the whistle to WikiLeaks about US war crimes. Chelsea was bound by US military and criminal law. She lived in the United States and was a United States citizen. In 2013, Chelsea was convicted of 17 serious criminal charges and sentenced to 35 years maximum security imprisonment. Four years later, Manning's government acknowledged the wrong in imprisoning her and her sentence was commuted by US President Obama and she was released from prison in 2017. In 2010, Julian Assange, an Australian journalist living outside the United States, with no legal or contractual obligations to the US, published Manning's material on WikiLeaks. This included thousands of documents that exposed the brutal reality of US led wars. One of those was the deeply distressing video of cold-blooded murder by a US Apache helicopter of Iraqi citizens that included two Reuters journalists. Since then, the US has been openly targeting Julian Assange in order to prosecute him under the US Espionage Act. As part of this, in late 2010, the US National Security Agency added Assange to its 'manhunting time line', an annual account of efforts to capture or kill alleged terrorists. For the decade that followed, the US named Assange as effectively an enemy of the state and, in 2019, he was charged with multiple breaches of the US Espionage Act, with a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison. For the past four years, Assange has been held in solitary detention in a UK maximum security prison, awaiting extradition to the US. It's now 2023, and Julian Assange is still in jail, still hounded by the US. Where is this government? What is it doing? Julian Assange is not a soldier. He is a journalist with no connection to the US and no valid legal or contractual obligations of secrecy to the US government, and he is still in jail and still being persecuted by the US, abandoned by Australia and facing a lifetime in a US prison. What was Julian's crime? Telling the truth and telling this history. He told the truth and the reality about the US-Australia relationship. The real reason Julian Assange is still in jail is that, whether it's Prime Minister Albanese or Prime Minister Morrison, Australian leaders are willing to trade a citizen's liberty, their right to speak truth to power, for a close and unquestioning bear hug from a US president. They say truth is the first victim of war and, in the case of Julian Assange, that's a truth the whole world is seeing. I'm standing in this chamber today with my colleagues echoing the concerns of millions of Australians who can see what is happening to Julian Assange is an outrageous attack on journalism and on the truth. The Albanese government, it's true, have raised the imprisonment and extradition of Julian Assange when speaking privately with their US counterparts. They have had quiet chats, maybe a carefully worded communique, but they've never even put a single element of the Australia-US relationship on the line for Julian's freedom. Days ago, in Brisbane, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken launched an extraordinary attack on Julian Assange. He backed in allegations that Julian had not only engaged in serious criminal conduct but had risked harm to US national security. All the while, Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong, stood by mutely, not defending Julian and accepting Blinken's lies. It was almost as though she believed them. The US relationship, we're told, is critically important to both countries, and many hoped this would work in Julian's favour. But the reverse, it seems, is true. We had the US saying to our Prime Minister: 'Buy our nuclear submarines, fighter planes and missiles. Host our bases. Embed our spies. Don't forget to smile like it's good for you. And, by the way, we will jail your people whenever we choose.' And what is Prime Minister Albanese saying? 'Sure. What a deal.' When I talk with the many good, committed people who are working to bring Julian home, they tell me how they hope that Labor will do what is needed to make this happen, because failing to do so sends a clear message to our biggest allies that Australia is a walkover. So we say to Prime Minister Albanese today: If not now, then when? When will you tell the US that the next purchase of US military equipment is on the line or AUKUS is at play if they don't respect our citizens' right to truth and if they don't end the prosecution so that we can free Julian Assange and bring him home? 18:06 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I support this motion to a degree. I think that there should be some facts put on the table. My understanding of it was that the crime that was alleged against Julian Assange should have been put onto some Guardian journalists who released the encryption code that gave access to the WikiLeaks file. That was actually done by the Guardian. These particular journalists wrote down the encryption code in a book that they wrote about WikiLeaks. So I fail to see why Julian Assange is being held accountable for this so-called crime and not the Guardian journalists who released the encryption code. I'm also led to believe that there is another leaker of data, who leaked similar files to the ones that Julian Assange is being accused of being guilty of leaking, and the US government isn't actually going after them. Furthermore, it has been reported that Robert Gates said that no Afghan troops or interpreters or American soldiers or Australian soldiers were actually put at risk, I'm led to believe. I don't necessarily think that we should be putting our troops in jeopardy when it comes to these wars, but, at the same time, I do believe in the role of free speech and I do think that we need to hold governments to account for the decisions that they make when they start to go into other countries. What's particularly annoying about the Assange case is that he was basically disclosing information in regard to the Iraq War. I think everyone in this chamber agrees that the Iraq War was a gross violation of human rights. There were never any biological weapons of mass destruction. The whole thing seemed to be a set-up. My view on this is that, the year before this war was started, Saddam Hussein said that he was going to start accepting payment for oil in the euro, and anyone who has followed the machinations of the Bank for International Settlements and prior wars throughout history knows that, whenever you start to attack a currency, that is when the bankers come in. We saw that when they took out Gaddafi. He was talking about bringing in an African dinar, backed by gold. That's not just my opinion. A bloke by the name of Sidney Blumenthal, who was an adviser to Hillary Clinton—this was later leaked on WikiLeaks—advised against that. We know that, after World War II, the Bank of England was nationalised, and all of the debts from World War II were stuck into the Bank of England. That was the way the wealth was transferred from the Old World to the New World, similar to World War I, where Germany copped all the debts. So I think that there needs to be much greater scrutiny. It's very unfair to hold Julian Assange to account for basically trying to get to the bottom of what was going on in the Iraq War. Yet again, that went on, and this is what I fear with the Ukraine crisis, that it's just going to become this perpetual war machine. Eventually it'll slip onto the back pages, but there will still be people getting massacred in Ukraine or being shot to bits in Ukraine in 10 years time because it suits the journalists or whatever in the deep state to push this stuff onto the back pages. Another thing that needs to be noted is, where do you draw the line today on what is it journalism? I know there was a court case in 1971 where the US military tried to hold the New York Times to account for an article they posted about the My Lai massacre. The New York Times won that case because the US court upheld the right to know and the right to freedom of speech. As we transition to the internet world, bloggers and others are entitled to the right to freedom of speech. As I said, I don't think we should jeopardise our troops, but there has been no evidence shown whereby anything that was leaked out of WikiLeaks jeopardised any troops. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now over, so there is no longer an ongoing threat from any of that information that was leaked. Furthermore, the question needs to be asked: why is Julian Assange in jail under heinous conditions when people that were responsible for many more deaths aren't actually having the finger pointed at them and being asked, 'Well, how did we get into the situation in the first place?' I think in the name of humanity and in the name of our international relations—and this is not an attack on the people of the US or Great Britain; this is an attack on the deep state, which was taken over the governments of these countries— (Time expired) 18:14 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Julian Assange and his legal proceedings have understandably attracted great interest in Australia. It is important to acknowledge the depth of community sentiment about this issue. Indeed, my own electorate office receives calls from concerned members of the public about this issue, and I welcome those representations. It is also important to note that the Australian government has made clear its view that Julian's case has dragged on for too long and it should be brought to a close. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have personally expressed this view to the governments of both the United Kingdom and the United States and will continue to do so. At this point I might add that this is an issue that requires a measured and sustained diplomatic approach based on mutual respect. I have known Senator Wong for many years, and I know her approach to this matter and to all her important diplomatic work is a sound, measured and sustained approach that prioritises diplomacy and respect. It is also worth making the point that the Australian government is unable to intervene in another country's legal processes, just as another country is unable to intervene in Australia's processes. Further, the Australian government is not party to these legal proceedings, so we cannot influence them. They are a matter for the independent foreign court of law, not the Australian government. Similarly, while we're doing what we can in facilitating dialogue between the Australian government and other concerned governments, there are limits to what can be done until Mr Assange has concluded the necessary legal processes. In a comparable case, the resolution by government was only possible after legal processes had concluded. We have to have these due legal processes occur and indeed respect those legal processes. Let us not also forget that, as we do for other Australians facing legal proceedings overseas, the Australian government is following Julian's case closely and offering consular assistance to him as often and as comprehensively as we can. The High Commissioner of Australia to the United Kingdom visited Mr Assange in Belmarsh prison on 4 April and had the opportunity to check on Mr Assange's health and welfare. This is a part of the consular assistance afforded to all Australians detained overseas and will continue to be so. Of course, part of the assistance is also the Australian government's expectation that Julian Assange is entitled to due process as well as humane and fair treatment and access to his legal team. These expectations are important to the government and will continue to be conveyed. Again, as we were saying, the Australian government, including the foreign minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, cannot simply intervene in overseas legal processes. We can make representations and seek to get an earlier outcome that way, but we cannot force an outcome and nor would we want another country forcing their views on Australian legal processes. So all these points still stand. Firstly, Senator Wong has made the point publicly that the case has dragged on for too long and should be brought to a conclusion. That desire has been expressed both publicly and privately, in the media and diplomatically. We want to see Julian Assange's matters resolved and brought to a close. Secondly, until the matter is brought to a close and those proper legal channels of appeal and due process happen, there is little that an Australian government can do to intervene in the legal processes of another country, besides making those representations I mentioned earlier. From a personal point of view, I understand the public interest in the case, but these legal processes of a foreign country must be respected. Lastly, the Australian government has provided, and will continue to provide, Julian Assange with consular assistance to check on his welfare, to offer support and to make sure that his health is being looked after and that he is being treated humanely and fairly. 18:15 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that the treatment of Julian Assange is not acceptable and should not be acceptable in a civilised society like Australia's. There are two issues: Australian citizenship and whether he committed crimes. Julian is an Australian citizen. No matter what he may or may not have done, Julian has the same rights as any other Australian citizen. It's terrifying that the rule of law protecting Australians from capricious government action can be trashed in this manner. Julian has already lost 13 years to confinement, and now the United States is threatening him with life in prison for telling the truth in exposing the murder of innocent civilians during Operation Enduring Freedom. Enduring freedom—now, that's ironic. Perhaps the United States needs a dictionary. 'Freedom' means the right to free speech, especially for investigative journalists who have investigated the US government's illegal actions. Part of every journalist's duty is exposing illegal behaviour. The US constitution guarantees freedom of speech. American governments have trashed their nation's constitution. While freedom of speech is not enshrined in our Constitution, I'm advised it is enshrined in High Court rulings. Despite that, it means little, as many, including myself, discovered in COVID. Clearly the US government is making an example of Julian Assange to dissuade other journalists from publishing the truth about other illegal US government activity. Let's connect the point about freedom of speech and COVID. We're now seeing remarkable facts emerging about big pharma, big government and big tech. Imagine if Julian had been free during COVID and WikiLeaks was functioning properly. All the documents it has taken years to start prising out of the hands of big government and the big pharma state showing the most egregious and inhuman breaches of truth and decency may have been brought to light much earlier. Instead, we had compliant mouthpiece media that repeated the talking points of the pharmaceutical state. Government has three roles: to protect life, to protect property and to protect freedom. Successive Australian and American governments are taking lives, killing people in unauthorised state sanctioned killings, stealing property, transferring wealth from 'we the people' to big pharma, removing freedom and imprisoning journalists, thereby destroying the nation's freedom and every person's freedom. For serving the country, Julian has suffered 13 years of deprivation of liberty. Opponents say he jeopardised American soldiers and spies. Now, a court can decide that. Do you remember the weapons of mass destruction claims? The perpetrators admitted they had no evidence. Who held them accountable? Not one member of parliament. Not one member of congress. They got away with it. To anyone who thinks Julian Assange deserves the treatment he's getting, I say: remember the wisdom of the words of St Francis of Assisi, who said, 'There but for the grace of God go I.' Our government needs to use our close relationship with America to bring Julian Assange home now. 18:18 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The media have dubbed Julian Assange the most famous political prisoner in the world. He is, for all intents and purposes, a political prisoner. The charge of espionage that has been brought against him is a political charge. So it was very disappointing to hear