DOCUMENTS

2023-08-07 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 7 August 2023

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 1

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

Second Reading 1 10:02 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania When my last contribution was interrupted, I was reflecting on the way that national security legislation is dealt with under existing arrangements. I referred to the fact that the government of the day, whether it is a Labor government or a Liberal government, takes advice from the intelligence apparatus, basically tugs its forelock and says, 'Yes, we'll give you all the powers that you're asking for,' then cabinet agrees that that should be the case, and then the legislation to create extra powers of surveillance—which are marching us, in the absence of a charter of rights in this country, down a really dark and dangerous path—goes into a darkened room, behind the closed doors of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Senator McKIM JKM What happens then—as Senator Paterson, who is interjecting, well knows because he is a member of that committee and has been for some time—is that that committee goes into whatever happens, because of course the crossbench are precluded from that committee, with a brief exception for Mr Wilkie from the other place and, obviously, depending on the outcome of this legislation. But what happens is that that committee might rasp off one or two of the roughest of the rough edges on that legislation, and then it comes into this place, and that legislation is supported by the political duopoly. What I want to be very clear about is that national security laws, and the implications that they have for some of the fundamental democratic freedoms in this country—freedoms that hundreds of thousands of Australians have fought and died to protect—are far too important to be passed through this parliament based on a nod and a wink between the political duopoly. The major issue is the implied agreement between the self-described 'parties of government' in this place. Part of that implied agreement—part of the nod and the wink between the political duopoly—is to keep the pesky upstarts on the crossbench out of the process. What that results in is this creeping erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms. I remind you, colleagues, Australia is the only so-called liberal democracy in the world that does not have some kind of either charter or bill of rights, and the absence of a charter or bill of rights in our country allows for this creeping and ongoing erosion. Make no mistake, we are walking down the road towards a full-on surveillance state, towards a full-on police state and, ultimately, to early onset fascism in Australia. We need to guard our freedoms. We need to guard our rights in this country, and it is extremely difficult to do so because we do not have either enshrined in the Constitution, where it ideally would be, or enshrined in legislation a charter or a bill of rights. So again, we find ourselves here, and we find ourselves with the capacity to actually change the way that much of the legislation is examined by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and it would be a welcome step for Mr Wilkie, who's obviously a man of considerable experience in this area, to be allowed or to be invited onto that committee, but we absolutely should have a crossbench member on that committee. When you look at the make-up, if you were to pro rata the numbers based on the Senate, the Greens would undoubtedly be deserving of a member on that committee. What we have, I think, here is a deliberate attempt to shut the Greens out. I want to say very clearly to Labor and Liberal Party colleagues that the media regularly and with high levels of frustration write stories about how the Greens don't leak. You see that time after time. What we also know is that both the Labor and Liberal parties leak like sieves in this place. If the concern is the possibility of security breaches out of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I would suggest that the level of concern should be directed at the major parties in this place, the so-called self-described 'parties of government', rather than at the Greens, because when you look at the way the media work in this place and when you read many of the media stories with an insider perspective, it is very clear that the Labor and Liberal party rooms leak like sieves. There are regular drops from inside the Labor and Liberal party rooms to the selected favourite political journalists, which just doesn't happen with the Greens. So if the concern is leaking, if the concern is security, I'd suggest that the Labor and Liberal parties should have a bit of a look in the mirror. What they'll see staring back at them is rank hypocrisy, because it's the major parties that leak in this place, not the Greens and the crossbench. National security laws are too important to be done on a nod and a wink, but a nod and a wink is exactly the way this works. This implied agreement between the so-called parties of government has a significant deleterious effect across a range of policy areas in this country. Another example is Australia's foreign affairs policy, where both major parties seem proud of the fact there's no contest on foreign affairs. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is the easiest political job in the country because whoever is in opposition doesn't offer any meaningful criticism at all of the conduct of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the day, and so it is on national security. This implied agreement between the political duopoly is the foundation for the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms that is occurring in Australia. There have been well over 100 pieces of legislation passed through Commonwealth, state and territory parliaments in the last 20 years that have eroded rights and freedoms. Those rights and freedoms are hard fought and they're hard won. They've been fought for in wars in which thousands of Australian soldiers have perished through history, yet we seem to be giving them away with very little thought and very little scrutiny simply because the national security apparatus wants more powers. I've read with horror some of the speeches given by the secretary of the home affairs department, Mr Pezzullo. There was the hobbit speech, where Mr Pezzullo had a central thesis that the Australian people are basically like innocent hobbits and need to be protected from all these dark forces out in the world and that we don't even understand what those dark forces are. It's the paladins or the rangers like Mr Pezzullo—the brave heroes—who are out there defending us against these dark forces, and, if he has enough powers to do that, that will allow us to continue to live our innocent little lives, cultivating our crops and having a beer of an evening. Well, I've rarely heard something as insulting to the collective Australian intelligence as that. Then the other speech of Mr Pezzullo's that I read with horror is the speech I call 'Pezzullo's panopticon', which is a speech about how critical it is that our security apparatus has unbridled access to every single piece of information and data that exists, because only then can they fulfil their function of keeping this country safe. I want to be clear, people like Mr Pezzullo and other elements of our national security apparatus absolutely have a responsibility to keep us safe. But that's not the only thing that we as policymakers should consider in this place. We've got a responsibility to look at the bigger picture. It is an absolutely legitimate question to ask whether we are giving away too many of our hard-won rights and freedoms in order to increase the level of safety in this place. There are many Australians, including me, who would be prepared to put up with a bit more risk if it meant that we can hang on to some of our precious rights and freedoms. Ultimately, that is a legitimate question and it is the matter of public debate, in this context, that we should be having in this place. Where do we draw the line? The line would be better able to be drawn in a way that reflects the range of views that exists in the Australian community if you were able, through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security process, to hear the range of views that exist in this place because this place is, broadly speaking, reflective of the Australian community. I want to be really clear, colleagues. We need reform of the PJCIS process, yes, but it needs to be reform that allows all the views in this place to be heard. That will be the way that the PJCIS can hear and understand the views of the Australian people. 10:14 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to make a brief contribution on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. It is a result of the Richardson review, a review that was commissioned by the former government into our intelligence framework and that, indeed, sets out a raft of sensible recommendations that, unfortunately, the coalition will now not be supporting. I had the great privilege to sit on the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security many years ago and found it the one committee in this place where there was a bipartisan determination to put the needs of our country, the safety of our citizens and the positioning of our nation in the geostrategic space globally at the forefront. Labor, Liberal and National Party members of parliament, as the MPs of government, worked very hard to find consensus positions when I had the privilege to sit on that committee. But it would seem with the hasty addition of the amendment to change the composition of this very important committee to our national security from 11 to13—growing it isn't so much the problem. Putting people who are not parties of government on this incredibly important committee risks the bipartisan nature of the committee, risks the great tradition of the committee of keeping its deliberations to itself and risks, I would argue, the openness with which inquiries will be able to be held by this committee. Therefore, the work of the committee will be compromised. It seems patriots are very hard to find in the Labor government at the moment, whether it is overseeing the Office of National Intelligence, the AFP, our geospatial organisations, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. When we last debated this bill, I looked up at the gallery, where young students, young Australians, were coming and seeing how their parliament works. Rather than trade political barbs across the chamber, as has occurred throughout this debate, I was dying to get up to actually explain to those young students—I think they would have been in about grade 5—what this committee does. They wouldn't even know that ASIO exists. They wouldn't know that ASIS exists. They wouldn't know what the Australian Signals Directorate does or why it is necessary. And that's how it should be. These are organisations that keep our country safe, now and in the future, and the men and women who serve in them take incredible risks on our behalf. To ensure that those agencies—they can't run off willy-nilly and be laws unto themselves—do have a level of parliamentary oversight that isn't just the government, we set up this very important committee, because of the level of secrecy required. But to expand it beyond the parties of government just shows how reckless the Labor government is with national security, with conventions that have stood the test of time, and shows that the Labor left is on the ascendancy within the Labour Party cabinet. On these two things the Labor left and the Greens political party fundamentally agree. It is the Labor right, I believe, would argue that this committee should be kept as a committee of government MPs and not be expanded, but they've lost that war. The great privilege of being in government means setting the budget and making sure these agencies are resourced effectively to protect our people and our servicemen and servicewomen from terrorism and other challenges, but it is also a grave responsibility. It is a great privilege to be in government, but it is also a grave responsibility. And I think Attorney-General Dreyfus has completely neglected his responsibility of accountability and transparency that this committee provides the parliament and the Australian people on their behalf. These aren't things that should be out in the public sphere. This committee hears things that shouldn't be on the front pages of newspapers for very good reasons. But you don't care. You actually want that to happen and to put at risk the servicemen and women not in the ADF alone but in intelligence organisations that are on the ground in places far, far away doing things on our behalf that we can't speak of in this place. I want to know what the deal was because it wasn't consulted on and it wasn't a recommendation out of the review. What was the deal that Dreyfus got to expand the committee to MPs who aren't charged with the responsibility of, and held accountable for, being in government? It must have been significant. As a former member of this committee, I'm appalled by this amendment. I ask the government to reconsider putting it to the chamber because it is an absolute aberration of the function of this committee. Those members of the now government who have worked collaboratively in a bipartisan way on this committee know that. You've got to come clean with what the deal was, because it's absolutely abrogating your responsibility as a party of government. I will not be supporting the bill; and I commend Senator Paterson, as the shadow minister for the opposition, on his staunch rejection of this amendment—in particular—which means we will not be supporting the other sensible review amendments put forward by the Richardson review. 10:21 Senator WHISH-WI 195565 Tasmania LSON () (): In July this year, my colleague Senator Shoebridge wrote to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, raising the legal obligations regarding the composition of this committee, as provided in the Intelligence Services Act. He did this following initial advice from the Albanese government that it intended then to nominate a committee which didn't involve the Greens or the crossbench or, indeed, a member of the National Party. Following this, the Greens received correspondence from Senator Wong, seeking to appoint two Liberal members and three ALP members to the committee. That followed the House appointing three ALP, one Liberal and one Liberal National Party of Queensland members. An 11-member committee that doesn't include a member of the Greens, a teal or, indeed, a member of the Nationals is extraordinary in how it fails to represent this parliament, which was democratically elected by the Australian people and, therefore, the population of Australia. Over a million people voted for the Greens, and they're not represented on this committee. The requirements for establishing the membership of this committee are contained in schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001. It requires consultation with the leader of each recognised political party in the House and the Senate which 'does not form part of the government'. That's in the act. So much for Senator McKenzie coming in here and saying that this was somehow illegal. There might be some conventions in this place, but some conventions are meant to be broken. It then also says: … the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the composition of the Committee reflects the representation of recognised political parties in this Parliament. Senator Shoebridge, at the time, rightly put out a statement to the media saying: Limiting the membership of this critical committee to the Labor and Liberal Parties is more of the same closed-shop politics as we saw under the Morrison government. The public expects Parliament to deal with sensitive security and intelligence matters with integrity and rigour, not just have the two major parties play footsie on them. … … … The Act clearly sets out that the membership is meant to be a result of consultation and reflect the Parliament, Labor's proposal completely fails to deliver on that and unnecessarily politicises this committee. The proposed committee membership means 15% of the Parliament and a full 23% of the Senate are not represented at all on a committee providing important guidance relating to international security and defence, funding of intelligence agencies and international laws relating to terrorism. Let me give you an example of something I think is completely relevant and the reason why you do need the Greens on a committee like this. On the weekend, the Acting Leader of the Greens, Senator Faruqi, put out a statement on the Office of National Intelligence. They have written a report called an 'urgent climate risk assessment'. A number of stakeholders, including ex-CDF Admiral Chris Barrie, are calling for the immediate release of this report. This is important. The US counterpart, their office of national intelligence and the Pentagon, have both released their intelligence agencies' assessment of the risk of climate change to their national security. You may remember President Obama saying that climate change is the biggest threat to US national security. I initiated a Senate inquiry in this place in 2017-18 looking at exactly this. The report is available for senators to read. Intelligence agencies, the defence establishment and a number of think tanks—everybody—have agreed that climate change is a threat multiplier and a very serious threat to our national security. We're talking about massive movements of people in years to come if we don't get on top of the greatest challenge of our time. We're talking about conflict over scarce resources. We are talking about a whole range of various serious threats, not to mention the threats that extreme weather events pose to our national security. Can anybody in this chamber think of a bigger threat to life, property, our economy and our communities right now than extreme weather events such as hurricanes and fires? Do I need to remind you of, just three years ago, the damage that fires did to the east coast of Australia? We had Navy boats evacuating Australians off our beaches. That's not to mention drought and a whole range of pests, diseases and biosecurity threats. There is no bigger threat to Australia's national security than climate change or, to put another way, there is no bigger threat to us than not acting on climate change, and yet this report hasn't been released. Did this committee, the PJCIS, review this report? Did senators from the Labor and Liberal parties, who both seem hellbent on facilitating more fossil fuel developments when the International Energy Agency, the UN and a whole range of different institutions and the science tell us that is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing right now? This is not just a Greens thing or a thing for people who care about conservation or species extinction. This is a significant threat to our national security, and yet this report hasn't been released. Why not? We wouldn't know, would we? We don't have any Greens sitting on this intelligence committee. But I'm sure those analysts who wrote this report knew what they were doing. I think this report should be released. I know my colleague Senator Faruqi will be trying to work across the Senate to at least get disclosure. I'm sure Senator Paterson knows about this report. He sits on that committee. And I'm sure other members of this Senate do as well. Why hasn't it been released? Has its release been politicised? Do the Labor and Liberal parties, who are in bed with fossil fuel cartels in this country, not want it to be released because it cuts across their policies to facilitate more coal, oil and gas development in this nation at a time when our intelligence agencies are warning us that we need to take action on climate change and, at a minimum, to take this very, very seriously? That is just one example. There are some positive changes in this bill, which my colleague Senator Shoebridge has already gone through. As a result of the comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence committee undertaken by the Attorney-General's office, there are some changes to the composition of the PJCIS to extend the number of members from 11 to provide that the PJCIS consist of 13 members, comprised of at least two government senators, two government members of the House of Representatives, two non-government senators and two non-government members of the House of Representatives. A consequential amendment would also be made to clause 18 of schedule 1 to raise the number constituting a quorum from six to seven members. The bill would also amend the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 to require the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, IGIS, to report annually on public interest disclosures received by and complaints made to the IGIS. That is recommendation 145 of the compressive review. There's something else I'd like to comment on while I remember it in relation to Senator McKenzie's extraordinary contribution in here, arguing for more secrecy. There has been a non-Labor member and non-Liberal Party member on the PJCIS already, and that was the member for Clark. Andrew Wilkie sat on this committee. Did the sky fall in? No, it didn't. Let's remind the chamber, Andrew Wilkie, a member in the other place, the member for Clark, was a whistleblower when he was in intelligence. Yes! You nod, Senator Paterson. He called out the liars and the spin of the Howard government, arguing that the existence of weapons of mass destruction was a good reason for Australia to be involved in the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. Look how well that turned out! That was because of the closed shop on national security we have in this Australian parliament. It didn't take long for everybody to work out that this weapons of mass destruction lie and deception was a crock of the proverbial. Andrew Wilkie was vindicated because it didn't take us long to work out that we went to that war on the basis of a lie, a shameless lie. That conflict triggered the civil war in Syria, the rise of ISIS, tens of millions of refugees fleeing across Europe in a wave of human misery, more than a million people, most of them innocent civilians, killed. What was achieved? I don't think there's anyone—including in the US, our ally, who egged us on in this coalition of the willing—who looks back on that period of history and thinks it was the right thing to do. It was a bloody disaster, not to mention the fact it cost trillions of dollars, which might have been great for the weapons companies, and it created a lot of work for our intelligence services. But, honestly? All that's because we have a closed shop on national security in this building. It's not just on matters relating to the intelligence services. It's the same thing when it comes to the billions of dollars—the tens of billions, the hundreds of billions of dollars—we're spending on procurements and on military hardware. It's gone on for too long. It's not representative of the Australian public, and it's not representative of this parliament. If you love democracy, you have nothing to fear from having the Greens or crossbenchers on this committee. It should be so. The Greens support increasing the public reporting and accountability in this bill. The bill also removes the ability of the Attorney-General to delegate powers under the ASIO Act and TIA Act and prohibits conferral of the Attorney-General's powers under the ASIO Act and TIA Act upon another minister, except by legislative amendment or a substituted reference order made by the Governor-General in exceptional circumstances. Ensuring these powers are exercised by the Attorney-General is only appropriate. But there are things we are concerned about in this bill. I won't go into detail because my colleagues have already, but in particular we're concerned about the expansion of exclusions in the spent convictions scheme to enable ASIO to use, record or disclose spent convictions information. It was raised by the human rights committee inquiry into this bill, and it needs to be amended. 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. Why would we do that? Why would we remove the very, very limited oversight that this parallel universe already has? It has virtually none. It has virtually no oversight. So we don't support those changes and we will be working hard to amend them. In the one minute I have left I want finish by saying that I haven't been deeply involved in this kind of legislation—I've had some fantastic colleagues who have been involved over many years—but what I have seen in relation to the persecution Witness K and Bernard Collaery over a significant matter of public interest, and I would say a public interest disclosure, in relation to what happened at Timor-Leste and the way they were persecuted through the courts for blowing the whistle, what we're seeing in relation to the Afghanistan war crimes committed and what we're seeing in relation to Julian Assange, I do have grave concerns over the lack of scrutiny of our intelligence services. This is a significant matter of public interest. The very least you can do is give democratic representation on this committee. If you're worried about leaks—Senator McKenzie said that you can't trust the Greens—that's very offensive—then I will highlight what Senator McKim said, 'We are not the party that leaks things to the media; the Labor and Liberal parties are.' The minimum we can do is get the Greens and crossbench on this committee. 10:36 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. I do so in order to call out the veil of secrecy that descends whenever the label of 'national security' is applied to anything. You just have to say that term 'national security' and you're not allowed to talk about it. You're certainly not allowed to disagree about fundamental issues. You're just expected to keep it quiet and tow the line. National security laws and outcomes are far too important to be done as a gentlemen's agreement between the political duopoly. Yes, the public expects that we deal sensitively with security and intelligence matters, and they want us to deal with it with integrity and rigour, but they don't want the two big parties to play footsies over these crucial safety issues and these crucial spending issues. I highlight that we've got—is it $368 billion we're up to for nuclear submarines? What a waste of money. And yet you're not allowed to say that. It would be very unpatriotic to call out the obscene overspend in defence and national security matters when we have people starving and living in their cars and tents. For some reason we're all meant to be fine with wasting almost $370 billion on machines of war—and the machine of war is always hungry; it'll always have it's hand out for more money. Too much work in this space is done secretly and does not have the benefit of scrutiny from the media. It doesn't inform the community. It doesn't even get debated in parliament. There are some good features of this bill, including adding crossbench members to the PJCIS and to make that membership slightly more representative, but there are some serious concerns in this bill that we will seek to amend, and my colleague Senator Shoebridge will do that shortly. It's pretty clear that the constitution of the PJCIS is not only unrepresentative, but it's potentially also unlawful according to the actual letter of the relevant intelligence act. So we're welcoming the expansion of the composition of the PJCIS to include a crossbencher on it, and I also note that another positive feature is to require an annual report on public interest disclosures received by and complaints made to the IGIS, as my colleague mentioned. That's a positive increase in public reporting and accountability. However, this bill also has a whole lot of very concerning provisions in it, including an expansion of the exclusions in the Spent Convictions Scheme, which, of course, enables ASIO to use, record and disclose spent convictions information. The inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security into this bill was right to be very concerned about those provisions. Yet, again, the bill is just meant to sail through without debate or consideration in this chamber, apparently. The other extremely concerning facet of this bill is a further reduction in oversight and transparency of our national security agencies, who already are under a veil of secrecy, by ensuring that the Ombudsman no longer has jurisdiction over ASIS, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Office of National Intelligence and the Defence Intelligence Organisation. I don't know who thought that was a good idea. Perhaps it's because the Ombudsman has done really good work in revealing embarrassing government-of-the-day missteps in other areas. It is crucial that that oversight remain, and it is shameful that this bill proposes to remove the Ombudsman's jurisdiction over those agencies. We do not support those changes, and we'll be moving amendments to the bill to retain the Ombudsman's oversight and to remove what we believe is the inappropriate use of spent convictions. It's pretty clear that there's no transparency in national security. There's currently no crossbencher on the PJCIS, and obviously this bill seeks to fix that small aspect. I might point out that, in the 17 years that the PJCIS have been colluding, they've only had one dissenting report—it's this little club of the two larger parties—and that report was about who gets to be in the club. It wasn't about any matters of substance or any genuine debate about national security or decent spend of public money and whether we're wasting that on weapons of war or whether we're feeding and housing people, as the Greens believe we should. There's no challenge to the military-industrial complex coming from either of the two large parties, and the community is horrified. Speaking of the Department of Defence, perhaps they get to know. Given that they're in the club, maybe they get to know some of these things. I wonder if their consultants also get to know some of this information. We've just seen this morning, in the papers and in the press, that KPMG have been massively overcharging for their consultancy work. I had a quick look at the figures. KPMG have received about $1.8 billion in public money over the last 10 years in government contracts, mostly with Defence. I wonder how much their political donations have been in order to get that return. They've been about $1.9 million. That's $1.9 million in and $1.8 billion of public money out. That's a very good return on investment there. We've just had the KPMG whistleblowers say that, actually, they were overcharging. They were told to bill for internal work; they were billing Defence for it. What an absolute rort. This whole fiasco shows that we need more transparency in these areas, and we need a ban on people seeking government contracts from making political donations. I've got a bill coming. If we had more funding for more drafters, then the crossbench and the Greens could have more bills sooner to fix up our flailing democracy. One of the bills that will be coming soon is a bill to say, 'If you're seeking government approval for a contract to perform either consultancy services or some other service, or if you're seeking approval for an environment proposal or some development that trashes the planet, you can't donate to political parties in the 12 months before or after you seek that approval or contract.' People out there think that it's legalised bribery. They think you can buy outcomes, and they think you can buy government contracts. They think that for a reason; look at the scoreboard. There were $1.9 million in KPMG political donations and $1.8 billion in contracts, including bloated overbilling, as has been revealed by some brave whistleblowers today. We need more transparency in this space—not less. We need to clean up that slush fund of vested interests, contractors and people seeking government approval, stop them from being able to donate to whoever is in government or who might be after the next election and stop them buying outcomes. That's the kind of scrutiny and transparency that we should be debating. Instead, we're going to remove the ability of the Ombudsman to oversight some of these important national security agencies. Has the world gone mad? Anyway, here we are. It seems like not a day goes by in this place where we don't see the big parties team up to avoid transparency. We got more Greens and crossbenchers elected because the public want to see decisions made in their interests—not in the interests of lobbyists or donors, or the vested interests of politicians, or of big donors. Trust in politicians and our democracy remains at an all-time low. We should be doing everything we can to make sure that parliament is more transparent. Part of that would be ending the exclusion of the crossbench from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, PJCIS, and that's one positive thing this bill does. I might also add: as PwC is to many other government agencies, so is KPMG to Defence. The lack of security this bill is emblematic of is leading to and fuelling a very concerning culture of overcharging, duplication, contracts for mates and worse. Money should not be able to buy government contracts, development approvals, political access or political influence, yet it's clear what years of donations have been getting for organisations like PwC and the rest of the big four, and KPMG with their influence over Defence. Stopping donations effectively buying lucrative government contracts or approvals will encourage decisions to be made based on merit and will help restore that all-important trust in our political system. That trust is diminished and has been low for many years and is not improving, and part of the reason for that is the veil of secrecy and the lack of transparency around big spending measures particularly in the Defence portfolio. It is horrific that this bill is proposing to make that secrecy shroud even heavier, to remove the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman from these crucial and very powerful agencies. I very much look forward to the committee stage, where we'll be moving some important amendments to try and fix this, to try and shed some light on the military industrial complex which is enabled by the duopoly on these matters and by the secrecy of this little club of who gets to know—and you definitely can't disagree in that club or you might get the boot. I very much look forward to the debate in the committee stage. 10:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank my colleagues for their contributions to the debate on this bill, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. The government is committed to ensuring that the legal framework governing the national intelligence community is fit for purpose. It's vital the responsibilities and powers of these agencies are underpinned by a rigorous legal framework and strong oversight mechanisms. The national intelligence community is essential in protecting Australia's sovereignty and security. The Australian community trusts our intelligence agencies are operating lawfully, with propriety and consistently with human rights. This great trust is built on an extensive and robust legal framework and reviews of this framework that underpins activities while also providing accountability and assurance. This bill will continue to progress the important work of the Comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community by implementing some of its recommendations, including those that will strengthen Australia's national security legislation. The measures in this bill support implementation and will provide increased assurance to the Australian community that intelligence agencies are operating in accordance with the law. I thank the Senate, and I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 7 10:49 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria As I foreshadowed in my second reading speech, the opposition will be moving some amendments to deal with one aspect of this bill. Before I get to that, I want to update the chamber and anyone watching on what is happening here and where we're up to here. Coalition members of the PJCIS handed down a dissenting report—the first one in 17 years—on 12 May. We said in that dissenting report that we supported this bill and recognised the importance of the measures in this bill, including: those there were recommended by Dennis Richardson, which our government commissioned and whose recommendations were accepted; and the other recommendation relating to the foreign minister's directions to ASIS, which is also in this bill but wasn't recommended in the Richardson report. We said we would support all of those on the condition that the government did not proceed with one other change in this bill, which has not been recommended by any independent inquiry or by any independent expert. The government has not been able to provide any evidence on where this recommendation has come from. This recommendation is for the expansion of the PJCIS, which we believe is being done by the government for the purpose of putting a member of the crossbench or a minor party on the committee. That is the only area of contention between the government and the opposition, and my amendments seek to deal with that so that we can support this bill. Just in case the government didn't pick up the signal that we send in our dissenting report, Senator Cash and I wrote to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs on Tuesday last week. We said we would not be able to support this bill if the changes to the PJCIS remained in it, and we said it would potentially also impact our ability to support a subsequent bill, the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, which has just been introduced in the House and referred to the PJCIS for inquiry. That bill contemplates broader and deeper oversight of the intelligence community by the PJCIS and the IGIS. The coalition is up for a conversation about that; we are open to negotiating on that—not, however, at the expense of operational security. It is our view that the expansion of the PJCIS to include crossbenchers puts that operational security at risk, and we are not prepared to support this bill or any other bill that puts that at risk. If the government still wasn't clear following the letter from Senator Cash and me, in which we offered to negotiate on these questions, in the Senate when this was considered on Thursday last week I again made our position clear. In a meeting with the Attorney-General's office on Friday, Senator Cash and our staff made clear to his staff what our position is. I think it has now dawned on the government—only this morning—that this bill now cannot pass this chamber unless the government is willing to compromise with the coalition on PJCIS membership or unless the government is willing to compromise with the Greens on their amendments. Let's be really clear on this. The two amendments that the Greens propose would remove two of the recommendations made by Dennis Richardson, which we accepted when we were in government, which you have accepted now you are in government, which have bipartisan support and which are straightforward, uncontroversial, appropriate and necessary. So the government has a pathway before it: either do a deal with the Greens on national security and remove from this bill bipartisan recommendations made by Dennis Richardson, and, therefore, put our national security at risk; or do a deal with the coalition and maintain the bipartisan culture and ethos of PJCIS and get this legislation passed today. There are important provisions of this bill which should be enforced, and the sooner the better. But we cannot support them while the government makes this unilateral change to the PJCIS membership. This is my final appeal to the government after many appeals: please pause on this. Please do not proceed with these PJCIS changes which were not recommended by any review, not recommended by any report and not recommended by any independent expert. The government has only been able to say it has been a 'decision of government' and has provided no evidence as to why it is necessary. I really appeal to you: support the opposition's amendments. I will move two of them, if necessary, in sequence. The first one would simply omit the changes to the PJCIS membership from this bill and leave all other provisions of this bill intact. That doesn't mean that there aren't going to be other opportunities to have discussion about PJCIS membership; that could take place as part of the committee's upcoming inquiry into the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 that the government has introduced, or as part of that legislation, if the government believes that is necessary. But let's sit down and have a conversation on a bipartisan basis and maintain the very strong working relationship we've had on the committee; let's do it that way. Alternatively, if the government is absolutely insistent that we must expand the size of the PJCIS membership, and if they are insistent that they need the flexibility to appoint different members of each chamber—from the House and from the Senate—then we have an alternate, fallback position. That is to permit the increase in the size of the PJCIS but to put in the IS Act for the first time that—as the convention has always been, save for one exception—that those members come from the parties of government: that members of the government and members of the opposition make up the committee. That will allow the government to expand the membership of the PJCIS and allow the government to choose members from whichever chamber they believe is necessary—within limitations; there should be senator and members, as a minimum, on the committee—and it will only prevent the government from putting a crossbencher or a minor party member on the committee. That is the only change it will make. We really think these are two reasonable propositions which solve the problem the government has got itself into today. We are offering to work on this on a bipartisan basis to solve this problem, and I really urge the government to consider it. 10:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will be opposing the amendments foreshadowed and moved by Senator Paterson. Probably the best way for me to address them is by referring to the amendments that are contained in the bill that the government is moving which provide the rationale for the government's position on the bill itself and also on Senator Paterson's amendments. The current act does not require the PJCIS to be composed of a certain number of non-government members, but the amendments that are contained in the bill being moved by the government will introduce a requirement that at least four of the members of the committee are non-government members. The bill does not change the current appointment process from members to the committee under subclause 14 of schedule 1 of the act and the bill does not change the ability to appoint any member of parliament to the committee. As I say, the amendments in the bill being moved by the government will introduce a requirement that at least four of the members of the committee are non-government members, to reflect the fact that this is a committee that does operate on a bipartisan basis. Independent members and members of minor political parties will remain able to be appointed to the committee under the proposed changes, just as they are presently able to be appointed to the committee. The nomination of members to the committee is a matter for the Prime Minister. The appointment of members to the committee is a matter for the parliament, but, as I say, the government will be opposing the amendments being put by Senator Paterson. 10:56 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens oppose these amendments coming from the coalition. Rather remarkably, the contributions from the coalition ignore the existing law. The law requires the make-up of this committee to reflect the make-up of the parliament. It actually says that expressly in black-and-white. We have a series of propositions put by the coalition to urge the government to populate this committee with breach of the clear legislative requirements that are being made up in a manner that represents the diversity in the parliament. It is quite remarkable, seeing a major political party urging the government of the day to not only maintain a political club but to do so in clear breach of the law on a national security committee. When this committee was established, the parliament turned its mind to the idea that it would be receiving significant amount of privileged secret information, so, rather than create a club where only a select subset of the parliament would get access to it, the parliament expressly legislated that if you're going to have a committee which receives rafts of secret information and then provides reports to the parliament on how it should respond, the parliament said, 'Well, that committee should be reflective of the parliament.' We have now had the coalition, both today and on Friday, state that this committee should statutorily exclude anybody who is not from the coalition or the Labor Party. They use this term 'parties of government' as though the coalition is to be trusted. This is the same political party that made Scott Morrison the Prime Minister, who had so many breaches of integrity that the entire nation, except for a tiny subset of hard-right ultras in the coalition, breathed an enormous sigh of relief that he was no longer in a position to have access to that kind of information. This is the same coalition that in its fringe 'cooker' section is working on QAnon conspiracies, and sharing QAnon conspiracies as part of their political project. And the coalition say that they are somehow a trusty set of hands on national security. Let's be utterly clear about it. There are a bunch of people elected as coalition MPs who cheered on the riots attacking democracy in the United States. There are a bunch of people in the coalition who cheer on the attempts by Donald Trump and his mates to subvert democracy in the United States. And there are a bunch of people in the coalition, elected into this chamber and into other parliaments around the country, who would cheer on the subversion of democracy in Australia. And they say that they're somehow to be trusted, uniquely trusted, with security and defence information. It would almost be laughable if it were not so serious. What have we seen from 17 years of unanimous like-mindedness, the unchallenging club? What have we seen? Well, we've got a little bit of an insight into the outcomes of that in today's media. We're seeing billions and billions of dollars stripped out of our defence and security budget by unscrupulous consultants who realise that nobody is checking. They realise that the bulk of what goes for scrutiny of the defence expenditure and defence programs in this country happens in this secret club that Senator Paterson used to chair and is so in love with. The secret club chaired by Senator Paterson, in the course of his entire occupation of the role of chair, somehow missed a multibillion-dollar rort of defence coming from KPMG. How many times did KPMG turn up and say they loved what you were doing—less scrutiny, more money, less power? Somehow or other it just passed them by on their secret committee. The same secret committee signed off on the French submarines deal and said it was so important and we should urgently do that. They loved it. That was $5 billion and a decade wasted. Who has been held to account for that? Nobody on the secret committee, nobody in the defence establishment. Isn't it going well? Is this the same secret committee that was in charge of oversight of the national security when the 2016 white paper was delivered that said there was a mess, and when the Defence Strategic Review was delivered, which says that pretty much no part of defence is working, that they're not meeting the right strategic challenges and they couldn't procure their way to a shared meal in a pub? Is that the same secret committee that's been doing such a great job? It turns out it is, and they want to just keep the club operating. Any objective view of it says that it's not working. If this amendment, sometimes referred to as the Wilkie amendment, works its way through, and there is at least one critical voice, one critical mind, on the committee, how could that be a backward step? I know that there was tittering from the coalition benches when there was a discussion of Andrew Wilkie being a whistleblower. There was a little frisson of tension from the coalition. Imagine putting a whistleblower on it. Imagine putting somebody on it who had firm integrity, who stood up when they saw an unlawful war coming, who put their liberty on the line to call out what has ended up being a two-decade debacle from our country and our allies in Iraq. Imagine putting someone with that kind of integrity on a national oversight committee. That's something the coalition could never come at, putting somebody like that on the committee—just one critical voice, one critical mind. The thought of having even just one critical mind on this committee has given the coalition a serious case of kittens. They've all been birthing kittens for the last 48 hours at the prospect that there might be one critical mind. We aren't so frightened of democracy. We kind of like a critical mind being on this committee, and we will be opposing this amendment. 11:04 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria In a moment, I have a question for the minister, but first I have to take the opportunity to thank Senator Shoebridge—through you, Chair—for perfectly illustrating how ill equipped the Greens political party are to be members of this committee. In Senator Shoebridge's contribution and in the contributions of his colleagues in the second reading debate, they made a number of assertions about the failings or alleged failings of the PJCIS in recent years to oversee various issues. Most recently, Senator Shoebridge says, how did the PJCIS miss this alleged issue between KPMG and Defence? How did the PJCIS, in his words, 'sign off on' various previous submarine deals? Well, I've got an insight for you, Senator Shoebridge: the PJCIS doesn't have oversight of the Department of Defence. It doesn't have oversight of submarine contracts. It doesn't have any visibility at all over anything that KPMG might or might not have done with the Department of Defence, because that is not the role of the PJCIS. Senator Shoebridge referred a number of times to the act. If he'd read the act, if he understood the act, he'd understand that the role of the PJCIS is to oversee the intelligence community, not the defence department or the ADF. So thank you for illustrating perfectly why the Greens don't understand the function of this committee and are ill equipped to serve on it. My question is to the minister and in light of those contributions: has the government done a deal with the Greens to get this bill through the chamber? Will the government vote for or allow through the Greens amendments to remove Dennis Richardson's bipartisan recommendations from the legislation? If not, how does the government intend to get this bill through the Senate today? If the coalition doesn't support the bill and the Greens don't support the bill, it's not clear how this bill will pass this chamber. 11:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's a matter for the Greens party how they choose to vote on this or any other bill. I understand it is the government's intention to vote against the Greens amendments. What the Greens decide to do in response to that is a matter for the Greens party. 11:06 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Minister, who recommended the changes to the composition and size of the PJCIS membership? 11:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's a decision of government to propose the amendments that are contained in the bill, but that is based on the principle that this committee, like all committees, should represent the composition of the parliament. I understand that this would not be the first time that the PJCIS would contain representation from the crossbench. That was the case under the last Labor government. I'm not aware of any national security failures that occurred as a result of that. It's due to those reasons and that principle that we're proposing to make this change. 11:07 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Minister, I'm not sure if you realise, but you are the first minister in the government to confirm that it is this government's intention to appoint a crossbencher or a minor party member to the committee and the first minister to publicly articulate that the reason for these changes is to allow that to occur. Previously, the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and others who have been asked about this have said that it is just a matter for the Prime Minister and that you will not commit to who is going to be appointed to this committee. Have you just revealed the deal has been done? Is it Andrew Wilkie? Is it a member of the Greens? Is it another member of the crossbench? Who has the deal to join the PJCIS been done with? Or do you want to clarify your answer? 11:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm simply responding to the assertions that have been made, throughout this debate, by the opposition that deals have been done or particular people have been appointed. As you have just explained, Senator Paterson, it is a decision for the Prime Minister how appointments are made. Those appointments will be made after this legislation is passed, if that's the will of the Senate. 11:08 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria But, Minister, in your answer to my previous question, you said the reason for these changes is to ensure that the committee is reflective of the parliament. No Albanese government minister has previously said that. In fact, they've relied on a different rationale to justify this increase, as did the Attorney-General's Department in the PJCIS hearing and in Senate estimates. They have said that the reason why we need to increase the PJCIS is the workload of the PJCIS, but you didn't mention that in your answer. You've now provided a new explanation as to why this is necessary. Could you clarify: is the reason for the increase in the PJCIS membership because of its workload, or is it so you can change the composition to reflect the will of the parliament or the standing of the parliament? 11:09 Se 245759 Queensland nator WATT (—) (): Again, Senator Paterson, you have just confirmed that various Albanese government ministers have pointed to the workload issues that this committee faces. You would probably understand that yourself having been a fairly longstanding member of the committee. I don't think it's necessary to repeat the explanations that have been provided by other ministers. My comments about the composition of the committee are simply in response to the assertions that have been made by the opposition. 11:09 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Minister, how would a larger PJCIS help with its workload? 11:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I don't know whether this has been explained to you already, but an option would exist for there to be subcommittees of the PJCIS, which would enable a more equitable distribution of work to allow for the important work of that committee to be done properly. 11:10 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Is the minister aware that there's already an option for the PJCIS to have subcommittees? 11:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, I am, but it stands to reason that an increased number of members of the committee would better facilitate the establishment of those subcommittees. 11:10 Senator 144138 Victoria PATERSON () (): I'm not sure that is right. The committee already has 11 members. The addition of two extra members wouldn't make it any easier to form a subcommittee. A subcommittee can consist of as few as three members and have as few as two required for a quorum for a public hearing. I'm also not sure if the minister has ever observed a PJCIS hearing, but, in my view as chair and trying to herd the cats on the PJCIS, the many opinionated members of the PJCIS, and the many questions, a larger committee with a larger number of people who can participate in public hearings would slow down the work of the committee because there would be more people with questions in public hearings, we'd have to hear from witnesses for longer and we'd have more people to negotiate with in the committee stage. Of course, at the final point, when we are settling the resolution of a report, that will be much more difficult to do if we have a member of the crossbench or a minor party who has to be incorporated into negotiations. Previously, the two major parties have been able to negotiate in a consensus driven way to arrive at compromise, if necessary, and bipartisanship. But now you will have to incorporate a member of the crossbench or a minor party. How is this going to help the committee function? 11:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Paterson is entitled to his view about the operations of the PJCIS, but the government clearly has a different view. 11:12 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Minister, has the Prime Minister offered a position on the PJCIS to any member of the crossbench or a minor party? 11:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not aware of any such arrangement. 11:12 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Has the Prime Minister offered a position on the PJCIS to any member of his own caucus? 11:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I'm not aware of any such arrangement. As you have already recognised, it's a matter for the Prime Minister as to how he appoints members of the committee. 11:12 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria It's true, isn't it, that the Prime Minister has offered a position on the committee to Mr Wilkie and a member of his own caucus in the lower house? 11:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I'm not aware of any such arrangement. 11:12 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I'm surprised that the minister who's taking this bill through the chamber and who articulated a few moments ago the rationale for this change, which is to reflect the parliament and therefore incorporate a minor party member or crossbencher, is not aware that the Prime Minister has made that offer to members of parliament to join the committee should this legislation pass. I think it is notable that the Prime Minister has made this offer prior to this bill even passing the parliament. It, frankly, indicates a level of arrogance about this change—that the parliament will just agree to it. Even before it's been passed, the Prime Minister has promised membership of the committee to people who are not yet on the committee and before the legislation allows it to be the case. Minister, don't the Albanese government have a view that the bipartisan culture and nature of this committee has been useful in the past in resolving issues in the national interest and in a consensus driven way, and aren't you concerned that will be jeopardised by this change? 11:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, I do recognise that the bipartisan nature of this committee has been useful. There's nothing on the table to suggest that that needs to change, regardless of the amendments being proposed in this bill. 11:14 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Self-evidently, I think it will change if it is no longer a bipartisan committee and just becomes like any other committee of the parliament. I think there is a reason why many independent experts and commentators recognise that this committee is uniquely functional among other committees of the parliament. It's not an accident that the committee most often and most widely praised for its bipartisanship has a culture of bipartisanship which is driven by the membership of the committee, which is bipartisan. Otherwise, it can just be like every other committee and function just like every other committee, but I think that would be a loss for our nation. Minister, in formulating this proposal, who did the government consult? 11:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I've already indicated, this is a decision of government. I might also return to the preliminary comments, or preamble, that Senator Paterson engaged in and would suggest to him that what would ruin the bipartisan approach that has traditionally been taken to matters of national security would be for the opposition to vote these changes down, to vote down a national security bill. I remember all the times when we were in opposition and we were accused of all sorts of things whenever we raised questions about national security bills, but we seem to be in a position where the opposition is threatening to vote down a national security bill. That would be a greater risk to bipartisanship than anything being proposed. 11:15 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria We were able to avoid that when we were in government, including when I was chair of the committee, by negotiating and compromising with Labor members of the committee, sometimes over many weeks and even months, on contentious issues until we arrived at a position both major parties were happy with. We did not proceed with the unilateral challenges that hadn't had any consultation. In answer to a question on notice I put to the Attorney General's Department, it confirmed that the department itself consulted no members of the opposition, no members of the crossbench or anyone else on these changes. What about the minister? Did the minister consult anyone before bringing these changes forward? 11:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland All I can repeat is what I've already said—that this is a decision of government and a decision of the Attorney General. 11:16 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Yes, we know this is a decision of government, but even decisions of government can still be consulted on and even decisions of government can arise out of recommendations. Did the minister or the Attorney General consult anyone on these changes? 11:16 Senator W 245759 Queensland ATT (—) (): I understand the bill in its entirety was discussed by the PJCIS, so I would argue that that is a form of consultation with members from the government and from the opposition. 11:17 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I'm not sure that sending a bill to a committee after it's drafted constitutes consultation, certainly not in arriving at a decision. Did the Attorney General consult anyone prior to introducing the bill to the parliament? 11:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can't add to my previous answers, Chair. 11:17 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Is it not possible for you to seek advice on that question and come back to the chamber? Could you go to the Attorney General and his office? I'm sure they will have that information available. 11:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 11:17 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I want to go through the Temporary Chair, because I do want to speak to Senator Paterson. I'd like you to tell me why you believe you can do a better job on national security than what some of us crossbench can do, especially considering our backgrounds. Quite frankly, I think there are a few of us feeling quite offended here. So can you tell me why you believe the red and the blue team can do a better job on national security than what the crossbench can? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 Senator Lambie, I'll refer your question to the minister, who is answering questions in the committee phase. Senator 250026 It's a fair question! The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The minister may respond, and I've just given him the opportunity to do so. And Senator Paterson may also seek to respond. Minister. 11:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Given it was a question to Senator Paterson, there's not really much I can add. Even though I've been here seven years, I don't pretend to know all the standing orders of the Senate. I know there are some situations in which questions can be posed to senators other than ministers. I don't know whether this is such a situation, but Senator Paterson may choose to respond regardless. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Paterson. 11:19 Senator PA 144138 Victoria TERSON () (): Through you, Temporary Chair, to Senator Lambie, I understand why intuitively an amendment like this would be appealing to the crossbench. It does, on paper, offer you the opportunity theoretically to serve on this committee, but all I can say is what I said in the second reading debate. If the Prime Minister hasn't already called you and offered you a position on the committee, it's not you that he intends to appoint, because I believe he has already made that offer to a member of the crossbench. 11:19 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Senator Paterson, that's not the question I asked you, is it? I simply asked you: why don't you believe we can do just as well on national security, when it comes to national security, as you two can do? Can you provide an explanation? Some of us have worked very hard in this area. Some of us have always had private briefings, including from your party itself—and not just me; there have been others over the years who have had those national security briefings, and they were big and fast—I was getting them every three months there for quite some time—but that has never spilled out. It just bothers me, and I think that whole trust thing is a smackdown when your party was more than happy—and it wasn't just me; it was former senators Patrick and Xenophon in the past, and there have been a couple of others who had all of that. You trusted us in those rooms to have those national security meetings, and now it seems we're not trusted enough to take those sorts of positions if they are offered. 11:20 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Senator Lambie, I respect your career of service to our country prior to coming to this parliament and your work in this parliament particularly on defence issues and on veterans affairs issues. You're rightly recognised widely in the community for that, and no-one would seek to take that away from you. The reason why the coalition believes, as the Labor Party has generally believed—with one exception in the past—that the PJCIS should remain a bipartisan committee of the parties that have served in government is: since the end of World War II, there are only two forms of government we have had in this country—either a Liberal-National coalition government or a Labor government. It is only us who have the burden of having to live with the implementation of the recommendations that committees like the PJCIS implement, it is only us who have to take the responsibility at an executive level for keeping this country safe, and it is on the parties of government where responsibility will fall if something ever goes wrong. Because of that burden I believe it is appropriate for the parties that have traditionally served in government to continue to hold this responsibility, which has worked remarkably well with the PJCIS since it was introduced in 2001 and with its predecessor committees. I think to tamper with that now and to change that now is dangerous, particularly in the heightened security environment we are entering into. 11:22 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Minister, I'm just wondering: do you know whether or not the Liberal Party over on this side know that since World War II we now have a lot of Independents—it is the 21st century—and that their numbers are decreasing? I'm just wondering whether that's been brought into play today. The way they're going, their numbers will continue to decrease and you're going to have more crossbenchers up here. Was that ever taken into account? I'm sure it was, because someone seems to be up with what's going on in the 21st century. These ones here are still asleep at the wheel, knowing that very well their power is decreasing every time we go to an election. 11:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Lambie. I'll leave it to you to make observations about what might be in the minds of the opposition. 11:23 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales To be clear, Minister, this amendment doesn't change the existing provision in the act: In nominating the members, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the composition of the Committee reflects the representation of recognised political parties in the Parliament. It's not intended to change that but it is indeed in the spirit of that; that is my understanding. 11:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That's correct. 11:23 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Just briefly, on that question: I'm glad Senator Shoebridge has now read out the full provision of the bill rather than quoting from it selectively. It requires that the Prime Minister have regard 'to the desirability of'. It does not require that the PJCIS be representative of the parliament. I wasn't there when the bill was drafted and I can't imagine exactly what was in the minds of the drafters, but they very clearly could have required the Prime Minister of the day or the parliament to ensure the committee was strictly representative of the parliament. The bill does not do that, and I suspect they did so for a reason. Accordingly, I moved the amendment on sheet 1979 standing in my name: (1) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 7 (lines 1 to 23), to be opposed. Just to explain, this amendment seeks to remove all provisions relating to the PJCIS from this bill so that the status quo would prevail. If this amendment is not successful, I have a subsequent amendment I will then move. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that part 3 of schedule 1 of the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [11:28]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question agreed to.

