2023-08-03 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 3 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 Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023 1

Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I stand today to strongly support the progression of this private senator's bill on electricity reporting. The rationale behind the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023 is straightforward, as it is aimed purely at creating more accessible, better consolidated public information and reporting on electricity prices and generation in Australia. In short, the core objective underpinning the bill is that its passage would require the Productivity Commission to compile quarterly reports on retail electricity pricing, as well as on resources from which that electricity is being generated and for each state and territory. The relevant minister would then be required to table these reports in parliament. This would fill a glaring void that exists in Australia, given that we don't currently have a central national repository for this kind of data. Australians right across the country deserve to know not just how much they're paying for their electricity and why but also how much these amounts are changing over time and how they compare to what people in other parts of the country are paying. These are important concepts when it comes to improving accountability and transparency in relation to energy policy, and the passage of this bill will ensure these objectives are better realised. It is true that a substantially broader variety of data about electricity generation, pricing and usage has been made available to Australians over the past decade or so. In particular, there's been an emergence of several new and/or improved reporting mechanisms and tools from agencies like the Australian Energy Market Commission and the Australian Energy Market Operator. Foremost amongst these has been the AEMC's residential electricity price trends document and the AEMO's online dashboard. We have seen a number of companies and publicly funded bodies opening up avenues for Australians to compare the price and deals being offered by retailers and to secure financial savings for themselves in the process. Those have included the Australian Energy Regulator's Energy Made Easy site and the Victorian government's Victorian Energy Compare site, as well as various webpages and products of organisations such as Canstar Blue, iSelect, Finder and Compare the Market. Unfortunately, however, there still isn't a single source or a single report through which Australians can regularly see, at a glance, something as simple as a full national snapshot of current and past retail electricity prices. The content of this bill is aimed at bridging that divide and, if successful in doing so, would represent a significant advance. It would also ensure that not only the Albanese government but also each future Commonwealth government in Australia would be held to a better standard of accountability in relation to the impacts of their policies on electricity supply and pricing. This would, likewise, sharpen the country's focus on the trajectory of energy prices and, accordingly, exert greater pressure on an incumbent government to arrest ongoing increases in these prices, where that is occurring. This would be an eminently good outcome. It would also mean that a government that is not acting responsibly or achieving good outcomes in the energy portfolio, like the present administration under Mr Albanese, would be better held to account for their broken promises and abandoned commitments. This includes broken promises like the one made 97 times before the 2022 election—but, shamefully, not even mentioned once by the ALP since then—that Australian power bills would be reduced by $275 annually. Households should brace for bigger bills as the new financial year ushers in higher taxes and increases in electricity prices, courtesy of the Albanese Labor government. From today, Australian households and budgets will be slugged with some of the highest electricity prices in the world as energy bills increase by up to 28.7 per cent across the country. That's an additional $564 a year that families will need to find just to keep the lights on and to keep the house warm in winter and cool in summer amidst Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Small businesses will need to fork out up to $1,738 a year just to keep the doors open. These energy bill increases are a slap in the face to hardworking Australians who were promised 97 times that they would receive a $275 reduction in their energy bills and were guaranteed that nobody would be left behind by an Albanese Labor government. Instead, Albo has delivered the highest energy prices on record. Labor's electricity increases will force more Australian families onto hardship programs because of this government's failure. More small business, the backbone of our economy, will be forced onto a knife's edge, fighting for survival. Australians keep seeing their power prices going up, not down, and it is only Labor that can be relied upon to pat themselves on the back while Australian families and small businesses struggle to make ends meet. It's little wonder the number of families on electricity hardship programs has reached record highs under Labor. It is this kind of arrogance and prioritisation of politics over people that saw electricity prices double the last time Labor was in government. Australians have been warned by AEMO of energy rationing and blackouts in the coming years. When we left office, there was no reliability gap. Labor has lost control of Australia's energy system. Labor has broken its promise and it has broken its trust with the Australian people. Regional Queenslanders outside of the South-East Queensland corner are set to cop the highest electricity price hikes in the country—the highest in the country! Families across regional Queensland are already doing it tough, and Labor hasn't a clue what to do. The Queensland Competition Authority confirmed the news with the release of the final determination of regulated electricity prices for regional Queensland. Labor was elected on a platform of transparency, honesty, integrity and not going missing. Well, we know how that is going. But what better way to prove that they are holding to that than to allow regional Australians to see exactly how their power is being generated and how much it costs? Regional people and businesses facing rising power bills don't have the luxury of simply encouraging more customers from a limited population base through the door, and they often don't have a choice of electricity providers. Think of the local butcher, the IGA or any of the businesses that rely on high energy use to service their customers and to ensure cold supply chains are kept intact—for food and nutrition, in particular. As food moves further north and west across the country, we see nutrition values fall in food. In part, it is because of limited cold supply chains. And yet Australians, Queenslanders, are seeing a conga line of Labor ministers continually telling them to ignore their eye-watering power bills and believe that the rush to shut down conventional energy will bring costs down. Every cost increase is like a hammer blow for regions already paying more for insurance, transport, fuel and food. Failure to vote for this sensible bill can only mean Labor is trying to hide the truth about its energy policies and its claims about energy policies. After not being honest, dozens of times, about bringing power bills down, it's time for the Labor Party to come clean with the Australian people. A government confident of its energy policy should support anything that shows Australians more information about just how these policies are supposedly helping them. This bill is not about playing politics. It is about openness and transparency. Openness and transparency are meant to be Labor's new approach to government. But unfortunately we are yet to see any such openness from those opposite. This bill provides a chance for them to put their money where their mouth is and give Australians clear information on the state of our electricity market. For each of these reasons and many more, it would be a tremendous development if this bill were passed. The coalition looks forward to the support of all senators and members for its translation into law. Just specifically, proposed increases to regulated offers will ensure that 1.6 million households will be worse off in New South Wales by $564 a year, in South Australia by $485 a year, in Queensland by $432 a year and in Victoria by $426 a year. Labor's rush and lack of a sensible plan mean that Australians are paying more for electricity at a time when they can least afford it, with higher interest rates and higher costs for insurance, food and flights. This is all at a time when Australians are now being expected to miss out on those small luxuries that they had in life, the small things that they might have been able to provide for their kids, like sports gear or activities. Instead, they're spending that money on electricity because this government doesn't have a plan. The government are in a headlong rush to turn off, prematurely, affordable, reliable energy generation and move to renewable energy. They have no plan. As we know, without a plan, you are actually planning to fail. The gas market interventions last year and further into this year mean that we have less gas supply available in this country. Gas will not be available the way it was last year and in previous years when there have been shortages because of maintenance of coal-fired power stations or for other reasons. People are buying generators because they know that the government will fail to be able to provide their electricity needs in the coming months and years. At the same time, the energy minister is urging manufacturers to be a part of a rebate scheme to use less electricity to allow more manufacturers to access the market. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how business works. When you shut down your production, your manufacturing program, it means that you generate less income. You generate fewer profits. And that never comes back. If you missed those this week or this month, there's not a period when you do doubly well later on. So the government are determining with this failed energy policy that Australian businesses, already with other higher costs of business, are doing it even tougher when they don't supply this core business supply of electricity. It is shocking for a nation that is so truly blessed with energy sources, ones that we have relied upon for generations and that other parts of the world would give their eyeteeth to have, that Australia is so recklessly turning its back and rushing without a plan to move away from this reliable energy and to move instead to a new source of energy that will only hurt Australia. The latest news reports regarding the need to extend the licence at Eraring to keep the lights on should come as a wake-up call to the Albanese government and its tattered energy plan. I support this private senator's bill. It's planned to provide more transparency, more data and more information to Australians from a single transparent location. I can only urge those opposite to come to the table, to live true to their stance on transparency and openness for Australians and to pass this bill. It is urgently needed and an excellent proposal. 09:17 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I too rise to make my contribution on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. As we have just heard, this is a very, very simple proposition. It's a very simple proposition that goes to providing Australians with information that is of importance to them right now. The government knows that this information is important to Australians. That's why the government promised Australians in the lead-up to the election that they would receive a $275 reduction in their energy bills. That is why they made that promise amongst a raft of promises that they made before the election. They, unfortunately, haven't kept the promises. They said they would be a transparent government. This piece of legislation would actually assist them with that as well because this piece of legislation would bring together into a trusted organisation such as the Productivity Commission details and information about electricity prices across the country. Although the government will say that there are other mechanisms whereby you can receive that information, there is not one single source of truth. That is one thing that we learnt through the pandemic—ensuring that there was a single source of truth the public could trust as a part of the information that was being released by government was extremely important. It was one of the things that was important in helping us to get through the pandemic in the way that we did, which was better than most other countries in the world. The government told us that they were going to be a transparent government, but, as we have seen so many times in this chamber when we debate orders for the production of documents or the government's refusal to provide information to this parliament, they are not a transparent government. Perhaps that's why they're not supporting this piece of legislation, because they know it will expose their promise to reduce electricity bills by $275—a number that you won't hear anyone on that side utter anymore. It will expose that as a broken promise, and that's not what they want. The Treasurer might want to reimagine the economy and provide us with reports that talk about wellbeing and a range of other things, but it won't take away from the fact that they broke their promise to reduce energy bills by $275. This piece of legislation—this modest, simple reform that has been proposed in this piece of legislation—will bring together cost and price information on electricity nationally into a single place under an organisation that has provided a terrific service to Australia over a long period of time, even though the Treasurer also wants to reimagine the Productivity Commission so that it reflects his image of the economy. But current and up-to-date data is something that is important to Australians. They're struggling to pay their power bills, and we have heard so many times about the increases and the level of increase—20 per cent and 30 per cent increases in their energy bills, when they were promised a reduction of $275 in their energy bills. Clearly the reason the government don't want to support this piece of legislation is that they don't want the transparency that they promised before the election. They're not the type of government that they said they were going to be before the election; they are going to be a government that resists transparency and resists Australians having the information that they might need to understand what is going on with things like their energy bills. We know that there are some mechanisms that have been put in place to provide information, but there is no single source—no single source—where it all comes together in one place. I don't understand why the government continues to resist modest, simple and straightforward propositions that have been put forward in a constructive manner by the opposition to provide information to the Australian people, when that information would be of value and service to Australians. I really don't understand why they wouldn't be doing that. Australians deserve to see what is really happening in the energy market. They deserve to have that information, and yet what we see so often is that they obfuscate. We hear it in question time. We hear it all the time: we ask a question about the government's promise to reduce energy prices by $275 a year, and we hear back that, well, they're actually going to reduce the upward pressure on energy prices. The only reduction that is occurring is how much your bill is going to go up by; it's not that it's going to go down, as was promised by the government before the election. We have this tricky language. Rather than the tricky language from the government, we should have available to us, as proposed by this piece of legislation, a trusted organisation such as the Productivity Commission, which would then compile this information nationally on a regular basis and report it to the Australian people. Australian people would then be able to go to that organisation for their transparency, rather than the government. The government promised they would be a transparent government before the election, and we know now that they are not going to be. The importance of energy prices in a national economic sense is absolutely fundamental. We heard a moment ago about costs in the supply chain. If you think about the impact on inflation, the government before the election said it would keep inflation in check, and yet it is still running at over six per cent per annum—another broken promise from the government. But think about the impact on our agricultural sector, which plays such an important part in our export economy, where energy is an extremely important element of the cost of the production of food and fibre to support the Australian community. Those farmers are suffering the same increases in energy costs that the rest of us are. The transport operators that move that produce down through the supply change are suffering the same increases in energy cost. The refrigeration companies that store all our food, as it works its way through the manufacturing process through cold storage into our supermarkets, are feeling that. The supermarkets are feeling exactly the same with all the refrigeration that supports the fresh product that we have, and that runs directly into the increased cost of living that the government promised would be less under them—another broken promise. Another broken promise: the cost of living will be lower under Labor. I think another line is becoming truer and truer as we move through this period of government. I remember somebody saying 'life won't be easy under Albanese', and that is certainly coming true, because all the other promises we heard from the Labor Party aren't as they were. A $275 reduction in energy prices, lower cost of living, higher real wages, lower mortgage costs are all going in the opposite direction. The opposition presents a very simple piece of legislation that is about providing transparency—not spin, transparency—to Australians so they can see what the cost of their energy is, the trends over time via a trusted organisation like the Productivity Commission, and Labor doesn't want to support it. And you have to wonder why. You can only conclude they do not want you to know the real answer. They don't want a single place where you can go to find information out about your energy costs. They don't want the farmer to know. They don't want the transport operator to know or the cold storage facility. The supermarkets might be a bit different because they have the capacity to negotiate but they are still feeling the upward pressure on prices. A fundamental element in the success of an economy is cost of energy. Going back to 2003, 2004, we had one of the lowest costs of energy in the world. It was a real strength of our economy. We are falling down the ladder at an alarming rate, and the government aren't prepared to provide us with the transparency that we deserve, but what we get from them is tricky language or putting downward pressure on the upward rise of interest rates—of energy prices; sorry, I have conflated my broken promises; it isn't difficult to do with this government—there are a lot of them. It would be very easy for the government to simply support this, and provide the Productivity Commission with the appropriate resources to provide this information to the Australian people and allow Australians to understand simply, in one place, through a trusted organisation, the information they should have access to. Business can make decisions about the cost comparison of energy in different states. That isn't necessarily an easy thing for them to do. If a business has operations a number of different states they can easily make a comparison. But for other businesses it isn't that simple. Here we have a simple, sensible proposal to provide information to the Australian people around the cost of what is one of the fundamentals of the Australian economy: the price of electricity. You really have to ask yourself why the government won't support that. One conclusion is that they don't want you to know. They were happy to promise you a $275 reduction in energy prices before the election, very happy to do that. But they don't want you to know what the reality of it is afterwards. It's not the transparent government that we were promised. The government uses tricky language instead, to try and divert attention away from their promise to reduce energy prices by $275 a year, because they really don't want you to understand properly what's happening. Australians see it in their electricity bill but they don't have the capacity to understand the system as they could or they should. I would urge the government to reconsider their position and support this piece of legislation. It's very simple. It's not controversial. It doesn't need to be political, but the government really doesn't want you to know. 09:31 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I also rise to speak on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. Senator Duniam has proposed a very straightforward bill to improve the accessibility and transparency of electricity prices and electricity type. I think it's important that we have a discussion about the why, the what and the how of Senator Duniam's proposed bill, looking into the context of where Australia is at the moment. Australia and my home state of Queensland are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. The No. 1 issue in Queensland, whether it's in Cairns, or it's in Chinchilla, or it's in Burketown or on Bribie Island, is cost of living. What we need as a parliament, and what Canberra needs, is for the Labor Party in power, who are very good at talking about voices, to grow some ears and listen to the people who are crying out with their voices about the cost-of-living crisis. I'm unsure what planet Labor Party politicians are on, but it's certainly not planet Earth, because the Labor Party's No. 1 priority for the next three or four months, maybe six months—no-one knows because of a lack of transparency—is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a referendum that is risky, that is unknown, that will be permanent and divisive. Senator Henderson ZN4 Plus their treaty. Senator McGRATH 217241 But, Senator Henderson, they're not spending this money—which is not their money, by the way; it's the taxpayers' money—to address the cost of living. Now, I've spent the last five weeks driving around Queensland. I spent the last five weeks being up in the far north-west, being up in the Far North, being down in the south-west and all the places in between. We senators on this side of the chamber spend our time not locked up in capital cities or hiding in Canberra but out on the road listening to people because we do have ears. We use those ears directly in proportion to our mouths. We've got two ears and two eyes. We watch and we listen and then we speak, whereas the Labor Party is the other way round. They do a lot of speaking; they don't do much watching and they certainly do very little listening. That is why this bill is actually so simple. It will be so effective in helping, in a very unique way, address the cost-of-living crisis that is impacting all Australians. I want to talk about some statistics. I don't like the word statistics, because I think sometimes statistics lead down the Mark Twain path, but this is very interesting in terms of facts that are relevant to how my fellow Queenslanders have been hurt in this cost-of-living crisis. We've had 11 interest rate rises—11 interest rate rises—under the Labor Party. This year close to a million people are going to fall off what is known as the mortgage cliff. What that means is they are going to go from having fixed rate mortgage repayments and they are going to be hit by going to variable rate mortgage repayments. This means that interest rates are going to be the highest they have been since 2011, and this means that in my home state of Queensland there actually is a housing crisis. The housing crisis has come about because rents are going up, because mortgages are going up and also because power bills are going up. When you sit down with people and talk to them about the issues that are impacting how they live their lives and what is impacting upon their families, in Queensland the No. 1 issue is cost of living. In Queensland, we are very unlucky in that we have a state Labor government who will have been in power for 30 out of 35 years at the next state election. They are indolent, they are intellectually lazy, they are tired and they are caught up in the trappings of power, but they do not understand that the reason we all go into politics is not to seek power for the sake of power; we go into politics to make lives better for our fellow Queenslanders. The Queensland Labor Party, who are a cabal, merely used the instruments of state to better themselves at the expense of my fellow Queenslanders. In Queensland at the moment, 55 cars are stolen each day. In Townsville, Phil Thompson is always fighting and standing up for the people of Townsville, along with Senator McDonald, who spoke in this debate. Senator McDonald is a strong voice for the north. They understand that in Townsville people not only have high electricity bills and high insurance premiums but also have the scourge of crime. In Townsville people don't just get their car stolen; what happens is these gangs of youths break into the house. That is crime No. 1: a home invasion. They will beat up the people living in the home. That is crime No. 2: assault or GBH. Then they steal the car. So people in Townsville get the criminal trifecta. They get three criminal acts that are performed on them—that they are attacked by. Then you have a state Labor government who have actually cut the number of police in Queensland. What happens is my fellow Queenslanders have to deal with crime, but they also have to deal with the cost of living. That is why this bill is so important. Before the election, Prime Minister Albanese promised 97 times that he would reduce power prices by $275. I would encourage anyone in this chamber to put your hand up if you think your bill has gone down by $275. Let Hansard record that no-one put their hand up because no-one's power has gone down by $275. The parents of the school children upstairs listening and watching—hello—will be getting smacked by very expensive power bills. The journalists who, by lack of misfortune, may be listening to me speak at the moment, have certainly not had their power bills go down by $275. No-one in Queensland or Australia has seen their power bill go down by $275. Indeed, not only have power prices gone up; they've soared. They've exploded under Labor. Since 1 July, power bills have gone up in South Australia by $512 a year and in New South Wales by $594 a year. In regional Queensland, where I live—I live out in the Darling Downs—our power bills have gone up $429 a year. Down the range, down in Brisbane, they have gone up $402 a year. What planet are these Labor Party politicians on? What medication has been taken by the decision-makers and the policymakers who think that it is acceptable that we have some of the world's highest electricity prices in a country which has so many natural resources? Everybody likes to talk about renewable energy. Brilliant! But, if we've got all this free renewable energy, why are our power bills going up? If we have got all this coal—and we've lots of coal in Queensland; we've got clean coal in Queensland that we're very good at exporting to developing countries, like India, who want our coal because they know they want cheap and reliable electricity—why aren't we using more of our coal? Also, Australia has a third of the world's uranium. So, if you want net zero emissions and you want reliable electricity and you want affordable electricity, you need to take a pragmatic approach to this, and Australia needs to look at the resources we have. It is using uranium. It is using coal. It's using the sun. It's using wind. It's using gas. It's using whatever it takes for Queenslanders and Australians to have cheap, reliable electricity. As I said before, what Senator Duniam's bill proposes is very, very simple. It just requires the Productivity Commission to compile quarterly reports on retail electricity prices as well as the sources from which electricity is being generated for each state and territory. Brilliant! How simple is that? Because, if you believe, as we do on this side of the chamber, in transparency and accountability, if you believe that the best way is to show how government works and how the economy works, you do that with information. I can go back to some basic economics—and I'll look through Paul Scarr's drawer where he has essentials of economics for dummies—to show people how a market operates. A market operates at its best when there is readily available information. It allows the consumer to make decisions. Also, it allows policymakers to make decisions using sunlight as a disinfectant. It will show to Australians how and why there are price rises, but also, importantly, it shows where power is coming from. Australians across the country deserve to know not just how much they are paying for their electricity but also how these amounts are changing over time and how they compare to what people in other parts of the country are paying. That will give businesses and families confidence about how they can manage their own budgets. It will help with planning in this cost-of-living crisis that Labor has created. Labor has been in power for over a year now. In that year we've seen power bills go through the roof. We've seen mortgages go through the roof. We've seen rent go through the roof. We've seen insurance go through the roof. There actually isn't a roof left because so many things have been going through the roof that they've blown the roof away. What we're doing on this side of the chamber is proposing sensible suggestions to help Australians, to help Queenslanders deal with this cost-of-living crisis because what you're getting from the Labor Party is nothing. They talk about voices, but they don't listen and they will never listen to the voices that are already crying out for help. 09:46 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I also rise to speak this morning on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. There are only three issues which the Labor government need to keep top of mind. They are the same three issues that Australians need to keep top of mind when they come to judge the performance of the government at the election, most likely late next year. Those things are interest rates, inflation and productivity. They are issues that the government would like to avoid. They are issues that go to the core of the current and future financial prosperity and success of Australian families. They will protect Australia, if they're managed carefully, from future economic harm and distress and future economic shocks that we can only speculate on at the moment. The productivity one is by far the most important and the most urgent because, put simply, improvements in productivity in Australia improve living standards for Australians. Anything that reverses productivity gains, anything that diminishes productivity across the Australian economy dampens or worsens the living standards for Australians today and, importantly, also for the children and grandchildren of Australians into the future. So it's productivity that is the core and most immediate challenge facing the government, indeed facing the whole country, and I'll come to why this modest improvement presented in this private senators bill is necessary and, while modest, would be a very constructive addition to our transparency and reporting over energy prices. It's important to add that any discussion that this country wants to have, led by the Labor government, with regard to wages and inflation is a hollow discussion unless it also involves discussion about productivity gains. And you don't have to be Einstein to know that at the moment, after more than 12 months in government, this Labor Party wants to avoid discussions on productivity despite the fact that the Productivity Commission has just recently released its roadmap into how Australia can achieve those future productivity gains. During a Senate inquiry process recently, it was revealed that the Productivity Commission itself had confirmed to senators that the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, had not even found the time to meet with the Productivity Commission to be briefed on its ideas, its findings and its recommendations contained in its most recent five-year productivity review. I was present for that revelation. It is quite remarkable that the person who is most responsible for the economic direction of this country, the Treasurer—it's in his job title—has not yet found the time to speak with the Productivity Commission about its report. It is a thousand pages of plans, ideas and recommendations for how we can move this country forward and secure future productivity gains that will improve the living standards of Australians into the future. If that wasn't bad enough, it was then revealed that the Prime Minister has not found time to discuss, inquire into or be curious about this 1,000-page report prepared by the Productivity Commission on what is the future plan for productivity reform in this country. That is alarming, and it should send bells ringing in every Australian household. If the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are not interested in discussing and exploring how we're going to tackle productivity reform in this country, why would anyone else in the government think it's important? The answer to that is: no-one would. If the Prime Minister doesn't think he should give the Productivity Commission his time, if the Treasurer doesn't think he should give the Productivity Commission his time, then no other Labor minister in the government is going to think it's worthy of their time either. There was an interesting remark the other day by Deloitte Access Economics which I think is very important. It goes to the conversation around inflation, which, with interest rates, with productivity reform, is a critical economic issue facing the country. The government has sought to portray the recent quarterly decrease in inflation as a success. I will come to why it's not a success in a brief moment. Deloitte Access Economics had this to say about the inflation battle: … defence against the supply side challenges which are driving underlying inflation in Australia needs to come in the form of a wider set of economic policies, namely fiscal policy, investment and innovation to lift productivity, competition policy to improve efficiency and erode market power, and tax policy to boost prosperity. When we hear the government talk about inflation, its conversations around inflation are very narrow. 'Look how well we have done,' the government tries to say; I will tell you why it has not done very well shortly. The government doesn't want to engage on that broader suite of issues which will be necessary if we are going to bring down inflation in a meaningful and sustainable way so it does not continue to wreak havoc on the Australian economy. Inflation is a great economic evil—perhaps the greatest economic evil—and the government is being tardy, is being slow and is being narrow in wanting to address the inflation dragon that is wreaking havoc across the Australian economy. We will go to a vote on this bill shortly. If the government can't embrace a simple, modest but transformative initiative like this, contained in Senator Duniam's private senator's bill, how can they possibly be interested and how can they possibly be trusted to engage, embrace and advance the much bigger reforms that are necessary in the Australian economy? The answer to that is: they can't. The answer to that is: they won't. Make no mistake about it, Anthony Albanese is not Bob Hawke and Jim Chalmers is not Paul Keating. There are some virtues in that, I'm absolutely sure of that. But when it comes to the economic reform agenda and when it comes to the productivity reform agenda—to be fair, Mr Hawke and Mr Keating were supported by Mr Howard and the coalition, who offered up significant and important bipartisanship on important economic reforms—Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers are not Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. That has been demonstrated enough already, but that will be demonstrated over the course—and, we would hope, the limited course—of this government. The inflation challenge in the country continues to be real and continues to be urgent. As I said, the government is interested in trying to convince people that it has made welcome progress. The Treasurer remark earlier this week was that the government had made 'welcome progress' in tackling inflation. Yesterday the Australian Bureau of Statistics blew open the myth that the government is dealing with inflation. Yesterday the ABS released its Selected living cost indexes, which come out regularly from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It said that over the 12 months to June 2023, all living cost indexes—and there are five—rose by between 6.3 per cent and 9.6 per cent. That means that in the last 12 months prices rose between six and nine per cent. So, when Australians are going shopping, filling up their car and buying financial services products and they are feeling the financial pain and they are thinking, 'Why am I not getting as much from my dollar as I used to get?' it's because the government hasn't met the inflation challenge. The ABS went on to say: Employee households recorded the strongest quarterly and annual rises due to increases in Mortgage interest charges. Those mortgage interest charges are the cumulative effect of 11 rate rises under this government. Just to be clear, employee households, in the mind of the ABS, are those households whose primary source of income is wages and salary. Many of us can relate to that. Many of the constituents we represent would fall into that particular category. The ABS went on to say that employee households—that is, those with a primary source of income such as wages and salaries—recorded the largest annual rise, of 9.6 per cent, on record. The ABS has blown the whistle. The government has achieved a record, and that record is inflicting financial harm on Australian families. That record is that employee households recorded the largest annual rise on record. That is what the ABS released yesterday. It goes on to say: Mortgage interest changes makes up a higher proportion of expenditure for Employee households. Mortgage interest charges rose 91.6 per cent, the largest annual rise on record, driven by banks passing on the RBA's multiple cash rate rises over the year. Why has the RBA had to have layer upon layer upon layer of interest rate rises? It's because the government has not been doing enough. Eleven interest rate rises are the RBA's verdict and judgement on the performance of the government in tackling inflation in the Australian economy. It is bad, and guess who is wearing the cost of that? It is the electors, the families and the businesses across Australia. So I have a question for the government: where does it think this pain is being felt? I can tell you where the pain is being felt. It is being felt not exclusively but predominantly in outer suburban areas of our cities, which at the most recent election predominantly chose to elect Labor members of parliament because Anthony Albanese said in May 2022, on the verge of the election, that life would be cheaper under Labor. Don't believe me. The front page of the Australian newspaper on 22 May said that life would be easier under Labor. Well, after 11 rate rises, life has not become easier. The ABS is saying that costs for families are the highest they have been on record. Labor has not delivered on its commitment that life would be easier for Australian families, and now, when we have a bill that contains a modest but important transformative reform that will bring transparency to the issue of energy prices, the government can't even muster the courage and the foresight to agree to this private senator's bill. That is a capital-F failure. So, next year, when Australians go to judge the government on interest rates, inflation and productivity, the Australian community will give the government a big F for failure. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading of the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023, Senator Duniam's private senator's bill, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [10:06]
(The President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McGrath, J. 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. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 30 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 9