the Labor Party in here today rolling out the same lines they've been rolling out for the last 18 months, saying that they can't intervene because of legal proceedings. I want to note, and I want the Senate to understand, that they have consistently, and rightly, intervened to get Australians out of political prisoner situations. Many famous names come to mind. Why is it that they won't do the same for Julian Assange? When his wonderful and inspirational wife, Stella Assange, visited Australia a few months ago, there were high hopes that maybe we were close to a deal to get Julian out of imprisonment and see him freed. I have no doubt that Secretary Blinken's comments last weekend were strategically designed to smash any hopes of any deal with this government. I want to say to all the supporters of Julian Assange out there—his family, including his brother Gabriel, here today—and to Julian, who will be watching this debate, that is not going to happen. There are 30 MPs in this parliament in the Parliamentary Friends of the Bring Julian Assange Home Group who will not give up. There are millions of Australians who support Julian Assange who will not give up. We are not going to stop the campaign to have him freed. So, sorry, Secretary Blinken, your propaganda and your downright lies at that press conference will not cut it. Let me tell you why it was propaganda. Julian Assange is being tried because of the rules of engagement disclosures. That's what Secretary Blinken refers to in his statement, that Julian Assange was charged with very sensitive criminal conduct in the United States in connection to his alleged role in one of the biggest compromises of classified information in the history of this country. As Senator Shoebridge pointed out, Private Bradley Manning—now Chelsea Manning—was charged, convicted and pardoned. Julian Assange was a publisher, a journalist. Those rules of engagement files were published by media outlets right around the world. To remind the Senate, Julian Assange and Wikileaks got a Walkley Award in this country for the rules of disclosure leaks and the public interest stories that came out of that. So why is he a political prisoner and why is he being politically persecuted? I have no doubt because it is deeply personal. There are some very powerful people in this world as well as intelligence agencies who fear nothing more than disclosure. Why is he being politically persecuted? He's being persecuted because this is an attack on press freedoms. The message they are sending is: if you disclose our lies, our corruption and our war crimes, we will come after you with the full power of our state and we will do everything we possibly can to crush you. That's the message they are sending. That is why they are not giving up on Julian Assange. Are we going to let that stand? No, we are not going to let that stand. We recently had the 20-year commemoration of the Iraq War. I agree with Senator Rennick. I cannot think of a darker period of history, certainly while I have been alive. Isn't it ironic, with the millions of people who perished in that conflict right across the Middle East, the instability, the civil war in Syria, the rise of ISIS, more global terrorism, that no-one who instigated that illegal, immoral war has been brought to justice? But the great truth-teller of that war, along with Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, sits behind bars waiting 175 years of virtual death sentence. Are we going to let that stand? This is the Australian parliament. Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. It is un-Australian for us to turn our back on a mate, and we won't do it. We will keep campaigning to bring him home. (Time expired) 18:23 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania It's so sad and frustrating that so many in this parliament regard Australia as a vassal state to the United States. It is equally sad that when, given an opportunity today in this Senate chamber to put the government's position, even though there is a minister of the Crown sitting here in the chamber, we didn't even get to hear from a minister from the Labor government. Maybe this is what Labor calls 'quiet diplomacy'—outrageous—not so much quiet as downright silent. It's even sadder that one of the people in this parliament that regards this country as a vassal state to the US is our Prime Minister. We're spending $370 billion on the AUKUS deal. We're hosting their armed forces, with US bases on our soil. We're going to host their nuclear submarines, and we're going to embed their spies into our military apparatus. We've been here time after time after time for the US. Whenever they've said 'jump' our only question has been, 'How high would you like us to jump?' It is time that Australia made it clear to the US that this relationship is a two-way street. We're not just here to deliver for the US, time after time after time. They've got to step up and deliver for us on the way back. Mr Albanese has been able to run his line about quiet diplomacy with some success, until last week. Last week the US made it abundantly clear that they are not for the turning on this. That's an exposure of the failure of Mr Albanese's quiet diplomacy, and it's an exposure of the failure of Senator Wong's quiet diplomacy. What we need is for the Prime Minister and the foreign minister to make it clear to Mr Biden that freedom for Mr Assange is a non-negotiable in this relationship. Mr Albanese needs to stand up for his citizens. That is the very least that any Australian would expect their Prime Minister to do. Make no mistake: the situation Mr Assange finds himself in is not in any way about his actions threatening US national security. The US's behaviour is motivated by three things. The first is their utter humiliation and embarrassment that Mr Assange exposed the US military as having committed murder and war crimes. The second is their desire to send a chilling message to the media around the world that they shouldn't report on things like the US military engaging in murder and war crimes—a blatant attack on the press freedoms that are such a fundamental part of any liberal democracy. The third is to send a chilling message to anyone else who might be thinking of blowing the whistle in the future, like Chelsea Manning did. Remember: the US government has freed Chelsea Manning, and rightly so, but what about the Aussie? What about the Australian citizen who published the information? He published it—he didn't leak it. He's festering away in Belmarsh prison. It's an outrageous injustice that we are discussing here today. What the Albanese government needs to do is insist that the US cease its attack on journalism, cease its attack on the truth and free Mr Assange. Let's bring him home to his family and his country, where he belongs. DOCUMENTS 121 DOCUMENTS Report on Government Responses 121 18:29 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to briefly take note of the report President's report to the Senate on the status of government responses to parliamentary committee reports as at 30 June 2023 and to draw attention to the slow progress of the government in responding to the report on human rights implications of recent violence in Iran. While as a general rule we do not object to government taking an appropriate amount of time to formulate a response to committee reports, senators will recall that this particular inquiry examined a crisis situation in Iran that was, and is, particularly targeting women and girls. With the support of Senator Lambie as a co-sponsor, I moved to establish this inquiry to respond to an emergency situation. All members of that committee acted with urgency and put a significant amount of work and effort into ensuring we could complete this inquiry and make recommendations as expeditiously as possible, which we did by reporting on 1 February this year. As of yesterday, it has been six months since the committee reported—a report which we put together in approximately three months after considering hundreds of submissions. Soon after the tabling of this report, it was confirmed by the Minister for Home Affairs that Australians are being targeted here in Australia by the Islamic Republic regime, and we know from security and intelligence agencies around the world that this regime is attempting assassinations and kidnappings against critics in Western countries. This is an incredibly serious situation, and it's why the committee made 12 recommendations to the Australian government for action, including recommendations that the responsible ministers provide an update to the parliament and the Australian public on the government's current assessment of whether persons connected to the IR regime are undertaking such behaviour in Australia. This hasn't occurred. We recommended that the government take the necessary steps to formally categorise the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as an organisation involved in supporting and facilitating terrorism. That also hasn't occurred. In fact, the government is refusing to take those necessary steps. We recommended that Australia should minimise relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran to the greatest extent possible in recognition of the appalling behaviour of the regime. Yet, even after the home affairs minister revealed an Australian had been targeted in their own home, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advised that it did not intend to change any element of our diplomatic relations with the IRI. There does not appear to have been any consequences initiated by Australia whatsoever for the regime's unacceptable actions. I asked DFAT in Senate estimates back in May where the government's response to our report was. I was told it was being considered. This was back in May. I want to stress again that in a month's time we will mark one year since Jina Mahsa Amini was killed. It has been more than six months since the committee reported. I hope that both the Senate and the Iranian Australian community, which I know for a fact has repeatedly written to this government asking for these recommendations to be implemented, are shown the courtesy and respect of being provided with the government's formal response. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 122 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Bills Committee 122 Scrutiny Digest 122 18:33 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I present the Scrutiny digest No. 8 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills together with ministerial correspondence. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to table the committee's Scrutiny digest No. 8 of 2023. The digest contains the committee's assessment of all bills recently introduced into the parliament. Each bill is assessed against the committee's technical scrutiny principles set out in standing order 24. These principles focus on the effect of proposed legislation on parliamentary scrutiny and individual rights, liberties and obligations. Importantly, the committee has a strong and longstanding commitment to non-partisanship and, accordingly, the digest does not consider the policy merits of bills. Scrutiny digest No. 8 of 2023 reports on the committee's consideration of 17 bills which were introduced into the parliament during recent sitting weeks, as well as amendments made to five bills. The committee has identified potential scrutiny concerns in relation to seven newly introduced bills. The digest also contains the committee's comments on recent ministerial responses in relation to a further 10 bills. In this digest the committee has continued its work in commenting on matters that raise scrutiny concerns and commend some changes made in response to the committee's requests to the government. In relation to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, the Attorney-General has, in response to a request of the committee, advised that the explanatory materials to the bill will be updated to clarify particular matters the committee raised regarding the trespass on personal rights and liberties and significant matters in delegated legislation. Further, in relation to the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023, an addendum to the explanatory memorandum has been tabled by the Minister for Education which includes key information requested by the committee in relation to the availability of an independent merits review for SY-HELP assistance. The committee welcomes these undertakings and takes this opportunity to highlight the importance of explanatory materials as a point of access to understanding the law, and, if needed, as extrinsic material to assist with interpretation. For these reasons, it's important that explanatory materials provide comprehensive information about changes to the law and provide an explanation to justify the approach in accordance with the committee's guidelines. The committee also welcomes amendments made to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 which require reports on the Clean Energy Regulator's activities during a financial year and reports on certain matters relating to biodiversity certificates purchased by the Commonwealth to be tabled in each house of parliament. These amendments align with comments made by the committee in relation to insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. It is consistent with the committee's view that tabling documents in parliament is important to parliamentary scrutiny, as it alerts parliamentarians to the existence of documents and provides opportunities for debate that are not available where documents are not made public or are only available online. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis contained in this Digest. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest No. 8 of 2023 to the Senate. Question agreed to. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 123 Delegated Legislation Monitor 123 18:36 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria I present Delegated legislation monitor 8 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, together with ministerial correspondence, and move: That the Senate take note of the report. In rising to speak on the tabling of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's Delegated legislation monitor 8 of 2023, I note it reports on the committee's consideration of 196 legislative instruments registered between 1 June and 23 June 2023. This includes 174 disallowable instruments and 22 instruments exempt from disallowance. I would like to draw the chamber's attention to three instruments in the Treasury portfolio: the Corporations Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations—Income Management Regimes) Regulations 2023—a very snappy title!—the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations 2022 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Rationalising ASIC Instruments) Regulations 2022. These instruments insert ongoing exemptions to primary legislation into the Corporations Regulations 2001.Those regulations have been exempt from the sunsetting regime since 2017 and therefore operate indefinitely. The committee's concerns are heightened as the 'rationalising ASIC' regulations move exemptions that were previously time-limited into those regulations which operate indefinitely. It's the committee's longstanding view that the measures which modify or create ongoing exemptions to primary legislation should be set out in the primary legislation. However, when these measures are in delegated legislation they should be time-limited to facilitate regular parliamentary scrutiny so that they do not operate as de facto amendments to primary legislation. In Delegated legislation monitor 6 of 2023 the committee sought the Assistant Treasurer's advice as to whether the Corporations Regulations, or, alternatively, whether the specific measures introduced by these three instruments, could be subject to a 10-year sunsetting period. I'm very pleased to advise the chamber that on 31 July 2023 the Assistant Treasurer advised the committee that he would seek amendments so that the measures in the three instruments cease after 10 years. Based on this advice, the committee resolved to withdraw the notices of motion to disallow these instruments. I thank the Assistant Treasurer and the department for their continued engagement with the committee on this matter and for addressing this longstanding scrutiny concern. As this is a longstanding concern, the committee will continue to raise scrutiny issues with future instruments which contain ongoing exemptions or modifications to primary legislation. I'd also like to draw the chamber's attention to the Public Service Regulations 2023, which remake the 1999 instrument. The committee previously drew its concerns to the attention of the Minister for Finance in two Delegated legislation monitors earlier this year. Specifically, the committee sought the minister's further advice about the adequacy of consultation undertaken and the adequacy of the explanatory materials accompanying the instrument. The committee also raised concerns about the number of decisions that were excluded from the review process. Again, I'm pleased to advise that the minister has undertaken to amend the explanatory materials to address the concerns raised by the committee. Further consultation with stakeholders has also commenced as a result of the committee's engagement, and the minister provided additional detail and clarity about the specific decisions that were excluded from review. This has addressed the committee's initial scrutiny concerns. I thank the Minister for Finance for her constructive engagement and for promptly resolving the scrutiny issues brought to her attention. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor 8 of 2023 to the Senate. Question agreed to. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 123 Government Response to Report 123 18:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I present the government's response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 and seek leave to have the document incorporated in the Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report: Advisory report on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 AUGUST 2023 Advisory report on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 The Government thanks the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security ('Committee') for its review of the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023('the bill'). The Government provides the following responses to the Committee's recommendations. Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum for the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 be amended, or a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum presented, acknowledging that human sources are included in the scope of an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) affiliate for the purposes of the proposed new definition of ASIO Officer in section 473.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The Committee further recommends that in the upcoming review of the Minister's Guidelines made under section 8A of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the Minister for Home Affairs consider whether additional safeguards are required to ensure appropriate control by ASIO over the activities of its affiliates, including human sources or any affiliates working under 'other arrangements', in light of new legal defences to certain criminal acts becoming available to them. Response to recommendation : The Government accepts the Committee's recommendation. Amendment to the Bill's Expla natory Memorandum The Government will prepare an addendum to the Explanatory Memorandum to provide an acknowledgement that in practice the scope of the term 'ASIO affiliate' could include human sources for the purpose of the proposed new definition of 'ASIO Officer' in section 473.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Review of Minister's Guidelines The review of the ASIO Minister's Guidelines will consider whether additional safeguards are required to ensure appropriate control by ASIO over the activities of its affiliates, including human sources or any affiliates working under 'other arrangements', in light of new legal defences to certain criminal acts becoming available to them. Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that, following implementation of the recommendation in this report, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 be passed by the parliament. Response to recommendation : The Government accepts the Committee's recommendation. BILLS 124 BILLS Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 124

Public Service Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 124 18:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 124 18:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This bill makes amendments to the Public Service Act 1999 and is a key element of the Albanese Government's APS Reform agenda. The need for ambitious and enduring reform of the APS is clear. The Independent Review of the Australian Public Service, led by Mr David Thodey, concluded that the APS lacked a unified purpose, was too internally focused, and had lost capability in important areas. The Thodey Review called for a public service that is trusted, future-fit, responsive and agile to meet the changing needs of government and the community with professionalism and integrity. This bill delivers on several important recommendations of the Thodey Review, recognising that the case for reform has only strengthened in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, geopolitical disruptions and increasing economic volatility have highlighted the importance of an APS that acts with agility and common purpose. The experience of recent years has also highlighted the enduring importance of the existing APS Values: to be impartial, committed to service, accountable, respectful and ethical. To model these values and embody integrity, the APS needs to be honest, truly independent and empowered to provide frank and fearless advice, and to defend legality and due process. The APS needs to listen to and engage with the Australian community—developing policy and delivering services with empathy and in a spirit of partnership. We should expect greater transparency about the state of the service and its ability to deliver—that helps build trust in government. We want the APS to be confident and capable: acting with a clear purpose, demonstrating thought leadership, and taking a long term view on the implications of each decision and action. Reform of such a large and complex organisation takes time and sustained effort. That's why we need reforms that stick, reforms that last. For these reasons, the Albanese Government is introducing amendments to the Public Service Act to embed reform in the legislation that guides and governs the public service. APS reform agenda The Albanese government's APS Reform agenda has four priorities. They are: First: An APS that embodies integrity in everything it does Second: An APS that puts people and business at the centre of policy and services. Third: An APS that is a model employer. And fourth: An APS that has the capability to do its job well. This bill supports each of these priorities. At its heart, this bill and the Albanese Government's broader APS Reform agenda is about restoring the public's trust and faith in government and its institutions. The reforms in this bill will strengthen the APS' core purpose and values; build the capability and expertise of the APS; and support good governance, accountability and transparency. Strengthen the APS's core values and purpose The APS is a complex organisation, made up of tens of thousands of people working across dozens of departments and agencies. The work of the APS is incredibly varied and diverse. To ensure the APS works as an integrated organisation—as one APS—the Thodey Review recommended strengthening the APS' purpose and values, and promoting a shared understanding of its role. Amendments in the bill deliver on this intent and support the government's APS Reform priority to create an APS that acts with integrity in everything it does. APS Value of Stewardship This bill adds a new APS Value of Stewardship. The APS Values articulate the culture and operating ethos of the APS. They reflect expectations of the relationship between public servants and the government, the parliament and the Australian community. The new stewardship value has been developed through extensive consultation, with responses from over 1500 APS staff across the country—from graduates to senior executives. Informed by this consultation, the bill outlines the stewardship Value as meaning 'the APS builds capability and institutional knowledge, and supports the public interest now and into the future by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does'. By requiring all APS employees to uphold stewardship, the bill will strengthen the important and enduring role that all public servants play as stewards. Stewardship involves learning from the past and looking to the future. It involves conservation and cultivation—leaving things in a better place than you found them. It involves seeing your role as part of the whole—preserving public trust and promoting the public good. Stewardship has deep roots in Australia. First Nations Australians are this country's original stewards—caring for country over tens of thousands of years, and multiple generations. APS Purpose Statement To complement the addition of stewardship as an APS Value, this bill will require the Secretaries Board to oversee the development of a single, unifying purpose statement for the APS. This will provide a common foundation for collaborative leadership, aligned services and shared delivery across the many departments and agencies that make up the service. It will contribute to a shared sense of purpose for tens of thousands of APS employees, reinforcing a one-APS approach. This purpose statement will be developed through consultation—by the service for the service—and it will not be set in stone. The bill requires that it be refreshed every five years, accounting for the APS's evolving role over time. The purpose statement should guide the way the APS works. Under this bill, Agency Heads will be required to uphold and promote the new purpose statement as well as the APS Values and Employment Principles. Limitations on Ministerial directions to Agency Heads The first APS Value is for the APS to be impartial. This value is crucial to the successful operation of the service and to maintaining public trust. It is important that we defend it. Having an apolitical and merit-based approach to APS employment matters—devoid of political interference—is key to maintaining an impartial public service. This bill will strengthen the relevant provision in the Public Service Act to make it clear that Ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions. This will reaffirm the apolitical role of the APS and provide confidence to Agency Heads to act with integrity in the exercise of their duties and powers. Building the capability, expertise and thought leadership of the APS The bill also embeds ongoing measures to build the APS' capability and expertise. Talented, committed people are the foundation of the APS. To be future-fit, the APS needs to continually build the capability of its staff to create a skilled and confident workforce, and remain a robust and trusted institution that delivers modern policy and service solutions for decades to come. The APS must work in genuine partnership with the public to solve problems and co-design the best solutions to improve the lives of the Australian community. The APS need to be future-focussed, looking ahead to solve the challenges facing Australia. The Thodey Review noted concerns that the capability of the APS has been eroded over time. This bill seeks to address those concerns and embed an expectation that the APS continuously assesses its strengths and weaknesses, and takes action to uplift its capability, including by engaging with the Australian public. The reforms in this bill deliver on the APS Reform priorities for an APS that has the capability to do its job well, and that puts people and business at the centre of policy and services. Capa bility reviews This bill will make regular, independent and transparent capability reviews a five-yearly requirement for each Department of State, Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. Capability reviews are independent, forward-looking and assess organisational strengths and areas for development in view of the agency's operating environment, now and into the future. Capability review reports and action plans responding to findings will be released publicly, with limited exceptions. This bill will ensure the APS maintains a culture of continuous improvement to deliver for the Government and Australian community. Long-term insights reports The Thodey Review called for the APS to strike a better balance between short-term responsiveness and investing in the deep expertise required to grapple with long-term, strategic policy challenges. This bill will help the APS maintain that balance and build expertise by requiring Secretaries Board to commission regular, evidence-based long-term insights reports, developed through a process of public consultation. Long-term insight reports will explore some of the medium-term and long-term trends, risks, and opportunities that Australia faces. These apolitical and evidence-based reports will encourage the APS to engage with academics, experts, and the broader Australian community on long-term policy challenges. By partnering in this transparent way, the APS can build trust in its expertise and understanding of cross-cutting issues that matter to all Australians. Supporting good governance, accountability and transparency Transparency can shine a light on the culture and make-up of the APS, and prompt changes to ensure it remains a great place to work for people from all walks of life. Best-practice governance arrangements should also ensure APS employees are empowered and supported in their roles—with opportunities to apply and extend their skills and experience. Amendments in this bill address these objectives and deliver on the APS Reform priority to create an APS that is a model employer. Publishing annual APS Employee Census results The APS Employee Census is an annual survey used to collect information about the attitudes and opinions of APS employees. It is an opportunity for APS employees to share their experiences working in the APS. Under this bill, agencies will be required to publish their aggregate APS Employee Census results, along with an action plan responding to those results. By doing this, the government aims to foster a culture of transparency and accountability for continuous improvement within agencies. It also aims to improve the APS's position as a model employer—one that not only listens to but addresses the thoughts, concerns, and ideas of its employees. Enablin g decision-making to occur at the lowest appropriate classification Being a model employer also requires that you create a culture of trust and support for your employees. The Thodey Review called for the APS to adopt best-practice ways of working by reducing unnecessary hierarchy and empowering APS employees to make decisions. This recommendation was prompted by findings that decisions involving risk tended to be increasingly escalated upwards in the APS. This bill introduces a healthy counterweight to that tendency, by including a provision to require Agency Heads to implement measures that enable decisions to be made by APS employees at the lowest appropriate classification level. To be clear, this isn't about pushing work or risk down to an inappropriate level. Instead, it is about ensuring that decision-making is not raised to a higher level than is necessary. Ultimately, it is about improving decision-making processes, reducing bureaucratic bottlenecks, empowering staff, and fostering professional development. Conclusion The challenges facing Australia over the coming decade are immense. The APS will continue to play an integral role in meeting the changing needs of government and the community with professionalism and integrity. The Thodey Review provided an important blueprint for ongoing public sector transformation that can endure while adapting to changing needs and circumstances. The Albanese Government has responded with its ambitious APS Reform Agenda. By amending the Public Service Act, this bill advances that agenda significantly, and locks in important reforms. Through this and other measures we can uphold and build the public's trust and faith in government and one of its most important institutions—the Australian Public Service. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 30 August 2023. Debate adjourned. Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023, Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 127

Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023

First Reading 127 18:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 128 18:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech es read as follows— BIOSECURITY AMENDMENT (ADVANCED COMPLIANCE MEASURES) BILL 2023 Australia's biosecurity system is put to the test every single day. Through the arrival of travellers and aircraft into Australia, the arrival of cargo and vessels, international mail and parcels, and the unregulated movement of wild animals, the wind and the waves. Strong biosecurity is essential to protecting over $90 billion worth of agricultural production and more than $5.7 trillion worth of unique, environmental assets. Strong biosecurity protects our people, our environment, our economy and our lifestyle from the biosecurity threats of today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, there are still those whose actions put all of this at risk, either accidentally or deliberately. Earlier this year Operation Avoca identified one of Australia's largest, single detections of biosecurity risk material. 38 tonnes of risk material was detected by our dedicated, biosecurity officers. That's seven shipping containers worth of unauthorised meat products, turtles, pigs' heads and smallgoods trying to enter the country. Material that could have been harbouring foot and mouth disease, African swine fever, white spot syndrome virus or Xylella (zy-lell-a)—any of which could devastate our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries. As the number of international travellers and the amount of cargo continue to increase, so do the regional and global threats, including FMD and hitchhiker pests like khapra beetle. During the COVID-19 pandemic, non-compliance with Australia's biosecurity laws could have risked the introduction of new COVID-19 variants into our country. This could have had devastating impacts or our public health and our vulnerable population. It is high time to re-evaluate the current penalty regime in the Biosecurity Act in the face of such threats and consequences. Our biosecurity system is strong, but to keep Australia safe, the laws that underpin the system need to remain fit for purpose. This Bill strengthens the Biosecurity Act to enable targeted intervention, better risk management and more proportionate responses. This Bill enables a more intelligence and evidence-based approach to biosecurity risks involving international travellers at our border. In order to properly respond to risks, people must be open and truthful. We must make sure that penalties available under the Biosecurity Act are an effective deterrent to those who would knowingly providing false or misleading information. With stronger penalties, in some cases up to $275,000, we better reflect the seriousness of breaches of the Act and provide a more effective deterrent to non-compliance with biosecurity laws. For lower-level contraventions of the Act, the infringement notice scheme provides an effective method for managing non-compliance. Last December, we passed legislation to create a new class of infringement for deliberate concealment of non-declared goods. This infringement of 20 penalty units, or $5,500, is the highest ever and I congratulate biosecurity officers who have already started exercising it. Whilst this was a big step, the current infringement notice scheme does not cover some provisions that are critical for the management of biosecurity risk. These new infringement notice provisions in the Bill address the current gap in the ability of biosecurity officers to penalise individuals and businesses whose behaviour is less serious but may still have significant consequences for our biosecurity. Big or small, all threats can expose Australia to significant biosecurity risk. These changes in the Bill complement measures in the Albanese Government's 2023-24 Budget to sustainably fund our biosecurity system for the first time. For years we have seen independent reviews and industry groups call for permanent, dedicated biosecurity funding and greater accountability for how that funding is spent. Biosecurity is a shared responsibility and so is paying for it. The sustainable funding model recovers more than ever before from biosecurity risk creators, whether that be importers, international parcels and mail or travellers. The model rebuilds cost recovery to protect taxpayers, increase the contribution from importers and ensure that biosecurity services to industry are efficient and effective. Our sustainable funding model locks in higher and permanent biosecurity funding, along with a fair system to pay for it. Australia's biosecurity system is recognised as among the best in the world. This Bill and our new sustainable funding model will ensure that we maintain our reputation as a supplier of safe, high-quality produce, while protecting our farmers, our economy and our environment from biosecurity risks into the future. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (REGULATOR PERFORMANCE) BILL 2023 The Intellectual Property (IP) system enables Australian businesses to protect and grow trusted brands, supporting economic growth and prosperity. A well-functioning IP system fosters innovation and encourages the development of new ideas. This Bill makes important improvements to the Australian IP system to help ensure it remains modern and fit for purpose. A key measure in the Bill improves the protection of Olympic Games insignia. The Bill will also modernise, streamline and simplify other aspects of the Australian IP system and provide more certainty to Australian businesses as they protect their great ideas. The government has consulted on the amendments contained in this Bill with key stakeholders, including the Australian and International Olympic Committees, who support these changes. The Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 was designed to prevent unauthorised actors profiting from the Olympic movement. Under the Olympic Charter, the Australian Olympic Committee is required to take necessary steps to prohibit illegitimate use of Olympic insignia. However, ambush marketing and other unauthorised use of these insignia detract from the branding and reputation of the games. Protecting the Olympic insignia and restricting its use to the Australian and International Olympic Committees helps protect the Olympic movement and ensure the games generate revenue through sponsorships and licencing arrangements. The Bill amends the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 to make clear that only the Australian and International Olympic Committees can register Olympic insignia as trade marks in Australia. The changes align the wording of the Olympic Insignia Protection Act with the Trade Marks Act 1995, so they work together to prevent the unauthorised registration of trade mark applications containing Olympic insignia. The amendments will also provide greater legal certainty for IP Australia to reject speculative trade mark applications from applicants other than the Australian or International Olympic Committees. Such applications can be made in an attempt to profit from activities associated with the Brisbane Olympic Games. Trade mark applications made in bad faith are often filed years in advance of an Olympic event, so it is important to act now. These amendments will ensure that the Olympics Insignia Protection Act's objectives are met. It is important to note that this only makes changes to who can protect Olympic insignia, making it clear that is limited to the AOC or IOC. It does not change the rules for how these insignia are used, which is to prevent unfair competition in commercial settings. In addition, the Bill amends the Trade Marks Act 1995, saving businesses time and hassle by simplifying processes, increasing procedural fairness, closing gaps and ensuring that government can engage with customers in a modern and flexible way. The Bill will also make changes to streamline the way users interact with parts of the trade marks system. The Bill will also streamline the administration of trade mark renewals by aligning the relevant grace period payments to a consistent 6-month duration. Currently, in exceptional circumstances where a trade mark application is still pending after 10 years, the available grace period for paying a renewal fee is up to 10 months after the renewal is due. The amendment changes the grace period for this situation to 6 months, aligning with the grace period for renewal fee payments under normal circumstances. This amendment will provide consistency across all trade mark renewal due dates. This will also ensure that trade mark registrations that are no longer active can be removed in a timely way. This will improve certainty and simplify processes for trade mark owners. The Bill will also clarify requirements to revoke a trade mark registration to ensure procedural fairness for all trade mark owners. The amendments simplify and clarifies provisions dealing with revocation of the registration of a trade mark, where a component of a notice of opposition to registration of that trade mark has been overlooked. After a trade mark is accepted by IP Australia, it can be opposed—for example, by a competitor. This opposition process consists of multiple steps. If one of these steps is overlooked, or if the opponent needs an extension of time to complete one of these steps, the trade mark application might proceed to registration in error. This amendment ensures that a trade mark registered in error in these circumstances can be revoked and the opposition will resume. This will allow a fair process for both sides. The provisions for revoking registration in those circumstances will by aligned with other current oppositions processes before IP Australia. The Bill will implement safeguards to protect a trade mark owner who needs an extension of time to provide evidence to help them defend against removal of their trade mark for non-use. Under the Trade Marks Act, third parties can apply for trade mark registrations to be removed if they have not been used. Trade marks can be defended against these non-use removals, usually by their owners. If a due date is missed in one of these non-use proceedings, the trade mark may be removed from the Register of Trade Marks. Under the current Act, that removal is irrevocable in some circumstances. So even if an owner is entitled to an extension of time, they cannot defend their registration. This amendment clarifies provisions to enable restoration of a trade mark registration where an owner missed the deadline to respond to a type of opposition, but is later granted an extension of time to respond. The amendment means an owner can continue to defend their registration if they miss a due date but are eligible for an extension of time. This will give trade mark owners a fair opportunity to present their case. The Bill will modernise the way crucial information about the status of trade marks is communicated publicly. Currently, the government is required to use an Official Journal to communicate trade marks information. However, the world has changed, and IP Australia now publishes this same information on its website and through an online search portal which is easier to access and keep up to date. These amendments will remove the old-fashioned restrictions requiring the printed journal to be maintained and allow the government to communicate such information through up-to-date, user-friendly technology. Benefiting business by providing a single, current source of official trade mark information through a modern online search portal. Moving to format-neutral provisions will reduce duplication and future-proof the administration of the IP system and enable us to deliver trade mark information in an accessible way for users, when and how they want it. Finally, the Bill makes one minor amendment to the Patents Act 1990 to repeal transitional provisions. These provisions apply to patents granted under the previous Patents Act 1952. The last patent protected under the 1952 Act expired in February 2016, and the six-year statutory limitations period on actions for infringement under that Act expired in February 2022. Therefore, these provisions will cease to serve any purpose and will be redundant. This is good regulatory practice and helps to streamline the patents system. I am pleased to introduce this Bill, which will provide legal certainty ahead of the 2032 Olympics, as well as ensure our IP system is fit for purpose in supporting Australian business to innovate and grow. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2023 LAW IMPROVEMENT PACKAGE NO. 1) BILL 2023 This Bill contains measures designed to maintain and improve Treasury portfolio legislation to ensure it remains current and fit-for-purpose. Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the Bill make amendments to implement recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) in Interim Reports A and B of its Review of the Legislative Frameworks for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation. The ALRC recommended a number of technical amendments and corrections to simplify the law and improve its navigability. It suggested that these be implemented in advance of the release of its final report in November 2023. The amendments: • unfreeze the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so the current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001; • create a single glossary of defined terms in the Corporations Act; • repeal redundant provisions, correct errors; and • improve clarity. Schedule 4 to the Bill makes amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, Life Insurance Act 1995 and Insurance Act 1973. Those Acts are the enabling Acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry that are due to sunset on 1 October 2023. The purpose of the Acts is to protect policyholders by regulating the types of persons that may carry on insurance businesses and prescribe standards to ensure the prudent management of the insurance industry. The amendments will help to ensure that the sunsetting insurance instruments that are being re-made will be up to date and fit for purpose. The amendments in Schedule 4 to the Bill: • update certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices; • allow regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility and align with modern drafting practices; and • move some provisions in the insurance instruments into primary legislation. Schedule 5 to the Bill transfers longstanding and accepted matters currently contained in three Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)-made legislative instruments to the Corporations Actand the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. For a long time, ASIC has relied on its exemption and modification powers under the enabling Acts to update the law for changing circumstances. Such instruments make notional amendments to the primary law, which may make it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. The amendments will move the operation of the legislative instruments into the primary law to improve the clarity of the law, provide certainty, and make it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations. Schedule 6 to the Bill amends various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure those laws operate in accordance with policy intent, make minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and remedy unintended consequences, as well as correcting technical and drafting defects. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the Bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2023 MEASURES NO. 3) BILL 2023 This Bill will improve integrity in consumer markets for credit products, remove barriers for financial advisers, and support competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities. Schedule 1 to the Bill introduces new rules that prohibit schemes designed to avoid the application of a product intervention order made under Part 7.9A of the Corporations Act 2001, in relation to a credit facility. Safe, well-regulated consumer markets for credit products are a core element of a strong and inclusive economy. That is why the Australian Government introduced reforms to the regulation of payday lending and consumer leases through the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022. These changes, which were long overdue, gave effect to the government's response to the recommendations of the 2016 Review of Small Amount Credit Contract Laws, which included a recommendation to introduce laws to prohibit avoidance behaviour. The Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 introduced anti-avoidance provisions with respect to Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) product intervention orders made under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, and this Bill extends these provisions to product intervention orders made under the Corporations Act 2001. ASIC has made several product intervention orders under the Corporations Act 2001 targeting predatory lending products causing significant consumer harm. Product intervention orders allow ASIC to temporarily intervene in a range of ways up to, when necessary, banning financial products and credit products when there is a risk of significant consumer detriment. By bringing the anti-avoidance provisions in the Corporations Act into line with those in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, this amendment will ensure that predatory lenders cannot respond to a product intervention order by engaging in avoidance activity that is not covered by the order but results in similar detriment to consumers. Schedule 2 to the Bill delivers the Government's election commitment to remove the education requirements for experienced financial advisers who have 10 years' experience and a clean record, who have passed the financial advisers exam. Schedule 2 also addresses technical limitations in the education requirements for new entrants into the financial advice profession and financial advisers who are registered tax agents. Together, these amendments address practical implementation issues faced by financial advisers. By better recognising the experience of long-serving financial advisers, the Government is providing a pathway for experienced advisers to remain in the industry. This means new entrants have the benefit of their experience through mentoring and supervision. It also means more Australians have access to financial advice. The Government is committed to an advice industry with strong professional standards that gives Australians access to high quality financial advice and to do this by not creating unnecessary barriers to entry, ensuring financial advice remains a career of choice. Schedule 3 to the Bill implements amendments to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the Corporations Act 2001, and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to facilitate competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities traded in Australia, and to ensure that, should competition emerge for these services, it is safe and effective. These amendments implement recommendations of the Council of Financial Regulators, which considered issues relating to competition in the clearing and settlement of cash equities in 2012, 2015, and 2017. To do so, Schedule 3 introduces a rule-making power for ASIC and an arbitration power for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The rule-making power will allow ASIC to make rules applicable to clearing and settlement facility licensees, their associated entities, and other persons specified by regulations, about their activities, conduct, or governance in relation to clearing and settlement services covered by a Ministerial Determination. ASIC will be empowered to make rules to implement the Council of Financial Regulator's policy statements in both a monopoly or a competitive environment. This flexibility will allow ASIC to adjust regulatory settings where a committed competitor for the provision of clearing and settlement services emerges to ensure that competition is safe and effective. In the interim, ASIC will be able to make rules enforcing the Council of Financial Regulator's regulatory expectations for the monopoly provision of clearing and settlement services. The arbitration power will allow the ACCC to arbitrate disputes about the terms and conditions of access to clearing and settlement services subject to a Ministerial Declaration. The Government expects this Declaration will only cover certain clearing and settlement services provided under monopoly conditions, or where a provider exerts significant market power. Once competition is effective for those clearing and settlement services, the Government expects that the Ministerial Declaration would be repealed in respect of those competitive services. Until then, this arbitration regime will provide an important backstop for entities seeking access to clearing and settlement facility infrastructure where good-faith negotiations have broken down. Schedule 4 to the Bill makes a number of technical changes to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to improve the operation of the First Home Super Saver Scheme so that it works better for first home buyers. Currently, the legislation underpinning the First Home Super Saver Scheme is inflexible and can result in a poor user experience with the scheme, including users having their savings for their first home locked away until retirement. The changes will better enable mistakes made during the First Home Super Saver Scheme release process to be fixed without adverse financial outcomes for users of the scheme. To do so, Schedule 4 will increase the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation to amend and revoke applications to have funds released under the First Home Super Saver Scheme, and will allow individuals to do the same, without those individuals being prevented from re-applying in the future. Importantly, these changes will apply to eligible applications made from 1 July 2018. This helps ensure users of the scheme who have not been paid any of their FHSSS savings due to an error in the application process can access the money they saved to purchase their first home. Schedule 4 also includes special transitional provisions which extend the flexibility provided by the amendments to eligible users who previously unsuccessfully applied to have savings released under the scheme and have since started holding a relevant interest in real property or land. The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was notified in relation to the amendments made in Schedules 1 and 2 to this Bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Senator WATT 245759 I move: That debate be now adjourned the bills be listed as separate orders of the day. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 132 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 132 Membership 132 Community Affairs References Committee 132 Reference 132 18:45 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland This is the third time that I've raised this issue in this parliament, about having a Senate inquiry into gender dysphoria, and I've stated my reasons why. In Senator Birmingham's speech, the main fact was that they're relying on a letter that Mr Greg Hunt, the former health minister, received from the Royal Australian College of Physicians. In 2019, the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists wrote to Mr Hunt requesting an inquiry into this issue. In March 2020, apparently the Royal Australian College of Physicians wrote to Mr Hunt rejecting the need for a national review into gender-affirming medicine and said that to withhold care from children and adolescents would be unethical. That was actually the comment that Senator Birmingham referred to in his speech, and that was his reason for blocking this whole inquiry. We're talking about more than three years ago. Since then, we have actually had further information. I have here and article from the Australian titled 'Endocrinologists' challenge to the medical transition of gender-questioning children silenced by medical college.' This was by Natasha Robinson, the health editor, and it came out in July 2023. It's just very recent: The medical affairs committee of the nation's peak endocrinology society opposed the prescription of hormones to children and expressed deep reservations over the lack of evidence underpinning transgender affirmative medicine standards of care adopted by children's hospitals in explosive advice to a peak medical college. The Medical Affairs Committee of the Endocrine Society of Australia—a subspeciality college of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians—did not support the endorsement of gender-affirmative standards of care developed by influential doctors at the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, pointing to concerns about the lack of evidence behind practices including placing children on puberty blockers at a very young age. The views of the ESA's medical affairs committee are contained in a letter to the RACP, which in late 2019 was consulting the profession at the request of then health minister Greg Hunt who had requested advice on the treatment of gender dysphoria in children and adolescents. The ESA's letter reporting the position of its medical affairs committee advised that, after examining RCH policy documents, the specialist endocrinologists who made up the committee did not support giving puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to children and raised concerns that the effects of puberty blockers were not reversible. Here we have, from Telfer and Tollit in the MJA: Oestrogen and testosterone are used to either feminise or masculinise a person's appearance by inducing the onset of secondary sexual characteristics of the desired gender. Some of the effects of these medications are irreversible… There's evidence here, as people are saying. This is Coleman, Radix and W P Bouman, 'Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People'. They say, 'Other changes will be permanent such as "male-pattern" baldness, genital growth, and facial hair growth in nonbinary people…' Then you have other things that will happen. People on these cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers can have reduced bone density, impaired fertility, and impaired sexual function and libido. It goes on to say that it also indicates 'potential negative impacts on brain development and possibly increased risk of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, obesity, high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes'. The fact is there is evidence coming out now that this is not good for children. We must have this inquiry. It's not legislation I'm putting up here. I'm asking for an inquiry because parents want answers. These parents are crying out because they've seen what their children are going through, and you're blocking it here. People have a right to have a say. It turns my stomach when I see that you're fighting for an Indigenous Voice to this parliament. You want them to be heard but you are shutting out the parents in this nation from having a say. Senator McKim, I'm happy for him and Jasper. He's had what he wants to have done—that's great. But the fact is you have to look at the other parents out there who have knocked on our doors to say, 'We have to have an in inquiry because this is the damage it's done to my children.' Are we just blocking them out because it worked for someone else? But it doesn't work for everyone. There is not enough evidence to say that their mental stability is really investigated before they are given this. I have letters here from the mothers. Naomi says, 'My adult son is a very unwell young man. He has suffered with functional neurological disorder, depression and anxiety, and has been under the care of the psychiatrist since 2015. He has dissociative episodes, full-body seizures, limb weakness and fatigue.' Last year, he went to a GP, Dr Rhys Young, who, after an hour consultation and without any reference to psychiatrist records, prescribed her son with gender-altering medication under the informed consent model. Her son now has shrunken testicles, has breasts and has lost any possibility of ever fathering children. The mother says everyone, including medical specialists, seem to be scared to speak out for fear of being labelled 'transphobic'. She says, 'I'm just a mum fighting to keep my son alive.' That's a problem—if people disagree with you, you have to name call all the time. You use the word 'transphobic'; it has nothing to do with it. I won't be shut down and neither will the mothers because I will keep raising this until we get common sense in this place. There is another one here. Jude's daughter, aged 17 at the time, came out as transgender in October 2018 after three years of poor mental health, including diagnoses of anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder. This was completely out of the blue. She had never shown any masculine tendencies in her life. The week she declared she was transgender she claimed she was suicidal and ended up in the adolescent mental health ward of the local hospital, John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle, New South Wales. Hospital staff immediately affirmed her transgender identity upon her admission without question. The hospital staff then said they were referring her to the hospital paediatric endocrinologist, Dr Prudence Lopez, for testosterone. She was 17. Jude says, 'We told them we didn't agree to the referral and that we were going back to a private practitioner and psychiatrist.' Her daughter spent five nights in hospital and was then discharged. Her daughter then turned 18 a month after the hospital admission, and the endocrinologist put her on testosterone at the second appointment in March 2019. She has pretty much spent two years in bed, dropped out of her school, does not work and does not study. In October 2020, we found that she was seeing a plastic surgeon in Newcastle to have her breasts cut off. She has since been diagnosed with complete PTSD from childhood bullying, autism spectrum disorder as well as ADHD. There are more stories here I can tell you about, and it's constant all the time. But all you're worried about and all I'm hearing here is that Senator Birmingham said, 'Well, we don't want to upset these people by having an inquiry, and we don't want the media in here listening to these stories and what people might say.' Then I moved the amendment, which was supported by this chamber, so that it can be in camera. So we don't have to upset these people, it can be in camera—the privacy of the lot. So why don't we give the people of this nation an opportunity? I know the Libs have got a conscience vote, but Labor no. I'll appeal to those people on the other side: we are actually talking about the children of this nation and about parents that just want a voice to be heard to tell you their stories of what is happening so common sense can prevail. This all started in 2013, when changes were passed to the Sex Discrimination Act. Under that act, you can't discriminate against anyone based on their gender or anything like that. That's where this is all coming from. Everyone is frightened—doctors, psychiatrists and everyone—of discrimination. You shut down doctors like Jillian Spencer, who actually was under threat of losing her job because she knows the problems here. She's been shut down from having a say. Do you reckon we're doing the right thing by our people, by the children? A lot of these children, if you look at it, have autism and are being bullied in school, and a lot of these kids are lost because they don't have their parents at home to guide them as well. These kids are actually suicidal, or they want attention from their peers, and this is being put in their heads by idiots out there that are saying, 'You've got a problem.' These kids may have a problem that they really don't understand. Maybe they are attracted to their own sex, but the fact is that isn't to say that we need to allow them to mutilate their bodies at such a young age. If they are inclined to be gay, let them grow till 18, until they find out, go through puberty and understand who they are as a person, without allowing them—just because they're screaming out for attention from their parents, from their teachers, from their peers, from whoever—to get onto these sex hormones