11:33 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria As anticipated, unfortunately, our first amendment has failed. However, we have a backup amendment on sheet 1982, which I will move shortly and which seeks to deal with the same substantive problem. If senators are wondering, I think it might be a few minutes before we come to a vote, so they could leave the chamber if they need to. An honourable senator: Hear, hear! Senator PATERSON 144138 Or, if you wish, you could stay and listen to what I'm sure will be a scintillating debate; I'll let you make up your own minds! It depends how far you have to go in the building. The amendments on sheet 1982— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 Senator Paterson, I'll just interrupt you there. If senators who are not participating in this discussion in the committee stage could either leave the chamber and take your conversations outside or resume your seats in silence, that would be appreciated. Senator PATERSON 144138 As I was saying, the amendment on sheet 1982 seeks to preserve the government's stated intent—prior to this debate, anyway—for the rationale for increasing the size of the PJCIS. They say it is due to the workload of the PJCIS and it will facilitate the establishment and population of subcommittees and other such things. If that is the case, if that is their motivation, then this amendment preserves that. It also preserves the ability of the government to have more flexibility in the members from each chamber whom they appoint. It will require that four members come from the Senate and four members come from the House of Representatives, but the remaining members can come from either the House or the Senate. Why that's important is that there was public reporting after the election, after there was a delay in establishing this committee, that the reason for that delay—it was Ellen Whinnett in the Australian who was particularly reporting this—was that the government was unable to come to a resolution internally about which members should be appointed to the committee, because they had factional, state and House and Senate balances that made it complicated. If that is the government's concern, this amendment deals with that as well. I understand the government wasn't able to support the previous amendment. I really hope the government is able to support this one, because it does allow them to expand the PJCIS; it just prevents it from being extended to a member of the crossbench or a minor party, which, as I've already outlined, the coalition is concerned would compromise operational security. 11:36 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens don't support this amendment. Indeed, we think it would create a significant problem, having two contradictory elements in the legislation, one being the provision in the schedule that I read on the record to the minister earlier and the other being this. It would create incoherent legislation, as well as being offensive in principle. 11:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will also be opposing this amendment. As I mentioned in the earlier discussion, the changes that are being proposed in this bill would increase the number of members of the committee, and that is about making it easier for the committee to manage its workload. As I've already pointed out, it would create a greater capacity to establish subcommittees, to undertake some of the work that the committee is required to do. As for the composition of the committee, as Senator Paterson is aware, the current legislation does not dictate a certain number of government or opposition members, and we don't believe it's necessary to dictate that in the way that Senator Paterson's amendment would do. 11:37 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Just briefly, I will make an observation on that, and then I will move my amendment, for the benefit of the chamber, so it shouldn't go too far. That last part of the minister's answer was revealing. It appears very clear then that the cat is now out of the bag: the government does intend to appoint a member of the crossbench or a minor party. Otherwise, all this amendment seeks to do is formalise the convention, which is well established on this committee and respected by both parties when in government, save for one brief exception—which I think it's worth pointing out was in the minority parliament period of the Gillard government, who clearly as a result of that were forced to do a deal with then-crossbencher Mr Wilkie to put him on the committee in exchange for confidence and supply. That is not the case today. This government has a clear majority in the lower house—maybe not a comfortable one but a clear one. That means that it is not necessary for them to do a deal with Andrew Wilkie for confidence and supply, or with any other crossbencher or minor party member. So they could formalise the convention on this committee that says that only members of the government and the opposition serve on this committee and which preserves the balance. It concerns me, from the minister's answer, that the government in fact intends to use this opportunity to dilute the opposition presence on this committee and to increase the government's proportion of the committee. That would be very concerning. With that, I move the amendment on sheet 1982: (1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (lines 4 to 13), omit the item, substitute: 11 Subsections 28(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections (not including the note), substitute: (2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members and must include at least: (a) 4 members of the Senate; and (b) 4 members of the House of Representatives. (3) The members must consist of the following: (a) 7 members who are Government members; (b) 6 members who are Opposition members. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that the amendment moved by Senator Paterson on sheet 1982 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:43]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

24 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 36 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:47 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move amendment (1) on sheet 2055: (1) Schedule 1, Part 4, page 8 (lines 1 to 25), to be opposed. This amendment by the Greens seeks to remove from the bill the provisions that give expanded power to ASIO to use, record and disclose spent convictions information. As I'm sure the chamber is aware, a spent conviction is a conviction where there have been at least 10 years since the date of the conviction in circumstances where the individual has not been sentenced to imprisonment or was not sentenced to imprisonment for a period of greater than 30 months. I think the equivalent provision for a minor is five years. The purpose of the spent convictions regime is to allow people to get on with their lives after they've been convicted of a more minor offence so that, after 10 years, that offence doesn't keep coming back and haunting them. Of course, the spent convictions provisions only apply where there has been no further offending. Where someone has breached the law, been taken before a court and had either a non-custodial or modest custodial sentence imposed, our law has always given people a bit of a second chance, after a period of 10 years, to not have it continually raised with them when they're seeking a job, when they are seeking to travel and when they're seeking to get on with life. Of course, over time, there have been a variety of exemptions to that so that, for certain national police record searches, spent convictions can continue to be included in a conviction search. That is for more sensitive occupations, in particular. But the broad position is that, after 10 years for those relatively minor offences, ASIO and other security agencies can't keep accessing and sharing that information. In particular, it's the sharing of information that this bill seeks to allow. It seeks to allow ASIO to continue to share information of spent convictions. This matter went to the Human Rights Joint Committee, and the Human Rights Joint Committee gave this as their view: 1.98 The committee notes that permitting ASIO to use, file or record and disclose spent convictions information in the exercise of its functions or the performance of its functions, limits the right to privacy, particularly as it is not clear to whom ASIO may disclose personal information about spent convictions. The committee considers the measure seeks to achieve the legitimate objective of allowing ASIO access to the information necessary to perform its functions, and to protect Australia from security threats. In considering the proportionality of the measure, the committee considers it would have been useful had the statement of compatibility identified any applicable safeguards. The committee appreciates this information may not be available on national security grounds, however, without information as to whom the spent conviction information may be disclosed, it is not possible for the committee to fully assess the compatibility of this measure with the right to privacy. 1.99 The committee draws this matter to the attention of … the Parliament. So through you, Chair, I asked the minister: what are the safeguards? The Human Rights Joint Committee has said that they can't find any. The EM contains none. The bill contains none. What are the safeguards on spent convictions? 11:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In responding to Senator Shoebridge, I also advise the chamber that the government will not be supporting the Greens amendment. The Commonwealth's Spent Convictions Scheme aims to prevent discrimination on the basis of previous convictions by limiting the use and disclosure of older, less serious convictions and findings of guilt. Under the scheme, certain agencies have exemptions which allow them to use spent conviction information in the performance of their functions. Excluding ASIO from the Spent Convictions Scheme will allow ASIO to use, record and disclose spent convictions information to better perform its functions and exercise its powers, including cooperating with law enforcement. It will also rectify an existing discrepancy whereby law enforcement agencies are able to use, record and disclose spent convictions information for investigations or the prevention of crime while ASIO is prohibited from doing the same. 11:52 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to advise that the coalition will also be opposing this Greens amendment. It is a recommendation of Dennis Richardson which the former government has accepted, as has this government. I think it is self-evidently easy to understand how ASIO may need to have access to this information, to use this information and to share this information. To give just one hypothetical example for the benefit of the chamber, ASIO now has centralised responsibility for top-secret security clearances. Wouldn't it be obvious why ASIO might need access to and might need to share information on someone applying for a top-secret security clearance who has a conviction which might be spent but nonetheless relevant in the granting of a TS security clearance and, therefore, to a job in a highly sensitive role in the Commonwealth? 11:53 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales There is already a raft of individual exemptions that allow for the sharing of spent conviction information in circumstances like that. This is a very open—indeed, an entirely open—exemption. I asked for some clarity from the government about what the guidelines are, what limits are proposed on who ASIO can share this information with and the circumstances in which they can share the information, and I didn't hear any limitations. It just seems to me that we hope and pray that the security apparatus, ASIO, will act appropriately. Is that the guidelines? Is that the limit? Is it just that it's up to ASIO? 11:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I suspect Senator Shoebridge is probably aware, the minister's guidelines for ASIO require ASIO to do things proportionally and reasonably, and that is a legal requirement on ASIO officials. That provides the safeguard to prevent abuse, because abuse of these powers would not be proportional or reasonable, which is what ASIO is required to do under the minister's guidelines. 11:54 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria To assist the minister in relation to this—this is an important matter—the IGIS would have oversight of the use of this power, as with any other powers that ASIO has. IGIS is an incredibly powerful oversight mechanism and has the power of a standing royal commission. It can go at any time to an intelligence agency, demand access to any document or any record created by ASIO or any other intelligence agency and very closely scrutinise their conduct. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 The question is that part 4 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [11:59]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Walsh)

34 AYES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 9 NOES 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:03 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 2055: (2) Schedule 1, Part 6, page 11 (lines 1 to 17), to be opposed. The bill, as drafted, significantly reduces oversight of ASIS, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Office of National Intelligence and the Defence Intelligence Organisation. It reduces that oversight by removing the Commonwealth Ombudsman's jurisdiction. We cannot see, as Greens, an argument for giving the Ombudsman less oversight in this space. There has never been a suggestion the Ombudsman was a security breach. There's never been a suggestion the Ombudsman's oversight has been excessive. Indeed, the Ombudsman provides a small measure of additional oversight of organisations that are only being given more power and more resources by the Albanese government. The only argument in favour of removing the ombudsman's jurisdiction is that somehow there's too much oversight of our national security industry. I don't think anyone could fairly review the space and agree with that argument. We move the amendment to protect the Commonwealth Ombudsman's jurisdiction and to ensure that we have at least that entity in government oversighting these bodies. We know that there are other more secretive oversight measures in place. We acknowledge that, but the ombudsman's oversight comes with the benefit of having whole-of-government oversight and won't treat the security apparatus as somehow this entirely special, separate entity. They have the benefit of oversighting the whole of the federal government and bring with that, I think, an essential perspective in oversighting these parts of the security apparatus in Australia. We commend the amendment to the Senate. 12:05 Senator WA 245759 Queensland TT (—) (): The government will not be supporting this amendment from the Greens either. By convention, the ombudsman already does not investigate action taken by ASIS, AGO, ASD, DIO or the Office of National Intelligence, although these agencies are currently within its legal jurisdiction. Recommendation 167 of the comprehensive review provided that ASIS, AGO, ASD, ONI and DIO should be excluded from the ombudsman's jurisdiction. These agencies are overseen by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, which is, of course, Australia's dedicated intelligence oversight body. This amendment will formalise the ombudsman's existing approach to these agencies while maintaining the strong oversight provided by the IGIS. Since 14 December 2005, the ombudsman and the IGIS have had a memorandum of understanding which guides the approaches of these offices to oversight of these intelligence agencies. As I say, the government is committed to implementing the recommendation from the comprehensive review which did recommend those agencies should be excluded from the ombudsman's jurisdiction. Lest Senator Shoebridge or other senators have concerns about oversight as a result of these changes, it is worth noting that the ombudsman applies a lower standard of oversight than IGIS, or less oversight than IGIS. IGIS assesses for the legality and propriety and compliance with human rights whereas the ombudsman assesses for whether a decision or action was reasonable. So we feel confident that, by retaining the oversight of the IGIS, it provides the safeguard that Senator Shoebridge is seeking. 12:07 Senator PATERS 144138 Victoria ON () (): The coalition will not be supporting this amendment for the reasons outlined by the minister. Question agreed to. 12:08 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Before I move this amendment, I just want to make it quite clear that this amendment is actually not complicated. It's just a common sense measure to keep others safe, especially their families. It is a simple amendment that allows diggers that have been told—once again misled—that their identity will be protected to actually have their identity protected, like they have been told for their entire careers, for many years. That is a big part of the reason that they signed up, especially when you have family, and it is ingrained in you that you will put the military first before your family. That is a sacrifice that we make, and we do that. Millions of other Australians will not. This amendment will make it a criminal offence to release the identity of those personnel we ask to conduct these most dangerous operations that nobody else will. Nobody else will line up and do them; they're not lining up today to do them, and I'll come back to that. This amendment seeks to give those personnel the same protection as an officer of ASIS. We're not asking for anything special; we're just asking for the same treatment. This year a special forces soldier had his name splashed across the newspapers. The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force claims to be finalising charges against other soldiers, which, if this precedent follows, will allow the same treatment by the newspapers. Their identities will be revealed. Their lives will be put at risk. Their names will be put out there, not to mention what will go on for their children. Not to mention we still have ISIS cells running around Australia—let's be honest here. If you think splashing their names across the newspapers does not put them and their families in danger, then you are delusional—you are absolutely delusional. When the ISIS enemy come after us, they don't give a stuff. They're happy to take our kids out. If you didn't see the way they played their role in war in the Middle East, then have another look. They don't care! But I'll tell you what hurts more. It's when you leave a digger standing and they've got no family around them. This is what happens. Special forces personnel are sometimes required to engage in secret operations in other countries, but of course we don't ask any questions about that. How dare we? We wouldn't dare, and we don't because we're too bloody scared to ask. You don't want to know the dirty crap they're doing for this country that they've been asked to do. You don't want to know! You don't want to know not because they're not doing it and you don't know. You don't want to know because you asked them to do things that you would never ask yourself or anybody else to do. That's what we ask of them. This amendment will put an end to having their identities released. You have a white elephant in this room. In one corner we're talking about national security. In the other corner people are not joining our forces. And I tell you what: they're sure as hell not lining up to be in the special forces anymore. They're not dying to go to Western Australia whereas they used to compete to get in. When I was in, you had more than enough competition. They could pick and choose from hundreds. If you want to talk about national security in this country, then you'd better have a look at where the white elephant in the room is. You'd better have a look at the way you're treating them because I can tell you. I have put it out there and I'll continue to say: 'Don't join the SAS. You are not protected. You never will be. You are a digger.' If it isn't senior commanders, it is politicians who're prepared to chuck them under the bus. They're the same people that we ask to make the ultimate sacrifice in doing all the dirty crap we won't do or we don't even want to think about. We don't want to ask questions because we don't want to know. I am simply asking us to give them the same treatment as ASIS. Why is ASIS so damn special? They're doing all the dirty crap out there in the SAS, but they can't get this treatment. This is what this amendment does. Wake up! Once again, in this corner no-one wants to join. No-one wants to join because senior commanders keeps chucking them under the bus. They sure as hell aren't running to join commandos and the special forces, which is where your strength comes from. It's the diggers, thousands of them, that look up to those men. They look up to them because they know without speaking about it what we ask them to do. We don't ask questions about diggers either because we know we're not capable of doing what they can do, and neither are we ever put in the situations they're put in, and that's what makes them so special. Why can't they have their identities protected? Why can't we treat them the same as ASIS? Why are we doing this? You are part of destroying our national security in this country. That is where we're at today. I move amendment (1) on sheet 2058, and I commend it to the Senate: (1) Schedule 1, Part 9, page 19 (after line 5), at the end of the Part, add: 43 After paragraph 41(a) Insert: (aa) if the person identifies a person as being, or having been, a member of the Australian Defence Force who is serving, or who has served, in a unit that conducts special operations; or 12:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Lambie for her contribution. The government does acknowledge Senator Lambie's concern regarding public reporting of the identities of former special forces personnel. The Australian government is thankful to every Australian who chooses to serve in the ADF. ADF members are asked to perform at the highest standards in the most complex, challenging and demanding environments. Australia's highest standards also extend to accountability for war crimes. Australia has a robust legal framework in place to ensure that alleged perpetrators of war crimes are properly investigated and prosecuted. Senator Lambie's concern goes to a matter of defence policy about the protection of the identities of ADF members. That is a matter absolutely worth discussing and considering, but the government's view is that it's not a matter appropriately dealt with in the legislation before the Senate this morning. If Senator Lambie wishes to pursue this matter through a private senator's bill, she would, of course, be welcome to do so, and it would be considered by the government in the usual way. But, for those reasons, we won't support the amendment moved by Senator Lambie. 12:15 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria The coalition also will not support this amendment, although we do recognise the legitimacy of Senator Lambie's concerns about this issue and are very happy to have further discussions with Senator Lambie about this. Absolutely, the protection of people who serve in special forces and their families—the important point that Senator Lambie made—is one that the parliament needs to consider. But we did not have notice that this particular amendment was coming forward to this bill today. We're not in a position to support it now, because we haven't had a chance to consult on it or consider the implications of the particular drafting that Senator Lambie has chosen, but we are open to further conversations about resolving this issue. 12:16 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales On behalf of the Greens, we acknowledge the concerns that Senator Lambie has—in fact, we've spoken to them on numerous occasions—about the lack of accountability among senior members of the ADF and the defence department. We are, however, not in a position to support these amendments. The CHAIR 287062 The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 20 12:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the bill be now read a third time. 12:17 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I want to make a brief contribution on the third reading, because we are about to find out whether or not a deal has been done between the government and the Greens on membership of the PJCIS. The Greens just moved two amendments to this bill, which they said were important, and they have failed. Whether or not the Greens now support this bill through the chamber is a test of whether or not they were serious about the amendments they just moved or whether the prize of possible membership of the PJCIS for the Greens outweighs their concerns about the bill which they've just outlined. We're about to find out whether the government is willing to do a deal with the Greens on a matter of national security, because they are unwilling to negotiate and discuss their unilateral changes to PJCIS membership with the opposition. If this bill passes with the support of the Greens and the government, it will be clear that they have done a deal behind the scenes, without any public transparency, about the membership of the PJCIS, the parliament's most functional and bipartisan committee. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator PATERSON 144138 We will now know if the government is getting into bed with the Greens on national security. I suspect, given the strength of the response from the Greens just then, that they have done a deal with the government in secret—something that they just spent several hours outlining their concerns about. They said that this wasn't to happen and shouldn't happen on national security. This will be a test for the government and their apparent coalition partners, the Greens, when it comes to national security. Let the record show that the coalition has offered the government many pathways to resolving this issue in a bipartisan way. That option was available to them. If they've instead chosen a pathway with the Greens, let them be judged for it. 12:19 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales We've always said that this was a balancing exercise for us. There are positive and negative elements in the bill. I want to say to the fevered imagination of Senator Paterson: just calm down, relax. I have made it clear on behalf of the Greens we take a bit of a Groucho Marx approach to this committee and that hasn't changed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the bill be now read a third time.

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

37 AYES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 25 NOES Antic, A. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 22

Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 22 12:28 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria There is nothing more important than good, secure jobs for Australians. For these good, secure jobs, we need to invest in skills and training. It's a simple proposition but one that those opposite got wrong for far too long. The former government cut funding for our essential TAFEs. They presided over a decade with absolutely no effective workforce planning, a decade where occupations were listed year in, year out on the skills shortage list with no effective plan to get workers trained up for these jobs. Is it any surprise that Australia is now facing a skills shortage across far too many of our key industries? It's the second-largest labour supply shortage across all OECD countries, hitting our critical essential industries. In a report that the Morrison government refused to release, it's predicted our care sector will face a shortage of over 200,000 workers by 2050, which includes shortages in the aged and disability care sectors, early childhood education, nursing support, personal care, registered nurses, and health and welfare service managers. The care sector is absolutely crucial to our economy and to our nation. We know that without action these labour shortages will only get worse. That is why we did not waste a day investing in the skills and training that Australia needs. We immediately funded 180,000 fee-free TAFE and vocational education places that are available right now. Fee-free TAFE changes lives. It brings women back into the workforce and it is the unsung hero in rebuilding our care economy. Thirty per cent of all fee-free TAFE enrolments have been in courses related to the care sector. Overall, 60 per cent of enrolments are women, with early education and aged care amongst the most popular courses. These include Emily and Rachel, who I met at Gippsland TAFE. Emily dreamed of studying nursing for eight years but, as a mother, was struggling to find the time and the money to make it a reality. Thanks to free TAFE, her dream has been realised. Rachel is the sole bread winner in her family and said the only way she would have been able to do her diploma was if it was free. She now feels as though she's been invested in and she wants to give something back to the community by training in the mental health sphere. These are exactly the people who we need in early education, who we need in care and who we need in nursing—people who are passionate about their future careers but who missed out on the opportunity to study straight out of school, with their own caring responsibilities taking a front seat. The more life responsibility that people have, the harder it can be to find the time and the income to study. Fee-free TAFE is exactly what these women have been looking for to get back into work when we need them the most. It's training the nurses, the early childhood educators, and the disability, aged-care and community service workers that our country needs right now. The best way to fast-track improved workforce planning, including in the care sector, is by establishing Jobs and Skills Australia. I'd like to highlight one of the key things the body will do, which is give advice to ministers on the impact of workplace arrangements, including insecure work, on economic and social outcomes. This is so important, because we are not just a government that creates jobs; we are committed to creating good and secure jobs, because no-one should have to choose between taking a sick day and making their rent. Jobs and skills Australia will also look at what additional supports and training may be needed by those Australians who have historically been disadvantaged or excluded from the labour market because of their age, health, gender or background so that no-one is left behind. This government is delivering on our commitments. Whether it's addressing the decade of neglect and inaction that caused these skills shortages or investing in the care economy, we are delivering the good secure jobs that all Australians deserve. 12:33 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The initial establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia late in 2022 has already seen the commencement of important work that is needed to identify solutions to our skills and workforce challenges, and to build the workforce Australia needs now and in the future. Introducing the legislation in two stages, including this amendment bill, has allowed the government the time and opportunity to consult with key tripartite partners and stakeholders in state and territory governments, business, unions, training and education providers, and civil society representatives. We have also had constructive engagement with members of the crossbench and the Greens both here and in the House of Representatives. I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. Those who will support this bill agree workers, employers, governments and the training and education sector must work together if we want to unlock the full potential of Australia's workforce and ensure Australians have the skills and training needed for jobs now and in the future, even if we come from different viewpoints. The Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill establishes the ongoing governance arrangements for Jobs and Skills Australia and additional functions to ensure it plays a critical role as a national body providing consistent data, analysis and advice. There is a genuine and growing need for an inclusive workforce and relevant high-quality skills in sectors like the construction and aged-care workforces and in emerging sectors such as clean energy and digital technology. These challenges are shared. All levels of government, industry, business, employers, unions and education providers must work together if we want to unlock the full potential of Australia's workforce and ensure Australians have the skills and training needed for the jobs of today and the future. The government engaged widely with stakeholders for more than six months on the proposed model of Jobs and Skills Australia. This included the Jobs and Skills Summit, Senate inquiries, submissions and hearings, and other roundtables, bilateral meetings and a discussion paper seeking public comment. Taking these views into account has ensured Jobs and Skills Australia is designed in a way that considers the needs of all stakeholders in our workforce and skills system and delivers a genuine tripartite and consultative way of working now and in the future. The advice provided by Jobs and Skills Australia will be independent. While the Minister for Skills and Training can request advice from Jobs and Skills Australia, the advice provided will be made independently by the JSA commissioner, and the minister must not give direction about the content of any advice. The bill establishes the governance of Jobs and Skills Australia with a commissioner, deputy commissioners and a ministerial advisory board who will provide critical leadership support, engaging widely to support the delivery of the work program of Jobs and Skills Australia. Jobs and Skills Australia will be led by an independent commissioner who will be appointed in a long-term permanent capacity through a merit based selection process. The commissioner will be supported by no more than two deputy commissioners, who will have broad-ranging skills and experience in representing the views of stakeholders, to assist the government in addressing skilling, workforce and labour market needs. The ministerial advisory board will be truly tripartite and representative of the diverse skills and experience within the sector. It will ensure advice, particularly on how JSA delivers on the new and existing functions, is informed by a wide range of views, insights and expertise. I want to briefly comment on the second reading amendments that have been circulated. On the amendment circulated by Senator Faruqi on behalf of the Greens, as at budget 2023-24 the government is investing an estimated $4.5 billion in vocational education and training this financial year. It is delivering at least 180,000 fee-free TAFE places this year alone, in 2023. The government is working through the development of a VET workforce blueprint as an outcome of the Jobs and Skills Summit, which will ensure the long-term sustainability of the VET sector, growing that high-quality workforce in TAFE and aiming to identify strategies for attraction, retention, career development and succession planning. TAFE is overwhelmingly our provider of choice, including in negotiations over a new five-year national skills agreement with the states and territories, which will put TAFE at the heart of the VET system. As part of the NSA, we will establish TAFE centres of excellence to leverage the unique strengths of TAFEs and other public providers in addressing the skills challenges we face, including in climate, care, construction and digitisation—all these reforms in partnership with states and territories rather than unilateral actions, which the amendment proposes. On the second reading amendment moved on behalf of Senator Thorpe, I want to note that closing the gap for First Nations is a core commitment of this government, from the referendum on the Voice later this year through all policies, including the role of Jobs and Skills Australia. The motion calls on the government to pursue the establishment of a subcommittee for First Nations employment, an undertaking the government will give. We will be supporting the amendment and note that there is scope within this legislation to do so. The government will be working through the relevant process and consultation issues in pursuing it. We thank Senator Thorpe and her office for progressing this issue with the government and look forward to providing further updates. Also on this engagement, I want to quickly respond to another matter raised by Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe expressed her interest in having worker wellbeing included as a matter for consideration for areas of expertise for ministerial advisory board appointees. Although this bill does not explicitly define this, I want to give the assurance to Senator Thorpe that worker wellbeing is not only an important concept that overlays the criteria in section 16B but is also part of broader government policy such as access to quality training, work opportunities and removing disadvantage in the labour market. This lens will be applied to this section. In conclusion, I make mention of the Senate committee's tabled report and recommendation from the inquiry. A single recommendation that the bill be passed reflects the government's priority to establish a permanent Jobs and Skills Australia so we can prioritise getting on with it, working productively with stakeholders and producing better data and analysis to help inform Australia's skills crisis and labour market issues. I commend the bill to the chamber. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:44]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

10 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:46 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move the second reading amendment standing in my name on sheet 2042: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to pursue the establishment of a subcommittee for First Nations employment, given the centrality of socio-economic factors for its efforts to 'Close the Gap'". Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 24 12:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 2057: (1) Schedule 1, item 12, page 4 (after line 25), after subparagraph 9(1)(a)(viii), insert: (ix) the size, composition and skills requirements of the volunteer sector; The coalition have been constructive when it comes to Jobs and Skills Australia. We have supported the establishment of this legislation. In line with that spirit, we're seeking to amend the bill to improve Jobs and Skills Australia through specifically establishing a role for Jobs and Skills Australia understanding and in respect of the volunteer sector. It actually emerged during a round table convened by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last Friday with the peak skills organisations and the volunteer sector that currently the government does not adequately take into account the volunteering sector in its actual deliberations when it's looking at the jobs and skills that we do require going forward. This is a missed opportunity, because even though the work is predominantly unpaid across the volunteer sector, the sector still remains a large part of our workforce. For example, over 200,000 volunteers work in fire service organisations and 25,000 volunteers work in state and territory emergency services. According to the 2020 Aged Care Workforce Census 30,883 people volunteered across Commonwealth aged-care services. Australia's 55,000 charities employ over 1.38 million people, about 10.5 per cent of all employees, and they engage around 3.4 million volunteers. When government doesn't take into account this important sector, it does make it harder for volunteer organisations to recruit, retain and then upskill their volunteers. So, in line with the direct request—and this has come as a direct request from the round table that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had last week—from the skills and the volunteer sectors, we're taking the opportunity to explicitly establish Jobs and Skills Australia with taking into account the volunteer sector in its work. This will ensure Jobs and Skills Australia takes into account the volunteering sector as it shapes the way the federal government reforms skills and training and supports the development of our workforce. The numbers I've just referred to clearly show that Australia's volunteering sector is a significant part of Australia's workforce, and we would hope that Jobs and Skills Australia is able to recognise this and engage in particular with this sector when looking at the future workforce needs of Australia. We would welcome the support of the Senate on this amendment. 12:50 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will not be supporting this amendment from the opposition. It was circulated very late and with no definition of 'volunteer'. Of course, skills matter in this space, and we believe they're captured where relevant in existing functions. We appreciate the intent, and we support our skilled volunteers and thank the opposition for backing initiatives like our $30 million commitment for Disaster Relief Australia, run by veterans, which we think is a very important thing the government has implemented, but we won't be supporting this amendment. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that the amendment on sheet 2057, as moved by Senator Cash, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:55]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

28 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 31 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:58 Senator 250362 New South Wales FARUQI () (): I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2032: (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (line 9), at the end of paragraph 9(1)(cc), add ", and support, where appropriate, the evaluation of outcomes of relevant programs and the measurement of targets for these cohorts". This amendment expands the functions of the JSA so that it not only undertakes studies on opportunities to improve employment, VET and higher education outcomes for a cohort of individuals that have historically experienced labour market disadvantages and exclusion but also has a role in supporting the evaluation of outcomes of relevant programs and the measurement of targets of these cohorts, because that's what's really important. We need to measure how things are progressing. This will give JSA a greater potential to genuinely improve outcomes for women, for over-55s, for people with disability, for young people, for unpaid carers, for First Nations people and for people of colour. I understand that the government will be supporting this amendment, and I thank Minister O'Connor's office for the positive working relationship we've had to date. 12:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government has consulted broadly on the permanent model of Jobs and Skills Australia to ensure that this bill supports an ideal range of ongoing functions and products that it will deliver. Senator Faruqi, on behalf of the Greens, has moved an amendment to the functions of Jobs and Skills Australia. The amendment proposes to add, at schedule 1, item 13, page 5, at the end of paragraph, 'and support, where appropriate, the evaluation of outcomes of relevant programs and the measurement of targets for these cohorts'. This would be through the provision of evidence, data and analysis. The government will be supporting this amendment. I want to thank Senators Faruqi and Pocock for their ongoing discussions with the minister, including about Jobs and Skills Australia's role in policy evaluation. The amendment clarifies that JSA may assist, where appropriate, with program evaluations, including government led initiatives that aim to increase or encourage the involvement of particular cohorts in employment, VET or higher education and targets for involvement associated with these programs. Question agreed to. 13:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1993 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 31, page 9 (line 28), omit paragraph 16B(1)(c). (2) Schedule 1, item 31, page 9 (after line 29), after paragraph 16B(1)(d), insert: (da) 1 member representing small business; (db) 2 members representing regional, rural and remote Australia; (3) Schedule 1, item 31, page 9 (after line 32), after subsection 16B(2), insert: (2A) In appointing the members of the Ministerial Advisory Board, the Minister must ensure that the members include a representative from each State, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. (4) Schedule 1, item 37, page 18 (line 4), omit "2 years", substitute "12 months". These amendments will remove clause 16B(1)(c) of the bill as passed on the third reading in the House, which removes the mandate for four employer organisation representatives on the ministerial advisory board of Jobs and Skills Australia. In its place, however, our amendment creates new subsections mandating a representative for small business and two members representing the interests of rural, remote and regional Australia. The amendment will also add section 16B(2), which ensures that each state and the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory must be geographically represented within the distribution of the board members chosen under section 16B(1). The amendments amend subsection (1) of section 29A of the bill to ensure that the review into the operation of the act commences before the end of the period of 12 months, instead of the two-year period currently scheduled in the bill. The opposition believes that small businesses are more able than, say, employee organisations to advise on skills shortages across the country, given they are at the front line of contemporary changes to workforce and labour needs. Similarly, regional Australia is disproportionately affected by the skills and labour force shortages. It is critical to ensure that representatives on the board can provide direct advice to the minister and the commissioner to help resolve these critical issues as quickly as possible. Our amendments also add, as I said, a new section 16B(2), which ensures that each state and the ACT and the NT must be geographically represented within the distribution of the board members chosen under section 16B(1). Skill shortages, as we know, affect all states and territories. As such, each should have that geographical representation to ensure that they can advise on the unique challenges in differing areas of our incredibly large country. Our amendments also amend subsection (1) of 29A of the bill to ensure that the review into the operation of this act commences before the end of the period of 12 months. The current legislation could allow the minister to push the review out beyond the next election. We say that this is not appropriate, considering that this bill is a key election commitment of the government, and the public should be able to have a chance to scrutinise the review of this promise. I commend the amendments to the chamber. 13:03 Senator CHIS 39801 Queensland HOLM (—) (): The opposition have proposed the same amendments they moved in the other place. We consider them untenable. They would remove unions from the ministerial advisory board, thus undermining the tripartite commitment of Jobs and Skill Australia. The opposition amendments also attempt to wedge the government and crossbenchers by requiring an explicit small- business representative and two regional, rural and remote Australia representatives. The government amendments in the House were agreed to after consultations with regional, rural and remote crossbenchers. I remind the opposition of the comments from the member for Indi on this issue. The minister engaged extensively and constructively with her and with external stakeholders to strengthen regional, rural and remote representation and small-business representation on the ministerial advisory board. No-one is asking for these amendments publicly, and no-one has asked the government for them privately either. Therefore, the government will not be supporting these amendments. 13:04 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens will not be supporting the coalition's amendments on sheet 1993, because the amendments seek to reduce union representation on JSA's ministerial advisory board. This is an attack on workers, and the Greens will always stand with the workers. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the chair is that coalition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1993, moved together by leave by Senator Cash, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [13:09]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.