National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

Second Reading 9 10:09 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. Regrettably, the coalition is not in a position to support this bill as it is currently drafted. While the majority of the amendments proposed under the bill are sensible reforms, most of which flow from the Richardson review, which the previous government commissioned back in 2018, this government has unfortunately decided to play games with this legislation by adding an additional amendment to change the composition and the size of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security without consulting anyone. They are now trying to rush this change through, hoping that no-one will notice. The bill proposes amendments to enhance the legislative framework of the national intelligence community by implementing a number of the recommendations of the Richardson review. It proposes amendments to 13 related Commonwealth acts to support these proposed enhancements. The bill also proposes to amend the Intelligence Services Act to clarify the level of detail required to describe activities issued under a ministerial direction to ASIS. This particular change to the legislation was not a recommendation of the Richardson review, but I have been briefed through the PJCIS on the need for this change, and it is an important and timely change that goes to the operation of an important and sensitive capability of the Commonwealth and its relationship with the foreign minister. We do support this change. Of course, the opposition always supports sensible changes to support the work of our intelligence agencies, which is why we agreed to all of the relevant recommendations in our government's response to the Richardson review back in December 2020. The only point of contention between the government and the opposition is the proposal in this bill to increase the size of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security from 11 to 13 members and also to change the required composition from each chamber of parliament. Currently, the act requires that six members come from the House of Representatives and five come from the Senate. The bill proposes to allow the government of the day much more flexibility in deciding the balance between the two chambers. We were not consulted on these changes before they were introduced, which is contrary to the bipartisan spirit in which legislation around this committee has normally been engaged with. I submitted a question on notice to the Attorney-General's Department to clarify who may have been consulted on this change and when. In response, the department disclosed: The Attorney-General's Department did not consult with or advise non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the Committee. This measure was a recommendation of Government. Of course, it had to be a recommendation of the government, because it wasn't a recommendation of anyone else. It wasn't recommended by Dennis Richardson. It wasn't recommended by the Independent Intelligence Review of 2017. It's never been recommended by the PJCIS. I'm not even aware of a single submission to the PJCIS, in its history, which has ever recommended this change. In fact, the only place that this change has ever been recommended from, as far as I can tell, is either the Attorney-General's office or the Prime Minister's office—nowhere else. Labor is now trying to rush through what is actually quite a significant reform to the operation of one of the most important committees of the parliament. The PJCIS was, remarkably, only given one month to consider this bill and conduct an inquiry, and, shamefully, it only opened submissions for one week. In my service on this committee in this parliament and the previous one, I'm not aware of any other occasion where submissions were open for only a week for an important bill that goes to the operation of this committee and the intelligence legislation which governs our national intelligence community. In fact, I do remember distinctly that, in the previous parliament, when I was chair of the committee, when relatively short periods of opening for submissions were contemplated, the then shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, was the loudest to object to rushing any legislation through the committee or to any short period of consultation or seeking submissions. As chair, I agreed with him and from time to time, when necessary, requested, sought and received from the government of the day extra time to consider these bills and provided extra time for witnesses to make submissions. To rush this through in one week is a totally unreasonable imposition on the people who seek to assist the committees of the parliament with their work and was a particularly underhanded tactic in the handling of this bill. There has been no evidence provided to the committee, the parliament or the public as to why this change is required, and it is incumbent on the government in this debate in the chamber to explain where it came from. Does the government intend to appoint a crossbench member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security or a member of a minor party as part of its decision to increase the size of the membership from 11 to 13? I have it on good authority and I have good reason to believe that that is exactly what they intend to do, although they have failed to be upfront with the parliament or public about that intention. In my view that would significantly and detrimentally change the character and culture of the committee, which has otherwise always been, save for one exception, a committee of the parties of government. That is a very important distinction, and I will come to why that is the case in a moment. I really do think if a crossbench or minor party member were added to the committee that would risk undermining the bipartisan consensus on critical national security issues that the committee has dealt with and has long been a feature of the PJCIS. When I chaired the PJCIS in the previous parliament, it was one of the busiest and most intense periods in the committee's history. In fact, in roughly a 12-month period the committee handed down 23 reports and inquiries. Every single one of those reports was bipartisan. Every single one of those reports was unanimous. That's not because we started those inquiries from a place of universal agreement, that's not because there weren't genuine philosophical differences that arose during an inquiry, but it was because the committee had a spirit, a culture and a willingness to work through those difficult issues to achieve consensus in the national interest. And we were only able to do so because of the trusted culture and environment that has been fostered in that committee. It is often widely remarked upon outside of this place, by people who deal with this committee or observe its work, that it is one of the most functional committees of the parliament, perhaps one of the last functional committees of parliament. They say that it is not like other committees, which are often defined by bipartisanship and rancour. They say that members of the committee work constructively and well together in the national interest. We should pause and reflect on why that is the case. It's also the only committee which has always been, with one exception, comprised of members of the government and the opposition only. Those are parties of government, and that is an essential feature which has allowed it to be a secure and trusted negotiating forum for those parties of government to resolve, away from sometimes the theatre of this place and away from the media, important national security matters in the national interest and get the balance right when it comes to the very important national security and civil liberty matters which we consider. The addition of two member to the PJCIS, in my view but not just my view, also increases the risk of classified material being leaked, either intentionally or inadvertently. In fact, a no lesser authority on this issue than the Director-General of ASIO stated this in his evidence to the PJCIS. He noted that, all else being equal, a greater number of people having access to sensitive classified information increases the risk of material being leaked. This in turn could undermine the trust that the committee has earnt with the intelligence community, who would then be obviously far more reticent to disclose sensitive information that is critical for the robust consideration of issues by this committee. The truth and the art of the PJCIS are that the intelligence agencies, in my observations particularly while I've been a member, have often disclosed more and shared more with the committee and members of the committee than they are required to share under the letter of the law. The reason they do that is that they want us to be informed about the decisions we have to make in the national interest. But they are not required to do so. If ever they are concerned about the ability of the committee to keep its deliberations confidential and the classified material that we receive confidential, they can retreat back to the letter of the law and seriously curtail the amount of information provided to the committee, which would fundamentally undermine the committee's operation. I was recently read an interview for a profile of a former colleague in this place, former senator Keneally. She was reflecting on her time in the parliament, and I was struck by her observation that one of the most enjoyable things she did in the parliament was serve on the PJCIS. She described how bipartisan it was, how constructive it was and how well the committee members worked together. I think she is right, and it is an observation that many other former members of the committee have made. Former deputy chair of the committee Anthony Byrne has spoken about this. Another former deputy chair, Senator McAllister, has also spoken about this, and I enjoyed working with both of them. I even, I must confess—and I'm hoping not to damage my reputation or his—occasionally enjoyed working with the former shadow Attorney-General, and now Attorney-General, on this committee. In fact, we spent many, many hours negotiating in a painstaking way to achieve consensus on these issues. I did my best as chair to give the Labor Party when in opposition the space and the time they needed to arrive at a position that allowed the committee to achieve consensus, and I pushed back on the government and ministers whose party I shared when it was necessary to achieve that. One of the reports that we handed down in the previous parliament that was unanimous and bipartisan, like all others, was the annual report on committee activities in 2021. One of the recommendations of that report was that after the election—that is, in this new parliament, the 47th Parliament—at the commencement of the parliament whoever was in government should refer to the committee an inquiry into the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act that govern the operation of the committee so that the committee could inquire into, receive submissions on and consider the scope and activities of the committee in its remit. That was a unanimous recommendation of the committee. It was signed by the then shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, now the Attorney-General. He has broken with that recommendation of the committee which he himself helped author in the way in which he has handled this issue. These changes have been proposed in a unilateral way. No inquiry has been referred to the committee to consider these issues. No consultation occurred on this. That is a gravely disappointing thing. I also note that the government has some other bills that propose changes to the operation of the committee which have been introduced to the parliament—in particular, the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. It was introduced in the House of Representatives on 22 June and is now before the PJCIS for an inquiry. Among other things, this bill proposes to expand the powers of the PJCIS and broaden its oversight of the national intelligence community. In isolation, I think there is some merit to some of the proposals in that bill. I think the opposition would be willing to negotiate with the government on some of those provisions to try to achieve consensus. In fact, some of those areas of broader and deeper oversight that the bill proposes I have previously recommended as chair of the PJCIS. However, I made that recommendation, and the committee agreed to that recommendation, only in the belief that the committee would continue to be a committee of the parties of government, not that it would be a committee in the future that had members of the crossbench or minor parties on it. Our support for that expanded or deepened oversight is conditional, and must be conditional, on the composition of the committee remaining the same as it is today. It would be a great regret for me if we are not able to have those negotiations in a good-faith way with the government. The now shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, and I have written to the Minister for Home Affairs and the Attorney-General to indicate our willingness to negotiate on those matters. We remain willing to do so. I hope before this chamber concludes consideration of this bill we are able to do so because, if we are not, it is going to be very difficult for the opposition to support either this bill or the other. I am concerned that the primary motivation and driver for the changes proposed to this committee is in fact internal politics within the government. We know that the last committee established in this parliament was the PJCIS, arguably the most important committee in the parliament. The media has reported that the reason why that was the case is that the government had great difficulty determining the membership of the committee. They had great difficulty balancing competing factional demands and competing demands between the houses of parliament, between the House and the Senate. So they are increasing the membership to compensate a member of their caucus who missed out on membership of the committee after the last election and to give them more flexibility in the future about who they can appoint from their own caucus to the committee but also, notably, give them the opportunity, if they choose to take it, to appoint someone from the crossbench or the minor parties. That is not the way that a committee like this should be treated. This is not just any other committee of the parliament and shouldn't be treated that way. Finally, I will just foreshadow that, if we are not able to reach agreement with the government on this bill and the other, the opposition will be moving amendments to this bill that seek to remove the changes to the PJCIS membership from this bill so that the other important provisions of this bill can pass, can be enacted and can be changed. I have one final appeal to the crossbench. I know it will be intuitively appealing to you to support this bill because you will think, 'Great, this is our opportunity to get on the PJCIS,' but my warning to you is that, if you have not already had a call from the Prime Minister telling you that you or one of your party members is going to be on the committee, it's not going to be you because the person who is going to be joining the committee already knows that they are joining the committee. So please don't vote for this bill in the expectation that it will be to your benefit. I assure you that it will not. 10:24 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. This bill has both positives and negatives. There are elements of the bill that take oversight of national security agencies forward, and there are elements of the bill that take it backwards. The bill does a number of things, but I'd say at the outset that national security laws and outcomes should not be part of a quiet gentlemen's club deal between what has been described in the earlier contribution today as 'parties of government'. I've had a look at the Constitution. 'Parties of government' doesn't feature. It's a made up club. The concept of this political duopoly having absolute hegemony, regardless of who the Australian people elected into this parliament, is deeply undemocratic and has no founding in our Constitution or, indeed, in the theory of Westminster government—absolutely none. It's a statement that the parliament as elected by the people shouldn't have the power the people have granted it. It's a statement that, outside of the formal structures of parliament, there should be a quiet side deal between what might be described as parties of government but what other people might call 'the war parties'. They can have their own separate private arrangement regardless of what the Constitution or the result at a federal election provides. It is interesting to hear it put in such bold terms by the opposition. The intellectual underpinning of it seems to be that they're comfortable with each other. They know the members of the club, and they are comfortable with each other—and that that comfortable arrangement somehow benefits Australia's national security interest. I would suggest any review of defence expenditure, defence outcomes or procurement outcomes over the last two decades would suggest that that comfortable club has not been working very well. We spent $5 billion plus on a series of iterations about submarines that the club told us were a great idea. It was uncritically supported. That club came together and said, 'We desperately need to get some French submarines, and they're the only submarines that will possibly keep us safe.' They agreed. There was a series of unanimous reports from the committee. We ended up spending more than $5 billion and wasting a decade, and how many subs did we get for that? None. We now are facing the cost of billions more retrofitting the Collins class submarines because of a wasted decade from the club. It's the same club that has allowed the Department of Defence to breach procurement rules, to breach legal requirements and to enter into what will be now a $45 billion contract—it was originally going to be a $30 billion contract—for Hunter class antisubmarine vessels that, at every time, key parts of the Department of Defence and the defence establishment said were an extreme risk of not being fit for purpose. That's what the club has produced. How many of those have we got in the water? None. Why? That's because, at each point, if you'd critically listened and analysed the evidence, you would have realised that key people in the Department of Defence who were silenced by the current and former secretary had said this project was an extreme risk, that it won't get in the water, that it may not do what we think, that it is untried and untested and that we shouldn't be dropping $30 billion to $45 billion on an untested, experimental design that we probably can't build. What did the club do? The club asked no hard questions. It didn't query the secretary—current or former—about it. It signed off on it. How many of those do we have in the water? We have the exact same number of Hunter class frigates in the water as we do French submarines in the water. This club has had a discussion about recruitment in the ADF for the last ten years. How has that gone—the uncritical discussion about recruitment and the signing off on the ADF's recruitment plans? For the last decade they've been saying they're going to grow the ADF by 30 or 35 per cent. There are less people in the ADF today than there were a decade ago. How's the club going? This is the club that says there is an urgent security risk to the country and that our window of threat has moved from 10 years to five years or perhaps even less. What is the primary solution that the club has come up with to that urgent, imminent threat? They think that they might—subject to the US Congress, which doesn't seem to be keen on it—maybe get a second-hand US nuclear sub and prop it into the water at 2030. Fingers crossed! And that is a maybe—if the US Senate agrees to it, and at the moment that's looking pretty wobbly. So, according to their rhetoric, we have an imminent threat, and the club's response is to put one nuclear submarine in the water in 2030. How does that work? That only works if you have uncritical examination of the theory about fear and the theory about imminent threat, and then the irrational responses—the counterproductive responses and the extraordinarily wasteful responses—that we get from the club. There is probably a reason that 'parties of government' is not found in the Constitution; it's because it does not work. It's an undemocratic, uncritical club that, as the opposition said, never produces a dissenting voice. Every report, bar one that they can think of, has been unanimous. That is not a sign of a functioning, robust democracy; it's a worrying sign of a dysfunctional, uncritical club that is making Australia no safer. National security laws and outcomes should not be done as a gentleman's agreement and should not be part of a quiet, smoke filled club; they should be the subject of robust consideration. Too much work in this space is done secretly. It does not benefit from the scrutiny of the media and it does not benefit from the scrutiny of the parliament, and it is absolutely kept from the people of Australia. Some positive measures in this bill, though, do take a step forward. They remove the ability of the Attorney-General to delegate powers and, particularly in relation to the ASIO Act, restrict the ability of the Attorney-General to delegate those powers to officials within the department. This bill also aims to amend the Intelligence Services Act to provide that the PJCIS has an expanded membership of 13 members. I think what deeply troubles the opposition is that, with the expansion, there is a threat that there might be a member of the crossbench—almost certainly a member of the crossbench from the other place, but there might be a member of the crossbench— Senator Scarr 282997 It won't be you, David! Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I note the interjection, but I think that might be a bridge too far! The fear is that there will be a member of the crossbench. Somebody who is not in the club might get an entry, might get an invite and might see how it works and turn a critical eye on it. Worse still, they might—there is a possibility!—produce a dissenting report and say that the club's quiet little arrangement and their proposals are not in the national interest. Imagine that! Imagine if there were a voice of dissent on the committee. The fear of the opposition is that somehow that voice of dissent, that critical discussion, is going to see the roof collapse and, worse still, it is going to see the security agencies refuse to tell the parliament—the parliament's own secret committee—what is going on. We're literally seeing elected members of the opposition in the Senate worried about the security agencies unilaterally turning the tap off to the oversight committee if, heaven help us, a member of the crossbench is admitted. Is there such a supine view of the parliament, as against the intelligence agencies, that the opposition seriously thinks they would allow that to happen? Is it the view that if the intelligence agencies just unilaterally of themselves decide to turn the tap off to this committee the parliament will just say, 'Oh well, that's what the security agencies are doing.' Who's running the country? Who's actually making the decisions here? And the comfort with which the opposition put that proposition to the chamber, that the intelligence agencies can just unilaterally shut down the information flow to the parliament and there's nothing they can do about it—you would have thought that anyone who respects their position as a senator, as an elected rep of the parliament would be embarrassed to put that proposition forward. They would feel like they had no agency in this space. They would feel like they had literally handed over the strategic direction of the country to a bunch of unelected members of the security agencies. You would almost think that was the case, wouldn't you? You'd almost think that's true. The bill also amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act to require the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to report annually on public interest disclosures received by and complaints made to the Inspector-General. We think that's good. As we said, it's a positive step forward. I've mentioned the changes to the PJCIS, but there are some negative changes in the bill, and they trouble us. Changes of concern include an expansion to the exclusions in the spent convictions scheme that will enable ASIO to use, record and disclose information about spent convictions. This was raised as a concern by the human rights committee inquiry into the bill, and we share those concerns. Spent convictions should be spent convictions. There should be some point at which ASIO can stop monstering you on the basis of a spent conviction. The bill also reduces oversight by excluding ASIS, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Office of National Intelligence and the Defence Intelligence Organisation from the Commonwealth Ombudsman's jurisdiction. We don't support that. We're deeply troubled by it, and we will likely be seeking amendments to address that. We know that we now have the NACC that picks up a small amount, potentially, of this work, but we can't see a valid argument to exclude the ombudsman from that important oversight work. We also have some concerns about proposed changes to the AAT Act and the Archives Act, which will require all proceedings in relation to security records under the Archives Act to be heard in the security division of the AAT. We don't think that further secrecy and less oversight in this space is a positive thing. The bill also expands exemptions for IGIS under the FOI Act and Archives Act to mean they only need to provide evidence in proceedings under those acts where the material in the proceedings relates to one or more of the agencies that the IGIS oversees. Again, we see no reason to restrict the information. From my party's perspective, the Greens perspective, this bill does some good and it does some bad. It takes us forward in some elements of oversight, maybe a little crack in the parties of government, or the parties of war, control of the PJCIS. But then it takes us backwards in other important parts of oversight. It's interesting, isn't it? That's often Labor legislation, isn't it? One step forward, one step back, but you can't clearly define the purpose. 10:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. The first duty of any government is to keep Australians safe, and there are few things in this place that the coalition holds to be more important than national security. As a nation, our security is the bedrock in which our prosperity, industry and freedoms are built, but that security must be a form of security that is appropriate for our parliamentary tradition and our system of government. It is with a heavy heart that I find myself informing the Senate, as has Senator Paterson, that this bill is not in a form that the coalition can pass. We are a proud democracy. The stability and strength of our system is a matter of tremendous national pride, and because we are a democratic system, from time to time our government will change. But the threats to the safety of Australians do not change just because the government does. We therefore need a consistent approach to national security that will keep Australians safe no matter who is in power. We recognise this fact. The coalition wants a system of national security that will persevere in keeping Australians safe regardless of the side of the chamber on which we sit. A commitment to bipartisanship by the parties of government lifts national security above party politics. It is in Australia's interests, and that is why for years now we have maintained a commitment to a bipartisan approach on national security issues, and that commitment is given effect through bodies like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It's worth dwelling for a moment on this committee, because this committee is the forum by which much of the consensus on national security in Australia is derived. It is actually quite extraordinary because, unlike most committees, whether in the Senate, the other place or joint, it was established by legislation. The committee has historical roots in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, the ASIO Act, going back to the 1980s, but did not really take its modern form until 2001, when it was reconstituted by the Intelligence Services Act, passed under John Howard's leadership. It is one of the quirks of history that the Intelligence Services Bill was introduced in June 2001 but was not debated and passed by the House until late September of that year. Yes, the bill was passed in the wake of September 11. It was scrutinised following one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in the lifetime of many of us. Its philosophy and approach were tested in this very chamber of parliament in light of attacks that fundamentally reshaped security around the Western world. In many ways, the wisdom that underlies the PJCIS predates the threats of the modern era, but it has since then been continually tested and found to be sound. One of the unusual things about the PJCIS is that many aspects of its operations are largely dictated by rules set out in the schedule to the Intelligence Services Act. The process for nomination, the procedures for meetings and even the security clearances for staff are set out in the schedules to the act. That is why there is a statutory requirement for staff of the committee to be cleared to the same level as staff of ASIS. That is why there are strict rules supported by criminal offence provisions that govern the production of evidence and the secrecy of materials. This legislative architecture guarantees the ability to receive confidential information and to test the evidence of our intelligence agencies frankly and fearlessly. This is conducive to sound national security policy based on evidence. But there is a factor that is perhaps more important than the legislative structure of the committee, and that factor is its extraordinary history of bipartisanship. The word 'bipartisan' does not appear in the Intelligence Services Act, but the reason that the PJCIS is held in such high regard is that it has such a strong culture of cooperation. Serious security issues can be thrashed out behind the scenes to arrive at a negotiated recommendation. With a single exception more than 10 years ago, the PJCIS has been comprised of parties of government with a shared commitment to facilitating a joint approach to national security policy in this country. As Senator Paterson has so eloquently stated, this bill breaks that commitment. Quite frankly, shame on the Attorney-General of this country for presenting this bill to the parliament! The majority of the amendments proposed under this bill are actually sensible reforms flowing from the Richardson review. The Richardson review was, of course, a review that the coalition commissioned in 2018, following directly from the independent intelligence review by Michael L'Estrange AO and Mr Stephen Merchant PSM. The Richardson review—to give it it's proper title,Comprehensive review of the legal framework of the National Intelligence Community—was a seminal piece of work. It wasn't triggered by dramatic circumstances; it was a measured, comprehensive analysis of the frameworks under which our national intelligence community operates. It aimed to ensure that the legal framework governing national security in Australia strikes the right balance between individual liberty and collective security. Many of the recommendations which it produced are sensible and are supported by both the government and the opposition. The amendments in this bill adopt some of those recommendations to enhance the legislative framework of the national intelligence community. To that extent, as Senator Paterson has said, those are sensible recommendations and are reflected in the bill, and we support it. But this is where the Attorney-General of Australia starts to get tricky. Labor have decided to play games with this bill. And what have they done? As we always say, the devil is always in the detail with Labor, and shame on them that that plays out in relation to one of the most important bills to come before this parliament. They have snuck in an amendment. They have decided to play around for their own crass political purposes with the composition of the parliamentary PJCIS. Did they do this on the basis of consultation? No, they didn't. Was it actually a recommendation of the Richardson review? No. No-one called for it. But, of its own initiative, the government has decided to increase the size of the PJCIS from 11 to 13 members and to change the required composition from each chamber of parliament. Evidence from the Attorney-General's Department itself makes clear that 'this measure was a recommendation of government.' In answer to a question on notice from Senator Paterson, the Attorney-General's Department advised, 'It didn't consult with or advise non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the committee.' So where are we in relation to the breaking of the bipartisanship? There is no evidence that suggests that this change is required. The Attorney-General of Australia needs to explain why he has presented a bill to the parliament changing the PJCIS. Does the government intend to appoint a crossbencher or a minor party member to the committee as a result of the changes, as the Gillard government did during the minority parliament? This would significantly and detrimentally change the character and culture of the committee, which has otherwise been a committee of the parties of government. The change would be detrimental because it risks undermining the bipartisan consensus on critical national security issues which has long been a feature of this important committee. The addition of two more members to the PJCIS also increases the risk of classified material being leaked, either intentionally or inadvertently, as the Director-General of Security stated in his oral evidence to the committee. One of the most extraordinary things about this change, aside from it being completely unjustified from a national security standpoint, is that the Attorney-General, in his typical style—this is a hallmark of Australia's Attorney-General—has tried to ram it through in the hope that no-one will notice. Well, guess what. Senator Paterson is a little bit smarter than the Attorney-General gave him credit for. Labor gave the PJCIS just one month to conduct an inquiry into this bill, and it gave our intelligence communities just one week—that is the contempt with which it treated them—to prepare submissions on one of the most significant changes to our national security architecture in years. What is worse, none of the reforms were time sensitive. It is an absolute disgrace, and it has led to the most extraordinary result. For the first time in 17 years, the PJCIS issued a dissenting report. The former and current governments have been working their way through the comprehensive review's 203 recommendations since December 2019, but what do we actually have now before us? We have the Attorney-General of Australia going rogue. He has tacked these reforms onto an otherwise sensible bill and, in a fit of arrogance, tried to foist it on the Australian people before they even knew what was happening. He is dealing with the national security of this country. Every external observer is left thinking this: Why the change? Why the rush? Why the attempt to avoid scrutiny? And let's not quote the now-Attorney-General on his views on scrutiny and transparency, because what he said when he had 'shadow' in his title does not stand up to how he behaves as Attorney-General of this country. We're concerned that the proposed changes to the composition of the PJCIS are a result of internal politics within the government. After the May 2022 election, the government was not able to resolve its committee membership for three months, and the committee—the most important committee of the parliament—was not able to be reconvened until September 2022. By expanding the committee and changing the rules around its composition, this bill would give the Prime Minister leverage to resolve internal disputes within his own party. What a great way to utilise national security! But that's the Labor Party for you, under Mr Albanese. Alternatively, it will give him a sweetener to negotiate with the crossbench if he suddenly finds his majority in the House at risk. Let's be very, very clear. The committee's important work should never be held hostage by any party's internal machinations. It should never be a bargaining chip to hold in reserve for when things get tough, because national security is about Australians and what is in their best interests. 'In case of minority government emergency, break glass' is not an appropriate way to approach the PJCIS membership. The approach taken in this bill will tell you two things about this government and the Attorney-General. The first is the utter conviction that this Attorney-General has in the merit of his own views, as I hear so many times from members of the legal fraternity. It wasn't necessary to consult the others who were affected because this government and the Attorney-General had decided. The second thing is the contempt shown for the interests of ordinary Australians and for their safety. I hope the Attorney-General of Australia reconsiders. Senator Paterson and I have said we want to work with the Attorney-General in a bipartisan manner on this issue. Senator Paterson and I have asked him to make changes, and we are trying to negotiate. We are doing this in the best interests of all Australians. But, as Senator Paterson has said, unless and until we can secure agreement and restore bipartisanship, regrettably the bill is not in a form that we can support. 10:54 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak in relation to this legislation, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, with deep concern. I echo the comment of Senator Cash that the Attorney should carefully reconsider what is being proposed in this bill. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is one of the most important committees in this parliament, if not the most important committee. It is also one of the most respected committees. As someone who entered the parliament during the last term, I have always had deep respect for that committee and the way in which it has conducted itself in a nonpartisan fashion. And I have always been impressed by the comments that have been made by members of the committee—including former senator Keneally, who Senator Paterson referred to in his remarks—with respect to the satisfaction they've had working in a nonpartisan way on one of the most important committees in this place, dealing with some of the most important issues faced by this nation. Everyone in this Senate chamber should carefully reflect on the fact that, for the first time in 17 years under governments of different persuasions, the opposition members on the committee were moved to enter a dissenting report. This is of great significance. I call on those sitting on the government benches to consider the magnitude of that. That is incredibly disturbing. For the first time in 17 years the opposition members were moved to enter a dissenting report. And these members are not just opposition members; they're some of the most experienced members of the opposition who have a track record of integrity in this place and have a deep concern for and interest in matters relating to security and intelligence: my friend Andrew Wallace MP, who served with great distinction as Speaker in the House of Representatives; Senator Simon Birmingham; Andrew Hastie MP; Karen Andrews MP, who served with great distinction as a minister in some of the most sensitive portfolios in the Australian government; and my friend and colleague Senator Paterson, who did a remarkable job during the last term of parliament as chair of the committee and maintained that principle of collegiality and nonpartisanship in his committee—he did that extremely successfully and should be congratulated for that. It is such a shame that, for the first time, the opposition has been moved to enter a dissenting report due to the way in which the Attorney, principally, has conducted himself with respect to management of this issue. Those on the government benches should carefully reflect on that. The first point that Senator Paterson raised was the lack of consultation. There was no consultation with opposition members. How can you possibly think you can maintain a consensus, collegiate approach on a committee if you propose such a fundamental change to the membership and operation of that committee without even having the courtesy to discuss that with the opposition members of the committee? Why would you possibly do that? It has all the hallmarks of hubris and a lack of concern about maintaining the tradition of collegiality and the consensus approach of this committee. Why else would you possibly do that? It has all the hallmarks of hubris. It's extremely disappointing by the Attorney-General. I say to Senator Shoebridge—he and I serve on a number of committees, and I enjoy serving with Senator Shoebridge on those committees. Quite often we put forward recommendations we both support, with respect to legislation, which are considered by the Attorney. I ask Senator Shoebridge to consider and reflect on the Attorney's approach with respect to this legislation because, to be frank, it has some of the attributes which we encounter from the Attorney with respect to other recommendations which both he and I have put forward in a collegiate manner. They are simply disregarded. He didn't even enter into the process of consulting with the opposition on this matter—remarkable. Then, when there is a review of the bill, a one-month process, he gives one week for submissions to be made by our national security intelligence agencies, one week for important stakeholders like the Law Council of Australia to make submissions. I have read the dissenting report of the opposition members and it is extraordinarily concerning. In paragraph 1.16, the Law Council, in its submission—this is the Law Council of Australia, and we are dealing with laws impacting on security—said: The Law Council has been unable to consider all aspects of the Bill in detail because of the limited time for consultation, nor has it had the opportunity to adequately consult with its membership on the proposed reforms. That is what the Law Council of Australia is saying, not a politician, not a Senator, not an MP but the Law Council, who, perhaps, are one of the most important stakeholders in considering legislation like this. They were unable due to that one-week time constraint to consider in detail the provisions of this bill. That is unacceptable, especially in circumstances where, as Senator Cash said, there is nothing in this bill which is so urgent that a reasonable consultation period could not have been provided to key stakeholders. There is no ground that has been established as to why only one week would be provided to key stockholders. I say to Senator Shoebridge—I know he has a deep concern about these matters: this is an opportunity send a message to the Attorney that the way in which the Attorney has managed this matter and, indeed, has managed other matters, where both Senator Shoebridge and I have been involved in our committee work, especially on the legal committee, is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. It is full of hubris and a lack of a desire to reach consensus in this place with respect to these very, very important matters. Senator Paterson said, and this is dealt with in paragraph 1.22 of the dissenting report: In response to a question on notice, the Attorney-General's Department conceded that it did not consult with or advise any non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the committee. That is simply unacceptable with respect to how the matters on the PJCIS should be considered. Another point I would like to make in responding to Senator Shoebridge's point about the exchange of information between our national security agencies and this committee, the point which Senator Paterson was making, and I think he made very well, is that, from a practical point of view, if the security agencies do not have confidence in the preservation of confidentiality by this committee then it will necessarily have an impact in terms of the information that they pass onto that committee. I mean, that is simply stating the obvious, and I think Senator Paterson was just making the point from a practical perspective, which is why there should have been further time for consultation in this committee. The last point I want to make is this has all the overtones of a backroom deal having been made between the Attorney and whoever the Attorney has in mind to be appointed to this committee. It has all the hallmarks of that. I did provide a friendly—I'll characterise it; it's my own characterisation—interjection to Senator Shoebridge in relation to his possible membership of the committee in the event that this reform goes in. I simply say to Senator Shoebridge: if you haven't had a call, you won't have a role; if you haven't already had a call, I suspect you're not going to have a role. I think that underlines the fact that this is all occurring in the backrooms of this place in order to provide some sort of plan B for the government in the event that it loses its majority in the other place. That is the worst possible reason to make a decision to change one of the most important institutions in this place, which has a track record of operating extremely effectively in this place. That is the worst reason you would make a change to our important intelligence and security legislation. That is the last reason why you would do it. But we've got nothing else. There's nothing else that we can assume on the basis of the information that's been provided. You're led inexorably to the conclusion that this is driven by a backroom deal made by the government with someone who, if this bill goes through, will no doubt appear in the membership of the committee. I say, as Senator Cash has said, as Senator Paterson has said, that the Attorney and the government should reconsider. This is an awful precedent. Just reflect on the fact that, for the first time in 17 years, the opposition members—opposition of either political colour—have been moved to write the dissenting report. It's an awful precedent, and the Attorney should reflect on it. Members of the crossbench should reflect on the non-transparent way in which this proposal has been put forward and on all the hallmarks that it has of some sort of tawdry backroom deal between the government and someone in the lower house, for whatever reason—it has all the hallmarks of that—and should send a message to the Attorney that this is unacceptable. There are too many backroom deals. I rose in this place, as did Senator Shoebridge, in relation to the Attorney's meeting with the then president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in meeting room 3. We don't know what happened in that room, just as we don't know what happened in the room where this deal was concocted. We don't know. And then we heard that the Attorney, in his meeting with the registrar, said to the registrar that their discussion in one of those backrooms was cabinet in confidence, which is one of the most extraordinary things I've heard from any Attorney anywhere in this country. It's just extraordinary. I have so much sympathy for the registrar, who has done a good job in very difficult circumstances. My colleague Senator Cash asked a question. He had to answer it in the estimates context, and he answered truthfully, but he was as baffled as we were as to how a discussion between a single member of cabinet, who actually is the cabinet secretary and wrote the guidelines on cabinet, which say nothing about cabinet in confidence when you have a discussion with the member outside of cabinet. He was as baffled as we were as to how his discussion with the Attorney could be cabinet in confidence. This is not just about this bill. This is about the behaviour of the Attorney, and this bill provides an opportunity for all of us in this place to send a message to the Attorney that his conduct in this regard is not good enough. It's not good enough. I say to members of the crossbench that they should view this legislation in this context. It is an opportunity for the Senate to send a message to the Attorney, and I believe we should take advantage of that opportunity. 11:09 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise to make a contribution on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. Noting that we do have a hard marker at 11.15, I suspect I will be in continuation in this particular contribution. Firstly, before I turn to the specifics of what is in this bill, I want to associate myself with the comments made in the debate today by my colleagues Senator Paterson, Senator Cash and Senator Scarr in relation to the importance of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. We know that this legislation that we are debating here today will fundamentally undermine the role that that very important committee plays in ensuring bipartisan agreement on issues, legislation, matters and oversight that impact our nation's security. I think it is really disappointing that we are debating this legislation in such a hurried way and that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, had such little time to consider this legislation, when it does fundamentally change that bipartisan committee and what it means for that committee to be bipartisan. The PJCIS has a very important role to play in this parliament, as my colleagues have already alluded to today. It has an important role to play in overseeing issues of relevance to our national security, and its bipartisan nature has, for the last dozen or so years or even longer, ensured that those issues have been dealt with in a bipartisan way. That committee has been bipartisan. The membership of that committee has consisted of the parties of government. There are very good reasons why this is the case. It is important in this country for us to have bipartisanship on matters of national security, because it is in the national interest to do so. I've never had the pleasure of being on the PJCIS, but I do know, from seeing the work that comes from that committee into this place, that an awful lot of work goes into ensuring that that committee makes bipartisan recommendations to the parliament when we're considering legislation in relation to national security. That is a good thing. That is an important thing. While this bill, in and of itself, will have the impact of undermining that bipartisanship—for reasons I will get into at some point in my contribution, whether now or later this afternoon—I think it is also really telling that this legislation that we're debating here today is the first time in 17 years that a dissenting report to a PJCIS report has been tabled. Like I say, it is important that this committee is bipartisan. I think it is a show of how fundamentally flawed the process to inquire into this legislation was that coalition members of that committee thought that it was necessary to make that dissenting report and put their concerns on the record. They are very fair concerns. There was a very short process for consultation on this big change to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It was a short inquiry, and this bill has been rushed into this place today, again, I think, without the good spirit of bipartisanship that that committee is accustomed to, without fully consulting with the parties of government, without proper consultation with the government, being the Labor Party, or us in the coalition, being the opposition. This is a very disappointing state of affairs. Like I say, we all know that the PJCIS does incredibly important work, and I think, frankly, it's quite an insult to the parliament that the government has decided to rush through this big, fundamental change without appropriately consulting with members of the opposition, who, like I say, have an important role to play on that committee in terms of achieving bipartisanship of recommendations. For there to have been a dissenting report to a PJCIS committee report is a pretty big deal. Going to the substance of the bill, it proposes amendments to enhance the legislative framework of the national intelligence community by implementing a number of recommendations of the Richardson review. The bill proposes amendments to 13 related Commonwealth acts to support these proposed enhancements. The bill also proposes to amend the Intelligence Services Act to clarify the level of detail required to describe activities issued under ministerial direction. We support these— Debate interrupted. NOTICES 18 NOTICES Presentation 18 COMMITTEES 19 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 19 Report 19 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the eighth report for 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 8 OF 2023 3 August 2023 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 7.10 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 February 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 August 2023 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); (c) the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 August 2023 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (d) the provisions of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 and the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 August 2023 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023 Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 [No. 2] National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 [No. 2] Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023. Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 3 August 2023 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: CLIMATE CHANGE AMENDMENT (DUTY OF CARE AND INTERGENERATIONAL EQUITY) BILL 2023 Reasons for referra l /principal issues for consideration: This is a substantial change that will effect the following Acts: Climate Act 2022; Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991; Infrastructure Australia Act 2008; National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Act 2023; Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016; Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. There are a large number of individuals and organisations that would seek input into the bill. Possible submissions or evidence from: Industry members; Industry peaks; Climate scientists; Law Council; Climate NGOs. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): TBA Possible reporting date: 1 February 2023 (signed) David Pocock SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Complicated Bill Possible submissions or evidence from: Various Stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): August Possible reporting date: 30 August 2023 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: The bill proposes a significant change to how privileges and immunities are conferred on international organisations. Possible submissions or evidence from: DFAT IMF World Bank Committee to which bill is to be referred. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): August Possible reporting date: 30 August 2023 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Complicated Bill Possible submissions or evidence from: Various Stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred. Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s ) : August Possible reporting date: 30 August 2023 (signed) Wendy Askew Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 22 BUSINESS Rearrangement 22 11:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That— (a) government business order of the day no. 6 (consideration of the report for 2021-22 on the advances to the Finance Minister under the annual Appropriation Acts) be considered from 12.15 pm today; (b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and (c) general business order of the day no. 4 standing in the name of Senator Ruston, relating to the Albanese Government, be considered during general business today Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 22 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 22 Reporting Date 22 11:16 The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Clerk. I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. Public Works Joint Committee 22 Reference 22 11:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move together: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed works be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Australian Taxation Office—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at 15 Sydney Avenue, Barton, ACT Department of Defence—Armoured Fighting Vehicles Facilities Program—Stage 2 Department of Defence—Edinburgh Defence Precinct mid-term refresh National Capital Authority—Scrivener Dam dissipator strengthening project. I table statements in relation to the works. Question agreed to. BILLS 23 BILLS Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023 23

Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023

First Reading 23 11:18 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Climate Change Act 2022, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 23 11:18 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— We stand at a truly terrifying point in human history. A point where we now know enough about atmospheric physics and complex adaptive systems to no longer be able to truthfully assure young people that 'everything will be ok'. In March, on the release of the latest report from the IPCC, its Chair, Hoesung Lee told us that "we are walking when we should be sprinting." Since then, we've seen a record-breaking cyclone in south-eastern Africa, wildfires in Chile, Canada, Europe and North Africa, heatwaves across Asia and Europe, global ocean surface temperatures at record highs and record-low Antarctic sea ice. Twenty-one of the thirty hottest days ever recorded occurred in July, and 2023 will very likely be the hottest year in history, by a considerable margin. This is all happening at 1.2 degrees of warming and scientists warn us that we are on track to hit between 1.9 and 3.7 degrees by the end of the century. Short term policy thinking, and decisions made by politicians who prioritise political expediency over our moral duty to young people and future generations has well and truly caught up with us.    Climate change is not new. We've known about it for decades. Yet politicians and policy makers have failed to make the decisions necessary to change course. We have largely ignored scientists. Worse—some have mocked them, silenced them and actively defunded their work. There are many good people in this parliament working incredibly hard for the people they represent. There are many pressing issues that deserve our attention. But as climate disasters unfold around the world and at home, the thing we will be judged on is how we respond to the climate and biodiversity crises. This is surely the thing that will ultimately matter to young people and future generations when they look back on us. We will be judged on whether we rose to the challenge and did what was necessary. Whether we had the courage to take on the industries that have actively sowed doubt and delayed climate action. Whether we finally took real action on climate change and worked to protect Australia's incredible biodiversity. Whether we reshaped our economy and invested enough in adaptation. Future generations will judge us based on the world they inherit. They will be able to see whether or not we made decisions as if we believed that young people also have a right to a stable climate, to an exciting future. Whether or not we fought for them and their futures. All through human history we find proverbs and lessons about the need to make decisions with the long arc of history in mind. In just one example, the Ancient Greeks held that a society grows great when the old plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in. These societies weren't always great at executing on those beliefs. But often that was due to a lack of knowledge about the challenges facing them. We cannot say the same. As a country we continue to give preference to the interests of voting-age adults above young people. Children cannot vote or run for public office, so we politicians have little incentive to think about them when decisions are made. They can't bargain or trade with us. They can't run national advertising campaigns, host political fundraising dinners, employ lobbyists or get an orange lanyard. As a result, they have little representation in the market or in this building. The worst represented are the youngest and those yet to be born. With no way to make their views heard: they can't tweet, write articles, or march in the streets. They are utterly disenfranchised. And we are destroying their future. Some will say that is alarmist. But a child born today is born into a world that is hotter than it has ever been in human history. They will witness huge loss and destruction. They are more likely to suffer in bushfires, floods, heatwaves and other disasters. Without bold leadership and action, the climate that will be experienced by a child born today is grim. They'll see an increase in coastal flooding and shoreline retreat along sandy coasts, as well as the death of our coral reefs. Those quintessential Australian summer holidays will look very different for a child born today across their lifetime. Summer temperatures of 50 degrees will be experienced in places like Sydney and Melbourne. Scientists are warning us that the most extreme statistical outliers today will become average in just twenty years. All of this is not just possible, it is likely. Some of it is locked in, even if we do act with speed and ambition. But if we don't start to act like short-term profits and our fossil fuel exec buddies matter less than the children we love so much, things will be much, much worse. With the knowledge that, for the first time in human history, we can say with some certainty that future generations will be worse off than we are, the government faces dozens of decisions that will shape how we look back on this parliament, this decade—the critical decade. And so far it doesn't look good. We've seen decisions by the Minister to approve coal mine expansions in Mount Pleasant, Narrabri and Encham. And there's a stack of coal and gas project applications that would drastically increase emissions. The real test of this government is coming. The massive scale of proposed gas projects in the Beetaloo Basin, to Barossa, Browse, Veritas, Narrabri and the North West Shelf is terrifying. Emissions from proposed coal projects like Peak Downs, Blackwater South and Mount Pleasant are difficult to comprehend. When these decisions are made, we must consider the impact they will have on the climate that will be inherited by our children and future generations. In the case of Sharma v Minister for the Environment, Anjali Sharma and seven other brave school students argued that the Federal Environment Minister has a duty to protect them and other young people from the future harm caused by the climate change impacts of a proposed coal mine extension project. The initial judgement found a duty of care does exist. In that judgement, Justice Bromberg eloquently summarised the future faced by Australian children when he said: It is difficult to characterise in a single phrase the devastation that the plausible evidence presented in this proceeding forecasts for the Children. As Australian adults know their country, Australia will be lost and the World as we know it gone as well. The physical environment will be harsher, far more extreme and devastatingly brutal when angry. As for the human experience—quality of life, opportunities to partake in nature's treasures, the capacity to grow and prosper—all will be greatly diminished. Lives will be cut short. Trauma will be far more common and good health harder to hold and maintain. None of this will be the fault of nature itself. It will largely be inflicted by the inaction of this generation of adults, in what might fairly be described as the greatest inter-generational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of humans upon the next. Despite this, the students were ultimately unsuccessful after the former government appealed the decision. A key reason given by the court of appeal was that the case centred on core policy questions that the court considered unsuitable for judicial determination. Put another way, it is our role, the role of legislators, of parliamentarians to ensure we have a duty of care to our children and the ones still to come. I am proud to be working with Anjali Sharma to try and ensure we have that duty. It's up to us, as legislators, to ensure that we do what is right for Australia's young people, children and future generations. This Bill will address the current failure to consider the health and wellbeing of Australian children and future generations when decisions are made that result in substantial greenhouse gas emissions. It does this in two ways. First, a decision maker must consider the impact of the greenhouse gas emissions on the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children when making certain decisions under specific legislation. Their health and wellbeing is to be the paramount consideration where decisions of this nature are made.    Second, in the case of decisions involving the exploration or extraction of coal, oil or gas, the decision maker is prevented from making decisions where the resulting greenhouse gas emissions are likely to pose a material risk of harm to the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children. We owe it to children and young people to make decisions that protect their future. Our actions today shape the world they inherit, and it is our moral responsibility to shape it for the better. And we can do this. We don't have to just accept the status quo. I ask you to imagine a future where we've taken our duty seriously. I ask you to help build a future where we make decisions differently. A future where my niece, Georgia, and all the children in your lives who you know and love, as well as the generations to come, know we did everything we could to make their future as good as it can be. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Reference to Committee 25 Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023 25

Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023

First Reading 25 11:19 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Copyright Act 1968, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 25 11:20 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Australia is where song began. Scientific findings show songbirds originated in Australia tens of millions of years ago and then spread across the world over time. The wellspring of the planet's songbirds, this singing country, became home to songlines and the sounds of the didgeridoo, or as the Yolŋu call it, the Yidakia, and clap sticks of this continent's First Peoples. The oldest continuing cultures in the world have been playing music for tens of thousands of years.     It is no surprise Australia has developed an authentic sound. It may be hard to put in words, but you know it when you hear it. Gang of Youths, Slim Dusty, AC/DC, Human Nature, Archie Roach, KLP, Silverchair, Peking Duk, The Living End, INXS, Powderfinger, The Presets, Baker Boy, Grinspoon, Yothu Yindi, Percy Grainger, Sherbet, Billy Thorpe, Glenn Shorrock, Guy Sebastian, Shannon Noll, Don Burrows, The Kid LAROI, Pete Dawson, Skyhooks, Cold Chisel, Peter Allen, Men At Work, The Seekers, Gurrumul, The Bee Gees, The Aston Shuffle, Paul Kelly, The Angels, Richard Clapton, Jimmy Little, Thelma Plum, Olivia Newton John, Dune Rats, John Farnham, Little River Band, Split Enz, Renee Geyer, Smoky Dawson, Briggs, The Easybeats, Hunters & Collectors, Coda Conduct, Jimmy Barnes, Midnight Oil, Divinyls, Rose Tattoo, Dan Sultan, Helen Reddy, Daddy Cool, Icehouse, Lobby Loyde, Frank Ifield, Hoodoo Gurus, Marcia Hines, Jo Jo Zep & The Falcons, Ross Wilson, Brian Cadd, Radio Birdman, Nick Cave, Dragon, Max Merritt, Russell Morris, A.B Original, The Triffids, Bluejuice, John Paul Young, Lee Kernaghan, Mental As Anything, Little Pattie, Big Scary, Boy & Bear, The Dingoes, Mallrat, Kev Carmody, John Williamson, Models, Johnny Young, The Loved Ones, The Church, Kylie Minogue, The Wiggles, Pez, Air Supply, Ruby Fields, Urthboy, Tina Arena, Daryl Braithwaite, Kasey Chambers, Jebediah, Hilltop Hoods, The Whitlams, Crowded House, Tame Impala, The Temper Trap, Gretta Ray, Hermitude, Drapht, Horroshow, The John Butler Trio, Jet, Boilermakers, Sparkadia, Holy Holy, You Am I, Missy Higgins, Karnivool, Angus & Julia Stone, Birds of Tokyo, Josh Pyke, Hands Like Houses, Cut Copy, Wolfmother, The Avalanches, Regurgitator, Gotye, The Vines, Something for Kate, Middle Kids, Empire of the Sun, Eskimo Joe, Spiderbait, Cog, Washington, Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Xavier Rudd, Bernard Fanning, Cloud Control, The Preatures, The Cruel Sea, The Amity Affliction, Sarah Blasko, Sia, Flight Facilities, The Rubens, Pendulum, The Panics, Art vs. Science, Sleepy Jackson, The Grates, The Saints, The Rions, Pete Murray, Nina Las Vegas, The Waifs, Lisa Mitchell, The Go-Betweens, Dead Letter Circus, The Butterfly Effect, Pnau, Children Collide, Gypsy & The Cat, Frenzal Rhomb, Augie March, Paul Dempsey, Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Alex the Astronaut, Dom Dolla, Genesis Owusu, Teen Jesus and the Jean Teasers, Hayden James, Boo Seeka, King Stingray, Fun Machine, Vallis Alps, SAFIA, Rufus du Sol, Lime Cordiale, Courtney Barnett, Budjerah, Violent Soho, Camp Cope, Jack River, Citizen Kay, The Terrys, Skegss, Vancouver Sleep Clinic, San Cisco, JK-47, Panama, Tkay Maidza, Allday, Bag Raiders and The Middle East. Across generations, Australian music has been the soundtrack of our favourite TV shows and movies, underpinned memories made at special events, kept us company on road trips and helped us remember friends and family who may no longer be with us. The sound of our music has helped shape the character of our nation. We should all feel very proud of the music industry that has grown up here and continues to evolve as our shared culture does.    For these reasons, I was pleased to see the Australian Government launch the National Cultural Policy earlier in the year. The Policy places a strong focus on supporting Australian artists, including through the establishment of Music Australia, which will have a mandate to support and empower Australia's contemporary music industry to realise its local and global potential. There is one issue that has fallen by the wayside for too long, which is how artists and rights holders are remunerated for the use of their works on radio under the Copyright Act 1968. Firstly, it's important to understand that the music you hear on the radio comprises two forms of copyright: the performance of the underlying composition of the song (known as the musical work), and the performance of the sound recording itself—being a particular recorded version of that musical work. For the composition, licensing agreements are generally struck between the relevant copyright collecting society representing the publisher, songwriter and composer, and the broadcaster. The collecting society, APRA in this case, will then collect the agreed licence fee and distribute it to the songwriters, composers and publishers. For sound recordings, there is a statutory licence, which means that the sound recording rights holders are unable to prevent radio broadcasters from using their recordings. PPCA, the relevant collecting society for sound recordings, and the ABC and other bodies representing commercial and community radio broadcasters will generally negotiate a licensing agreement, and then collect the licence fee and distribute it to recording artists and sound recording rights holders. For any form of copyright, when the parties are unable to reach agreement on licence fees, the Copyright Tribunal is able to determine an appropriate rate, taking into account a range of factors including those raised by the parties, such as the regionality of a radio station, the economic climate, the cost of inputs and other market forces. However, under subsection 152(8) of the Copyright Act, for published sound recordings only, the Copyright Tribunal is precluded from determining a rate that would equate to more than 1 per cent of a commercial radio broadcaster's gross annual earnings. For the ABC, for published sound recordings, the Copyright Tribunal is unable to determine an annual rate that exceeds 0.5 cents per head of population in that year. These are caps, and their presence has framed negotiations since the Copyright Act was first enacted in 1968. They do not apply to any other form of copyright material, including the musical works performed each time a sound recording is broadcast. This cap is unique in the Copyright Act. It does not exist for any other type of copyright; for all other types of copyright, the free market agrees the rate and can access the Copyright Tribunal if an agreement cannot be reached. It is also unique globally; there is no similar cap anywhere else in the world. Today, commercial radio, comprising 260 stations, pays just 0.4% of gross earnings to artists and rights holders, which equates to around $4.4 million per year. The ABC pays around $125,000 for the broadcast of sound recordings across all of its radio stations. Compare that to what is paid for composition. According to a 2019 House of Representatives Inquiry, the licence fees for the broadcast of lyrics and composition were at that time 3.76% of gross earnings. At least five reviews and inquiries over the past 30 or so years have touched on the cap and its impact on the music industry. The most recent was under the last government in 2019, in a review of the Australian music industry conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts. In the final report, the Committee stated: "The Committee sees no public policy which is served by the cap and is concerned that it distorts the market in a way that disadvantages Australian artists." The Review of intellectual property legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement in 2000, sometimes referred to as the Ergas Review, commented: "...since the time of [the caps] introduction, the economic circumstances of the commercial radio industry have evolved, and the Committee does not believe capping remains warranted. No public policy is served by this preference, which may distort competition … resources use, and income distribution … to achieve competitive neutrality and remove unnecessary impediments to the functioning of markets on a commercial basis, the Committee recommends that s. 152(8) of the Copyright Act be amended to remove the broadcast fee price cap." In 2013, the Australian Law Reform Commission also considered the pricing caps in its broader review of statutory licensing arrangements for sound recordings. It recommended that the statutory licensing scheme be repealed in favour of a voluntary licensing scheme, such as the one that exists for composition and lyrics. However, they also commented that "if [the scheme] is retained, there appears to be a strong case for repeal of the one per cent cap". The findings of these reviews are clear, the mere presence of the cap is distorting the market to the disadvantage of artists, who we must remember are small businesses, often operating on a shoestring to brand, and market and distribute their product. This Bill makes a small change that over time will benefit Australian artists, walking in tandem with the National Cultural Policy. It will allow artists and rights holders to negotiate a fair market-based value for their work. And it will bring the treatment of sound recordings on radio in line with how sound recordings are treated elsewhere in the Copyright Act. This Bill does not remove the protection of the Copyright Tribunal, which will still be able to make determinations on rates if parties are not able to agree, as they do now and as they do for other forms of copyright. Removing these caps also won't automatically change any royalties. Passing this Bill simply allows the market to decide a fair rate and always with the safeguard of the Copyright Tribunal. As mentioned earlier, for all music that is played across all of the ABC's radio stations, just $125,000 is paid each year to artists. The ABC pays its actors, its writers and its journalists a fair market wage, it should also pay its artists. There are over 5,300 registered Australian artists that the collecting society collects for and I believe they are entitled to a fair go at the negotiating table when looking at the value of their works. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023 27

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023

First Reading 27 11:20 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator BABET 300706 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 27 11:21 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator BABET 300706 I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I would like to acknowledge the people of Australia whom we in this place are elected to represent to the best of our abilities. To a large extent their health and welfare rests in our hands. We must serve them first and rise above the influence of powerful corporate and globalist agendas. Today, I introduce to this place a bill that truly serves all Australians. This bill is titled "Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023". This is a bill that I should not have to introduce. This bill, if passed by those in this place will ensure that no future indemnities are granted by the Commonwealth to the manufacturers of vaccines in relation to the use of vaccines. This bill will limit financial and legal risk to the Commonwealth and aid in the restoration of trust in medicine. Over recent years, our elected members have undermined the trust of many citizens. Secret deals have been done with pharmaceutical companies. We don't know the details of these deals because transparency does not exist. What we do know is that a key part of the contracts signed with the pharmaceutical companies was an indemnity clause. The Oxford dictionary defines indemnity as: "protection against damage or loss, especially in the form of a promise to pay for any damage or loss that happens". I guess it's easier to sign a blank cheque when you know it's 'just' taxpayer money that's at stake. This is nothing short of a betrayal. The Federal Budget papers for 2023-24, contain multiple, "unquantifiable contingent liabilities" relating to vaccines. The unquantifiable liability stems from the fact that indemnity has been granted for the Advance Purchasing Agreements for COVID-19 vaccines. It was a pandemic they say. We had no other choice. Before the Australian people accept this excuse, hear me out. The potential liability doesn't end there, according to the 23-24 budget papers, indemnity has also been granted in advance to a manufacturer of a smallpox/monkeypox vaccine and a particular manufacturer of pandemic and pre-pandemic influenza vaccines. This bill, as designed, does not impinge on existing contracts, but the issue of retrospectivity is something that we should investigate further should this bill be referred to committee. A precedent has been set, the Pharmaceutical Industry has a taste for your money, and they will not stop demanding indemnity, until we say enough! Indemnification has created an incentive for risk-taking in the pharmaceutical industry which is not aligned with the fundamental principles of medicine. Where indemnity exists, it is human nature to take larger risks, whether it be a conscious decision or subconscious, the outcomes are poor. Companies work for shareholders first and it is profits that motivate their decisions and actions. Our nation has granted indemnity to a pharmaceutical company who is famous for setting a world record. Unfortunately, it's the kind of record that one would not boast about. In 2009 Pfizer forked out 2.3 billion US dollars for illegal promotion, false and misleading claims about drug safety, and paying kickbacks to doctors. That included the largest ever US criminal fine at 1.2 billion US dollars. This same company was connected to the death and permanent disability of children who participated in a clinical trial in Nigeria. We also granted indemnity to Moderna. A company which had been trading for 10 years, but until the Covid 19 vaccine, had never achieved a single product approval. Contracts known to include indemnity clauses with pharmaceutical companies have been requested as recently as 22nd November 2022 by the Australian Senate and unfortunately the government voted against public disclosure of these critical documents. The unjustified suppression of contracts in the public interest is another key driver of this necessary bill. Transparency builds trust. How can the Australian people trust their government in the absence of transparency? The only solution is to ensure accountability by passing this bill. Accountability is a cornerstone of our society. Our businesses who produce goods and provide services are expected to be accountable for any adverse or unintended consequences that their product or service creates. When a product is faulty, it is replaced. When a service is inferior, a refund is provided. Unfortunately, there are large and powerful entities in the pharmaceutical industry who have managed to evade accountability and it is our federal government who has willingly surrendered the Australian people's right to recourse from them. For a vaccine to be available in Australia it must be approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The main process for distributing vaccines in Australia is through the National Immunisation Program (NIP). Section 9B of the National Health Act 1953 allows the Minister for Health to provide, or arrange for the provision of, vaccines for distribution through the NIP. Vaccines distributed via the NIP must also be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The purchase of vaccines occurs through the Commonwealth entering into supply arrangements (contracts) with the relevant pharmaceutical companies. These arrangements would include the amount of compensation the Commonwealth is liable to pay in exchange for the vaccines and are generally subject to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules. The process for the purchasing of the COVID-19 vaccines varied from the normal process for purchasing vaccines for distribution through the NIP. While the Commonwealth Government has previously provided indemnities for vaccine manufacturers, this only appears to have occurred in limited circumstances. Indemnities provided to vaccine manufacturers and sponsors have become commonplace during and post the Covid-19 pandemic, but very little is known by the general population about the specifics of said indemnities as the contracts between government and corporations have been protected as 'commercial in confidence'. When transparency and accountability measures are removed from government contracts a threat emerges and the likelihood of errors, omissions and nefarious actions emerges. The trust in both medicine and Government is threatened by the weakening of accountability measures. The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) enables the finance minister, or their delegate, to grant indemnities on behalf of the Commonwealth. Indemnities given by the Commonwealth create contingent liabilities. In other words they may give rise to a liability on the occurrence of a future event. To achieve its objective, this bill amends the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act). That Act establishes the framework for government financial accountability arrangements and includes provisions enabling the Finance Minister or their delegate to grant indemnities on behalf of the Commonwealth. This bill inserts a new section 61A into the PGPA Act. To my colleagues in this chamber, I want you to think for a second and consider yourself in your personal life. Let's just say that you're negotiating with a builder to construct a new home for your family. You complete your plans, specifications and selections of your floorcoverings, doorknobs, and taps. The time comes to sign the build contract. You read through the contract and it all seems fine, but then you get to the term sheet and you see the total cost for your new home. You don't see a number; you see a word 'unquantifiable'. How many of you would sign that contract? I would assume it's none. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said when you are signing a contract on behalf of Australian taxpayers. You are more than willing to write a blank check on behalf of other people, but you would not do it yourself. That is why I have put up this bill. I urge you to support this bill. I urge you to treat taxpayer money the same way that you would treat your own. Our state and its elected representatives appear to have been captured and it's an ongoing problem. This bill serves multiple purposes. It's not just the limiting of financial and legal risks to the Commonwealth. As a good global citizen, it is also worth noting the potential for state capture that arises because of indemnity clauses in vaccine contracts. Published in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice is a research paper titled: "State capture through indemnification demands? Effects on equity in the global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines". This paper concludes that COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers' indemnification demands constitute state capture in many low- and middle-income countries. In global pandemics, pharmaceutical companies can exert their power and coerce nations to shift their laws or policies away from the public good and towards the demands of pharmaceutical companies. Wealthy nations, such as Australia, are more capable of meeting the indemnification demands of private companies, resulting in delayed access to vaccines for lower income nations. Indemnification has had the unintended consequence of enhancing global vaccine inequities. The fact is that the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out with the support of an indemnity clause. These vaccines have resulted in over 139,000 adverse event reports and some people have died. Based on the recent Western Australian data from 2021, the Covid-19 vaccines had an adverse event reporting rate that is 23 times greater per dose than non-Covid-19 vaccines. There were 264 adverse events per 100,000 doses, when compared to just 11 for non-Covid-19 vaccines. This is unacceptable, and big pharmaceutical companies appear to be unaccountable, and quite frankly, untouchable. This bill has been drafted in a very reasonable manner. It honours existing commercial contracts because we can't undo the past. What we can do, is ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated. We must draw a line in the sand and regain our sovereignty over vaccine contracts. The question of whether this bill is supported, or not, will be a test of those in this place. Do you represent the people of Australia, or will you sell out to the big pharmaceutical companies? Please support this bill and help me in restoring our nation's trust in medicine. Senator BABET 300706 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 29 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 29 Reference 29 11:22 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that yesterday after 6.30 pm a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Hanson proposing a reference to the Community Affairs References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is: (1) That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 16 October 2023: Treatment options for children and young people with gender dysphoria in Australia, with particular reference to: (a) whether children are being rushed into gender reassignment treatment, as has been suggested by University of Queensland Law Professor Patrick Parkinson; (b) whether psychiatrists, such as Dr Jillian Spencer, a senior staff specialist in the Queensland Children's Hospital's consultation liaison psychiatry team, who question the use of puberty blockers without an appropriate mental health assessment, are being silenced; (c) whether children are being over-diagnosed with gender dysphoria without proper consultation or mental health assessment; (d) whether Australia should follow the United Kingdom and many European countries in adopting a more cautious approach to the prescription of puberty blocking drugs, amid concerns the evidence base for their efficacy is lacking; (e) whether the Commonwealth should take a greater oversight and regulatory role in the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children, following the admission from the Federal Government that it has no idea how widely the drugs are being prescribed off-label for gender dysphoria; and (f) any other related matters. (2) That any hearings held in relation to this inquiry must be held in camera.  

The Senate divided. [11:26]
(The President—Senator Lines)

25 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. 38 NOES Ayres, T. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. 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, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:29 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I place on the record that the Australian Greens did not support the amendment to the motion which has just been resolved. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee 30 Membership 30 11:29 The PRESIDENT 112096 I have received a letter requesting a change in the membership of a committee. 11:29 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—I move: That Senator Faruqi replace Senator Whish-Wilson on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for the committee's inquiry into the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023, and Senator Whish-Wilson be appointed as a participating member. Question agreed to. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 31 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023 31 Disallowance 31 11:30 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That subsections 8(3) to 8(8) of the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023, made under the Social Security Act 1991, be disallowed [F2023L00188]. Yesterday we were debating strengthening the so-called safety net legislation, which was not strengthening a safety net but was leaving people in poverty. As I said yesterday, poverty is a political choice. Today we are debating to disallow parts of this determination. If this disallowance is supported, it would have a significant impact and improve the lives of people with a disability. Creating a fair society for people with disabilities is also a political choice. We are seeking to disallow parts of this regulation before us today because those parts are continuing to create barriers to people with disabilities being able to access the disability support pension. Today I am fully expecting, sadly, that the government will want to proceed with continuing these barriers that mean people are limited in their access to the disability support pension. Yesterday, instead of raising the rate of income support, and today supporting people to access the disability support pension, Labor are making their priorities clear. It is very disappointing that it doesn't seem that Labor will be supporting this disallowance—we might be surprised; maybe they will and maybe they'll have a change of heart—because by making the changes and disallowing parts of this regulation today, they could make a real difference to the lives of thousands and thousands of disabled people in Australia. The regulation that we are attempting to disallow parts of today sets up the rules as to who can access the disability support pension. They're the rules by which you are assessed on whether or not you are sufficiently disabled, so they are core in determining who does and doesn't get access to the DSP. This is so critical to people who have disabilities in Australia today because if people with disabilities are rejected from access to the disability support pension, then they are left languishing on JobSeeker, which—as we know and as we heard yesterday—provides a completely inadequate income, has punitive mutual obligations and carries with it the presumption that people are capable of undertaking full-time, or close to full-time, work. This results in a constant cycle of people having to prove that they're not well enough to undertake full-time or part-time work and people constantly having to be exempted from their mutual obligations. It is an absolute continuation of hoops and barriers being put in people's way. If you have significant disabilities and you're rejected from being able to access the disability support pension, then life is a huge struggle. So many of us, I know certainly all of my Greens colleagues, hear from people day after day who are saying: 'Here are the disabilities I have, and yet I'm not able to access the DSP. I am struggling to survive on JobSeeker, struggling to survive on the poverty payments. I can't pay for my medications, which would maybe help me keep my health issues under control.' They are living in totally inadequate, appalling housing, which in many cases is exacerbating their disabilities. They are living in overcrowded housing, housing with mould and housing that is too cold in winter and too hot in summer. If they are accepted onto the DSP, that provides a higher level of income support. It is still not generous, and I know there are many people on the DSP who are also really, really struggling. But if you are a person on the DSP, if you have affordable housing—obviously, a critical criteria—if you are not in rental stress, if you are not paying more than 25 per cent of your income in housing then on the DSP you can generally get by living a pretty frugal life, mostly able to access and afford the necessary medications, mostly able to afford to eat. Of course, if you are on the DSP and you're paying through the nose for private rental, if your medications and health treatments cost more than average and are not covered by Medicare, and there are far too many that aren't, your situation is more dire. But if you're not even on the DSP, well, then you are will be in a much worse situation. You will be on the much lower payments of JobSeeker. Your situation will much more desperate. These are the people that this debate is about today. It is for these people that we are seeking to disallow parts of these regulations. These people, who were given just a measly $4 a day increase to JobSeeker yesterday, who have considerable disabilities, who cannot access the DSP, have been rejected from the disability support pension because they are not considered disabled enough. It is how the impairment tables, which we are debating today, are applied that determine whether or not their application to access the DSP passes or fails, whether they are disabled enough to get the slightly more generous income of the DSP. We are seeking to disallow parts of these regulations today, not because this would create a perfect system but because it is an improvement that would make a difference. Fundamentally, we believe there needs to be a complete overhaul and a complete reassessment of the criteria through which people should be able to get the DSP. Fundamentally, we think everybody in Australia should be guaranteed a liveable income so that everybody has the income they need, whether there are disabled or not and so there isn't this cliff determining whether they get onto the higher rate of the DSP or whether they fall off a cliff and only get JobSeeker. But at least if we could get a fair system so that people who have disabilities, who need that extra support, who are not able to undertake significant amounts of paid work, could access the DSP, there would be a significant improvement in their lives. In 2021, my former colleague Senator Rachel Siewert, who was then the chair of the Community Affairs References Committee, established an inquiry into the adequacy of the DSP. I took over chairing the Community Affairs References Committee in September '21 and I chaired most of the hearings of that inquiry. Labor and Liberal senators sat in that room. Labor and liberal senators are going to be here today. I hope that they reflect upon the recommendations that we made in that committee report, that everybody agreed to, and I hope that they will vote in support of those recommendations they agreed to in that inquiry. I specifically want to talk to the top three recommendations of that inquiry because they are relevant to what we are debating today. The review of the impairment tables began while our inquiry was taking place. We received considerable evidence about the impairment tables and the limitations that they put in place to accessing the DSP. But our first recommendation related to the overarching assessment as to who is eligible for the DSP. We recommended that the Australian government investigates how the requirement for the treatment be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised is preventing people with conditions that are complex, fluctuating or deteriorating over time from the disability support pension. The tables could be modified to ensure that people get the support they need. The committee specifically found in its report that the requirement that the condition be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised is a significant barrier to be accessing the DSP. If a person's condition has been determined to be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, it is accepted as being permanent. However, if their condition is not considered permanent then it cannot be assessed under the impairment tables and they will not receive DSP. Then we continued with regards to the impairment tables, which are core to what we are attempting to amend today. We said: The committee is concerned that the DSP's impairment tables create unsurmountable barriers for many applicants—particularly the requirement for 20 points in a single table to demonstrate a severe impairment. The committee agrees that the current application of the tables fails to recognise the cumulative impact that multiple disabilities and comorbidities may have, and strongly disagrees with the assumption that individuals with impairments across multiple areas of function have more capacity to work compared to individuals with impairments in a single area of function. Based on evidence provided, the committee is concerned that the current review of the impairment tables being undertaken by DSS is too limited in scope and will fail to address the key issues raised during this inquiry. A more holistic approach is needed to assess an individual's overall level of capacity. Hence, the committee is supportive of suggestions that people with disability should be able to access the DSP through an accessible mechanism that recognises the full extent of disability. Our second recommendation was: … that the Australian Government considers reforming the approach taken to determine whether a claimant has a 'severe impairment', so as to allow the accumulation of 20 points across any number of impairment tables to meet the definition of a severe impairment. Our third recommendation was: … that the Australian Government undertake an in-depth, clinical review of the impairment tables in totality, that recognises comorbidity and draws on the lived experience of people with disability; with a view to working towards a social model of disability. The government has not acted on these recommendations. These holistic reassessments, considering how we assess people in a social model of disability, have not occurred. In fact, the government hasn't even responded to the recommendations, to the report of the Community Affairs References Committee. I know that it can take a bit of time for governments—and we've had a change of government in that time—but we haven't had a response to the really detailed considered work that we did, yet now we are proceeding with some very minor changes to the whole issue of how somebody gets assessed with a disability. It's just not good enough. It is leaving too many people, as I said, who are not able to access the DSP languishing in poverty without the ability to afford what they need to be able to live a satisfying and dignified life with their disabilities. People with Disability Australia have been scathing in their assessment of the government's approach. In their submission on the exposure draft of the impairment tables, which are almost identical to the tables that we're attempting to amend today, they said: The Disability Support Pension (DSP) impairment tables create a system of deserving and undeserving people with disability. They quoted someone as saying: "I didn't get enough points to qualify and I'm too scared of Centrelink to try again." They said: The DSP must be a truly supportive safety net for people with disability that alleviates poverty, and an important step towards achieving this is to abolish the impairment tables. However, as the Department of Social Services (DSS) has highlighted in its issues paper, the Government and the Department are largely content with how the impairment tables are operating and do not wish to see dramatic changes. DSS has emphasised the opportunity to influence the impairment tables to improve them is highly limited in scope, and that the impairment tables will continue to be used regardless of the outcomes of these consultations. This review has created a sense of trepidation within the disability community. We fear the Government will introduce yet another round of harmful changes that fail to reflect the outcomes of this consultation, as has happened so often in the past. And then they note: The introduction of impairment tables had seen the rate of successful DSP applications drop from 60% to 30% by 2018— which was the period in which the impairment tables were introduced. We note in the government's approach that there has been a change in the overarching criteria. People now don't need to be 'fully diagnosed'; they just need to be 'diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised'. However, this still leaves so many people not able to access the DSP, and they've still got the barrier of needing to be diagnosed and stabilised. Despite the disabilities that they are presenting with, unless they are actually diagnosed and unless their condition is actually determined to be stabilised, they will not be able to access the DSP. Our approach today is to try and overcome some of these barriers by removing the parts of the regulation which require a condition to be diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised before people are able to be assessed. It's an action we are taking which is addressing the ongoing inadequacy of the whole system. By disallowing these parts of these recommendations, we'll be improving access. We still won't be creating a perfect system that responds to the scale of the issues with the DSP; there is so much work that needs to be done, and, currently, the government is shirking doing that work. Currently the government is content to leave people in poverty. The people who got a measly $4 increase yesterday, who have disabilities, are going to continue to suffer. They are going to continue to not be able to live their best and dignified lives. It's a choice the government is making, and it's one the Greens reject. We will keep on fighting to make the changes we can to improve their lives. 11:45 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I rise to make some comments about the disability support pension impairment tables disallowance motion. The government opposes Senator Rice's motion to disallow subsections 8(3) to 8(8) of the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023. The disability support pension, the DSP, is an income support payment designed to provide financial assistance to people who are assessed as being unable to work for 15 hours or more per week due to a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment. It is potentially a lifelong pension paid at the highest rate of payment within the social security system. The government has a responsibility to ensure that Australia's social security system provides support to those people in the community who are most in need, that this support is appropriately targeted and that our taxpayer funded system remains sustainable. It is entirely appropriate, therefore, that the process to grant the DSP requires claimants to meet a standard of diagnosis treatment, stabilisation and prognosis before they are granted the payment. The subsections of the impairment tables relevant to the disallowance motion are those which cover the requirements that, for the purposes of assessing eligibility for the DSP, a rating can only be assigned if a person's condition has been diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised, and if a condition is more likely than not, in light of the available evidence, to persist for more than two years, with subsection 8(8) providing guidance on assessing the functional impacts of pain. If the motion to remove the subsections is successful, it would remove the ability to target payments of the DSP to individuals with disability who are most in need of support. It would expand access to this potentially lifelong pension to include those who have not yet undertaken reasonable treatment for their condition. It would expand access to this potentially lifelong pension, paid at the highest rates in the social security system, to individuals who have a short-term condition which is not likely to last more than two years and has not been treated or stabilised. Based on a previous claim rejected due to an individual's condition not being fully treated, diagnosed and stabilised, if successful this motion could result in more than 30,000 additional DSP recipients every year. It would come at a significant cost to the budget. To comply with the Social Security Act, a person's impairment must attract at least 20 points under the DSP impairment tables instrument. This instrument sets out the rules to be used when assessing a person's work related impairment for the DSP. Before being assessed under the impairment tables, a person's condition must be considered, diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised, and likely to persist for the next two years in light of available evidence. Diagnosis, treatment, stabilisation and prognosis requirements have been longstanding policy for the assessment of medical eligibility for DSP. The new DSP impairment table instruments, which came into effect on 1 April 2023, are a result of a comprehensive review of the legislative instrument. This included extensive stakeholder consultation with the disability peak body and advocacy group, medical professionals and people with lived experience of the DSP process. The Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Amanda Rishworth, personally consulted with disability peak bodies and advocacy organisations to hear their views and drew on their experience and expertise in developing the new impairment tables. In addition to multiple rounds of consultation, the review played close attention to submissions, hearings and recommendations from the Senate community affairs references committee inquiry into the purpose, intent and adequacy of DSP, which took place from 2021 and tabled its report in February 2022. Of note, the provisions this disallowance motion seeks to reappeal directly relate to recommendation 1 of the Senate inquiry report, which states: … the Australian Government investigates how the requirement that a condition be 'fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised' is preventing people with conditions that are complex, fluctuating, or deteriorate over time, from accessing the Disability Support Pension, and could be modified to ensure people get the support they need. 'Fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised' was replaced with 'diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised' in the new instrument. References to permanent conditions were removed and instead clarity was provided around the requirement for a person's condition to be likely to persist for the next two years. These changes were tested with stakeholders and the public through an exposure draft of the instrument in 2022. Feedback relating to these changes was largely positive, including support from disability peak bodies and advocacy groups. 11:52 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise in support of my colleague's disallowance motion before the chamber this morning. Many of my colleagues have spoken, in particular this week, about poverty actually being a political choice. Unfortunately, what we see is that this government and successive governments that have been elected have kept people in this country in poverty. I think it's shameful that we continue to place the blame on individuals, many of whom cannot work for various reasons. I said in my speech on Monday on the strengthening the safety net bill that we can't forget that these are not just numbers; these are not just statistics. There are real people at the core of this issue. These are people who are isolated, people who have been crushed by the poverty that they experience and by the actions this government subjects them to, people who this government has chosen to keep in poverty. It's disgraceful. Labor have actually made that choice based on the right-wing media continuing to trumped this up, the media machine that makes the disability support pension in this country inaccessible to the people who need the support. Before the election, there were Labor senators in this place who signed a committee report that recommended there be very clear changes to make DSP much more accessible. As we have seen, when in opposition, Labor members also called for the rates of JobSeeker and other income supports to be increased. Members said they couldn't possibly live on these payments. So there's a lot of rhetoric when people are in opposition. When they get into power, they change and they don't stick to those conversations and commitments or sign up to those reports. They have the opportunity and the power to make those changes within the system when they get into government. What do we hear now? We hear crickets—absolute crickets—when it comes to standing by the commitment of that committee report to make those changes. Yesterday, in this place, the government had the opportunity to increase income support above the poverty line, but they again voted against it. Today, they have the opportunity to ensure that the support for DSP offered can be accessed by those who need it the most. The true colours and the true priorities of this Labor government are becoming clear. That tagline, 'No-one left behind,' is a joke. It's an absolute joke. We have billions of dollars being spent on tax cuts and new submarines and a $20 billion estimated surplus, but no money is going to be found for some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and I think that's a disgrace. Senator Rice already talked about the 2021 inquiry into the adequacy of DSP established by my predecessor, former senator Rachel Siewert. The members of the major parties sat in those hearings and heard the absolutely devastating evidence of the impacts of insufficient payments and accessibility and the impact that that's having on the lives of Australians. Some of those same senators are in this place today voting against the recommendations of the report. What I have seen in my time is there are many, many barriers to accessing DSP, and getting a full diagnosis is a requirement before anyone can access DSP. This alone can be a huge undertaking. I'm going to give you an example of that. In 2002, I left my then job and went and worked in the machinery of Centrelink. I worked under the Australians Working Together framework that was developed. I was one of 400 personal advisers that were put in place within Centrelink to talk to some of the most vulnerable target groups in Australia around being work ready or being job ready, as they called it, because their push was to get everyone back to work. There were two categories that were covered under my mandate as a personal adviser. One was the recipients of Newstart allowance who were temporarily incapacitated. These are the people who were long-term unemployed, who had to go and get a medical certificate every 12 to 16 weeks to say that they couldn't look for work. Then there were the people newly claiming Newstart, who either were Indigenous Australians, were recently released from prison or had certain exemptions to the activity test. Those people, again, were in a very vulnerable target group and were people who regularly had to have contact with Centrelink about disability support and trying to get access to the DSP. In my experience as a personal adviser, my job was to identify what those barriers were, and nearly every single one of those people that sat in front of me talked about their experience of being able to access and of being able to tell people what that looked like on a day-to-day basis for them. These processes were time intensive and costly. They exposed people to lots of trauma. Their concerns about this were particularly in relation to psychosocial issues and even the medical trauma that they were experiencing if they had to have surgery, and people just didn't get it. They didn't get it. On the conveyor belt of assessing DSP, they didn't understand the lived experience of some of these people. It was actually quite devastating. My job was trying to articulate that to the people who were in the claims area looking at these claims. If a condition is not considered permanent and stabilised, as Senator Rice already said, it is not considered for DSP. And that is an issue. It doesn't take into account the episodes or rapid onset of disease and injury from accidents, and it does not allow for people to tell their stories. People with psychosocial disabilities in particular were a large cohort of clients that I saw. I was in the Gosnells office in Western Australia. It has a majority of very low-socioeconomic households, and people with mental health illnesses were particularly disadvantaged because of this. It was hard for them to articulate their stories and be listened to by people who had those skills. This week I've spoken in particular about how difficult it is proving your status or your identity or your issues, and I've used the example of the native title determinations. We've had lots of debates around cultural heritage this week, and people continue to not understand the intangible cultural heritage attached to that. This is about stuff that's not written down. There's no physical evidence of that so people think it's not real. This is a very different circumstance and consideration, but it's the core principle of that which I am trying to articulate is important for people seeking to access DSP. We're asking them to prove something that they know is fact and that is important to them using evidence from people who don't share their lived experience or don't fully understand that in order to acknowledge the government's programs or legislations. We know that this system, both through that report that Senator Rice was talking about and through the intensive committee work that she's done—she's carrying on from the work of Rachel Siewert—that this is a real issue, particularly for people who have DSP. These processes cause an amount of trauma that I can't even go into. People are terrified of what the system brings. In fact, they would rather avoid going into these offices. They would rather avoid picking up the phone and sitting there for hours before speaking to someone in Tasmania or at another call centre who, frankly, doesn't give them the time of day. This is the experience that they're having. I want to share one example of that. This is a constituent from New South Wales who said: 'My struggles with health meant I had to leave tertiary education, especially while trying to rent on JobSeeker. I couldn't keep up with the full course load. It was nearly impossible. It makes my mental health worse. By the time I moved away from my studies I was actively suicidal and my chronic health conditions were even worse. Trying to find work feels like lying as my ability to do what's needed fluctuates every day. I am told I have a chance for DSP with my reports from specialists. Now imagine telling your employment service provider that all you can say is you're on a waitlist, over and over again, and hearing nothing. I was able to afford to see another specialist because I had the coronavirus supplement. I'm truly hopeful that my reports will be seen as enough, because the judgemental stares from the DES people are just as wearing on my mental health as trying to figure out how to afford mobility aids or medication.' This is a very clear example of someone whose experience articulates all of those struggles for people. What the Greens are asking is for the government to take this into consideration when we're talking about accessibility for DSP and to understand that these have been articulated in these reports. We know it's not the first time that government has ignored the experiences of communities and inquiries, and it definitely won't be the last time, but time and time again we continue to see the two major parties in this place make big promises whilst they're in opposition and then cower away from them and ignore them when they're in government. And yesterday, with the increase to JobSeeker and to welfare payments, they had the opportunity to do that and again failed. We're seeing that again today, to the detriment of people with disabilities. 12:04 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The motion moved by Senator Rice would greatly expand the access of the disability support pension to individuals who do not have a condition that has been fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and that is likely to persist for two years. If the motion were successful, the DSP, paid at one of the highest rates in the social security system, would become available for those with short-term conditions. The DSP is intended for individuals with permanent physical, intellectual and/or psychiatric impairments that prevent them from working. Prior to receiving a lifelong pension, an individual must be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised. This ensures that the granting of payment reflects their circumstances and a long-term inability to work. As this motion significantly changes the eligibility criteria that underpin the foundations of the DSP, the coalition will not be supporting this motion. 12:05 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland It's very disappointing to hear that brief contribution from the opposition, which follows on from a disappointing contribution from the government in what's been a challenging week already for people who are seeking assistance from their government to support them to live a decent and dignified life. We've heard the horror stories, and I will share some of those in the brief time that I have to speak to this matter today. The reason the Greens are seeking to disallow part of this instrument is that currently, in the updated impairment tables that apply and are relevant when you're seeking to establish your eligibility for the disability support pension, there's a requirement that the individual's impairment must be diagnosed, treated and stabilised before they can apply for the disability support pension. That makes it very difficult to apply for some people who, in our view, deserve to be able to apply for and receive disability support payment. This difficulty has been felt in the community for such a long time that back in 2021 our glorious former senator and party whip Rachel Siewert initiated an inquiry into the eligibility and the lack of ease of access to the disability support pension. My wonderful colleague Senator Rice took over on that inquiry. The inquiry really was about people having difficulty demonstrating that their disability or their chronic illness is permanent and sufficiently severe and they have a continuing inability to work. For those unable to demonstrate that their level of impairment is severe, the 'program of support' requirement can also be an insurmountable hurdle. That committee heard that the key barriers to accessing the DSP resulted from the claims process and included challenges experienced by people trying to gather the medical evidence required to support their claim. In particular, the requirement we're seeking to disallow—that the condition be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised—simply acts as a significant barrier to people accessing the DSP. If a person's condition has been determined to be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised, it's accepted as being permanent. However, if their condition is not considered permanent, then it can't be assessed under the impairment tables, and they're not able to receive the disability support pension. In the course of the inquiry, the committee took evidence from a number of people on whose lives this was having a real and serious impact. We also took evidence from the department, and the department said that the DSP is potentially a lifelong pension payment and that the requirement that a condition be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised is a longstanding policy. But it doesn't mean it's the right policy or that it's a policy that people actually need. The committee took evidence that the word 'fully' in the 'fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised' requirement creates an unreasonable and unnecessary barrier to accessing the DSP. Many of the witnesses who gave evidence to that inquiry also noted that applicants experience episodic conditions and illnesses. They might experience a rapid onset of a disease. It might be an injury from an accident. Those witnesses argued that the requirement that a condition be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised simply fails to cater for those circumstances. Anglicare Australia, an organisation that does a lot of good work in this space, says: It is reasonable to expect that there should be a diagnosis, and that a person might be undertaking reasonable treatments, however the use of the qualifier 'fully', and the implicit assumption that some conditions can ever be stabilised, fails to recognise the lived experience of people who cannot work because of an illness or disability, or that their conditions may not be static. One of the individuals who spoke to the committee said: Most of us who are on the DSP or applying for it have multiple conditions. We are vulnerable people dealing with a number of stressors as it is, which do compound things. When I first lodged a disability support pension application it was initially declined. It took them just two weeks. I got the decision saying it was declined. I was advised that my injuries hadn't stabilised, that I hadn't exhausted treatment options and that the conditions had not been properly diagnosed. This is despite the fact that over the years there was a lot of evidence, including MRIs, CTs, ultrasounds, x-rays, nerve conduction studies, concentric muscle examinations, and treatments had included physiotherapy, Pilates, hydrotherapy and nerve-root injections. Again, the lived experience of people is that this is an unnecessary and unfair barrier to them receiving support, which, in my view, is the first job of government—to provide support to the community and protect nature. The committee heard from Dr Roslyn Russell from Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand. She told the committee that, due to the DSP’s eligibility barriers, one in five women her organisation sees are not receiving the payment when they should be. Here we go again. We have not only discrimination on the basis of disability but rampant sexism. She contended this indicated Australia was 'failing to uphold the human rights of people with disability'. At this point, I might acknowledge that Senator Steele-John, who is our Greens disability spokesperson, has worked so long and hard on this issue as well. He is not able to be with us in parliament this week, unfortunately, but he has fought and fought and drawn attention to the fact that multiple systems of government, including the eligibility rules for the DSP, are not upholding the human rights of people with a disability. We can't say we did not know. That is precisely why the Greens are seeking to partially disallow this instrument today—we are doing so to honour the lived expense of people with a disability right around the country. Mental Health Australia outlined how people with a psychosocial disability who may experience episodic mental illness are particularly disadvantaged. The enquiry also noted that people who were experiencing episodic mental illness can struggle to provide sufficient evidence that their condition has stabilised, and that, for some individuals, stabilising an illness can take an extended period of time. It takes the right combination of medication and living conditions. According to one claimant who was unsuccessful in their claim for DSP due to the fluctuating and episodic nature of their condition: I did try to get on the DSP, however, it requires your condition to be diagnosed, treated and stabilised. But mental health is never stabilised—it's always up and down, which means ultimately if you have any sort of episodic condition you're out of luck. I thought this was meant to be the lucky country. I don't think anyone should be out of luck in this country due to the penny pinching of their government. That brings me back to the fact that this government is actively making a decision here to continue to exclude people from eligibility for the disability support pension. This is an active choice that this new government is making. I thought they weren't meant to leave anyone behind. Clearly it's one rule for some and another rule for the rest of us. We saw yesterday they voted against lifting JobSeeker to above the poverty line, and today they have indicated they will vote against the changes that would make the disability support pension more accessible to people who need it. Yet, they are spending $313 billion on tax cuts for the very wealthy, it is $370 billion for the nuclear submarines and we just saw that there was a $20 billion surplus. Oh, no, we can't use any of that money to actually help people who are on JobSeeker or help people who are seeking to be on—and should be eligible to be on—the disability support pension. I stand alongside my colleagues Senator Rice, former senator Siewert and Senator Steele-John in calling on the government to reconsider its position on this. These are people's lives, and this matters. When you have the ability to fix this, please look at the evidence, listen to those stories and do what's right. Debate interrupted. BUDGET 37 BUDGET Advance to the Finance Minister 37 12:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the Senate approves the advances provided under the annual Appropriations Acts for the year ended 30 June 2022. 12:15 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania In part, this motion deals with the funding of additional and unforeseen expenditure required for the National Recovery and Resilience Agency, to support a decision by the Australian government to extend the availability of the pandemic leave disaster payment from 1 November 2021 to 30 June 2022. The pandemic leave disaster payment is a lump sum payment made to people who cannot earn an income because they must self-isolate, quarantine or care for someone who has to self-isolate or quarantine. The pandemic and the government responses to the pandemic have ultimately taught us that, from the point of view of governments, big business and big corporations, people are much more economic units than they are human beings. Ultimately we have lived through—and still are living through, I might add—a global pandemic that has been caused by a virulent and highly contagious virus that can lead to significant short-term health impacts, to significant long-term health impacts and even to critical illness and death. The government's response was a highly corporatised response. It was just manna from heaven for the big corporations, many of whom made obscene levels of profit during the pandemic in part because of the rivers of gold that flowed to them from the public purse. We also know that during the pandemic the ultra-wealthy in this country, the billionaires in this country, made off like bandits. While many Australians were left languishing, the ultra- wealthy profited massively. Many of the billionaires in this country doubled their wealth in the first two years of the COVID pandemic. Just think about that for a minute: many of the ultra-wealthy in this country doubled their wealth during their first two years of the pandemic, yet so many ordinary Australians did it incredibly tough during that time. It was very instructive that the then LNP government made a decision to cease insisting on mutual obligations for people on JobSeeker during the pandemic. It actually doubled the JobSeeker payments during the pandemic and, for the first time in living memory, people on JobSeeker actually had a level of income that allowed them to be lifted out of poverty, or to come very close to being lifted out of poverty. This is the level that the JobSeeker payment should actually be at, as we speak today. But unfortunately, the Labor government is prioritising a $20 billion budget surplus over doing what it can to look after people on JobSeeker. What the pandemic has done, and what the government's response to the pandemic has done, including the additional and unforeseen expenditure of the National Recovery and Resilience Agency, has not just exposed the fact that governments regard Australians more as economic units than as people but also exposed the fact that poverty is a political choice. Poverty is a political choice that's being made by the current Labor government every day. This is a government that is pouring more money into the pockets of big corporations, by subsidising the burning of fossil fuels, than it is allocating to lifting JobSeeker so that people without a job do not live in poverty. I remind folks that the unemployment rate in this country is a deliberate policy setting. This is a government that, in the budget it handed down only a few months ago, accepted that 150,000-odd more Australians are going to be put out of work. That's the government's forecast. But unemployment is kept high to keep wages low. That's what's going on in Australia. Unemployment is deliberately and artificially kept higher than it needs to be so that wages are kept low because the big corporates who donate so much to the LNP and ALP insist on wages being kept low so their profits can be kept high. That's what's going on. Anyone who takes the time to analyse where we find ourselves in our society and where we find ourselves in our economy understands that. The motion before the Senate also deals with the funding of additional and unforeseen expenditure required to complete construction of Centres for National Resilience at Mickleham in Victoria, Pinkenba in Queensland and Bullsbrook in WA. These were required to provide dedicated traditional quarantine capacity to manage high-risk cohorts of international travellers during the pandemic as Australia reopened to international travel. They are also intended to provide future contingency, including for natural disasters, health crises or humanitarian situations. I want to be clear about this: in terms of national disasters, we can expect natural disasters to continue to increase in frequency, in scale and in the impact to our communities and to our environment. The reason we can expect them to continue is climate change. One of the reasons that climate change is going to get worse is that governments around the world, including the Australian government, are still publicly subsidising the burning of fossil fuels. This is an extraordinary situation, when you have the Secretary-General of the United Nations, just this week, warning about global boiling, you've got the Australian government with aspirations to hold a COP in the next couple of years, and yet, the Australian government continues with its public subsidies of burning fossil fuels. The reason I mention that is so that people understand the merry-go-round of money here. We put money into corporate pockets to encourage them to burn fossil fuels. Climate change continues to get worse, ultimately threatening the survival of every human on the planet. And then the government has to turn around and fund additional and unforeseen expenditure on centres for national resilience to provide contingency for natural disasters that are going to get more serious and more common as a result of climate change. Those are the things that need to be said and understood in relation to these motions. Question agreed to. BILLS 38 BILLS National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 38