and these other changes that will ruin them for the rest of their lives. There are kids that are left in beds, dormant—absolutely destroyed. These puberty blockers can never change. These sex hormone treatments can never change, and then they regret. I have mothers in my office crying, absolutely at a loss, because they've lost their children. When they've gone to seek that medical care and attention, they've lost their rights, because as soon as the child says they're suicidal, they're taken out of the care of their parents, and they will actually start being given these bloody drugs. They don't even take a mental assessment of them—the children are not assessed. They don't understand the background as parents do. But you're shutting the door on these parents having their say. They deserve more than that. I'm pleading with this chamber: please, just think what you are going to do. These people need help. They need us to just hear what they have to say. What are you so afraid of? Why aren't you prepared to listen to what evidence may be put before us? Why aren't you prepared to listen to it? Why are you just shutting it out? What is your problem? Is it because you might be called transphobic? Is that really the bottom line? Because that's all I can see. Senator Birmingham, I put to you: it is going to be in camera. You have no reason to deny there being a hearing into this, no reason whatsoever, so I'm asking you on behalf of the parents and the children of this nation: allow this inquiry to go ahead. I'm appealing to the Labor Party as well. Give these kids a chance. Let them be heard, let their parents be heard, then make your minds up and make a decision. That's our job. This is the third time, and I'll tell you something: if you want to vote this down, I will not let it go. I will keep going and going and going. As more evidence comes out that you've turned a blind eye to it and as more evidence comes out that proves that these puberty blockers and sex hormones are actually changing and destroying these children, I will not let it go. I will keep fighting for them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the motion moved by the leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, Senator Hanson, be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that, because it is past 6.30 pm, there will be no division this evening. The matter will be put as a deferred vote tomorrow. The debate is adjourned accordingly. BILLS 135 BILLS Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 135

Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 135 19:01 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to contribute to the debate on the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. The coalition has been constructive in the establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia. We supported the first tranche of legislation, but we will not support the second tranche if the amendments we move are not supported by the Senate. This legislation finalises the governance arrangements for the agency, along with providing for a commissioner to head the agency with two deputy commissioners. Whilst these may seem like perfunctory steps to finalise the body's establishment, they are anything but. As always, the devil is in the detail. The coalition supports Jobs and Skills Australia, but if this legislation passes, we feel the balance on the advisory board will not adequately represent different types of businesses in our economy. This legislation seeks to institute a model which is a far cry from the original model that Anthony Albanese promised Australians. In one of the now Prime Minister's first policy announcements as opposition leader, this is what he said: Jobs and Skills Australia will be a genuine partnership across all sectors—business leaders, both large and small; State and Territory governments; unions; education providers; and those who understand particular regions. … … … It will be legislated, just as Infrastructure Australia was in 2008. I'm looking forward to seeing that bill before the Senate sometime soon. He also said: I see Jobs and Skills Australia as the basis of a new compact. This was the Prime Minister on his former capacity: As Infrastructure Minister, I established Infrastructure Australia. And it worked. I envisage a similar model for Jobs and Skills Australia. A collaborative model to guide investment in human capital, just as Infrastructure Australia guides investment in physical capital. But does this statement match up to the legislation we see before us today? No, it does not. The model that the Prime Minister promised Australians is not the model that is now being proposed and is before the Senate. Jobs and Skills Australia will remain within the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. This new agency will be reactive to ministerial directions, rather than being a proactive, independent agency assessing Australia's workforce and skills requirements, as outlined by the Prime Minister prior to his election as Prime Minister. Whatever the government may say, this is not what the Australian people were promised. The coalition has raised these concerns with the government and with the minister's office. Did they abandon their promise because this model would deliver better outcomes? No. Is this model informed by expert advice or stakeholder input? No. Labor are breaking their promise because they can't manage the budget. What a surprise! The Labor government cannot find the money to properly fund what Australians were promised, which was a game-changing and independent workforce agency. This is simply just another broken promise by Anthony Albanese. Jobs and Skills Australia will be charged with identifying skills needs across the economy and developing policy responses to build Australia's workforce. It will play a key role in advising Australia's migration program as well as provide advice about how to reform our skills and education systems. This is important work and the board must be balanced to properly reflect the different types of employers and stakeholders. We also do not believe two years is appropriate when it comes to reviewing this agency and its performance. Therefore, we will move an amendment, which I foreshadow in this speech, to remove the mandating of four members of employee organisations on the ministerial advisory board of Jobs and Skills Australia. We will also move an amendment to mandate the inclusion on the ministerial advisory board of a small-business representative and two rural, regional and remote representatives. We will also seek to move an amendment to ensure that each state and territory is represented on the ministerial advisory board—that is to say that there is someone from each state and territory represented on the board. These changes will deliver a more balanced board. Under these arrangements, the government will still be able to appoint officials from employee organisations as general members of the board, but they will not be earmarked specifically for them. We will also move an amendment to mandate the commencement of an independent review into the operation of the act no later than 12 months after the commencement of that section. If we do not gain support for our amendments, we will oppose the bill. These are sensible and minor changes. I would argue they would actually help the Prime Minister fulfil his original vision for this agency. I hope that the government and crossbench senators will support these amendments so that we can land on a better balance in the interests of the whole sector. 19:06 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. Last year the government established Jobs and Skills Australia, JSA, and the Greens worked with Labor to ensure that JSA's functions included advising on opportunities to improve employment, vocational education and training and higher education outcomes for disadvantaged cohorts, including First Nations people, people of colour, women and people with a disability. This was a really important move towards making sure employment and training opportunities were afforded to those who have historically experienced labour market disadvantage and exclusion. We also secured amendments to ensure that Jobs and Skills Australia is required to advise on pathways into vocational education and training and pathways between vocational education and training and higher education. This bill amends the Jobs and Skills Australia Act 2022 to establish the permanent governance arrangements and functions of JSA. The bill renames the existing position of 'JSA director' to 'JSA commissioner' and provides for the appointment of up to two JSA deputy commissioners to assist the commissioner. It also creates a ministerial advisory board to advise the minister and the JSA commissioner in relation to the performance of JSA's functions. Finally, the bill expands the functions of JSA. The Greens support this bill, but we will be moving amendments to strengthen JSA's functions in relation to outcomes for marginalised groups. Importantly, we also worked with the government to ensure that, in performing its functions, Jobs and Skills Australia consults more broadly, including with bodies representing First Nations people and migrants, because these cohorts deserve a place at the table. They have been locked out for far too long and have the right to a seat at the table. We are pleased to see that these functions remain in this bill and, therefore, make up the permanent functions of Jobs and Skills Australia. In addition, lived experience will be one the factors that makes a member eligible for appointment to the ministerial advisory board. Equity and inclusion of diversity must be a key focus in any advice or reports prepared by JSA. And JSA must prioritise the experiences of women, First Nations people, people of colour, people with a disability, LGBTQIA+ people, long-term unemployed, migrants, unpaid carers and those in rural and regional areas. These cohorts face discrimination and marginalisation, and prioritising them means the JSA's work should include measuring current outcomes in relation to access to training opportunities and secure, well-paid employment with fair conditions. Clear and measurable targets should be set to improve these outcomes, with a particular focus on improving the access of priority cohorts to occupations where they are currently underrepresented and closing pay gaps for all priority cohorts. I will be moving a Greens amendment to make sure that is part of JSA's expanded functions. I understand that the government will support this amendment, and I thank Mr O'Connor and his office for working with us on this. We will, though, be keeping a very close eye on the development of these targets and the progress towards meeting them. In performing its main function of advising the Minister for Skills and Training and the department on the current and emerging labour market, including workforce needs and priorities, JSA should include consideration of the quality of jobs available and what needs to be done to improve jobs, particularly for the priority cohorts I mentioned. JSA should also provide advice on reversing casualisation and how to ensure the jobs are secure, ongoing and well-paid. Clear and measurable targets should be set for high rates of secure work, with fair conditions across all sectors, because, as we all know, casual work has been a scourge in Australia for far too long. Many workers are effectively working full-time yet being denied the security and the benefits of a permanent job, including paid leave or even a clear roster. Casual work and job insecurity have meant that even many workers are living below the poverty line. The JSA should have a role in reversing this trend of casualisation and delivering workers a fairer deal. This also means that secure, long-term jobs for TAFE teachers and staff should be the norm, not an exception. Again, we believe that there should be clear and measurable targets set for high rates of secure work with fair conditions across the TAFE sector. I want to use this opportunity to give a heartfelt thank you, from the bottom of my heart, to TAFE teachers and staff for the incredible work that they continue to do for the students, for the community and to promote public education. I hear so often from TAFE students who get so much out of the education and training that TAFE teachers and staff are so committed to. They do this work despite the fact that government after government has not only refused to adequately fund our TAFEs but have gutted the public vocational education and training system. The Greens very strongly believe that TAFE should be the first priority for all federal funding for vocational education and training. Contestable funding is a national shame. There should be no government funding for providers that operate for private profits. Education is a public good. It should never be for profit. We need to recognise that the labour and skills shortages we are currently experiencing are partly the consequence of successive governments decimating the TAFE system—making education and training a bidding war between public and private providers, while removing essential funding from an already starving system. The fee-free places Labor has announced are welcome as it means that these students will not incur debt just to study, but this opportunity should be afforded to all TAFE students and to all university students, so all fees should be abolished. The benefits of free TAFE, like free education at any and every level, extend well beyond the individual, benefiting society as a whole. The Greens will continue to push for this as well as for increases to youth allowance and other income support payments to above the poverty line. It is completely unconscionable that our government is banking $20 billion in surplus and giving $313 billion to the wealthiest while leaving so many people to suffer and struggle under poverty. TAFE should be free, fully funded and properly resourced, with staff who are well-paid, valued and respected for the absolutely incredible work that they do every single day. Our second reading amendment therefore urges the government to recognise that education is a public good and to enshrine TAFE as the vocational education and training provider of choice. I foreshadow Senator Thorpe's second reading amendment on sheet 2045, and I move the Greens's second reading amendment on sheet 2009: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to: (a) ensure that TAFE is fully funded, free and properly resourced; (b) ensure that TAFE staff have secure, well-paid jobs and are valued and respected for the incredible work they do; and (c) enshrine TAFE as the vocational education and training provider of choice". 