13:12 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I've circulated a revised amendment on sheet 1994 relating to appointments to the Jobs and Skills Australia advisory board. I think that, if this bill was drafted to create a board with four members from employer groups and eight members from unions, more than a few people in the building would be screaming bloody murder. Likewise, if this bill was drafted to create a board with eight members from employer groups and just four from unions, we'd be right to call this a stitch-up. It would be clear to everyone that such an arrangement would be unfair, yet in the absence of my amendment this is what could happen. My concern is that, if there's too much discretion left to any future minister to appoint someone from any background, it's possible a future minister might be able to use that discretion to appoint people with interests already represented on the board and, in doing so, rebalance its tripartite character. I don't think it's in the country's interests to have the board stacked in favour of one interest group over another. If you want everyone to be heard, you make sure nobody is given the biggest microphone. My amendment makes sure that this minister and any future minister can't use their discretion to appoint people to the board whose interests are already fully represented. Having said that, I've revised the amendment following consultation to remove the restriction on the minister being able to appoint someone who represents a member of a peak employing body. I've done this because I'm told the minister is already restricted from doing this. I want to confirm that that's the case and, if so, what the restriction is. The TEM e68 Senator Lambie—Senator Tyrrell; sorry. Same farm; different paddock. Senator TYRRELL 300639 We have been accused of twinning! The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's a good thing to be accused of. Senator Tyrrell, for the record, I will get you to seek leave to move the motion. Senator TYRRELL 300639 In hindsight, I seek leave to make a short statement. Is that what I'm doing? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: No. This is to move the amendment and speak to it. Leave granted. Senat 300639 I move Jacqui Lambie Network amendment (1) on sheet 1994 revised: (1) Schedule 1, item 31, page 9 (after line 30), after subsection 16B(1), insert: (1A) A person appointed to the Ministerial Advisory Board under paragraph (1)(e) must not be a representative of: (a) employee organisations; or (b) employer organisations. 13:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government has consulted broadly on the permanent model of Jobs and Skills Australia, including the establishment and membership of the tripartite ministerial advisory board. Throughout our consultations stakeholders were clear in their desire for the ministerial advisory board to have a balance of unions and employer groups, and we have reflected that in this bill with four representatives from each. Senator Tyrrell's amendment gives further clarity to that balance. It would ensure that the up to four additional members to be appointed to the ministerial board under paragraph 16B(1)(e) are appointed because of their experience or knowledge as set out in subsection 16B(4) and are not representatives of employer organisations or unions. Further, all members of the board must meet their appointment requirements set out in subsection 16(4). Specifically to be appointed to the board, members must have experience or knowledge in areas relevant to the work that the ministerial advisory board will be undertaking: for example, experience in VET; higher education; workplace planning; economics; labour market analysis; employment; industry; industrial relations; regional, rural and remote Australia; lived experience of disadvantage in the labour market; or lived experience as a representative of people with lived experience of disadvantage in the labour market. The amendment proposed by Senator Tyrrell is consistent with the government's position further outlined in the explanatory memorandum, on page 17, which states that the employer or trade union groups would have appropriate and equal representation on the ministerial advisory board and that the remaining four positions would not be available to representatives of employer or trade union groups, ensuring broad representation on the ministerial advisory board. This confirms the intended interpretation of subsection 16B(1) is to appoint members based on their high level in specific areas of expertise and to ensure equal and balanced tripartite representation. The amendment in its current form proposed by Senator Tyrrell has removed the restriction on the minister being able to appoint someone under paragraph 16B(1)(e) who represents a member of an employer organisation. This has been done to ensure consistency in legislative drafting, given subsection 16B(1) only refers to members representing employer organisations and employee organisations and not representatives of members of employer organisations. However, the legislation addresses Senator Tyrrell's concern through further safeguards. For example, supporting Senator Tyrrell's amendments are sections 16F and 16G of this bill, relating to conflicts of interest. A member of the ministerial advisory board is required to give the minister written notice of all interests pecuniary or otherwise that the member has that could conflict with the proper performance of the member's functions. This provision in the legislation ensures the minister is aware of and can take appropriate steps to manage any disclosed interests. It is envisaged that a board member representing a member of an employee organisation or employer organisation would be a required disclosed interest. Similarly, section 16G requires disclosures of interests pecuniary or otherwise by a member of the ministerial advisory board. The government has also ensured in its legislation that members must act in an impartial and independent manner when giving advice to the minister and the JSA Commissioner. This clause, 16B(6), ensures that members will be under an obligation to act impartially and further addresses Senator Tyrrell's concerns to ensure that members appointed pursuant to paragraph 16B(1)(e) act impartially and independently having regard to their skill, knowledge and experience. Importantly, a failure to act in an impartial and independent manner in accordance with 16B(6) is grounds for the minister to terminate that relevant member under paragraph 16B(2)(b). This legislated requirement will ensure members must act and provide advice based on their skills, knowledge and experience in accordance with subsection 16B(4). Further to this, subsection 16A(2) requires that the minister determines the ministerial advisory board's terms of reference and terms and conditions of appointment of members of the ministerial advisory board, other than those provided for and in the act and procedures, which must be followed. These terms of reference and terms and conditions will further clarify the role and intention of the appointment of members of the board, including the additional four members. These terms of reference will determine the functions of the board and, consistent with 16F, that members are required to properly perform their functions or otherwise disclose any interests that could conflict with the proper performance of these functions. This will provide further protection to the tripartite and balanced nature of the board by ensuring that members perform their functions as set out in the terms of reference. The government will support the amendment, and we thank Senator Tyrrell and her office for their engagement on this issue. 13:19 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens will be supporting the JLN amendment moved by Senator Tyrrell because it will allow for broader and more diverse representation on the ministerial advisory board. The board should be as diverse as possible, with representation from First Nations people, people of colour, women and people with disability. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 29 13:21 Senat 39801 Queensland or CHISHOLM (—) (): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. [13:25]
(The President—Senator Lines)

36 AYES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 24 NOES Antic, A. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 30

Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023

Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Consideration resumed of the motion:

That these bills be now read a second time.