National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

Second Reading 38 12:26 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania As I was saying before the hard marker earlier, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 does some very sensible things which we in the opposition are supportive of. As I said before the break, this bill proposes amendments to enhance the legislative framework of the national intelligence community by implementing recommendations of the Richardson review. It also proposes to amend the Intelligence Services Act to clarify the level of detail required to describe activities issued under a ministerial direction. As I said, we do support sensible changes to support the work of our national intelligence agencies, which is why we agreed to the relevant recommendations in the Richardson review back when the outcomes of that review were provided, in December 2020, when the coalition were still in government. But unfortunately we have this situation where the government is deciding to play games with this legislation by adding the additional amendment that I foreshadowed in some of my commentary earlier—I know my colleagues have spoken about it as well—to change the composition of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That is a change that they have made without consulting anybody, and it seems today that they are trying to rush this change through the Senate, hoping that nobody will notice. But of course we have noticed. We recognise the impact that this change—introducing membership of the PJCIS to be held by parliamentarians who do not come from the parties of government—will have on the bipartisan nature of that committee. The sole point of contention between the government and the opposition, like I say, is the proposal in the bill to increase the size of the PJCIS from 11 members to 13 members and to change the required composition from each chamber of the parliament. As colleagues have already alluded to in this debate today, the coalition was not consulted on these changes. My colleague Senator James Paterson submitted a question on notice to the Attorney-General's Department to clarify whether shadow ministers, crossbenchers and Commonwealth officials had been consulted on this change. In response, the Attorney-General's Department disclosed that it did not consult with or advise non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the committee, the PJCIS, and that this measure was a recommendation of the government. So it has been recommended by the government—here and in the other place—without consulting opposition members, consulting crossbench members or, seemingly, having any serious conversations with anybody in this building about why these changes were occurring. The government is trying to rush what is an incredibly significant reform, and that is a reform of the committee itself. As I said earlier in my comments, the PJCIS was not given much time at all to consider this change and complete its inquiry on the bill. Indeed, it was only given one month to undertake the inquiry and only opened for submissions for one week. No justification was given for this extremely short time frame. I find this approach very strange when on other matters there is significant delay from the government when things would otherwise be quite critical. They are happy to rush through changes without consultation when it suits them and on other matters they are dragging their heels, particularly in the areas of national security and foreign affairs, two incredibly important areas which this chamber would know I have very strong views on. Indeed, I spoke in the Senate last night about the fact that the government hasn't yet got around to preparing a response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report on the human rights implications of violence in Iran which reported more than six months ago. That was an incredibly urgent inquiry and incredibly urgent report into an emergency situation—what was going on in Iran at the time and is still going on—not only for the human rights implications but for the impact on Australia's national security and the safety of Australians as a result of the appalling and dangerous behaviour of a foreign nation, the Islamic Republic regime and the IRGC. This committee has been waiting six months to get a response to that particular committee report, despite the fact that the committee acted with real urgency to complete its inquiry and make a series of recommendations to the government. In contrast, here today we are debating a bill that the government want to rush through this parliament. They have rushed it through the committee process. They haven't appropriately consulted. This is a bill which contains element that appear to just be based on internal political machinations of the government. My colleagues Senator Paterson and Senator Cash made a significant effort to engage with the government to ensure that this bill could be brought to the chamber in a form in which it could pass with bipartisan agreement. I refer back to my comments from earlier. It is incredibly important for our national prosperity and security that the PJCIS operates in a bipartisan fashion. As I said earlier, this is the first time in 17 years that opposition senators have felt the need to put in a dissenting report to a PJCIS inquiry. That's because they felt that their views and their positions had not been respected through the committee process. It is very disappointing that, instead of engaging, this bill has been brought on for debate in a form which the government knows doesn't have bipartisan support. The opposition senators on that committee would not have put in that dissenting report if it did have bipartisan support. As has been outlined, the vast majority of elements of this bill can be supported on a bipartisan basis. As I said, there are some very sensible things in this bill which we as an opposition are certainly supportive of. There is no evidence which explains why this change to the composition of the PJCIS enhances Australia's national security. Frankly, I think the government needs to explain to the Senate where these changes came from. Does the government intend to appoint a crossbencher or a minor party member to the committee as a result of these changes, as the Gillard government did during the minority parliament? That would significantly and detrimentally change the character and culture of the committee, which has otherwise, as I've said, been a committee of the parties of government. There are very good reasons why this is the case. Adding a crossbencher or minor party members to the PJCIS risks undermining the bipartisan consensus on critical national security issues which has long been a feature of the PJCIS. My understanding is that the Director-General of Security stated in his oral evidence to the PJCIS that the addition of two or more members of that committee will also increase the risk of classified material being leaked either intentionally or inadvertently. We in the opposition are certainly concerned that the proposed changes to the composition of the PJCIS may have this effect. That was concerning evidence to hear. But we are also concerned that these changes are only coming about because of the internal politics of this government. After the May 2022 election, the government wasn't able to resolve its committee membership for this committee for almost three months, despite the PJCIS being widely recognised as the most important committee of the parliament. It couldn't be reconvened until 6 September 2022. That was three months after the election, and the committee's important work should, frankly, never be held hostage by any party's internal machinations. The government has tacked on these reforms to a bill, the contents of which are not time sensitive, so I think there is far further consideration to be done here. 12:35 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. I will continue on the theme of the previous speaker, Senator Chandler, on this bill and its impact particularly on the PJCIS. I haven't had the privilege of sitting on that committee, but I do sit on a number of committees that are similarly sensitive, and I guess this is one area where I would disagree with my good friend Senator Paterson. He described it as the most important committee of parliament. I'd say there are other committees that are equally as important. In fact, I think we should treat all committees as serious organs of this chamber and of this parliament. The PJCIS, I will agree, does handle a particular character of information that requires its deliberations to be considered somewhat differently to other committees. I would point out, though, that the current Attorney-General does have form in this area, sadly. In particular, a committee I sit on, which, again, deals with potentially very sensitive information—the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation, which I sit on with Senator Shoebridge and to which Senator Shoebridge made a valuable contribution in its initial stages, and I'm happy to acknowledge that. But I think one of the flaws of that committee is the fact—and I've said this publicly before and I will say it again. Labor will come to regret its decision to make the deputy chair of that committee a crossbencher. Labor, when it is in opposition again, will recognise the error of its ways. The deputy chair of that committee should have been from the other party of government. That committee has the potential to deal with, in a different character, highly sensitive and highly political investigations of a sort where it is absolutely vital that the workings and operations of that committee do not become in any way partisan. It's extremely important that we make sure that the strong characteristics of bipartisanship that are demonstrated through committees like the PJCIS—or have been in the past, up until this point—can be carried on in this place in the future and in other committees as well. That was a serious error of judgement on the part of the Attorney-General. We've heard of other errors of judgement just this week. I'm not sure if characterising it as an error of judgement is quite correct when apparently the Attorney-General, as Senator Scarr has pointed out, described a meeting with the then head of the AAT as being cabinet-in-confidence. That is plain wrong. Why would those words have even been used in relation to a meeting nowhere near the cabinet office? There are a number of reasons why they could have been used. I suppose the least egregious reason would be that the Attorney-General just got it wrong. That would be the least egregious reason, but it would also be a significant reflection on his ability and his knowledge of the subject matter when he's supposed to be the chief law officer of the nation. So I think we have some real problems with the way the Attorney-General is approaching these issues. The PJCIS is a very important committee of this parliament. It deals with a character of information that the vast majority of other committees do not deal with, and it has done so, over a long period of time, in an absolutely exemplary fashion. It has done so in a highly bipartisan way. Senator Shoebridge talked about the fact that 'parties of government' is a concept that don't appear in the Constitution. Well, neither do political parties at all. Does that mean the Greens party will evaporate in a puff of logic? The fact is that these structures are put in place and develop over time because they are proven to deliver an outcome for our nation that means that highly sensitive matters can be discussed, not just at the highest levels of government but across the parliament, in a way that involves sensible discussion, sensible compromise. I know my colleague Senator Paterson put an extraordinary amount of effort in during the last period of government, when he was chair of this particular committee, to ensure that that bipartisan character was maintained and enhanced, through his work across the aisle, as it were, with members of the then opposition to ensure that they were informed, they were given time to understand issues and bipartisanship was preserved. I think that's a great tribute not just to Senator Paterson, not just to the coalition members of that committee, but also to the Labor members of that committee, and I'm happy to say that. This change, involving no discussion, no debate, no explanation of where it has come from, is, quite frankly, puzzling. It's puzzling. It's disturbing. Why unilaterally seek to change something like this, when you are supposedly a government and an Attorney-General that believe in openness, transparency, consultation? We've heard all these words thrown out by those opposite and, particularly, the Attorney-General. But then, in practice, this is dropped into legislation with no consultation, no discussion, no explanation. So, as Senator Paterson has described, is this about dealing with an internal problem in the Labor Party? If so, that is a disgraceful reason for seeking to change the operation of a committee that goes back well more than a decade—again, with a strongly bipartisan and strongly collegiate approach within that committee. It's not that people sat around and agreed with each other all the time. They didn't. There were significant issues that were strongly debated, from my understanding of the operation of that committee, but it happened within the confines of that committee, and the outcome was that we were able to preserve a bipartisan approach to these very important national security issues. To think that we now have a unilateral attempt to change that approach, to potentially undermine that committee, to wreck that bipartisanship, is a severe reflection upon the Attorney-General and upon the government. It is not an approach that we would like to see taken by this government. It was with great seriousness, I'm sure, that the coalition members of that committee handed down the first dissenting report in—I think Senator Scarr said—17 years. Coalition members of that committee would not have done that unless they believed that this was a serious risk to the future operation of that committee and of the bipartisan consensus on national security. I honestly don't believe that the government is still persisting with this change to the PJCIS's membership. I sincerely hope that, behind closed doors, in the minister's office, in the Attorney-General's office, they are reconsidering this and will withdraw these amendments at an appropriate time during the committee stage. It passes belief that we would see this kind of approach to these kinds of deliberations of this parliament, about one of its very important committees. One of the key points that we need to highlight is the question on notice that Senator Paterson submitted to the Attorney-General's Department asking whether shadow ministers, crossbenchers and Commonwealth officials had been consulted on the change. In response, the Attorney-General's Department disclosed that it: … did not consult with or advise non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the Committee. This measure was a recommendation of Government. So there was no consultation with shadow ministers, crossbenchers or Commonwealth officials. It's an extremely odd way of proposing a change to a joint committee. Again, for those following along at home: this is a joint committee, set up between the House of Representatives and the Senate. It had had a long history of bipartisan and collegiate work over a long period of time, 17 years, without either side needing to produce a dissenting report, until this change was lobbed on the committee from on high, from the Attorney-General's office, with no cogent explanation as to why the change to the membership rules of that committee is required. I think it's incumbent, as we continue to move through this bill, that that explanation is made at some point. I don't see what that explanation could possibly be that would justify the change. If it is merely to satisfy internal Labor political issues, then I think that's an absolute disgrace. 12:47 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales As it stands, the coalition could not possibly support the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. This is a bill that is crucially important to get right, as it deals with Australia's national security and the way in which national security services and departments operate. When it comes to matters of security, there has always been a strong sense of bipartisanship between Labor and the coalition. It's an area where it's often important to work together and not descend into partisan politics—something we see this place descend into all too often. This is an area that's too important to get wrong, and we can't see it mucked around with for political gain. This is why it's more than a little bit disappointing to see the government try to rush through amendments without consultation, just hoping that nobody would notice. But we did notice, because the coalition is committed to scrutinising the detail in all of the bills that this government puts forward. We are committed to holding this government to account, and we're here to ensure that the people of this country have their voices heard instead of allowing this government to prosecute its own agenda as it feels like. This government is rushing through legislation all over the place, with half-baked policies lacking detail, lacking common sense and lacking consultation or consideration of the impact to Australian households and businesses. We've seen it in the energy sector, housing, Indigenous affairs and Treasury. 'Quickly; we don't know how long we'll be in office, so let's just ram through as much as we can so that, when we're gone, the next lot will have to spend another decade trying to clean up the mess.' The sole point of contention between the government and the opposition is the proposal in the bill to increase the size of the PJCIS from 11 to 13 members and change the required composition from each chamber of parliament. As I mentioned, we were not consulted on these changes. In fact, my colleague Senator Paterson submitted a question on notice to the Attorney-General's department to clarify whether shadow ministers, crossbenchers and Commonwealth officials had been consulted on this change. In response, the Attorney-General's Department disclosed it did not consult with or advise non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the committee, and that this measure was a recommendation of government. So, basically, this government just made up its own mind because it knows best and then sought to rush through this incredibly significant reform, just hoping nobody would pick it up. The PJCIS was only given a month to complete its inquiry on this bill and only opened submissions for one week. No justification was given for this extremely short time frame and it is just simply not good enough. Governments are elected to govern on behalf of all people, and those opposite and all of us should never forget that. This is not just a job or a pay check for us. Our decisions impact everyday Australians in the real world all over the country, so we need to have that in mind every time we make a decision. There was also no evidence that would suggest this change is even required, so the government needs to explain where it came from and exactly what is its intent. Does the government intend to appoint a crossbencher or a minor party member to the committee as a result of these changes? Is this a political power play? Government must answer this. Adding a crossbencher or minor party member would significantly change the character and culture of the committee, which has otherwise been a committee of the parties of government. It in fact risks undermining the bipartisanship consensus on critical national security issues, which has been a stock standard feature of PJCIS for a really long time. And what about leaks? This is always a risk, and the addition of two more members simply increases that risk, whether that is intentional or inadvertent. The opposition is concerned this can only be a result of internal politics within the government. After the last election, government could not resolve its committee membership for three months. The committee 's work is simply too important to be held hostage by any party 's internal machinations. Those opposite have tacked on these proposed reforms to the bill and rushed the whole thing despite this not being a time-sensitive issue. Work has been done on the comprehensive review's 203 recommendations since December 2019, so, frankly, it is incredibly sad and regrettable that the opposition was compelled to provide a dissenting report in the PJCIS inquiry on this bill. As has been previously been mentioned, this as the first time in 17 years that the committee has been unable to reach consensus on recommendations in this committee. The last time had to do with the original terrorist listing of the Kurdistan Workers' Party. In the opposition dissenting report to the inquiry, we made some of the following recommendations I would like to reiterate: That Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be amended to ensure that: The Government should have six members on the Committee, whilst non-Government members should be restricted to five and with no changes to the quorum requirements contained in s.28(3) of the IS Act; or In the alternative, if the Government insists on increasing the number of members on the Committee to thirteen, then the Government should be restricted to seven members and the non-Government members to six with a change to the quorum requirements to seven members; and Only members of parties of government are eligible to be appointed to the Committee; There was another recommendation, and perhaps this is because we actually did our due diligence and came up with alternative offers and are happy to be as forthright and transparent as possible with all of you here today. We think that part 3 of schedule 1 should be omitted entirely, and 'the issue of the composition of the committee referred to a further, broader inquiry into the operations of the committee itself as dictated by the Intelligence Services Act'. This is 'consistent with the unanimous and bipartisan recommendation of the committee in its annual report in 2020-21'. I'd like to say to the crossbench and the minor parties present: if it is indeed this government's intention to add members from among you to the PJCIS—frankly, we don't know for sure if that's the case, because Labor won't tell us—I can understand the temptation you might have to want to get yourself in amongst the action. But, as I stated earlier, national security is something far too important to think about politically. We must think solely about the national interest. So I urge those of you on the crossbench and in the minors: do not support this bill. Lastly, I would like to invite—and we would all welcome—further engagement from the government on this bill to either remove or amend the provisions impacting the size and composition of the PJCIS. 12:55 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I also rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. It is with some surprise and some concern that I find myself speaking on this bill today. We have been running through the business this week with legislation listed across every preceding day this week, through Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, indicating the government's order of priority for their bills. In doing so, they indicated that the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 would be the next government bill to be considered following the consideration of the social services bill that had been considered earlier during the week as their first order of business. Yet, today we discover that the government has brought on debate on this bill—brought it on, strangely, only shortly after receiving suggestions from the coalition that, in fact, the dual bills dealing with sensitive national security management issues should be considered together. The government, failing to adopt that suggestion, ought to respond sensibly to that suggestion. My colleagues the shadow minister for home affairs, Senator Paterson, and the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, wrote to their government counterparts this week encouraging that the two bills—this one, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill and the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023—be subject to some joint consideration. Each of these bills, as my colleagues noted in their correspondence to government, makes notable changes to the oversight arrangements of our intelligence agencies. Each of these bills also overlap, and they have a combined effect that we think is significant. It would be, and is, a mistake to seek to consider these bills in isolation. That's why, as I say, it is a surprise, a shock and a disappointment to see this bill was not deferred so that the two bills changing oversight arrangements for our intelligence agencies that are now both before the parliament could be considered in a coordinated way and in a joint way. Instead of that, the government has acted in completely the opposite direction by, in fact, bringing forward consideration of this bill—bringing it up the list of the order of business and, therefore, creating the situation in the chamber today where a number of coalition contributions are being made, and made because we do think government should take heed of the benefit to be had in considering these bills jointly and together. We acknowledge that the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 has not yet been the subject of report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That's all the more reason why this bill, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill, should not be being considered at present so that we can try to work through the proper parliamentary committee processes of the Intelligence Services Legislation Bill before reaching a point of parliamentary conclusion in the consideration of this national security legislation amendment bill. We urge that because we think that there may be scope in considering them together to potentially achieve a negotiated position that considers the combined impact of the two bills across Australia's intelligence and security framework. That's why we raised these issues directly with the government. The oversight arrangements for the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Home Affairs, which are touched on in relation to these bills, do have a complex history in terms of different approaches being recommended by certain reviews over the years, although no major review of the oversight arrangements for the national intelligence community has proposed that the intelligence function of Department of Home Affairs should be subject to oversight of either the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. In fact, the Richardson review, which the bill before us responds to in significant part, expressly recommended against the inspector-general having oversight of the Department of Home Affairs, noting the intelligence functions of Home Affairs and its portfolio agencies other than ASIO are different to the intelligence functions of other Australian intelligence agencies and, as the Richardson review found, that there are no apparent gaps in existing oversight that would warrant such inspector-general oversight. Given these facts and that the Richardson review also took the position in relation to the AFP not being subject to IGIS oversight in respect of its intelligence functions, we think that there should be a coordinated consideration of the issues before us across these two pieces of legislation, rather than the type of rushed approach being applied to the bill that is before us right now and the risk of some of the proposals going against prior recommendations of expert assessment of our intelligence arrangements that are put in the other bill, which is yet to come to the chamber. Indeed, we are concerned in terms of this bill that it has been a rushed approach the whole way through. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was given only a month to complete its inquiry into this bill and only opened its submissions for one week. No justification was ever given in any satisfactory way for the very short time frame provided in relation to the bill that is before us. And now we have the government seeking to rush it forward, bringing it up its list of bills for consideration, and push it through the parliament with greater priority than bills that it had previously indicated had higher priority, such as the jobs and skills bill, the inspector-general of live animal exports bill or the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill, all of these having previously been identified as being higher priorities for the government during the course of this parliamentary sitting week. That begs the question: why the rush? Why the hurry? Why is this government seeking to put the bill through in such a rushed time frame, when it makes far greater sense for this bill, together with the intelligence services legislation, to be considered jointly and in a complementary way. It is hard to do anything other than draw the conclusion that the hurry, the rush, the desire of the government to push this bill forward, is not because of any of the proposals for enhancements and improvements to the way in which our intelligence agencies have oversight applied to them within this bill, which the coalition largely supports. But instead the rush and the drive from the government is to do with something else, seemingly the change in composition of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and that is a concern to us. That is a genuine concern to us. We are broadly supportive of the enhanced legislative framework for the national intelligence community provided by this bill that implements a number of the recommendations of the Richardson review, unlike the other bill which acts in the opposite direction to a number of findings of the Richardson review. This bill proposes 13 amendments to related Commonwealth acts and we broadly support those proposed enhancements. It also proposes to amend the Intelligence Services Act to clarify the level of detail required to describe activities issued under a ministerial direction to ASIS. I place on record broad support in relation to those reforms and my thanks to the various agencies, particularly ASIS in this case, for their engagement with the committee, and with me directly as the relevant shadow minister in relation to ASIS, for stepping us through the rationale of and the reasons for those proposed changes. That engagement is important because it's consistent with the long track record that we've sought to maintain in relation to intelligence legislation in the parliament, and that is that it is pursued, as far as possible, in a bipartisan way between the parties of government. There is no greater responsibility on governments than the safety and security of Australia and of Australians. Our national intelligence agencies play a very critical role in ensuring that safety and security of Australia and Australians. And, in undertaking that role, our national intelligence agencies have significant powers vested in them, as they need and require. Also, they operate in many areas with a degree of secrecy and confidentiality that is a necessary part of their function and operations, and so cooperation is needed across the parties of government to ensure there is effective oversight, to ensure there is effective scrutiny. But we also need to ensure that we can all have confidence through that oversight and scrutiny that the agencies have the powers they need, the resources they need and the functions they need to undertake their duties with the responsibility that we entrust to them but without breach of that security, without the publicity of their operations that could undermine or hurt those operations. And that is what brings me back to the point of contention in this bill. The point of contention between the government and the opposition in this bill is the proposal to increase the size of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security from 11 members to 13 members, to make changes to the required composition from each chamber of parliament and to also make changes to various quorum requirements. This concerns us. It was not a matter of consultation between the government and the opposition prior to simply proposing this increase in the size of the committee membership. Unlike other committees, this is a committee whose appointments are made by the Prime Minister following consultation with party leaders. Senator Wong and I, as party leaders on each side of the table in this place, have at times consulted with one another about appointments to this committee as we have both sat in these chairs at the front of this table so as to ensure that it is a committee comprised of members of the government of the day and the alternative government of the day. Respecting and acknowledging the particular role the committee has and the responsibility the national intelligence agencies have, we are deeply concerned that increasing the size of the committee without appropriate explanation as to what the intention or rationale behind doing so is will see the committee operate in a way where it is no longer comprised only of the parties of government. And with an increased size in membership, with a different composition of its membership, it changes the ability of the committee to do what it has done so effectively for some 17 years now—that is, to draw bipartisan conclusions around its work and its reviews, to not have dissenting reports and to provide Australia with outcomes in relation to the operation of our national intelligence community, and to enjoy the support of both the government of the day and the alternative government of the day. That level of bipartisanship has been critical and has played a key role in the successful work of our national intelligence agencies, and we are concerned that the reforms being rushed forward by the government, in terms of the composition of the PJCIS, could threaten that and undermine the type of work the committee does and the scrutiny it applies. Again, I urge the government to hit the pause button on this bill, to consider it alongside the intelligence services legislation in a coordinated and comprehensive way, and to compromise—in particular, by withdrawing its amendments to the composition of the PJCIS that threaten the way in which that committee operates. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 I call Senator O'Sullivan, who has swapped with me. I cannot speak because I'm in the chair. Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. 13:10 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia No problems at all, Acting Deputy President. I'll be ready in and out of season, as they say, so here I am. I rise to express concern about the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, echoing the comments that Senator Birmingham has just made, and, indeed, that many of my colleagues have made. There are some serious concerns that have been discussed here about the implications of this bill. It's quite concerning that we are this situation. National security is, of course, this parliament's most serious consideration. It's a very, very important responsibility of government and, indeed, of this parliament. I want to start by commending the work of my colleague Senator James Paterson for the continued outstanding work that he does in the national security space. He takes it very, very seriously. He commits himself to this subject with real diligence, and he always brings forward issues with real measure. He is not given to exaggerations, he is very sound in his judgement and, certainly, when he speaks of concern about something, I am one to particularly pay attention, because he is diligent in his work. As I said, national security is a serious issue. It's one of the most important issues that parliament deals with—more so currently, in this day and age, with emerging threats to our sovereignty and our security. It's a particularly strong and important issue that is becoming even more important. It's paramount that we hold the safety of Australians above any political gains, paybacks or rewards. It is absolutely critical. Most of the amendments in this bill are sensible changes, and there are some elements of it that can be supported. The changes that this bill makes flow from the Richardson review, which the coalition government commissioned back in 2018, so the coalition supports the sensible recommendations that aim to assist the intelligence agencies. But, unfortunately, as usual Labor have decided to play political games. Our national security should never be contemplated as a space for those sorts of games, because, literally, our nation is at risk if we do. Our security is at risk if we do play political games. Unfortunately, that is what we're seeing here, and it's unconscionable, frankly. We shouldn't be shocked, though, because 'no consultation' is a constant theme under this government. And there was no consultation on the changes that are being proposed here, the ones that we're particularly aggrieved by and that all Australians should be very concerned by. We're seeing that repeated time and again with this government, whenever they bring forward change. They say that they consult, but when you dig a little deeper and go below the surface of the talking points they use you realise the consultation was just cursory at best. No serious engagement is what is happening with many parts of their legislative agenda. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was given only one month to complete its inquiry into this bill and opened submissions for only one week, with no justification. One month—seriously? That's unacceptable. For the public and stakeholders involved in this space to be given only one week to consider the consequences of these changes, and report back and provide advice back to the government and this parliament, is just unacceptable on pretty much any piece of legislation, let alone something as serious as our national security. With the industrial relations bill on 'secure jobs, better pay' that went through last year, the government allowed three weeks for stakeholders to come back on them. That was unacceptable for important legislation that impacts our economy and impact people's livelihoods and jobs, to be given only 21 days to report back. That was absurd. But to do it with national security? Fair dinkum! I actually can't believe it. This is a very serious issue, and I think all Australians, anyone listening to this debate, should be concerned by what we're seeing—a repeated practice that follows this government. It reeks of arrogance; that is what it shows. We've got a government prepared to flippantly deal with matters as important as national security just so they can play a political game and win some political points with the crossbenchers or the Greens or whoever it might be that they've done a deal with to allow for these extra positions on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It's of great concern. Labor has not consulted with the coalition on these changes. This is a real deviation away from the convention that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has always been run with collegiality and with bipartisanship. This is one of the things that struck me when I first came here four years ago: anytime a report from this committee was delivered, you'd have the chair and the deputy chair, or someone from the government and someone from the opposition, stand up and speak glowingly of the cooperation and collaboration between the two parties because historically we have treated national security with the respect and dignity it deserves. That is the parties of government coming together, realising political games need to be put aside when it comes to national security; that's been the approach of this committee. For this change to come about because of deals that needed to be done with the crossbench is of real concern. The committee has always been made up of parties of government because it's dealing with very serious matters of national security. It's not a committee I'm involved in; it's not within my swim lane of issues. I'm concerned, but it's not an area of expertise of mine. I've never sought to be on that committee because I don't feel like I can add particular strength or value there. Senator Chandler 264449 Sure you can! Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Thank you, Senator Chandler; she thinks I might be able to! I recognise the people like Senator Paterson who diligently follow this and understand this. We just can't have, on a whim, non-serious people involved in this committee. It is of real concern. Including additional members, some of whom can't necessarily be trusted with such serious matters, is of concern. Adding additional members runs an increased risk of classified material being leaked, either intentionally or inadvertently. Senator Shoebridge 169119 Did you say 'Tony Abbott' and 'leaking'? Did you say 'Malcolm Turnbull'? Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Imagine if the Greens were trusted with sensitive national security intelligence. What would we read? What would we find out? This is of concern. We know that the Greens do not support Australia's alliance with the US. There are matters that come before this committee— Senator Shoebridge 169119 Did you seriously say Scott Morrison was trustworthy with the nation's secrets? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Order! Senator Shoebridge! Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 I know I'm getting a rise out of the Greens. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Order! Senator Shoebridge. Interjections are disorderly. Senator Shoebridge 169119 So is hypocritical stupidity. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Shoebridge, could you withdraw that, please. I'm asking you to withdraw that, because it could reflect upon the chair. Senator Shoebridge 169119 It was definitely not directed at the chair. It was directed at the contribution that was being made by the— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 To assist in the smooth running of the chamber, could you please withdraw it. Senator Shoebridge 169119 I withdraw the suggestion in any way referencing Scott Morrison and national security in the same sentence as anything other than hypocrisy. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Shoebridge, please withdraw it. Senator Shoebridge 169119 I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you. It's a beautiful day. Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 It's a case in point, frankly. Senator Shoebridge 169119 Scott Morrison is a case in point. You wouldn't trust him with your wallet, let alone national security. Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 The Greens cannot be trusted with something as serious as national security, because time and again you see the Greens come, whether in this place or outside of this place, and play political games. Our national security is not something that should ever be subject to political games. That is the reality. They cannot be trusted. We should look at their record of attacking the AUKUS deal with the United States and the United Kingdom. AUKUS is an important step for Australia to increase our defence capability, yet the Greens attack it on every turn. The Greens' hatred of working with important strategic allies such as the United States is well publicised. That's why you don't have a place on the national security committee. That is why you should not be on the PJCIS. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Order! Excuse me, Senator O'Sullivan. Senator Shoebridge! I have Senator Ciccone on what I presume is a point of order. Senator Ciccone 281503 You do, Acting Deputy President. To echo your comments, it is a lovely day, and I actually want to listen to the contribution being made by Senator O'Sullivan without any interjections, as you previously have ruled. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Senator Ciccone. Could everybody just enjoy this lovely day. Interjections are disorderly. Senator O'Sullivan, you have the call. Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 I thank Senator Ciccone for that protection very much, indeed. Here's what the Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings said of the Greens' approach to national security. He said it would: … effectively turn Australia into a non-aligned, neutral (state) with a defence budget about the level of New Zealand's. And that would make us ripe for the picking in terms of China's attempts to dominate the region and our island neighbours. This bill reflects more broadly the internal battles being played out within factions of the government. That's the reality. It's being played out at the upcoming national conference of the Labor Party. Rather than address the internal strife within its own party, the Prime Minister deemed it was just easier to extend the membership of this committee. That's the reality of what's happening. That's the genesis of the issue here. Rather than stand up and deal with things, as a leader should, we do a simple change to the membership so that you don't need to stand up to the internal divisions and strife, even within their own party. The coalition would welcome the engagement from the government on this bill to remove this terrible change. In the time that we have left before the final vote is put on this bill, I encourage you to stop, consider, press pause and deal with us. Let's work something out so that we get a reasonable result that reflects the recommendations that were originally made through the Richardson review and that addresses, maybe, some deficiencies—and addresses them in an appropriate way. That is the way of a sensible, sound government; it takes national security seriously. That's the offer the opposition has provided and has put on the table, and we encourage you to accept that. The coalition would welcome engagement from the government. It's in Australia's interest to keep national security above partisanship and politics. This is of grave concern not just to those here in this place but, indeed, to those across the country. It's not just we as politicians who are interested in this—it's our homes; it's our livelihoods; it's our families; it's people. The security of our nation is the most important thing that this parliament and, indeed, the government has to contend with. So I urge the government: please, don't do this just for a cheap political win—whether it be for internal purposes or to deal with the future make-up of some minority government or whatever it might be that you have to deal with in the future. Let's deal with the reality right now, which is that our national security is of utmost importance. Don't treat it flippantly. Address it by working with a party of government that is responsible and wants to deal with these things in a sound and serious way. Don't just give in to cheap political points. 13:27 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill. I just want to start by responding to some of the rubbish we've just heard from Senator O'Sullivan—in particular, his contention that if the Greens had a member on the PJCIS it would leak. I refer Senator O'Sullivan to the fact that the media regularly, and with some frustration I might add, write articles about how the Greens don't leak. In fact, somewhere between 40 and 50 per cent of the stories generated out of this place into the press gallery actually come from leaks from either the Labor Party or the Liberal Party. It is the parties of war, the parties of the police state, the parties of the surveillance state that are leakers, and do you know why that is, Senator O'Sullivan? It's because only broken things leak, and the Labor and Liberal parties in this place are horrendously broken. One of the ways in which they are broken is that they are completely captured by the intelligence apparatus in this country. That's the problem that we have here, and it's one of the problems that the PJCIS has, because, of course, what happens in this parliament and in that committee is that the spooks or the intelligence apparatus come in to the responsible minister of the day and say, 'We want more powers,' and the responsible minister of the day tugs the forelock and says, 'Yes. Of course you need more powers. I'll take that to cabinet,' and cabinet, of course, tugs the collective forelock and says, 'Yes. Of course. We're going to give you more powers.' So it goes through cabinet, and then these bills get drafted. They go through cabinet, and then they go into the smoke-filled, darkened meetings of the PJCIS, and what happens in there is that whichever of these two parties of war, whichever of these two parties of the police and surveillance state, is in government says, 'Yes. We've passed this through cabinet,' and then the opposition, whichever one it is—whether it's the Labor Party or the LNP; they're equally captured by the security apparatus in this country—says: 'Yes. We agree with that. We think the spooks need more powers as well, to increase the surveillance on ordinary—' Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 It being 1.30 pm, we will now proceed to statements by senators. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 47 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS South Australia: Infrastructure 47 13:30 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia It was great to have the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, Senator McKenzie, in South Australia over the winter break because it gave us the opportunity to meet with the Hahndorf community group to discuss the promised Hahndorf bypass, which now, very disappointingly, appears to be under risk from this Labor government. It was one of four key election commitments in the Mayo area and should be a priority of this government. The $250 million Hahndorf Road upgrade was meant to get heavy vehicles off the streets of Hahndorf, a historic town with a very busy main street. Local community members have made it clear that this project should go ahead as an absolute priority. This is a matter of road safety. Every day, heavy vehicle after heavy vehicle thunders down the narrow streets of the historic town which has the honour of being South Australia's No. 1 tourist destination. Those on this side of chamber understand that axing this project ignores the very real risk of a serious accident happening, which is the No. 1 reason why the people of the community of Hahndorf have been asking for this for a very long time. The coalition invested $200 million in the project to make it happen in its last budget. But it's not just the residents of Hahndorf who are paying the price of the Labor cuts to critical infrastructure investment; all South Australians are being significantly impacted, with the number of projects across regional and metropolitan areas being delayed and cut. It includes $20 million to the Main South Road upgrade. It also risks the $200 million coalition funded upgrade to the Onkaparinga Valley Road intersection at Nairne Road and Tiers Road, as well as the final section of the Fleurieu connections project. These infrastructure projects for the Mayo electorate are absolutely critical for improving the safety of the local road network. They should be a priority of the Albanese Labor government but, clearly, this government is only interested in announcing important projects at election campaigns, not in delivering them in government. Australia and Aotearoa-New Zealand Indigenous Collaboration Arrangement 48 13:32 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Last month I had the honour of hearing from Maori and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander business sector leaders at the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum in Wellington. My visited coincided with the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Chris Hipkins' announcement of the Trans-Tasman Roadmap to 2035. Under the Trans-Tasman Roadmap, both countries have agreed to strengthen the Australia and Aotearoa-New Zealand Indigenous Collaboration Arrangement. The ICA recognises the ancestral connections of Indigenous peoples to traditional lands and our unique contributions to our economies. It provides for economic, social and cultural advancement between New Zealand and Australia. At the leadership forum I heard from Carol Vale, CEO of Murawin and a Dunghutti woman from Armidale New South Wales, who advocated for applying a gender lens to the ICA. As 54 per cent of Indigenous exporting businesses are led by Indigenous businesswomen, a gender lens is critical to the sector's success. She highlighted the importance of organisations like Supply Nation, Australia's leading database of verified Indigenous businesses turning theory into practice. I heard from Jack Reis from Baidam Solutions, who spoke about cybersecurity as a lucrative industry for First Nations participation and, notably, one that does not often require traditional qualifications. This is particularly pertinent when considered against the Closing the Gap figure, which reports year 12 attainment for Indigenous Australians has been 25 per cent lower than that of non-Indigenous Australians. I heard from Daniel Joinbee, a proud Gunggandji man from Yarrabah, Queensland whose business, Gunggandji Aerospace, connects remote Aboriginal communities and the Torres Strait Islands through heavy lift drone technology. These discussions in Wellington are the first in a series of conversations with Indigenous business communities, and conversations from these forums will inform the updating of the first ICA. (Time expired) Higher Education: Physical and Sexual Harassment and Violence 48 13:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Every student has the right to study in a safe, respectful environment without fear of being sexually harassed or assaulted. Every student deserves safety, yet far too many uni students come to experience sexual violence, especially women, non-binary people, people with disability and First Nations people, with hundreds of students reporting harrowing experiences of sexual assault and harassment every week. These are not just numbers but people. Their traumatic experiences of sexual violence can totally upend and ruin their lives. No-one should ever have to experience this. I stand in solidarity with the tireless campaigners, such as End Rape on Campus, Fair Agenda and the National Union of Students, who have bravely shone a light on sexual violence on campus and who are holding universities to account and calling for action. Governments and universities have failed to act, despite knowing for years about the shocking prevalence and damaging effects of sexual violence on campuses. It is disgraceful that Universities Australia shelved a $1.5 million sex education program because of the outdated, prudish views of a minority of vice-chancellors who thought it was too explicit. Why is Universities Australia avoiding this issue while students continue to be unsafe? Rather than take meaningful action, Universities Australia could only serve up an expensive report which largely rehashes existing materials. We need more than reports; we need action that actually makes students safe. It's clear that universities cannot be left to regulate themselves to address sexual assault on campuses. We need an independent authority with powers to monitor and evaluate universities on their work to end sexual violence on campuses and we must impose serious consequences when universities fail to provide a safe learning environment for students. Indie Schools 48 13:36 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Today I want to add a voice of support for the Indie School network of schools across this country that do exceptional work for students who have been disengaged from the mainstream education system. I will disclose at this point that I have a family member who works as a social worker within one of those schools, which gives me some insights into the valuable work that they do. Under the current model that the government is running, their funding is under serious threat as we speak. As an organisation that is growing and is enrolling more students, it stands to lose up to $5 million in funding at the end of this year. The government, to its credit, did give them some additional support for this year, but their problem hasn't been resolved, and it should be. The government should fix this. I attended the graduation at one of the schools last year. Thirty per cent of the students in that school graduated back into mainstream school, a brilliant result for kids who are really troubled. Another student, who had enrolled in the school effectively non-verbal and in a wheelchair, came to the dais. You could see how hard she was working to make a speech to those assembled at that graduation ceremony. It was a huge effort for her to speak to a crowd, because that was not what she was used to doing. She completed her speech, she walked back to her place and she did a jig. It was heartwarming to see the transformation in that student because of the support that she'd received at that school. Those schools deserve the support of the government. They should not be under threat of losing $5 million in funding. The government needs to fix this. Superannuation 49 13:38 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria During the first half of this year, I was fortunate enough to host an intern from the Australian National University's internship program. As part of the program, she investigated and reported on the former government's COVID-19 early release of superannuation policy. She found that the policy not only failed to account for the gender blind spots in Australia's superannuation system but compounded them. The Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 found that the Liberal-National government ignored expert gender policy advice, including that from the Office for Women, when designing the COVID-19 early release of super policy. They also failed to properly consult super funds and peak financial bodies like APRA. APRA was made aware of the policy only four days before it was publicly announced and was asked to provide same-day advice to the Morrison government. The policy process was purposely truncated to avoid consultation with super funds and policy experts. It was a thought bubble made law. The super early release program meant poorer Australians, particularly working women with below-average super balances, were encouraged to mortgage their futures and access money earmarked for their retirements. As my ANIP student's report detailed, the policy was irresponsible but was made worse by the Morrison government's other poorly thought out COVID-19 measures in respect of women, which, in the end, forced a reliance on early access to super. Australian women did not want to access their super as part of the COVID-19 early release program. In many cases they felt they had no other choice due to the profound lack of properly targeted government support. Because the policy was so poorly designed the outcome of the early super release program won't be fully known for some time. We don't know exactly how many people accessed this and how it was spent, but we know how compound interest works, so we can absolutely say that the policy means the capacity for today's young Australian women to retire with dignity has been significantly compromised. Australian Defence Force 49 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania At Defence budget estimates this year I asked a series of questions about the US Department of Defense threatening to trigger the Leahy law as an excuse to take administrative action on our Aussie diggers. This law prevents the US Department of Defense from collaborating with organisations accused of war crimes. That includes our own. It's a very serious threat and it was made by what is supposed to be one of our closest allies, back in 2020-21. In response to the question General Campbell told me he would have to take that question on notice, that he would have to 'brush up on the law'. At the time I wondered how it could be that our own Chief of Defence Force didn't appear to know much about this. Did he really know? Did he not? Or did he just not want to tell Senate estimates what he knew. Well, well, well, give it up CDF, because I can tell you that a story in last night's Guardian newspaper shows he knew exactly what I was asking about! FOIs obtained by the paper show that in 2021-22 General Campbell briefed two defence ministers no fewer than five times over such a serious matter, but he's lost memory of it? Doesn't know? What a load of rubbish! He then closed the issue on 12 April 2022. Listen very carefully, Australians—the day after the caretaker period started last year! At every estimates the CDF avoids direct answers. He doesn't like accountability. He doesn't like answering to his superiors and thinks he is above parliament. Once again, get out of uniform. It is time for you to go. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 49 13:42 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I believe that in the run-up to this year's constitutional referendum it is extraordinarily important that the debate is conducted in a respectful, civilised fashion. But I also believe that the Australian people have a right to have all the details and information before they vote. That means the Australian people have a right to know what is the full government agenda associated with their proposal for a constitutionally enshrined voice. The fact of the matter is, in the minutes from 13 'regional dialogue' consultation events, held in 2016 and 2017 as part of the national consultation process about how to best recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution—the document which is available on the NIAA's website—there is an inextricable link between the Voice and treaty. As it says on page 17: Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process. Then, on page 19 it says: In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP) … That's actually contained in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is unacceptable that, when the Prime Minister goes on no less than Radio National Breakfast with the ABC and is asked seven times what the position of the government is in relation to treaty, on seven occasions he refused to give a direct answer to Patricia Karvelas. Thereby he refused to give a direct answer to the people of Australia. The people of Australia have a right to all of the information and details before they vote in the referendum later this year. Bowel Cancer 50 13:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland During the last sitting period I met with Rachel, an advocate for Bowel Cancer Australia's, Never2Young campaign, and a mum of three from Deception Bay on the Brisbane's northside. Rachel was diagnosed with stage 3 bowel cancer at the age of 38. She has asked me to share her story to parliament to raise awareness of bowel cancer and the impacts it can have on younger people. Bowel cancer is the sixth leading cause of death for Australians aged 25 to 44, and in just three decades there has been a 266 per cent increase in bowel cancer incidences in 15- to 24-year-olds. Initially, when Rachel went to see her doctor, her symptoms were dismissed as stomach pains, and no further investigations were done. A year later, she was admitted to her local emergency department, and doctors discovered a tumour and 20 cancerous lymph nodes. Rachel said that bowel cancer wasn't a consideration for her GP, but with greater awareness we could see more timely diagnosis that can make a significant difference for so many Australians. As the youngest person in her local hospital support group, Rachel also wanted to highlight the uniquely challenging impacts that younger people face following their diagnosis and treatment and the importance of good support groups. After six months of fortnightly chemotherapy, Rachel finished her treatment a few weeks before we met. Now, she is doing her part by raising awareness. Last weekend, Rachel hosted a bowel cancer gala in Redcliffe to raise funds to continue the fight against bowel cancer. I was glad to support this event, which was attended by over 170 people and raised over $14,000. I want to thank Rachel for making the journey to Canberra to speak to me about the Never2Late campaign and for raising awareness of this important issue. I wish Rachel the best for her ongoing health and wellbeing. Australian Defence Force 50 13:46 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Leadership, to be effective, must be accountable, but the reality is accountability is too often missing in this place, and that is no more evident than in the government's refusal to hold to account the poor senior leadership within the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence. The ADF is a mess right now. It has high attrition rates, low recruitment rates and suffers from repeated delays, cost blowouts and outright procurement failures. Then there was the Brereton report, the inquiry that found credible evidence to implicate 25 current or former ADF personnel in the alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. Dangerous and expensive platforms, like the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter, have been stripping the resources of the ADF and risking the lives of personnel for decades. The ADF and Defence collectively failed to comply with the law before signing Australian taxpayers onto a $45 billion Hunter frigates program that was always told to be an extreme financial and capability risk. Together, they burned over $5 billion on the torpedoed French submarine projects. These were the same submarines that the ADF and Defence were repeatedly telling us were essential for the defence of Australia, until one day they aren't. The list could go on, but one thing remains the same: not a single senior member of the ADF or Defence has been held to account for these failures. Not one. In fact, they've almost all been promoted or had their contract extended or been handed another highly paid role in government. None of this is the fault of the thousands of committed and hardworking personnel on the ground, but now the government, at the request of Defence leadership, is delivering them hundreds of billions of dollars more for nuclear powered submarines, missile systems and armoured fighting vehicles, all money stolen from health, education and climate. With the same crew in charge and their growing sense of entitlement, does anyone seriously believe they are up to the task? If they do, then I have a bridge or maybe a future submarine project to sell you! Northern Territory: Gas Exploration 51 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory As we know, the Albanese government has picked up where the Morrison government left off when it comes to gas and has committed $1.5 billion for a petrochemical facility on Darwin Harbour that will be used to process gas fractured in the Beetaloo. Northern Territory paediatricians are worried that their home stands to become the world's next cancer alley. Evidence out of the US shows that they're likely to see increases in stillbirths, pregnancy complications, cardiovascular disease, asthma presentations, childhood cancers and even premature deaths. The health system is worried. Doctors are worried. Nurses are worried. And they want to be heard. They feel like they're not being heard in the Northern Territory. Twelve hundred doctors, nurses and health professionals have already signed an open letter asking the government to withdraw support for Middle Arm. Next Tuesday, doctors are coming to Canberra to tell the government that they need to prioritise the health of Australians rather than the health of gas companies. They're coming to Canberra because they're already struggling to deal with the health impacts of a changing climate. On Tuesday morning we'll be holding a rally out the front of Parliament House at 8 am. I invite all my colleagues here to come and speak with doctors, nurses and parents from the Northern Territory who want climate action and who want the government to withdraw support for fracking the Beetaloo basin so that they and their children and future generations can live safely in Darwin. Isolated Children's Parents Association 51 13:50 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Imagine being a young parent living on a remote outback station and thinking about what to do for your children's education. It can feel very isolating, but it need not be. I recently had the opportunity to attend the annual conference of the Isolated Children's Parents Association, which was held in Darwin. I attended along with my colleagues Senator McDonald and Senator Nampijinpa Price. The ICPA have been working tirelessly for over five decades, and this was their 52nd conference since the ICPA's foundation in 1971. The ICPA have provided a voice for over 2,500 members and are a pivotal force in ensuring the education of our remote and regional students, ensuring equity of access and ensuring that those students aren't forgotten, right from early childhood needs to preschool, primary school, high school and tertiary education. Their membership covers a very broad spectrum of rural, regional and remote families and communities and includes primary producers, small-business owners and educational institutions that cater to the geographically isolated communities. Their lobbying over the years has included support for transport for students to get to school, support for regional university centres and support for families and their support networks. The association's enduring commitment has made it a powerful advocate for rural and remote education. I thank the ICPA for having me and I thank them for the work they do and the support they give to those families so they're not isolated. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 51 13:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Yesterday, in an interview with Patricia Karvelas on Radio National, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese misrepresented his party's support for a federal treaty with Indigenous Australians, and he continues to mislead Australians about the obvious link between his Voice and his federal treaty process. He has contradicted his own words and those of his current ministers. As shadow minister, Linda Burney said: … we will also make makarrata—treaty and truth telling—a priority. …   …   … It will work with the voice to parliament when it is established. …   …   … With respect to treaty, it would recommend a framework for federal treaty making … As shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus said: Labor has committed to honouring that request by establishing in government as a matter of priority a makarrata commission. … the commission's oversight of treaty would include developing a framework for federal treaty-making … As opposition leader, Anthony Albanese said: An Albanese Labor government will establish a Makarrata Commission as a priority.    …   …   … It will work with a Voice to Parliament when it is established …    …   …   … The Makarrata Commission's treaty responsibilities will initially include: recommending a framework for federal treaty-making … On 12 February 2020, in the House of Representatives, Anthony Albanese also said, 'The Voice must be followed by truth-telling'— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Senator Polley, on a point of order? Senator Polley e5x Just a reminder of the correct title for the Prime Minister. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senators are reminded to use the appropriate titles for members and senators. Senator HANSON BK6 He said: The voice must be followed by truth-telling … truth must be followed by a makarrata commission. … It's a path to a national treaty that acknowledges the pre-existing rights of people in a land where sovereignty was never seeded and acknowledges that we are on what is Aboriginal land—always was, always will be. That is not deserving of the Prime Minister, and as far as I'm concerned he's nothing but a coward and should be thrown out of this. He's a bloody liar. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Polley, on a point of order? Senator Polley e5x I don't really believe that sort of language is appropriate for the Prime Minister of this country or any former prime minister. I draw it to your attention— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 If you're seeking to make a point of order on personal reflections, it's noted, and I draw the senator's attention to the point of order. I didn't catch the exact phrase, and I've just been referred to it now. Senator Hanson, I do believe the language used was unparliamentary and I request that you withdraw. Senator HANSON BK6 I do withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 That's gratefully received. Senator Barbara Pocock— Senator HANSON BK6 I had two minutes. I want our current Prime Minister gone. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hanson, resume your seat. Senator Pocock. Climate Change 52 13:55 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia The evidence of climate change is everywhere. Climate experts have deemed July 2023 the hottest month on record in all of human history. Wildfires are burning in Greece, Italy, Tunisia, Portugal, Croatia and Algeria, and we've just witnessed a melting of Arctic sea ice that would occur naturally only once every 7.5 million years. The UN Secretary-General has sounded the climate death knell, declaring that the era of global warming has ended and that the era of global boiling has arrived. Yet politicians sitting in this very building have been ignoring the warning signs and consigning Australians to a future of unbreathable air and unbearable heat. Hands over ears, this government has approved three new coal projects in the last couple of months alone. Australians did not vote for this, but Labor are captured by donations from the coal and gas industries. Dr Joelle Gergis is one of our many leading contributors to the international climate debate. I thank her and her colleagues for their contributions. She recently wrote: … our political leaders are choosing to support the fossil fuel industry down to the bitter end … our leaders are choosing to safeguard the profits of an industry that sells products they know are destroying the planet. Clearly, this industry is fighting for its survival, not ours. The level of fossil fuel profits and climate inaction is unacceptable. The endless stream of climate disasters inundate our newsfeeds, but, as the UN Secretary-General said, this must not inspire despair. Instead, let it inspire action. Labor's new fossil fuel approvals are costing people their homes, their lives and eventually their futures. We are seeing the consequences of their inaction play out daily in front of our eyes and on our screens. It is affecting the optimism of the generations ahead. The Labor government is being reckless with our climate and our future. It's time to stop new coal and gas if we're to preserve a liveable planet and a future for our kids. Domestic and Family Violence 52 13:57 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Since the last sitting of parliament, nine Australians have died at the hands of someone close to them through family violence. They have been shot, rammed, stabbed and bludgeoned. There remain victims who are yet to seek help with terrible, ongoing consequences. Those opposite promised Australians 500 frontline community service workers for the sector. More than one year on, not a single one has joined the workforce. In Central Australia, the $250 million promised is flowing, but tell us to which services. Why not to the women's shelter in Alice Springs, where over 90 per cent of clients are Indigenous? Is it because they're not Aboriginal community controlled? I'll give you a dose of common sense. Aboriginal community control is not a primary concern of those fleeing for their lives. They don't care about that. They want to know there's a place to shelter from harm and that the people there to assist them are equipped to deal with that. What are you doing to assure us that the money is going to be spent wisely, practically and for maximum benefit? The monthly crime figures show how dire it is. South Australian statistics show that family violence has risen by 10 per cent in the rolling year to May. Even more heart-wrenching is the fact that there has been a 26 per cent increase in family violence in the Territory. There were 5,636 domestic violence incidents in the NT in the year from 1 June 2021, and there were 7,112 in the period from 1 June 2022 to 31 May this year. That's 1,476 incidents more than in the previous period. Haste, common sense, transparency and accountability start to change this trajectory, so let's see it. On a better note, it's great to see the 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. We've all been supportive of that. Lawler, Mr Geoffrey Grahame 53 13:59 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I was very sorry to hear of the death of a wonderful trade unionist and champion of workers from country New South Wales, Geoff Lawler, on Saturday 8 July 2023. He was born in the Hunter Valley in 1950, and he worked tirelessly in country New South Wales for decades. A carpenter by trade, he was elected by his workmates as a delegate to the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia. He played a leading role among union officials in the Riverina—a group that I was very privileged to be a part of. An official of the old Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, now the United Workers Union, he was a very decent person. He'll be very sadly missed, and I want to pass on my condolences to his wife, Yvonne, and children, Scott, Justine and Steven. The PRESIDENT 112096 We will now go to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 53 14:00 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. After the government released a budget that economists from Barrenjoey called 'inflationary' and which did nothing to reduce inflation, the ABS said yesterday that increasing interest rates over the year contributed to living cost rises ranging from 6.3 per cent to 9.6 per cent. The average Australian family must find an additional $22,000 this year to cover the mortgage repayment increases that have happened on your watch. At the same time, real wages have gone backwards. Is this what the Prime Minister had in mind when he said he had a plan for cheaper mortgages? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator O'Sullivan for the question and the focus on cost of living, because the government has acknowledged that many Australian households are doing it tough right now. We are in an inflationary environment. The highest inflationary quarter, of course, was under the former government's watch—2.1 per cent in the March quarter of last year. We are seeing inflation moderate, which is pleasing, but it's staying higher for longer than we would like. In relation to the budget and the cost-of-living initiatives which we have put in place, they are precisely to deal with those pressures that households are under. Whether it be child care, cheaper medicines, the energy bill relief, the investment in Medicare or the investment in fee-free TAFE, these are all areas that the government has identified where we can invest to make a real difference in people's household budgets but not add to inflation. I note Senator O'Sullivan selectively quoted from an economist in his question. I think if you put 10 economists in a room you might likely get a few different opinions. But I, and the government, will take the advice of the Treasury secretary and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who have both confirmed that the government's budget actually put downward pressure on inflation through the energy bill relief and the price caps that we put in place that those opposite opposed. Had they had their way and we weren't able to progress that important form, it would have kept prices up higher for longer and that would have affected household budgets. So we have done the responsible thing. We've targeted our cost-of-living relief but not in a way that adds to inflation that will hurt households in the long term. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, a first supplementary? 14:02 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia ABS data shows that the cost of living for Australian workers, self-funded retirees and pensioners rose again in the June quarter under your Labor government. The data shows that many Australians are taking on additional jobs just to make ends meet in Labor's cost-of-living crisis. The Prime Minister said his 2023 new year's resolution was to deal with the cost-of-living crisis. Will he now admit to the Australian people that his resolution and his government's policies have failed? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The short answer to that question is no. The government is absolutely focused on supporting Australians through this cost-of-living crisis. We accept that people are doing it tough, and that is why we have calibrated and targeted our cost-of-living relief to those areas where we can make a difference without adding to inflation. I think the opposition's economic narrative is very mixed up, because we have people saying we are spending too much and then we have them saying we are not spending enough. There are a whole range of opinions. We are very clear about what we have to do. We have to fix the budget and make sure it's in the shape it needs to be so we can use it for those important investments we need to make at the time we need to make them. We need to grow the economy through our agenda, particularly around fee-free TAFE, the clean energy transition and the digital economy. We need to provide cost-of-living relief where we can without adding to inflation. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, a second supplementary? 14:04 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia ABS data shows an annual rise in food prices between seven and eight per cent and an annual rise in utility prices between 12 and 14 per cent, driven by the energy bills that the Prime Minister said would actually go down by $275. Prior to the election, the Prime Minister said Australians would be better off under a Labor government. Why did the Prime Minister not tell the truth? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I note Senator O'Sullivan has used wages in one of his questions and used energy bills in another of his questions—both areas where those opposite either voted against it or kept wages low for an entire decade. And they now come in here and, all of a sudden, care about working people's wages. What a surprise! After a decade of— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order! Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING This feigned horror at wages policy—what an absolute joke! A deliberate design feature of your economic architecture was to keep wages low. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt! Senator Hume! Senator GALLAGHER ING Now they're increasing; for the first time in a decade, we're seeing promising wages growth to assist people with some of those increases in the cost of living. That is our plan. We are implementing our economic plan to support households through this high period of inflation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call Senator Payman, I remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly. Towards the end of the minister's response then, your interjections were drowning out the minister. That's incredibly disorderly. Pensions and Benefits 54 14:06 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Farrell. The Albanese government recognises that many people in Australia are facing cost-of-living pressures right now. Can the minister please outline how the passage of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill in the Senate yesterday is helping to deliver on the Albanese government's $14.6 billion cost-of-living package to give some relief to Australians on some of the lowest incomes? 14:07 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Payman for her question. I know she has a deep interest in this area of Albanese government policy. Yes, I can give you some information about that. The Albanese government has not wasted a single day— Senator Watt 245759 Not one! Senator FARRELL I0N Not one—delivering on our positive agenda to improve the lives of all Australians. We know cost-of-living pressures are having an impact on family budgets right across the country. That's why, in the 2023-24 budget, we committed $14.6 billion of targeted cost-of-living relief. Senator FARRELL I0N I'll repeat that figure for you, Senator Ciccone: $14.6 billion. Of this package, $9.5 billion was designed to provide additional support for Australians who are living on the lowest incomes. Yesterday, the government's Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill passed the parliament. The bill delivers more support for those relying on student and working age payments, for many single parents, for older Australians facing additional barriers to work and for many who receive support from Commonwealth rent assistance. These are responsible changes to target support to those doing it the toughest, without adding to inflation. With the successful passage of the bill, the rates of JobSeeker, youth allowance and eligible working age and student payments will rise by $40 a fortnight from 20 September. This increase will be combined with the indexation for those payments, which will be applied on the same day. This means a single jobseeker with no dependents will actually receive an increase of $56 a fortnight. This package of measures will make— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia An important part of the package is the increase in social services payments to some of the most vulnerable in our community. Can the minister please provide some additional details on how these Australians will be better supported with cost-of-living challenges as a direct result of this package? 14:09 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I once again thank Senator Payman for her insightful question. The bill that passed the Senate yesterday expands eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker to include single recipients aged over 55 years who've been on income support for nine or more months. This is because we know older Australians face a number of additional barriers when they are looking for work. We're also increasing support for single parents by extending eligibility for the parenting payment, the single one, to parents with their youngest child aged under 14. I know it can be tough for single parents, who are overwhelmingly women, to balance caring responsibilities and full-time work, studying or looking for work. As a result of these Albanese government changes and the great work of the minister in this area, Minister Rishworth, more than 57,000 single parents will be better off. (Time expired.) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Many of the most vulnerable Australians have been struggling with the cost of housing, which has arisen from a decade of inaction on housing by the former Liberal-National government, aka the 'no-alition'. Can the minister please outline for the Senate how the Albanese government's Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill is helping these Australians with the cost of rents? 14:11 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia You've nailed it there, Senator Payman, and the reaction of those opposite gives us the clue that it's because the government is providing additional support to recipients of Commonwealth rent assistance with the largest increase in over 30 years. Maximum rates are increasing by 15 per cent plus indexation. This is one way that the Albanese government is addressing housing pressures after a decade of neglect under the former Liberal and National government. It is part of our comprehensive package of housing measures, which sees us working with housing ministers right across the country, in contrast to the former government, of course. I call on everyone in this place to work with the government in a constructive manner to support our housing agenda. (Time expired.) Nuclear Waste Management 55 14:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is also to Senator Farrell, but in this case in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Resources. I refer the minister to the recent Federal Court judgement which set aside the selection of the Napandee site, near Kimba, for the proposed national radioactive waste management facility. Will the Albanese government appeal this decision, and, if a decision has not yet been made, when will the government determine whether it will appeal the decision? 14:12 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Birmingham for his question and the issue which he has raised, which of course affects part of his own state of South Australia, and in particular the selection of Kimba as a site for the waste depository centre. I suppose the simple answer to your question is that this matter is obviously a matter in the court or before the courts, and we don't generally comment on these matters when judicial matters are proceeding. That is the first point to make. The principle of judicial review is an important process which the government fully supports, and my recollection is that, when this issue was debated in the previous parliament, the provisions for judicial review were one of the things that the then minister inserted into the processes— Senator Canavan 245212 No! Senator FARRELL I0N Senator Canavan says no, but if I'm wrong on that I'll correct it. But my recollection is that, as part of the agreement to get the processes through this place, the judicial review was inserted into the provisions. But, as I say, if I'm wrong on that, I'll come back and correct it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, considering the serious implications of this decision, particularly for nuclear medicines like cancer treatments, how will you ensure swiftly that certainty is given for their continued development in Australia? Given your comments about judicial review, does the government reserve the right to legislate a remedy so that the site at Napandee can proceed as planned? 14:15 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Birmingham for his first supplementary question. We understand that the issue of how we deal with low-level nuclear waste, which is often stored in hospitals around the country, has been a contentious issue for a very long period of time. Of course, one of the possibilities was that the site at Kimba would resolve that issue. Can I say this: Australia's radioactive waste is currently being safely managed in temporary storage arrangements right around the country. It is being safely managed right now, and you have nothing to worry about. The PRESIDENT 112096 Second supplementary, Senator Birmingham? 14:16 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Does the minister acknowledge the increasing urgency of resolving this issue? Does the government support proceeding with the proposed site at Napandee for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste storage, given the importance to our nuclear medicine industries and also given the additional obligations Australia has committed to under the AUKUS arrangements? 14:16 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My recollection—and, again, I may not be correct in this—is this whole process started with a Labor minister. Yes, don't look so surprised, Senator Cash! My recollection is that it was the late Simon Crean who started the discussion about how we deal with the serious issue of low-level nuclear waste. Senator FARRELL I0N Well, if you stop interrupting me, I can answer your question. We understand the importance of this issue. We do say that these— (Time expired) Murray-Darling Basin 56 14:18 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question is to Minister Wong, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. Senator Wong, at the election, your government made a clear promise to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on time and in full, including the 450 gigalitres to South Australia and the environment. We know that only 2.7 per cent of that 450 gigalitres has been delivered to date. Now we hear the water minister is saying that on-time delivery is not possible and she will be seeking a delay of the deadline of the plan. Why did the Labor Party and your Prime Minister make a promise to South Australia they could not keep? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you for the question. As you would know, Senator Hanson-Young, this party, in government and in opposition, has been campaigning for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, has purchased water for the environment and has sought to progress this. The reality is that we had 10 years of not only inaction but deliberate sabotage, particularly by the National Party, of this plan. The senator rightly asks: why has the government had to take the position it's had to take? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Davey, if you wish to speak on this issue, you can find time at other places in the sitting calendar. Senator WONG 00AOU Minister Plibersek has been upfront about this. Of course we are deeply committed to implementing the plan, as we always have been. As you know, the majority of water that has already been delivered under the plan was obtained under past Labor governments. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I'll take the interjection. I know that those opposite seem to believe that you can continue to do business as usual in an era where we see not only the degradation of the river but climate change— Senator McKenzie 207825 Not what the science says! Senator WONG 00AOU Go and have a look at what the Murray-Darling Basin commission says. What Minister Plibersek has made clear is that, when she sought advice from the Murray-Darling Basin commission, the advice she received from that independent body was that, because of what happened under the previous government, it is not possible for us to deliver the plan in the time frame that we had hoped. As a South Australian, I can say to you that I am deeply disappointed by that. And I am deeply disappointed by the politics of those opposite— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary? 14:21 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia South Australians, frankly, are sick and tired of politicians passing the buck on the Murray River. They want to see the water, and they want to see it delivered. It's been promised. It should be delivered. The environment needs it. Will you buy the water that South Australia has been promised? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The minister has said that she's gone through a process consulting with communities about alternatives to water purchasing. She has said that she wants to look at all options, but it will be hard to meet targets without some purchasing. I'm advised that the minister is in the process of buying 49 gigalitres to close off another part of the plan. That process will take about nine months. Senator Davey 281697 Nine months? Senator WONG 00AOU Nine months. You had nine years and you delivered—was it 2.7 per cent? Was that the figure? I can't recall if Senator Hanson-Young's figures are right, but you delivered a fraction of what you promised in nearly a decade, because Senator McKenzie and the Nationals have always wanted to sabotage this plan. And you know how we know that? Because you came into the Senate and tried to do exactly that, and the then government had the Libs and the Nationals voting a different way. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Order! Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres! This is a question that Senator Hanson-Young is asking. I would ask both sides of the chamber to respect that the question be asked in silence and that the minister, when she responds, be heard in silence. As I just reminded Senator Davey, if you wish to make a contribution on this matter, find another time in a sitting calendar, not question time. 14:23 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia We've heard the minister's request for delay. My question to Senator Wong is: how many more years do South Australians have to wait before we get the water we need, the water we were promised and the water the environment deserves? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Hanson-Young, you and I have both campaigned on this issue for many years. It is not fair to use the formulation you just did about the minister requesting delay. The minister has been provided with a report by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority that shows there is no pathway to deliver on time because of Senator McKenzie and her colleagues in the National Party, who refused to allow voluntary buybacks and never delivered the water that they said they would. That's the reality. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Davey and Senator McKenzie, I have asked for order at least three times, and I've named you twice, Senator Davey. It's not a request; it's an order. Listen in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU I was pushing back on Senator Hanson-Young's use of the word—I can't recall the phrase she used. But my point is: the independent advice that we have received is that there is no pathway to deliver on time. As someone who has worked on this and purchased a lot of water, all of which was opposed by those opposite—and we'll do it again— Senator WONG 00AOU There you go, Senator McKenzie—I wish we had not had almost 10 years of a government who didn't want to do anything on the Murray-Darling. (Time expired) Gender Equality 58 14:24 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. In 2022, Australia was ranked 43rd in the world for gender equality according to the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report, which examines the gap between men and women in 146 different countries. Can the minister confirm that this embarrassing position is a reflection on a decade of neglect of gender equality in Australia by the former federal government and a failure to move the dial on gender equality and deliver policies that genuinely supported women? Can the minister also update the Senate on any improvements to our ranking following the election of the Albanese government? 14:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Grogan for the question and for her career-long work on supporting women and gender equality across the country, particularly in South Australia. I can assist you, Senator Grogan. The last gender gap report from the World Economic Forum shows that, since the Albanese Labor government took office, Australia's world gender equality rating has up from 43rd to 26th. We were 43rd in 2022 and even lower in 2021 when we were ranked 50th. In 2023, we are now 26th out of 143 countries. Our increased score is entirely due to the increased number of women in parliament and the increased number of women in cabinet since the May '22 election. The report itself notes: Compared to the previous edition, 13 countries have improved, led by Australia, New Zealand and Philippines. Australia and New Zealand had a considerable increase in the share of women ministers. This is the biggest increase for Australia in the history of the index since it began in 2001. This index is important. It measures the gap between women and men, as Senator Grogan outlined in her question. It uses four sub measures like political empowerment, economic participation, education and health, and the index is calculated as a score and a global rank. It is important that we are continuing to challenge and raise our international rankings. Of course, it is not only increasing representation of women in this place or around the cabinet table, which does require deliberate action but it is also in the policy agenda that the Albanese government has implemented in the first 14 months of his government and will continue to over the duration of this term. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a first supplementary? 14:27 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia That was very interesting. Going up to 26 is a significant improvement. The index shows that women's political representation and participation is a key element of achieving gender equality. Can the minister outline how increased representation of women in parliament and in the government and in the cabinet, as she referenced in her— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber. Order! Senator Wong and Senator Hume. Senator Grogan, I will allow you to finish your question because I had to call order. Senator GROGAN 296331 Can the minister outline how increased representation of women in parliament, in the government and in the cabinet makes a difference in the policies and decisions of government and helps the government deliver on its commitment to drive gender equality and support women? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Grogan for the supplementary. Better gender representation does lead to better outcomes. We know this. It is documented time and time again, and this government has not wasted any time in delivering crucial gender equality reforms after a decade of stalled progress under the former government. Not only does increased representation of women mean we have improved our global standing with more women around the decision-making table but also, ultimately, that will flow onto better decisions for women. If I could just point out the gender assessment process that we are putting through our budget, which means that all of the new measures will be looked at with an understanding at that table about what the impacts are for men and for women and whether there are disproportionate impacts, which will allow better decision-making. I do wonder whether, if this had been in place when the ParentsNext program was put in place, where we saw a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged young women, in particular single parents— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a second supplementary? 14:30 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you, Senator Gallagher. Those are very interesting points that you make there. Could you outline for us now how the Albanese government will continue to work towards achieving gender equality and improving outcomes for women in Australia? Could you also update us on how the government is working with Australians from across the community to design and deliver this important work? What is it that you're hearing when you're out in the community across Australia about what is important to women? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you very much for the supplementary. While we are very pleased with the improvement of Australia's position on the global stage, there is much work to do here nationally, which is why we are developing a national strategy to achieve gender equality to continue to drive improvements to gender equality across Australia. We are listening to women across the community to develop this strategy. We have had feedback from over 3,000 individuals and organisations through the process, and I have been privileged to sit around many of the roundtables in discussions with women and girls to hear from them directly about their priorities. The strategy will also be informed by the advice from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, which is due to provide its report to me shortly. There is a lot of work to be done, but we are determined to make a difference and to improve gender equality in this country, because not only does that improve the lives of women, it improves the lives of all of us. Women's Economic Security 59 14:31 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Australian Taxation Office data shows that, for every $3 a Tasmanian man retires with, a Tasmanian woman retires with $2. Your government and I both agree that super should be paid on paid parental leave and that we need to make sure we're doing it in a way and at a time that the budget can afford it. The cost of paying super on paid parental leave would be about $200 million a year. Congratulations again on the $20 billion surplus in last year's budget. Does the government still insist that the budget cannot afford to close the gap on retirement savings and start to pay super on paid parental leave? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for her question and agree with her about the need to improve women's superannuation balances. This has been a key priority. I know Senator McAllister has worked on this in previous parliamentary terms while chairing a very important Senate committee inquiry into this specific matter and into women's retirement incomes more generally. This is something the Treasurer, I and others across the government have said we want to do when we are in a position to do it. I would point out to Senator Tyrrell that the budget is still forecasting across the forward estimates deficits. We did have a very significant improvement and we are very pleased with the outcome of the first surplus in 15 years. That will help us repair the budget. It will help with our debt management, meaning we'll have to borrow less and pay less interest, so it will have flow-on impacts across the budget years. But the budget still has more pressures coming towards it than away from it, if I can put it that way. These are matters that we look at carefully. You've seen in the first two budgets our commitment to addressing some of the economic inequality that women face. We're doing it in terms of industrial relations reform. Part of the issue is that women earn less, so if we can increase wages, that flows on into their superannuation balances, as does having flexible work arrangements that allow women to participate and earn money, particularly through their caring years, and particularly with the motherhood penalty that women pay. All these areas are before the government. I think we've put a pretty good down payment on some of the initiatives, but there is more work to do. This is something the Labor Party has been looking at and will continue to look at, and, when we can, we will do it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, a first supplementary? 14:34 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Senator Lambie and I have worked with the Greens and with Senator David Pocock to make you an offer that would see the government collect on average an extra $500 million each year from oil and gas companies. The cost of super on paid parental leave is estimated at around $200 million a year. If you're concerned about collecting enough money to pay super on paid parental leave and you're also against collecting the money, can you really say it's what you want? 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question. I would say that the budget weighs up a whole range of different needs, and there isn't a shortage of areas where people are coming to me, as the Minister for Finance, wanting extra investment, whether it be in the NDIS—people have seen the pressure there—in the health budget, in the work that's underway in education, in the areas of defence or in managing Australia's debt. The budget has to do all of these things. When we work through the budget process, we have to weigh up a whole range of things on the revenue side and on the expenditure side, and we will do that. They're unrelated in the sense of how you put the question together. We've made some decisions around PRRT, but, at the same time, we are making a lot of room to invest in women and women's economic equality. I'll get the report from the task force soon, and that will inform further decisions. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I hear all that, but Labor supported paying super on PPL in 2021, when we had an $80 billion deficit. Labor doesn't support it now, with a $20 billion surplus. Can the minister nominate any figure for how big the surplus would need to be before the government is ready to honour its pre-election commitment to pay super on PPL? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In relation to the surplus—and we are pleased to have the first surplus in 15 years—it is important, but it is in the previous financial year, so it cannot be used to fund things going forward in an ongoing sense. That's why I drew your attention to the fact that the budget remains in deficit—and, I think, in structural deficit—so we've got a fair bit of work to do around that and about how we make room for new investments. As I said, there's no shortage of good ideas, really good ideas, that we would like to fund. There are hundreds and hundreds of them, and I think, when we try to put the budget together, we have to make a series of decisions. You'll see that in the last budget we made a number that, hopefully, will improve the lives of women, including in the payment system and with the some of our housing policies—in a whole range of areas—and we will continue to do that. Australian Antarctic Division 60 14:37 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. It was revealed last week that the Australian Antarctic Division needs to now slash $25 million, an astonishing 16 per cent of its operating budget, from its activities. As a result of these cuts under the Albanese government, how many jobs, contract, part time and full time, will be lost, and, from the 56 of those now apparently identified on an internal list, how many different Antarctic science programs, projects and research activities will you gut? 14:38 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There are so many ways in which one could respond to that, given what those opposite did. Senator Birmingham H6X You could answer the question. Senator WONG 00AOU I will answer the question, Senator Birmingham—thank you for the advice. Given what those opposite did to the Public Service, but also given the fact that, on the one hand, they want us to spend more, but, on the other hand, they want us to spend less, Senator Duniam should probably speak to Senator Hume. The advice I have is this: despite what those opposite have been claiming, there has been no government decision to cut spending to the Antarctic program. That's the advice I have. We are continuing to roll out the $804 million invested in the Antarctic program through to the end of the decade. I'm advised that the $25 million figure referenced in media reports reflects the Antarctic Division's internal management of its own budget. Honourable senators: Oh! Senator WONG 00AOU Oh! Wow! There's spooky music over there, isn't there? I would make this point. In the past, when I have had relevant portfolios, whilst I didn't get to Antarctica, I did visit the Antarctic Division. They do very good work. It is a very important part of not only Australia's future but also Australia's legacy in terms of the work that we have done, both at the scientific level and in terms of international law. We understand how important the program is, and I understand that the minister recently was in Tasmania and addressed all staff. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a first supplementary? 14:39 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Given apparently there are no cuts, in an email to staff on 10 July—just 11 days after Minister Plibersek visited the AAD, as the minister said, to talk up their work—the AAD director said, 'It is my expectation that we won't be able to afford all current positions—and I recognise that this will be hard.' Then, on 28 July, she again told staff, 'We will need to carefully consider our current staffing levels.' Given the director's statements, how can the minister and her department possibly claim there will be no job losses? 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, the advice I have is that there has been no government decision to cut spending to the Antarctic program. Senator Duniam 263418 So the director has got it wrong? Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Duniam, I can only give you the advice I have received. If there is anything further that I have in relation to that, I obviously would, as I always do, seek to provide that to the Senate. But that is the advice from the portfolio minister. I appreciate that Senator Duniam wants to run a political issue. I'm providing him with the advice that I have received from the portfolio minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a second supplementary? 14:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It is far from a political issue. On the ABC last week, UNSW Antarctic oceanography expert Jan Zika said that cuts to the AAD were 'catastrophic'. Similarly, the CPSU secretary in Tasmania, Zac Batchelor, said that AAD staff now feel that crucial scientific research is not safe and that everyone is scratching their head, trying to understand this budget shortfall. Minister, aren't both Associate Professor Zika and Mr Batchelor right about the devastating impacts of the pursuit of this $25 million worth of cuts? 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm very pleased that Senator Duniam does think it's a good thing that trade unions speak up for their members. Maybe he should have a chat to Senator Cash! What I would say is that the premise of the question is incorrect. The advice that I have from the minister is as I've outlined. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, you've asked your question. Senator WONG 00AOU Everything thereafter is probably more akin to a speech by Senator Duniam than a question of a minister. I would say that Australia, obviously, has had a very proud history in relation to Antarctica. We are a global leader in Antarctic science. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Brown and Senator Duniam, order! Senator WONG 00AOU Australia remains a global leader on Antarctic science, operations, environmental protection and the Antarctic Treaty System. We continue to have a strong presence in the Australian Antarctic Territory and fulfil our obligations under the treaty, and we recognise the importance of this work. National Digital Identity 61 14:43 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher. Minister, you recently announced your government's plan for a national digital ID by mid-2024 or thereabouts. There is significant concern in the community around this potential rollout. Australians are concerned about their privacy, their data security and the potential for misuse in the future. Minister, it has been said that this digital ID will also be accessed by private corporations and institutions. Can you confirm, if you know, which private corporations or institutions will be granted access to personal identification information? 14:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Babet for the question and for the heads-up on a question about digital ID. The short answer to Senator Babet's question is: none, in relation to the digital ID. I think there is a level of education we have to do about what the digital ID program is. I welcome the coalition's strong support for this important reform. I've seen Mr Fletcher out strongly endorsing it, and so I look forward to working across the chamber to deliver this important reform. But it will be a voluntary—that's important—secure, convenient way for Australians to verify their identity online. As we know, Australians are frequently asked to verify their ID for various activities, such as changing jobs, renting a house or taking out a phone plan. And, of course, there are many government services where they are required to do so. We have our MyGov ID system, which is already in place now and used by many people. The next step is to put in place legislation to regulate that system. We have 10½ million government digital IDs that are being used to access 130 services provided by almost 40 government agencies now. It has robust protections and consent rules to ensure personal information is protected through this, but it is actually only a way of verifying identity. It actually gives more control to the owner of that information, who keeps that information, but it is used to verify your identity. It's not a card or a number; no-one holds the information. In order to get a digital ID, you provide a certain amount of information to be verified, but you are the retainer of that information. In many ways, that should address some of those concerns that you've raised. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, a first supplementary? 14:45 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Basically, you have said that, with people's personal information on this digital ID system in whatever shape it takes, private institutions, private businesses and private corporations will never, ever be able to access this information to find out particular details about people out in the community; is that correct? 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Private organisations already hold a lot of information about people and, in fact, in some cases are required to hold that information, such as your 100-point check to open a bank account. These organisations already hold a lot of information. The idea with a digital ID system, and the interoperability between a public and a private network, is that we are looking to phase it. But, obviously, this is legislation that will come to this chamber. I have no doubt it will go through a committee process as well. We are going to release an exposure draft, hopefully around September, so that people will be able to involve themselves in that. The idea is that once you are verified that gives you access to a whole range of services. It's about proving your identity, being verified and then using that verification to access programs. It actually reduces the amount of information you have to provide to other organisations. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, a second supplementary? 14:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Minister, you said it would not be compulsory, and I hope that is right, but the COVID-19 vaccine was not compulsory either, and look what happened there. Take it or you don't get a job, right? What guarantee do we have from your government that this will be 100 per cent not compulsory? Will you write it into the legislation itself, in black and white: this is not compulsory, forever and always, the end? 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We're certainly making it clear that it's voluntary. As part of that, the government has to maintain systems that allow people to use and engage with the government without a digital ID. They are currently doing it. Ten and a half million people, or a million accounts, are used across 130 different programs. I think people understand, because of all the breaches we have had, about the need to look at secure ways to retain your own information and put strong privacy arrangements around it. Because people are so connected and using devices all the time, they are more comfortable with ideas around digital ID. But it is absolutely voluntary; nobody can force anybody to have a digital identity at all. Government systems will have to be maintained, and should be maintained, to ensure that people are able to interact with government as they choose. Australia: Natural Disasters 62 14:48 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt. I know the minister was in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales last week, only months on from the floods that devastated this area. How is the Albanese government continuing to support communities with their ongoing recovery, and what is being done to mitigate the impact of future flood events in this area? 14:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Sheldon. I know Senator Sheldon only recently visited a number flood affected regions in his capacity as special envoy for disaster recovery. It is now nearly 18 months since those dreadful floods hit the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales. Inevitably, a disaster of this scale will take a long recovery time. But the Albanese government is standing with the communities affected as they continue to recover, and that won't change. The Albanese government has made $1.6 billion in payments directly to individuals and families impacted by the February flood event last year in New South Wales. That is in addition to the jointly funded disaster recovery funding arrangements which have seen the Albanese government and the New South Wales government invest about $1.2 billion in the Northern Rivers for a series of home buybacks, road upgrades, grants for farmers and businesses, accommodation packages and other support for councils, home repairs, concessional loans and freight subsidies. On Friday last week, I visited the Northern Rivers once again. Just outside Coraki, I was joined by mayors Robert Mustow from Richmond Valley, Sharon Cadwallader from Ballina and Chris Cherry from Tweed to announce tranche 2 of the Northern Rivers Recovery and Resilience Program. It is important that, while we continue to aid the region's recovery, we also put measures in place to prevent these events creating such devastation in the future. So, on Friday, another 20 projects worth $100 million from the Albanese government were committed to from this fund on top of the 16 projects worth $50 million that we announced in February. These projects span every council area in the Northern Rivers and were recommended based on research by CSIRO and supported by the New South Wales government, which undertook due diligence checks. They include road and bridge raising, flood pump station upgrades and nature based mitigation strategies among other things. The Albanese government is making these investments in the Northern Rivers— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a first supplementary? 14:51 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Minister, I note that since the floods in the Northern Rivers we have also seen major flooding events in almost every state and territory. How is the Albanese government continuing to support other communities impacted by floods? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Sheldon. Since October last year, we have seen flood events in Western Australia, the Northern Territory, South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria. In the past 18 months, more than $1.8 billion in direct Commonwealth payments have been made to individuals and families impacted by natural disasters apart from those February New South Wales floods. We continue to work with the states and territories on a range of measures costing billions more to help these communities with their ongoing recovery. As just one example—and I know that this is something that many Western Australians senators are familiar with—in the Kimberley region work is progressing on rebuilding the Fitzroy River Bridge, and we are working alongside the Cook government to deliver over $100 million to repair flood impacted homes, public housing and roads. The package also provides support for temporary accommodation for people who are displaced and accommodation facilities for people who are undertaking community recovery and clean-up. We'll keep working with these communities to ensure they get what they need. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary? 14:52 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales As we move from three years of successive La Nina events to a possible El Nino, what is the Albanese government going to do to prepare for a change in conditions with this high-risk weather season coming upon us? 14:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, again, Senator Sheldon. While we continue to support communities that are recovering from last year's floods, we're also planning for the first significant fire season since 2019-20. We certainly don't want to see a repeat of Black Summer, when the then coalition government ignored the warnings they were given and failed to prepare. We know that multiple years of rainfall has created significant vegetation growth ahead of what looks to be a dry, hot summer. It's a reminder that we all need to be doing bushfire prep at home and keeping an eye on fire danger ratings and fire bans. Through the Albanese government's new Disaster Ready Fund, we are co-investing $95 million in bushfire mitigation and resilience projects across the country. The Albanese government is also convening a National Emergency Management Ministers Meeting at the end of the month to ensure that all levels of government are fully prepared for the coming fire season. We are working with commissioners and chief officers to understand fire risks for the coming season and ensure that resource arrangements, including aerial firefighting assets, are in place. We will be prepared. (Time expired) Uluru Statement from the Heart: Treaty 63 14:54 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. Does the Albanese government support the establishment of a treaty between the Australian government and Indigenous Australians? 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Nampijinpa Price for the question. The government supports the Uluru Statement from the Heart. In particular, our focus and our priority is on our referendum later this year so every Australian has the opportunity to vote on constitutional recognition for Australia's First Peoples and for a voice to our national parliament. That is what the government supports. They are the arrangements we are putting in place. The whole reason is because it's a generous offer made by those who attended Uluru in 2017 and who authored the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It's about making a practical difference to the lives of First Nations people in this country. There is a recognition that the system that we have in place now is not delivering the outcomes that we want whether it be in health, whether it be in housing, whether it be in education, whether it be in justice, whether it be in early childhood outcomes. These are the issues that we are focused on: improving outcomes for First Nations people and an acknowledgement that the system, as it is set up now, is not working; recognising our proud history, going back some 65,000 years; recognising First Nations people in our country's birth certificate; and ensuring that we are responding to the Uluru restatement, which calls for a voice to our national parliament so that we can make a difference and shift the dial to try to improve those outcomes that every single one of us in this place must surely recognise are not being delivered in the way that we want. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, first supplementary? 14:56 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Given your failure to address the very specific question asked, I ask again: does the Albanese government support the establishment of a treaty between the Australian government and Indigenous Australians? 14:56 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I did answer the question, but it may be that Senator Nampijinpa Price doesn't like the answer. I said the government supports the Uluru Statement from the Heart. That was in my answer to the first question. That is the answer I gave to the first question; it's the answer I give now. Our focus, as Senator Nampijinpa Price knows, is on the referendum that will be held later this year to recognise, in our Constitution, Australia's First People and, through that, create a voice to our national parliament to deliver the improved outcomes that I would hope all of us in this chamber want to see. We know that you have a constant campaign to undermine the work that's being done on this referendum. We understand that, but we remain resolute and focused on delivering the Voice through the referendum vote later this year. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, second supplementary? 14:57 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Minister, you can wear the T-shirt, you can tweet the tweet, you can even attend the rally. Why are you now being so tricky and evasive? Why won't you be upfront with the Australian people and give an honest and direct answer regarding the Albanese Labor government's commitments to a treaty? 14:58 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Senator Nampijinpa Price personalises this, but as Senator McCarthy says time and time again: this is not about me, it's not about you. It's not about my tweets or your obsession with my social media accounts. It's not about any of us as individuals. This is about a bigger thing. It's about the country. It's about the nation. It's about the way we walk together. It's about bringing a country together. It's about recognising our past and improving outcomes. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 64 14:58 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In light of the answers that we've just received, and the questions, could you please remind this Senate of the reasons for the Voice to Parliament and how it was conceived and driven by Indigenous Australian communities? Could the minister also advise how this year's referendum offers an opportunity to achieve progress towards a better future for all Australians? Does the minister have any concerns about the risks towards this progress? 14:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Ciccone for that question, and for his sincere and ongoing interest in reconciliation and the project of building a better future for all Australians. It's a good question. Those opposite might like to recall that the idea of a voice came directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I've just called the chamber to order. That includes you—and Senator Henderson and Senator Hughes. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber, particularly on my left! I am calling the minister to continue her response. I expect her to be heard in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU The call for the Voice did not come from politicians. The call for the Voice came from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In 2017, after many years of work and countless discussions in every part of this country, nearly 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and elders— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, senators! Senator Ayres! I just called the chamber to order, and the minute I called the minister, the disorder continued. It's disrespectful. I'm asking for silence. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU Nearly 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and elders endorsed the Statement from the Heart, calling for recognition in the Constitution through a voice. The Voice is about recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution and paying respect to 65,000 years of culture and tradition. It is also about listening. It's about listening to the advice our First Nations people give on matters that affect their lives so that governments make better decisions. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I just sat the minister down. I remind all of you that you have the opportunity at any time in the sitting calendar to make your views known. Question time is not the time for these unruly and disrespectful interjections. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU This is about government making better decisions, and it is an idea driven by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, supported by eight in 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Surely we all know the current approach is broken. We see First Nations people with a life expectancy eight years shorter than non-Indigenous Australians, the worst rates of disease and infant mortality, a suicide rate twice as high— Senator WONG 00AOU I am surprised, Senator McGrath, you would interject on these points—and fewer opportunities for education and training. The Voice is our best chance to fix this. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong— Senator WONG 00AOU When governments listen to people— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong! Please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, that was outrageous and completely disorderly. I've asked for order across the chamber, particularly on my left but also on my right. Senator Wong is entitled to be heard in silence. I should not have to remind all of you how to conduct yourselves in this place. Senator WONG 00AOU When governments listen to people about issues that affect them, they make better decisions, get better results and deliver better value for money. That is why all Australians, not just politicians in this place, will have a chance to say, 'We can do better and we must.' A government senator interjecting — The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm not quite sure who that was on my right, but that was incredibly disrespectful. Senator McGrath 217241 Withdraw it! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator McGrath! Senator Ciccone, first supplementary? Honourable senators interjecting— Senator McGrath 217241 Coward! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, your interjections are rude and disorderly and disrespectful. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, I am ordering you to be silent, not to have a debate with me. Senator Ciccone, first supplementary? 15:04 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Minister, why have the Prime Minister, the government and other leaders decided to support First Nations communities in seeking to achieve constitutional recognition through a voice to parliament, and what message does the Albanese government have to those with political platforms who have not yet decided to support the Voice? An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm waiting for silence. Minister Wong. 15:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Albanese government supports the Voice because we believe it's important to give people a say on issues that affect them and to give us all the chance to make a practical difference that improves lives. We also believe we have an opportunity, together, to bring people together to bring about a better future—an opportunity for a unifying moment for our country. Unfortunately, rather than looking at the opportunity for the nation, the opposition are still taking the approach of Mr Morrison to look for opportunity for themselves. That is why they want to talk about everything other than what a voice will do, because they actually know Australians don't find the current situation experienced by Indigenous Australians acceptable. So I say to all senators the future of our country is more important than our political futures, and I ask senators to reflect on whether they want to use the soul and fabric of our nation as a political battleground. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, second supplementary? 15:05 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria What lessons can we take from history as we seek to make that progress for a better future for all Australians, and can the minister please remind the Senate about the efforts to achieve reform in Australia in the past? 15:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I invite the opposition to look to a shared national interest, not just their own narrow political interests. I invite the opposition to overcome their legacy of exploiting fear to put political fights ahead of national progress. Let's have a look at that legacy. Mr Abbott said Australia would become an economic wasteland if we acted on climate change. Mr Joyce said action on climate change would mean Australians would pay over $100 for a roast. Mr Morrison said electric vehicles would end the weekend, and Senator Cash—there's so much from Senator Cash— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, resume your seat. Senator Scarr, on a point of order? Senator Scarr 282997 On relevance: I fail to see how climate change can in any way be relevant to a primary question asked about the Voice. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 The question went to history, and perhaps, senators, if there were silence in this place, we could all hear the answer. Senator Scarr 282997 I did! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, I'm not inviting you to respond. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU For Senator Cash, there were a lot of options on the scare campaign. Senator WONG 00AOU I know you're sensitive on this. One of the best ones was that Senator Cash said that the secure jobs, better pay bill would leave supermarket shelves bare. Then, of course, there is Mr Dutton. Mr Dutton not only didn't even attend the apology but also said it would open the government up to serious damages claims. We all know what you're up to, because that's what you always do. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I would ask senators to go back and review the tape and look at the behaviour across this chamber. If you think you've covered yourselves in glory, I'd ask you to look at it again, because that last— The PRESIDENT 112096 Out of order, thank you, Senator Cash; you were one of the key leaders of it. That was disgraceful. It's not respect at work. It's a disgrace to this chamber. Particularly from my left but also from my right, this is not how question time ought to be conducted, and all of you need to reflect on that. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 66 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Awards and Honours 66 15:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia In question time on 1 August 2023 I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Lambie in my capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister relating to various issues around awards and honours. I have written to the senator to provide additional information. I table my letter to the senator for the information of all senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 66 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 66 15:10 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. In particular, I wish to focus on the answer to the question that I asked of Senator Farrell, representing the Minister for Resources, relating to a national radioactive waste management facility in which Senator Farrell very much highlighted the problems in relation to radioactive waste storage in Australia. He highlighted the problems that don't just go back months or years but decades. He gave absolutely no confidence that this Labor government would contribute at all to the solutions to this decades-long problem that has blighted Australia. Since the Federal Court intervened in this matter on 18 July, there's been a largely silent and—as we saw today—weak response from the government to that decision. The Albanese government has given no indication that it appreciates the increasing urgency for building this facility. We are seeing a situation where current storage facilities are filling up. There is pressure upon them. There is increasing suggestion that future licences and future operations in relation to nuclear medicine are potentially in doubt without a permanent facility being established. So, although it may have taken decades to get this point, it is now at a stage where it is crucial and increasingly urgent that this matter be addressed by the government of the day. Not only are those pressures building but Australia's reputation and standing is now subject to far higher scrutiny when it comes to our nuclear stewardship given the commitments we have made as a result of our AUKUS partnership and our commitment to build nuclear-powered submarines. That means it's even more important to demonstrate within that stewardship our ability to manage the low- and medium-level waste that we as a nation have already accumulated, particularly as a result of the crucial nuclear medicines that provide so much support to so many Australians. Senator Farrell's party has been one of the biggest impediments to resolving this decades-long imbroglio. The Labor Party has been one of the biggest impediments time and time again. I can remember when the Howard government had a proposal for resolving the issue of a low- and medium-level storage facility. At that stage it was the South Australian Labor government, under Mike Rann, that exploited that proposal for base political purposes. They did so despite the same Labor government, just a few years later, having the gall to pursue and propose the expansion of South Australia's role in the nuclear industry. Now we see both the Albanese government and the Malinauskas government, despite pretending to be the architects of the AUKUS agreement, all but promoting the legal challenge to the Napandee site and certainly failing to give any certainty that that facility will go ahead. It is time for the hypocrisy to end and the national interest to be put first. It is time for the Albanese government to commit to delivering this facility, as planned, in a region and a community that has supported this proposal, on private freehold land that has been voluntarily offered up for this proposed facility. All of the boxes have been ticked in terms of getting this done. At a bare minimum, the Albanese Labor government should be making crystal clear that they will appeal this decision, that they will stand by the original decision made, that they will seek to pursue the construction of this facility in the national interest and that they will pursue all legal avenues to do so. But, indeed, they could go further, and they should consider going further, to consider legislating a remedy to this court decision. We saw this government only a couple of months ago do just that when it lost a legal case in relation to the Russian Federation's access to land in Canberra for its future embassy site. In losing that legal position, the government acted to legislate a remedy for it, and they enjoyed the support of the coalition, and the issue was resolved through this parliament in the space of a day. They could and should at least consider and assess perusing a similar type of pathway to bring the decade-long saga to an end, to give certainty to nuclear medicine and science in Australia, to give certainty to the Kimba community and to ensure that we have the type of facility built that Australia needs. 15:15 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria The Albanese government understands that the rise in the cost of living is hitting a lot of Australians pretty hard. That's why our economic plan is carefully calibrated to take pressure off the cost of living rather than adding to it. The government's cost-of-living package provides assistance with rent, energy bills, and cheaper childcare and medicines. Much of the assistance is being rolled out right now, and the benefits will continue to flow over the coming weeks and months. Our policies to ease cost-of-living pressures are expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. Inflation will still be higher than we'd like and more persistent than ideal but down from where it would have been. We are making a meaningful difference to families around the country, and we will continue to do so. We can contrast this to the coalition who oversaw a decade of wasted opportunities and warped priorities and who left Australia with falling real wages, cost-of living pressures and $1 trillion of debt without an economic dividend to show for it. What we did have to show for it, however, were those fantastic 'Back in black' mugs, which was just a slogan, not ever a reality. What we've seen from the coalition opposite is that they voted for higher energy bills for millions of households and small businesses. They wanted more expensive medicines, and they won't support more affordable housing. It really pays to look at the cost-of-living measures in the 2023-24 budget, because this is a significant package of cost-of-living benefits for Australians. For one, we're investing $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentive for the most common GP consultations for children under 16 and Commonwealth concession cardholders as part of the government's $5.7 billion investment in Medicare. This will support 11.6 million eligible Australians to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. This is one of the largest investments in bulk-billing incentives ever, making it easier and cheaper for Australians to see their doctor, something the coalition would never have done. In fact, they have been undermining Medicare for many, many years. We've also seen changes to the pharmacy maximum dispensing quantities. We're reducing the cost of medicines by up to half for at least six million Australians. Some patients will be able to receive two months worth of their medicine per visit to their pharmacy, saving $1.6 billion in out-of-pocket costs over four years. There's the energy price relief plan where we will see up to $3 billion of electricity bill relief through the Energy Bill Relief Fund to take pressure off households and small businesses, in partnership with state and territory governments. This will benefit more than five million eligible houses and one million eligible small businesses. The retail electricity price increases in 2023 are now expected to be around 25 percentage points lower, and retail gas price increases are around 16 percentage points smaller than expected prior to the government's energy initiatives. These are real benefits that are attacking the cost-of-living crisis that we are seeing. The government is also making it easier for households and small businesses to access energy savings and upgrades through financing options for households and a new tax break for small- and medium-sized businesses. We've also seen $4.9 billion increase to the base rate of several working-age and student income support payments, like the JobSeeker payment, Austudy and youth allowance by $40 a fortnight for eligible recipients. This includes extending eligibility for the existing higher rate of JobSeeker payments to single Australians aged 55 to 59. We've got the $2.7 billion increase to the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance, and it goes on and on. We have successfully advocated for wage increases for minimum award workers and are funding pay rises for aged-care workers. We are doing a significant amount of work to ease the cost of living for Australians. They know it. Unfortunately, the coalition are ignoring what is happening just for political reasons. 15:20 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland If I may, before I get into the meat and potatoes, I would like to thank all of the attendees at the bush councils conference held in Goondiwindi last week, who travelled from all around Queensland to a very worthy conference that was hosted by Lawrence Springborg in the Goondiwindi Regional Council. Thank you to everyone who attended. Rising to speak today, what I realise in this place what is most important isn't what is said in this place; it is what is not said. It is quite interesting. For months we have prosecuted the case about the cost-of-living crisis that is impacting Queenslanders and Australians. We have asked Labor minister after Labor minister to respond to questions concerning Prime Minister Albanese's promise before the last election that he would cut power bills by $275. This was a promise that he made 97 times. But I challenge anyone—and I will put a packet of Tim Tams on the table to add to the challenge—to find a Labor minister who has uttered the words or the figures '$275' or '97'. I challenge you to go through Hansard—question time—and find an answer from a Labor minister where they have said the number '97' or the number '275'. They haven't. Senator Scarr 282997 Have you checked? Senator McGRATH 217241 No, I haven't checked, so there is a packet of Tim Tams on the table for those who are better at using search engines than I am. When Labor talk about transparency they are actually not that good at delivering on transparency. The other thing I noticed about question time today and yesterday was that questions were put to Labor ministers about a treaty. These were in context of questions concerning the Voice, the referendum that Labor are going to bring forward at some point this year. What is interesting is that, for Labor politicians—Senator Wong may correct me if I'm wrong—it is part of the Labor Party manifesto to adopt and implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. My understanding is that is about Voice and about truth and about treaty. But I challenge anyone—and there will be a crate of Tim Tams on the table here—to find a Labor minister who at the moment is prepared to say the word 'treaty' in question time. I will double the bet to find a Labor minister who will say that they are going to implement a treaty. My view is if you believe in something you should be proud of it and you should stand up for it. It is clear that the Labor Party are proud of what they intend to do to Australia. I think what they intend to do to Australia is terrible and that we will go to hell in a handcart, but the Labor politicians should stand up for their beliefs. But, instead, what they're doing is hiding behind language that is tricky. They're using political speak. They are using all sorts of words to not answer questions. The questions from the coalition senators today were very good questions, but what characterised the answers from the Labor ministers was that there weren't any answers. We didn't get substantive answers in relation to the cost-of-living crisis, which is impacting Queenslanders and Australians. It is the No. 1 issue impacting Australia at the moment. Mortgages are going up. Rents are going up. Power bills are going up. Insurance bills are going up. But, instead, Labor want to talk about the Voice. But even then, they won't tell you what the Voice is about. They won't tell you that the Voice actually is automatically going to lead to a treaty and that is dangerous for Australia. The Labor Party wish to bring forward a voice that is risky, that is divisive, that will be permanent. What is of concern is: why doesn't the Labor Party have ears? Canberra needs more ears. Why doesn't the Labor Party listen to the voices already out there at the moment? They won't because they're in an echo chamber of their own thoughts. 15:25 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm very pleased to take note of answers to questions today—particularly questions about the cost of living, which we know is of crucial importance to all Australians and particularly to people in my home state of Queensland. Our government is aware of how difficult it is for families at the moment. That is why we made sure our budget delivered targeted relief for families and for working people so that we can manage this cost-of-living crisis. The opposition asked questions about real wages, which is pretty laughable considering that for 10 years they had an economic policy designed to drive wages down and they have tried to prevent any method of this government's in increasing real wages. It's interesting to see that they left a few things out from their questions. They certainly don't seem to want to talk about energy, electricity and the rebates that Queenslanders are receiving right now in Queensland because of our government's intervention and our government's policy to provide energy relief. The reason those opposite don't want to talk about that is they voted against it. They voted for higher power bills. They voted against energy rebates. And they voted against giving people relief when they needed it the most. They've also opposed a really important mechanism that our government is seeking to implement in driving down the cost of housing and making sure that we have more social and affordable housing for those people doing it tough. The Housing Australia Future Fund that this Senate continues to block is an important piece of legislation, and key housing and homelessness groups have called for it to be passed as soon as possible. It is incredulous of those opposite to ask questions about interest rates, the cost of living and how tough people are doing it and also stand there and vote against the Housing Australia Future Fund. We know this fund will make a difference. That is why community groups and community housing organisations are calling on this Senate to vote for this legislation. It's a fund that will build more Indigenous housing in remote areas; that's what they're voting against. It's a fund that will build more crisis accommodation for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence, yet senators from the Liberal-National coalition are opposed to that. It is also a fund that will build housing for veterans; that's what those opposite are opposing. The Housing Australia Future Fund is something that we took to the election. It was voted for by the Australian public. We want to see the Senate— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 Point of order. I note this section is taking note of the coalition's questions to the government. None of the questions referred to the Housing Australia Future Fund, which Senator Green has spent most of her presentation on. She did start on the cost of living. Could she be respectfully requested to return to the subject, perhaps? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Well, housing is a cost-of-living issue, and the relevant minister was very general in her responses across the economy. I'm going to allow the member to continue. Senator GREEN 259819 I would be embarrassed, too, if I was voting against the Housing Australia Future Fund— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Don't add salt to the injury, Senator Green. Senator GREEN 259819 and sought to stop me speaking about it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 You were making a good point. Just go on with the good point. Senator GREEN 259819 It is within your remit, if you want to stop me from speaking about it. You are opposing affordable housing when people are doing it tough. I know that our government is delivering on cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and making sure that aged-care workers have a pay rise. This is all the work that we are doing, but those opposite oppose things like energy rebates and housing for people who are doing it tough—well, it is laughable for them to come in here and pretend that they care about the cost of living. And it makes sense that they would want to interrupt me making my speech, and it makes sense that they would want to talk about anything other than the way our government is delivering cost-of-living relief. But, finally, can I say we are certainly focused on delivering for the Australian people. That includes delivering the Voice to Parliament. I note the final question today from the opposition, and I want to remind those opposite that we are talking about communities that are doing it tough and have been doing it tough for a really long time. The Voice to Parliament is a simple idea that seeks to listen to the people who need to be heard so that we can close the gap. I would have thought, as the Minister for Finance mentioned, that that was a simple idea that we could all agree on and that closing the gap and listening to people about the things that matter could be supported by those opposite. We won't be lectured by the party of robodebt about standing up for people. 15:31 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to take note in particular of the question asked by my friend and colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price in relation to the government's position with respect to a treaty. I should note in this regard, as I start my comments, that I was greatly honoured to serve as deputy chair of the parliamentary group that drafted the 'no' case for the referendum pamphlet under the chairing of Senator Nampijinpa Price, who is a colleague and a friend and has my utmost respect. I thank all colleagues who participated in that process and everyone who supported them through that process. It is greatly appreciated. There are two guiding principles I have sought to adopt during this debate on the referendum. The first is to be civil in all discourse in relation to it, so not to make or engage in any personal attacks whatsoever. The second has been to do my best to ensure that Australians have the benefit of all the arguments that they are entitled to have as they come to a decision with respect to this important referendum. As has been said by people across this chamber, this referendum is not about the politicians; it is about the Australian Constitution, and it is so important that in the course of the civil discourse in relation to this referendum all Australians have the benefit of understanding all the implications of what flows in the event that this constitutional referendum is successful. As my friend Senator McGrath said, there is one word which those on the government benches refuse to say, and that word is 'treaty. Notwithstanding being asked a direct question by Senator Nampijinpa Price with respect to what the Albanese government's position is with respect to the establishment of a treaty between the Australian government and Indigenous Australians, the government refused to answer. They refused to answer, just as the Prime Minister, on seven occasions, refused to answer on Radio National Breakfast with Patricia Karvelas. The Prime Minister was asked the question seven times—seven times. He was not asked by a member of the opposition in this place but by Patricia Karvelas, one of the nation's leading political journalists. The Prime Minister was asked seven times as to whether or not he supported the federal government entering into a treaty. On seven occasions he refused to answer, just as Senator Gallagher refused to answer today and just as Senator Green, in her contribution to the debate, refused to answer. Those in the gallery were here and listened to Senator Green's contribution to the debate. It was articulate and it was considered, but it didn't mention treaty. There was no mention of treaty, and this is what we're seeing in the course of this debate. The government refuses to use the word 'treaty'. The transcript of this Radio National Breakfast interview is startling. On seven occasions the Prime Minister was asked what his position was. On seven occasions he refused to give it. In fact, at one stage, he accused Patricia Karvelas of getting sucked into the narratives of the 'no' case. Patricia Karvelas being sucked in to the narratives of the 'no' case? You have to be kidding me! I was interviewed by Patricia Karvelas in relation to the 'no' case in the referendum pamphlet. Far from being sucked in, she asked relevant, strong, objective questions, which I answered simply and directly, and that's the way in which the process should work so Australian citizens have the benefit of all the information before they make up their own minds as to how they are going to vote. Why isn't treaty relevant to these discussions? The Uluru Statement from the Heart document, which was released in total by the National Indigenous Australians Agency back in March this year, actually refers to treaty. It refers to treaty in the context of the Voice. This is what it says; it's from the document itself, on page 17: Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process. Voice, treaty, truth—they are all part of the same package. It also says this on page 19, and you can find this document on the NIAA website: In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP) … The Australian people have a right to this information before the referendum. Question agreed to. Murray-Darling Basin 70 15:36 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. What a disappointment it is that, after a decade of broken promises and wasted time, we now see the Murray-Darling Basin without the water that was promised to be returned to it from the big, greedy irrigators upstream. Again and again and again, South Australia has been dudded, and I fear we will be dudded once more. We need to make sure that any move to delay action on delivering water for South Australia and delivering water for the Murray is not simply kicking the can down the road but, instead, is actually guaranteeing that the water we need to keep the lower reaches of the Murray flowing is delivered, and delivered in a timely manner. There have been broken promises, wasted opportunity, politicking, upstream rorting and greed. It is time they ended, and I'll be fighting hard in this place to make sure that South Australia is not dudded again. I don't care what side of politics it is; our state needs a healthy river. We need our water, and the environment needs it more than ever. While I'm here I also wish to take note of the question put by the opposition to the government in relation to the Voice. What a disgrace we saw in here this afternoon from members of the Liberal and National parties. While that question was being asked, division sown and mistruths promoted, we saw the very same thing happening in the House of Representatives, led, of course, by none other than Mr Peter Dutton, the man who walked out of the apology to the stolen generation, the bloke who has form in turning his back on Indigenous Australians, the guy who thinks his only ticket to leadership and to the Lodge is to keep seeding division, hate and racism. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hanson-Young, I have a senator on his feet. Senator Scarr 282997 On a point of order, I understand that Senator Hanson-Young is passionate about these matters; however, 'the guy who thinks' is hardly an appropriate reference to the opposition leader. She should address him by his correct title. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hanson-Young, please reflect on delivery of your speech. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I wish we had a leader of the opposition who thought harder about the vision he has for this country, a leader who didn't seek to pin his entire leadership aspirations for the country on division, fear and racism. But that is all we get from Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Scarr, you have the call. Senator Scarr 282997 A point of order on personal reflection. The senator said that the opposition leader was seeking to sow division, and gave a whole stream of commentary after that. You simply can't impugn the motivations of any member of this place or the other chamber in that way, and I ask for her to withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hanson-Young, for the benefit of the chamber I ask you to withdraw to that extent and to be careful with your comments. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Mr Deputy President, I withdraw. What we've seen here today and this week is a toxic campaign led by Peter Dutton—the man who walked out of the apology to the stolen generation, the man who, in hope of holding the leadership of the Liberal-National coalition, thinks sowing division and fear and racism is his ticket. It is just appalling that the alternative prime minister in this country would prefer to divide our nation and promote mistruths rather than unite people. The fearmongering is astonishing, even for the likes of Mr Peter Dutton, and I fear that it's only going to get worse because the only thing that the Leader of the Liberal Party—otherwise known as 'the nasty party'—does is to continue to race-bait, fearmonger and promote lies. That is the only thing that Peter Dutton is good for. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Scarr. Senator Scarr 282997 Deputy President, on a number of occasions you asked Senator Hanson-Young to consider her words. Again she let off a plethora of insults and invective against the Leader of the Opposition in the lower house. She should withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hanson-Young, I bring you back to measured comments in this chamber, particularly in the context of the Set the standard report. I ask you to withdraw to the extent that the comments were offensive. That allows the other comments to still remain on the record. Could you do that for the proper conduct of the chamber? Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I have nothing else to add, and I will withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you for your courtesy to me. Question agreed to. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 71 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023 71 Disallowance 71 15:43 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The reason I moved this disallowance motion was simple. It was to allow greater access to the disability support pension for many people who are struggling to get by. These are people who are generally living on JobSeeker, youth allowance or student allowance and would benefit so much from the extra income support they would get if they were able access the disability support pension. Disallowing part of these regulations would have meant that people's conditions didn't have to be diagnosed, stabilised and treated in order for them to have their disabilities assessed against the impairment tables. It wouldn't have created a perfect system, but it would have allowed greater access. During the debate the government told us, in fact, that if this disallowance succeeded around 30,000 more people would be able to access the disability support pension. Both the government and the opposition said: 'We can't do this because it will allow people whose disabilities aren't permanent to access the disability support pension.' I put to you that that is one of the very features that I wanted to achieve in this disallowance, because there are so many people struggling with disabilities who can't work, who can't get by, who are in absolutely dire straits and who, because their conditions are not diagnosed, stabilised and treated, because their conditions aren't necessarily permanent, are not able to access the increased rate of support that the disability support pension allows them. There's a difference of around $160 a week in the income that people get if they've got the maximum amount of JobSeeker versus the DSP. So I worked that out. As the government told us, if this disallowance succeeds, there will be about 30,000 more people able to access the DSP. At that extra cost of about $160 per week, it adds each year about $250 million or a quarter of a billion dollars to our social security payments. A quarter of a billion dollars would help 30,000 people to get by and to be able to live dignified lives. It's a quarter of a billion dollars! Yet this government and the opposition say you can't afford it. In fact, only two arguments were put up against this disallowance: (1) that it would allow more people to access the DSP and (2) that we can't afford it. I tell you this government and this country can afford it. If you decided not to go ahead with the stage 3 tax cuts, that would be an extra $30 billion a year, an extra $300 billion and counting over 10 years. Compare that $30 billion a year to the quarter of a billion dollars that would help these extra 30,000 people. Of course, at the moment we've got a government that's sitting on a surplus at the moment—$20 billion and counting. Compare that $20 billion with a quarter of a billion dollars. We can afford it. We can afford it easily. It would make such a vast difference to people's lives. Let's think about it. Let's just reflect on the difference. If this disallowance succeeded, if we had greater access to the disability support pension, let's think about the people that it would benefit. A lot of these people have contacted my office over the last year. One of these 30,000 people is likely to be a woman from Tasmania—let's call her Wendy—who wrote to me saying: 'I was diagnosed with severe scoliosis and almost-fused bones in my neck. I applied for the disability support pension but was rejected. I am in constant pain and was bullied by the job providers, who had the cheek to indicate that I was lazy. I was doing two short TAFE courses at the time and stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'm not well enough to work due to my spinal issues, but I'm not sick enough to get the DSP. It is hard, as I cannot afford specialist reports. The system is broken, but I could not give myself the DSP even if I wanted to. Something has to be done.' Another constituent from Victoria—let's call them George—let me know this: 'I'm currently on JobSeeker while studying to join the mental health workforce. My disabilities are chronic, without cure, and I've had to stop taking medication for my mental health conditions because the impact on my body conditions was too high. Every week, I'm assessing whether the priority is to buy myself protein to sustain myself or if I need to make room in my budget for a specialist appointment. I want to get to the bottom of my mobility issues. I want to finish my studies and placement so I can support the wellbeing of my community. I want to go dancing with my friends without having to scrimp all week for the $25 door charge. I haven't been able to save money since I was laid off at the start of 2020. Only due to the generosity of friends am I still mostly debt free. Scraping by on income support and the measly $50 of rent assistance makes me feel like our government has forgotten what people need to survive in the economy they have created.' Let's hear the story of Stephen—not his real name—from Queensland, who also got in touch last year. Stephen told us: 'I've now been trying to get onto the DSP for three years. I appealed last month, and they denied me, because I couldn't get a GP appointment the very next day to complete a form. I don't have money to afford two meals a day. At my last place, the landlord sold the property, so I had to move. The new place—the only one that would accept me—is at the top of my pay bracket. I can afford it only by going into my funds for meals, medications and other bills. I have a growth on my brain—a benign tumour. I have medication to try and live comfortably. My condition isn't changing, and it's not going away. I have all the evidence from my doctors, but Centrelink refuses because it's not fully treated and stabilised. There have to be better ways to treat people with DSP. The mutual obligations are dehumanising and make people on DSP feel even more at the bottom of the barrel than they already do.' These are just three of the approximately 30,000 people who would have benefited if we had disallowed these parts of these regulations today. And there are thousands more Australians with similar stories. In my immediate circles, I can immediately bring to mind two people. In the last few months, Carol, a friend, was suffering with severe mental health issues. They have suffered with severe mental health issues over the last 10 years. They are up, they are down, and they are struggling at the moment to keep their apartment because they can't afford to make the rent on Jobseeker, and they are so anxious. It doesn't help their depression at all. In fact, they are too scared to apply for the DSP. They applied for the NDIS and were rejected. They are too scared to apply for the DSP, because they know going through the process would actually just exacerbate their mental health issues. Another close friend of mine, Lee, has applied and been rejected for the DSP twice in the last six months. Lee suffers from chronic pain and a multitude of physical health issues. Not surprisingly, associated with that, Lee suffers from some pretty difficult mental health issues. Lee has had eight eye operations over the last year. Lee has detached retinas. They are almost blind. Yet, their two applications for the DSP have been rejected. I would hope that someone like Lee, would, if we had passed this disallowance today, be eligible for the DSP and would be able to get the extra $160 a week that would enable them to at least have some ability to scrape by and to live their life with dignity. The only way that Lee gets by now is because of the generosity and charity of family and friends who help them out. There are so many people who don't have the family and friends like Lee does to help them out. They are desperate and are just being left at the bottom of the barrel—absolutely left behind by this government. The government is making a choice to leave these people behind. You are making a choice today. If you vote against this disallowance, you are choosing to leave those 30,000 people like Lee behind. You are making a choice to still be giving tax cuts to the rich—$9,000 in tax cuts every year to every person in this place—while not allowing people like Lee, Wendy, George, Stephen and Carol the dignity to be able to survive. This is a big country I thought we lived in. I thought we lived in a fair country, a fair country, what kind of society are we living in when we're leaving people like that behind? I call on everyone in this chamber to support this disallowance and support those 30,000 people and allow them to live a life of dignity. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 9 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Legislation Committee 73 Meeting 73 16:00 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator Sheldon, I move: That the Education and Employment Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 5 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 and the Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) Bill 2023. Question agreed to. BILLS 74 BILLS Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023 74