19:15 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak in support of the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. This bill confirms the ongoing model for Jobs and Skills Australia and finalises essential functions and governance arrangements. The work of Jobs and Skills Australia is well underway so that it can effectively address Australia's current labour supply shortages and work to develop solutions for our future skills and training needs. Jobs and Skills Australia is already working to fulfil its important mandate through researching workforce trends and providing impartial advice about what skills are needed now and what skills will be needed for our labour market well into the future. Jobs and Skills Australia is taking an economy-wide approach to meeting Australia's skills and workforce challenges. It will be examining higher education, migration settings and of course vocational education and training. The VET system that we inherited from the previous government is a smouldering wreck. Under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments we saw a war on TAFE and a war on apprentices. Between 2012 and 2020 VET funding per student was slashed from $461 to $346. That is a funding cut of 25 per cent. That intentional attack on skills and training funding in this country by the Liberals and Nationals directly fed the skilled labour shortages we've seen over the past number of years. We've seen the shocking decline of TAFE student numbers, down 27 per cent over the last decade. We inherited a situation where between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of TAFE teachers are stuck on casual contracts, which means the best and the brightest are not being retained, and the challenge is that those that are staying because of their wonderful dedication are being poorly treated. This is one of the underreported scandals of the decade of Liberal and National governments. With the full-on assault on our TAFE and apprentices, we inherited a situation where there are 70,000 fewer apprentices in training today than there were in 2013. In summary, we have a massive 25 per cent cut in funding, we've had an assault on working condition of TAFE teachers leading to quality and retention issues and we've seen plummeting apprenticeship numbers. Is it a disgraceful situation, and a situation this government has committed to addressing urgently. I want to commend the fast work of the Minister for Skills and Training, Brendan O'Connor, who has acted quickly to address this crisis. Already we have funded 480,000 fee-free TAFE places to get Australians back into the skills system. That is a life-changing policy for almost half a million Australians. Not only does it increase their skills and increase their earning potential, but it also increases productivity across the economy. It means that Australian workers are learning the skills they need for the jobs of the future. It means increasing our pool of skilled labour to deal with the housing crisis and the climate crisis. The fact is that we have had a lost decade where skills and training funding was slashed and burned, and that's an outrage. It means that today we are playing catch-up. Setting up a statutory body to specifically examine and advise on Australian skills and training systems couldn't come quickly enough. Australia has this second-highest labour supply shortage across all OECD countries. The OECD says three million Australians lack the fundamental skills required to participate in training and work. Of the 20 occupations in demand, seven have a shortage that is primary driven by a lack of people with the required skills. These are worrying statistics. Skills and training not only impact the economy and productivity but also affect all of us. Now there needs to be considerable planning for Australia to respond to future skills and training needs, and planning and delivering these to happen in collaboration with those working and representing Australian industries. It needs to happen through close collaboration and effective discussions between governments, employers and employees. To that point, Jobs and Skills Australia employs a tripartite model. For those opposite who don't know what that means, it means a joint, balanced governance model between governments, employer representatives and employee representatives. It's a model that works well in national and multinational systems around the world. I strongly support the focus of Jobs and Skills Australia to embed a tripartite approach. Jobs and Skills Australia will work in partnership with state and territory governments, with business and industry leaders, with unions and with education and training providers. Establishing a ministerial advisory board and appointing an equal number of representatives from employer and employee organisations will mean that important voices are heard. When you bring together the right representatives from governments, employers and employees to talk about shared challenges and to create potential solutions, both the economy and the labour market benefit. Scott Connolly, a former assistant secretary of the ACTU and now a commissioner at the Fair Work Commission, said in evidence to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee when it examined this bill: We can't say we have a tripartite system and then not have one. I think the fundamental problem … and one of the mistakes we've made historically … is the removal of union voices from this system. That's been addressed by this government, and it's been addressed with the full support— listen to this, 'full support'— of industry. We think that's appropriate, and to step away from that would be to remake the mistakes of the past. The formation of Jobs and Skills Australia and it's defined tripartite nature has also received strong support from Australian business and industry groups. During examination of the bill on 17 April 2023—I put this again to those opposite. I know you won't listen to any union voices. You won't listen to those millions of people who decide that they want to have a voice in their workplace and in the decisions made in their workplaces about the things that affect their workplaces. But listen to the Business Council of Australia and see what you think about them. On 17 April 2023, they said: The BCA welcomes the tripartite approach, and we note that there are three representatives from employer organisations and from employee organisations. Senator McKenzie 207825 Big unions and big business. Senator SHELDON 168275 We've had an interjection about that. They've got it wrong, those opposite are telling us. On the same day, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said—let's see if those opposite think they've got it wrong as well: … from the very beginning—when the Prime Minister was opposition leader he stated that he had a vision for Jobs and Skills Australia and that it would be a tripartite organisation. ACCI has always worked on that basis, that that would be the final form of the organisation, so we support that. The only ones opposed to that are those opposite. I want to highlight a great example of what can happen when employers and unions get together to develop, implement and evolve training opportunities by industry for industry. I recently visited the Plumbing Industry Climate Action Centre campus at Glenwood in Sydney. This centre is an industry-led organisation that works in a supported partnership with government, employer and employee groups to develop and implement training that benefits the whole industry. At its opening in May 2021, the state secretary of the New South Wales Plumbers and Pipe Trades Employees Union, Theo Samartzopoulos, said: The centre demonstrates the commitment of our industries to maintaining the highest standards and creating futureproofed jobs for the community. This organisation, which started in Victoria in 2009, now has five facilities that effectively respond to the needs of industry while also working closely with state governments. The centre is jointly administered by the plumbers union—those opposite would be worried about that because that's people having a voice. But how about these ones? Do you think they're in the naughty corner as well? The Master Plumbers Association—it's okay, they're employers; the National Fire Industry Association, who are employers too; and the Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors Association, who are also employers. They are all part of a tripartite approach to make sure they can lift the standards of training and skilling within industry. The first facility opened in Brunswick, in Victoria, with the primary purpose of providing industry with courses in green plumbing to address an identified skill shortage in sustainable plumbing within the industry. The centre has evolved and now offers courses for the entire career life cycle of plumbing, from pre-apprenticeship courses to post trade courses, including industry-specific work and health and safety for the industry. The centres have expanded across Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. In addition, they raised funds from levies and enterprise agreements. Listen to this: employers, the workforce and their representatives in the union came to an agreement, through their enterprise agreements, that they would raise funds. The Queensland government has also provided support to diversify leverage partnerships to aid in developing skills and training for the hydrogen industry. So they're actually thinking about the way forward. That's what happens when you do things tripartite—everybody works together for the common good. But those on the opposite side don't like that; they want conflict constantly, because anything other than that doesn't serve their political purpose. At the heart of this purpose is to drive collaboration between employers and unions to ensure that workers, industries and communities, including in the National Net Zero Authority, which has powered Australia for generations, can seize the opportunities for Australia's net zero transformation. I also want to congratulate Michael Wright, the national secretary, and Allen Hicks, the New South Wales secretary of the Electrical Trades Union. I know how hard they have worked to ensure that working people in the energy sector have their voices heard as the energy mix changes. It's absolutely non-negotiable that communities working in the energy sector have access to new employment opportunities and that those are secure and fairly paid jobs. It's also pleasing that this government is reinvigorating effective industry engagement in the VET system through establishing jobs and skills councils. These jobs and skills councils are providing industry with a stronger, more strategic voice, ensuring Australia's VET sector delivers strong outcomes for both learners and employers. In doing so, we'll ensure Australians can learn new skills and innovative and creative new knowledge, which will improve productivity, increase future economic growth and meet the skill needs of today and tomorrow. Supporting training by industry for industry, as will be the case with the establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia, is in stark contrast with what we saw from those opposite during the time that they were in government. With no surprise, the former government didn't believe in broad consultation or collaboration or representative groups, like trade unions, in Australia's VET system. The former government proposed clusters model was an absolute sham. Instead of building opportunities for collaboration on Australia's skills and training system, they wanted to shut the voice of working people and industry further out. Rather than listen to workers and their representatives, the Liberal government prioritised listening to shonky private training organisations. They're not all shonky. But, I'll tell you what, the former government listened to a hell of a lot of them. That's why those opposite failed this country. What did they do to deliver for working people? We've got to think about what they actually did and how they delivered the training system they put forward? They delivered a standing program—and everyone should really be considering this one. It's like grilled hamburger university, where so-called apprentices, trainees, were paid as little as $14.95 an hour to work in a fast-food chain with no proper training and no skilling, just cheap labour. That's the previous government's grand plan for our VET sector—cheap and nasty and without productivity. Rip them off, take advantage of them—that's the system they want to apply. It's incredibly important that we take care of our TAFEs and our apprentices and that the disgraceful data we've had to date over the past decade is turned around. Those opposite should get out of the way and let us clean up this mess and support this bill. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 140 ADJOURNMENT Housing 140 19:29 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise this evening to discuss the Housing Australia Future Fund, a policy we took to the last election—and at that election we actually won. I know those opposite don't understand the meaning of 'liberal' or 'conservative' anymore, but, to those opposite who still believe in principles of strong representative government: why don't you support this bill, or at least these principles, and allow the government to get on with delivering for the Australian people? I note that the Greens also, for weeks and months now, won't get out of the way and let the government pass these reforms to solve the housing supply problem, to help ease homelessness and address that crisis across our communities, with our states and our territories. The idea that governments can be formed in the House of Representatives, and mandates will not be supported by those opposite and minor parties, displays how our democracy is weakened by those opposite and the Greens. People lose faith in politicians when they stand in the way of good policy, policy which would ensure the build of 30,000 extra homes across this country, with up to 1,200 as a start in my home state of Tasmania. Those opposite come into this place pretending that they didn't lose the last election, pretending that in some parallel universe they are still in government. The reality is very different. We see the arrogance of the Liberals and the Greens, who will clearly do whatever dirty deals they need to do to destabilise our democracy and our government, which is trying to achieve good policy outcomes for the people of Australia. We really have reached a new age in politics in this country, a reckless age of wreckers who are taking deliberate action to feed their base, politically, off the stalemate that they have created. They are doing this at a cost to those who need social and affordable housing. They're doing this at a cost to those people who are homeless. They are doing it at a cost to those families that are living in their cars in car parks and in parks. They're doing this at a cost to those people who are living in tents in showgrounds and outside courts in my home city of Launceston. The Greens party's base are warriors who want to live in utopia. It's either their way or you get on the highway. That's the Greens way, and that's why they are still trying to frustrate this government, because they really don't care too much. If they really had concerns for social and affordable housing and the need that we have in this country to address the growing epidemic of homeless people, then they would support this legislation. But they're driven by their own political survival and rank political opportunism. All they're about is increasing their own political base, at the expense of those who need this support the most. It has been a very cold winter. It continues to be. But, the longer those opposite and the Greens stall, the longer Australians—and, in particular, my fellow Tasmanians—will go without a secure place to call home. I am at a loss in terms of the tactics of those opposite and the Greens. We have a majority in the House of Representatives. We have a mandate for the Housing Australia Future Fund, and yet there is no respect at all for that mandate. I call on those opposite and the Greens to rethink and put the Australian people who are most vulnerable and are homeless before their own political self-interest. I get very emotional about this, because it's quite disgusting that those opposite and the Greens would put their own self-interest above everyone else. But I want to give a big shout-out in relation to another initiative that we have delivered in my home city of Launceston, with the urgent care clinic opening on 31 July in Launceston, giving anyone who turns up—seven days a week, with extended hours of operating—the opportunity to see a doctor. The only card that they need to access that good health care will be their Medicare card. I know that those people who are really interested in providing better outcomes for all Australians—and, in particular, those of my colleagues that are in this place listening to me—know that we can do so much more around delivering better health, which is what the Albanese Labor government is doing, unlike the state Liberal Party government in Tasmania, who are running the health system and workers into the ground. Transgender Athletes in Sport 140 19:34 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Last night I had the pleasure of speaking with one of the world's best-known defenders of women's sport, the champion British swimmer Sharon Davis. Sharon knows better than most the devastating impact of unfairness in sport. At the 1980 Olympic Games she was denied an Olympic gold medal by an East German swimmer taking steroids as part of a state-sponsored doping program. The women competing at the 1980 Olympics knew what they were up against. They knew they weren't competing on a level playing field. As Sharon said, 'Not a single person in authority raised a red flag or fought for us'. Fast forward four decades and, yet