13:28 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The aged-care sector delivers a fundamental service for older Australians, protecting them, caring for them and supporting them in their journey of aging. The coalition believes that the establishment of an inspector-general of aged care is important to ensure that the aged-care sector remains supported, and we will therefore be supporting this legislation to permanently establish the Inspector-General of Aged Care and the associated statutory office. The establishment of an inspector-general implements recommendation 12 of the royal commission, which was supported by the coalition. To implement the royal commission's recommendations, when in government we provided over $19.1 billion to support the aged-care sector and to provide the best possible care for older Australians. It's appropriate that the Inspector-General of Aged Care monitors and investigates the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of the aged-care system. It's also important that the findings and recommendations of the inspector-general are tabled in this parliament to instil greater accountability, transparency and understanding of the work that occurs across the whole of the aged-care system. However, the establishment of this new commission will also cast light on some of the most pressing challenges currently facing the aged-care sector, the most prominent of which is workforce. Workforce shortages are putting serious pressure on Australia's entire healthcare system, and it is clear that this crisis is impacting the viability of aged-care homes across the country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Order! It being 1.30 pm, we shall now proceed to senators' statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 30 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Challis Community Primary School 30 13:30 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia It is wonderful to have the shadow minister for education, my colleague Senator Sarah Henderson, over in Western Australia during the winter break. We spent some time visiting local primary schools in my home state that are pursuing and achieving outstanding academic results and having a real impact in their communities. One of these schools is one that is extremely close to my heart. I've been a supporter and advocate of this school since long before I came here to parliament—that is, Challis Community Primary School. Challis Community Primary School has been led by its formidable principal, Lee Musumeci, for two decades, and, thanks to her dedication, along with that of her staff, the children in the local community are flourishing. Located in Armadale in Perth's south-eastern suburbs, they are chasing what they call 'better than postcode' results and are actually achieving them. The Challis way means starting from birth with a strong focus on explicit teaching so that students learn concepts in the most effective way. They are able move what they learn in the short term to long-term memory so they can recall, recite and apply what they have learned. This is all translating into phenomenal results. By developing a platform of excellence in explicit teaching, behaviour support and working together with the local community to improve student outcomes, they are closing the education gap that exists based on the community's socioeconomic status. So thank you, Lee, and your wonderful staff for having Senator Henderson and I at your school to see an excellent example of what you can do when you co-locate services and programs to deliver important outcomes for the community. They are doing a wonderful job in their community and I thank them very much indeed. Aged Care Employee Day 31 13:32 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Today is Aged Care Employee Day, a day for all of us to say thank you to everyone in the aged-care workforce—personal care workers, allied health, drivers, nurses, cooks, cleaners, admin staff and so many others. However, we know that 'thank you' is just not enough because 'thank you' does not pay the bills. For too long, aged-care workers have been undervalued, have been underpaid and their skills have been unrecognised. We are committed to restoring dignity and trust in the sector and to supporting our essential aged-care workforce with good and secure jobs that they can count on. That is why this year we funded a 15 per cent wage increase for aged-care workers, over 90 per cent of whom are women, and this is long overdue. It has been fought for and campaigned for by aged-care workers and by their unions—the Health Services Union, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and the United Workers Union. When combined with the historic increase in minimum wage, some aged-care workers will see a pay bump of around 20 per cent. After years of neglect, this is no less than what these workers deserve. Sara Murphy has seen her hourly rate go up from $24.76 to over $30, an amount she described as life-changing. For Anna Coltman, the increase means she will be able to finally get her car fixed. You just cannot understate how impactful this wage increase has been for these aged-care workers. They should be valued for their work and treated with respect every single day of the year. It is no less than they deserve and it is why I will always fight for them. But on this special day, to all aged care-workers: thank you. Women In Sport 31 13:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales What a time for women's sport in this country. They are kicking goals left, right and centre. Last night we saw the Diamonds absolutely dominate in Cape Town, beating England to win the Netball World Cup. A massive congratulations to the incredible Diamonds, especially to the player of the match, Keira Austin. I hope you are all basking in your well-deserved glory. The Diamonds now hold all of netball's major titles—what an achievement! And tonight, we get to see the Tillies work their magic against Denmark. There better not be any hours motions coming tonight because I'm counting down the hours to 8.30, so I can get out of here and watch Sam Kerr, Mary Fowler, Hayley Raso and all the other mighty Matildas shine tonight. The Matildas have been dazzling, and if their last match against Canada is anything to go by then we are in for an absolute treat tonight. It has been so heartening to see how the Women's World Cup has drawn massive crowds throughout the world and here. The sold-out arenas and record-breaking audiences would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. It goes without saying that women athletes deserve the same pay, the same praise and the same opportunities as male athletes, and I hope the success of this World Cup has brought us closer to seeing that happen. One of the best things about this World Cup has been seeing so many girls watching, filled with inspiration and excitement. Here in Australia and all over the world, dreams are hatching in the minds of a generation of young girls. We have the Matildas and all other women competing in the World Cup to thank for that, so go the Tillies! Smash Denmark tonight. Cost of Living 31 13:36 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The massive increase in the cost of living being inflicted upon Australians by the Albanese Labor government is hurting hardworking Australians. Households have experienced the highest annual rise in mortgages on record. We have one of the highest core inflation rates of advanced economies anywhere in the world. Real wages are collapsing at the highest rate on record and energy bills are skyrocketing. The Labor government has piled on layer upon layer of regulation into our energy sector causing the highest cost to flow onto consumers. The data confirms all Australians have experienced significant, sometimes record cost-of-living increases under this Labor government's watch, and shamefully we're now seeing this is impacting families across the important healthcare sector with them not going to see their GP. It was reported over the weekend that many Australian patients are delaying or avoiding GP appointments due to the current cost-of-living crisis that is being overseen by this government. The RACGP has even stated that many GPs are being forced to increase the cost of consultations due to significant increases in operating costs, including skyrocketing energy bills seen right across the country. But amongst all of these pressures on Australian households, as energy bills reach unaffordable levels, as families have to make tough decisions to delay going to their GP, risking health outcomes that result from prevention and early intervention, what is the Prime Minister's focus? Taming inflation clearly does not seem to be a priority for this government. Addressing the concerns of the risk of rheumatic heart disease, for example, amongst rural and remote communities certainly doesn't seem to be his priority. The PM's priority is dealing with the absolute mess he's made of the Voice referendum. He's focused on trying to run a million miles away from the treaty commitment that he and his ministers have made so many times. He's hiding from honesty and transparency. (Time expired) Reach Her 32 13:38 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I rise to speak about an amazing organisation from Western Australia called Reach Her. I had the absolute pleasure of meeting with Maryann Tsai, the founder. Reach Her is an incredible organisation. It's a Western Australian social enterprise based in South Perth that seeks to support and empower women from diverse backgrounds to improve their confidence and wellbeing and helps to create a sense of belonging by helping them gain entry to employment through education and training. Talking to Maryann about her motivation, I learned about her family's immigration story. She witnessed her parents struggle with language barriers and finding stable and secure work. It is a story shared by my family. My father faced struggles at work, including discrimination and mistreatment, and I saw that experience reflected in the lives of many workers during my time as a union organiser. This experience can be compounded by other factors, including gender, and that's why the work of Reach Her is so important. Reach Her offers connection, collaboration and support for women. The education and training programs provide a safe environment for women to build their confidence and skills. There are projects that give women real-life experience, and workshops on business training and wellbeing. One example is the hospitality program Reach Her operates, through the store espresso cafe—a commercial kitchen and cafe facility that educates, upskills and provides work experience and employment opportunities. When it comes to the safety of women, their financial wellbeing is an important factor. We know that financial abuse is too common. The work of Reach Her is important to help empower women, and it is great to see it happening in WA. I want to thank Maryann Tsai for meeting with me and sharing her story and for the amazing work she's doing. (Time expired) Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 32 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, polling has turned against the Voice because the Prime Minister has told a lie too far. Prime Minister Albanese said repeatedly that the Uluru statement fits on one A4 page and that he was committed to implementing the statement in full. The Uluru statement is 26 pages; the remaining pages have been released under freedom of information. These contain a clear path for the partition of Australia into two separate nations that closely resemble South Africa's apartheid regime. On committing to implementing the Uluru statement in full while lying about the contents of the statement, the Prime Minister has told a lie too far. As opposition leader— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Sorry, Senator Roberts, there is a point of order. Senator Carol Brown F49 I ask Senator Roberts to withdraw those assertions about the Prime Minister. The ACTI NG DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 There is a request from Senator Brown to withdraw. I must apologise; I was reading something and did not hear it. Senator Roberts, I don't know what you said but there is a request to withdraw, I take it, around lying. Senator Rober 266524 The Prime Minister deliberately contradicted his own statements. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I'm going to seek guidance because I did not hear it. Thank you very much to the Clerk. I've been informed, Senator Roberts, that you did actually accuse the Prime Minister of lying. That is out of order, and I'm going to have to ask you, please, for the purposes of complying with the Senate's smooth running, to withdraw that statement. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I withdraw that statement and say he has told what seems to me to be a lie too far. As opposition leader, Prime Minister Albanese— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Roberts, there is a point of order. Senator Carol Brown F49 Again, I ask you to ask Senator Roberts to withdraw. The ACTI NG DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Roberts, is there another choice of wording you may wish to use? Senator ROBERTS 266524 A mistruth too far. As opposition leader, Prime Minister Albanese said the Voice must be followed by a makarrata commission to inform a national treaty, yet he failed to tell Australians that without the Voice passing there is no national body of Australians with which to sign a treaty. The Prime Minister's decision to not admit that without a voice there can be no meaningful treaty is a mistruth too far. When asked on ABC radio if he will move on to treaty if the Voice is passed, the Prime Minister said no; his exact word was 'no'. Yet the Uluru statement includes a high-level treaty and the Prime Minister has called in parliament for a treaty. It's on record, and he has the T-shirt to prove it! The Prime Minister's denial of his intention to proceed to treaty is a mistruth too far. The Uluru statement calls for reparations in the form of an annual cash payment calculated as a percentage of GDP. Even one per cent would be $20 billion a year in cash to 800,000 Aboriginals, or $100,000 for a family of four, which, as compensation, is tax free. The Prime Minister deliberately hid his true agenda. He's been found out and he's now lost any chance of a settlement with the real Aboriginal community that looks to a shared future of mutual respect and equality of opportunity. Loss of shared community is a heavy penalty for one man's mistruth too far. (Time expired) Energy 33 13:43 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Two minutes isn't anywhere near long enough to highlight the Bowen blight on this country's energy sector. But I want to at least highlight this incredible revelation, finally brought to light, regarding the modelling that is underpinning this government's outrageous net zero strategy. As we found out last week, in a gracious concession, the CSIRO's chief energy economist, Paul Graham, acknowledged that the GenCost modelling, which is what this government has regularly used to defend its aggressive targets, isn't quite the shining renewable beacon the government has rallied—or, rather, hidden—behind. Imagine my surprise, or lack thereof, when we finally heard that all existing generation storage and transmission capacity up to 2030 is treated as a sunk cost in the modelling since they're not relevant to the new build costs in that year, being 2030. This is the same modelling that said we'd all be $275 better off on our energy bills. It's incredible. Basically, if we ignore the part of the equation where we spend billions of dollars transforming the grid by 2030, we find that renewables are actually the cheapest form of energy from 2031. Imagine that. Nick Cater wrote in the Australian today: The capital cost of the paraphernalia required to transform the grid by 2030 would not be $78 bn, but $1.5 trillion. That's a mere down payment on the final bill of $7 trillion to $9 trillion by 2060. Wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines are all apparently irrelevant hardware which are going to send us broke and cover roughly half the size of Victoria. Is this all going on farmers' lands or an Indigenous cultural heritage site? That's something for the government to consider or perhaps, at the very least, allow us to have an inquiry into. (Time expired) National Day of Recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners 33 13:45 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Today we celebrate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers right across Australia. This is their particular day, when we look at what they do in terms of assisting our families and communities across Australia. Whether they're in the Aboriginal community health sector or the public sector, these are workers who are in our remote and regional parts of Australia and in our capital cities. I want to reach out to our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers across the country—this is your day, and we certainly appreciate the work that you do, day in, day out—and, in particular, the National Association of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners, who are there as an overall support for all of these workers across the country in the medical space. Throughout COVID, we saw the ACCHOs lead the way, along with NACCHO, in trying to ensure vaccinations were taking place, communication was taking place and information was going out right across the country. On a very personal note, I'd like to acknowledge two women in particular: my aunties the Timothy sisters, who were our Aboriginal health workers in Borroloola as I grew up. My Auntie Mavis is still with us today, in retirement. I think of them and the role models they were to me and my brothers and sisters and cousins as we were growing up, not only in the Borroloola region but in Alice Springs. With their complete dedication, care and compassion and their belief in caring for one another, whether it's in the workspace or the health space—getting up every single day and getting out there and looking after your families—they certainly gave me something to aspire to. I congratulate all health workers across the country. Environment 34 13:47 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Here in the Australian Senate today, I'd like to give a quick but really important shout-out to a very special person—in fact, a bloody champion. Her name is Dr Colette Harmsen. Colette is the first Tasmanian woman to be imprisoned under new protest laws—the first imprisonment for environmental protests in Tasmania in 10 years. Colette is a vet and she has dedicated her life to tirelessly protecting Tasmania's forests and the wonderful creatures within those forests. For that dedication, she has found herself in prison. I want you to know, Colette, that you've got a lot of people supporting you. I know you're in prison for three months, but you are on the right side of history. To use Colette's own words: 'The real criminals are sitting in parliament subsidising the destruction of our environment.' It's not just forest protesters who are being locked up around this country under new draconian antiprotest laws; it's also climate protesters. We've seen it recently in your home state of Western Australia, Acting Deputy President Sterle, and we are seeing it around the country. If we don't do our jobs as politicians, what can we expect? People are going to take matters into their own hands. It's not as if anyone wants to be arrested and go to jail for protecting forests or for taking climate action. They're so desperate that they feel like they have no other option. I want senators to reflect on that in here today. I also want to give a shout-out to Dr Bob Brown, who is in the 2S1 committee room in Parliament House at the moment doing a forum on native forest logging and why we should end it. Tonight, a film called The Giants is screening in the parliamentary theatre, which I ask all senators to go along to if you have time. It's a very inspirational film about his life of activism and about the birth of the Greens movement, and you'll walk away with a spring in your step. Freedom of Speech 34 13:49 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria What I'm about the say in this chamber right now may soon get me censored on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and X, aka Twitter, if the Labor government gets its way. The proposed combating misinformation and disinformation bill will give the government, but more importantly the bureaucracy behind the government, power to decide what is true and what must be silenced. Big tech companies could be fined millions of dollars if they do not gag everyday Australians, but it gets worse. Governments, along with professional news outlets, are exempt. They can say whatever they like while everyone else who disagrees gets muzzled. This is a serious attack on free speech. This ministry of truth would make George Orwell turn in his grave. But here's the million-dollar question: who decides what is misinformation or disinformation? Who makes that call? Is it misinformation to say there are only two genders? Is it misinformation to say that the world's not going to end in 10 years because of 'global boiling'—thank you, United Nations? Is it misinformation to say that people shouldn't be force injected by their government? Is it misinformation to say that Jesus rose from the dead? Is it misinformation to say that COVID-19 mRNA injections hurt people? Is that misinformation? Is it misinformation to say that masks don't work? I'll tell you what; they don't work. Everyday Australians can all see where this is going. I can see it; can you see it at home? It's going the way of the communists and the fascists. That's how it's going, and to that I say, 'Enough.' We need to make free speech free again. The government has no right regulating anyone's speech. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 34 13:51 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I applaud entrepreneurial spirit. Garma is a festival of cultural exchange over several days of Yolngu culture, just one Indigenous language group. Every single senator in this place comes from a different language group. We're not the same; we're diverse. We come from different country as well, and, even when you understand our cultures, they're diverse too. So we should be respected for our diversity. At Garma, guests pay between $2,500 and $5,000 of the privilege of participation, and they can choose to do that. This year I suspect the numbers are in record numbers for public servants, Labor politicians, teals, Greens, people from big consulting firms, people from land councils and people from those companies that have RAPs. They would have all been there. We already know their position on Voice. What if, instead of flying in for a photo opportunity, the Prime Minister and his ministers dropped in to Port Augusta or Central Australia, where their attention is really needed? They'd welcome less talk, more action and accountability from politicians, public servants, policy advisors, program providers. During the three days of Garma, in Port Augusta police were forced to use pepper spray to break up a youth brawl, and just a couple of weeks ago 25 children were among 66 arrests. Translated, that means more of our kids in custody, more damage to property, more families impacted. In Alice Springs, a gang of youths ran amok, this time stealing a bus from an aged-care home and using axes to break into an aero club, Qantas freight and the airport firefighting facility. You need to focus on what matters now and what matters most. Accountability matters. The PM and your ministers are accountable. The organisations you fund are accountable. Your risky Voice is not the answer; accountability is. Launceston 35 13:54 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania In the past 12 months, beautiful Launceston has become my home—and I shouldn't say 'Launceston' because that's a sin; it's Launnie. It's technically a city, but, at heart, I think it's still a country town. I love seeing everyone's smiling faces at the harvest market on a Saturday morning or looking for a good thrift shop find at the Behind Closed Drawers market at St Ailbie's. It's a place where you can have a friendly chat with politicians and community leaders in the supermarket. Sorry to Will from the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, who keeps seeing my face pop up at Woolies, but I'll see you again soon! It's also a bit of a novelty to travel from an airport that has Virgin and Jetstar there as well as Qantas. I want to give a shout-out to our new mayor, Matty Garwood, and his darling wife and baby girl and congratulate him on his recent election. I think Matty has proven his commitment to our Launceston community. I'm excited for Lonnie having a fresh face and fresh ideas. Matty, I look forward to working with you to make our city the best it can be. With that in mind, here are some of my priorities for Lonnie. We need to continue to grow and develop. We can't be knocking back good projects because of the anti-everything brigade. More hotels are necessary if we want more tourism and to host larger-scale events. The council and chamber of commerce are committed to changing the city landscape and making it more open, green and people friendly. It sets us apart from other cities and invites people into the centre, and I would love to see more of this. I'm also keen to see key projects continue to progress, things like moving the transport hub out of the city, improving the health of the Tamar River and the redevelopment of the Birchalls complex. Thank you, Launceston, for welcoming me so warmly into your community. It might not be the north-west coast which will always be home to me, but, hey, at least it's on the right side of the north-south divide because north is always better than south. First Nations Australians: Cultural Heritage 35 13:56 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise today to speak as a proud Djab Wurrung, Gunnai, Gundjitjamara woman. Our culture physical and intangible holds the wisdom to heal and care for country and for each other. The final Juukan report showed again that colonial violence is still alive and well in our laws and policies today. Successive governments are complicit in destroying our tangible and intangible cultural heritage and sacred sites. The Senate's inquiry clearly showed how out heritage protection laws not only failed to protect but are even designed to favour developers and miners. It is no surprise that Australia is absent from the list of countries who support the 2003 UN Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. One hundred and eighty-one nations have signed up to this convention, yet, not good old Aussie, not good old Australia. This absence is noticeable. Only around a dozen nations have not signed. You are a national shame, Labor. This is a national shame. This government stated that it is going to reform heritage legislation in this country, and yet we haven't heard of any progress and we don't have a time line for when this will happen. In fact, no consultations with First Peoples on these reforms have taken place since February this year. We need a whole new framework for cultural heritage protection in this country, including a single national standard for protection of intangible cultural heritage and for Australia to finally sign up to the UN convention. First Nations Australians: Cultural Heritage 35 13:58 Sen 241710 Western Australia ator DEAN SMITH () (): Western Australians have welcomed the backdown by their new Labor premier, Roger Cook, of his poorly planned, poorly implemented Aboriginal cultural heritage laws. The right thing to do is how WA Liberal leader Libby Mettam greeted the news. In her words, they 'overreached, causing unnecessary angst in the community'. It's a win for WA and a win for the thousands who signed petitions, attended meetings and voiced their concerns. It's a triumph for common sense. All this pain, anxiety and confusion could have been avoided if WA's Labor premier had chosen to listen earlier. This is a triumph for common sense, but WA Labor's still faces a test: a test about where its interests really lie, a test on whether it can strike the right balance. WA's interests are always best served by a workable Aboriginal cultural heritage regime that enjoys the strongest support from agricultural communities, from mining communities and from Indigenous communities. Labor's act failed this important test. WA Labor and Premier Cook have said they will now tweak the pre-existing act. This is their last chance to create a modern fit-for-purpose and distinctly WA Aboriginal heritage law for the future. Road Safety 36 13:59 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales For those of you who stayed in Canberra for the weekend, you'd hopefully have heard the blaring of horns on Saturday morning—I certainly did—the important sound of 400-plus truck drivers. Senator Sheldon was there along with David Smith MP, and of course my good friend Senator Sterle was there to welcome the convoy, and there were similar convoys across the country. This convoy was of owner-drivers, workers, TWU representatives. There were industry representatives, politicians, transport workers who were united in nationwide convoys to support the necessary reform to make Australian roads safer— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for statements has expired. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 36 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 36 14:00 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In May last year, Prime Minister Albanese committed the Labor government to having 'real, lasting plans for cheaper mortgages'. Given Australian families have now faced 11 interest rate rises since the election of a Labor government, can the minister report progress on the government's real and lasting plans for cheaper mortgages? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes, I can. I thank Senator Smith for the question and the opportunity to talk about Labor's housing agenda, which includes a very— Senator Birmingham H6X I think it was on cheaper mortgages. Senator G ING Thank you for that interjection, Senator Birmingham, but it is part of a broader suite of policies that relate to Labor's housing agenda, of which the Housing Australia Future Fund is one. We have one of our signature policies, the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion fund, being blocked by those opposite, who refuse to acknowledge that the Commonwealth has a role to play in housing policy. This is not my portfolio area, of course, but I'll take the question— Senator Dean Smith 241710 President, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question clearly talked about mortgages and clearly talked about the 11 interest rate rises. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Smith. I think by definition mortgages go to housing. The minister is being relevant. But I will listen carefully and, if she is not relevant, I will draw her to your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING We went to the election with a very significant policy in relation to housing. It had a number of different features. We had the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. We have the negotiations that we are having with the states and territories on national housing and homelessness agreements. In the budget, we included incentives to increase the build-to-rent accommodation. We have an additional $2 billion in financing for community housing providers. We have the recent social housing accelerator, another $2 billion. We have the Commonwealth rent assistance increase, the largest increase in 30 years. Senator Hume 266499 None of those are about mortgages. Senator GALLAGHER ING Hang on. We haven't got through it all yet. There's the National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million homes, with $350 million— Senator Dean Smith 241710 President, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question clearly talked about cheaper mortgages and 11 interest rate rises. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will draw the minister to those points. Senator ING So we have the Housing Accord. We have the Home Guarantee Scheme. We have the help-to-buy scheme, which is a program to support eligible Australians on low to moderate incomes to purchase their own homes with a smaller deposit, which will result in smaller mortgages and smaller mortgage payments. We're working with states and territories on that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Dean Smith, a first supplementary? 14:03 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The statement of monetary policy released by the RBA on Friday revealed that: Scheduled payments have risen by around 2¼ percentage points of household disposable income since the March quarter of 2022 and will continue to increase as borrowers with expiring fixed-rate loans roll off onto higher rates. Minister, isn't this proof the Prime Minister has no real or lasting plan to— (Time expired) 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No, that is not true, Senator Smith. If you listened to the last two minutes of the answer to your first question you will have heard all of the different policies that we are putting in place to deal with the housing crisis that we inherited from you from when you were in government. It's another area— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, no. You do need to take responsibility for the fact that the Commonwealth completely vacated the field, particularly in relation to public, social and affordable housing, and it was about just letting the market rip. We are back at the table, working with the states and territories, and the program that the Prime Minister is referring to— Senator Dean Smith 241710 Madam President, we're not talking about Labor's housing crisis; we're talking about Labor's mortgage payments crisis. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, are you making a point of order? The minister is being relevant. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The program that Senator Smith refers to, which is the Help to Buy program, ensures that people who are currently unable to afford to get into the housing market as owners are given support through their governments. We are working with the states and territories on the implementation of that program right now. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, your second supplementary? 14:05 Senator 241710 Western Australia DEAN SMITH () (): The statement on monetary policy released on Friday by the RBA also said: Based on cash rate increases to date, scheduled payments are projected to increase to an historical high of around 9.8 per cent of household disposable income by the end of the year … Minister, will the Prime Minister apologise to Australian families for failing on his commitment to deliver real, lasting plans for cheaper mortgages and for instead inflicting on them the highest scheduled mortgage payments in history? (Time expired) 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There's a lot in that to unpack, but the government is implementing all of the policies it took to the election, including the Help to Buy scheme, which we are working with states and territories on. This is why the cost-of-living package that we brought in through the budget and otherwise has been so important to assist those households who, we acknowledge, are under pressure because of rising interest rates, because of high inflation and because of the impact of the global economy on some of our supply chains, which is feeding the inflation issue in the country. We accept that that is the case. That is what's happening in the economy and is why, when we brought here $3 billion worth of energy bill relief support and you voted against it, we couldn't believe it. You actually voted against people receiving cost-of-living relief in an environment where they're doing it tough. This government will deliver on all the things we said at the election, and we will do more, as we have been doing since we formed government. Trade 37 14:06 Senator CI 281503 Victoria CCONE (—) (): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Minister, I heard on Friday your announcement, together with the Minister for Trade and Tourism, that the pathway to negotiating with China to remove duties on Australian barley has led to a successful outcome. Given the government has also restarted constructive dialogue with China while maintaining our strategic settings and protecting our national security, can the minister please advise on Australia's current approach to our relationship with China and the progress that has been made in stabilising the bilateral relationship? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Ciccone not only for his question but for his deep interest in Australian foreign policy and Australia's place in the world. We welcome the decision by the PRC to remove the 80.5 per cent antidumping and countervailing duties on Australian barley. This is the right outcome for Australian producers and the right outcome for Chinese consumers. It affirms the calm and consistent approach that the Albanese government has taken. The removal of these duties is the result of work by government and industry to resolve this matter, working through the World Trade Organization. I acknowledge the work done by ministerial colleagues, particularly the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell, and their offices. I acknowledge the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and a number of other government departments, including Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Since the Albanese government was elected, we have said we will take a calm and consistent approach to foreign policy. We will renew our relationships, we will engage in the region and we will make sure we fully engage in the multilateral system. This includes seeking to stabilise the bilateral relationship with China. We have always said we believe this is in both countries' interests. We have also been clear that our national interests and strategic settings have not changed. In the past year, I've had the opportunity to have a number of constructive meetings with my Chinese counterparts, the Prime Minister has met with President Xi and other ministers from our government continue to engage in a way that serves the interests of Australia and Australians. As we have said, when it comes to our relationship with China, we will cooperate where we can, we will disagree where we must and we will engage in our national interest. We will continue to speak out as necessary on the issues that matter to Australians, including human rights, consular cases and, of course, trade issues. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a first supplementary? 14:09 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria It's a bit quiet on the other side, I notice! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, that is very unhelpful. Senator CICCONE 281503 But funny as well! Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Resume your seat. Order on my left! Order, Senator Cash! Senator Ciccone, please refrain from personal interjections about matters other than your question. Senator CICCONE 281503 On that note, I want to thank the minister for her answer and also ask her to provide an update on a very good outcome for Australia's agriculture, particularly our barley growers. Minister, how does the government work through the WTO to achieve good outcomes like this one for Australia? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Ciccone. I acknowledge and thank the industry and affected businesses for their support and their patience throughout this WTO process. Australia would not have been able to reach this outcome without first pursuing our dispute through the World Trade Organization. It is a key element of the international rules and norms to which Australia is committed, ensuring that all members, regardless of economic weight or size, are able to hold other countries to account when rules have not been respected. While the WTO encourages bilateral resolution to disputes, its mandate is what draws countries to the bilateral negotiating table. We know that countries want a prosperous and connected region, trading with transparency and predictability, where economic interdependence is not misused for political and strategic ends. The Australian government, the Albanese government, will continue to work within that system to stand up for the rights of Australian exporters and seek to resolve differences over trade matters. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, second supplementary? 14:11 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Can the minister also advise how Australia's approach to the international system and to relations with countries in our region is restoring Australia's reputation in the world? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Albanese government has renewed Australia's closest relationships and also our commitment to the multilateral system. What we have left behind, what we have left in the past, is the approach, from Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton, of picking international fights to create a domestic headline. What we've left in the past are the attacks on international institutions that actually enhance our sovereignty—remember negative globalism from the other side. We are working with our partners and with international institutions to advance Australia's interests. Not only is that achieving progress, as we've seen with barley; it also changes the way the countries of the region look to us. It enhances Australia's reputation as a responsible and reliable partner. It makes us stronger and more influential in the world. As our region and our world become more complex and challenging, we are deploying all elements of our national power to shape a region in our interests—one that is open, stable and prosperous and one in which sovereignty is respected. First Nations Australians 38 14:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In August 2021, in a joint release with Minister Burney, the Prime Minister said: Labor will deliver on a national process for Treaty-making and Truth-telling … Yesterday, on Insiders, the Prime Minister said this: Well, Treaty is occurring. There's 400 Indigenous nations in this country. So, we're not talking about centralised operations here. Minister, does the Albanese government support the Commonwealth engaging in treaty-making with Indigenous people at a national level? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I'm going to remind senators that the minister's answer needs to be heard in silence. 14:13 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The first point I would make is a reminder about what the word makarrata means. It comes from the Yolngu people in Arnhem Land, as Senator McCarthy— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESID 112096 Order! Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Its meaning includes 'coming together after a struggle'. It is about bringing people together, and it is disappointing to see Senator Cash again—notwithstanding her leadership position—leading the charge to divide the country. What I would also say about treaty is to make the point that the Prime Minister made: Well, Treaty is occurring. There's 400 Indigenous nations in this country. So, we're not talking about centralised operations here. I think that is a response to Senator Cash's point. But I would also make this point, which I made last week, but no doubt Senator Cash didn't want to hear it: treaty is being progressed with bipartisan support in Queensland. Treaty is being progressed in Victoria with bipartisan support. It is being progressed in the Northern Territory and, in fact, in Tasmania, where a Liberal government has established a pathway to truth-telling and treaty. These are all good things. I think it is disappointing that those on the other side continue, in the face of so much to gain from this process, to seek to ensure that they talk about everything but a voice to the parliament. It is disappointing, and I wish that some more senior people had joined the Prime Minister at Garma and had the opportunity to engage with leaders of First Nations on this issue to understand why this invitation has been made and why it matters to our country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplement? 14:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In his 2019 address to the Garma festival, the Prime Minister called makarrata the 'path to treaty' but in his address to the Garma festival this weekend, the Prime Minister didn't use the words 'treaty' or 'makarrata' at all. Again, does the Albanese government support the Commonwealth engaging in treaty-making with Indigenous people at a national level? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It was a good thing the Prime Minister was there. It's disappointing that we didn't see the leadership of the coalition there to listen not only to the Prime Minister but to the First Nations leaders, who spoke about why this matters to the country. I've responded. Essentially, Senator Cash is continuing to ask the same question she asked— Senator Cash I0M Yes, because you don't answer it. Senator WONG 00AOU Actually, I do answer them, Senator Cash. You just don't like the answer. You don't like the answer because you are opposed to the Voice. You are opposed to a voice. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. I remind Minister Wong to direct her answers to the chair. I will once again reiterate to senators that I expect silence when answers are being given. Senator WONG 00AOU The reality is Senator Cash and those opposite want to talk about anything but the Voice. The invitation by First Nations peoples to have a voice to the parliament to listen, to have better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, is not a great ask. They don't want to talk about it. They want to talk about something else. That's the tactic. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In February 2021, the Prime Minister told the parliament: A makarrata commission as outlined in the Uluru statement would oversee a national process of truth-telling, agreement and treaty. But, in answer to a direct question in the parliament last week, the Prime Minister refused to use the word 'treaty' at all. Again, does the Albanese government support the Commonwealth engaging in treaty-making with Indigenous people at a national level? 14:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'll refer to my answer, which I've now given at least on two or three occasions on that point. I will also give you this: I am also deeply committed to delivering a pathway to Treaty and Truth-Telling, in deep consultation and through an Aboriginal-led process. That was Jeremy Rockliff, Tasmanian premier, on 8 April 2022. Mr Mundine said: I've always supported treaties— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, I have called you to order a number of times throughout the primary, the first supplementary and the second supplementary. I'm asking you to do as I've requested and listen in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU Warren Mundine, 2017: I've always supported treaties between governments and Indigenous First Nations. … … … I've proposed the government offer each First Nation a treaty recognising them as traditional owners of their land and sea and concluding any native title claims over those areas. Peter Walsh, Victoria Nationals, said: The Liberals and Nationals are committed to advancing the Treaty process in Victoria in a way that supports self-determination and reconciliation while strengthening community and connection to country. We will continue working closely with Traditional owners and Registered Aboriginal Parties to ensure this process drives genuine progress— This really demonstrates what you are all about. You are not interested in substance and outcome; you're interested in a political scare campaign. Commonwealth Procurement 40 14:19 Senator BFQ South Australia BARBARA POCOCK () (): My question is to the Minister for Finance. ABC's 4 Corners revealed allegations that KPMG has been ripping off the Australian public by submitting inflated invoices and billing the government for hours never worked. Since 2012, one in five government contracts have been varied—never down, always up—by an average of 139 per cent. This massive 'land-and-expand' tactic is straight out of the consultancy profit playbook. Will the government stop the rampant use of 'land-and-expand' by consultants? 14:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pocock for her question and I acknowledge the work the Senate is doing under the leadership of Senator O'Neill and Senator Pocock in pursuing issues that we've seen this year come to light, led by the PwC-Tax Practitioners Board case and then some of the work that we've been continuing on from that. I would say that in a general sense there is a heap of work before us around how we rebalance the Public Service away from its over-reliance, dependence and inter-reliance on contractors and consulting companies. I knew it was a problem from opposition. It is worse than I thought when I came into this role and started having a look at it. We have started the work, as you would know, of trying to rebalance that by reducing the budget for a start and by re-employing public servants into roles that we believe should be done by the Public Service on behalf of the people of Australia, not by private consulting companies. There is more work to be done. I think the area of contract extension or escalation is a real problem. It is one that I had noticed in opposition. There are rules around it that have to be met when contracts are varied, and those processes are outlined under the procurement guidance rules. But I do believe that there is more that we can do in this area to make sure that we are getting value for money, that we're managing those interests between taxpayers' funds and the way we procure services external to government. I think, certainly from my point of view, there is a stack of work under way but we are really only at the beginning of this. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a first supplementary? 14:22 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia It looks like those rules are certainly working really well for the big four and their bottom lines. 4 Corners also revealed two senior public servants at the ATO, with the ATO's knowledge, continuing to receive payments arising from their previous employment in a big consultancy. Are these the only two, and what steps will you take to end conflicts of interest like these? 14:22 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, I will have to come back on anything further I can in relation to the specific question that Senator Pocock asks. I am not aware of any more but I will come back. In relation to the last part of your question—conflicts of interest—a piece of work assessing it and examining it is underway, about how we manage conflict-of-interest issues across the Public Service in relation to external labour. There was a number of issues raised at estimates that raised flags with me about arrangements that were in place for some of these companies and other clients they might have but there are also issues we have to look at across the APS. This is something that Finance and I will be working on. But as Senator Pocock will see, we have a comprehensive response to many of those issues as outlined yesterday but there is more work to be done. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a second supplementary? 14:23 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia PwC has announced that they will no longer make donations to political parties to ensure 'the highest standard of governance'. Will the government follow PwC's lead and support the Greens' bill to ban firms contracting with government from donating to political parties? 14:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In relation to that question, the position on the private senator's bill, we will go through our own processes in formulating our position on that bill. But I would say again this is something the Greens usually do in their third question—raise the issue of political donations as a way of besmirching, I think, the government without any evidence or anything to back it up. Our political donations are disclosed in accordance with the law. It has nothing to do with procurement across government. The idea that ministers are involved in procurement or doing something— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING If you have something to say that proves that, then come forward with it. But you haven't been able to show anywhere where those two things are linked. It's simply incorrect. And if you did have anything, you should send it to the NACC. Trade with China 41 14:25 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. Late last week the Australian government announced that China would remove the 80.5 per cent antidumping and countervailing duties on Australian barley. It has been reported that the Chinese duties on Australian barley effectively blocked exports to that market, which was worth nearly $1 billion prior to the duties being imposed. This outcome has been welcomed by Australian grain producers and exporters and has been welcomed by me and by every other Western Australian, as China has historically been a very important export market for malting barley over many decades. Minister, can you outline what action the Albanese government has taken to pave the way for the re-entry of Australian barley into the Chinese market? 14:26 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sterle for his question. He is a great friend of farmers, particularly Western Australian farmers. I was very pleased to announce last Friday that as of 5 August Australian traders no longer face an 80.5 per cent import duty when exporting barley to China. This follows an expedited review by China's Ministry of Commerce of its trade measures imposed in May 2020 on Australian barley imports. China initiated a fast-track review following an April agreement reached between Australia and China to suspend the WTO dispute on barley. The expedited review was the result of the re-establishment of dialogue between the Australian and Chinese governments, following a long period of diplomatic silence under the former coalition government. From the start, I've said that we would prefer to sort out these matters by engaging in sensible dialogue and negotiation rather than through the courts. Consistent with the terms of the April agreement reached with China, Australia will now discontinue our World Trade Organization dispute. If we had had to continue to pursue this matter through the WTO dispute mechanism, we would not have had a resolution for at least another 12 months. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Australian grains industry and government officials for all their hard work to get this result and thank Senator Wong for her wonderful efforts in this regard, particularly just before Christmas last year. This outcome demonstrates the importance of the WTO dispute mechanism in defending the interests of Australia's world-class producers and farmers. Without such a mechanism, we would never have gotten China to the negotiating table. The 112096 Senator Sterle, first supplementary? 14:28 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My gosh, this really is exciting. Minister, the removal of Chinese import duties on Australian barley is a positive development, but trade impediments imposed by China are affecting the export of other great Australian products, including wine and crayfish. What is the Albanese government doing to remove these trade impediments? 14:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I can answer that question, Senator Sterle, because while there's been positive progress on trade impediments, there's still some way to go until we see normal trade with China resume across the board. With the removal of the barley duties, the value of trade impacted has been reduced to just over $2 billion. The Albanese government is working hard to remove the remaining trade impediments. This year I've met with my Chinese counterpart, Commerce Minister Wang Wentao, on three occasions. In my meetings with Minister Wang, I've consistently advocated strongly for the full resumption of unimpeded Australian exports to China. I intend to continue discussions with Minister Wang to resolve those outstanding issues. So far, dialogue rather than bluster has proven effective. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Minister, there have been several positive trade developments this year with China, including the resumption of Australian exports of coal, cotton, copper ores and concentrates, and the lifting of quarantine restrictions on timber logs. While these developments are welcome, can the government detail what work has been undertaken to support market diversification for all exporters? 14:29 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes, I can talk about those things, because a priority of the Albanese government has been to work to stabilise our relationship with China, by far our largest trading partner. Notwithstanding steps taken towards a stable relationship with China, prudent businesses will continue to diversify their markets. Recent experience demonstrates that over-reliance on any single trading partner comes with its risks. The Albanese government has been encouraging Australian businesses to continue with their diversification plans and take advantage of new and emerging markets. A key element of the government's trade diversification agenda is entering into new and comprehensive free trade agreements. The United Kingdom and the Indian markets now offer new opportunities for Australian producers and traders. And, we are currently in tough negotiations to conclude the best trade deal possible with the European Union. (Time expired) Covid-19: Vaccination 42 14:31 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the minister for health, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the COVID batch release assessment for each COVID vaccine batch is produced after testing each batch. Who performed the test? 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This would have been work led by the TGA, but I will see if I can find further information about whether or not they were assisted by other laboratories. I imagine they were, as part of that work, but I will check and see if there's anything further I can provide to Senator Roberts. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 14:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland If an Australian laboratory acting on behalf of the Australian government has not tested the COVID vaccines, we could be buying adulterated product, mislabelled product or saline. How do the people and how does the Senate know what's in the vaccines? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It's because it will go through the TGA's established processes—that's why. There would be significant checking of those arrangements with laboratories doing that work. This isn't something that would be just left to a laboratory saying, 'I've done it,' and it being ticked off. The quality and safety measures that would be put in place by the TGA in getting those approvals are thorough. As we have seen through the rollout of the vaccine, the vaccine is safe and effective. We've seen that over the last three years after it was rolled out and millions and millions of vaccines have been provided through the vaccine rollout program, including the fact that we are now seeing significantly less severe disease or loss of life from— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 14:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland How many other vaccines or schedule 4 drugs are being imported into Australia in a situation where the safety testing was on the honour system, allowing the drug company or manufacturer to provide their own safety testing? 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory For a start, I don't accept that it was done on an honour system. I do accept that in relation to the COVID vaccine process it was a shortened process because of the urgency and the crisis that the world was in, as the pandemic rolled through. It required the vaccine being created, and then— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a point of order? Senator Roberts 266524 Thank you, President. My question was about other vaccines or schedule 4 drugs, not the COVID vaccines. The PRESIDENT 112096 I think the minister went to that, but I will remind her of that part of your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING I guess the point I'm making, Senator Roberts, is it was a highly unusual situation to be in. I think everyone's acknowledged that the process around the approvals for the COVID vaccine were different and had been shortened, when compared to the approvals for other drugs. That is reflective of the fact that we were in a global pandemic and millions of people were dying from the effects of COVID and that we needed a vaccine in place to protect the community, and that's actually what happened through the TGA's approval processes. First Nations Australians: Cultural Heritage 43 14:35 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. The Western Australian Labor government have admitted that their Aboriginal cultural heritage laws are disastrous and they have been forced to abandon them in a most humiliating backdown after less than one month. Does the Albanese government welcome this backflip by the Western Australian government and, given the total confusion, will the Albanese government commit to the Australian people that no aspect of these now abandoned laws will be replicated at a federal level? 14:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Reynolds for her question. I make the point to her that I think I made to her colleague Senator Cash and to others that, obviously, this is the federal parliament, not the Western Australian parliament. I appreciate the opposition have a lot of— An opposition senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Obviously the political commentary in her question, which she is entitled to make in speeches and so forth, is not actually relevant to a question to a Commonwealth minister. What I would say— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senators, I've called for order and I've required you to listen to the question in silence. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The comments that Senator Reynolds made about the Western Australian government, I suggest to her, can be addressed to the Western Australian government, and it's a matter for them to respond to that political commentary. In relation to the question about the Commonwealth, Minister Plibersek made it very clear last week that there will not be a Commonwealth takeover of laws and that the Albanese government will not be adopting or duplicating existing state and territory regimes. So that is the response to the issues that the senator has raised. I would make the point again that I understand that, from time to time, we all come here to play a bit of state and territory politics in this chamber. I think everybody does that occasionally, but— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Yes, it is the states' house—I'm trying not to respond to some of the interjections here—but, ultimately, those laws are matters for state parliaments. We're here to deal with federal parliament matters. I make the point that I made previously, which is that the cultural heritage laws were part of a discussion that Ms Ley initiated, so it was, in fact, initiated by those on the other side. But I understand that there is no scare campaign that they don't wish to adopt in relation to the Voice. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, a first supplementary? 14:38 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I am sure all senators here really enjoyed that lesson on the Constitution—probably somewhat unnecessary. My second question is: did Mr Albanese or anyone in his office talk to or pressure the Western Australian Labor government to abandon these disastrous laws? 14:38 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I note that, of course, that was the default under Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton and that blaming the states or having a fight with the states was a very, very common way in which they dealt with any political issues. I'm sure that would be the instinctive response from those who were members of the Morrison-Dutton cabinet. I have no knowledge of any such discussions being had. If I am able to update the chamber about these matters in any way, I obviously will do so, but I would again make the point that these are matters for the Western Australian state government and that this is Western Australian state legislation. The opposition have spent some time playing a lot of politics with this issue in this chamber and in Western Australia, and I make the same point again: they are matters for the Western Australian government and Ms Ley herself commenced the discussion about cultural heritage. I have responded on that, Senator. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, a second supplementary? 14:39 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I can assure everybody here in this chamber that those on this side know just how important this issue is to Western Australians, which led to the backflip. So my question is this. The National Farmers Federation was quoted last week as being 'paralysed with fear' regarding these laws. You assured the Senate, saying, 'I have no doubt that Minister Plibersek will ensure that all stakeholders are consulted.' So how many times specifically has the minister consulted with the NFF, and what is your government planning to do through your cultural heritage laws? 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would make the point that I think the senator is asking me a question about the consultation process which is still underway and which her deputy leader, not Senator Cash but Ms Ley, commenced. It was a process for discussion that was supported by calls from the member for Leichhardt. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: This is about the government working with Indigenous Australians … In fact, Senator Duniam even said the Juukan Gorge— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Reynolds 250216 President, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question was: how many times specifically has the minister consulted with the NFF? The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister has been answering that. I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator WONG 00AOU As I said, this process was begun under Ms Ley. I was trying to quote Senator Duniam, but I can understand why people might want to interject. He said the Juukan Gorge events were: … so disastrous that they made it very clear that comprehensive work needed to begin, as a matter of urgency, on modernising Indigenous heritage protection laws … Senator Reynolds 250216 Again, President, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question was: how many times specifically has the minister—as in Minister Plibersek—consulted? There are four seconds to go and the minister has gone nowhere near answering that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, it doesn't need your commentary on it. You've called the point of order. I said I would remind the minister of that part of your question, which I have done. Senator WONG 00AOU I will get advice on how many times she has met with the NFF. Forestry Industry 44 14:42 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. The Labour Environment Action Network has released a paper that explicitly calls on Labor to end native forest logging. This call has been backed by over 300 Labor branches. To date, the Labor cabinet has ignored scientists, environmentalists and community members to side with the logging industry. Are you also planning to ignore your own party members to enable this continued environmental vandalism? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Rice for the question. I'm always happy to take a question on agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and today we've had two such questions from the Labor Party and one from the Greens party but none from the National Party. The National Party has given up on agriculture. Is it any wonder? Senator Rice, this is obviously an issue that you've asked me about on a number of occasions. I will continue to make the same response, which is that the Albanese government supports Australia's sustainable forestry industry. It's good that you are showing a lot of interest in the internal workings of the Labor Party. We will have our national conference next week and we will discuss a range of matters, including this one. We will no doubt come to a resolution on that. As I say, the Albanese government's support for our sustainable forestry industry is very clear and has been backed up by over $300 million in investment in our forestry industry since coming to power. The measures that we have funded include modernising timber manufacturing, encouraging innovation, building workforce skills in the forestry industry and removing the water rule, something that the National Party imposed. The water rule actually prevented the plantation of timber and created a disincentive for the plantation of timber. We're also investing over $70 million in the plantation estate. Again, that's something we didn't see under the former government. The reality is that, in order for Australia to meet its timber and wood product needs, we need a mixture of plantation and native forestry; that might be an inconvenient fact for the Greens party but it is a fact. What we're doing is making sure that, as the proportion of native forestry reduces, we are actively supporting the plantation industry in a way we've never seen before. The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call Senator Rice: Senator McKim—I think it's you but it's a bit hard to tell with the mask on—the constant interjections are disorderly. My apologies if it isn't you but I'm fairly certain it is. Senator Rice, first supplementary? 14:45 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria So the answer is: yes, you are going to ignore your Labor Party members and branches. Minister, do you agree with the statement in the LEAN paper that: … to protect remaining native forests and regenerating forest is essential to achieve Labor's commitment to action on climate change … and would help achieve Australia's 2030 emissions reduction target? 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Rice. Again, I deeply welcome the Greens party's interest in the internal machinations of the Labor Party. Senator Ayres 16913 They can watch it on TV! Senator WATT 245759 Yes, you can watch it on TV! Unlike a certain party that named after a colour, the Labor Party has an open national conference. Anyone is welcome to come and watch, anyone is welcome to turn on their TV and watch. It's something the Greens could actually learn from. We hear a lot from the Greens about transparency and the need for accountability, but we've got a party named after a colour that prefers to have its little conferences in quiet corners in the dark. I'll let you work out what colour that might be! As I say, the Labor Party and the Albanese government are very supportive of our forestry industry because of the timber and wood that it produces— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rice? Senator Rice 155410 My point of order is with regard to relevance. Could you bring the minister's attention to the question, which was whether he agreed with the statement in the LEAN paper that protecting native forests and regenerating forests is essential to meeting our climate targets. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Rice. You also went to the Labor Party again, so the minister is entitled to answer that part of your question. But I will remind him of the second part of your question. Senator WATT 245759 As I say, I welcome a contribution from any section of the community, to put forward its views about forestry or any other issue. But, of course, it's the Albanese government that will be setting government policy, and our policy is to support a sustainable forestry industry backed up by the investments I've talked about. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rice, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, the Western Australian and Victorian Labor governments are ending native forest logging and are going to reap the benefits of protecting biodiversity, and it will help them meet their carbon reduction targets. Will you show leadership, scrap the regional forest agreements and encourage the New South Wales and Tasmanian governments to follow the lead of the Western Australian and Victorian governments? 14:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Rice. In the three questions I've received from Senator Rice we've had a discussion about Labor Party internal machinations and the activities of state governments. I repeat my statement that the Albanese government supports a sustainable forestry industry that includes plantation developments which are expanding on our watch, as opposed to falling under the coalition government. We recognise there is a need and a place for native forestry in terms of our timber mix. I'm not sure where the Greens propose we would obtain some of those timber and wood products from if their position was to be adopted. We are serious about supporting plantation development, and that's why we're investing over $70 million in new plantation development. It's why we're in the process of removing the water rule—something introduced by the National Party at the expense of the plantation industry. (Time expired) Women in Sport 46 14:49 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Women and the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Senator Gallagher. Over recent weeks millions of people in Australia and across the world have tuned in and turned out to watch the Women's World Cup. Whether dressed in green and gold to support the Matildas or watching amazing women from across the world compete on the global stage, the World Cup has captured the heart of the nation. At the same time, the Diamonds have successfully dealt with their unfinished business by claiming victory at the Netball World Cup in South Africa. Can the minister update the Senate on the impact of these events on women in sport? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Green for the question, and I acknowledge her work and her contribution to support women in sport and particularly in relation to the Women's World Cup as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Football and for the very many speeches you do in this place on the Matildas in particular. The Women's World Cup has once and for all ended any debate about the place of women's sport in this country. The Matildas's opening game reached almost five million people across Australia, shattering records. In Sydney, more than 75,000 fans packed in to set a new attendance record for women's football matches, and more than 40,000 fans watched England against Haiti in Brisbane. This tournament has been such a game changer for women and girls, and it is not just in football that women are leading the way. I give a huge congratulations to the Diamonds team and their coach for their victory against England in the Netball World Cup, a 61-45 defeat, and I have no doubt there are a lot of tired eyes in this place today from sitting up in the early hours of this morning to watch that amazing result. Our women athletes are excelling on the world stage and have changed sport in this country. The professional lives our Diamonds and Matildas are experiencing now have been born from the sacrifices of those before them. Only a decade ago the Matildas had to train in car parks at night-time with car headlights as their only source of light. In the late eighties the first-ever Matilda, Julie Dolan, organised off the books a high-stakes poker night to fundraise. This allowed the team to travel to China for an international tournament in 1988, a tournament that morphed into the Women's World Cup. Now the Matildas get bigger crowds than the men. The tournament has sold more than 1.5 million tickets, breaking records repeatedly. Some people are wondering whether this event will push the Matildas to be more popular than the men's team. Well, they already are on the statistics. Football Australia's own metrics show this, and all of their social engagement proves it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:52 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland The Women's World Cup has shown how much the community is willing to celebrate and support women in sport. Can the minister detail how the Albanese government is taking action to foster better environments for women in sport not only to support our current teams but to lay the groundwork for young women and girls who will form the teams of the future? 14:52 Sen ING Australian Capital Territory ator GALLAGHER (—) (): The Australian government is determined to pursue gender equality across the board, and we've committed more than $84 million to support the bidding, delivery and legacy of the Women's World Cup here in Australia. With that funding the Matildas have had eight extra international matches leading up to the World Cup. They've also been able to hire a second assistant coach, a psychologist, a sports scientist, a team chef and a team doctor. The Matildas now have equal staffing to our men's team, the Socceroos, which is as it should be. Our funding also supports the first technical director of female football, the first technical leader of the future Matildas program and assistant team manager for young Matildas and Matildas and the national female wellbeing manager. As a result, almost 20 new players have now joined the Matildas program and the Matildas are the first women's football team in the world to receive the same pay as their male counterparts. At the grassroots level we are making football more inclusive and accessible to girls and marginalised communities, and we are committed to continue this in the pursuit of gender equality across sport. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland It has been incredible not just to see the prominence of the Women's World Cup on a global scale but to be hosting such a successful tournament and demonstrating how Australia values women in sport at a local level. Of course, before I ask this questions I will say, 'Up the Matildas, and good luck tonight,' but can the minister explain the impact on the community of hosting events like the Women's World Cup. 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Green for the supplementary. The Women's World Cup is one of more than a dozen major events in Australia in the lead-up to Brisbane 2032. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to promote gender equality through sport, and this government is committed to that pursuit. You only have to look around the stands at the young girls and boys in Matildas hats and jerseys holding up signs with words of support for their heroes to see the impact that the Women's World Cup is having right across the board because sport is so important for the community beyond the result. When the Matildas head out on the field tonight in Sydney, they'll be cheered on by another roaring crowd—this time over 75,000 people—a demonstration that their community is behind them regardless of the outcome. We are so proud of everything they have achieved to date and the way they have conducted themselves. That's a message that will resonate beyond tonight's game or this tournament—that Australia is ready to show up for women in sport. We wish them all the best tonight. I know that everyone in this place will be cheering them on. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 47 14:55 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Watt. Minister, a photograph obtained by Sky News shows an ABC Four Corners crew on the driveway of Woodside CEO Meg O'Neill's home in Perth last week. Do you agree the photograph calls into doubt the ABC's public explanation of what occurred at the property last week? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Henderson. I was actually asked about this matter on Sky News myself yesterday morning, and the point I made there was that everyone, no matter whether they're a CEO of a large Australian company or a senator or any member of the public, is entitled to feel safe in their own home. As I think one of our ministers—and certainly Minister Rowland—commented last week, it's simply unacceptable for anyone to present a risk to a human being in their own home, as would appear to have occurred in Perth last week. The ABC managing director has made statements that he is investigating this matter. I think it would be a good idea for us to reserve judgement until we see the results of that investigation, but I have seen the photos that Senator Henderson refers to and, as I said yesterday, I think they're very worrying. I know that Minister Rowland has already sought information from the ABC about what has occurred here. Of course, the ABC does have editorial independence, and that does need to be respected, but I think all of us would be concerned if we learned that a film crew from any media outlet was involved in any way in an activity that is intimidating and goes way beyond what should be acceptable in public debate. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Including the Murdoch press! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WATT 245759 As I say, I suggest that we should wait and reserve judgement until that investigation is complete, but, as I said yesterday, I think that the image that has surfaced is very worrying. Minister Rowland, I know, is taking this matter seriously and has sought information from the ABC as is appropriate. We are very interested in hearing the outcome of that investigation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, I'm not quite sure what precipitated that interjection, but I remind you that I've asked for silence, and there are other opportunities throughout the sitting week to make a contribution. Senator Henderson, a first supplementary? 14:57 Senator HENDERSO ZN4 Victoria N () (): Minister, last week Senator Wong told this chamber that the minister had sought further details from the ABC on this matter, and you referred to this in your answer. However, could you please clarify: has the minister had a response as yet? If not, is that acceptable to the minister? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm aware that the ABC has confirmed that a television crew was present to film the activities of this activist group for an upcoming report, but the ABC has said that they had no prior knowledge of the nature of behaviour that would occur. But the minister, I know, takes this matter very seriously, and that's why she has sought further information from the ABC on this matter. Senator Henderson ZN4 President, on a point of order of direct relevance: I was seeking information about whether the minister had sought further details—not the public statement but further details—from the ABC. Has there been a response? If there hasn't been a response, is that acceptable? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Henderson. I do think the minister is being relevant, and I will continue to listen carefully to his answer. Senator WATT 245759 I've already said, Senator Henderson, a couple of times now that the minister has sought information from the ABC. I understand she has also spoken with the ABC chair, who provided reassurance that the ABC TV crew had no prior knowledge of the nature of the behaviour that would occur. But, clearly, with the image that surfaced yesterday morning, there are some further questions to be answered by ABC management, and that's why the minister's office has sought further information. I think we need to recognise that this image only came to light yesterday and it's being handled seriously. (Time expired.) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, your second supplementary? 14:59 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Will the government join the coalition and support the establishment of a Senate inquiry into the ABC's involvement in the matter? 15:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, that's the first I've heard of a proposal from the opposition to establish such a Senate inquiry. I'm not sure whether that's been canvassed with anyone else within government ranks. Ordinarily, what one would do when proposing a Senate inquiry is come and have a chat to people rather than use a question in question time to announce that intention. We know that's not the purpose of the question. I've already said, a couple of times now, that this matter is being investigated by ABC management. I think the appropriate thing to do, given their editorial independence, something that former coalition governments haven't well understood—I knew that would get a rise. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson on a point of order? Senator Henderson ZN4 On direct relevance, President. The question is— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, there is no need to repeat the question. I'm well aware of what the question is. The minister is being directly relevant. Senator Henderson ZN4 It's about the Senate inquiry, President. The PRESIDE 112096 Senator Henderson, please resume your seat. Senator WATT 245759 Can I suggest to Senator Henderson, and all members of the opposition, that I think the appropriate way to handle this is to see what the outcome of the ABC investigation is, rather than leap to judgement, set up a Senate inquiry and get the culture war running again, which would apparently be behind the senator's question. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS First Nations Australians: Cultural Heritage 48 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I indicate to Senator Reynolds that I have additional information from Ms Plibersek in relation to one of her supplementary questions. I can advise that Ms Plibersek has met with the NFF at least five times. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 48 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Question No. 156 48 15:01 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher, as to why the answer to question on notice No. 156 has not been provided. 15:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I understand Senator Nampijinpa Price's office alerted my office at 1.55 today. As I have been in here since pretty much that time, I haven't been able to get a response for the senator as to when that question will be answered. But I have asked for it so that I will be able to provide an explanation. I'm not in a position to do that right now, just from the point of view that I've been in here for the last hour and I've only just been made aware that your office contacted mine. I would say, in a general sense, parliamentary questions on notice have increased from an average of less than 1,000 per year to 2,200 in the first year of the Albanese government. We have answered all questions from the October 2022 estimates and all but two questions from the February 2023 estimates, which we'll continue to work through. I would say that, when the Morrison government left office, there were nearly 1,000 unanswered QONs, some dating back to October 2019. We are doing the best we can. I think the numbers of questions on notice and how they are being asked across multiple agencies is probably a tactic from the opposition. But we are genuinely trying to answer them in the time allowed. I will come back on that question specifically, Senator Nampijinpa Price, but I've been in here literally the whole time since your office alerted mine to this matter. 15:03 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. When he was the Leader of the Opposition, Prime Minister Albanese told us that Australians deserve a Prime Minister who 'shows up, takes responsibility and works with people'. Well, it's now been more than 10 weeks since our last round of Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee budget estimates addressing cross-portfolio Indigenous matters. On that day, and in the weeks that followed, I raised a number of questions of government departments and other bodies who receive government funding or have been established by the government, many of which were taken on notice. Today, 43 of those questions remain unanswered. That's 43 questions with answers this government won't reveal. That's 43 questions with answers being hidden from public scrutiny. That's 43 questions with answers the Australian people deserve to know. This Prime Minister and his government have not shown up. They are avoiding responsibility and they are keeping the truth hidden from the people they claim to want to work with. The Albanese government has had ample time to answer these questions. They have chosen not to. They have chosen to keep the truth from the Australian people, who deserve transparency and trust—transparency and trust that this Albanese Labor government refuses to give them. Why is the Albanese government so reluctant to answer these fairly simple questions? What are they afraid of? What don't they want us to know? Let's look at some of the questions. I asked the Central Land Council: If someone is found to have a criminal record, would they still be considered to be appointed, or would that then make their appointment invalid? I was told I'd be given the disqualification conditions on notice, but 10 weeks later there's been no sign of them. I would have thought that something as simple as disqualification conditions could have been produced fairly quickly. When I asked the Central Land Council how much they were spending on campaigning for the Voice referendum, I was told that the money was from their self-generated income and from a philanthropic group. When I asked who the philanthropic group was, that question was taken on notice. Ten weeks later we still don't know who is funding them. What do they have to hide? The Central Land Council has also failed to provide me with a copy of their flyers providing information on the Voice referendum—another request I would have thought was pretty easy. The Northern Land Council didn't do much better either. They also couldn't provide their information leaflets and fact sheets for the Voice referendum—information sheets that they had already been distributing. It's 10 weeks later, and they're unable to produce a copy of it for any kind of scrutiny. When the Northern Land Council were asked if there were more than 800 applications for land use agreements still outstanding, they were and apparently still are unable to provide me with an answer. What do these organisations have to hide? Since before my entry into the Senate, I've been calling for action to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and credibility of land councils, and this question is another reason why we need a forensic inquiry into these organisations to hold them accountable. There are numerous cases of Aboriginal Australians whom the land councils are failing. Traditional owners across the Northern Territory, like the Millwarparra of Ngukurr, are having access to their own land resources withheld from them. This is unacceptable. These organisations need to be held accountable, but they and the government that funds them refused to answer our questions. It's not just land councils who refuse to answer our questions. The Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, ORIC, has also been unable or unwilling to answer basic questions. When asked, 'Can ORIC please confirm how many corporations are currently compliant with its reporting requirements, how many are not and how many fines have been issued for those not meeting the requirements?' these questions were unanswered. When asked, 'Have any directors from deregistered corporations sought re-registration with a different company? If so, how many?' these questions were unanswered. When asked, 'How many directors are now meeting the director ID requirements? How many people does ORIC anticipate will complete the requirement by the deadline? Is ORIC considering changing the deadline for compliance?' these questions were unanswered. There is absolutely no shortage of goodwill in this country. There is no shortage of Australians who want to see the best outcomes for their fellow Australians of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage. But there is a shortage of accountability on the part of those who claim to be doing the work. This country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on Indigenous affairs over the decades to try to help our most marginalised, but without accountability, without transparency and without understanding how it is being spent and the effectiveness of these organisations we will not be able to improve the lives of the most marginalised. It should not be too much to ask for an answer on how many corporations are currently compliant with their reporting requirements. It shouldn't be too much, because the answer should be 'all of them'. And if one has slipped up, then ORIC should be handling it openly. It should not be too much to ask for an answer on how many directors are now meeting the director ID requirements, because, again, it should be all of them. And then there is the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the NIAA, whose goal is to 'ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard'. Sounds a bit like a Voice to me. Their job is supporting the Minister for Indigenous Australians, but they seem to be the least willing to answer any questions. Of the 43 questions unanswered after all this time, how many do you think are outstanding from the NIAA? Twenty-eight questions; 28 questions out of 43. I asked the NIAA: 'Why did the government make two separate announcements on 24 January and then 6 February? Did the government feel its initial announcement of $48 million was inadequate?' But no answer. 'Can the NIAA please explain how the $7 million for strong governance will be spent?' No answer. 'Is the $20 million local and regional voices extension announced on 6 May 2023 actually a reduction in funding given the coalition had committed $31.8 million in the March 2022 budget for this measure?' A reasonable question, but no answer. 'What is the time frame for establishing the local and regional Voice, and how does that align with the time frame for establishing a national Voice?' No answer to that one either. 'Will the department report on outcomes of ABA grants from now on, or is that now firmly the responsibility of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation?' 'What mechanisms are in place to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the funding allocated in the budget for Indigenous language preservation, and how are the outcomes measured?' This government is asking us to trust them with another body exclusively for Indigenous people. They can't give us any detail. They can't tell us how it would work, who would sit on it and how it would function practically. Despite a lot of their very false claims, they can't promise us anything about it. They cannot guarantee a single thing. They're asking us to just trust them. How can they reasonably ask the Australian people to trust them with a whole new body when we can't even get the answers to very basic questions from the bodies that already exist? All of these bodies that I asked questions of—the land councils, the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, Indigenous Business Australia, the Office of Township Leasing and the NIAA—are just a tiny percentage of the multitude of organisations that Australian governments have brought into existence or provide funding to that claim to work on behalf of Indigenous Australians to address the problems that exist. The only idea this government has is to fund a whole new body with no detail, no information, no plan but to put it in the Constitution. The Prime Minister says a vote against it is a vote for more of the same. Well, that's simply wrong. There is much we can do to help our most marginalised, and it actually starts by looking at what we're doing now in-depth, stripping away what doesn't work, keeping what does and listening to the people on the ground in these marginalised communities, not to the activist class in the cities. There is much we can do, but this Prime Minister refuses to even contemplate any idea that isn't his own, that doesn't come from his own voice. He refuses to talk to people. He refuses to hear people's voices if he doesn't already know they agree with him. This comes down to trust. We can't trust this Prime Minister. We can't trust this government. They have broken our trust time and again, and now they're expecting us to trust them with the Voice. They want us to trust them with a treaty. And they want us to trust them with truth-telling. Well, isn't answering questions in Senate estimates truth-telling? We can't even get those answers. We can't trust them to be open. We can't trust them to be accountable. We can't trust them to be responsible, something the Prime Minister himself told us Australians deserve. We can't trust them to answer our questions and to be open with the people of this country, especially those who are our most marginalised, those in communities like Alice Springs. The Prime Minister chooses to go to a festival, which, by the way, isn't a gathering of the most Indigenous Australians around the country; it is for the Gumatj. And good on the Gumatj! They're a primary example of success, of entrepreneurship. They can charge everyday Australians almost $3,000 to attend a festival for four days, and that doesn't even include flights. They can charge schoolchildren about $1,500 a head for four days to go to this wonderful festival. That's not including flights. And that's where the Prime Minister feels most comfortable. That's his safe space. But he hasn't yet gone back to Alice Springs and sat down with the elders. He refuses to acknowledge their proposal. What about their proposal? What about staff accommodation and student accommodation for those young kids, the most marginalised kids in the community, who face the prospect of going home at night and possibly being abused or sexually abused. No. He gives a splash of cash up north to Garma where they're doing alright. For tertiary education—what about the suffering children at Alice Springs who are continuing to suffer? They're the voices that aren't being listened to. We're told by the Prime Minister he only sees voices as legitimate when they're those that will be constitutionally enshrined through the Voice. But other voices screaming out to him are sidelined and ignored, those who asked me to ask questions in Senate estimates, the traditional owners that are being ignored and sidelined. It's no wonder these land council support this government. Not even the government is pushing them on these questions. Of course they don't have to answer these questions as long as this government is in place. There are too many unanswered questions and too little accountability. We can't trust this Prime Minister and we can't trust this government. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 51 15:19 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today by coalition senators. Today, once again, we heard the government's lack of focus and lack of answers on the cost-of-living crisis that is facing so many Australian families at the moment. Since this government took office, there have been 11 increases in interest rates, and obviously the Reserve Bank has had to act, given inflationary pressures here—and there have been inflationary pressures all around the world. The issue is the RBA has been left to do all the heavy lifting on its own. There has been no contribution from this government to help bring inflationary pressures down. Their budget was a massive spendathon which just fuelled inflationary fires, and now we are seeing the consequences of that, as Australians, with inflation rates here, in this country, being much, much higher than those of our peers around the world. Let's be very clear, in particular, about this government's budget strategies and settings: they are not helping with the fight on inflation. The government released a budget in May this year, its first full budget since coming to power, and it had a massive $20 billion extra in net spending. It added $20 billion of extra fuel to the Australian economy at a time when inflation was already out of control. To put that figure in context: that was the biggest degree of net spending in any budget going back to Kevin Rudd's time, except for the COVID years—we've got to pull out those COVID years where in one budget I think we spent more than $200 billion in relief for businesses and for people who had been put out of their jobs; they were special times. In normal, non-pandemic times, through all the 2010s and even before Rudd—I'll get to Rudd—there was nothing like $20 billion of extra spending; that just wasn't a thing. There might have been $10 billion or $8 billion or $7 billion of net spending. Sometimes there was a net decrease—the Coalition tried to reduce and rein in spending, especially in the early years of the Abbott government—but never was there an increase of this amount. That was the government's contribution. That's in raw quantitative figures. Whatever their rhetoric, that's what they did: they added $20 billion of extra spending, which was the biggest amount since Kevin Rudd's GFC budget. In response to the global financial crisis, which most of us would remember, Kevin Rudd did spend more than $20 billion, and there was some rationale for that. We won't rake over the coals of the criticisms or the details, but at least there was some rationale for that because the world was facing a massive recession. We were all facing the risk of huge recessions, so there was a rationale for the government to help and spend some money to try to avoid the worst outcomes here. That's not what we are facing now. We are not facing a massive global recession. We're not facing a global financial crisis. We are facing a global inflation fire bomb, and, in response to that, this government is just adding on more spending to the economy. And that is only making things worse and making the Reserve Bank's job harder; they've got to lift interest rates even further than they have to be because of this government's fiscal policy settings. As I said, this has played out in the real data. This is not rhetoric, the spending of the government. It's up to the government to justify: why are you spending so much money? Why? That's the real data in their own budget; it's not my figure. Australia has inflation sitting at six per cent. I often hear the Treasurer saying that this is a great thing; he has fixed it. Inflation has peaked. It's at six per cent a year! That's still over double what the target range for inflation is. In the United States, inflation has now dropped to three per cent. In Canada it's dropped below three per cent to 2.8 per cent. So why have other governments around the world been able to bring in and rein in inflation much quicker than this one? All the while, they are spruiking like it's mission accomplished, like they don't have to do any more and they don't have to make any tough decisions. The reality is: to get control of something like inflation, to help Australian households, takes tough decisions. There is no easy way out of this crisis, but this government has avoided every tough decision it's been confronted with since coming to government. It is spending all of the money it's getting from the mining boom. We might hear them saying they've got record surpluses; that's not the issue. They're only getting the record surpluses because there are massive amounts of economic activity and wealth coming through our mining sector because of the commodity price boom. They're taking it. They're spending, in net terms, more than $20 billion. That is the greatest degree of spending outside the pandemic since Kevin Rudd, and it's probably going to end in tears just like his spendathon did. 15:24 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to take note of answers to questions raised by the opposition. I might start with the question about makarrata. I will reply with a very simple but very straightforward and heartfelt response from Chris Kenny, talking about how it's being approached by those in the Liberal and National parties. Chris Kenny, when talking about the Uluru Statement from the Heart, said: … Yet now the Coalition scare campaign seeks to decry this as a secretive plot to rend asunder the nation. It is not a plausible critique and it should not be taken seriously by media or political commentators. It insults the public. He went on to say: The people running these scares know full well they are talking about nothing more than an advisory body. … … … This truly is an attempt to turn Australians against each other. That was Chris Kenny over the weekend, and we're seeing that again and again today. To hear about the support and the real outcomes that, of course, the Voice will give, we have to look at the questions raised about housing. A fair proportion of the $10 billion for the HAFF scheme—many tens of millions of dollars—would go to support those most socially disadvantaged, for affordable housing. That includes our First Nations people. If they're really serious about doing something—Chris Kenny's got it right—rather than running a scare campaign, they should get behind the Voice, get behind making sure that we can start getting things right, because both sides of the political fence have not got it right. We can't just keep doing the same. If you're really serious about making sure there is practical change—too many of those on the opposite side aren't about serious practical change—then support the housing proposed with the $10 billion. What we've been doing about dealing with the pressures of cost of living across the community is looking at the very fundamentals of making sure we give assistance—rent assistance increased by $2.7 billion, a 15 per cent increase to almost 1.1 million people. The Housing Future Fund, as I've said, would have $10 billion. Let's start checking again what makes those opposite tick. One of the biggest branches, the New South Wales branch—and what was one of the biggest state governments, the previous New South Wales government, now thankfully ousted—don't care about social housing there either. It's in their DNA. We only need to look at the track record in New South Wales, where the Liberals and Nationals sold off more than 4,200 social homes over their term in office. That's $3.5 billion worth sold off forever. At the same time, the social housing waitlist kept growing, and now it sits at more than 50,000 people. If they were really serious about making a difference on these fronts, then they'd start supporting the initiatives that Labor has been putting forward. We've seen it with taking on the challenge of increased energy prices—$3 billion of relief announced for individuals and small business. Those opposite say they're the small-business party, but they opposed small business having energy price support. They opposed tens of thousands of Australians receiving support with their energy bills. Then we go to Medicare. We've put $1.6 billion over four years into making sure we have cheaper medicine. Again, they've opposed it. Time and time again, they oppose the most disadvantaged, for political opportunism in the worst sense. These people are always opposed to doing reforms that make a difference. They've not only vacated the field but they have a scorched earth policy on affordable housing and on meeting the challenges of cost of living. Every time there's an opportunity to make a difference for Australians, whether it be small business, the community, wages or housing, they vote no—a scorched earth policy when it comes to help and support for those most struggling in Australia at the moment with cost-of-living pressures. They need to get off their backsides, put their hands up, get on the right side of the vote and start backing Australians. 15:29 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise to take note of the question that I asked today on the disastrous WA cultural heritage laws. No matter what Senator Wong said—as I said, I'm sure we all appreciated the lesson on the Australian Constitution rather than an answer to our question!—this is a humiliating backdown for the Labor Party. In Western Australia, it took just a month for them to realise that these laws were completely unworkable, disastrous and should never, ever have seen the light of day. Premier Cook should have listened much earlier and saved thousands of Western Australians, particularly our farmers, the anguish and the worry of the last few months. But there is still a significant risk for farmers and local communities, with the Albanese Labor government proposing their own changes to cultural heritage laws at a federal level. Despite me asking the direct question, we didn't get a straight answer from Senator Wong. While she did say that there would be no Commonwealth overtaking of state and territory laws, she was not clear at all about what would actually be in the Labor cultural reform legislation. The federal Labor government has released an options paper for a national model but has been unable to give Australian farmers and private property owners more certainty about future reforms. Federal Labor should look very carefully at the chaos that state Labor caused not only our farmers but anyone who owned a piece of land over 1,000 square metres, over a hectare. It was completely disastrous. The chaos that was caused in Western Australia is an absolute indication of what could happen if a Voice to Parliament is enshrined in our constitution. You can scrap a bad law, but you cannot change the Constitution once you have altered it. Let's remember exactly what the state government rammed through the parliament with pretty much no consultation. It was so bad. I'm very proud of my Liberal state and federal colleagues who fought so hard to bring to the public's attention both here in Canberra and in Western Australia the impacts of this legislation and the concerns of tens of thousands of Western Australians. In fact, a petition was launched by my state colleague the Hon. Neil Thomson MLC calling on the state government to halt and delay the act's implementation. He gained over 30,000 signatures. I believe that that is the most signatures obtained for any similar petition in Western Australia's history. With 30,000 signatures, not even the state Labor government, who are so full of hubris and do not like to consult not only with the parliament but also with Western Australians, could ignore this voice. First of all, they were going to delay compliance penalties for a year in favour of an education-first policy approach. This so-called light touch did little to comfort the thousands of Western Australians that faced penalties of up to $1 million if they got it wrong. That includes putting a pool in their backyard or digging a large hole in the ground for a new tree. This is not just scaremongering; it was actually happening. Local councils in Western Australia were prevented from doing tree plantings and were seeking tens of thousands of dollars in compensation. Even the respected native title solicitor Greg McIntyre has said these laws are unworkable. But I have absolutely no faith and no confidence, which is a feeling shared by everybody on this side of the chamber, that federally Labor will not seek to do exact exactly the same thing. Whilst Senator Wong did not answer my question directly about any contact the Prime Minister or possibly Minister Plibersek or their staff had with the WA Labor state government, the feeling in Western Australia is certainly that pressure was put on them so people don't get some idea of what will happen in a constitutionally enshrined Voice. 15:34 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria It was interesting to watch, from the government benches, the opposition trying to ask questions earlier today about the pressures on Australians who aspire to own their own homes. They were trying to prevent Minister Gallagher, the finance minister, from answering the very questions that they put to her. That's very true, Senator Duniam, because of course while the Liberals and Nationals continue to use stories from Sky News and other media outlets for their own political gain, when it comes to supporting Australians—and this is what this government is about, getting actual outcomes for Australians and tackling the housing affordability crisis that's currently before the government and this parliament—their record says another thing. This government has tried on numerous occasions to pass a piece of legislation that would go some way to addressing housing affordability not just in this place but also in the House of Representatives. But guess what? Those opposite have voted time and again against our piece of legislation, our bill, as have those members on the crossbench, particularly the Australian Greens. It's the hypocrisy from those opposition that I do want to draw attention to because they keep coming in here and trying to make the point that this government somehow is not taking the issue seriously enough. We are, and I implore you and your colleagues to get behind our bill, a piece of legislation that we took to the last election. We have a clear mandate for addressing housing affordability in this country, and those opposite could help improve the housing affordability bill and ease the pressure on many Australians, many families, by supporting our reform for the Australian Housing Future Fund. The fund, for the benefit of those in the gallery and also for those who might need to recollect what it is, is a $10 billion fund for investment in long-term social and affordable homes. It's a fund that will continue to invest any gains earned and a perpetual fund that will keep reinvesting to make sure that the planned 30,000 homes turn into 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 homes and more in the future. Why is it that those opposite keep pressing the no button? When will they eventually concede that, apart from the government having a mandate for this piece of legislation, it's something the Australian people want and deserve? The fund will support the construction, as I said, of 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the first five years, and it will be the single biggest investment from any federal government in this space for more than a decade. The government plans to increase the supply of housing and also to increase its support of the housing sector, as many policy experts in this field have pressed and argued for, for many, many years. Housing ministers across the country have met about this issue. State governments, territory governments and the Commonwealth government have all come together arguing we need to do more. In the interim they had no other option but to announce an extra $2 billion for the states and territories as a short-term measure to address the housing crisis. But we want a long-term fix. This government is all about delivering for the long term. Despite all the support from the experts and those in the sector, the urgent call for this long-term investment is still desperate. But why is it that the coalition with the Greens keep blocking this legislation? They're teeming up to defeat this legislation, and now the government has no other choice but to reintroduce this piece of legislation in the House of Representatives. It's also important to note that, while the government continues to pursue the passage of the housing fund through the parliament, we're also pursuing a range of other policies to improve housing affordability and ease the pressure on households. I want to go through some of them in the 40 seconds I have left. There's the new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of new homes across Australia. There's the National Housing Accord, which includes federal funding to deliver an extra 10,000 affordable homes over five years. There's up to $575 million in funding to unlock the National Housing Infrastructure Facility with homes already underway. There's the increase in the maximum rate of the Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent. There are also an additional $2 billion in financing for community housing, new incentives to boost supply of rentals and a $1.7 billion one-year extension on the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. I call the Liberals to get behind our reforms. 15:39 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Mortgages have not gone down under this government, and that was a poor promise to have made and one that I don't think will be kept for as long as this government holds office. The fundamental problems with this government are well known. It is a government for vested interests only, not a government for the Australian people. It is a government for vested interests which cannot say no to its fellow travellers at the unions and the super funds on policy, but it also can't say no on spending. We've seen in this recent budget a significant uplift in discretionary spending taken for 2023-24 and $42 billion in decisions taken in the last budget over the forward estimates. The budget is not disinflationary. When you peel back the comments that were made by the Treasury secretary and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, whom the government has decided not to maintain in that position, they are saying something quite complicated. The overall picture is that the budget is neutral, but the only reason they're saying it's neutral is because the government have legislated energy price caps. The natural consequence of that is we could just pass a bill through this parliament, and that would be the end of inflation. I mean, how ridiculous! The idea that the only reason that the budget is not inflationary is the energy price cap bill is just a joke. The overall position, the true position, is that the $42 billion in new spending just in this last budget taken in the forward estimates is putting pressure on inflation, and that is putting pressure on interest rates. That's why we've seen 11 interest rate rises under this government, which is in turn causing mortgages to cost more, not less. Until such time as the government is prepared to make judgements in the national interest, not in the interests of the unions and the super funds, we will have high inflation, because the government is not capable of saying no on policy; patent bargaining; same job, same pay; or sealing transparency off from the Australian workers when it comes to their super. Ultimately, they won't be able to stop inflation until they say no to their best friends at the unions. Question agreed to. COVID-19: Vaccination 54 15:42 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to COVID-19 vaccinations. It's my duty as a senator to ensure the safety of the many different people who make up our one Queensland and Australian community. It's a duty every senator shares. Yet COVID injection safety was bungled so badly we're now experiencing tens of thousands of injection related excess deaths, and many more Australians have serious damage to their health. On four occasions now I have detailed to the Senate peer-reviewed and published papers that show the COVID injections were granted approval under fraudulent circumstances; do not comply with good manufacturing process and were made with a high level of contaminants that should have caused a batch to fail testing; are responsible for fatal adverse events numbering far more than the database has tracked, let alone than the pharmaceutical salesmen at the TGA will admit to; and are causing serious damage at rates that make a tragic joke of TGA guidance. How did all this get past the TGA safety testing? Simple answer: the TGA took Pfizer's word about COVID injection safety during application. Then the TGA took Pfizer's word for the safety of each batch as it arrived. Why? And what do we have the TGA for? That's 409 times the TGA ticked and flicked the COVID injection vouchers without conducting its own testing. What makes this criminal is that sequencing a vaccine sample takes a few hours and costs very little. These days, this is a routine test. Last Thursday night, One Nation's bill to prevent vaccine mandates in the workplace and a similar Liberal-National bill were the subjects of a Senate inquiry hearing. Pfizer and Moderna had the opportunity to address concerns and instead chose to deliver what were apparently lawyers' scripts that failed to answer a single question that was not already public knowledge. This was foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies showing complete contempt for the Senate and thereby contempt for the Australian people. Surely now the Senate can see what it will take to get to the truth. Call a royal commission now. Question agreed to. Commonwealth Procurement 55 15:44 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice I asked today relating to consultancy services. Big consultants and their impact on our economy are all over the news today, and it's no surprise, given that we know that $10 billion has been expended on the big four over the last decade. That is an extraordinary spend outside the public sector. Conservatives and the LNP have often talked a big game about containing the public sector and capping employment in the public sector, which is part of their ideological war against the public sector. In fact, that's not what we've seen in the last decade. We've actually seen a cap on employment of public sector employees and a massive explosion in the privatisation of the public sector through the big spend on consultants and, in particular, the spend that went into the coffers of EY, Deloitte, KPMG and PwC. This has been a privatisation project of enormous dimensions done on the sly, quietly. That's $10 billion that didn't go into our hospitals or our schools, didn't go into child care, didn't go into climate transitioning and didn't go into decent policy development and building that capability into the public sector. Instead, $10 billion went out of our public sector and out of public scrutiny. That is the powerful thing that this kind of expenditure, in particular, buys. It takes public dollars out of the scrutiny of this chamber and the parliament. It's not exposed to the transparency tools of estimates, questions on notice and so on. Those spends are hidden from the taxpayer and kept inside a black box of consultancy expenditure. That loss of transparency is especially damaging for our democracy, and it's nowhere more evident than in the Department of Defence, as we will see on the Four Corners program to be televised tonight. There are allegations that KPMG in particular, which is the major consultant to the defence sector, has inflated invoices and created bills for work that was simply never done. It has taken brave whistleblowers to draw that to the attention of the Australian public, and those whistleblowers have lost their jobs, they've lost their contracts and, in many cases, they've lost their health and years of their lives, and imposed big burdens on their families. Nonetheless, they have stood up, and we will see them tonight on Four Corners. In one case, a whistleblower said KPMG proposed a million dollars worth of new work that was already covered by existing contracts. In another example it's alleged that KPMG won a $14 million logistics contract in Defence, based on personal relationships, despite being the most expensive tender option offered for that contract. These are examples of the 'land and expand' philosophy, where you farm your relationships for profit and you do down the public sector and its capability. Instead of big-four transparency and honesty, we have to rely on whistleblowers and dogged journalists. Without them, the egregious example of corruption in PwC and its misuse of confidential government information would simply have never surfaced. We are so reliant on whistleblowers and on our journalists, including journalists like Neil Chenoweth and Edmund Tadros at the Financial Review, who've been amongst the kelpies of the media pack and have chased down all of the issues of corruption that we have seen slowly emerging in consultancy project after project. They have ignored distractions and remained focused on the main game, which is the business model of the big four—to profit from public money, in particular. We see extraordinary breaches of regulation and we see unethical conduct and rampant profiteering. We have to rely now on our national broadcaster to bring forward allegations in relation to KPMG and in relation to Defence in particular. So don't miss tonight's Four Corners, which will give us an overview of what's going on in the big four and of the cost paid by our public sector. We need to focus on the structural questions that are at work in our economy, we need to cut back on the overuse of these profiteering consultants and we must rebuild our public sector. The final point I want to make is in relation to political donations. These are donations that buy access. That's what we have heard from consultant after consultant in our Senate inquiry. They don't bring brown paper bags of cash to politicians, but they seek access by their donations. This is nowhere more obvious than in the case of KPMG, which has had a very profitable rate of return on its donations over the last 10 years—gaining $1.8 billion in contracts for a mere $1.7 million in donations. That's a return of a thousand dollars on every dollar invested. We need to do better than that. Question agreed to. NOTICES 55 NOTICES Presentation 55 BUSINESS 56 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 56 15:50 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Bilyk for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Consideration of Legislation 56 15:50 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That private senators' bills be considered this week as follows: (a) on Wednesday, 9 August 2023—Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023; and (b) on Thursday, 10 August 2023—Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023. Question agreed to. NOTICES 57 NOTICES Postponement 57 COMMITTEES 57 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 57 15:51 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. DOCUMENTS 57 DOCUMENTS Community Development Program 57 Order for the Production of Documents 57 15:51 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than 6 pm on Tuesday, 22 August 2023: (a) quarterly compliance data for the Community Development Program (CDP) for the two quarters of 2023, to 30 June 2023; (b) a breakdown of demographic and geographic characteristics of CDP jobseekers as at 30 June 2023; and (c) the list of communities consulted on CDP reforms as of 31 July 2023 and a list of communities still to be consulted. Question agreed to. Department of Employment and Workplace Relations 57 Order for the Production of Documents 57 15:52 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator Cash, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, by no later than 5 pm on 10 August 2023: (a) all briefing materials produced or provided by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, departmental advice and documents associated with the proposed workplace relations bill, the Minister foreshadowed being introduced later this year in his Sydney Institute speech on 24 July 2023; (b) all file notes, transcripts and/or minutes the department took in the briefing on the soon to be introduced workplace relations bill held between employer and employee organisations and the department on Friday, 16 June 2023; and (c) all papers, documents and materials that were provided to the department briefing of employer and employee organisations held at the department's offices on Friday, 16 June 2023. 15:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The set of documents requested in this motion is incredibly broad. It would require significant diversion of resources for the department to undertake searches and compile all this information. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has conducted more than 75 consultation meetings with stakeholders since late March 2023 on the measures being considered for introduction to parliament in the second half of 2023. Over 160 written submissions from organisations have also been received. This is in addition to meetings that Minister Burke's office has facilitated with stakeholders. Consultations facilitated by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations were led by senior departmental officers, with policy and legal experts attending to discuss the measures. Feedback from participants was that the level of detail provided was useful and that discussions were informative. Consultation is exactly that. We are talking to all relevant stakeholders about these proposed reforms. It would not be consultation if the policy position were settled before we consulted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion standing in the name of Senator Cash for the production of documents in relation to the proposed workplace relations bill, as moved by Senator Cadell, be agreed to. The Senate divided. [15:58] (The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