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

Report from Committee 74 16:01 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Pursuant to order and on behalf of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Senator Grogan, I present the report of the committee on the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023, together with accompanying documents. BUDGET 74 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 74 16:01 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the committees, I present reports from the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and the Education and Employment Legislation Committee in respect of the 2023-24 budget estimates, together with accompanying documents. Consideration by Estimates Committees 74 16:01 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the respective chairs of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and the Economics Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by committees relating to estimates. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 74 Report 74 16:01 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report 8 of 2023. Treaties Joint Committee 74 Report 74 16:02 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 210th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. DOCUMENTS 74 DOCUMENTS Infrastructure 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 16:03 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I want to make some comments in relation to document No. 23, which is a response to an order for the production of documents relating to the proposed AFL stadium on the Hobart waterfront. I want to make it very clear to the Senate that the response from Minister King to the OPD that was passed by this Senate on 14 June, relating to urban renewal projects at Macquarie Point, which was tabled on 23 June, is a completely unacceptable and insulting response to an order for the production of documents from this Senate. I want to be clear about this. The order, as passed by the Senate, said this: … all information (including documents) relating to the Macquarie Point Precinct and University of Tasmania Stadium 'urban renewal projects' … The minister's response to the Senate says: … it is unclear as to what specific information the Senator is requesting … Well, firstly, it is not me who is requesting it; it is the Senate requesting it—this chamber. It is not me; it was passed by the Senate. Secondly, it is not unclear at all what documents the Senate is requesting; it is requesting all information relating to those projects. For the government to come back in the way that it has, saying it's not clear what specific information is being requested, is ridiculous and it smacks of a cover-up. This stadium is being foisted upon the Tasmanian people by a state Liberal government in cahoots with a federal Labor government, and they are both completely servile to the interests of the AFL. Tasmania is facing a housing and rental crisis like the rest of the country. Hobart is the most unaffordable capital city in Australia in which to rent. I mean, the idea that we would spend likely north of a billion dollars on a stadium that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the Tasmanian people is a disgrace. And what we are seeing now is a deeply unpopular decision by the Albanese government here in Canberra and the Rockliff Liberal government in Tasmania. I have to say, I don't often agree with Mr Jeff Kennett but yesterday Mr Kennett said—and I do agree with him about this—the federal funding agreement is flawed. The return on investment will be negative in perpetuity. There should be an option in the deal for a Tasmanian AFL licence without a new stadium. Maybe it was a blue moon last night, I'm not sure, but I stand here finding myself in furious agreement with Mr Jeff Kennett. I will tell you something else I agree with him on: his observation that there is a lot of public opposition to the stadium. He's right about that. He has understated it but he is right about that. You have a billion dollars of taxpayers' money at stake here for a stadium that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the Tasmanian people. This stadium has only been foisted on us because the suits at AFL House flew down to Tasmania, wandered around the joint for a few hours and said, 'We will have a stadium there, thanks,' pointing at Macquarie Point. They got on the plane and flew back again after having made it clear that unless we agreed to put a stadium right there on Macquarie point we wouldn't get the AFL team that we have been fighting for, for decades. That is what has happened here. Tasmanians don't want this stadium but they have a right to know what information the government is holding about the stadium. The government's response to this order for the production documents wasn't an insult to me; it was an insult to the Senate. I want to be very clear the government has not heard the end of this. They haven't heard the end of it in this chamber and they haven't heard the end of it publicly. The Senate has a right to know what information the government is holding about this stadium, and the Greens will give the Senate every opportunity to demand that the government become more transparent and reveal the truth. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 75 COMMITTEES 76 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 76 Report 76 16:11 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I rise today to speak to the report on the inquiry run by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee into the Adaptive Sports Program for Australian Defence Force veterans. I begin by thanking all of the individuals and groups that took the time to make a submission to this very important inquiry, and particularly those who attended the two public hearings in Canberra and in Sydney. It was wonderful to hear from everyone who made a contribution to this inquiry, particularly veterans, and those who are involved in supporting our veteran community. We all owe our veterans a debt of gratitude and we should be supporting them in their transition to civilian life every time we can, as well as supporting their families and their support personnel. I also want to pay tribute to the four Army soldiers who died recently in that crash up in Townsville. It was sad news. I want to pay tribute to them, to their families and to all of their mates who are currently going through quite a bit. It's fair to say everyone in this place does send out the most heartfelt condolences to all those involved. This was a wonderful inquiry to see the work between both major parties and the crossbench. It was a unanimous bipartisan report. We were able to work together in a positive role to encourage government, particularly the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence, to look in a much more positive way at how adaptive sports can play a role in the lives of our veterans. As the report notes, all those who made a submission were 'unanimous in their belief that adaptive sports are beneficial in aiding the wellbeing of veterans'. Benefits that we heard about included 'lowering of stress and anxiety, ease of socialisation and boosting self-esteem'. Sport offers a kind of common language that allows veterans to reconnect with the community and mitigate feelings of loneliness and lost identity. The Department of Defence's submission noted several international studies that showed the benefits of sport for veterans. They said that there is a: … growing body of evidence supporting the positive effects of exercise and sport on the veterans' mental health, including for improving post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety, social wellbeing, sleep quality and improvement in the quality of life. The evidence we received was particularly moving. It was really good, as Senator Cadell, another member of that inquiry, also knows, to be able to hear first-hand that raw evidence about how engaging sport can be to help draw veterans away from what many described as internal pain and back to connecting with other people and their community. I think a quote included in the report from Sailing On's submission really sums up the positive impact sport can have on the lives of veterans. A family member who took part in Sailing On's program said: My daddy came back from Afghanistan but when we went sailing, he really came back. I think it is fair to say a lot of us didn't understand or appreciate the role that sailing had on a number of the veterans that we met initially, but, by the end of the day, we were all in agreement that not just sailing but any kind of sport is good, is positive and will help address a lot of the issues that many members of our veterans community go through each and every day. With that quote in mind, we should be looking at how we can better integrate sport into transition to civilian life. While there are sports progress in Defence, in their submission, they noted that there is no formal mechanism or pathway to involve sport as part of the transition plan. We know that transition out of service can be very difficult, and we know from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide that there is an increased risk of suicide among those who have recently transitioned out of service. With this in mind, we should be seriously looking at everything that we can in this place to be of assistance to veterans throughout their transition period. This includes adaptive sport programs. Like many on the committee, I support all the recommendations in the report, and I really want to call out a couple in particular. Recommendation 2 recommends that the focus of veterans' sport should be on rehab and should be about supporting transition from service. This reflects a desire to ensure sports are inclusive for all veterans that can benefit from participation—not just those who may seek to succeed in a form of competition. Recommendation 4 calls on the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to align their policies to support the Joint Transition Authority in facilitating veteran sports programs that support transition from service into civilian life. The role sport can play in this transition period was called out several times by multiple submitters and witnesses that appeared before the inquiry. I think this recommendation is particularly important and worth noting in this place. Again, I want to thank everyone who took part in this inquiry, particularly those who took the time to make a submission or attend one of the public hearings. I know it can be quite confronting for many of the veterans who did appear before us, particularly those who were suffering from severe anxiety, but I want to say to them: thank you so much for making the time for sharing your experience, because everything that you have said and submitted to this inquiry not only has been noted but I also am fairly confident that many in government will be taking note of, especially given the great media coverage that we also had and the positive remarks that we've seen from government to date. The welfare of our veterans should always be a priority of this place. I do look forward to continuing to work very closely with our veterans community for many years to come. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 16:19 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I'd like to associate myself with the comments of Senator Ciccone. Many times I've stood up here and said there are many difficult things about coming here, like not feeling you're making a difference in any way, shape or form. To hear the stories of some of these people, to be even a small part of a report that comes out and identifies the difficulty many of these people have transitioning from their defence careers to civilian life, and seeing the number of people with such anxiety with support dogs, trying to get over their careers—this makes me feel that we can do something with this report, if we can follow it through, if we can do these things, if we can make life better for these people. We went to Sydney and saw some of Saltwater Veterans' operations—and some of their frustrations. They operate in the Hunter, on the Newcastle Harbour. These are people who signed up to give their very best for us, and they deserve nothing less from us back to them. I think this report goes some way to recommendations that will improve access, improve outcomes and improve lives. I thank the Senate and the parliament for letting me be part of it. Debate adjourned. Consideration 77 MOTIONS 79 MOTIONS Albanese Government 79 16:21 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The Albanese government is delivering stronger foundations for a better future. We are dealing with the pressing challenges of here and now while never losing sight of the future by investing $2 billion in social housing and reintroducing the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund; strengthening Medicare and helping Australians to save $118 million on their prescriptions; making child care cheaper for 1.2 million Australian families; funding fee-free TAFE places for 480,000 Australians; working with the states to deliver $3 billion of electricity bill relief to help shield over five million households and one million small businesses from the worst of the global energy price shocks, without adding to inflation; and backing real pay increases so that 2.7 million workers on awards receive a 5.75 per cent pay rise and 250,000 aged-care workers benefit from a historic 15 per cent pay rise. Unemployment is now at a historic low of 3.5 per cent, with almost half a million more Australians in work compared to when we came to office. After a wasted decade under the Liberals, Labor is working for Australia every single day. Childcare subsidy increases are easing costs for 1.2 million families and reducing barriers to greater workforce participation. For a family earning $120,000 with one child in care, their childcare costs will be about $1,700 a year less than they would have otherwise been. On 1 July, the National Anti-Corruption Commission commenced. On the same day we strengthened paid parental leave, with parental leave pay and dad-and-partner pay combining into a single 20-week scheme, benefiting 180,000 families per year. Again, on 1 July the Home Guarantee Scheme eligibility expanded, with 50,000 new places available, helping more Australians into their own home. Again, on 1 July the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's liability cap was increased by $2 billion to a total of $7.5 billion, supporting more lending to community housing providers for social and affordable housing projects. Again, on 1 July—there are so many things that start on this particular date—the interim 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers came into effect, with the Albanese government committing $11.3 billion to funding the rise. This means nurses can earn an extra $10,000 a year on the award wage, and some personal care workers can earn an extra $7,000 a year. From 1 July aged-care facilities will have a registered nurse on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week to improve care. Exemptions of up to 12 months will be provided for small facilities with 30 or fewer beds, particularly in rural and remote areas. Also, from 1 July eligible New Zealand citizens who have lived in Australia for four or more years will be able apply for Australian citizenship. As a matter of interest, Senator Cadell, I am meeting the New Zealand trade minister in Adelaide next week to have further discussions on our economic relations, and then he is coming to the beautiful Clare Valley for a couple of nights to experience the wonderful, wonderful opportunities to taste South Australian wine, which I'm sure— Senator FARRELL I0N No, no antihistamines needed, but of course he will be very pleased that New Zealand citizens can receive citizenship and therefore vote in Australia. Again, on 1 July—you seem remarkably intrigued, Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Always, whenever you speak! Senator Brockman 30484 I'm trying not to go to sleep! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I'm very alert, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N That is a particularly obnoxious comment, Senator Brockman, and I think you should— Senator Brockman 30484 I withdraw. Senator FARRELL I0N Good on you, there we go. We will have to give you some explanation about how trade works in this country, too, so that you can— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Farrell, I draw your attention back to the motion before us. Senator FARRELL I0N Again, on 1 July the Net Zero Economy Agency commenced to help workers, regional communities and investors transition to, engage with and invest in the net zero economy. From 1 July 11 Medicare urgent care clinics will be opening across the country. Also from 1 July all community pharmacies will be paid more for dispensing PBS medicines, giving the average metropolitan pharmacy more than $41,000 extra income per year. I can go on because there are so many more things that this government has done from the start of the new financial year. New rules have taken effect, which means that manufacturers of more than 2,900 brands of common medicines are required to hold a minimum of four to six months worth of stock onshore in Australia. Anybody who has had trouble getting access to some of those common medicines, particularly as they relate to diabetes, will know how important that change is. Again, from 1 July there have been changes to the petroleum resources rent tax to deliver a fairer return to communities from our natural resources. These are very important changes to those rules. There will be safeguard mechanism reforms to help Australian industries move to net zero. Again, from 1 July there's the Small Business Energy Incentive so that small and medium-sized businesses with a turnover of less than $50 million will be able to claim an extra 20 per cent deduction on spending that supports electrification and more efficient use of energy. Obviously, this is a very important step in the progress towards decarbonising our economy. Again from 1 July, the temporary skilled migration income threshold has been increased from $53,900 to $70,000 to attract skilled migrants who can complement the skills of the Australian workforce. Anybody who visits particularly tourism places anywhere in the country knows just how important that will be to ensure that, for instance, chefs can come to Australia. There's now a higher threshold. The former government left us in a terrible situation with an inability to get a skilled workforce to try and recover from those terrible years under that government during COVID. We're doing something about it to encourage skilled migrants to come to Australia and earn more. Under the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement, UK passport holders will be able to apply for a working holiday-maker visa between the ages of 18 and 35, so that's a five-year increase from the current maximum to 30 years. Hopefully that will encourage young people from the United Kingdom who want to experience the wonderful lifestyle that Australia has, and it's a new opportunity for those of an older age and therefore a little bit more mature and perhaps with some extra skills that they can apply to the Australian economy. We welcome those people. You may recall the former government talked about getting the agreement, but, of course, it did nothing to actually implement it, so it was left to the incoming government, in particular the trade minister— Senator Sterle e68 The grown-ups. Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, the grown-ups. It was left to the grown-ups to finish the job that the now opposition failed to do. Of course, that's been a wonderful development. It's very much a part of the diversification strategy which this government has implemented to ensure that we're not solely dependent on one or two economies to keep our businesses thriving, which they are. Anybody who's been keeping an eye on the terms of trade will know that those terms of trade are higher and better for Australia than they have ever been at any time in my lifetime, and I've lived a lot longer than all of you. Those terms of trade are delivering. And, of course, that UK free trade agreement and all the associated benefits are adding to that contribution. In fact, I saw Gina Rinehart on the TV. Not only has she mineral interests; she also has cattle interests, and she was predicting at one stage that she might be able to deliver tens of thousands of tons of wonderful Australian beef into the UK market as a result of this new free trade agreement. Senator Duniam 263418 All single-handedly delivered by you! Senator FARRELL I0N Let's be honest about it. I wouldn't mind you claiming some credit for it had you been able to get the agreement through the parliament. But the hard work— Senator Duniam 263418 When did it start? Senator FARRELL I0N It started when the UK government completed their side of the arrangement. I have to say, that did take longer than they would have liked, and it certainly took longer than we would have liked. In fact, I can tell you this, Senator Duniam: on the first day I was appointed to this job, I was invited by the British High Commissioner to come around for a chat about it. I committed the Australian government to complete this process, which the former government had failed to do, in the shortest possible time available under our legislation and do all of the things that needed to be done, and we did it. We did it in that time frame. Ultimately, the delay in starting the agreement ended up being on the other side of the world. You might recall that there was quite a bit of opposition within the UK to the agreement, so it took them a little bit longer to massage it through their processes. But it started, and, of course, we're now getting the benefit of all the things that flow from that agreement. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N If you like, I can start talking about the India free trade agreement and your failure to get that through the processes that were required. We started both those processes—India and the UK—on the same day. We were fortunate that we were able to get the cooperation of the Indian government. I kept Minister Goyal briefed on where we were up to— (Time expired) 16:36 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania What a delight it is to be able to make a contribution to a debate which has been made on the books of this chamber now for five months around the Albanese government and their broken promises. For the purpose of completeness, I will read out that motion in the time available to me. It says: That the Senate notes the Albanese Government's broken promises to deliver cheaper power prices, cheaper mortgages, to not make any changes to super, as well as broken promises on medicines, country doctors, Medicare and mental health. That was moved by our good friend and colleague Senator Ruston on 9 March this year. Often in this place, motions put down on one day lose their relevance down the track. In politics, as they say, a lot happens in a week. One week in politics is a long time. After five months, not only is this still relevant; it is more relevant, because there are more broken promises. The Australian people have been let down more than they were on 9 March this year, and that's why it is great to be able to make a contribution to this debate. It's those promises, quite clearly and succinctly outlined in this motion, that we should be focused on. I'll give credit where credit is due, and I am pleased that Senator Farrell was able to outline the good work that he's done in the time that he's been trade minister. I will reject the characterisation that he applied to the way things were when he picked up. Anyone who thinks that a government can just wave a magic wand and suddenly have a free trade deal has to be kidding themselves. It's much same for anyone who thinks that the Albanese government, in the 15 months they have been in power, have been able to wave their magic wand and fix the Great Barrier Reef. While we're on amazing embellishments and exaggerations and taking credit for things that have nothing to do with the government, it was amazing earlier this week to see the environment minister and the Prime Minister standing out there in the PM's courtyard saying, 'We've saved the reef,' after 15 months in this place. Just to put it on the record, I will remind this chamber that it was during the last time Labor were in power, in the year 2013, that the reef was about to go on the 'endangered' list. At that point in time, there was extreme underinvestment and, according to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, record low coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef. That was Labor's legacy back in 2013. It was then coalition government that invested, over the course of the next nine years, $3 billion in reef projects and activity to restore the reef. There was a range of legislative measures and regulatory arrangements to help land users minimise their impacts on the reef. We then found out from the same institute that told the world, shockingly, that reef coral cover was at a record low in 2012 under Labor, in the August 2022 that in it's 36 years of record keeping, the coral cover on the reef had never been higher. Guess who'd just left office? We had! But let's forget those facts. Let's forget the history and the context against which things like FTAs, reef health and coral cover originate, and let's just make it up and pretend the government has a magic wand. If they did have this magic wand that I've been looking and that they've been talking about, then they would have been able to bring down power prices. I do want to talk about that promise that was made 97 times before the last election, and I believe 27 times after Russia invaded Ukraine illegally. That's 27 times after what they now claim is stopping them from bringing power prices down—they still made the promise—and it's only been referenced once since the election, by Senator Tim Ayres. I was grateful for him one day in this place to repeat the promise they'd made. But no-one else has done it. I look forward to the next government speaker, to see whether they will double-down and back in that promise about bringing down power prices by $275. Senator Sterle, the invitation is there, because there is a big difference between bringing down power prices by actually reducing the cost of electricity, whatever form of generation it comes from, and using taxpayers' money to help you pay your bill, which is exactly what's happening. We're using taxpayers' money to offset higher power bills. That is not lower power bills; that is taxpayers paying, through the government, their power bills. They're still high. None of the Labor policies that they've brought in since the election will go anywhere near reducing the cost of electricity. It was great to hear the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Farrell, in amongst the other things he talked about, talk about the safeguard mechanism, something we opposed because we knew it would do nothing to assist this government to deliver on its promises. We're all about helping the government deliver on its promises. The safeguard mechanism will stop them from delivering on their promise. The safeguard mechanism will not bring down power prices, will not actually deliver on economic growth, will not help country towns, will not keep jobs here, and I will come to housing policy bit later on, because I'm really interested in the benchmarks in the modelling around the HAFF, which I think we'll have a lot of time to talk about next week. But on the safeguard, and I acknowledge in the chamber probably one of my more patient Labor colleagues, Senator McAllister, who sat here very late into the night and early the next morning to take my questions and listen to the very well thought-through contributions of coalition senators on that abhorrent piece of legislation, which was rammed through this place in partnership with the biggest economic vandals in this nation, the Australian Greens. The Australian Greens are the party who the Australian Labor Party rely on for preferences to get elected right across this country, make no mistake. They protest so loudly. They say, 'You're partners.' Occasionally, they will identify, like we will, bad legislation that is bad for Australian families, bad for Australian businesses, and I tell you what, the HAFF is bad, and we'll come back to that. But on the safeguard, cheaper transport? Couldn't be promised. People in Victoria didn't know if they were going to be paying more for train tickets as a result of the safeguard. The V/Line in Victoria was one of the big emitters caught up in the safeguard. Any concessions for users of transport under that arrangement? No. We went through a list of businesses that are going to be impacted. I met with one yesterday, in my office. In fact, it was representatives of a South Korean company, and they expressed in no uncertain terms their displeasure and their concern around what the Australian government has done with the safeguard mechanism. They saw it as a broken promise because it created sovereign risk, because Australia is now becoming an unattractive place to invest. If we don't have investment of that nature unlocking resources, creating jobs in regional communities, then, of course, we are going to see a reduction in economic activity and productivity. That drives up the cost of everything. When these businesses are faced with punitive measures and punitive regulatory arrangements, higher taxes in effect, as the safeguard mechanism is for the businesses that can't comply with Labor's arbitrary punitive safeguard mechanism, they will send their businesses offshore. They talk about decarbonising. It's great language, but it doesn't help people pay their power bills. It never has and never will. They talk about the renewable transition. That's not going to help people pay their power bills. We need cheap, reliable, dispatchable baseload power. None of that is coming online. It's another broken promise. The safeguard mechanism is driving us down this mad pathway to strangle our economy, and the upshot is that those businesses that provide economic activity, those sources of energy generation that Australian households and businesses rely on to be able to keep their houses warm in winter and their lights on at night and that hospitals use to keep the machines they operate with ticking over, aren't going to be able to compete here economically. We are pricing ourselves out of the market, and that is only going to be bad for our country—for jobs, for households and for their ability to deal with the cost-of-living crisis that the Australian Labor Party, along with their bedfellows, the Australian Greens, seem to be totally oblivious to. I want to turn to something else, and that is the matter of forestry. A promise was made, and it's not referenced in this motion, but it is a broken promise nonetheless. In my home state of Tasmania we have a proud history of doing forestry well. I am disappointed that Senator Rice has left the chamber; I don't think she agrees with me on this point, but I still believe I'm right. In Australia, we do forestry better than anywhere else in the world. I have challenged the Australian Greens and members of the Labor Environment Action Network to tell me where in the world they do forestry better, and no-one has ever been able to tell me a single jurisdiction around the world where they do forestry better, be that native or plantation. And we've got to remember that the forestry industry isn't just the people who plant and manage the plantation or the native estate; it's also the contractors who go in and harvest it, the haulage contractors, who have massive financial commitments on their rigs. They're the people who depend on this sustainable, world-leading, science-based industry. The Prime Minister made a promise during the election campaign about protecting native forestry—indeed, Labor's forestry policies largely mirrored ours—but the forest policy that they took to the last election was silent on what would happen in Victoria and what would happen in Western Australia. I think they had a sneaking suspicion that their Western Australian and Victorian counterparts would do what they ultimately did, which was to shut down these vibrant, sustainable industries—again, an attack on regional communities. And it removes a sovereign capability from our nation. I say to those people who defend that ridiculous set of decisions from those two governments: where do we get the timber from? Senator Pratt I0T Have you actually seen the state of the forests in Western Australia? Senator DUNIAM 263418 I'll take that interjection. Senator Pratt asked me if I have seen the state of the forests in Western Australia. Yes, I have. Have you seen the state of the forests in the Congo basin, Senator Pratt, where we rip our timber out of if we're not getting it out of Australian forests? I bet the answer to that question is no. The timber that comes out of those forests has tinges of modern human slavery attached to it. It destroys the environment. It results in huge acceleration of carbon emissions, but, hey, it's not happening in our backyard, so it doesn't matter. Not only are we offshoring the jobs through a broken promise of Labor governments—while this federal Labor government stands idly by, the former friend of the worker, and lets Labor state governments get away with economic carnage like this—but then they go and defend these decisions by saying, 'Have you seen the forests?' Yes, I have. It's not a pretty industry, but that doesn't mean it's environmentally destructive. You need to go and talk to scientists. You need to go and talk to the people in the industry who know what they're talking about, not people who operate on emotion and lack fact in their debate. When we shut down this industry, we send it offshore. We send the jobs offshore. All of those people I talked about before, the contractors included, lose their jobs. The communities they're a part of lose their heart and soul—the footy club, the RSL, the school, the post office—as all of those amenities and the community itself evaporate. That is factored in nowhere in their thoughts, their policies or the decisions they make as they go about recklessly breaking promises. Of course, when it comes to promises, I don't remember the Australian Labor Party promising at the last election that they'd fund a stadium in Tasmania, but they are. While doing so, of course, they're dudding— Senator Sterle e68 That was on Utopia! Senator DUNIAM 263418 I love these interjections from Western Australian senators. Senator Sterle says that was on Utopia and can I tell you, yes, it is very utopian. It's very much a utopian project. That's the problem I have with this announcement they've made; it wasn't a promise but a bad decision. I'll tell you why it's bad. It's not because they're funding a stadium. It's because, in doing so, in putting $240 million of that finite resource of taxpayers' money on the table, they are duding Tasmanians by taking it out of our GST allocation. On multiple occasions, now, I have asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I have asked the— Senator Pratt I0T Leave the GST alone, you Tasmanian! Senator DUNIAM 263418 Federation is a beautiful thing! I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who could give me no comfort. I asked the minister at the table during infrastructure estimates about whether she, as a Tasmanian senator, Senator Brown, has sought a commitment from the Treasurer to exempt our GST allocation. For those thousands, or tens of thousands, of Australians out there listening, GST is how a state like Tasmania pays for its health system, for its education system, in part for its roads and other amenities, essential services that a small state can't afford to pay. Thank God for horizontal fiscal equalisation. But the Australian Labor government, the Albanese Labor government, represented in Tasmania by Ms Julie Collins, the member for Franklin—a cabinet minister, who has a fair bit of say over what happens here—Senator Brown, Senator Bilyk, Senator Polley, Senator Urquhart, can do the right thing by the 560,000 people we represent in this place. They can ask the Treasurer to exempt that funding decision by this government from the GST. Do the right thing by the state, and, please, for heaven's sake, stop breaking promises you made to the Australian people, including your promise on power prices, which I look forward to hearing about now. (Time expired) 16:51 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia As we enter into the final stages of our sitting week—and you can hear all the suitcases rolling down the hallway. I'm not pointing to anyone in particular, who will be back on Monday and making a lot of noise while they are here. But it's getting closer to aeroplane time, and they're long gone after question time. I couldn't let that one slip! We're still here. There are some times when you get a motion and you think, 'We can do all the theatrics and we can do all the hand movements and we can make all the jokes.' But then there are times when you actually have to clarify the record and put a few home truths on the table. I'm going to put a few home truths on the table. I know this order was presented back on 9 March, as Senator Duniam did say, by Senator Ruston. I know how it works: they all get together on tactics, and someone says, 'Here's a great idea; let's run on this.' Then some poor bunny has to put their name to it. I've seen it all in opposition before. I get that. That's fine. It's no slight against Senator Ruston at all. But the motion does reference superannuation. It references medicines and it references Medicare as well. I just think, while all the frivolity is going on, let's just tell some truth, shall we? Rather than just try and waste a bit of time on a Thursday arvo while our mates are at the airport having a gin and tonic or something and while we're still here working. The opposition, seriously, have got more front than Myers when they come in here and start lecturing the Australian Labor Party on the values of superannuation. I mean, I love this, I have to say. There are some in your ranks, seriously, that believe that superannuation shouldn't even exist. We know who they are. You know who they are. We've seen the language. We've seen some of the terrible, toxic wording around superannuation and what they think about it. But let's talk about change, shall we? Let's have a go at this. I want to quote an article by Peter Hartcher. It was titled, 'Labor's on a roll. No wonder the Libs are flat out'. This was from March of this year, where he pointed out, 'The Liberals'—not even they want to acknowledge the other mob who aren't in the room here, because they've got the hayseed in the suitcase out after question time and are gone too, but don't forget the Nats; they're in a coalition. But everyone likes to put on the Libs because they spend more time blueing with each other, but— The Liberals' changes to super in 2016 were much broader. This week's decision— And this is referring to March of this year. … marked the Labor government as being cautious and incremental. Even responsible. The point of the change was to save $2 billion a year to help repair the yawning deficit left behind by the Liberals. That's from Mr Hartcher. It can't be any clearer than that. Seriously, for those out there listening, we're still fixing up the mess that you left behind for us. We had a decade of waste and mismanagement—or nearly a decade; thank God we were a couple of months short of it! There were nearly ten years of waste and mismanagement. Again, the opposition has the gall to come in and lecture us about alleged 'broken promises'. Everyone knows that the Liberals have always hated superannuation. We know that. the Canberra Times published a story in November 2019, with the headline: 'Lib Senator says superannuation a cancer'. That is what it says. I know who the senator was. He isn't here at the moment. He's probably between here, the airport and his home town in Queensland. I'm not going to name Senator Rennick! He'll work it out for himself. But we've got a fair idea who it is. Now, the Sydney Morning Herald— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator Sterle, you're getting very close to disparaging senators when they're not here, so— Senator STERLE e68 Chair, with the greatest respect? I'll send you an email, Senator Rennick! Seriously, Chair, come on. Disparaging? That is what he said, in the paper. I'll give you a copy of it. Anyway, let's move on shall we? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator Sterle, please withdraw. Senator STERLE e68 Withdraw what? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 There was a reference to me, as well. Senator STERLE e68 Look, seriously. If the glass jaw is that fragile, I'll withdraw. Okay, let's move— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator Sterle, you do not then disparage further. You withdraw and— Senator STERLE e68 Okay. I withdraw! I withdraw! I withdraw! It's withdrawn. It's gone. I'll stop telling the truth. No I won't! And speaking of the former Liberal government, the Guardian in 2019 stated that 'this reckless government'—that's your mob over there—'are determined to damage superannuation'. More recently, we saw calls from former government MPs to bench their own legislative timetable to increase the superannuation guarantee charge from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent by 2024. I'm not making this up. It's all there for everyone to see. Then came the calls led by—you will remember—former Liberal MP Tim Wilson to allow people to raid their super for a housing deposit, the result of which would have seen a soaring price bubble in the market. Then came the pandemic, and the government's shocking decision to allow workers facing economic hardship to pilfer their super savings to survive the recession. Richard Wood, a senior journalist with Nine News, reported in an article published on 16 March that more than 2.6 million Australians drained their superannuation accounts at the height of the pandemic, with, unfortunately some spending the money on takeaway food, gambling and buying furniture. The Brisbane Times reported that a study released in March showed that people during the health emergency accessed $38 billion under the former Morrison government's early release stimulus program. The study said that those people who use the scheme have deprived themselves of $120,000 in retirement savings. The then Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, talked up the policy, saying it was 'the people's money, and this is the time they need it most.' Researchers from the Australian National University and George Washington University and Harvard University in the US looked at what people spent their super money on and the occupations of those who used the scheme. They found the accounts of up to one-quarter of applicants were emptied within days of the scheme's launch. From those who accessed the early super scheme, 75 per cent withdrew the maximum $10,000 available to them. Gambling, they say, was one of the biggest expenditures for the withdrawn money. Sadly, they said it was with an average spend per person of $293—that's the average spend per person. They are quite alarming numbers. Spending included furniture and office equipment, supermarkets, restaurant or takeaway meals, and at department stores. The researchers warned accessing and spending super money had a huge impact on retirement nest eggs, and we can understand that is the case. People who used the scheme slashed their super balance by an average of 51 per cent. Let's talk about medicines and about urgent care clinics. I want to turn to what the government is doing to deliver cheaper medicines, increased bulk-billing and our election commitment on urgent care clinics. Don't believe any of the misinformation and scare campaigns pushed out by those opposite. The government has already delivered major changes that are bringing down the price of medicines. In July last year, we delivered a 25 per cent cut to the safety net, which has reduced the cost of medicines for pensioners. In September last year, we cut the price of 2,000 brands of medicines, which has put $130 million into the pockets of hard-working Australians—$130 million! On 1 July this year, we delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS—yes, the biggest cut ever. Starting on 1 September this year, Australians with a chronic health condition—sadly, there are too many—will benefit when 100 common medicines listed on the PBS will shift to 60-day dispensing. This will be the first phase of changing the prescription dispensing arrangements for 300 commonly used medicines. This change will deliver cheaper medicines for patients and make it easier for people to get an appointment with their local GP. Every year, nearly a million Australians are forced to delay taking go without medicines that they need for their health—think about that. The shift to 60-day dispensing for many of the medicines needed to treat chronic conditions will halve the cost of those medicines for millions of Australians, importantly, including our pensioners. Labor proudly took a commitment to deliver 50 urgent care clinics to the last election. I have good news for everybody: the May budget contained funding to deliver not 50 but 58 urgent care clinics. Not only are we delivering on our promises and election commitments but we are over-delivering. Sixteen of these clinics are already up and running. They are in Albury, Wentworthville, Randwick, Wollongong, Launceston, Sunbury, Shepparton, Geelong, Heidelberg, Ballarat, Werribee, Narre Warren, Prahran, Frankston, Perth City and Rockingham. The urgent care clinics are essential to delivering the care that people need when they need it. Urgent care clinics will be bulk-billed, operate seven days a week for extended hours and are there to treat non-life-threatening emergencies. How good is that? Labor's cheaper medicines and urgent care clinics are already making a real difference. These significant changes, along with the indexation of Medicare, the tripling of bulk-billing from November and the strengthening Medicare grants will be a real shot in the arm for general practice, which, as we all know, is the backbone of our health system. Concession cardholders will continue to be bulk-billed, medicines will be cheaper, and Australians will be able to get emergency health care they need and, guess what? It will be bulk-billed. These are all proudly brought to you by the Albanese Labor government. 