again, those in authority have turned a blind eye to women in sport being forced to play on an unfair field. Almost everybody knows, whether they say so publicly or not, that it is unfair for males to compete in women's sport. For a number of years, however, those who were prepared to say so were relatively few. Female champions like Sharon, Martina Navratilova and a few brave women in Australia had the courage not to stay silent but to speak up for the next generation of girls in sport. Many, unfortunately, felt pressured to say silent or were unable speak for fear of blowback from politicians, the media and sponsors. Worse, though, some sought to attack women like Sharon or Martina or our Australian champions who stood up and ensured that the next generations of female swimmers, cyclists and athletes can compete on a level playing field. This has been a dark period for women's rights. Not only have governments removed the rights of women and girls to access single-sex spaces, sports and services but they and their supporters have aggressively targeted those women who spoke up. But the good news is that this period is coming to an end. We are going to win, and common sense will eventually be restored. Once the public sees what's happening, they don't stand for it. For years, the media and political parties have run cover for policies would never accept let alone vote for, whether it is placing dangerous male sex offenders in women's prisons or telling young girls playing community sport that they are bigots if they complain about adult males entering women's competitions. In the United Kingdom the British Labour Party has just backflipped on years of cheerleading for self-identification policies. Labour members have started apologising to women who they have isolated and pilloried for expressing concerns for women's sex based rights that they now admit are correct. In sport, World Athletics, World Aquatics, World Rugby and the UCI have all admitted, because of the voices of women and the overwhelming scientific evidence, that for fair and safe competition the female category must remain female only. In other words, we were right. And those who denigrated us were too busy playing the woman instead of playing the ball. The question now is: How long will Australian sports officials, the Australian media and the Australian government hold out? Because the longer they do, the more Australian women and girls will suffer unfairness in their sport and be put at risk of serious injuries—injuries, by the way, which will be indefensible in court for those sporting bodies who have ignored the science. Sharon Davies never got the gold medal that she was cheated out of, nor did the women who finished behind doped athletes at those Olympics. But at least, because of what happened to them occurred at the highest level, everybody knows that they were the true champions, not those who used an unfair advantage to attain achievements that they weren't entitled to. Women and girls around Australia who are suffering the same unfairness in local sport will never get that recognition but they will remember the sporting leaders and the politicians who abandoned them and pretended it wasn't happening. Veterans: MATES Program 141 19:39 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I just wanted to make sure all the veterans out there are listening to me because you are going to not want to know about this if you don't already. Remember the Optus data breach? Remember the Medicare data breach? Both of those cases have resulted in class actions. I will say that word again—class actions—because it is going to get very important against the companies not properly protecting the data of their customers. What if I was to tell you that a government funded agency had shared the data of about 300,000 Australian veterans without their consent? Last weekend, I picked up the Saturday Paper, and the story of the MATES program made my hair stand on end. Every time I hear another horror story about the Department of Veterans' Affairs and their treatment of veterans, I think, 'It surely cannot get any worse.' And then there's another horror story, and it's always worse. I would like to acknowledge journalist Rick Morton for bringing this shocking story to light. Morton has found out that the medical records of 300,000 veterans have been handed over by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to the University of South Australia without—guess what?—the knowledge or consent of those veterans. This data includes you, veterans—your name, your birthdate, your family status, your hospital records, your pharmacy records, any sexual health treatment you've had, any drug addiction you may have had, your mental health services and anything else that may have been in your documents. How did this happen? In 2014 John Howard—God bless Prime Minister John Howard!—launched the Veterans' MATES program. MATES stands for medicines, advice and therapeutics education services. The idea was to share veterans data to: … evaluate treatments and treatment approaches, identify problems with medications … and support evidence-based education for doctors and health practitioners. A source who spoke to the Saturday Paper said: For the puffery that the department put out about improving health outcomes, the objective overwhelmingly of the MATES program appears to be one of costs reduction and control. This program has been running for 20 years. For 20 years this deeply personal information has been shared without the knowledge or consent of the veteran community. I was medically discharged in 2000. Since then, my medical records have been routinely collected by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. But I'll tell you what: nobody ever asked me if they could share my medical records. And I bet, to the 300,000 other veterans out there, they didn't ask you either. They didn't ask you. According to the story in the Saturday Paper, my medical records were being routinely disclosed on a monthly basis to the University of South Australia. The Human Rights Commission approval for the MATES program in 2004 was on the basis that veterans would be able to opt out—except that neither the DVA or the goddamn University of South Australia ever ran an opt-out process, let alone asking us to opt in. They didn't even bother, over sensitive medical information. The DVA is a Commonwealth department, and it has an obligation under the Privacy Act 1988 to safeguard personal private information. How do we know about this? Because a veteran six years ago got an alert from the MATES program saying they had disclosed his personal medical information to his pharmacist and his doctor. The veteran put in a complaint and an FOI request asking what had been disclosed. That was in 2017. In the six years since then, the DVA has refused to stop the data handover, asserting that it was within its rights to do what it wanted with the medical records and didn't need the consent of its clients. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner found in April that the department had 'interfered with the complaint's privacy' and breached two key elements of the Australian Privacy Principles. According to the report in the Saturday Paper, it appears that the DVA was dishonest—what's new!—with both the veteran and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. DVA claimed: … participants in the MATES program are aware that they can, at any time, revoke their consent to use and disclosure of their personal information. How about you tell us you were doing it first? I'm fuming. I am fuming that you had my medical records and you passed them over to a bloody university. How dare you? How dare you! I'm telling you now, veterans, I'm getting lawyers' advice. There will be more to come, but I've had a gutful. I've had a gutful of the DVA sharing some of the most sensitive information of mine and of 300,000 veterans out there. The gloves are off. Workplace Relations: Consulting Industry 142 19:44 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Over the past few months, we've seen rolling scandals of unethical behaviour in the big four consultancies. It's evident the issues are not just confined to PwC; they stem from the big four business model and its voracious pursuit of profit. It's a business model that creates conflicts of interest, obscures transparency and raises questions about public value for money. One of the things that has emerged from shining a light in this sector is the consequences for the people who work there. The recently released report on EY workplace culture, Independent Review into Workplace Culture at EY Oceania, led by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, has revealed systemic issues resulting from the damaging consulting business model. That report reveals the unreasonable workloads and long working hours of staff. The report found that 11 per cent of staff routinely work more than 61 hours a week. That is equivalent to working nine hours a day, seven days a week—far beyond the hard-won right of a 38-hour week. Extreme working hours have huge consequences for workers' mental and physical health, not to mention detracting from time spent with family and friends. One worker is quoted as saying: … all I do is work, I have nothing to offer to my family, my marriage, my house. I got a promotion and a great raise but I have spent all that money and more on psychiatry and psychology and acupuncture just trying to keep going. I'm not actively looking but if I find another job, I will leave because I do feel like I am killing myself doing this. The price of this oppressive, always-on culture at EY shapes the treatment of employees. Over the previous five years, 15 per cent of staff experienced bullying, 10 per cent experienced sexual harassment and eight per cent experienced racism. Unsurprisingly, the widespread unethical treatment of workers does not affect all equally. Women and minority groups are the most likely to experience less safety and less inclusion at EY. Long hours and low control especially affect those down the employment ladder. Employees in EY attribute the punishing working hours and myriad associated consequences to a business model focused on profit and delivery over people. It's a business model EY shares with the other big consultancies and many other professional services. The draconian working arrangements revealed in this report not only affect staff at EY; they pervade the sector more broadly. The model of the ideal worker in these firms casts a long shadow. It assumes someone who always puts their job first, someone who is committed to long hours, someone who is always available to be contacted and who prioritises their work over the rest of their life. Because of this, the ideal worker in these firms is almost always a middle-aged man without care responsibilities—someone who can work long hours at the drop of a hat. That precludes many Australian workers from these jobs, particularly women with caring responsibilities or anyone who's looking after someone else some of the time. It locks women out of leadership. We need a new definition of the ideal worker—someone who can work safe, reasonable hours, someone who's able to balance their obligations with the rest of their life, someone who can be both a leader and a mother. It should not be up to individual workers to stand up to their individual bosses to defend this balance. Instead, we need decent working rights and conditions and decent employment circumstances in companies like the big four. That's why my committee, the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care, which reported to the Senate in March, recommended that a right for all workers to disconnect from work be included in our National Employment Standards. We have to throw out the business model of the big four, and we should penalise firms that create unsafe working conditions. This report on EY gives us a unique glimpse into what it's really like to work in one of these big firms. The findings are serious and shocking. No Australian business should be run on the stolen hours and health—even lives—of Australian workers. We must address the structural issues inside the consultant sector. Alongside an overhaul of consultancies, we need to reform our workplace relations law to improve working conditions and safeguard a worker's right to disconnect from their job, be healthy, have a life, have a family and keep their mental and physical health. Workplace Relations: Consulting Industry 143 19:49 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to make a contribution on the matter of these incredible consultancy companies that are consuming so much of our time and energy in this place. These are companies with their names written in bright lights across the skylines of major cities around the world. It's certainly a very big feature in Sydney, on some of the best property landings in the country. Amongst them are the familiar letters: PwC, EY, KPMG and Deloitte. I could have told EY some of the results that they have now had delivered to them by the very esteemed Elizabeth Broderick, because I have been reporting in this chamber. We have been hearing evidence and receiving information from whistleblowers about the appalling and toxic work culture in these big consultancy firms, particularly for new starters. I want to acknowledge the importance of the fourth estate in getting this information out to the public, particularly the work of Neil Chenoweth, who really cracked the story about what was actually going on inside PwC and gave us the story of Peter-John Collins, which we've then been able to follow up here through the Senate. The story of what's going on in these companies needs to be told in the public place so young people who are considering a career in one of these esteemed places know what they're getting themselves in for. Staff 'churn and burn' is one of the things that's been described. We know, from the evidence that we've received over many years and, again, in recent times, that there is an incredibly high level of turnover of staff—that is, of the lower level staff. Partners, on the other hand, seem to have cottoned on quite early that if they do a few really hard years and they accede to the incredibly blokey dominated culture, with most of the leadership being men at the senior level—if they can endure it long enough—then they can buy in and give themselves very, very, very large salaries. In fact, it was put in this way in an article by Edmond Tadros recently. In his contribution on this matter in the public place on 1 August he said that EY, in response to the Broderick report for EY on the failings of their workplace and the 27 recommendations of the report: … will run pilot programs aimed at improving the working conditions—but these programs will all cost money. Partners will have to decide how much of their super-profits—average partner income is about $950,000— And that is a figure that was put on the record here, in this parliament— they will sacrifice to ensure more workers are put on projects. This compares with staff pay at the firm which begins at roughly $66,000 … That is $66,000 for highly skilled, highly intelligent, really capable young Australians who've managed to get themselves through university and find themselves in a workplace where their skills are being put out for sale. I've heard figures of $1,500 to $2,000 a day. That's what these young graduates are bringing in. But they're so 'churned and burned' that they simply can't continue in the workplace. They're just fodder. Meanwhile, the partners above them are taking home an absolute fortune. The article by Mr Tadros also states: To achieve the massive annual recruitment requirement of bringing in thousands of new workers, the firm's marketing for potential employees makes no mention of a working week that regularly exceeds 61 hours for 11 per cent of workers and routinely tops 51 hours for 31 per cent of staff. Listen to those numbers. My goodness! It's a wonder it's taken them until this year to get somebody in to do a report into the cultural problems at EY. The good thing is that they did the report and they've accepted the 27 recommendations. Now, will they actually change the business model that is driving incredible profits for an insatiable model of doing business that they share with the other big accounting companies? Senate adjourned at 19:54