The Senate divided. [15:58]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

26 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 31 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Makarrata Commission 58 Order for the Production of Documents 58 16:01 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move general business notices of motion Nos 281 and 282 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 281 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than 5 pm on 31 August 2023: (a) Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the department) and/or the National Indigenous Australians Agency (the agency) advice received by the Minister for Indigenous Australians and/or her office in relation to the Makarrata and the Makarrata Commission, including, but not limited to, ministerial submissions, executive minutes and memos from 22 May 2022 to 3 August 2023; (b) correspondence from the Minister for Indigenous Australians and/or her office to the department and/or agency in relation to requested information on the Makarrata and the Makarrata Commission from 22 May 2022 to 3 August 2023; and (c) all documents relating to the advice provided on the Makarrata and the Makarrata Commission received from stakeholders and provided to the Minister for Indigenous Australians and/or her office, including, but not limited to, letters and emails from 22 May 2022 to 3 August 2023. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 282 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on 31 August 2023: (a) Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet advice received by the Prime Minister and/or his office in relation to the Makarrata and the Makarrata Commission, including, but not limited to, ministerial submissions, executive minutes and memos from 22 May 2022 to 3 August 2023; (b) correspondence from the Prime Minister and/or his office to the department in relation to requested information on the Makarrata and the Makarrata Commission from 22 May 2022 to 3 August 2023; and (c) all documents relating to the advice provided on the Makarrata and the Makarrata Commission received from stakeholders, provided to the Prime Minister and/or his office, including but not limited to, letters and emails from 22 May 2022 to 3 August 2023. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 59 MOTIONS Australian Capital Territory: Energy Prices 59 16:01 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator McDonald, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) during question time on 31 July 2023, the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) stated that 'the example you give in relation to the ACT, which went to 100% renewable energy years ago, when I was still in the assembly, actually saw their bills go down this year because they are using a renewable energy mix which is often cheaper than other sources of energy', and (ii) the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission and ActewAGL have indicated that electricity and gas prices in the ACT are going up by 4.15% and 14% this year, respectively; and (b) requires the Minister for Finance to attend the Senate at the conclusion of motions to take note of answers on Tuesday, 8 August 2023, to provide an explanation of not more than 10 minutes, clarifying the inconsistency between her statement to the chamber on 31 July 2023 and published information on ACT energy prices, and: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 16:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Residents and businesses in the ACT have benefited from the ACT government's responsible and forward-thinking investments in renewable energy. The ACT's Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission has confirmed a decline of 2.7 per cent in real terms from 1 July 2023 for regulated tariffs. It's important to note the decline in real prices is not inclusive of the Albanese government's energy bill relief of $175 for households and $325 for small business—another targeted cost-of-living measure wilfully opposed by those opposite. Those prudent decisions by the ACT Labor government have shielded both residents and businesses in the ACT from price volatility that has marred the National Electricity Market following a decade of energy policy failures under the previous coalition government. 16:02 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATERS 192970 The Greens will be opposing this motion, firstly, because it's not factually true and, secondly, because it's an attack on the achievement of 100 per cent renewables. What the ACT experience shows is that abundant clean energy is deflationary. It helps our planet and our hip pockets. Renewables bring down prices. Coal, oil and gas are expensive, and prices are held hostage to the geostrategic desires of the leaders of petro-states. This parliament should celebrate the one jurisdiction that has actually lowered energy prices both in real and nominal terms, and it's the same jurisdiction that has 100 per cent renewable energy and it's the one jurisdiction with a Greens-Labor government in shared power. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion standing in the name of Senator McDonald regarding the attendance by a minister and moved by Senator Cadell be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:07]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