17:03 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Senator Sterle, you really belled the cat there. You are one of my favourite senators on the other side but you really belled the cat there when you said, 'I will start telling the truth.' That's all we are asking for, Senator Sterle; we are just asking the government to start telling the truth. It would be really nice. I'm not going to focus on the litany of broken promises we have seen from the Albanese government in its first year and a bit. I will just focus on a couple because they are the ones I think are most important. They are the mistruths we hear repeated in this place day after day, question time after question time, speech after speech, from those opposite. The one that is most egregious because it's just completely denied by reality is about wage rises. Real wages increased under the former coalition government; real wages went up. The Labor government, coming into office from opposition, promised they would see real wage rises and, instead, they have overseen the greatest declines in real wage rises, certainly in my lifetime and probably longer than that. Real wages plummeted thanks to the inflation and cost-of-living crisis that has impacted Australia over the last 12 months. Everybody out there knows that. They know that, whilst their pay packet may have been going up, it has not been going up fast enough to combat the inflation rises that have been forced on them and exacerbated by the poor handling of the economy by this Labor government. That is the first one. It's a clear broken promise of this Labor government. They promised real wage rises. They have delivered real wage declines, and they know it. They know it. Senator Ayres 16913 It's just not true. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Real wages rose under the previous coalition government except for the fact that something happened during that period, Senator Ayres—this thing called a global pandemic. Real wages rose. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 I will table the document. I don't have it with me right now, Senator Ayres, but I'll make sure I get a copy sent to your office. The other one that is really important to talk about because the myth is told in this place again and again by those opposite—they constantly attack us for not supporting their gas plan. We voted against it. Yes, I'm proud. I say it every day: I'm very happy to be on the record as having voted against your gas and energy price plan because it was a terrible plan. It was a terrible plan that deterred investment in the Australian economy. It would have done almost nothing in terms of power prices in the short term. And it would have forced up power prices in the long term by reducing investment in the production of supply. The only way of putting long-term downward pressure on gas prices is to see new generation enter the marketplace. Instead of doing that, you have deterred foreign investment into the gas market. You've caused one of our largest trading partners, our most significant geopolitical ally, Japan, to look to other nations for their gas supply because they do not trust us any more. They have said this publicly. They no longer trust Australia to be a regular supplier of their gas needs, even though they and their corporations have invested billions of dollars over decades, particularly into my home state of Western Australia. Your gas and energy policy is built on the back of the $275 power cut promise, which just disappeared. It didn't see the light of day after you were elected. That was a number that you could not speak its name: $275 could not come out of the mouth of any minister in this place for months and months. As I say, it's Thursday afternoon, so I'm not going to go to all of these broken promises. But, in the words of Senator Sterle, it would just be nice if the Labor government started to tell the truth. 17:08 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I just want to put on the record the 11 government actions on the cost of living. To tell the truth I think there was a bit of misrepresentation in the last comment by Senator Slade Brockman of the contribution from my colleague Senator Glenn Sterle. The Australian people will be making up their minds about whether they are getting support for the cost of living. There are millions of Australians who are getting that support. I want to put this on the record. Since coming to government, to take action in response to the very real and challenging cost-of-living reality that is facing Australians, this government has successfully advocated for wage increases for minimum and award wage workers. We're funding pay rises for aged-care workers. We're delivering cheaper child care. We're delivering cheaper medicines. We're tripling the bulk-billing incentives to support 11.6 million Australians, including children, pensioners and other concession cardholders, to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. We're delivering fee-free TAFE and more university places to hundreds of thousands of Australians. We're expanding paid parental leave. We're building more affordable homes, including through the National Housing Accord—but we could do even more if we could get the Greens, Liberals and Nationals out of a terrible anti-housing coalition, to allow us to get on with that job further. We've brought in the new pensioner work bonus so older Australians can keep more of what they earn without it affecting their pension. We're increasing the base rate for eligible recipients of JobSeeker, Austudy, youth allowance and other working-age payments. We're increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent—its biggest increase in over three decades. We're providing electricity bill rebates to more than five million households and one million small businesses, in partnership with the state and territory governments—and those opposite, the former government who now sit on the opposition benches, opposed that measure at every single turn, and they continue to come in here and try to stitch together a narrative of failure, hopelessness and fear which so characterised their time in office. I want to draw the chamber's attention to the fact that behind Senator Ruston's blatant falsehoods in her motion there lies a deep misunderstanding of economic fundamentals and the improvements that have already become evident from the Albanese government's prudent policymaking. With such economic ignorance, it's no wonder the LNP were unable to achieve a surplus in their nine torrid years of government. There is a war in the Ukraine, a slowing world economy and a profiteering cartel of fossil fuel producers. In the face of these global headwinds, the Albanese government is delivering on a very clear, well calibrated, carefully considered and carefully implemented three-point plan—no panic, no drama, just doing the job of government properly, which is something so many Australians have not seen in over a decade. Firstly, this government has recorded a budget surplus of $20 billion, and we've banked those savings, for Australians, to take pressure off inflation. This triumph is evidence of sound economic judgement. It's a sign of prudent decision-making and a stop to the waste and rorts that plagued the previous LNP government. Secondly, we've targeted cost of living. As I indicated, it was promised and it's been delivered by the Albanese government, despite the whingeing and complaining and deriding that we see in speech after speech by those who would propagate continued fear about the future of this country. Single parents all over Australia are struggling, and increasing the cut-off for the age of the youngest child for the single parenting payment shows that this government cares. Thirdly, we are investing in the capacity of the economy to ensure our prosperity is safeguarded for posterity. The Albanese government's investment into cheaper child care allows more mothers to rejoin the workforce quicker, boosts family incomes and levels the gender disparity which still exists in this nation, while taking pressure off the cost of living for young families. Speaking as a mother of three—and I know there are parents here in the chamber with me—the challenges of those early years are very significant both financially and emotionally. Any support we can give to young families is going to make a difference for the better for this nation. But the Albanese government is not stopping there. Later, in September, there will also be the biggest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years and a $40 per fortnight increase for those on JobSeeker, youth allowance and other payments, on top of the regular twice-yearly indexation. That is cost-of-living assistance for Australians who need it. More than five million eligible households and one million eligible small businesses are going to receive that energy bill relief. With those two elements alone, we're talking about help for millions of Australians. And we will be making medicines even cheaper for many more millions of Australians on 1 September by introducing changes which will require fewer visits to the GP and pharmacist. These things are a result of careful economic management, and the capacity to do them gives evidence of the Albanese government's sound economic management skills and clear eye to addressing the cost-of-living pressures that are being felt by Australians now. We're doing it in a responsible way. The latest consumer price index, which was released on 26 July, indicated an increase of six per cent over the year to the June quarter. We don't want the numbers to stay that high, but they are on their way down. You'd think there'd be some joy about that for others in this chamber. But, no, they come in and they think it's a cause for constant comment in the most negative way. The reality is that the CPI is on its way down from a peak of 7.8 per cent over the year to the December quarter last year. We know that inflation increased by 0.8 per cent over the most recent quarter, and that's less than half the quarterly peak of 2.1 per cent that was posted in the March quarter of 2022 before the election. Even with the welcome easing of inflation, we know that households and small businesses remain under the pump. There was relief when the independent determiner of interest rates, the RBA, kept those rates on hold. People took a deep breath and gave a sigh of relief. That's only going to be able to continue to hold and then decrease if this government acts in an economically responsible way with targeted, careful cost-of-living support for people. I think it would be an edifying exercise for Senator Ruston and those on the opposite side if I have a bit of a look for you at some of the global comparisons. In the G7, headline inflation in Germany is higher than Australia's, at 6.4 per cent. In Italy it's 6.4 per cent and in the United Kingdom it's 7.9 per cent. In Australia it's six per cent, which is still too high, but it's on its way down. We should be building confidence in our country, not listening to the soul-destroying, nation-smashing tirades from those opposite. For core inflation, the UK is higher than Australia, at 6.9 per cent, and Germany is equal to Australia at 5.8 per cent. Australia's headline inflation peaked lower and later than most of the major advanced economies. Given it peaked later, it may take a little bit more time to moderate it back to target. We are currently around the middle for inflation, compared to the major advanced economies. I'd like to remind the chamber that the unemployment rate is at historically low levels not seen in this country for decades. That means more Australians are working now and fewer are unemployed. It's a great thing to have a job. It's no small feat for the government to tackle inflation and bank a budget surplus, all while making sure that employment in Australia remains strong and that the country's employment opportunities continue to grow through investment in education. Critically, those fee-free TAFE places are giving people who couldn't get any training or afford any training the chance to retrain and rejoin the workforce. The Liberals and Nationals don't even attempt to care about the plight of the workers in this country. Not engaging meaningfully in this debate is evident in so many of the contributions that we hear. And why should we expect anything else? If the chamber were to cast its mind back just a few short years ago, it was the Morrison government's stated policy to ensure that real wage growth was intentionally depressed. It was the Morrison government's policy to ensure that no new homes were built in this country. That's what they did. They kept wages low and stopped building and investing in any housing. That has changed, with the good decision of the Australian people to change the government and bring in the Albanese government. The Albanese government has a strong agenda and has already hit the ground running. Those opposite seek to stifle that clear election mandate—and that's apparent, sadly, too often here in this chamber—frustrating the will of the Australian people who made it very clear they want change, they need change and they want vision, hope and opportunity, not miserly whingeing and negativity. The Housing Australia Future Fund is smart. It's a responsible and meaningful proposal that will make a dramatic impact on the lives of many Australians, and I urge senators in this place to get on board and get on with the vision for building in this country—building consensus, building hope and building houses. The government should be building homes for those most in need, increasing supply in the market and making housing in this country more affordable. The market has failed, and it couldn't have failed any worse than how it's failed in regional, rural and remote Australia. It's an absolute disaster there. If you go to places like Elcho Island, you see children who have rheumatic fever because there's insufficient housing and they are living in appalling conditions that are worse than some in the Third World. That is what's going on. We need investment in housing, and the Albanese government is doing it. The independence brought by the security and pride of being able to call a home yours is something that the government believes more Australians should experience. When a green-blue 'no-alition' of the Liberal and National parties and the Greens join together to try and block sensible housing policy, everybody knows this means trouble. Both the coalition and the Greens understand that if the Housing Australia Future Fund were to become law then they would lose one more thing to pointlessly attack the government on. The green-blue 'no-alition' are going to try and attack the Albanese government on not building enough homes, all the while attempting to block the government from doing that very thing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. We need homes. We need to build them. Get on board. Further, on the cost of living, I want to talk about who this economy is built for. For too long we've allowed the narrative to dominate in public places that the economy must only work for consumers and investors. I think it should be an economy that delivers for workers, not the other way around. That's why this latest tranche of industrial relations reforms is so important. Casual workers who work the same job—the same shift for the same boss—for long periods of time deserve security. Great small businesses know this. They deeply understand this, and they make sure they look after the powerful asset which is their workforce. But, sadly, there are some malign players, and that's why we need legislation to make sure that Australians who work the same shifts in the same jobs for the same bosses have some protection. Flexibility is a two-way street. Businesses do deserve flexibility, but so do workers. Long-term casual workers deserve to be able to become permanent so they can take a day off when their child is sick and not worry about the rent. They deserve to be able to take some time off when, God forbid, they need to attend a funeral, without worrying if they can still buy their own medicines. The cost of living in Australia is a challenge. The Albanese Labor government absolutely understands that. We're focused. We're working hard to solve the complex problems the Australian public face, and we're not afraid to introduce new ideas, innovative methods and problem-solving to deliver that. We are delivering on our promises. We will stand with the Australian people. 17:23 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Unfortunately, I don't have the full 15 minutes after ceding some ground to Senator O'Neill, but, listening to both Senator O'Neill and Senator Sterle, I'd suggest that Australians should be thanking the ALP. If you listen to them, apparently Australians have never had it so good. 'Cost-of-living crisis? What are you talking about? We've fixed it! It's all done! Everyone is better off.' I put the call out again—I've done it before; I'm still waiting to hear from someone—can anyone who is better off, who can, hand on heart, say, 'I'm better off than I was 15 months ago,' please tell me. I want to know someone whose mortgage has gone down. I want to know someone whose power price has gone down. I want to know someone whose grocery bills have gone down. I want to know someone whose wages have kept up with the increased cost-of-living pressures. But, of course, those people don't exist. I really don't have a lot of time, and I'm not one to do this, but I want to go through some of the points that Senator O'Neill made, because they are just farcical. On rent assistance, she mentioned 'the biggest increase in 30 years'. I'll tell you why: it was the biggest increase, in line with inflation. That's why it's a big increase—it's directly linked to inflation. On cheaper child care, go and talk to someone who is trying to get a child into child care. There are no spots. You can't say it's cheaper child care if you can't get your kid in. And then what has happened is childcare centres have just put their fees up. So cheaper child care is just a complete and utter fallacy. All that's happened is that taxpayers are funding out more to childcare providers. There are no extra spots and parents are still paying the exact same price, if not more. After announced increases in bulk-billing, the next day doctors across the country were in a series of newspaper saying, 'We welcome the increase in the Medicare rebate, but we are certainly not going to accept that as our entire fee; we still will not be bulk-billing.' So that was a furphy. What about cheaper medicines? If you can go and get two months worth of medicines the medicines actually cost the same. So if you have a script that is $20 a month and all of a sudden you can access two months it's still $20 a month. What changes is the dispensing fee that impacts the pharmacy. So when they say, 'Isn't it good that you don't have to go the pharmacy so often?' the hilarious thing about that is that that's going to close down a heap of pharmacies and so people will probably have to go further when they do have to go to the pharmacy. We know that some of the doctors operate as a pseudo union. They're not writing the scripts for longer. So you can have the medicines apparently because your condition is stable for a longer period, but the GPs won't write the script for longer periods, even though they are saying you are stable, because they want to click that Medicare ticket but won't bulk-bill those people who are having to still go to the doctor. On mental health, the government has cut the services in half. The government cut the 20 services that could be accessed per year to 10 in record speed as we came out of a pandemic that is internationally recognised to have caused significant mental health harm across the world to many, many societies but particularly to our younger members. So what did this government do? As soon as they get in, they absolutely decimated mental health. I also just listened to Senator O'Neill speaking to us about young families. I have children. I don't know; would you call them middle-aged now they are teenagers? They are at that midway point. They are not superyoung anymore. I had lunch with another autism mum this week. We quite often talk about the challenges we face and, as our boys are growing up, how it looks. The new IR laws that are being proposed are actually going to decimate an already superthin disability market by making it absolutely impossible to navigate for a number of platforms, a number of providers, but particularly families of a child with a disability. These are going to affect how they can negotiate with their own therapist on how it's going work. Now they are going to be told that they have to pay at the top, possibly, of the NDIS price guide, removing the flexibility, removing the choice and control principles of the NDIS and, in fact, adding to increased pressures on the NDIS funding. So if you are a young family with a kid with a disability, the IR reforms are about to make your life a whole lot harder. Then we keep hearing references to a 'surplus'. You know what the surplus is due to? It is due to the resources sector. So the government might want to say a big old thankyou to coal and those coalminers that generate jobs and economic activity and actually form a big part of those free trade agreements that Senator Farrell was so keen to talk about. People love our coal. They also love our gas. The resources sector is doing so well it has delivered a surplus. Again, it's not due to anything the government did. It's like the Great Barrier Reef. We were told by those opposite when they were in opposition that the Barrier Reef would never come to again, that it was dead, decimated, being destroyed and all finished. Then we spent $1.2 billion and actually invested in the reef over the nine years we were in government and now it's regenerated. Coral takes a little bit longer than 15 months to grow. You wouldn't know that if you listened to those on the other side. We know that $275 is the number that shall not speak its name. It was promised 97 times by the Prime Minister. But the new word that shall not be spoken is 'treaty'. Is this just another broken promise by this government to the people that it said it was all about? It was about the Voice, treaty and truth-telling—but now the Prime Minister's using code and sneaking his way out of it and no-one will say the word. It's absolutely disgusting behaviour by a disgusting government. Senator O'Neill just said that they hit the ground running. I'm sure there are plenty of Australians that own businesses that can't pay their bills and can't pay their mortgages that are looking at increasing costs everywhere they go and having problems every day while being lectured by this government that they have never had it so good are hoping not only that they hit the ground running next election but that they run right back out the door so the grown-ups can get back in charge and stop this absolute destruction of the Australian economy and Australian community from absolutely appalling and pathetic behaviour. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 89 ADJOURNMENT Great Barrier Reef 89 17:30 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm pleased to be speaking to the Senate tonight and in your presence, President, about a very important decision about the Great Barrier Reef. Earlier this week UNESCO, the UN's educational, scientific and cultural organisation, released an important update on the World Heritage status of the Great Barrier Reef. UNESCO has been considering whether to list the Great Barrier Reef as endangered, a move that would place its World Heritage status and its international reputation at grave risk. I'm very pleased to update the chamber that UNESCO has released its draft decision concerning the Great Barrier Reef and it does not recommend the reef be listed as endangered at the next World Heritage Committee meeting. This is recognition that the Albanese Labor government is acting on climate change and protecting the Great Barrier Reef. The decision recognises the clear and distinct difference between the former government and the current government's approach to protecting the reef. The decision notes the significant progress to respond to the threat of climate change and, significantly, the decision welcomes the state parties' significantly increased actions in addressing climate change since the reactive monitoring mission, including through newly adopted legislation introducing progressive reduction targets for carbon emissions. This is the climate legislation that the Albanese Labor government introduced when we were elected. It was opposed by those opposite but it is making a real difference to the reputation of our nation and to the reputation of our management of the Great Barrier Reef. This decision recognises we have acted quickly to protect the reef and that our record investment is making significant progress on climate change, water quality, managing invasive species and preventing unsustainable fishing. Every reef around the world is under threat from climate change, but we are doing everything we can to ensure the Great Barrier Reef is resilient and well-managed. This decision today recognises that the world-class management by our partners, agencies and stakeholders is doing exactly that—managing the reef and doing so in a world-class manner. I have had the pleasure of working with them closely over the past 12 months and I'm incredibly proud of the work they do. From scientists to farmers, traditional owners and tourism operators, everybody's doing their part and now they are finally supported by a government that is committed to protecting the Great Barrier Reef. I can say with confidence we are a government that is backing them. We are a government that accepts and listens to the science—what a concept! We are also working to harness 60,000 years of environmental management from First Nations Australians. We are working hard with our partners in the tourism industry and working in collaboration with the Queensland government, not against them. That is the difference with our government and it stands in stark contrast to those opposite. The Liberal-Nationals wasted a precious decade, but the Albanese Labor government is not wasting a single day in office. We know that there is more work to do and we are prepared to do that work. Make no bones about it, the UNESCO draft decision makes clear that the reef possibly is facing more extreme weather events and warmer temperatures, as all reefs are across the world. Our government made sure that we could take action on climate change because it is essential to protecting the reef. Australia has stepped up to play its part, and we are doing everything we can to ensure the reef is resilient and well-managed. We know this is incredibly important to the people of Queensland, particularly those in regional Queensland, because the reef is a global icon that attracts international visitors from around the world to Australia's shores. That is why this decision is welcome news for the thousands of people who rely on the reef for their jobs. I live in Far North Queensland. The reef is our backyard. It sustains thousands of jobs across regional communities that we call home. Whether you're a cafe worker in Cairns, a tour guide in Airlie Beach, a scientist in Gladstone or the Indigenous ranger in Bundaberg, protecting the reef matters because protecting the reef means protecting Queensland jobs. It's a pretty special thing, our Great Barrier Reef, and I'm incredibly proud, as I know all Australians are, that we are the managers and protectors of the reef. I'll be doing everything I can with the opportunity I have as Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef to ensure it's protected for generations to come. That is what UNESCO has asked us to do, and it's exactly what our government is doing, listening to the science and acting on climate change. Jones, Mr Ewen Thomas, Dean, Mr Arthur Gordon 90 17:35 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland My home city of Townsville and the Liberal Party have suffered a double blow in recent weeks, with the losses of two former federal members for Herbert. Ewen Jones passed away on 13 July and Gordon Dean left us just last week. It's hard to sum up in words how big a character Ewen was. From humble beginnings in western Queensland, the town of Quilpie, he was able to win the Townsville seat of Herbert in 2010 against all odds, against a star Labor candidate handpicked by then PM Kevin Rudd. Legend has it that a throwaway line at a barbecue, where he expressed serious misgivings about how the country was being run, was met with a quip from his wife, Linda, 'Why don't you have a go?' The seed was planted, then it sprouted and he was a serious contender. Ewen's team decided that a grassroots campaign depicting him as a hardworking local could be enough to sway voters to give him a go ahead of his well-heeled opponent, and they were spot on. Ewen doorknocked relentlessly and attended every community event going. His affable, humorous manner and his ability to connect with people from all walks of life earned him wide respect, and each morning he and his supporters walked Townsville's famous Strand all wearing Liberal blue shirts. What started as a trickle of blue eventually became a blue wave, as dozens of people joined these walks. The visual effect was powerful, and on election night Ewen recorded a resounding victory. After accidentally being left at a service station briefly while on a family driving holiday when he was aged eight, Ewen's ethos in life and as a politician was that no-one should be left behind, and he exemplified this with his successful fight to obtain Commonwealth financial support for 550 workers at Townsville's Yabulu nickel refinery, which closed suddenly in 2016 leaving them jobless and desperate. The sight of him in tears at a press conference when the funding was announced remains a moving testament to the sort of man he was. He was also successful in obtaining a state-of-the-art PET scanner for Townsville so patients didn't have to travel to Brisbane. It was cruel coincidence that some years later it would be this same scanner that picked up the cancer that would eventually take his life, a point he brought up with friends in a typical witty style. Before, during and after his political life, Ewen was a great fundraiser for junior sport and disability support groups and regularly donated his skills as an auctioneer to extract the maximum amount of money from charity auction bidders. Farewell, Ewen, a man who loved the North Queensland Cowboys, who loved blues music and who loved a beer at the Hotel Herbert. Your life of service will not be forgotten. Arthur Gordon Dean, known as Gordon, was a lawyer, magistrate, ABC newsreader, author, actor and federal politician. He was born in Mackay, raised in the small town of Maroon and educated in Mount Isa and Townsville. He was elected in 1977 and retained the seat in 1980 before losing it in 1983. His neighbours in the Townsville suburb of Mysterton remember their local Liberal MP being blessed with this beautiful operatic singing voice and regularly heard his dulcet tones as he pottered around the house. Gordon was involved with James Cook University as the honorary solicitor for the student union and held other community roles, including president of the Eisteddfod Council of North Queensland. He was also a member of the Townsville Hospital Board and John Flynn College. He was appointed to the Magistrates Court of Queensland in 1997 and retired in 2007, upon which he earned numerous accolades for his humanity, compassion, knowledge of law and love of the arts. Upon retirement from the bench, the chief magistrate appointed Gordon to the honorary position of archivist for the Queensland Magistracy. An avid historian, Gordon was the author of nine books on the history of various aspects of the Queensland legal system. Former US President Woodrow Wilson once said of public life: You are not here merely to prepare to make a living. You are here in order to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world and you impoverish yourself if you forget the errand. These two men embodied not just the obvious aspects of public service but the true meaning of it. North Queensland is poorer for their loss but remains enriched by their legacy. I extend my and the coalition's sympathies to their families. Artificial Intelligence 91 17:40 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The rise of artificial intelligence has rapidly brought to light many of the opportunities and challenges that we will face as the technology develops and inevitably becomes a part our everyday life. One of the applications of artificial intelligence which needs thoughtful and proactive consideration by this parliament is the use of generative AI, which is a type of artificial intelligence technology that can produce a raft of content, including text, imagery, audio and synthetic data. A common use of this technology is for what many refer to as deepfakes, and I'm sure a lot of Australians have already seen this type of content on their social media feeds with various degrees of persuasion. The reality is that as this technology develops it will become harder and harder to differentiate between content produced by generative AI and what we could call genuine content. If you want to get a sense of how soon this change will be fundamentally impacting on us, then here's a striking fact from a European Union Europol agency 2022 report. By 2026, 90 per cent of online content may be generated or manipulated by generative AI. Let that sink in for a minute: in just three short years the vast majority of the content we will be seeing online may not be genuine and authentic. The same report warns that this may lead to people no longer having a shared reality and create social disharmony. If this is our future then we need to prepare for the impact it will have on how Australians perceive authority and the information media, and the likely loss of trust in authorities and official facts—any kind of common shared understanding of reality. The truth is we're already seeing this happen, and this trend will likely be placed on steroids with the increasing impact of generative AI. There is a myriad of ways in which generative AI can be weaponised, including through invasions of privacy, gendered online violence, cyber-enabled crime, propaganda and disinformation, military deception creating international crises, and the erosion of trust in institutions. That's quite a list, and it's actually far from complete. We rely so heavily on the internet in today's society. It is genuinely frightening to think that, in a few short years, we may be literally dominated by artificial intelligence. Two examples highlight the serious challenge we face from generative AI and why this parliament needs to be proactive in addressing these risks. The first is within the legal system and whether technology can be used to generate doctored, false or fake evidence which can circumvent the rule of law. It could make it extremely hard for courts to determine truth and it will impact the pursuit of justice. We've seen evidence of this already around the world, and, as legal experts have raised, most judges and many defence and other counsel may not even consider that deepfake material could be submitted as evidence. As this develops, it will inevitably have a profound and potentially detrimental impact on legal proceedings, where the outcome of legal trials may well be, as we've seen in a number of highlighted cases already, influenced by materials produced through generative AI. We need to address this before it rolls out into a crisis. The other sphere where generative AI can be weaponised to cause harm is in the political sphere, where generative AI may be used to create content where elected officials, members of parliament or even our Prime Minister may apparently say things that they never did. We saw examples of this during the war in Ukraine, where a deepfake video of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy appeared to tell Ukrainian soldiers to surrender. Now granted that video was not the most convincing deepfake, but the fact remains that as the technology develops then inevitably this won't be the case. How will citizens differentiate between a deepfake video and a genuine one? How will anyone break down the truth in the 24 short hours before an election happens? The time is now for the parliament to take this issue seriously and take proactive steps to ensure it protects Australians, our democracy, our justice system and social cohesion. The eSafety Commissioner just last week raised the alarm on allowing big tech to self-regulate artificial intelligence and cautioned against it. The reality is that self-regulation simply does not work, and we cannot rely on corporations and billionaires, who are driven by the profit motive, to adequately regulate this technology and protect us. We cannot sit idle and rely on reactive measures when so much is— (Time expired) Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Israel 92 17:45 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria During the winter break, I had the pleasure of taking part in a parliamentary delegation to Israel hosted by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, commonly known as AIJAC by many in this place. The purpose of the delegation was not just to familiarise many of us with the realities of Israeli social, economic and political life but also to get a better understanding and appreciation of the broader Middle Eastern landscape. I was joined on the parliamentary delegation by the Deputy President, Senator McLachlan, as well as the member for Holt, the member for Menzies and the member for Hughes. When we came into Jerusalem, after checking in to our accommodation, we were met by a humble rabbi, Danny Sinclair, and, like many of these delegations, went on a tour of the city. It was truly an incredible place. It was my first time in the state of Israel, and I was overwhelmed by how much history there was. I appreciated the dynamics within the old city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem certainly is an incredible place and the ancient spiritual centre of the world, from my point of view. As a Christian, I was incredibly moved by where we were taken, understanding the places that, for many Christians, are the places of Jesus Christ. He would have walked on many of the paths that were part of the tours in Jerusalem. I appreciate, a lot more, the interactions between Christianity, Islam and the Jewish community and how all three can work together and appreciate the history that goes back for thousands of years. We also had the pleasure of meeting with Dr Becker, a veteran member of successive Israeli peace-negotiating teams. He was a lead drafter and negotiator of the historic peace and normalisation agreements between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco, which are known as the Abraham Accords. It was fascinating to hear Dr Becker's perspectives, and I think the delegation greatly benefited from meeting with him. We also toured Gush Etzion settlement block and then heard from the local mayor of Efrat. The mayor is a staunch advocate for coexisting and fostering improved relationships with neighbouring Palestinian villages. On this theme, we then heard from the Roots project. Roots is a network of Palestinians and Israelis who recognise each other as partners that both need to make changes to end the conflict and find a peaceful way of coming to an agreement. Their work aims to challenge the assumptions held by Palestinians and Israelis through dialogue and by forming long-lasting relationships. Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is often seen as an impossible goal. Of course, achieving peace is an incredibly complex task that will take a lot of effort from both sides and all parties involved. But these efforts must all stem from a desire for peace, and this desire is clearly evident in the Roots project. We were also fortunate to get a tour and speak to a number of members of the Knesset, which is Israel's House of Representatives. I always find it fascinating to see the parliaments of other countries. It's very much a highlight for me, as a political nerd and geek. My partner keeps saying to me, 'Can't we just go see more churches or galleries?' but one of the highlights for me is always getting to explore how democracy and the institutions of democracy work in other countries around the world. While there, we received a briefing from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and I appreciate the time taken by officials to talk to us about the work they do. We also had a chance to visit the World Holocaust Remembrance Center. This, I must say, was a very moving part of the delegation's visit. The centre is a memorial for six million Jews who were killed by Nazis and Nazi collaborators. Importantly, it commemorates those who had the courage to stand up against the Nazi regime. We must never forget the horror that was the Holocaust. We must honour those who stood against it at the cost of their own lives. We also paid tribute at the Be'er Sheva ANZAC Memorial Center. This centre obviously commemorates and tells the story of hundreds of horsemen from Australia and New Zealand who fought in the Sinai and Palestine campaign against the Ottomans. On that note, I want to say thank you very much. The delegation, like many, want to thank AIJAC for putting together the program and thank all the people involved. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 17:50