24 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 28 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF URGENCY 60 MATTERS OF URGENCY COVID-19: Pandemic Response Inquiry 60 16:10 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 7 August, from Senator Babet: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: "It's been more than two years since some Labor MP's called for a Royal Commission into Australia's handling of the coronavirus pandemic. It's been 16 months since Labor Senator Katy Gallagher backed a Royal Commission into Australia's pandemic response. It's been over a year since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised the Australian people a Royal Commission or a similar inquiry into Australia's response to the COVID pandemic. He said an inquiry would be established 'as soon as practicable'." The Labor Government must honour their promises and establish a Royal Commission into the pandemic response immediately." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:10 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: "It's been more than two years since some Labor MP's called for a Royal Commission into Australia's handling of the coronavirus pandemic. It's been 16 months since Labor Senator Katy Gallagher backed a Royal Commission into Australia's pandemic response. It's been over a year since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised the Australian people a Royal Commission or a similar inquiry into Australia's response to the COVID pandemic. He said an inquiry would be established 'as soon as practicable'." The Labor Government must honour their promises and establish a Royal Commission into the pandemic response immediately." It's been almost a year since the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, promised to establish a royal commission into our nation's pandemic response. Where is our royal commission? I know things move slowly in this place, but the Prime Minister promised this in August last year. He said a royal commission or something equivalent would be set up 'as soon as practicable'. When might 'as soon as practicable' be, Prime Minister? How long are we going to have to wait? It's been 18 months since Labor minister Katy Gallagher backed a royal commission into the pandemic response. Minister Gallagher told the Sydney Morning Herald last year she was firmly of the view that a royal commission was the right thing to do. That's what she said, and I agree. Most Australians agree. So where is it? It was also Minister Gallagher who last year said that we need to know: Who was advising, what they were advising, whether the government took that advice at critical parts of the pandemic is all unclear because we haven't been given access to that information— and— We think the government's response has been characterised by a failure to be prepared, a failure to take responsibility, and then a failure to get it right. Minister Gallagher was previously the chair of a COVID-19 committee which recommended that we have a royal commission. So, whilst in opposition, the minister was a supporter of a royal commission, but now it seems like the urgency has evaporated. Why, Minister? Why has it evaporated? The Australian people need answers. We need the power of a royal commission to compel witnesses and for the production of documents. We need the truth. We need to hold those in power to account. We need to learn from all the mistakes made—and, my God, there were some mistakes made—and never to repeat them. The World Health Organization declared the pandemic over back in May. Now is as good a time as any to have this commission. The chief health officers, the state Premiers are retiring, they're walking away, they're exiting their positions in quick succession, I think. We must not let them get away with what they did during the pandemic—the human rights abuses, the weaponisation of fear, the lockdowns, the closing of borders and obviously the inhumane vaccine mandates. Unexplained excess mortality is the elephant in the room. Cancer, diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular related deaths—they all spiked. I have previously attempted to create a committee to investigate this, but it was voted down by almost every single senator in this place. What a shame that was. We purchased 318 million doses of vaccine at a cost of around $10 billion and around 68 million doses have been administered. That is approximately 250 million doses wasted, flushed down the drain, to the tune of $8 billion. Most Australians have caught COVID anyway. The vaccines do not work. We spent hundreds of billions on the COVID pandemic response measures and all we have to show for it is out-of-control inflation, excessive government debt and a guarantee of high taxes for the next generation. My home state of Victoria was the most locked down state in the world. Victorians like me will never forget these inhumane and ineffective measures for the rest of our lives. We will never forget. We call on the Labor government to honour their promise to establish a royal commission into the pandemic response immediately. They previously said it should happen. They said it was the right thing to do. They promised it 'as soon as practicable'. Let's give people answers. Establish a royal commission now. Let's make sure that this never happens again. Let's protect our people from gross mismanagement. (Time expired) 16:16 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia There is no doubt that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia was unprecedented, and our response followed a very uniquely Australian path, striving all the time to try to get the balance right between our health and economic objectives. There's no denying that Australia was one of the best-performing countries in the world throughout the pandemic when it came to saving people's lives and their livelihoods. But, with the power of hindsight, we do have the opportunity to explore how we could have done things better and certainly how we could do things better in the future if we are faced with a similar challenge again, and I think we should all be open to learning from the experience of the past. If there is another pandemic, we must make sure that the things we did well we do again and the things that we perhaps didn't do so well we don't do again. So it makes sense to review the decisions that were made very quickly and with a great deal of haste and in the pressure of the immediate situation that we were faced with to protect Australians at the time. However, any inquiry must have the appropriate power to take evidence from all levels of government, not just the Commonwealth, given the extraordinary influence, power and involvement of the states and territories in Australia's COVID-19 pandemic response. It must look at all factors that impacted on decisions throughout the pandemic by all people, because we cannot forget the confronting situation that we were faced with at the time. It was unprecedented and, to be perfectly honest, it was frightening. What we were seeing back in 2020, before a vaccine, was a very different COVID situation to the situation that we see today. Countries like Italy and elsewhere were confronted with situations reminiscent of wartime. We sat in National Security Committee meetings confronted by possible situations where Australia might have to set up morgues next to a public hospitals and where intensive care units might be completely overwhelmed. That was the experience of other countries at the time and it was something that we were determined to avoid in Australia. It's fair to say that in such unprecedented circumstances you don't get every decision right. We had to make quick and decisive decisions to protect Australians' lives and livelihoods. But Australia's management of the pandemic allowed us to avoid the death rates that so many other countries had to face. The former coalition government, I believe, acted swiftly during the pandemic to ensure our health systems had the capacity to protect Australians. It's believed that over 40,000 lives were saved by that quick response. Our loss of life from COVID was amongst the lowest in the world, and Australia led the world in COVID-19 ICU survival rates. We ensured our preparedness early on in the pandemic by increasing ICU and ventilator capacity. Combined with the latest treatments, medical research and expert advice from the Communicable Diseases Network Australia and the AHPPC, this helped our frontline healthcare workers, doctors and nurses, who worked tirelessly through that time, to save the lives of so many Australians. Importantly, our response was always informed by the best medical advice. We worked tirelessly to make sure that this advice was used despite the fact that it was quite scant. We worked with the Australian people to ensure transparency with the modelling and advice so that they understood the basis upon which we made decisions. We made all health experts available to the COVID inquiry whenever they were required to appear and we established national cabinet in the early days to make sure that frontline communications were had with everybody who was being impacted and had decisions to make. This was in contrast to the mishandling we saw by so many other countries around the world, where their systems saw chaos as they responded to the pandemic, with fatality rates that were significant higher than in Australia. But while our focus was primarily on health response, we also focused on the economic side of the pandemic and retained our AAA credit rating by supporting hundreds of thousands of businesses through JobKeeper. We also managed to put in place some reforming healthcare initiatives like telehealth. We now see a telehealth system in Australia that is supporting Australians with an innovative approach to how they get their health care, which is one of the benefits of being able to work during the pandemic. But we also recognise that older Australians were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and that's why so much of our focus during the pandemic was to support older Australians, particularly those in residential aged care. On that basis, we believe there should be an appropriate inquiry that considers all factors into the decision-making and looks at all levels of government, considering the important roles played by the states and territories. 16:21 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia From the outset, it remains the position of the Albanese Labor government that, given the enormous dislocation, stress, death and expenditure involved, it would be extraordinary not to have an inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic. No-one is walking away from that position—that there is a need for an inquiry. We said that before the election, we have said it since and that remains our position. Indeed, it was some three months ago that I stood here in a debate similar to this—raised by Senator Roberts in that instance as opposed to Senator Babet—and confirmed that position. But, to be clear, we are not yet through the COVID pandemic; it continues. Cases, hospitalisations and deaths related to COVID-19 continue, maybe at a lower rate, but the pandemic is continuing. For now, the government is rightly focused on monitoring and responding to cases and on ensuring our systems are prepared to respond to future waves, because we all saw what happened when these waves came throughout the pandemic and we were not ready. We saw what happened in early education when educators were sent back into the classroom, into the playroom, without PPE, without any of the protection they needed to keep themselves safe, working with our youngest Australians—little Australians who were not able to socially distance, who were not even able to blow their own noses. Our childcare workers went back into that environment unprotected, unprepared and unheard when they raised those alarms. We saw what happened in aged care, when nurses and carers were exposed to the virus. We saw what happened when it ran rampant through these homes. We saw what happened when the government wasn't prepared with adequate PPE to protect residents and protect workers. And we saw what happened when the government delayed the vaccine rollout. I saw what happened. Friends of mine—doctors and nurses—were going into hospitals every day, coming back and telling me that felt like they were going to fight battle on the frontline of a war. They were coming back to their homes and to their children, terrified of what they may bring back but absolutely determined to help and serve their communities. Sometimes it's hard to believe that these are things that happened in our lifetime, let alone a few years ago, let alone being part of a pandemic in which we are still living. In all these systems, but especially aged care, we saw what happened when systems failed. We saw what happened when the government took its eye off the ball in terms of preparedness. We saw what happened when our essential workers were not listened to in this environment and we saw the impact on these aged-care and early childhood facilities, on our hospitals and on our skills. At the risk of opening up a wild can of worms in this chamber during this debate, vaccination remains the single most important step each of us can take to minimise the risk of severe disease and death associated with COVID-19 infection. So of course, the vaccinations remain a focus too. The pandemic was a once-in-a-century event from which governments globally must learn a significant amount about how to handle and prepare for such a catastrophic event in the future. That will include the Australian government as it includes state and territory governments, most of whom are already undertaking their own inquiries into their responses to the pandemic. These inquiries will provide important information to the Australian government, other levels of government and other actors in such a pandemic on how to respond, how to be prepared, and what needs to change. So a review is wholly appropriate. It would be extraordinary not to have one. But the timing of this matters too. That timing must be well considered, noting Australia is still experiencing COVID-19. This is not over, and there is heightened risk during the winter months, when you're in the middle of risk, when you're in the middle of managing situations and systems. I want to take the last 40 seconds I have in this debate to thank and recognise all of those who did fight on the front line of this pandemic, all of whom, I am sure, are looking forward to a review and an opportunity to take part in that—ordinary Australians who went above and beyond everyday to protect their fellow Australians. Our nurses, our doctors, our aged-care workers and others in the care economy have provided vital care to Australians in the most trying of circumstances. None of us will forget the faces of exhausted nurses and other healthcare workers during this time. I also want to thank those who kept the economy moving: our distribution workers, our shop assistants, our truck drivers and everyone in that part of the economy who ensured that— (Time expired) 16:26 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to speak in support of Senator Babet's motion. Since before the federal election, it's been One Nation's policy to have a royal commission into management of the COVID-19 pandemic by Australian governments. The matter has become more urgent following revelations of blatant cover-up over the origins of the pandemic, involving scientists, the media and governments. It's become more urgent after revelations the Australian government ordered social media platforms to suppress the free speech of Australian citizens during the pandemic, including me. At the committee hearing into my legislation to make COVID-19 vaccine mandates and discrimination unlawful, I asked a representative of Moderna what her company might say to Australians who lost a family member to the vaccine program or who were affected by adverse side effects. Her response was, 'Those people have been indemnified.' I asked representatives of Pfizer if they considered Australians had been forced to get the jabs. They said no. Apparently, these people believe that threatening people's jobs and incomes is not forcing them. Not only were millions of Australians subject to vaccine mandates during the pandemic; many are still excluded through mandates from working in critical sectors today. At a time when the Defence Force desperately needs more personnel, many serving members still cannot be deployed in many circumstances unless they bow to the mandate, while people move freely across international borders regardless of their vaccination status. At a time when crime is escalating in the territories, Australian Federal Police officers are being denied work by mandates, while people move freely across state borders regardless of their vaccination status. At a time when public health is in crisis and the aged-care sector struggles with staffing levels, experienced nurses are being denied work, when people are allowed to move freely into public health and aged-care settings regardless of their vaccination status. By keeping these mandates, it appears these agencies are more interested in punishing workers who defied them. What the government should be doing is supporting these workers back into work, where they are desperately needed, and apologising for the direct attack on their basic human rights. Australian governments have much to answer for. The Prime Minister has promised a royal commission into the pandemic but is yet to deliver. Perhaps if we established something called the 'COVID-19 Voice', he might finally act. While I've got 22 seconds left, let me apologise to all those people who have been affected by adverse side effects and deaths in their families due to this vaccine mandate that was forced upon them, the vaccine they were made to have in order to keep their jobs. That is the truth of the matter, and we have to have a royal commission to bring out the truth. 16:29 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In May this year, the head of the World Health Organization warned the world we must prepare for the next pandemic, which could be even deadlier than the COVID-19 pandemic. Experts say it's a case of when, not if. And will Australia be ready? Absolutely not. You've learnt nothing. I sat on that committee. You've learnt nothing. There is no more manufacturing in place. You don't want to look at our public health system. That was our biggest problem. We went into lockdown because our public health system wasn't up to scratch and, by God, it hasn't got any better. That is where your main problem is, and we've all paid the price for that. It's been disgusting. In January 2022 Anthony Albanese told the National Press Club: It is beyond comprehension that this Government has actively refused to learn from this pandemic. Yet we have a new government. There was a Senate select committee which delivered its report in April 2023. There were 19 recommendations. One of those recommendations was to set up a royal commission. Now, Australians may think: 'You had a select committee. Why spend the money?' But I'll tell you this, Australians: a royal commission has the power to compel witnesses and get documents that the government and these committees do not—documents that would show how key decisions were made. A Senate select committee doesn't have the power to get its hands on things like recommendation 18, which recommended seeing the minutes of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, the AHPPC, the key decision-making body for health emergencies. If we don't know what mistakes we have made or what deals were done or what the cover-ups were, how are we possibly going to get ready for the next one that hits? Seriously, that was your warning, guys, and your biggest issue, which you've still done nothing about and which has deteriorated even more, is the public health system in our country! That's what threw us into lockdown. It threw us into lockdown because we did haven't enough nurses out there and we didn't have PPE. My God, you've learned nothing, and we're going into the same fight again! Wake up! (Time expired) 16:31 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I, too, support this motion and believe that we need a royal commission into COVID. I would like a Senate inquiry into COVID as well. Anyway, I'll take whatever I can get at this stage because there are a number of issues that need to be addressed in regard to this. First is the origin of COVID itself. We had Anthony Fauci come out the day before Donald Trump's inauguration and say that there would be a surprise outbreak throughout Trump's term. This same person then colluded with none other than some Australians—one was Ed Holmes from Sydney University—with a view to covering up the origins of the coronavirus. So we need to look at that as well and at whether or not coronavirus was deliberately made. Was there a deliberate cover-up? We then need to look at the diagnostic tool, the PCR testing. We need to determine which part of the COVID sequence was actually used to indicate a positive return. There are 29 proteins and 29,000 nucleotides. We need to know the length of the nucleotides in the sequence that was used in the PCR test to determine whether or not COVID was positive. We also need to look at why the cycle threshold was set to 40, not 28. We then also need to look at why the World Health Organization told national health authorities to code every death that came back with a positive COVID test to COVID and not some other form of disease. For example, people could've had comorbidities and their death could've been from those other comorbidities, but the World Health Organization said that you had to put that to COVID, which obviously would've bumped up the number of COVID deaths. We also need to look at the role of the media and, in particular, the way in which they've ramped up the fearmongering in regard to COVID. We need to look at the censorship involved with COVID. Anyone who questioned the narrative of COVID was censored. That's not the way science is conducted. Science should always be open to scrutiny, so we need to look at the censorship there. We need to look at the role the state premiers played with their daily press conferences. Who can forget the Queensland Premier with her classic statement: 'There's COVID in the sewage. Be scared, everybody.' That sort of insanity needs to stop and cannot be allowed to happen ever again. We need to consider why we bought 300 million vaccines—12 doses for every man, woman and child in this country—when at the same time we were being told that two doses were enough. We dropped over $8 billion on these vaccines. We could've bought 75 million, spent $2 billion and saved $6 billion for frontline services, including maternity wards in my home town of Chinchilla. We also need to look at why 10 million people caught COVID after the borders were opened up. The public assessment report said the vaccine was approved to stop infection, yet 10 million people caught COVID in the year after opening up. It did not work, and we need to ask why the pharmaceutical companies got away with it. (Time expired) 16:34 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland We need a royal commission right away, because people are still dying and we don't know why. That's the fundamental reason we should have this inquiry sooner rather than later. The statistics don't lie. We've got, unfortunately and tragically, deaths in this country running at levels we've never seen before outside of war. So-called excess deaths—the number of deaths above the number which is expected given the age structure and history of fatality in this country—have been running at 15 per cent and even higher above average. Worse, no-one can tell us why. I and other colleagues have asked the Department of Health in Senate estimates, and they don't have any answers as to why excess deaths are running at such a large number. We're talking about tens of thousands of people dying unexpectedly, and no-one has answers. Senator Hanson, I and other senators have put bills into the parliament to end vaccine mandates. Last week, at an inquiry into those bills, we had representatives from Pfizer and Moderna, the manufacturers of the major vaccines which were rolled out here in this country. We know now, of course, that there are side effects from the vaccine, especially heart issues like myocarditis and pericarditis in young males in particular. The most concerning thing, I thought, of the evidence last week was that they don't have any idea why that is happening. They admit now that it is happening; they admit that there are side effects from the vaccine. But they don't have any understanding of why it might be happening. The question has to be asked: why is the government still advertising for people to take these products when there is a serious, heart-related side effect that the government officials and everybody recognises—that's not controversial—and when the manufacturers themselves have no idea why that's happening? They can't have a scientific pathway for why their product is causing these particular outcomes. Meanwhile, we also have massive amounts of unexplained excess deaths in this country. That is the fundamental reason we should have this inquiry right away—so we can try to get to the bottom of what the hell is happening, what has been done and what we can do to stop people dying. I remember that at the start of the pandemic one death was too many. We had to lock down the country and stop travelling to stop deaths. I supported the initial response to the pandemic for that reason. It's better to be safe than sorry. Now we seem to have gone past all that, and tens of thousands of people are dying in unexplained ways, yet we're not even asking questions about why. There's a serious disconnect. I think one of the reasons we're not getting this inquiry is because some people are afraid of what the answers might be. Some people that were responsible for the policies of the pandemic might be a little afraid that the answers might embarrass them on the decisions they made. That is no good reason not to have an inquiry. It's actually more reason to have an inquiry, so we can make sure we do not make the mistakes again. Finally, one other reason we need to have this inquiry is because it was promised. The Prime Minister promised an inquiry in his National Press Club speech in January last year, before the election. Now, a year-and-a-half on from that promise, if he's not delivering this, it's another broken promise from the Prime Minister. It's a piece of broken trust. I also recognise Senator Gallagher, through you, Chair, in the chamber. Senator Gallagher chaired an inquiry into COVID, and she spent her time lambasting the then government. Guess what her major recommendation from that inquiry was? It was to have a royal commission into COVID. Where is that royal commission, Senator Gallagher? Your Prime Minister promised it. Let's get on with it. (Time expired) 16:38 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I too rise to speak in support of Senator Babet's matter of public importance seeking a royal commission. In 2020 and 2021, anyone who questioned or criticised the lockdowns in this country was called an antivaxxer and a threat to public health. I've noticed since those days that there are members of the public, members of parliament, media commentators—many of them on the Labor side, by the way—who now seek to duck and weave and who have forgotten all about that. They've gone rather quiet on the subject. Do you want to know what's happened? I'll tell you what's happened. The truth has caught up to them. The lockdown narrative has become absolutely indefensible, as has the damage through job losses, tragic suicides, divorces and increases in health problems. They've all become more evident. The time will come when every single aspect of the COVID narrative, including the vaccine mandates, the mask mandates, staying 1.5 metres apart—remember that?—and so on will become utterly indefensible. It's a matter of urgency that we examine now why, as Senator Canavan said, Australia's excess death rates are increasing after the pandemic. This was after everyone got their 'safe and effective' vaccines. Do you remember they were 'safe and effective'? But no-one wants to ask what is causing the excess death rate. There are more excess deaths occurring at the moment than there were in 2020. The ABS reported that in 2022 there were 190,394 deaths that had occurred by 31 December and were registered by 28 February of this year. That is 25,235—that's 15.3 per cent—more than the historical average. I'm a bit confused as to why this isn't being investigated already. This particular issue of excess deaths must be the lynchpin. If nothing else, a royal commission must be sought in order to uncover this issue. In the beginning of 2020, we saw Australia plunge into an illiberal, draconian period of history. I think historians will reflect on this period over the last few years and utterly marvel at how this hysteria was created over a virus that had a 0.16 per cent fatality rate. They will write dissertations about how the power of media propaganda fuelled this, and how imperative it is that we learn from this and make sure that this is never, ever repeated. Under the cloak of emergency, legislation that entrenched the state's pandemic powers was rushed through our parliaments in the most illiberal manner across the country. This also need to be re-examined. Today, I stand here in my last 20 seconds to support Senator Babet's call for a royal commission, and to support all of my colleagues who have continued to call for this royal commission. It's time the Albanese government put its money where its mouth is and called a royal commission so we can get to the bottom of this. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is the urgency motion as moved by Senator Babet be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 29 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 66 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Australian Antarctic Division 66 16:49 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU A letter has been received from Senator Duniam: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The need for the Albanese Labor Government to be up front about the proposed $25 million worth of cuts to the Australian Antarctic Division, including the impacts on research, security and Australia's international reputation. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 16:50 Senator 263418 Tasmania DUNIAM (—) (): This is an extremely important matter, not just for those of us from the state of Tasmania but for all Australians who have an interest in the environment and foreign affairs and our place in this world as a leader when it comes to Antarctic science and the preservation and protection of the frozen continent. We are revered, globally, as a leader when it comes to Antarctica. I acknowledge my good friend and colleague Tasmanian Senator Carol Brown for her support on many matters. I am hoping today we can hear the Australian government echo my concerns around what is happening to the Australian Antarctic Division, and other great Tasmanians, like Senator Lambie, Senator Tyrrell, Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Chandler, all share this concern. The reality is that in Tasmania we have a proud history of being the home of Antarctic science. We are home to the CSIRO, we're home to the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and we're also home to the Australian Antarctic Division and have been for some time. Generally speaking, the support for that sector is what I would call multipartisan. There has been no voice absent in support of our strong Antarctic science sector, and that's for good reason. Additionally, I think it's important to point out that we're home to the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, or CCAMLR, the international treaty organisation that is entrusted with the management and guidance of policies related to the Antarctic. Those headquarters are located in Hobart. But, in recent times, there have been some troubling developments which concern me and many other Tasmanians greatly. Those concerns involve a reduction in the amount of funding available to the Australian Antarctic Division for them to do their vital work and be able to manage their scientific program, which rolls out over a number of years. Many of the projects that they run are multi-year projects. This reduction of funding—$25 million—is not an insignificant amount for a very important entity that does world-leading work. That money is being taken away by the Australian Labor government. We are seen as a leader. All of our treaty partners and all the members of CCAMLR watch what we do with great interest. When we invest, they hail it as a wonderful achievement and something that other countries should follow suit in, but, when we cut, they look aghast at what exactly the Australian government is up to and what it is doing as a leader in this space. Of course, we don't really even have to mention it, but, as a leader in this space, there is a lot of interest in what happens in Antarctica, particularly from countries that don't necessarily share our interests, our democratic values and our views of how best to manage natural resources—and that is what we need to be vigilant about. It was distressing to hear the denials, from both the Minister for the Environment and Water and the Leader of the Government in this place, about there being any cuts. They made these denials in the face of two emails from the director of the Antarctic Division saying that there will be job losses and that not all jobs will be safe. The denials came in the face of serious concerns being expressed by Mr Zac Batchelor from the Community and Public Sector Union, who has a very good handle of what's happening there at the AAD, and in the face of multiple concerns expressed by academics whose work is on the line. We know that there are jobs going, we know that there are vacancies that will not be filled and we know that that is sending a terrible message to our treaty partners and jeopardising our position as a leader in Antarctic science. It also draws into question the Australian government's commitment to the Antarctic and Science Precinct, something that I, again, thought had multipartisan support—co-locating these scientific entities on the Hobart waterfront, near where the Nuyina, the new billion-dollar-plus icebreaker, will be berthing. All of this is now in question because the commitment by the Australian government has suddenly started to be watered down. The multipartisan, non-political support for Antarctic science—which has previously been viewed much in the same way we generally view foreign affairs and defence—has suddenly started to fritter away. I'm very concerned. So I'm looking forward to hearing the Australian Labor speakers in this debate. Their contributions, I hope, will clearly outline exactly what I've been calling for—that the Australian Labor Party politicians from Tasmania will be forcing the Australian Labor government to reverse these cuts and restore multipartisan support for this area. (Time expired) 16:55 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I am really pleased to be able to stand up here and allay the concern that Senator Duniam says that he has over the funding of the Australian Antarctic Division. It has been put to me that this MPI is just a stunt by the Liberals, looking for a headline, without thinking of the workers that they may be worrying. So I'm glad to be standing up here to say that there have been no cuts to the $804 million budget for the Antarctic Division—not a cent. So now I've alleviated the concerns of Senator Duniam. There will be no job cuts. Senato 264449 That's not what the CPSU said. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Well, I've spoken to the CPSU, Senator Chandler. But there are no job cuts. In fact, more people will gain full-time employment. I can hear the cheers from the other side! What happened here is that there was significant funding for the commissioning of a world-class Antarctic science ship. The money dedicated to the Nuyina has been spent—and I'm sure Senator Duniam has seen the ship docked in Hobart. Tasmanians know the sad truth is that, under the former coalition government, Australia's Antarctic program was irresponsibly managed, and, as a result, since the election of the Albanese government we've had two separate inquiries into the program in less than a year, both of which were into cultural issues occurring within the division. This government's priority when it comes to the Antarctic Division—I'm glad to let Senator Duniam and all those that are interested in this MPI and the Antarctic Division know—comes down to two things: (1) supporting critical science and (2) supporting permanent, good jobs in Tasmania. Labor has always valued and properly funded scientific research and, particular to this matter of public importance, Antarctic research. Since the election of Bob Hawke, Australia has been a global leader on the Antarctic, ensuring that all Antarctic activities remain consistent with the principles of peace, science and environmental protection. Our world-leading scientific work in the Antarctic enables us to better understand the world around us and has provided us insights into climate science that can be gleaned nowhere else. The government has given clear assurances—and I give them again today—that there are no cuts to the $804 million budget for the Antarctic Division. The government has also been given assurances by the Australian Antarctic Division that there is no plan for redundancies. In fact, a number of contractors are being transitioned into secure, permanent jobs, and the critical, world-leading science will continue. The work is essential work. While the Liberals and Nationals are still over there on the opposition benches, unable to reach a unanimous decision that climate change is real, the government is getting on with the job. I hope that so far Senator Duniam's concern has been alleviated. If the former government were still in power, the Australian Antarctic Division would be millions of dollars worse off, having faced a reduction in funding in the year 2022-23. That is information from the former government's own budget papers, which show a funding cut of $33 million from the years 2021-22 to 2022-23. The budget papers give black-and-white evidence that under our government funding over the coming years is higher than funding for every year under the coalition's last budget. Further, in 2022-23 the Australian government spent over $32 million delivering Antarctic science, which is a $3 million increase on the prior year. The Liberals spent nine years in government undermining Australia's scientific research capacity all to avoid the inconvenient truth that the planet is warming. (Time expired) 17:00 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I think those workers and scientists at the Australian Antarctic Division watching us today would be hoping that we can put the politics aside just for a minute on something this important. Senator Brown says there have been no budget cuts or the government hasn't implemented any budget cuts, and that is true. But what Senator Brown and the government know is that the Antarctic Division is having to find $25 million in budget savings because $25 million has gone missing from its budget. I have seen the internal email from the CEO saying they had to cut their operating budget—cut their operating budget—by 16 per cent in every division to find these savings. You're being a little bit cute with the language, but can we just focus on what the workers and scientists are facing? The government says it is committed to funding critical science programs, but underline the word 'critical'. We also know from that division that a number of science programs, potentially many dozens of them, are being cancelled because somehow under this new regime they're not considered critical. Go tell that to an early career scientist, potentially a young woman who's been waiting for her turn to get down there on the ice in the very brief six-week window they had this summer to conduct a program she's probably working with scientists around the world on. No, been canned because we have to find $25 million. We will get to the bottom of what happened, whether it was mismanagement or whatever it was, but we know the reality is the Antarctic Division is having to cut its budget, including its operating budget. If we support science and we prioritise science, surely we can find the $25 million to make sure that all these scientists can actually have the funding they need to do the work at one of the most critical times, may I say also, in human history. There was an excellent article in the international Guardian today asking, 'Is the climate crisis finally catching up with Antarctica? Finding the answer has never been more pressing.' This is talking about mapping the sea floor around Antarctica. Do you know we've only mapped 12 per cent of our Antarctic territory? Until we do that, we can't estimate the impacts that sea ice melting will have on sea level rise. Apparently—and I have seen the spreadsheet—that is one of programs that's been canned, Senator Brown, mapping the sea floor off Antarctica. This is critical. We come in here and play politics and use semantics or what's commonly called 'spin' to try to avoid responsibility. Can we please all work together on getting a solution for the Australian Antarctic Division, so they have funding certainty and they can hire more people, including many young women who have been waiting in that boys' club down there to have their turn to do their science programs? 17:03 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Australia has a proud history of longstanding scientific research in Antarctica, and Tasmania has a proud history as Australia's gateway to the frozen continent. But all of this is now under threat because of this Labor government's proposed cuts to the Australian Antarctic Division. News of this proposed $25 million cut appears to have come completely out of the blue, and we know it's having a devastating impact on the morale of people who work at the Australian Antarctic Division and will potentially have a devastating impact on their operations if this cut comes to fruition. A cut of $25 million represents almost 16 per cent of the Australian Antarctic Division's operational budget. Like I said, this has come as a real shock not only to the people who work at the Australian Antarctic Division, the AAD, but also to the broader Tasmanian community, particularly in the south of the state near the AAD's headquarters in Kingston. In fact, Labor never once mentioned or alluded to any cuts to the AAD in the lead-up to last year's election. I think the potential of this $25 million cut really does bring into question this Labor government's commitment to scientific research and our country's caretaking responsibilities in Antarctica. Australia's Antarctic territory spans 42 per cent of the continent. With custodianship of such a substantial territory, and a long historical connection dating back to the expedition of Sir Douglas Mawson, Australia has taken on a significant leadership role Antarctica. As an Australian, I'm very proud of that. And as a Tasmanian I'm very proud of that, because Tasmania certainly plays its part in this regard. We have set the example of responsible custodianship and sensitive scientific research in Antarctica. We know this place needs to be treated with care, and we need to ensure we protect and preserve the ice content into the future. Any cut to our resourcing of the Australian Antarctic Division lessens our role and obligation to Antarctica. As one of the 12 original signatories of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959, we cannot afford to minimise our responsibilities to Antarctica, especially when concerns have been raised about the intentions of other nations to exploit Antarctica for natural resources. Maintaining a presence on the continent to ensure that Antarctica is protected from any such exploitative activity is essential. With Labor's proposed cuts to Antarctic funding, one has to ask the question: is this now under threat? In highlighting Tasmania's important role as the gateway to Antarctica, I think it's also important for the chamber to understand the depth of the island state's involvement in Australia's broader Antarctic activities. In Hobart, we are used to seeing icebreakers berthed on the waterfront. The orange hulk that was the Aurora Australia was always a prominent sight at the docks, transferring essential equipment and supplies as well as intrepid expeditioners to and from the icy continent. Of course, we have the new icebreaker in Hobart as well. The AAD is headquartered and operated out of the current location in Kingston, which, as I said earlier, is in the south of the state. It makes sense for our foremost agency responsible for our Antarctic operations to be based in the state with the closest proximity to Antarctica. The AAD's presence in Tasmania, coupled with our proximity to the continent, has seen the island state become a hub of Antarctic scientific research. Tasmania is also home to some of our nation's foremost manufacturers of Antarctic equipment. Elphinstone, based in Triabunna on the east coast, has been designing and manufacturing Antarctic equipment since 1985. The company manufactures a wide variety of sleds and other equipment used in Australia's Antarctic operations. I've been fortunate enough to tour Elphinstone and see firsthand their exceptional work to design and build equipment that needs to withstand the harsh conditions. This business is an absolute testament to Tasmanian ingenuity and expertise when it comes to the Antarctic. What do the government's proposed cuts to the AAD mean for companies like Elphinstone, which provide services and equipment to support the AAD's ongoing mission in Antarctica? I would be very interested to know. In conclusion, Tasmania is well and truly ingrained in Australia's Antarctic story. It makes it more astounding that the Labor government would even entertain a budget cut which will only reduce Australia's and Tasmania's Antarctic involvement. News of the proposed $25 million cut has caused much unease and anxiety among Australia's Antarctic community, particularly in southern Tasmania. It is time for this government to guarantee that Tasmania will continue to be our Antarctic gateway. 17:08 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The government needs to come clean on the $25 million missing from the Australian Antarctic Division in Hobart. Taking any money out of this very important agency is—I don't have any words for it—it's just ridiculous. Not only does it threaten jobs and very important science that happens there; let's talk about national security, shall we? Listen to this, Tasmanians: China's on our tail; here it comes! This sends a clear message to China that the government—the government that's so big on national security!—has taken its eye off the ball already. China has permanently occupied Antarctic stations and is currently building a new one in the Ross Sea region. Experts say this new one will have a satellite ground station, which will mean the Chinese Communist Party can hack into the satellite communications of other countries. Don't worry, Tassie, we're closest, and the red team is cutting funding for the Antarctic Division! Seriously! It reminds me of when the blue team went and leased the Port of Darwin to China. Come on red team—come clean and tell us what's going on with this funding. We want to know. 17:09 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Listening to those opposite speaking on this MPI is quite spectacular—their dedication over the last 20 minutes to science compared to their lack of any form of dedication or commitment to science over the last nine years when they were in government. This is just a stunt. Their history tells us that they have no credibility in this space. They undermined any form of climate action, saying, 'Question the science,' every single time. 'Question the science.' They repealed the climate policies that were in place; joked about our Pacific island neighbours going under water, as if that's funny; sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; hid the State of the environment report; refused to act on the critical Samuel review; tried 22 different energy policies, failed—nothing, nada. Nothing happened there at all. And they voted against the safeguard mechanism et cetera. I could go on. Just to be clear, echoing the words of Senator Brown, there are no cuts to the Antarctic Division. The fact is the budget is going up every year for the next three years. We are working very hard to clean up the mess left behind by the Liberals, by the coalition government, that, over a lengthy and painful nine years, put the Antarctic program into a whole lot of distress. It was so badly managed. Our priority, the Albanese Labor government's priority, is to support critical science, to support permanent jobs, especially in Tasmania. Australia has been a global leader in the Antarctic, ensuring that all Antarctic activities remain consistent with the principles of peace, science and environmental protection. That's where we're at. The sad truth is that the program, previously, was irresponsibly managed, and that leaves our program of critical science at risk. Our scientists are doing terrific research—the Denman Glacier, the million-year ice core, the ice cap, greenhouse gases in the southern atmosphere and so much more. This is essential work, and it's essential work that is based out of Tasmania. While the coalition, the Liberals and Nationals, on those benches opposite were in government, they were unable to reach any form of unanimous decision that climate change is real. Yet, such a significant amount of the research that we have going on in the Antarctic is about just that. We are seeing warming, and that has a profound impact on the Antarctic. The minister has been given clear assurances by the Australian Antarctic Division that there is no plan for redundancies, that a number of contractors are going to be transitioning into secure permanent jobs and that the critical science is going to continue. Senator Brown has already said in this debate that she has spoken to the CPSU and has confirmed some of these issues. Just to be clear, in 2022-23 we spent over $32 million delivering Antarctic science, which was an increase from the 2021-22 year. The last season in the Antarctic set some amazing groundwork for the programs that will be delivered in the next few years. This season we will see a couple of critical pieces of work—some critical work at the Bunger Hills and also the 2.8 kilometre drill down to collect ice cores that are more than a million years old. Scientists will test the tiny air bubbles trapped in the ice so their studies can continue, and we can learn more and develop more in terms of where we are at and what's happening in the Antarctic. Our Antarctic Division does incredible work, and Australia has long played a critical leadership role in the Antarctic, and that will continue. Nothing is going to stop. 17:14 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Labor must not cut the budget that supports our presence in the Australian Antarctic Territory. We must support our presence through enhanced research and enhanced infrastructure. To not do so opens the gates to other nations' claims over a part of our territory. Australia, as one of the original Antarctic Treaty signatories, lays claim to the largest portion of the Antarctic continent based on Australia's significant role in the early days of Antarctic exploration and Australia's proximity to the continent. China already has four bases within our Australian Antarctic Territory for research, mapping, communication and resources, which are all vital to China. Based on China's investment and activity, when the treaty is up for reconsideration in 2048, China will lay claim to Australia's portion of Antarctica. When we cut the budget, our future claims will not be treated seriously if we do not treat our own claims seriously now. This is a matter of security, productive capacity and human progress. One Nation will always put Australia's interests first. 17:15 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I'm in a minority here as I'm not one of the Tasmanian speakers who has addressed this issue. But I also rise to speak with some concern about maintaining an appropriate focus on and investment in our Antarctic endeavours—and, importantly, a clear statement of intent in terms of our investment. Many others have spoken during this debate about the science, so I'm not going to go to the science. However, I do want to highlight the importance of the Antarctic Treaty System in keeping the Antarctic region and its oceans free from militarisation and exploitation of resources, things which are critical to Australia's national security as well as to the fish stocks and other mammals that feed on those fish in the southern oceans. The Labor Party and the members here claim there are no cuts. If they wish to use that terminology that's fine, but we know from the emails from the leadership of the Australian Antarctic Division that they are having to manage with $25 million less. Don't call it a cut if you prefer not to, but the division has $25 million less to pursue its programs. That reminds me of the precedent we've seen in areas affecting national security, including the Defence budget this year, where there was a lot of discussion about the urgency and the agreement of the 2020Defence Strategic Update. Yet when independent observers such as ASPI, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute—who have long done well-respected, independent analyses of the Defence budget—looked at the papers they said that there has actually been a $1.5 billion cut over the next three years in the Defence budget. So the Labor government can say one thing, yet independent experts, whether it be the head of AAD or ASPI, look at their budgeting and say that the agencies concerned have less money to do their job with. In Defence's case it's because the inflationary pressures around the cost of operating Defence continue to go up. So in real terms the ASPI assessment is correct in that Defence has $1.5 billion less to do the vital job of protecting Australia's national interests. The significance of the investment and the work in the Antarctic is that when the whole treaty system is up for renegotiation—of which Australia is a founding member and a major player, with a claim of 42 per cent over the Antarctic continent—the amount of investment and activity on the continent will be a critical factor in determining the validity and strength of those claims. That's why the Australian Antarctic strategy and the 20-year action plan, which was released last year in 2022, call to expand the logistical capabilities and critical research in the Antarctic ice sheet, to lead new research so as to improve our understanding, to fund new capabilities in infrastructure and to continue working closely with other Antarctic nations through the Antarctic Treaty System. If the head of the Australian Antarctic Division is flagging that they have $25 million less then clearly those objectives will not be not met. Contrary to the assertions of those opposite, under the former government there was some $800 million provided over 10 years to strengthen scientific and strategic capabilities for Antarctic work. Some of those measures included $136 million to support Australia's inland traverse capability, critical charting activities and mobile stations as well as other core activities of the division. There was $109 million to increase aerial and inland capabilities and $44 million for additional shipping to support the RSV Nuyina to focus on extended science, as well as, as part of our inland capability, $35 million for medium-lift helicopters—which, as a former professional helicopter pilot, I think is a wonderful investment. It highlights the fact that the coalition put its money where its mouth was and invested in those enabling capabilities that secure our long-term position in the international community in this critical continent. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The time for this discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS Australian Sports Commission 71 17:21 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the document. As a former sports minister, the co-captain of the parliamentary netball team and a sad netball tragic for way too many decades, it is with great pleasure that I stand to take note of the Australian Sports Commission's corporate plan, which followed on from Sport 2030, a sports plan for this nation to focus on participation, to focus on integrity, to focus on sport's role in international diplomacy and also to focus on sports ability and our elite athletes. Last night, at about 3.30 am, the Australian Diamonds once again became world champions of netball. They've reclaimed all three pieces of silverware that have been missing from our trophy cabinet during the last four-year cycle: the Commonwealth Games gold medal—that was a very sweet victory; the Constellation Cup trophy; and now the Netball World Cup. It's a momentous victory, particularly as our own domestic competition here, as the elite competition in the world, has developed so many other players that we witnessed through the World Cup being held in South Africa over recent weeks. The Jamaican team, who have the bronze medal; the English team; the New Zealand team; our own Diamonds; Malawi—a whole raft of international teams are having their elite athletes progressed and developed by competing in our own domestic competition here in Australia. That's to take nothing away from the Australian Diamonds, their coaches and their support staff. All have worked so hard for them to regain the crown. Their captain, Lizzie Watson, is a very proud Vixen, I might say, and her leadership on the court was outstanding. We are all incredibly proud of this squad of women, and I'm very proud that netball is uniquely placed when we talk about women's sport. It has the highest participation in sport in the country; 874,000 women and girls participate in netball across Australia, which makes it the biggest sport for women and girls. But it's not just women and girls; if you want to be an elite coach, netball is the pathway for you as a woman. If you want to administrate sport, it is administrated by women. It is unique among sporting offerings in the world and it offers women the opportunity to be community participants and volunteers, to be elite athletes and to be sports administrators and, indeed, coaches. I know we're all hoping the Matildas do great against Denmark tonight, of course, but we have a world championship team here in the Diamonds. We know that netball allows specific and unique opportunities for girls and women to develop their skill sets in the sports industry more generally. I really want to thank all the volunteers who've gone to all the clubs around all the country towns and suburbs of our great country to make sure that that pathway for female athletes to stand up and be proud Australians and win the gold medal is there. It takes a lot of time and a lot of effort with a lot of input from a lot of people. We're incredibly proud of you girls. We've been celebrating all day and we can't wait to see you get home and celebrate in person. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Before I give the call elsewhere, can I just remind you, Senator McKenzie, that even though there is some latitude at times of great pride in national teams, the wearing of a scarf such as that is perhaps not in order. 17:25 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales This is a most unusual topic for me to make a contribution on. I played netball for two seasons, and I broke my finger twice. It got in the way of school for me, so I thought I'd definitely give up netball and pay attention at school because that was a much happier place for me. I'm not a sportsperson, unlike Senator McKenzie, but the way in which sport lifts the spirit and the way in which female Australian athletes in the last little while have absolutely shown us how remarkable they are on the world stage is something to be truly, truly celebrated. In this place where there is so much contest in ideas and sometimes there can be an impression of division, it is really important for me to stand and associate myself with the remarks of Senator McKenzie on this fine occasion. It's a celebration of not just skill in sport but of the personal endeavour of people to go out and develop their capacity, of their families who backed them to make that happen and of the community volunteers who were there setting up things on the weekends so that these amazing Australian women could get prepared for what became their international performance of which the entire country is proud. I thank the chamber very much for the opportunity to make a contribution to the acknowledgement of the Diamonds and their great success today. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 72 BILLS Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 72

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023

First Reading 72 17:28 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 72 17:28 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This bill will give effect to Australia's international obligations arising out of two amendments to the London Protocol agreed to in 2009 and 2013. Australia is a Contracting Party to the London Protocol, on the prevention of marine pollution by sea dumping of wastes and other matter. This Bill would amend the Sea Dumping Act to implement Australia's international obligations under that London Protocol. I note that this enacting legislation was recently recommended by the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water in its recent inquiry into the London Protocol. The bipartisan committee, which included members from the Government, the opposition and the crossbench, found that ratifying these amendments would 'place Australia in good stead regarding its regional foreign policy objectives, given the clear interest from traditional trading partners.' Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard from experts such as Dr Constantinos Yiallourides of the Centre for Environmental Law. Dr Yiallourides recommended that this be ratified from a global environmental law perspective as it builds harmonsiation across borders and foregrounds any of these activities and other requirements in the London Protocol, which he acknowledges is the most specialised provisions that we currently have. I thank the Committee for their work. The Climate Change Authority has recently come to a similar conclusion. Noting in its recent policy paper that Australia's ratification of these amendments would promote consistency across international, national and subnational regulatory approaches to better enable cooperation on emissions reduction. The Sea Dumping Act regulates the loading, dumping and incineration of waste at sea and the placement of artificial reefs within Australian waters. It also prohibits disposal of material into the ocean that is considered too harmful to be released into the marine environment without a robust assessment and approval permitting process. Australia has agreed to the 2009 amendment to the London Protocol to enable the export of carbon dioxide (CO2) streams for the purpose of carbon sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations—also known as carbon capture and storage. In 2013, another amendment was adopted by the Contracting Parties to the London Protocol to allow regulation of the placement of wastes, or other matter, for legitimate scientific research activities into marine geoengineering, such as ocean fertilisation. Regulating this type of activity, though a robust application, assessment and approval permitting process, would ensure that only legitimate scientific research activities exploring options to reduce atmospheric CO2 can proceed. This amendment also provides for regulating other potentially harmful marine geoengineering research activities should they emerge in the future. These amendments ensure that legitimate scientific research institutions and other organisations will be able to conduct marine geoengineering research with legal certainty while ensuring the marine environment is protected from the impacts of those activities. While these amendments were agreed to by parties to the Protocol in 2009 and 2013 respectively, neither has yet entered into force. Once the Sea Dumping Act is amended to include the 2009 CO2 export amendment, Australia may deposit a declaration of provisional application to the International Maritime Organization as part of the ratification process. This means that Australia can start regulating both the import and the export of CO2 streams for sequestration into sub-seabed geological formations sooner, rather than waiting for the 2009 amendment to come into force for all parties internationally. Companies would be able to better plan for transboundary projects for carbon capture and storage into sub-seabed geological formations within a clear regulatory framework. Until then, this export activity is not permitted under the Sea Dumping Act. It is important to note that projects from domestic proponents are already allowed under existing Australian law. The Bill would also update the Sea Dumping Act by making minor consequential amendments to enable the effective implementation and enforcement of these new permits. It would also make minor technical amendments to clarify existing provisions in the Sea Dumping Act and adopt modern drafting practices. The regulatory framework for sequestration of CO2 into sub-seabed formations and scientific research for marine geoengineering activities will be comprehensive and include strict guidelines. In summary, these changes to the Sea Dumping Act will meet Australia's international obligations under the London Protocol. It will also protect and preserve the marine environment from potential environmental risks, through a robust, comprehensive and science based regulatory framework. Debate adjourned. BILLS 73 BILLS Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 73

Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023

Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 73 17:28 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I'm very pleased to rise today to support the passing of the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023. The bill's an integral step in following through on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The creation of an accountability mechanism is much needed to ensure the aged-care system is supporting and protecting older Australians. The Greens fundamentally believe that the federal government needs to play a central role in the funding, regulation and support of high-quality aged-care services. We believe that Australia's aged-care system should be underpinned by transparency and accountability. And whilst we hope to see the government go further in these areas, we commend the establishment of an independent accountability mechanism to monitor aged-care services. We welcome the submissions provided to the inquiry through the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry process and recognise the very useful input that was provided that informed the bill and its implementation. This process received unanimous support from the committee for the establishment of an independent inspector-general. However, there were organisations and community members who raised important concerns, recommending that the bill would benefit from a greater human rights' focus, a statutory framework for government responses and a role for the inspector-general in assessing individual complaints. A submission also made it clear that aged-care advocates are in favour of seeing the recommendations of the royal commission implemented swiftly. We heard from the Older Persons' Advocacy Network, who said: … OPAN strongly supports the critical role of the Inspector-General in calling out systemic issues and significant problems across the aged care system and making recommendations to Government for improvement. OPAN continued: We believe the Bill provides for significantly increased system accountability and transparency through reporting to Parliament and maintaining a strong focus on implementation of Royal Commission recommendations. We strongly support the Inspector-General of Aged Care having powers to deal with complaints about the Department of Health and Aged Care, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, and the Aged Care Financing Authority. Similarly, Aged and Disability Advocacy Australia said: ADA supports the stated objectives of the legislation, particularly, to implement the identified recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (the Royal Commission) which relate to the establishment and operation of the office of the Inspector-General, and the role of this office in ensuring accountability and transparency into the aged care system as well as bringing about positive systemic change. They continued: The described role of Inspector-General and stated responsibilities are supported by ADA, to facilitate these objectives. In particular, the need for independent oversight and monitoring is urgently required. Additionally, and as set out in the Bill, the office must be equipped with necessary powers of review, monitoring and reporting. Appropriate information gathering authority will be necessary to obtain information relevant and necessary to the role being able to fulfil its mandate in accordance with the objective of the proposed legislation. The Aged Care Rights Advocacy Service submitted: ARAS appreciates the work undertaken to date by the former and current Australian Governments in the continuation of implementing the 148 recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. ARAS also welcomes the Inspector-General's role in providing oversight in the implementation of the recommendations, including the operationalisation and performance of the reforms with respect to their effectiveness in the delivery of safe and high-quality aged care services. It is clear this is an area of urgent need for the sector. Without an appropriate independent accountability mechanism in place, many older people have suffered with inadequate care. The welcome and fundamental introduction of the inspector-general will provide an imperative function in monitoring and investigating an historically fraught system. There is a lot of support for this bill. I'm hopeful to see further work to see the government support our call for the inspector-general to undertake greater scrutiny of the implementation of the royal commission recommendations, and the scope of need for systemic advocacy in the aged-care system needs to be matched with regular and thorough evaluation. I look forward to working with the government as well as advocates and community members to see future legislation that enhances the rights and protections of older Australians. Of course, there is far more work that needs to be done to enact all the recommendations of the royal commission and to ensure that older people have access to appropriate, affordable and diverse aged-care services. I'm confident we will be able to work together with the government to take a rights based approach to aged care that maintains and promotes dignity, independence and quality of life. The Greens have made a number of recommendations regarding missing elements of this bill, and I am looking forward to continuing to advocate for a more fully empowered and functional accountability mechanism. I will also continue to advocate for a clear focus on the rights of older people in line with the recommendations of the royal commission. Older Australians are consistently left vulnerable by institutional betrayal and unaccountable structures. The royal commission highlighted the lack of responsibility and accountability challenging the rights of older people. The exclusions of an individual complaints function and publication of regular updates are clear drawbacks of this legislation. I will be continuing to advocate to government to respond to all of the relevant recommendations of the royal commission. We need to see a high-quality, affordable aged-care system built on a rights foundation. This legislation, sadly, doesn't go far enough to embed a rights approach, but the Greens will continue to advocate for it. In particular, I look forward to a strong human rights basis in the new aged-care legislation. In conclusion, I commend the government for the work that's been done to reflect the community's needs and to produce this bill. This reform is urgently needed and will be of crucial significance in the lives of countless older Australians, their families and their carers. I would like to thank Senator Marielle Smith for her work in chairing the committee's inquiry and engaging a variety of aged-care advocates and service providers to share their experiences and expertise. I'm pleased to be sharing the Greens' support for this legislation. It will improve people's lives. It's much needed and will have a major impact on older Australians. I can foreshadow that we will move an amendment during the Committee of the Whole stage of the bill, for which we are hoping for government support, reflecting our prioritisation of regular monitoring and evaluation, which is an issue we will continue to advocate for. I also now want to foreshadow Senator Thorpe's second reading amendment. Senator Thorpe, who is unwell, has asked me to share what she wished to contribute to the debate on this aged-care legislation. Senator Thorpe says: We are in an Aged Care crisis and our Elders suffer as a result of it. Taking care of our Elders is an essential part of any society. Our Elders have cared for us when we needed it, and it is our responsibility to care for them as they need us in the later stages of life. Everyone deserves to age in dignity. The Royal Commission has clearly outlined the problems prevalent in the Aged Care system currently and what needs to be done to reform it, including the establishment of the role of Inspector General of Aged Care as per recommendation 12 of the final report. Senator Thorpe wants us to know that she is strongly in support of this establishment. She says: The Governor General for Aged Care will be responsible for the oversight of the aged care system. The reform of that system i fully dependent on the new Aged Care Act, which we do not have in front of us yet. Senator Thorpe continues: I would like to underline the importance of recommendations 2 and 3 of the Royal Commission for the new Aged Care Act and therefore the work of the Inspector General. These recommendations outline the rights of older people seeking aged care and the key principles to underline the Aged Care Act respectively. They go to the heart of the reforms the Aged Care system needs to provide respectful, comprehensive and culturally safe care for our Elders to live in safety and comfort and lead self-determined lives connected to their loved ones. The system should always be guided by our Elders, their needs and wishes. That was Senator Thorpe's contribution. At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to commit to ensuring the rights and principles outlined in recommendations 2 and 3 of the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety underpin the development of the new Aged Care Act, and through the new Act, guide the Inspector-General of Aged Care's oversight of the aged care system". 17:38 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 and the Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. The bills amend the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 to ensure information can be shared with the inspector-general for the purpose of carrying out its functions. The bills also amend the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 to require that a person having already been investigated by the inspector-general can only be investigated by the commission where it is in the public interest to do so. Finally, the bills provide for the transitional arrangements to move from interim administrative arrangements within the department to the statutory inspector-general. These bills are another historic moment in the Albanese Labor government's election commitment to bring transparency, accountability and quality back into the aged-care sector and every residential aged-care home across the country. We have continued on this path since taking office. It has been historic. The Albanese Labor government has been busy putting nurses 24/7 back into the aged-care sector and pushing for—and securing, I might add—a very important but historic 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers across the country. It must be noted that this pay rise, which everyone in aged care deserves, was opposed by the Liberals and Nationals, which is an absolute, utter disgrace. I would like to see those opposite work for a day in an aged-care home to see whether or not they think a pay rise for aged-care workers is necessary. Having walked in the shoes of aged-care workers on a number of occasions since being in this place, I can tell you that they certainly deserve that pay rise. I also note the work of the minister, the Hon. Mark Butler, who, when we were last in government, actually built the foundations for reform to this sector, and what we saw from the Liberal-National government over the last almost decade was a government that failed to take responsibility, failed to build on that framework and failed to develop policy that was going to ensure that we had a very strong, skilled workforce and ensure that this sector was funded going forward. This is what delivering for the aged-care sector looks like, and we had to wait for an Albanese Labor government to be elected to deliver on that. I hope that those opposite have not forgotten—I know the Australian people have not forgotten—that it was Mr Scott Morrison who cut $1.2 billion from the aged-care sector and used it as an ATM. That's the record of the former Liberal-National government. This is the same former Prime Minister who called a royal commission into his own government's failings. Those opposite had a very long time, almost 10 years, to fix the aged-care sector and they failed. It cannot be sugar-coated; they just didn't care. All they cared about was being in government for the sake of being in government. They were not actually focused on delivering better policy outcomes for their fellow Australians. During the Abbott government, there wasn't even a specific minister for aged care or a minister with 'aged care' in their title. That's what the former prime minister Tony Abbott thought of aged care and that important sector. Under Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison there were four failed ministers who oversaw a sector in need of urgent reform. Can those opposite recite the names of those four failed aged-care ministers? I can. Who could forget former minister for aged care, Mr Greg Hunt; the former failed minister Richard Colbeck; the failed former minister Ken Wyatt; and, now, the illustrious, uneventful, unimaginative deputy opposition leader, Sussan Ley. They all failed, and why did they fail? It was because they didn't care. They didn't understand the sector and they didn't want to understand the issues because they had no capacity to bring the sector forward and ensure, as I said, that we had the skills and the workforce to take this sector forward. Importantly, these bills establish an independent inspector-general of aged care who will impartially monitor and investigate the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of aged care. We are a transparent government, unlike the former Morrison government and the former Prime Minister's secretly held portfolios—secret from the public and secret from the ministers themselves; the former Prime Minister assumed those responsibilities, named himself a minister and didn't even bother to tell those ministers that he'd taken over their responsibilities. As a government, we want to ensure that the aged-care sector is equally transparent. It is so important. As recommended by the royal commission, the inspector-general will look at serious and ongoing problems associated with the design and operations of the aged-care sector and will specifically look at issues that are complex and interconnected and that have not been addressed adequately. This is really important work. The bill also provides the inspector-general with powers to monitor and report on the implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission, which is crucial. Remember that report? The title: Neglect. The onus of neglect firmly sits with those on the opposite side of this chamber. As a government, in the words of the Minister for Aged Care, the Hon. Anika Wells: An inspector-general who will report their findings and recommendations to government, to parliament, and to the public, to instil greater accountability and transparency across the aged-care system, and, in turn, facilitate positive change for older Australians and their families. That's something that should be welcomed by all. We're an ageing population. We're a rich nation; therefore, we should have the best possible aged-care sector. But after nine years of neglect, it's now time for the adults to be in charge and change the culture of a sector in need of attention. Aged care plays an important role in the lives of our loved ones. It is a large, complex system that involves agencies and a range of programs and policies designed to care for and support Australians as we age. The inspector-general's functions can be broadly seen as monitoring, reviewing and reporting. An independent oversight means understanding what is going on across the aged-care system as a whole. The bill enables the inspector-general to use their information-gathering powers to monitor decisions, programs, operations and funding under the aged-care laws, to maintain a comprehensive understanding of what is occurring, what trends are emerging, what systematic issues are prevailing and what insights can be seen from a holistic point of view. The bill also sets out a broader framework for the inspector-general to investigate systemic issues through targeted reviews, to give assurances to the public and aged-care government bodies on the priorities of the inspector-general. The bill requires the inspector-general to publish a work plan each year. The review framework focuses on transparency and procedural fairness at its core. The inspector-general will report on more than just their reviews. The inspector-general may, at their discretion, report on the outcomes of their ongoing monitoring and reporting, publicly and to the parliament, on whether the aged-care sector is meeting the objectives of the aged-care legislation, where Australian government bodies are performing in a way that enables an effective aged-care system and whether they are driving excellence. The bill also empowers the inspector-general to report to the government, to the parliament and to the public about the progress of implementing recommendations of the royal commission. Progress reports from the inspector-general will occur annually to ensure that the aged-care reform that we desperately need remains a priority. It's a priority of this government, unlike those who held the reins and the government benches over almost 10 years. We want to see this change because we understand how important aged care is. The aged-care sector—we've got to remember not everyone ends up in a residential home—is more than just residential care. It's providing in-home support as well for our senior Australians. This bill and future bills will put aged care at the top of the Albanese Labor government's agenda. Senior Australians are at the top of the Albanese government's agenda. Why? Because we understand. We've been listening to the sector, and we've been listening to members of the community. It makes sure that the royal commission isn't just another report without any tangible outcomes attached to it. We will ensure that the royal commission's report does not gather dust like the 27 reports that were brought down under the previous Liberal-National governments. On their watch, we had inquiry after inquiry talking about the failings of the aged-care sector. We had reports looking into the workforce and the challenges in attracting people to work and to care for older Australians. They fell on deaf ears. They gathered dust. We on this side understand the significant part that aged care plays in our communities and how important it is. I have faith in our minister and I have faith in our government that we will change the culture of aged care in this country. I have faith that the minister, the Hon. Anika Wells, will deliver the outcomes for the Australians who so desperately rely on having a government who understands and who cares about their wellbeing and that we will help continue that transition of the aged-care sector, which was built when we were last in government, as I said, by Minister Butler. We actually owe this to the Australian people. We owe it to every Australian who is ageing to ensure that the standard of aged care, whether it is in residential care or it's help they're getting to stay in their own home. After all, most people want help to stay in their own home for as long as they can. We also have to understand that those people who are now going into residential care are going in when their health has deteriorated. They need more care, so they need more specialist well-trained staff who are going to be able to give them the care that they need. I want to give a big shout-out to all the esteemed people like Professor June Andrews and other experts who talk about the care that is needed by older Australians and what is happening internationally. These are people that have studied and researched the issues in relation to ageing such as dementia and other degenerative diseases. This research is so important to our community, as it is to the international community. As I said before, Australia is a rich country. We are a lucky country, but we can't trust those opposite to care for and look after older Australians. That is very clear, and that is why we have to stay in government. That's why we're doing the work that needs to be done now, and that is why we are delivering on the election commitments that we gave, that we as a government were going to bring transparency and accountability back into the aged-care sector. I know that through the Prime Minister, the responsible minister and my caucus colleagues we will bring back accountability, transparency and quality care to the heart of aged care because that is what older Australians deserve. They deserve respect. They deserve to have the care that they need when they need it, whether it is to stay in their home longer or it is in residential aged-care homes. So much more should have been done by those opposite in the previous 10 years, but they failed because they didn't care. They weren't listening, they didn't care, it was all too hard. We now have a government under Anthony Albanese, Minister Anika Wells and Minister Mark Butler who care, as the caucus cares about older Australians. So we will deliver that transparency, that accountability, that respect and that dignity that every Australian deserves. It is just unfortunate that the only governments who ever deliver for older Australians with dignity and respect are Labor governments. That is why I am proud to be here as part of the Albanese Labor government who is delivering for older Australians. We're delivering good care and we're delivering accountability and transparency. 17:53 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland If only what Senator Polley said were true. It would be fantastic if that were true and Senator Polley's conclusion actually accorded with the facts. I'll get to the facts in more detail in my contribution, but the facts are that we know of at least 30 aged-care homes that have shut over the first year of this government's time in office and shut because of a botched decision the government made to enforce a 24/7 nurse requirement in aged-care homes. As I said, I will get into more detail on that, given its important in the aged-care sector, but I did want to say to begin with that the coalition does support this bill, the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023, and the other piece of legislation within this package. We always support measures that are going to help ensure that there is greater oversight and the establishment of performance standards in the aged-care sector. Of course, this bill—an inspector-general of aged care—is a recommendation from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. It was the former coalition government that established that royal commission, and we accepted their recommendations, including this one, recommendation 12. So we're proud to ensure the passage of this bill and see this established. We do believe the creation of an inspector-general is important to ensure that the aged-care sector remains supported, and the core function of the inspector-general will be to improve the transparency and accountability across our aged-care system through monitoring, reviewing and publicly reporting on systemic issues. Obviously, we've seen some systemic issues come to light before, during and following the royal commission. While an inspector-general won't be able to stop all of those things happening, shining a greater light on these issues may help alleviate some of the harm that can occur or avoid their occurrence in the first place. The bill enables the inspector-general to use their information-gathering powers to monitor decisions, programs, operations and funding under aged-care laws to maintain a compressive understanding of what is occurring, what trends are emerging, what systemic issues are prevailing and what insights can be made from a holistic view. We support creating this inspector-general's independent arm, independent from the Department of Health, other government bodies and regulators. It's important for that independence to be maintained to ensure appropriate safeguards. I believe the government has appointed Mr Ian Yates as the Interim Inspector-General of Aged Care. He has long experience in the aged-care sector. I welcome, and I'm sure the coalition welcomes, that appointment. I note that the Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs has reported on this bill, and most submitters gave broad support to it, but there were some concerns noted—that the inspector-general should regularly consult with the aged-care sector and older people, particularly on the development of annual work plans. The opposition agrees this is critical to the role of the inspector-general to ensure that he or she understands the issues on the ground, not just those that come out of Canberra. There is a lot to support here, and I do hope this makes a difference in the aged-care sector, but there are some pressing concerns in the aged-care sector right now, especially one's that have been brought to me by my community of Central Queensland. My office was contacted just a few weeks ago, in the parliamentary winter recess, by some victims of a botched policy process from this government that has unnecessarily seen the closure of an aged-care home in Central Queensland. Mount Morgan is a proud town. It's got a venerable history as a town. It was once home to the biggest goldmine in the world. But, like many mining towns, once the mine goes, it's tough for the residents there. But they're hardy people, and still 2½ thousand people live at Mount Morgan. It's lucky enough to have an aged-care home—or does, for now, have an aged-care home. That's good for it. While it's relatively close to Rockhampton, it's still a 30- or 40-minute drive to the major town of Rockhampton. Those in an aged-care home—and their loved ones—quite often will have mobility issues, which makes moving even a 30- or 40-minute drive away a really big deal. These people contacted my office because, in the last month, the provider of aged-care services at Mount Morgan Carinity announced that they plan to close the aged-care home probably by Christmas this year because they simply can't comply with the new government's ill thought through measures to require a registered nurse to be on site 24 hours a day seven days a week. Let's put into context what this requirement means for a town like Mount Morgan. As I say, it has 2½ thousand people. They've got a small aged-care home; it's not large. The government is saying they need to have a registered nurse 24 hours a day seven days a week. Obviously, they'll only work eight-hour shifts or thereabouts, so immediately they will need three full-time registered nurses on their books. They won't work seven days a week though. They want to have weekends. There will also be holidays and absenteeism. I'm told by Carinity and others in this space that, to meet this requirement, they'd need to have five registered nurses on their books or thereabouts, even for a small aged-care home like the one at Mount Morgan. You're not going to get five registered nurses in Mount Morgan. It's not going to happen. It doesn't matter how long you wait. It doesn't matter what we do in skills development or all these things. It's 2½ thousand people. You are not going to get five registered nurses in Mount Morgan. It's just not going to happen. So the government's plan is to not have aged-care homes in towns of about 2½ thousand people. That is the absolute consequence of their policy. It's not a debate. It's not a matter of judgement. It's just not going to happen. All the residents that have contacted me love the aged-care facilities, they love the people they work with, they love being close to their relatives, but now they're going to have no aged-care home. I can understand the government's attempt to lift standards across the country. I'm not quibbling with that in the major cities, where getting a registered nurse to be there 24/7 should be possible. But for these small towns, why can't there be some flexibility? Why can't there be a little common sense applied so that people in small country towns aren't separated unnecessarily from their loved ones? I want to relay one story here that's been passed onto me. Not everyone that's contacted me wants their stories made public, I understand that, but I thank Ms Sealy for agreeing to have her story made public. Marlene Sealy is a long-term resident of Mount Morgan. She's 80 years old. Her husband, Fred, is 83 years old and he has dementia. He's been in the aged-care home for the last few years at Mount Morgan. Marlene lives just down the road from this centre. Mount Morgan is a small town. She normally visits her husband, Fred, six times a week. She can walk there. That, obviously, is lovely for Fred and Marlene to keep up their relationship as a long-term married couple. Now, the Mount Morgan facility is closing. As I said, it will probably close by Christmas. To give Carinity credit, it says it will stay open for as long as it needs to for residents to find alternative arrangements, but almost certainly, this means that Fred will have to go to Rockhampton, which is, as I say, a 35 or 40-minute drive away. Marlene doesn't have a driver's licence. There's, obviously, very limited public transport. In fact, it will take Marlene an hour-and-a-half to two hours each way to get a bus to Gracemere and change. It's multiple buses for an 80-year-old lady. She obviously won't be able to do that six times a week. So because of the government's policy—they will get up here and spruik, and say how wonderful it is—we've separated a long-term married couple, Marlene and Fred Sealy, who will make their last time on this planet terrible and horrible and miserable. That's what you've done. You could fix it overnight. I've written to the Minister for Aged Care asking her for some common sense. You could fix it, just give them an exemption. We know of apparently 30 across the country that have shut because of this requirement, so far. Give those aged-care homes in these country towns an exemption; it's not that hard. There are exemptions. The government senators might come back with their own exemptions. Let's go through those. It's ridiculous. They're not really exemptions; they're Claytons exemptions. These exemptions are only available to providers with fewer than 30 beds in certain Monash modified areas. I think Mount Morgan would qualify for this, but that doesn't matter because the exemption can only go for a year. They can only get exempt from the requirement until July next year, for one year. There are not going to be five registered nurses in Mount Morgan in a year's time. There won't be in five years or 10 years time or15 years time. It's not going to happen. Can somebody over there please explain to me how the people of Mount Morgan could somehow, magically, attract five registered nurses to their town? It's not going to happen. So why don't you give them an exemption for the long-term? Maybe the inspector-general could be given extra powers to give extra monitoring of these sites in country towns that have an exemption, to make sure standards are okay, that maybe they have a registered nurse there at least every 24 hours, not all 24 hours—something. I'm flexible. Why doesn't the government and the minister get their hands dirty and go to the country towns and work out a way forward for them, instead of this Pontius Pilate approach, where we wash our hands, 'It's got nothing to do with us. Marlene and Fred Sealy: who cares?' Sorry Marlene and Fred, you're just unfortunate perverse consequences of this ham-fisted and botched approach. Just give them a bloody exemption. How hard is it? I've written to the minister asking for that. We'll wait and see. But it gets worse. Apparently, those places that have an exemption have to report every 30 minutes that a registered nurse is not on site—I was told that, and someone can correct me if this wrong. They have to report to the regulator every 30 minutes! I believe Mount Morgan has an exemption for now because it's past the date, and it doesn't have a registered nurse 24/7, and these requirements came into effect in July this year. Mount Morgan is a small aged-care home in a country town. They don't have a lot of staff and they've got other things to do, but apparently the government wants them to call up every 30 minutes to say: 'We don't have a registered nurse.' And in 30 minutes time they call up and say: 'We still don't have a registered nurse.' In 30 minutes time, again: 'We still don't have a registered nurse.' What is this bureaucratic madness? Shouldn't we be focusing on the patients and the people so they're happy? No-one has called me to complain about what's happening in Mount Morgan. There are systemic issues and there are problems, but it doesn't seem like Mount Morgan is one of them. Why are we imposing these ridiculous constraints on small aged-care homes? The only thing requiring the country aged-care homes to do this every 30 minutes will mean is poorer patient outcomes, because while they're making the call or worrying if they've called or will call in the next 30 minutes they're not focusing on their patients in the aged-care home. It is absolutely crazy. I'd be very interested to know if any of the government senators have some talking points on this. I don't know if we'll get to the in committee stage on this, but if so I might ask questions about what advice they've had on the exemptions that have been put in place. Did they do any modelling or give any consideration to these smaller aged-care homes? Is there going to be a review of what's going on? Was there a regulatory impact statement done on this? What's been the evaluation? It seems to me to have terrible consequences, and this is not an area I've traditionally been heavily involved in. I'm happy to be corrected. I might be wrong about a number of things. I'm going off what I've been told and the limited research I've done since being contacted about this. I'm going to keep fighting for Marlene and Fred because it is just not bloody right in our country for people to be treated this way. There is clearly a way the government can meet its election commitment—and I don't begrudge that for the major cities—while providing reasonable and commonsense exemptions to smaller aged-care homes where people are happy, where they're near their families and where they are part of a community. The other thing to say here is that these smaller aged-care homes are part of the community and part of what makes towns like Mount Morgan great. Everybody knows everybody, they know who works there and they chip in and help out. Apparently we instead want everybody to have to move to a soulless corporate major city where they don't know everybody and spend the last few years of their life in complete, abject loneliness. I don't understand how anyone can defend this. Why don't you just fix it? It's not that hard. I don't know why Minister Wells doesn't just get her hands dirty. I'm not sure if she's travelled to any of these country towns. She's welcome to Mount Morgan any time to come and see what's happening. I know Marlene has said she's more than happy to speak to the minister, and I passed on her details to her. I hope something can be done about this, because it's about real people's lives and, as I say, there's an easy fix for it. At the end of my remarks, at the request of Senator Ruston I seek leave to move the opposition's second reading amendment on sheet 2052. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Canavan, we already have a second reading amendment before the chair, so you will have to move it after that question has been determined. You can foreshadow it, which I think you have. 18:08 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. The Albanese government hasn't wasted any opportunity to act on the systematic issues in the aged-care system that we inherited from the previous government. I must commend Minister Anika Wells, the industry and the unions—including the Health Services Union, the United Workers Union and the Nursing and Midwifery Federation—for their work in reforming this country's aged-care system to make it work better for those needing care and showing respect to the workforce. This includes responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which those opposite dragged their feet over while older Australians were being treated abhorrently and aged-care workers were being treated like second-class citizens. In our first year in government, we've embarked on more than 100 reform policies and projects in aged care. That's more than 100 reform projects in just 12 months. That includes legislating having registered nurses in aged-care homes 24/7; funding a 15 per cent pay increase for aged-care workers; introducing a star rating system so residents and families can make informed decisions about their choice of care; and increasing the amount of time of care each aged-care resident receives. Together, these measures will meaningfully improve conditions for both aged-care workers and older Australians receiving care, most importantly. This is despite the Liberals' and Nationals' attempts to slow the progress made by our government. We've been able to make lifechanging changes to the system for workers and older Australians, but there is still more to do. This bill allows for the appointment of an independent Inspector-General of Aged Care, which will drive accountability and transparency across the system. Accountability and transparency in aged care are key pillars of the promises we made to the Australian people, and this legislation is about holding ourselves to the same high standards we're asking of the sector. The inspector-general will be responsible for monitoring the administration and regulation of the aged-care sector as well as monitoring, reviewing and reporting to the minister, parliament and public the progress of implementing the recommendations of the royal commission report. Accountability and transparency in aged care would be concepts those opposite are unfamiliar with. They sat on the report of the royal commission for 18 months and took the title, Neglect, a little too literally. They presided over a worsening crisis in aged care which not only impacted older Australians but allowed for a race to the bottom of working conditions for those working in the sector. Through the Select Committee on Job Security, I heard from workers in aged care across the country about the systemic issues in aged care, including understaffing of facilities and workers pushed to their absolute breaking points. Tracey Colbert, an aged-care worker from Melbourne, described the strain placed on staff in the sector this way: Also, they took the ENs— enrolled nurses— out of our sector. So then the carers had to do the role of an EN, doing medications. When a carer is doing medications, it takes that carer off the floor. She went on to say: Therefore, the other person has to do the work of two people, while this person is doing medications. That could take half an hour to an hour, depending on how many residents you've got. In my area, we have 43 residents with only six carers. It's hard to understand why anyone—aged-care providers, government, workers or residents—would find this to be an acceptable norm within the system. While workers are being stretched as thin as humanly possible, they're simultaneously being subjected to insecure working arrangements within the sector. Through the job security committee, we heard so many witnesses express their anxieties about their work and cost-of-living pressures. Sheree Clarke, an aged-care nurse from Queensland, shared this: For me, personally, that insecure work has led to insecure housing. Because I've only got a 16-hour contract, I can't sign a lease. My anxiety levels wouldn't allow me to go to a higher rent, so I found myself living in a caravan park. We've seen this shoddy business model spread like wildfire across the sector, where aged-care workers are hired as part-time contractors with few if any guaranteed hours. That means their employer can move their shifts and their hours up and down at a whim, including cutting shifts for workers if they speak out on any issues, including quality of care. Keeping everybody desperate for hours puts people on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and you never get real time off. It means they are essentially casuals, only they don't get the 25 per cent loading. As the HSU national secretary, Lloyd Williams, put it: … the situation we have is that … employers offer employees low part-time hours and then expect workers to be on demand for additional hours. If you are subject to low part-time hours, you are desperate, then, for additional hours. I don't think the relationship becomes one of a voluntary nature, because of the financial circumstances that that worker is placed in. When we thought work conditions in the sector had hit rock bottom, up stepped the gig economy to drive standards down even further—gig platforms like Mable which pay their contractors below award wages, wages that would be illegal to pay to an employee. Mable has a business model built on paying workers below minimum wage while not providing employee benefits like leave or super or workers compensation. The previous government allowed for this to occur and then actually endorsed it. Instead of addressing the systemic issues in the sector or working through implementing the recommendations of the royal commission, they awarded Mable $7.2 million to provide surge staff in aged-care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic—which turned out to be such a disaster that it became a case study of the royal commission. Even employer groups have spoken out about the dangers of having platforms like Mable infiltrate the aged-care space. Charles Cameron, from the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association, told the job security inquiry: We're very concerned that vulnerable clients, or representatives of disabled or elderly clients, will not have the time to properly analyse or, indeed, understand that, when you source an individual through these platforms as an independent contractor, you're not engaging somebody even on a labour hire basis; you're simply being matched and introduced to them. We think that presents a large number of problems … I think it's fair to say that the community expects a high level of care for older Australians. The rise of Mable and other platforms is doing the exact opposite and sending care standards through the floor. I want to commend the Health Services Union for being at the forefront of the fight against gig workers and the gig economy being exploited. The Health Services Union national president, Gerard Hayes, said of the rise of the gig economy: 'It is fraught with danger.' He has been proven right by the royal commission. The royal commission rightly said that direct employment, not gig work, should be the workforce model in the sector. As Lauren Hutchins, from the Health Services Union, has said: If you look at some of these platforms, they are a combination of Tinder and Uber. You put your profile out there and people … then make a decision based on the information that is provided. What you don't see is that those workers themselves often don't have access to workers compensation. They certainly don't have access to any form of leave. The arrangements in terms of their pay are often pretty dodgy … This is why the workplace reforms the government will introduce later this year are so important. We cannot leave the welfare of our most vulnerable Australians in aged care or on the NDIS to the mercy of gig platforms. The introduction of this bill affirms and reinforces the Albanese Labor government's commitment to improving the standard of aged care in our country. This is about supporting aged-care workers in secure, well-paid and fair work to improve the standard of care for older Australians—something that was absolutely not a priority of those opposite. This bill is another step in restoring trust in the aged-care system, and I commend the government and the minister for their action in this space. 18:18 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Aged care is a critically important health service sector. It delivers pivotal services to older Australians. The sector assesses, protects and cares for our elderly as they adapt and realign their lives as they age. My home state of South Australia has the highest proportion of older people on mainland Australia, with more than 630,000 people over 50; that is 37 per cent of the population. In South Australia the majority of over-65s live independently at home. Only one in four people aged 55 and over live in care accommodation. There are 531 retirement villages with 26,000 residents. Aged care is important to every Australian as we all hope to age well and comfortably, and in SA there are many more of this cohort who should. The coalition believes that the establishment of an Inspector-General of Aged Care is important. This role would ensure the aged-care sector remains supported. The coalition will back this legislation to permanently establish the Inspector-General of Aged Care and associated statutory office. The establishment of an inspector-general implements recommendation 12 of the aged-care royal commission, which was supported by the coalition. To implement the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission, the former coalition government provided more than $19.1 billion to support the aged-care sector. It is appropriate that the Inspector-General of Aged Care monitors and investigates the Commonwealth's administration and regulation of the aged-care system. It is also important that the findings and the recommendations of the inspector-general are tabled in this parliament, providing greater accountability, transparency and understanding of the work that occurs across the aged-care system. Accountability and transparency will assist in leading to the achievement of better outcomes and will assist in identifying those who need greater focus on what they're doing. Accountability and transparency is important in every sector but particularly in the aged-care sector, where people are often fragile and more vulnerable. As the royal commission found, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not access aged care at a rate commensurate with their level of need. A combination of factors creates barriers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's access to the aged-care system—from social and economic disadvantage to a lack of culturally safe care and discrimination. Lack of access to aged-care services is further compounded by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's additional vulnerabilities from higher rates of disability, co-morbidities, homelessness and dementia. To feel secure and obtain culturally safe services, many, although not all, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people prefer to receive services from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations. What is needed is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people employed in the sector at greater levels and across the sector and others with high levels of cultural competency. The position of Inspector-General of Aged Care will provide the resources to cast a light on some of the most pressing challenges for the aged-care sector and in particular the services targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I acknowledge it is Aged Care Employee Day today and the work these carers do. Last week I met people working in the sector at the launch of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ageing and Aged Care Council here at Parliament House. It was good to talk to them about the aged-care sector. I congratulate the organisation for their advocacy for improvements in the ageing and aged-care sector because we know, of all the people eligible to access aged-care services, only 16 per cent of Indigenous people do so. I believe it is vitally important that elderly Indigenous people are afforded the same levels of care as other people. This really should be non-negotiable, with no excuses. Providers of aged-care services for Indigenous people must be held to the same level of scrutiny and accountability as mainstream services. Workforce shortages are putting serious pressure on Australia's entire healthcare system, and aged care is not immune to these workforce challenges. It is clear that this crisis is impacting on the viability of aged-care homes across our country, especially in regional areas. As Senator Ruston outlined in this place earlier today, the latest quarterly report from StewartBrown outlines the shortage in directly employed nurses and that it is increasing the demand for agency nurses, which is costing aged-care providers significantly more. Agency staff now cost providers $17.04 per bed per day. That's an increase of $9.86 per bed per day compared to the same period in 2022. So what's the Albanese government's plan to address this? This increase is clearly not sustainable for the aged-care providers who are trying to comply with government regulations. It is the reason why the coalition has been calling out for a whole-of-care-sector workforce plan. One-size-fits-all, that type of model, rarely, if ever, works. A city-centric model rarely, if ever, works. Whatever the model, it should allow sector operators to be flexible and innovative in how they deliver quality care to their communities, but that is not about being under the minimal standard. Instead of penalising, this government should look to incentivising providers to use new technologies like telehealth, and support the sector to value and upskill carers to perhaps become enrolled nurses, enrolled nurses to maybe become registered nurses and therefore remain and contribute to this very important sector. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that every aged-care home would have a nurse on site at all times by July 2023. As a result of this requirement being demanded a year earlier than recommended by the royal commission, under the Albanese Labor government's watch, aged-care homes are closing down. July 1 was a date that was dreaded by aged-care providers across the country, as Labor's 24/7 registered nurses requirement hit the sector amidst a glaring obvious already existing workforce crisis. As a consequence, elderly people have been forced to move away from their families and communities, all because Labor isn't flexible about staffing requirements during a workforce crisis. I have heard that in regional areas and directly from those in nursing homes. To the best of my knowledge, so far more than 30 homes around the country have tragically closed down, as they were not able to meet the government's legislated requirements. However, this government won't tell us. There is now transparency, and they are hiding the impact and the facts from the public. It is more than a month since this fast-track policy came into effect, and we know that it isn't just the rushed 24/7 registered nurse policy that has forced aged-care homes to close but there has been an extremely limited exemption criteria. For providers to become exempt from this requirement to have a registered nurse on site 24/7, they must report every 30 minutes or more that an RN was not on-site and/or not on duty and the reason an RN was not on-site and/or not on duty—seriously, every 30 minutes. Who thought of that one? Seriously, did the minister not think to seek clarity, ask what that actually looks like for a provider, for a resident? This additional burden on a sector that is caring for some of the most vulnerable people is crippling and closing some small regional, rural and remote providers. It is now time for the Prime Minister to step in so more aged-care homes do not close. It is for that reason that the coalition will move an amendment to encourage the inspector-general to immediately review the impacts of the government's expedited policy and to provide advice on how the sector could be better supported through the current workforce shortages. Of course the coalition supports older Australians receiving the best care possible, but bringing forward the royal commission's time lines and imposing rigid constraints on the sector is reckless, damaging and hurtful. We heard Senator Canavan giving some examples earlier. The opposition supports the independence of the inspector-general and endorses the separation of the inspector-general from the Department of Health and Aged Care and the other government bodies responsible for administering and regulating aged care. This is an important safeguard that guarantees the impartiality required to monitor, investigate and report on systemic issues across the aged-care system. Finally, I note the number of submissions during the consultation period of this legislation that are supportive of the establishment of the inspector-general but that also mentioned additional matters relating to the implementation of royal commission recommendations. The royal commission recommended that the governance of the aged-care system be subject to ongoing scrutiny and that is why it is so important the inspector-general is empowered to review these government agencies to oversee their performance and their decisions. When I travel to aged-care facilities right across the country, I'm consistently told about the complexity of the current aged-care system, especially around the complaints mechanism. The coalition is pleased to see that within the explanatory memorandum of the legislation that the inspector-general will also focus their attention on reviewing existing complaint mechanisms. The inspector-general will also consider how complaints, both from consumers and providers, are currently handled and will provide recommendations to ensure systems are continually improving and operating fairly and effectively. But it shouldn't just rely on people making complaints; it should also rely on assessments to identify if there are any issues. Noting the significant proportion of royal commission recommendations that were due to be implemented within five years, the coalition considers it prudent that the inspector-general provides interim reports on the status of implementation of the recommendations. This should occur annually and be tabled in parliament up until the five-year comprehensive report into the implementation of the recommendations is finalised. The coalition will support an amendment to this effect, as we believe it is important the Department of Health and Aged Care and the government are held accountable for the changes they make through an independent body. The coalition implores the government to start listening to the sector and stop imposing regulation that is forcing aged-care homes to close and having a negative impact on the families that love the residents who live in them. Older Australians deserve better; they deserve our respect and the right to age with dignity in their communities, surrounded by the love and care of their families. 18:31 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I rise to support the Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. This bill is another step in our journey to fix aged care, something we are absolutely committed to for the wellbeing of our older Australians and the workers who care for them. This bill makes consequential and provisional amendments to Commonwealth laws to support the establishment of the Inspector-General of Aged Care. It ensures information can be shared with the inspector-general for the purpose of carrying out its functions. This bill also amends the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 to require that, where a person is being investigated by the inspector-general, they can only be investigated by the commission if it is in the public interest. Finally, this bill ensures arrangements for the departmental interim administration. As a Labor senator, I am really proud of this bill and of this government for acting—for taking action after years of neglect. We are committed to getting this right. We are dedicated to this work, because we know that it's the right thing to do. I want to acknowledge the years of campaigning from union members across the country on this issue. You were not listened to by the previous government, but we are listening now, and we hear you loud and clear. You deserve to be recognised for the important work you do, and the industry needs to be fixed so that older Australians receive the care they deserve as well. I'm proud to stand in solidarity with United Workers Union members, in this instance and on every day they fight for their workplace rights. I would like to extend a warm, happy Aged Care Employee Day: thank you. Thank you for your dedication to care for our elderly and your compassion to push through the tough times. I want you to know that the Albanese Labor government recognises your commitment to our vulnerable Australians. Thank you. 18:34 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise to speak in support of this Inspector-General of Aged Care legislation and the role of the Inspector-General of Aged Care. The coalition, when in government, embraced this recommendation and pledged to create an Inspector-General of Aged Care. This was done with the explicit intention of offering independent oversight over our aged-care system to ensure transparency, accountability and confidence for all. The inspector-general will also have the ability to oversee the implementation of policies announced by the Labor government. Like so many other policy areas, this government makes promises in aged care that they can't keep. They break promises. Again, this was one of those really sloppy areas of policy development by this government. Let's not forget that during the election campaign the Prime Minister promised that every aged-care home would have a nurse on site at all times by July this year. Now, anybody who has worked in government or in fact anybody who is in this chamber would have known that was impossible to meet for a number of reasons, least of all that we don't have enough registered nurses in this nation. We would certainly be taking registered nurse away from where they are already a scarce resource, particularly in hospitals. Now, one year later, under the Albanese Labor government's watch, aged-care homes are closing down because of this election commitment. It's one thing to make promises you know you can't keep. It's another to have the hubris and the stubborn will to not change a policy that is doing great harm. If you talked to any aged-care provider you'd know that 1 July this year was a date they were dreading because so many of them have not been able to meet Labor's expedited 24/7 registered nurses requirement. This has hit the sector as it has a very large shortage of suitable workforce, particularly, as Senator Liddle said, in rural and regional areas. Tragically, as a result of this government's—I'm not quite sure whether it's just incompetence or whether they just simply do not care, but so far we know of at least 30 aged-care facilities that have closed down as they were not able to meet the government's legislative requirement. Again, is it incompetence or is it the fact that those opposite would rather have aged-care facilities close, particularly smaller facilities in rural and regional areas, rather than admit they were wrong? I suspect it is probably an unhealthy combination of both. That means that residents who were dedicated community members, who lived close to their families, have been forced to move out of their home simply because this government wouldn't be remotely flexible about staffing requirements during a workforce crisis. Now we are a month on from when this expedited policy came into effect. We now know it wasn't just the rushed 24/7 policy that has forced aged-care homes to close, but the punitive exemption criteria sadly have had the same effect. Again, those opposite just don't care. The minister's prescriptive exemption criteria only offered an exemption to providers with less than 30 beds in modified Monash model 5, 6 and 7 locations. For providers to become exempt from the requirement to have an RN on site 24/7, they must report every period of 30 minutes or more that an RN was not on site and/or not on duty and the reason—every 30 minutes. Anybody who has ever visited, been to or consulted with smaller residential aged-care facilities knows that they are already almost crippled with administrative burden in terms of time and cost. This is simply ridiculous. Again, it seems designed to have done what it is now doing—that is, closing small community regional aged-care centres. In the last month we've seen providers like the Carinity Summit Cottages in Mount Morgan and Petrie Gardens in Tiaro close, saying very clearly that this reporting requirement has placed such a high administrative burden on providers they simply cannot do it. That is something that should have been blindingly obvious to the government. It's actually quite shocking that this minister is comfortable with watching homes shut down, not just because of her rushed legislative requirements but because of the niche exemption criteria she has determined. Again, hubris and a complete lack of care. If anybody opposite actually went and visited any of these facilities and talked to the operators and the residents, they would see that they're crying out for help and not more restrictions. It is now time for the Prime Minister and the minister to step in, admit they were wrong and actually ensure that more aged-care homes do not close. On this side, we remain absolutely committed to ensuring older Australians receive the care they need and the care they deserve. Australians cannot afford to see more aged-care providers shut their doors, particularly when and where they're needed the most. I'd like to remind those in this chamber about the coalition's record in government. Those opposite are very quick to point out on pretty much everything that apparently it's almost like year 0 every time they come into government, 'Everything was stuffed. Nothing happened.' They've come in to fix things. I'll tell you what, it is absolutely not the truth in most policy areas, and it is certainly not the case in this area. In government, it was actually the coalition who called the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to ensure our oldest and our most vulnerable Australians received the care, support and also the respect of their dignity and that we recognise appropriately the contributions they have made to our society. The final report of the royal commission that those on this side of the chamber commissioned makes 148 recommendations following 23 public hearings over 99 days, 641 witnesses and over 10,000 public submissions. The recommendations are the product of wise and compassionate scrutiny of Australia's aged-care system. The coalition's 2022-23 budget delivered just over half a billion dollars in funding for aged-care reform, which built on previous funding that we delivered, contained in the 2021-22 budget and also that year's MYEFO. This brought the coalition's total investment in response to the final report to more $19 billion. We delivered a once-in-a-generation reform of aged care and provided respect, care and dignity to our senior Australians. Our 2022-23 budget responded to 10 recommendations of the royal commission specifically and built on our existing five pillars for aged-care reform. We delivered a record investment across the aged-care system over the forward estimates, from $13.3 billion in 2012-13 under Labor—when Labor was last in government, it was $13.3 billion—to $30.1 billion in 2022-23. We actually grew the aged-care budget in our time in government by 126 per cent. We on this side of the chamber called the royal commission, and we did a lot of reform, including an 126 per cent increase in the aged-care budget. By 2025-26, funding in aged care, in our forward estimates when we were government, was growing to an estimated $34.7 billion per year. Also in government, we remained committed to providing our older Australians with support to live in their own homes for longer. This is why the coalition increased new home-care packages from 60,308 under Labor ,when they were last in government, by 357 per cent. It went from just over 60,000 to 275,597 new home-care packages. We didn't just talk about it. We delivered the care that people wanted to stay in their homes for much longer. To support our aged-care workers, we provided an aged-care workforce bonus of up to $800 for eligible aged-care workers. We did that on 1 February of 2022, which cost $210 million. Additionally, approximately 265,000 workers benefited from the age-care workforce retention bonus, and this was the fourth workforce bonus that the coalition government had delivered, which was valued at over $600 million. But we also listened to the experience of the Australians who gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and we took wideranging and decisive action to implement those recommendations. Our response included a five-year implementation plan, which, as I said, was underpinned by five pillars. And those five pillars that we introduced when in government included home care, providing those Australians who choose to live in their home with support. The second was residential aged-care services and sustainability to improve and simplify residential aged-care services and access. The third was residential aged-care quality and safety, improving residential aged care and safety in all facilities. The fourth was we implemented a wide range of measures to support growing and better skilled aged-care workforce. The fifth was we implemented comprehensive measures for governance, to provide new legislation and stronger governance of the sector and of individual aged-care facilities. It is absolutely imperative now that the Albanese government get this right. They've already, through their pre-election promises, made promises they knew they couldn't keep. As a consequence, over 30 aged-care facilities have already closed. Hubris is a very ugly thing in politics, and it is even worse in government, and sometimes you have to admit you got it wrong and start again—or at least fix your mistakes. Another mistake with a huge impact by an intransigent minister, who will not admit he was wrong, was that he pulled out a policy that, five years ago, the Department of Health put to the then coalition government who rejected it as bad policy. But Minister Butler has intransigently supported the 60-day dispensing policy. I think anybody in this chamber would say there's absolutely nothing wrong with a 60-day dispensing policy, but the problem is that they're getting the pharmacists to dispense it for free. I don't know how much those opposite know about market economics, but you cannot ask any small business—and most pharmacies are small businesses—to get paid for one service and provide the second service for free. It boggles the brain to think that those opposite do not realise you cannot do that to small businesses. Not only is it already starting to send some community pharmacies to the wall; it will also have a very significant and negative impact on residential aged-care facilities. There has been some subsidy for the support that pharmacists have been providing to homes, through homecare packages, and also to residential aged care, but most of them have been doing Webster-paks and home delivery to residential aged-care facilities for free. For something that people in aged-care facilities have been getting for free, under this Labor government's proposal it will actually cost pharmacists, small businesses, $151.7 million a year for the 188,288 people that will need the administration aids. They will have to start charging people in residential aged care, and in aged care it will cost on average $806. So this apparent saving will actually cost people over $800—and $400 for people in home care. Shame on you, Labor! 18:49 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales What we will know is that Australia has an ageing population. More of us are heading toward retirement age and more of us are winding down to enjoy a little more of life and looking to enjoy the fruits of our labours, having contributed to this country's success and prosperity. Under this government, how much of that fruit remains in the nest is another story. The increase in the cost of living is having a serious impact on our most vulnerable Australians as well as poor standards in aged care. It's too expensive to receive the care that they need, to purchase medicines and to buy groceries. Rents are going up, taxes have increased, energy bills are up. The people who have toiled their whole life and have done their bit are now suffering at the hands of this government's heartless policies. They're too busy virtue signalling, helping the union mates and lining the pockets of their wind and solar industry friends. It is easy to sit here and attack this government, but we actually do want to work constructively on crucial matters to ensure that Australians get the best out of life. And all Australians want and expect our older Australians to be well supported and cared for in our community, including in residential aged-care homes. Those of us on this side of the chamber remain committed to supporting the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians and understand the important role that aged-care providers, care workers and nurses play in ensuring this support is provided in residential care settings. The coalition is supporting this bill because we do believe that the desire to permanently establish an inspector-general for aged care, transitioning the temporary arrangements for the interim inspector-general to a permanent one, is a good thing to ensure more oversight in the operations of the aged-care sector and to ensure better quality of life and safer care for all. The aged-care sector delivers a fundamental service to older Australians by protecting them, caring for them and supporting them on their journey of ageing gracefully, peacefully and with dignity. We need transparency and accountability throughout the system, and with the installation of an inspector-general we believe that any underlying issues can and will be better dealt with. The coalition supports the independence of the inspector-general and endorses the separation of the inspector-general from the Department of Health and Aged Care and other government bodies to ensure the office remains impartial and able to conduct itself without the concerns of politically motivated interference. Given the number of deaths in aged-care homes since the pandemic was exacerbated under this government, it is very welcome to see this government finally listening to the coalition's calls to do something to improve the outcomes for our elderly Australians and to implement reasonable and rational measures to protect and to better serve our elderly Australians. We all remember that during the election campaign, aside from other things, Minister Anthony Albanese promised every aged-care home would have a nurse on site at all times by July this year. Well, Prime Minister, it has been over a year under your watch and aged-care homes are closing down. In fact, to the best of our knowledge we have been able to ascertain that tragically more than 30 homes have closed down. And we know that these closures impact families so directly when we have long-term married couples, one of whom needs to go into aged care, the local aged care home closes and that couple is then forced to separate not only because of the residency in the aged-care facility but because of the distance that they now have to travel to visit their spouse. This is all the result of this government's expedited 24/7 registered nurses requirement, which was foisted upon the sector during a severe workforce crisis. This is just standard play from Labor: increased demand without increasing supply. Economics 101 has been replaced by 'Albo-nomics' and 'Chalmers-nomics', but they still haven't worked this out across our country and across many sectors. Worse still are the administrative burdens this government has imposed on registered nurses. The onsite registered nurse must report every period of 30 minutes or more that a registered nurse was not on site or on duty and the reasons. Heaven help some of these hardworking aged-care staff, who are put under this additional administrative burden whilst they're trying to deal at times with outbreaks of RSV or COVID, which is still occurring. It's happened a couple of times recently at the residential care facility my mum is at. I can tell you, I'd much prefer that the staff are there making sure that no-one has had a fall, that people are in their rooms when they should be and that there are no adverse impacts being felt by them. But, no—every 30 minutes, this insane administrative burden is crippling small regional, rural and remote providers in particular. When in government, the coalition called the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to ensure that our oldest and most vulnerable Australians received care, supports and respect for their dignity and to recognise the important contribution that they have made over their lifetimes to society. We delivered billions in reforming the sector to provide respect, care and dignity to our senior Australians. Our 2022-23 budget responded to 10 recommendations of the royal commission and built on our existing five pillars of aged-care reform. What are those pillars, you might ask? The coalition strongly supported home care, supporting senior Australians who choose to remain in their homes. We should allow them the comfort and support that they desire in their twilight years. They've contributed years and years to our society, and it's only fair that we give something back for those contributions rather than casting them aside now they're no longer useful to us. They are useful to us. They have wisdom, they have insight and they have experience, and we should in fact be spending more time looking to them for advice, spending time with them and having that intergenerational connection that will improve both our lives and the workforce by helping us avoid the mistakes of the past. We should give our elderly the honour and dignity they deserve. This is a failure, in many ways, across the West. There are many cultures around the world that place a far greater amount of respect on their elders, and I think we would do well to learn from them. Even our Indigenous Australians honour their elders. We acknowledge their elders every time we start up a speech or event in this country, yet we don't want to give any honour or respect to the rest of our elderly Australians. We want to improve and simplify residential aged-care services, sustainability and access, not make operating those services more difficult, like I said earlier, by making it harder for aged-care homes to comply. We see homes shut down because they can't meet the restrictions, requirements and pressures put on them by this government. We look to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to improve residential aged care. Thankfully, the addition of an inspector-general begins this task of ensuring there is quality and safety in our homes. The coalition government understood the importance of the workforce by supporting and growing a better-skilled care workforce. Crucially, we need to entice nurses and healthcare workers to join the aged-care ranks and we need to retain those workers. As I've said, we're an ageing population, and we're still experiencing a crisis in the Australian workforce at present across all sectors. This needs to be remedied as soon as possible, especially if we were to—God forbid—experience another health crisis. Of course, the coalition, when in government, supported new legislation that would provide stronger governance. It is imperative that the Albanese government now continues our work to support the aged-care sector. This is a step in the right direction, and we commend the government on that, but a lot of damage has been and continues to be done. Our elderly Australians—whoever they are, wherever they're from, from all walks of life, all classes and subsections of our community—all deserve the dignity and respect the rest of us enjoy, if not more because they've laid the foundations of what we proudly stand on today. I know there are some in this chamber and elsewhere who believe these foundations, our Australian foundations, deserve to be destroyed and replaced. But those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and it happens all too often. The irony is that they believe they are the more virtuous among us. They believe they are the ones who can fix our problems. But their beliefs are built on antihuman sentiment. They want to remove the dignity of the elderly, not restore or amplify it. To them, the elderly represent a bygone era that must now be erased. A telling sign of the calibre of a society is how they treat their most vulnerable. I believe Australia to be a country with people of good character and people who believe in giving everyone a fair go regardless of who they are. This is why we must continue to do our part for ageing Australians, like what's being addressed in this bill today. 19:01 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise to make a contribution on the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 and the Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. Before launching into my remarks regarding the specifics of this bill, I think it's important to frame up the importance of the aged-care sector in Australia. I think every senator in this place likely has had a personal experience interacting with the aged-care sector, whether through their role in this place meeting with aged-care centres in their states, back at home, or through a loved one. I would put myself in both the former and the latter categories. I had a grandmother who saw out her final days in an aged-care facility in Hobart, and I had a great-grandmother likewise see out her final days in aged care when I was quite young. My memories of one are certainly better than of the other; I was very young when my great-grandmother passed away. I have seen firsthand the very good work that is provided in our aged-care facilities and the support provided to older Australians. That is incredibly important work and we here in this place should always be cognisant of doing what we can to support the aged-care sector, particularly in a situation where we know our population is ageing. I am here representing the great state of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian population is ageing; a large proportion of our population are elderly now. We need to do everything we can to support older Australians regardless of whether or not they end up interacting with the aged-care system—but we know that, fundamentally, many of them do—and make sure that the system that is in place is one that serves their needs adequately, that is compassionate and that supports them as they need to be supported. I think it's important to consider all this when discussing this very important matter here today—these important bills before us we are debating. The coalition believes the establishment of an inspector-general of aged care is important to ensure the aged-care sector remains well supported. We will support this legislation we're debating, to permanently establish an inspector-general of aged care and an associated statutory office. Like I said, in this place we should be cognisant of supporting the aged-care sector and we think this legislation here goes some important way to doing that. As has already been raised in debate this evening, the establishment of an inspector-general implements recommendation 12 of the royal commission, which was supported by the coalition. It will also cast a light on some of the most pressing challenges for the aged-care sector at the moment. Again, referencing those remarks I made upfront, we need to make sure that we support our aged-care sector. We need to understand the challenges that that sector is facing. The royal commission has gone a very long way towards identifying and addressing some of those concerns, but this didn't end when the royal commission did. This is something that, as I say, with an ageing population we need to be continually cognisant of and we need to be continually monitoring to ensure that our aged-care sector provides older Australians with the quality of care that they deserve. In talking about what those pressing challenges within the aged-care sector are at the moment, we know that the important issue facing the sector is workforce. Workforce shortages are putting serious pressure on Australia's entire health system, not just the aged-care sector. It is clear that this crisis is impacting on the viability of aged-care homes across our country. According to recent reports, a shortage in directly employed nurses is increasing demand for agency nurses, which is costing aged-care providers significantly more. Agency staff now cost providers just over $17 per bed day, which is an increase of $9.86 per bed day compared to the same period last calendar year. This isn't sustainable for aged-care providers who are trying to comply with government regulation. That is why the coalition has been calling out for a whole-of-care sector workforce plan. When we know that there are these workforce issues, I think it's only sensible that we work with the whole sector to come up with a plan to address their workforce needs. That's also why the government must facilitate operators being innovative and creative in delivering the best possible care for older Australians, instead of enforcing a once-size-fits-all model. We have heard some very good contributions from my coalition colleagues in this place this evening in relation to some of the issues that are facing aged-care facilities, particularly in terms of workforce and particularly in rural and regional Australia. Instead of implementing punitive measures, the government must look at encouraging providers to use technology like telehealth and support the sector to value and upskill enrolled nurses to become registered nurses and remain in the sector. During the election campaign in May last year, the Prime Minister promised that every aged-care home would have a nurse on site at all times by July 2023. That month has just passed. As a result of this requirement being demanded a year earlier than recommended by the royal commission, under the Labor government's watch we know aged-care homes are closing down. The first of July was a date that was dreaded by aged-care providers across the country as the expedited 24/7 registered nurse requirement as implemented by Labor sooner than originally anticipated by the royal commission—they made an election commitment in relation to that—hit the sector amidst a severe workforce crisis. I'm advised that, to the best of our knowledge, more than 30 homes have tragically closed down as they weren't able to meet the government's legislated requirement. This means that residents are often being forced to move out of their homes and away from their families and their communities, all because the government hasn't enabled a more flexible approach to staffing requirements during a workforce crisis. Even more frustratingly, in a blatant attack on transparency, the government won't provide the exact details on how many homes have closed in total as a result of this premature policy. They are in effect hiding these important facts from the public. Like I said, to the best of our knowledge, we in the coalition understand that more than 30 homes have closed, but we don't know that for a fact. I suspect the government do, but they haven't availed us of that information yet. Their refusal to table the documentation that was requested in Senate estimates to advise exactly how many homes have closed since their time in government flies in the face of the transparency platform they campaigned on during the 2022 election. Frankly, I would like to say I'm surprised by this, but to be perfectly honest I'm not. We have been in this chamber many times since the election last year, holding the mirror to this government that pledged transparency and pledged accountability in the lead-up to the election in May 2022, and since then has been anything but accountable or transparent. Now we're a month on from when this expedited and somewhat rushed policy, I must say, came into effect, and we know that it was not just the rushed policy but also the extremely limited exemption criteria that forced aged-care homes to close. The prescriptive exemption criteria only offered an exemption to providers with fewer than 30 beds in Modified Monash Model locations 5, 6 and 7. For providers to become exempt from the requirement to have a registered nurse on site 24/7, they must report every period of 30 minutes or more that a registered nurse wasn't on site or on duty and the reason why that was the case. Every 30 minutes to me seems pretty impractical at best and a massive administrative burden on these aged-care facilities. Quite frankly, I'm sure that there are better things that the people who work at these facilities could be doing with their time than reporting some nominal noncompliance every 30 minutes. In the last month we have seen a number of providers close, stating that it was this reporting requirement that placed such a high administrative burden that they simply could not fulfil it. I find it a little disappointing that the government is comfortable watching homes shut down, not just because of these legislative requirements that they have placed upon aged-care facilities but also because of a seemingly very narrow approach to applying exemption criteria. These aged-care providers are crying out for help; they're not crying out for more restrictions. It is time that this government should step in so that more aged-care facilities are not forced to close. It is for this reason—and this was foreshadowed by my colleague Senator Canavan earlier—that the coalition will be moving an amendment to encourage the inspector-general to immediately review the impacts of the government's expedited policy and to provide advice on how the sector could be better supported through its current workforce shortages. Of course, we unequivocally support older Australians receiving the best care possible. However, bringing forward the time lines that were set, for very good reason, by the royal commission and imposing rigid constraints on the aged-care sector is reckless and damaging to that sector. We are certainly hopeful that, by establishing an inspector-general of aged care, that officer's independent oversight of the sector will be able to assist governments and policymakers through overseeing the whole sector. We support the independence of the inspector-general and we endorse the separation of the role of the inspector-general from the Department of Health and Aged Care and the other government bodies responsible for administering and regulating aged care. This is an important safeguard that will guarantee the impartiality required to monitor, investigate and report on systemic issues across the aged-care system. Regarding matters that we would like the inspector-general to consider, once established, I would like to raise that the provisional lack of the COVID-19 Aged-Care Support Program Extension Grant is one. It is disappointing that, according to the last data that was provided by the health department, more than $570 million worth of grants remain outstanding. The Department of Health and Aged Care revealed in May that 561 aged-care providers have outstanding applications. Since this astonishing revelation, the government has again not been able to provide any update on the status of the payment of these grants, despite the fact that we in the coalition have requested this information repeatedly. These grants, which were introduced by the former coalition government to reimburse aged-care providers with the additional costs of managing COVID-19—which we know were significant—are simply being withheld and delayed by this new government. This is money that providers have already spent and, in some cases, even borrowed to support their residents during the pandemic with the promise from the coalition government that they would be reimbursed. At a time when, like I said earlier in my contribution, the sector is battling with serious workforce shortages, massive financial stress and these rushed regulations that we're discussing here this evening, which they are not able to meet, it's frankly astonishing that such a huge amount of money, $570 million, is being withheld from hardworking aged-care providers. As I said in my initial comments, our aged-care sector in this country does a huge amount of work supporting older Australians. We need to be doing everything that we can to ensure that that sector is run in a way that provides a good and genuine service to older Australians. This legislation that we are debating here this evening goes some of the way to do that, but, as outlined in my contribution and the contributions of several of my coalition colleagues, we still have some genuine concerns about what is in this legislation and the impact of this regulation on the aged-care sector. (Quorum formed) 19:18 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Apologies to the chamber for not being here at my appointed speaking slot. Shocking. Shocking. I too rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. Whilst the coalition will be supporting this bill, we do wish to raise a few issues that are of concern in this sector. I suspect it will shock nobody to hear that my concerns are particularly about the impact on regional Australia of some of the changes made by the Labor government. In travelling throughout regional Australia over the last little more than a year since Labor has been in power, I have seen a great deal of concern about some of the changes that are impacting on the sector and impacting its long-term viability and its ability to service particularly smaller regional communities. I will get to some of the detail of that. But right across the sector we have seen a concern with the increasing regulation that is being required of aged-care providers, not just in ensuring a high quality of care but in micromanaging the detail of shift lengths, in having to monitor 30-minute increments of nurses being present when they don't meet the 24/7 standard, especially for facilities, as I have said, in regional areas, where the level of administrative support is simply not as great as it is for the large chains, which are predominantly based in urban centres. Regional aged-care facilities are often community supplied, community run. They are often heavily reliant on volunteers to do things like serve meals and to do some activities with those who reside in those facilities. The level of administrative support, as I have said, is simply not there in the same way it is for the larger chains in the cities. Understanding that while still understanding the preference for people to stay in communities they have potentially been born into, have grown up in, have their families in, rather than having to move away to larger centres, be they larger regional centres such as Bunbury, Albany, Geraldton. To move to the city is obviously something that is greatly distressing for people, particularly at a time of life when stress of that sort is the last thing they need. I will not name facilities because, obviously, this is a very confronting issue for small communities and for those small facilities in country towns. But there is a degree of uncertainty, a degree of a worriedness about how they are going to cope into the future with the constantly increasing demands upon that part of the sector, which I think is something that all governments do need to confront. Sometimes we are effectively saying that smaller facilities in regions will never be able to meet some of these requirements. Is it then better to say that facility should not be allowed to operate under a different arrangement or should be forced to close down? That is a very difficult decision and a very confronting decision for those smaller community based facilities. But just to give a couple of examples—not all of these are going to be in the regions—there was a hostel facility not far from where I live in Perth, a lodge facility that was closing down. There was a range of reasons why it was closing down. It was an older facility, it was hard to meet standards and it was hard to maintain compliance with the new requirements. But I think I am correct in saying that, almost universally, the residents of that facility would have preferred it to keep going. There is no accusation that there was any mistreatment. There was no accusation that anything negative or bad had happened within that facility; it just hadn't kept up with the standards. It was an older facility, it was a lodge type facility and it didn't meet modern requirements. I think we do have to have a conversation about that situation—where there is actually no accusation or imputation that there is anything negative happening—and about whether we should allow residents to actually stay in those facilities if that is what they want. Maybe we should give people the option as well to leave, but maybe we should actually look to see if there are ways of preserving facilities like that. Maybe that's a more cost-effective way for governments and a better way for those patrons, because, let's face it, when you're in that stage of life, the disruption caused by having to move accommodation can be quite significant. I think we actually have to take that into account. In Perth, a larger provider was looking to close three residential facilities, basically because, in the wake of the royal commission, they were considered to be too old and too small to be able to be brought up to spec and then to also be economically viable with the new 24/7 RN requirements. Obviously having those requirements for smaller facilities is, by definition, going to be more difficult. These were residential facilities in urban areas, and they were under similar pressure to that which regional facilities are facing. There was an article in the Geraldton Guardian just a few weeks ago about the number of elderly people who were forced to stay in the hospital in Geraldton due to the lack of aged-care beds in that community. I think at one point they had a higher number of 'temporary' aged-care residents in the Geraldton Regional Hospital than in any hospital in Western Australia. One in six beds were being occupied by patients because they were in the queue for an aged-care placement and not because they were in need of hospital care. Again, that is a concerning statistic and one that is not necessarily going to be fixed by making the requirements on regional aged-care facilities more onerous. It is something that I think we need to have a mature and sensible conversation about. Obviously all Australians want and expect our older Australians to be well supported and cared for in our community, including in residential aged-care homes. We remain committed to supporting the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians, and we understand the important role that aged-care providers, care workers and nurses play in ensuring this support is provided in residential aged-care settings. This is reflected in the two pieces of legislation in the package. The Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 seeks to permanently establish an Inspector-General of Aged Care and the relevant statutory office. The Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 seeks to transition the temporary arrangement for the interim inspector-general to permanent arrangements. Establishing the inspector-general and relevant statutory office was recommendation 12 of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We believe that the establishment of the Inspector-General of Aged Care is important to ensure that the aged-care sector remains supported, and we will support this legislation to permanently establish the Inspector-General of Aged Care and associated statutory office. The core function of the inspector-general will be to improve transparency and accountability across our aged-care system, through monitoring, reviewing and publicly reporting on systemic issues. I hope this will instil a greater accountability, a greater level of transparency and more understanding of the work that occurs across the aged-care sector. I'll pause there briefly to say that it's very important that that information is reflected not just for urban based centres—which obviously are the vast majority of aged-care homes and aged-care facilities across Australia—but it is also reflected, and not in a negative way, for the very important work that is being done in the community sector in rural and regional Australia, to make sure that those ageing-in-place places, which give the ability for people to remain in their communities, continue to exist. I also wish to acknowledge Mr Ian Yates, who is the interim Inspector-General of Aged Care. He has had 20 years experience as the chief executive of the Council on the Ageing Australia. Mr Yates has also been chair of Aged Care Council of Elders and has served as a member of the National Aged Care Advisory Council, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council and the Aged Care Financing Authority. Just before I run out of time, I do wish to touch again on this issue of 24/7 nurses and workforce shortage because it is just so important to the regions. During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised that every aged-care home would have a nurse on site at all times by July this year. Now, one year later, under this Labor government's watch, aged-care homes are closing down due to this election commitment. The date of 1 July was dreaded by aged-care providers across the country as Labor's expedited 24/7 registered nurses requirement hit the sector amid severe workforce shortages. To the best of our knowledge, so far more than 30 homes have, tragically, closed down because they could not see a way to meet the government's legislated requirements. This has meant that residents—often dedicated community members who wanted to live close to families, often in rural and regional or outer metropolitan areas—have had to find somewhere else to live. I think this is a great shame. We're now a month on from when this expedited policy came into effect and we know that it wasn't just the rushed 24/7 policy that forced homes to close; sadly, the punitive exemption criteria have had the same effect. The exemption criteria offered exemptions only to providers with fewer than 30 beds in Modified Monash Model 5, 6 and 7 locations. People managing these facilities in regional Australia look to the future. They know how hard it is in regional Australia to get, in particular, RNs. They see that the only way they will probably be able to secure them is by robbing their local hospital or robbing their local GP's practice, if they're lucky enough to have an RN. So it really did put a massive question mark over those facilities and the sheer level of perseverance that is required, and that continues to ratchet up. This means that those facilities are constantly under greater and greater pressure. I think it's a conversation that we need to have. We need to talk more about how we can continue to deliver aged-care facilities in smaller communities and in rural and regional communities and about how we allow those communities to make some of their own decisions about what those aged-care facilities may look like, without necessarily having a prescriptive Canberra model being imposed upon them. It's not an easy discussion—I understand that—but I think it is a discussion that the sector and all sides and all parties in this place need to have. 19:33 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I, too, rise to make some remarks on the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 and the Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, and I flag upfront that I, like the coalition, will be supporting these bills. As I make these comments, though, I do note that, through my entire time in the parliament, both in the other place and here, aged care has been a consistent thread, although much of my time has been characterised by involvement in national security affairs and, in particular, defence. In fact, in preparing to make these remarks, I went back to the Hansard from 2004. One of my very first contributions in the other place was about the regional communities in Wakefield. I particularly mentioned the communities in places like Balaklava, and we had Mill Court in Hamley Bridge, and in Mallala people like Ian Jenkin was the chair of the community hospital, which had an aged-care wing. I came out of the military to become the member for Wakefield. In the military we had very good health care and everything was provided and laid on. I have to say it was a real eye-opener to work in regional communities where the hospital was funded by fundraising events and the aged-care home was funded and staffed by locals, albeit the aged care had some Commonwealth funding for beds. But much of the control and investment, both financial and emotional, was provided by the community because they were caring for their families in those locations. The reason I highlight that and go back to that thread is that through much of my time in the parliament, from 2004 through to the present, aged care has arisen as an issue. I recognise that circumstances for both our ageing Australians and the providers who look after them are changing consistently, particularly as more people choose home-care packages, so residential aged care is somewhere where people with more acute needs often go. But community expectations also change. I look at some of these country homes where it was wives, sisters and daughters who were providing care—and perhaps they might have a couple of professionals on the staff as well. Their boards had a constant battle to make sure they met compliance requirements to have people suitably qualified to care. In most cases they were also significantly supported by members of the community who worked there. In fact, in Mallala's case, I think they were the largest provider in the town. Some 52 people in the town were employed by the combined hospital and aged-care unit. What that means is that, as expectations around care change and we see the responses to various issues that come up that put in place more and more compliance options, we have to ask the question: does compliance represent assurance to the families that their loved ones are being cared for, or does it represent a burden that drives good people and good operators out of the system, particularly in regional areas, which actually then removes the ability of families to have their older family members remain in the location? That has been an issue that's been ongoing for many years, and many of the people who made contributions here today have highlighted similar concerns around the burden of compliance. I have seen, even in the electorate of Wakefield that I represented, some fantastic homes: some not for profit, some for profit and privately run. Some were just awesome and some really left a fair bit to be desired. Clearly, there is a need for standards and for checking and compliance, but that balance has to be right, such that people can afford to run those homes. This bill is an outcome of the royal commission which was announced in September 2018, and the trigger that led to the royal commission finally being announced by then Prime Minister Morrison, I think about three weeks into the job, was Oakden in South Australia, a state-run facility. It was one of those places where the treatment was pretty awful. Whilst it was the trigger, it was not the only home, and over years, under both sides of politics, there have been aged-care facilities where additional support and additional measures have been required. Again, I'm not convinced that we've always got it right in terms of the application of compliance and burden versus support and help for staff in terms of qualification ratios et cetera, but as we look at this bill I do think it's important to look at the context of the circumstance that kicked it off. Some people say, 'You just need to spend more money,' but if I look back at 2017-18, funding for aged care, as announced at the time, was then at record levels. Aged-care expenditure was estimated to reach $18.6 billion, growing to $23.6 billion over the five years from that point. So funding alone is not the answer. It's obviously needed, but it alone is not the answer, because, despite that record funding, we still had failures in the system. At the time, that transition to home places was well and truly underway. The demand was high, and the government had announced that it'd spent some $1.6 billion creating 20,000 high-needs home-care packages, as well as $50 million being provided for dementia-specific programs. A whole raft of changes was occurring at the time. But it was the revelations in May 2017 about the Oakden facility that triggered the royal commission. There was a huge amount happening at the time, with that in conjunction with the Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes, the legislative review of aged care and the More Choices for a Longer Life Package that led to a bunch of measures in 2018, the legislation around new aged-care quality standards, the first upgrade of standards in nearly 20 years that occurred in 2018. The royal commission was put in place, and the evidence was very clear that this was not one sector alone, it was not one part, whether for-profit large or small, regional or metropolitan. There were a range of issues across a range of facilities, and so the royal commission was commissioned at that time. This bill flows directly out of recommendation 12 from the aged-care royal commission, and recommendation 12 went to the establishment of an inspector-general of aged care. Reading from the recommendation in the report, it says: The Australian Government should establish an independent office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care to investigate, monitor and report on the administration and governance of the aged care system. This should be done by: a. conducting reviews on its own motion and/or at the request of the System Governor or the Minister or Parliament to ensure the quality and safety of aged care b. reviewing regulator decisions on a systematic basis to ensure regulator integrity and performance c. reviewing the performance of functions by the System Governor, the Quality Regulator, the Prudential Regulator and the Pricing Authority d. monitoring the adequacy of aged care data collection and analysis e. monitoring the implementation of the reforms recommended by the Royal Commission, and f. reporting annually to the Australian Parliament on systemic issues in the aged care system and the extent to which the aged care system attains the objects of the new Act. Those who've listened to my speeches in this place before will know that I inevitably come back to the aviation industry, which was my actually background. Whether I'm talking about financial services or, in this case, aged care, I welcome the focus of the royal commission here on the systemic factors, because one of the key lessons that the aviation sector has brought not only to aviation but to medicine and other places is that, if you want to drive good outcomes, you actually need to understand the system. You need to understand the incentives, understand the things that motivate actions and investment by people. I think one of the ways you can alleviate the compliance burden on individual homes and staff is by making sure that, at a systems level, your settings are right, your incentives are right. That's so good operators are free to operate and provide the services with the focused and detailed care that they wish to provide, but the system is such that those who are failing will be recognised or identified early, and either remedial or punitive action will be taken either to lift the care or to remove people from the care if it's not capable of being remediated. Often that compliance burden on the individual, whether you're talking about an airline, a small operator or an aged-care home, will be so much easier to actually achieve if the systemic construct and monitoring are right. So I welcome the fact that there is in this recommendation such a focus on the systemic issues. The key points of this bill are to establish the inspector-general of aged care, the office, with functions to monitor, investigate and report on the Commonwealth's administration of the aged-care system. I guess that—other than the state-run facilities—is the pinnacle of the system that we are talking about. It includes independent reviews to identify and investigate systemic issues, making recommendations to the Commonwealth for improvement. This role is one of seven institutions that the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommended to improve the governance of aged care. I must confess I'm not a fan of big government, and seven institutions seems like an awful lot of overhead, but, given we are dealing with some of the most frail and vulnerable in our community, if the institutions actually help to get the system right then I will continue to support that. Importantly, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee have considered this bill, and, as well as the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, they indicated their support for it. But I'm hoping that, during the committee stage of this bill, we will get some answers to some of the concerns they raised, particularly on the protection from civil liability. The committee had concerns regarding the exclusions from civil liability contained in the IGAC bill. Clause 58 in particular provides that if a person discloses information in accordance with the requirements set out in clause 57, that person is not subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability or subject to a contractual or other remedy. The committee said this provision removes any common law right to bring an action to enforce legal rights unless it can be demonstrated that the person knowingly made a false or misleading statement. The committee expects that if a bill seeks to provide immunity from civil liability this should be soundly justified. I'm assuming the staff over there from the appropriate department will be getting ready to brief the minister during the committee stage, and I'm hoping we'll get some clarity around that concern of the committee. The evidential burden of proof was another point. In order to rely on the exemptions set out in subclause 23(2), the disclosure of a draft report or its components, or clause 64, the authorisation of the disclosure of information by an entrusted person, the defendant bears the evidential burden of proof. The IGAC bill also provides that if a person wishes to rely on the protection set out in clause 58, then that person bears the evidential burden of proof. The committee made the point that it's ordinarily the duty of the prosecution to prove all elements of an offence and expressed concerns regarding the reversal of the evidential burden. Again, I look forward to some clarification during the committee stage of the bill. As I indicated, I will be supporting this bill. Aged care is a sector that has looked after many Australians, including my own parents, but in some cases it has let them down. It is a complex area. It is a challenging area for providers. It is a challenging area for families seeking to get their family members into the area. The coalition, having launched this royal commission, supports recommendation 12 and the establishment of this inspector-general, and I will be supporting the bill. 19:48 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Imagine an Australia where, no matter where you live, no matter how far from the city you are, aged care at the highest level is a given—where your family would be close to you, you would be looked after and all the things you hoped for in your retirement would be provided. It's incredibly hard in a country like Australia, where we are so spread out, where we are so wide, where we have such tyranny of distance in many of our areas. This role of inspector-general can help sort some of these problems out. We will never have a perfect aged-care system not because of a lack of care, and not for lack of trying, but because it is so hard to care for everyone. But we can strive, and these bills, the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 and the Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, are a step in that direction. I was disappointed to see, with what is strong support across the chamber for these bills, that some speakers earlier reverted to 'everyone on this side, everything done on aged care bad; everyone on that side, everything done on aged care good'. That's wrong. I was sitting in the chamber when I was told people on this side did not care. That is a horrible thing to say. I had family members in aged care. All of us probably will have or have had the same thing. To be told we don't care is wrong. These are people that have given us their best lives, that have given us their love, and we are just trying to repay them towards the end of their lives so they can also live like that. It is hard. I get this. The royal commission wasn't put in place because we've got this nailed and it's all great and everyone's having that great life we spoke about. The royal commission was to get evidence to work out how we could do this better, and well done to this government for implementing things like the inspector-general out of that review and out of that royal commission. And well done to the previous government, which I also wasn't a part of, for starting the royal commission, starting the process. We have to have a role of constant improvement, of looking for opportunities to make things better, and this full-time inspector-general will help us do so. The interim selection of Mr Ian Yates AM is a great selection for that role—he's from the Council on the Ageing and he's going into this with deep knowledge—in seeing some of the processes going forward. We saw the horrors of COVID and what that did in aged-care centres, despite the best intentions of everyone. It wasn't negligence; it was best intentions everywhere. There have been more COVID deaths in the last 12 months than there were in the previous two years in aged care, but it is not the fault of people not caring. When we come into this chamber it's: 'Hopeless, hopeless. Don't care. That side bad, this side good.' But there are more issues like this one which strike us all, so we have to work together. In the regions we have a problem, and I'm going to use these two words here: unintended consequences. It is all well and good to come in with the goal of elevating the care of the aged throughout Australia—as I said, it's a good thing—but this is where the rubber has to meet the road. At the moment it doesn't. This bill isn't an Audi RS Q8 race car. It's something, but there are no tyres on it. It has no grip; it has no traction in the bush. What we're not seeing is a better aged-care system in the bush. We're seeing no aged-care system in the bush because of this. I say unintended consequences, and I hope it is that—I hope it is not by design that we are making these changes to make aged care in regional and remote areas unviable. I hope it is an unintended consequence. This bill is a step. It's not a race car. It's not great as the rubber is not on the road. We are seeing these problems and we are ignoring them. We have an instance up the road from me—about one hour 20, from Redhead to Bulahdelah—where John Sahyoun was in an aged-care facility that could not meet these criteria and was shut. However, the only other aged-care centre in town that could meet those criteria was full, so John is now an hour away from his family and friends. So I say thank you for trying to make his care better, but damn you for making his life worse. That's what I say to the policy people there. There needs to be greater understanding of what actually happens, and I will get political here. When Labor represents only 10 per cent of the landmass of the states of Australia, they don't see that difference in the bush. They don't see how it tears families apart, and it happens time and time again. Let's go to the states and see what happened in the council merger debate. In a city you wake up in one local government area, you drop your kids at school in another local government area, you go to work in another local government area. In the regions and remote areas there is still community. When you are removed from your community, when you are removed from your support networks, when you are removed from everything you have known, it hurts. It can ruin a person. I feel this is an unintended consequence of the changes to aged care. I hope it is, because if it is by design heads need to roll. This has to be unintended for me to be able to live with it. I hope this inspector—if it's Mr Yates and he becomes permanent; whoever it is if he doesn't—has the access and the ability and the voice to tell these stories for John, for his wife, for everyone who goes forward in this respect. As I said, aged care is a right at the end of your life. When you've given so much to your country, when you've given so much to your family, you need to have dignity at the end of your life, to be able to enjoy it for as long as you can. I know my nan was in aged care far too long. She lost cognitive ability. Every now and again she would have these bright sparks, and there was that joy when you knew she connected with you and was fine. The people that work there did so much; they are great people. I can see why we want registered nurses, I can see why we want the various best people and I can see why we want higher pay for these people—because they looked after nan. They may look after my parents. Dad keeps telling me only the good die young, and, God knows, dad is probably immortal! But this is what we have to do going forward. When we have an inspector going around, he—he, she, they—can see what's going on on the ground, and they can come to government and say these things. The royal commission was there to do this. Aged-care wasn't horrible. People didn't die in COVID because people on this side or that side didn't care. I know we all did. But that is the way we should do that, and I would just ask that the government consider what is going on. It's not just one thing. Senator Canavan spoke about the need for 24-hour registered nurses in aged care and about requiring five registered nurses in far-flung places. This is on the back of the NDIS feeding demand for health professionals everywhere. Demand is so great. Wages are so great. It is so hard to attract these people. These communities are close to dying anyway. We have seen schools shutting down. We have seen vital services shutting down. When we talk about Indigenous Australia, most of the battle is not the colour of skin or race; it is the dislocation from services. It is the dislocation from cities, from doctors, from health and from education; it is these things. It is the same in aged care and the same in most things for regional Australia. We sit here in debate and talk about the life expectancy of rural and remote Indigenous Australians. It is life expectancy for rural and remote people of all races as well—I accept they are lower for Indigenous Australians—because of a lack of services. What happens and we take the people from their homes and move them to cities? It falls lower. They lose the will to live because they have nothing to live for. We have this great program now to make this better. We have this first challenge, for me, in talking about the numbers of aged-care centres that close—one a month, I'm told—in rural and remote Australia. I keep saying: I hope it is not by design of government. Because that would be unforgivable and unbelievable. But let's see these unintended consequences. Senator Polley spoke about the transparency of government in this. That transparency in rural and remote Australia is because they are so paper thin on substance you can see through it. It is not because anything else occurs. We don't want to be up here in the bush saying, 'I told you so.' We would prefer to say, 'Oh, gee, they've got us on this; they've got a good policy,' but it is not happening. So many times, in this place, consequences are pointed out. What could happen is pointed out. What is going on and what could happen—all of these things are spoken about—except with an agenda: I was appointed; I have a mandate. I get that. You won. We're bad; you're good. But these things need to be a work in progress. When they are not, people suffer. They are not nobodies. These are people, some of them, at their weakest in life. All of the steps that are taken, all the steps we do, everything we want to do in this space needs to be done. You can never spend enough money. We don't have enough money. You can never build enough facilities. You can never put 20 registered nurses on. We want that best practice. I want cocoon pools in every aged-care facility, where people feel alive every day when they go swimming. That is what we are after: you won't get old and you won't ever die! This is what we strive for, and I hope that this inspector, even with some of the concerns about common law that Senator Fawcett raised, and all the little things we want to ask questions about in committee—put that aside. We are giving them a voice. Just please listen to it. This inspector-general is nothing if the government won't take the advice, won't listen and won't make the changes. We are governing for people who live within 100 kilometres of a capital city or a secondary city like Newcastle, where I am close to, and that is not taking the country with us. The haves and the have-nots are no longer wealth divided or earning divided; they are becoming geographically divided. So I just say— (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Thank you, Senator Cadell, you will be in continuation. The time for this discussion has expired. ADJOURNMENT 95 ADJOURNMENT Road Safety, Woodside Energy 95 20:00 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to commend the hundreds of road transport workers, employers, the National Road Freighters Association and the Transport Workers' Union, who stood together with one voice on Saturday at major convoys all around the country, from Melbourne to Darwin, from Perth to Cairns and, of course, right here in Canberra. All parts of the road transport sector came together to call for urgently needed reform. There were gig workers on bikes and scooters, ride-share drivers, couriers, truck drivers, employers and employer associations, and you know what? They all said one thing together in a very loud voice: 'We are sick of the race to the bottom in road transport. We are sick of the liquidations and insolvencies. We are sick of our mates being butchered on our roads by a system that rewards companies and clients that push their drivers to the absolute, absolute limit.' I am talking about companies like Amazon and Aldi, who make an extra buck by working their drivers literally to death. I joined a convoy of hundreds of vehicles driving from Goulburn to Canberra, and their industry message was very loud and clear. In fact, I ran into the shadow attorney-general later that day and she told me she was woken up by the blaring horns of hundreds of trucks making their way to parliament House, so I know she heard it too. The message was that we need minimum enforceable standards to ensure the industry is safe, sustainable and viable, just as was recommended by the Sterle inquiry two years ago. In those two years, another 100 truck drivers have lost their lives in road incidents, as have hundreds and hundreds of people who are other road users. We now have employer and owner-driver groups joining us in the call for reform. Gordon McKinley from the National Road Freighters Association was at the Canberra convoy. He said, 'In 2016 I was one of the owner-drivers leading a convoy to Canberra to get the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal abolished. Since then, our industry has been overlooked and things have got worse. I experienced first-hand what the lack of standards in transport can do to an owner-operator.' He went on to say, 'Today I am joining a convoy calling for reform. I want the industry to be viable and to make full-time driving attractive again. There are dozens of others like me.' He said that we need reform and we need it now. When we have drivers employers, unions, even employer associations all saying similar things, how can those opposite come into this place and oppose road transport reform? It shows those opposite do not represent the interests of the road transport industry; they only represent the interests of the Aldis and the Amazons of this world, the multinational gorillas in the room, who make money by undercutting Australian companies, who make money by ripping off drivers and working them to death. I also spoke to a group of gig workers based right here in Canberra. Utsaab and Nabin told me about being deactivated from the Uber app without warning, their only source of income gone instantly without explanation or right of reply; just one unverified complaint and they're done. For these gig workers, this is their livelihood and they are being treated as less than human by the algorithm that controls them. They need reform now. I also want to note the public debate in recent days around Woodside CEO Meg O'Neill. What has gotten lost in all of this is that Woodside has been engaging in the most blatant antiworker and antiunion behaviour in Australia over the last year. It's unfortunate that Ms O'Neill is unhappy about protesters showing up at her house, and I do sympathise with her concern, but I also sympathise with thousands of Woodside workers that she and her minions have been ripping off. Woodside launched 10 completely frivolous legal challenges against their workers to stop them from collectively bargaining. Now they've run out of avenues to waste time in the courts, they're just refusing to bargain in good faith. Guess what? Ms O'Neill and Woodside are extremists, just as they accused others. (Time expired) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 96 20:05 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I'd like to remind the chamber of how we and Australians all over this country start the day: we begin with an acknowledgement of country, an acknowledgement of the Indigenous peoples of the land on which we commune and an extension of that respect to the Indigenous people who are with us on the day. It's an acknowledgement that's not divisive. It's not antidemocratic. It's just common respect. Later this year, Australians are going to be asked to do exactly that—just to show respect for First Nations people—in a slightly different way. Australians are going to be asked later this year to acknowledge in a 122-year-old document, the Constitution of Australia, what this land has known for 65,000 years: that we were not the first people on this land, that those people are still here today and that they represent the oldest continuous culture in the world. Australians are going to be asked to let these peoples continue what they managed to do very well before we arrived, and that is to be responsible for themselves—to have a voice to speak for themselves to the government of the country. They're asking for enablement to return to more self-determination and to advise the government of the day, whatever colour stripes it might have, on how best to solve the issues of which they have intimate lived experience and knowledge. Later this year, Australians are going to be asked to tick a box that says 'yes' on a small piece of paper. That's it—with a simple flick of the wrist. That's what will be required. Tick 'yes'. In doing so, we will continue in the same vein in which Australians voted in 1967. When you say yes, you'll be echoing the very significant and positive Mabo decision from 1992, and we'll be delivering something tangible on Kevin Rudd's 'Sorry' in 2008. I can remember that when we did those things fearmongers and cynics proffered tales of doom and gloom, like the old poem—'"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan'—but we weren't ruined. We were enabled. We were enhanced as a nation. Fast-forward to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, heard from elders and leaders and from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who poured their hopes and aspirations, their effort and goodwill, into a document to articulate a noble goal for a better future. They spoke about their children and the love of their children. These are words that open the ears of Australians, and I'm confident that many Australians are waiting to hear that message. I don't know many Australians whose hearts won't be open to the plea of a better life for children. The Albanese government absolutely supports the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its call for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in our Constitution, which is what the coming referendum is about. It's not about more of the same. We're being asked to do something different—something that's been asked of us. The referendum is about an eight-year gap in the life expectancy. The referendum is about Indigenous men being more likely to go to prison than to university. The referendum is about communities twice as likely to be shattered by suicide. I encourage all my colleagues to get out of this red room and spend some more time on the red dirt and see the state in which some of the elder citizens live. If they did, they would see people who are living in standards that are equivalent to those in the poorest nations on earth. I've been to many pubs across this great country, in regional and rural Australia and in cities as well, on a Friday night when there's a meat raffle or chicken raffle, with Australians fundraising to help kids in their local environment, their local community. When they have a little bit of paper in front of them later this year and they have the chance to tick the 'yes' box, it will be even less effort than just looking after your local community and having a chook raffle. All you've got to do is go in and do something really simple. Give the kids in Australia a better chance. Tick 'yes'. Support the campaign. Senate adjourned at 20:10